home

MA-Sen Predictions

Make your prediction in this thread.

< Let's Put the Cult Back Together | NBC Poll: Only 33% Favor Health Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I predict (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    Brown wins 53-47

    You are correct (none / 0) (#95)
    by NealB on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:29:07 PM EST
    .

    Parent
    I predict (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    It's my fault.  I'm a crazy feminazi erection killer.  I use bad language on the internet, and I have been unkind.  It is my fault and I'm sorry.

    there's a rec list diary at daily kos (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Turkana on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    that makes the case that a vote for coakley is a vote for...

    more pictures of the obamas!

    and if that won't convince undecideds, i don't know what will!

    Parent

    And here is Ben Masel's justification (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    Mr. Masel speaks, I listen.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    that is a different way to look at it...but I do worry about the precedent it sets...screw up your job royally, get promoted...it may be nice once in awhile to get a pest out of your hair, there are a few here at my outfit I'd like to see promoted right outta here...but long term it makes Washington DC ten times the cesspool of the worst of the worst than it is now...and that is scary to even imagine. They do pass law after all.

    Parent
    Ben seems to be a single issue advocate. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    A single issue dear to my heart:)... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    I just don't see the long term gain on even our one big issue.

    Sending someone who f*cked with our people in Mass. to Washington to f*ck with us all might be a good deal for our people in Mass. for a minute, till Coakley helps pass some new drug law abomination at the federal level.

    Parent

    i love ben! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Turkana on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    and it is an appeal to people who might be wavering on that issue. however many there may be...

    Parent
    Huff Post headline says there (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    are no exit polls.  If there were, here are two questions I propose be included:  (1) what effect, if any, did publication of Cosmo photos of Scott Brown have on your vote; and (2) what effect, if any, did Ben Masel's diary on DK have on your vote?

    Parent
    Exit Poll (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    question #3: Do you think Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan?

    Parent
    bizarre! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Turkana on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    no exit polls? i hope the party is running some!

    Parent
    I just read the headlines at Huff Post. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    Maybe the exit poll results aren't available yet.

    Parent
    I would be surprised if they did (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    EPs are expensive, and this was pretty short notice.

    Besides, the exit polls aren't going to tell us anything more than the phone polls did, because  Edison/Mitofsky has to make the same kinds of assumptions.

    Parent

    we need exit polls (none / 0) (#108)
    by Turkana on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    to reinforce the nj and va exits- it's the economy, stupid. otherwise, even despite coakley's lousy campaign, brown wouldn't even be close.

    Parent
    it would be interesting (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    to know what effect the late negative ads had.
    if any.

    Parent
    It strikes (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    me that we have vastly different views of the heavens MT.  And I did just go over to Dkos because I secretly enjoy those ridiculous diaries.

    Parent
    I stop by once or twice a week to roll my eyes. (none / 0) (#66)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    The exercise is very good for my eyes.

    Parent
    I concur that you will use X-treme potty-mouth ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    ... before the day is done.

    Is that an effin' safe bet or what?

    Parent

    I'll say it (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    Coakely wins.  Because God doesn't hate me enough to make me look at that photospread of Scott Brown for one day longer.

    If he loses (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    You know he'll just do another one.  How can he help himself?  The offer will come, you know it will, and he may throw the goods out there too this time......ewwwww

    Parent
    Leeeeavvvve Brown's six-pack abs alllonnnne! (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    Whoops, I'm sorry ... did that come out of me?

    Parent
    Ha. Must admit until I saw (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    Brown's name and those photos together I had no idea who he was or that he was running for "Kennedy's" seat in U.S. Senate.  

    Parent
    Coakley by the metric width of a gnat's wing (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by goldberry on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    That's the best possible outcome.  The Republicans walk away snarling, "Curses! Foiled again." while the Democrats reach for the toilet paper.  
    And maybe Martha makes up her own mind from now on.  

    Coakley's been rising on Intrade (none / 0) (#23)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    today. Up more than 11 points in today's trading.

    Parent
    Selloff (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    Brown holders taking their profits now....

    Parent
    If women turn out, the Dems have a chance (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:51:34 PM EST


    Coakley wins. Why? Because (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    feminists of both sexes in MA are moved to go vote due to crass "curling iron" comment and Brown's smile in reaction to it.

    The ladies of New England (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    do have a way of showing up at the polls and surprising the media now don't they ;)

    Parent
    heh - very true (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    Coakley helped Hillary in New Hamshire (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    and I think that same organization is working for her now....

    But a primary electorate is different than a general election one.

    Parent

    Healthcare? Jobs? (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    Could it all come down to a battle between women/curling irons and men/Curt Schilling?

    Parent
    The Apocalypse is Nigh (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    and the Rapture will begin in Massachusetts.

    heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    Coakley wins (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by coast on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    because even though my fridge's defrost is on the blink and everything is frozen solid, he$$ has not frozen over yet.  At least that is what I've been told.

    Kennedy loses Senate Race. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    Take it to the bank.

    Coakley wins (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by seabe on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    By a slight margin, but the meme is that Democrats lost.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    she pulls it out.
    just because I like being a contrarian

    however (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    the MSM meme is already written and going full bore.


    Parent
    Weren't you Cassandra just (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    yesterday?

    Parent
    damn you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    and your memory

    Parent
    Someone needs to tell oculus (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    that the elephant is the other guys.

    Parent
    I saw a wonderful picture in NYT of (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    "Churning the Ocean of Milk," with, natch, Garuda as the pivot.  Part of an exhibit at the Rubin museum in Manhattan.  But the photo is not in the on line version of the review.  Too bad.  You would love it!

    Parent
    I looked up the writer (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    of that LAT piece about reconciliation being bad voodoo.  She's of the village.

    Parent
    Left coast branch. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    I thought it said she was out of D.C. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    Maybe so. But LAT politics blog (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    writers usually espouse more progressive stuff.

    Parent
    Ezra and Matt make such claims too (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:02:33 PM EST
    I didn't find her take progressive at all.  She did bring up that reconciliation isn't transparent, but nothing they've done to get us to this POS that only has a 33% backing of the American people has been transparent.  Does anyone really think they can transparently undo what they did in smoke filled rooms and everything will go smoothly?

    Parent
    Let's start with all the facts re (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    origians and substance of WH mtgs. with insurance industry and big Pharma.

    Parent
    You and I might be even (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:52:51 PM EST
    angrier and more turned off by the D's if we know this skinny.  Are you sure you want to know this stuff?

    Parent
    Well, I doubt I will ever be as angry as (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    you are, as evidenced by your current posts <snk.>, but, yes, I would like to know what happened and when.  Don't see how anyone can truthfully say Obama sat back and let Congress do its work re HCR when he had apparently already loaded the deck.

    Parent
    awww (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    My only prediction is (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    that if Coakley wins, it's by a bigger margin than a mere squeaker, but still a squeaker by MA Dem standards. However, my hard and fast prediction on the Dem. Party honchos is that even with a Coakley win, they learn nothing at all from this episode. They will go back to their usual operating procedures. The old rinse, repeat.

    I predict this is the last time I'll be hoping a (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    Rasmussen poll was the only right one.

    I predict (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    Public interviews with Scott Brown supporters will cause me to tear my hair out by the end of the day.

    I hate idiots.

    At least they won't be celebrating (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    that Brown will be paying their mortgages for them.  I know what you mean.  The idiots get air time from the idiots for the idiots.  Ugh.

    Parent
    The turnout is huge (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by itscookin on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    Secretary of state predicts 40%. The road crews have been busy keeping the roads clear. The poll workers in my town are comparing the turnout to a prsidential election. I'm thinking that means Brown takes it. The Republicans are fired up and Brown is pulling the indies in every poll.

    Brown wins (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Watermark on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    by a 5%-8% margin.

    Brown wins, and the democrats still (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    Don't get the message, "It's the economy Stupid".  Forget the health care bill that everyone hates and focus on the economy!  JOBS!  It's not exactly rocket science.  

    I'll go first (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    Brown - 50.4
    Coakely - 48.5
    Kennedy - 1.2
    Other - 0.9

    Too bad Kennedy can't do better (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    only slightly better than other?

    Parent
    Um.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by coast on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    isn't that 100.19.  Then again its Mass, the dead do have a vote.

    Parent
    Rounding errors . . . (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    Not nearly as much (none / 0) (#47)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    as the dead do in Illinois, particularly the Chicago area.  I'll predict a very, very slim victory for Coakley.

    Parent
    You stole mine (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    Prediction: All politicians, Reps and Dems will (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    over-react to the result.

    Meh (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    Dems lose in Massachusetts is a huge deal.

    Parent
    Dems lose in Massachusetts is a huge deal (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    what about the republican governors

    Parent
    Democrats have veto proof (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    majorities in both houses of the MA legislature, so the reality is that the governor has no power.  Thus, the race for governor is really more of a personality contest than anything else.  

    And the Republican governors we've had have won elections as social liberals/moderates.  I know from the outside that doesn't seem possible given Romney, but Romney had a lot of people fooled.

    Parent

    completely different (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    dynamic.

    In one case you have a republican governer who has to contend with an overwhelmingly Dem legislature - a very powerful legislature that can over-ride any veto by republican gov.

    On the other hand, you have a federal gov't that is significantly to the right of MA.  Every single member of the house of reps. is also Dem, and has been for over a decade.

    Losing a senate seat would be a very big deal.

    Parent

    still (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    its a republican winning state wide office.

    Parent
    Do you think any other Dem candidate would have (none / 0) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    won?  I do.

    On Jan 1, polls had Coakley up 15 points..then her horrible campaign REALLY stepped on the gas!

    I think Capuano would have won easily.

    But Republicans will over-reach, and some Dems will try to shift right, and some progressives will need Valiums.

    As Jon Stewart said last night, there's still +18 Dems, much more than  Bush ever had, and he STILL got whatever the f- he wanted.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    But THIS candidate would have won in 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, etc.

    Parent
    In 2006 or 2008, I could have won. (none / 0) (#25)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    In 2002 or 2004, I'm not sure (Romney won in 2002 after all).

    And in 2002, Curt Schilling MIGHT have been a Yankees fan.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Me and you both could have won in ANY election since 1972 I imagine.

    Sort of my point.

    And don't try to fob Schilling off on us Yankee fans.


    Parent

    That boneheaded line re Schilling (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    by Coakley brought back memories of when Kerry came to Packerland and screwed up the name of Lambeau field.  That still is cited often in Wisconsin as a prime example of a poor pol.

    Parent
    And Harold Ford should know that the Buffalo Bills (none / 0) (#39)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    are NY's only football team.

    Parent
    Hehe. (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    Lambert Field.  Typical of a poor pol who knew only about ice hockey.

    Of course, unlike Bay Stater Coakley not knowing about Schilling, at least Kerry had the excuse that he was not a Wisconsonite.  And he did, iirc, eke out a primary win there nonetheless.

    But speaking of sports, almost as depressing as the Schilling blunder by Coakley is the news that a former football favorite of mine, one Doug Flutie, has turned out to be yet another famous white QB who's also a Republican.

    (trying to think of any white QB who made it big who turned out to be a Dem ... )

    Parent

    Capuano would not have won easily. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    How do we know this?  Because he lost.  He was massacred by Coakley in the primary.  But of course that's when Coakley was sounding like a liberal.

    Parent
    Yeah,but he would have campaigned (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    Coakley apparently hasn't.  Capuano is the same kind of get out there and shake hands with everybody you can find campaigner Brown is.

    Honestly, I suspect the style of campaigning has a lot more to do with this election than anybody's giving it credit for.

    Mass. is a pretty small state geographically, and voters expect intense retail campaigning, not the sort of aloof, distant campaign somebody persuaded Coakley to do.

    Parent

    Well we'll never know, but (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    I just don't buy it.  A lot of us here in MA were clearly turned off by Capuano, which is one of the reasons we didn't vote for him in the primary.

    Plus, he voted for the bill with Stupak.

    Parent

    Agree about the importance (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    of Coakley's lousy PR with her failure in the first weeks to go out, meet and greet, and ask people for their votes.  Something the Kennedys, from JFK to Ted, knew instinctively to do, early and often and always, especially with average folks.  

    Take nothing for granted.

    And the only time I can recall when a Kennedy in MA campaign let down their guard and coasted, nearly to an upset loss, was those 5-6 weeks in the summer of 1994, before the TK campaign finally realized they'd blundered, trying to save a few bucks on advertising and polling, into allowing Romney back into the race.  Of course, unlike this quickie special election sprint, Ted's campaign had plenty of time thereafter to regroup and take it to Romney.

    Parent

    The tin foily hat part of me (none / 0) (#56)
    by addy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    keeps asking me why. Why such an obviously bad campaign? I mean, glaringly, obviously bad even to me out here in the west.

    Parent
    thats pretty simple (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    she thought she would breeze into a win.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#60)
    by addy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    I've heard that. And of course it makes sense. Just not to my spidey sense. Guess I'll have to get it recalibrated.

    Parent
    The campaign was actually (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    working quite well until she announced her support for Obama's healthcare bill with the Nelson amendment.  That was the blunder, IMO.

    Look at the poll that BTD just put up in the other thread.  No one likes this bill.  

    Parent

    Could it be that No... (none / 0) (#67)
    by addy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    Yes quick change that's bothering me? She spoke out against it, then was for it(why?) and then besides the ire that this move drew, proceeds to self sabotage by making stupid or ill perceived remarks.
    Is my timeline off here? Am I giving too much weight to the remarks (shaking hands in the cold, Curt Shilling and the Yankees)?
    Admittedly, my take away is based on not much.

    Parent
    Brown will win. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by rennies on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    This degree of disgust with Obama can not be underestimated. People do not like being double-crossed nor having their priorities and needs go unmet while the interests of private firms are met with public funds. As a wrtier on Salon (?)/ Politico (?) put it yesterday:

    "Either way, the Massachusetts surprise should be a wake-up call of the most fundamental kind. Obama needs to stop playing inside games with bankers and insurance lobbyists, and start being a fighter for regular Americans. Otherwise, he can kiss it all goodbye."

    It's anger boiling over at being played by the Hope and Change meme. Obama is perceived -- rightly, IMHO -- as weak and willing to sacrifice the public good for the benefit of business interests.

    Of course, I don't think he gets it, or can change.


    Parent

    Corollary prediction: (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    We're all still screwed.

    And there still will be no jobs bill, because some other shiny object will . . . look! over there!

    Parent

    I predict (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    high turnout.

    And that's all I'm gonna say about that.


    Joe Kennedy... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    due to massive widespread force of habit human voter error.

    A man can dream:)

    the patriots (none / 0) (#14)
    by Turkana on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    won't win the super bowl.

    low blow n/t (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    Brown will probably win. (none / 0) (#19)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    Who cares about the spread.

    Lousy campaign by Coakley and a terrible time to be running as a Dem, too, thanks to the underwhelming and disappointing Obama admin track record on the economy and HCR.

    I'd love to be able to say she can still pull off a Hillary and prove all the pollsters and pundits wrong, but, if memory serves, Hill had that last-minute emotional moment with the voters which brought enough voters over to her side.

    No such clearly helpful positive moment late for Coakley, however.

    Slightly OT but (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    Hill had that last-minute emotional moment with the voters which brought enough voters over to her side.

    I think it was backlash from women voters to the demeaning media sneering ("It cries!") that got Hillary the NH win.

    Parent

    And I'm hoping for a little (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    similar last-minute female voter backlash for Brown failing to denounce/seeming to agree with the rape statement, clearly heard on tape, directed against Coakley.  

    Dunno, however, whether this issue got quite the pub in MA in the final day or two as Hillary's letting her hair down did 2 yrs ago in NH.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    When Pat Buchanan reports his dragon-breath sister Bay was outraged by the treatment Hillary was getting from the media, you know it's infuriating a heck of a lot of women.

    Parent
    And Obama's sneering (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by rennies on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

    Parent
    Brown 54 Coakley 42 (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    I think Brown wins big.

    He has all the momentum and Mass voters are buying into the idea that this election will send a message.

    Right wingers want to send the we don't like dems and their policy message.

    Independents and some dems want to send the we didn't elect you to do this message.

    Not as big a margin (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    but Brown still wins big -- 7 - 9 %.

    Parent
    Brown wins (none / 0) (#35)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    because Bostonians love the Tea Party.

    Oh Gawd (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    Brown will lose Boston, that's for sure.  The only question is will he lose Boston by enough to make up for the rest of the state.

    Parent
    Um, historic reference used as subtext? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    Boston Tea Party? Maybe they don't teach that stuff in school anymore...

    Parent
    Umm (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    I know what the Boston tea party is.

    The original tea party was about lack of representation - it was not about the tax itself, which was pretty minor.

    The hijacking of it by the right wing is a pet peave of mine.

    And I try to point out that disconnect whenever possible.

    Parent

    High turn out means (none / 0) (#70)
    by Makarov on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    Coakley eeks out a victory by 3-5%.

    Hopefully, the closeness of the election kills the Senate based health care bill in the House. Lack of White House leadership prevents moving forward with reconciliation.

    HIgh turnout means Indies, not Dems (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    as much anymore in Massachusetts.  So it's hard to say in this new day.  From more than half of voters registering as Dems a quarter of a century ago in MA, now it's less than a fourth -- and Indies are more than half of the electorate there.  A fickle group, as now I know, because now I'm one of 'em.:-)

    Parent
    I thought high turnout was (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    an automatic good thing for Coakley

    Parent
    If it's uniform it is (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    Since all the polls have been using a likely voter (none / 0) (#101)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    screen that reflects the Brown enthusiasm, higher than even that expected turnout can only help Coakley.

    She needs lots of those previously unexcited voters to hav been converted these last few days.

    Parent

    Well, that just begs the question (none / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    You want your precincts to have high turnout, not the other guy's.


    Parent
    I thought so, too, until I saw (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    those stats for the change in voter "brands" there.

    Parent
    Misleading (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    There are many more Dems than Republicans, and a few more indies than Dems--depending on how you measure.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    there are now more Indies than Dems and Republicans combined.

    Also - turnout in Boston - high so far.

    Parent

    Awesome, thanks (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    Mostly high across the state (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    Phones were ringing off the hook with voter inquiries in Framingham. In New Bedford, election officials expressed disbelief at the constant stream of voters. Similar turnout was reported in East Weymouth, as the parking lot at Pingree School was full as the polls opened at 7 a.m.

    "This is like a presidential election!," a poll worker in East Weymouth said.

    As of 9 a.m. Tuesday morning, more than 23,000 people had voted in Boston -- or about 6.5 percent of the total voting population -- after two hours of polling.

    But in some smaller towns, like North Adams, polling stations remained quiet. Turnout also was sparse early at Highlands Elementary School in Braintree, as snow fell rapidly at approximately 8 a.m.

    Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin predicted that as many as 2.2 million voters could head to the polls Tuesday, which is about half of registered voters in Massachusetts, and the same number of people who re-elected Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2006.

    Galvin said that he sent 105,000 absentee ballots to voters who requested them across the state. "The level of interest indicated by the absentee balloting indicates that interest is much higher than in the primary on Dec. 8," he said.

    Link

    Parent

    Absentees will delay certification (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    to the full 10 days allowed, I expect.  That's a lot of absentee ballots to count, record, etc.  Watch for this to be an issue in the debate about trying to get Brown seated right away, if he wins.  Can't be done if absentee ballots still are out.

    Parent
    Many more Indies than Dems (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    See TPM a few days ago with the registration stats.  Yes, only 16% GOP, and 34% Dem -- but about 50% and some Indies.  So these are mainly former Repubs now calling themselves Indies, and the inclination to return to Repub may be there.

    Parent
    And poll after poll (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    Shows indies not happy with the Dems right now.

    Parent
    That's registration (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    Party ID brings Dems closer to indies.

    Parent
    I wouldn't assume (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    that those Indies are mostly former Repubs.

    Parent
    That's based on (by the report) (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    the former stats vs. the current ones.  Some dropoff in Dems but much more in Repubs.  And it's based, of course, on realizing that most voters -- unlike many in 2008 -- were not born yesterday.

    Parent
    High turnout could mean more women (none / 0) (#121)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    than is usual in off year elections. If women vote in presidential election numbers, my guess is they won't be voting for Brown.

    Parent
    And so it begins (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    DC Dems failed Coakley

    Ah...the game of finger-pointing.....

    Well (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    It's a Coakley internal memo - Politico just is reporting it.  I guess if someone from the Coakley campaign denied that memo was ever written, that would be one thing, but I don't see any denials out there.

    Parent
    Too bad you won't read the memo (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    Donald, as it's just the sort of insider thing that makes me anticipate a comment from you, with your experience and expertise.  To me, it makes some (not all) good points.  For example, the timing and the rush to pass the health insurance bill on Christmas Eve.  Done for the national agenda, for Obama to have that in his stocking and stay on track for it to be in his SOTU.  But did the somewhat unseemly rush on a holiday do damage at a crucial point in a Congressional campaign?

    Parent
    I found that memo interesting (none / 0) (#138)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:47:38 PM EST
    and also the WH response:
    UPDATE: A White House official e-mails: "It's a little mind-boggling to see political consultants spin the election before the election is even over. There's only one reason to do that."


    Parent
    Ahhh, the waves still are frozen here (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    and looking like a moonscape.  Fun for the sled-dog rides on our "coast" on a lake so large it looks like an ocean.:-)  The thaw didn't last long.  So I am at the point in winter now when I have to try to remember what surf, flowing water, looks like.  Ahhh, send some of that warm weather this way. . . .

    I say Coakley by 3% (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    I think brown peaked early and MA folks will stay Dem after flirting with Mr. Centerfold.

    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    If the election were held a week from now, Coakley would certainly win.

    Being held today, I don't know.  He didn't peak that early.

    Parent

    I forgot to mention that I'm never right (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    except about the odds of a certain talk show host succeeding in prime time.

    Parent
    I know funny (none / 0) (#136)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:08:16 PM EST
    and that was funny

    Parent
    Brown probably (none / 0) (#119)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    Brown 49%
    Coakley 46%
    Kennedy 3%
    Other 2%

    Bummer, really.

    My message to Massachusetts Marijuana smokers (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    We all know Coakley sucks. She crusaded against the Massachusetts decrim initiative in 2008, and after it passed with 65% of the vote urged municipal governments to circumvent it with local ordinances. She then refused to pursue charges against the District Attorneys who illegally used government resources to campaign against the initiative.

    So why do I want you to vote for her?

    Simple. Brown in the Senate will be just as bad on the issue, but by sending Coakley to Washinhgton we get her  out of the Attorney General's office, while Brown remaining in the State Senate will have little impact.

    Dems not in favor now (none / 0) (#127)
    by Missblu on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    Reviewing the 2008 presidential primary news accounts, where in spite of help from John Kerry, Patrick, and others, especially the Kennedys, Obama lost by 15 points.  It was reported at that time that the Kennedy machine was showing a lil rust. So who knows if he himself would have won the seat.  Independence  is strong in ol Mass.

    Brown        53 %
    Coakley      45 %
    Joseph K.      2 %   

    Brown ekes out a 1 point victory (none / 0) (#133)
    by tworivers on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:32:40 PM EST
    Much as I would like to say that Coakley will win, I just don't see any enthusiasm for Coakley around Cambridge (where I work).  I see plenty of Brown signs and no Coakley signs whatsoever.

    Plus, the Coakley campaign seems to be acting like it thinks it has already lost.  If they go on the record as pretty much conceding defeat, what are we the voters supposed to think? (I haven't voted yet, but am going to on the way home from work)

    Okay (none / 0) (#135)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:53:35 PM EST
    I predict - that I vote for Coakley.

    Leaving work now.  On an upbeat note, once I vote, there will be 100% increased voter turnout in my apartment from the primary, the mayor race, and the presidential election of 2008 - because my sister who I live with actually got off her butt and voted today.

    I don't see enthusiasm for Coakley either, but what I do see is grudging support from voters who aren't happy but don't want to lose this thing.  I hope it's enough.

    Exit polls (none / 0) (#137)
    by jen on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:35:01 PM EST
    would be too dangerous if they were wildly different from the results.

    Prediction: Coakley gets the oakly-dokely (none / 0) (#139)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:48:37 PM EST