Mass. Senate Election Returns: Live Thread

Update 9:30 pm: AP calls the race for Brown. 84% in, Brown with 53%. Post-mortem thread here.

Update: 9:19 pm: 1435 of 2168 precincts reporting - 66% of vote -- Brown still 53%, Martha 46%. CNN's 9:15 story. 9:21 pm: 1494 of 2168 precincts reporting - 69% of vote, Brown still at 53%. Do we call the race for Brown yet?

Update: 9:07 pm ET: Brown's lead widens to 53% with 57% of the vote in. (1234 of 2168 precincts reporting.) Coakely's got a good lead in Boston, Lynn, and Lexington.

Update 9:04 pm ET: 52% of the votes are in, including some from the eastern part of the state. Brown is still ahead 52% to 47%. (1119 of 2168 precincts reporting.)

Update 8:52pm ET: More than 1/3 of 2168 precincts are in, 38% of vote is in. Still Brown 52%, Martha 47%. But it's the Western part of the state coming in, not Boston, where Martha should do better.

Update 8:35 pm ET: 192 precincts, 9% of vote in: Brown 52%, Coakley 47%.

Update 8:29 pm ET: 146 precincts in (7%), Brown 51%, Martha 48%. CNN pundits are already doing a post-mortem for the Dems. They think Brown will win. [More...]

Update 8:22 pm: 16 precincts out of 2168 are in (1% of total): Brown 50%, Martha 49%.

Update 8:11pm ET: Results here, by county here. 7 precincts in, Brown ahead 55 to 44%.

Update 8:00 pm ET: Polls are closed. John King at CNN says Dems outnumber Republicans 3 to 1, but independents outnumber both. Coakely’s headquarters are pretty empty, mostly occupied with media. Brown’s is in party mode.

I'm back from court and the polls in Mass. are closing in 12 minutes. This will be a live thread for the results. All I've seen so far was turnout was big and Martha Coakley is claiming there were some voting irregualarities, possibly laying the groundwork for a contested election. The Mass. Secretary of State disputes their significance.

Live results when the polls close can be found here or here. Swing State Project has a cool map with a breakdown of towns and counties.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Upset Central: Brown Beats Coakley for Mass. Senate Seat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here it comes (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    "Lieberman Urges Dems to Go Centrist After Mass. Election"

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:15:03 PM EST
    what is Obama going to do now? He's losing his base, the independents and the press. Maybe he's going to do the Carter rosegarden thing and not leave the white house.

    Oy, gevalt (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:51:45 PM EST
    I'm not sure that Obama really cares.  If she loses, he can use that as an excuse for not doing anything remotely progressive.  If she wins, it's still "business as usual."  We all lose, no matter what.

    How does the little sh!t always manage to be first (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:41:10 PM EST
    ... in line as the media's official "Dem" scold. He's out-Zell'd Zell Miller by now.

    If there's a silver lining (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    Maybe losing the mythical 60 will embolden the Democrats to send Joe packing. The only reason they supposedly played his game was for the 60 majority anyway. He's been a constant embarassment to the party for at least ten years now. Let the Republicans deal with him.

    AP Projected Brown as winner (none / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    and NBC reports that Coakley has called Brown to concede.

    Go Centrist?????? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, Spamlet (and I'm sure you fully realize this), they've been Centrist and Right of Centrist for quite awhile now.  Liberals have not been represented in the Democratic Party for a long time.

    Lord. Where exactly have (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:17:44 PM EST
    they been going?

    And Bayh too (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:11:06 PM EST
    because (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    voters in CT just LOVE Lieberman.



    This is really getting depressing. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:29:47 PM EST
    I don't understand this country.

    I hear ya (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kempis on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:00:47 PM EST
    I was feeling like packing my bags for Canada and then I read this:


    I really think the perception on the street is that people are suffering and our government has taken care of Wall Street and the bankers first. So there's a "throw the bums out," anti-incumbent mood that we can count on until the economy improves and jobs are added.

    Health care reform could have been approached from the perspective of a means to aid the average American. Instead, it became a tedious, drawn-out, DC game of "how far can we move the bar without pissing off insurers and Big PhRMA?" The calibrations were interesting to political junkies, but to most Americans, health care means something they can't afford or are afraid they'll lose. All they know now is that they must have it.

    The Democrats have done a TERRIBLE job of (a) advocating for the people and (b) communicating to people.

    This year is a make or break year for Obama and the Dems. They'd better find their inner populists and fast.


    Obamea trends left or Canada? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:16:29 PM EST
    Look for luggage on sale.

    My thoughts exactly (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:23:27 PM EST
    People seem to have a very short memory. As disappointed as I've been with the Democrats so far this first year, my mememory still retains the previous eight years. The damage done by the Republicans over that period was the worst I've seen in my lifetime. I'n not real anxious to usher in another era of their control.

    Towns (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    Obama won Massachusetts by 26 points, so Coakley needs a Brown swing of less than 26%

    Burlington town:  Obama won 9 points; Brown won it by 21 points, for a swing of 30

    Leicester town:  Obama won by 6; Brown won it 33, a swing of 39.

    Woburn town:  Obama won by 9; Brown won by 19, a swing of 28.

    I think Brown has won.

    More (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:54:08 PM EST

    Dracut town: McCain won by 1; Brown won by 41, a swing of 40.

    East Bridgewater: McCain won by 6; Brown won by 41, a swing of 35.

    Here's an interesting one:

    Ashland town: Obama won by 63 points (80-17); Brown actually won it by 9 points (54-45), a swing of 72 points

    Brown will win.


    Jeffmd's spreadsheet (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    seems to think so. (It's a great innovation, BTW).

    More (none / 0) (#39)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    Agawam: Obama won by 8; Brown won by 29, a swing of 37.

    Belmont: Obama won by 41; Brown lost by 19, a swing of 22.  This is the first swing I've seen of less than what Brown needs.

    Wilmington: McCain won by 1; Brown won by 33, a swing of 32.

    Westfield: Obama won by 8; Brown won by 26, a swing of 34.


    Wow - those are pretty amazing numbers (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    Can't be explained away by Coakley just running a bad campaign.

    I think it can (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:02:30 PM EST
    I don't see any evidence a different Dem in Mass. might not have won. I think they would have. He only got traction because she was the opponent. He's a nobody who lucked out because of his opponent.

    Obama had some (none / 0) (#123)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    pretty great political capital once upon a time, didn't he?  

    Yup - no one told him about the (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    expiration date. Use it or lose it.

    Ouch! n/t (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:48:09 PM EST
    Would this have turned out differently if (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    Kennedy had resigned last summer and an election had been held at that time?  The whole idea of the Democrats changing the rules about "Kennedy's seat"  so that Duval Patrick could appoint Kirk was a real bad move.  Think people were put off by that?

    It's looking good... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:52:02 PM EST
    In Cambridge. 88% for Coakley there.
    Everywhere else it appears Brown will win.

    Something like the 1984 presidential election (none / 0) (#38)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:59:00 PM EST
    writ small?

    Well, many people around here (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:23:23 PM EST
    just got what they wanted. I hope they're happy.

    Blowback and ripple effects remain to be seen (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    Don't have much invested in Coakely's fortunes either way, but was sentimentally in favor of Teddy's old seat staying Dem.

    Meanwhile, back at the Palace ...

    Pressed repeatedly as to how a Democratic candidate could possibly lose in traditionally liberal Massachusetts, Gibbs pointed to an economic recovery effort that is somewhere between prolonged and stalled.

    "I think there is a tremendous amount of upset and anger in this country about where we are economically," he said. "That is not a surprise to us in this administration, because in many ways we are here because of that upset."

    Nobody here (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Emma on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    had anything to do with this.  Go point fingers somewhere else.  Like 1600 Pa. Ave.

    better now (none / 0) (#96)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:35:21 PM EST
    than in November. I wanted this, but Im far from happy about it.

    And Teddy just rolled over in his grave. (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:34:13 PM EST
    The impossible dream, indeed.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    I don't really have anything left to say that fits within the site comment rules.

    So on that note, time to kill this bottle of wine.  Or maybe I'll switch to vodka.

    Peace out folks.

    well (none / 0) (#119)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    have a drink on behalf of your miserable cohorts here...enjoy your evening.  

    I don't like the tea leaves implications (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    of Coakley's "irregularity" accusations.

    It's probably just a way to delay (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:03:38 PM EST
    certification to keep Kirk in the Senate for a while longer.  But yes, it also sounds like a signal of not-so-good news for the Dems.

    On exit polls, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:54:27 PM EST
    Im assuming the campaigns normally do their own, no?

    Apparently there are no exit polls (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:07:53 PM EST
    in Mass. BTD said so earlier and so did CNN just now. Would the candidates be allowed to do exits if no one else can?

    I haven't read that it's not allowed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:12:28 PM EST
    but just that it wasn't done by media, the ones who usually do it, as it wasn't expected to be exciting.  Is there a comment/post here that says it's not allowed?

    (To this commenter: candidates have commissioned exit polling in at least some other states in past.)


    Either BTD or Andgarden said it is very (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:22:29 PM EST
    expensive to do exit polling.  I can see in a statewide race like this where the results are getting tabulated rather quickly it would seem to be a waste. I guess they feel like they have enough other data for the post-mortem.

    It also takes planning (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    10 days ago, nobody thought this was a race. Nobody.

    Coakley campaign, called for help (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    per the internal memo.  Did you see it?

    Of course, she had many Clinton people helping with her campaign, so it may be that their calls for help would not go up the food chain fast enough to be heard.


    I saw this theory batted about elsewhere today (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    But I really do not think the WH wanted Coakley to lose. I do think the WH is over the primaries even if some of us (I include myself) are not.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:37:43 PM EST
    Why do you think the WH wanted her to lose?

    Her flip flop on the HCR bill was too obvious to ignore....she took the primary so easily because she was speaking out against the way it was drafted. Her flop over to voting for it in any fashion presented is what messed up her run.

    Personally, I think this is the perfect time for voters to start emailing and calling their democratic representation in DC and tell them again they really, really mean it....they don't want this HCR bill. If they want to be re-elected this year, they really need to listen to the voters.


    Oh, I think those at the top are over it (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    but the WH is a huge bureaucracy now, and I don't know where the heck the national party HQ is now -- wasn't it moved to Chicago or something? But I know bureaucracies all too well.  Fighting your way up the food chain to get word where it needs to go can be foiled by the pettier grudge-holders below.  

    Well then, heads will and should start rolling (none / 0) (#108)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:40:50 PM EST
    if petty bureaucrats holding a grudge kept the Coakley campaign's pleas from reaching the top. And Obama will be personally directing the tumbrel traffic.

    Campaign Aide on Aide sniping (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    Here via HuffiPo. Saw some junk on the wires that I can't retrace from my cache right now.

    It's impossible to imagine (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    that if anyone knew this was going to be close a month ago, she would have gotten even more.

    For the record, the way her campaign has leaked is borderline unprofessional. I have never heard of a Senate campaign leaking tracking polls every night. And sending memos like this out to the media is just sad.

    As I recall, their pollster Celinda Lake was also the strategist behind NO on 8. Birds of a feather.

    I hope these people never work in politics again.


    All that may be so, but (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    the point is that it's not that nobody knew.  And the further point is that the somebodies were not watching.  Hubris?  Disorganization in the Dem national party organization?  Whose heads ought to roll?  Sure, these campaign managers are out of jobs, but others can dwell on that and stay stuck in the past that just ended.

    The question is who else was not on the job, above the campaign -- this campaign, the next campaign, the one after that.  


    The political malpractice of DC Dems (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:44:35 PM EST
    has been on display for some time. Acutely since a year ago.

    But the people in a position to know how bad things were in MA were 1) the Coakley campaign itself, and 2) the DSCC. I think Bob Menendez needs to walk away as DSCC chairman, for one thing.

    And for another, if I were running a campaign, I would never hire Lake or Jim Margolis.

    Honestly, Obama did pretty much all he could when he could.


    Except, of course, for practicing good politics (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:45:22 PM EST
    in general for the last year.

    I'd assign 2/3 (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    of the blame to Coakley and her campaign, noting that regardless of what the polls say early about a lead, she should have been out there daily, with multiple campaign stops daily in tough precincts, and this is especially true when you have a sprint-type of 30-day campaign season.

    1/3 of the blame goes to Obama and his admin for governing as such cautious incrementalist centrists to this point, that they've done the near-impossible in allowing the recently discredited Repub Party back into the electoral game.

    A better campaigner than Coakley, someone with just moderately better political instincts, could have won this race even with a less than ideal economic and healthcare situation to deal with.


    Couldn't the Clinton people (none / 0) (#131)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    helping the Coakley campaign got more people who voted for HRC during the primaries to come out and vote for her? Somebody posted a map of the areas that Scott Brown won in the Orange site. It was eerily similar to the areas that HRC carried during the primaries. Coakley was a stalwart supporter of HRC during the primaries and her position on most issues were what dreams of liberals are made of. All said and done she got beaten by a somebody who believes in waterboarding. Nice protest vote that!

    Jeralyn, about Dem women prosecutors (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    you no doubt know this, but I had not spotted it -- the increasing trend for Dems to pick former women prosecutors as candidates for higher office, with the thinking that voters see such women as "tough" and manly enough for office.  The list of them now really is something, so many in Congress, and some now in the Cabinet.  

    I found out about this from finally starting to read Anne Kornblut's awaited book on the campaign, Notes from the Cracked Ceiling; she has a chapter on positioning women candidates as "tough" and has a discussion of several pages on so many of these women picked by the party.  Now, perhaps a Coakley loss will turn the trend, but it's doubtful, so firmly entrenched as it is.  So you can expect to see more of them, many more.


    Tough (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    and aggressive. Any chance those who push their prosecutor career and win rates are being chosen because they have been tough and aggressive at getting noticed?

    Personally, I admire strong and assertive, and find tough and aggressive a problem. We have a Martha Coakley style prosecutor here who has a similarly frightening history of convicting people who probably shouldn't have gone to trial.


    A prosecutor background (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:11:38 PM EST
    usually is found helpful for either sex in seeking higher office.  For sure, women, still perceived in certain "soft" ways by certain segments of the electorate, have a little disadvantage at the outset having to prove they're a) not going to coddle criminals, and b) not going to coddle terrorists.  

    Doubly true if you're a female from the perceived "Mommy" party.

    Hillary wasn't a former prosecutor (though the first, Gerry Ferraro, was), but she probably did have to act (and maybe vote) in ways to prove she was "tough enough" for the top job.   That's just the way the politics have played out, for women and Dems, in the past number of decades.  

    Hopefully things will change.

    I'd love to see more smart and attractive Marianne Williamson types step up and offer something more than the usual blather about needing to have a strong defense.  Elizabeth Kucinich with her veganism and environmentalism and similar would be a refreshing change of pace to hear.  But currently both of them could probably not get elected to high state office in states other than, say, VT.


    So others of you are aware (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:17:00 PM EST
    of the incredible and increasing number of them run by Dems?  The "beauty and beastly" phenomenon?  I read up on this research on women in politics a lot, knew the theory, but had not seen the number pulled together in one place -- the theory in practice.  So it will be interesting to see if a Coakley loss sends Dem men searching for some new and simple strategy like this.  Maybe women elephant tamers? :-)

    And re Clinton, Kornblut's book deals deeply and well with the difficulties of the balancing act.  I had dreaded getting into this book, reliving it all, but so far, I haven't had homicidal impulses.


    Really? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:45:37 PM EST
    Marianne Williamson?! I went to one of her book release lectures last year....she had the nerve to push Obama as a Messiah (the event cost to get in & I wasn't there for a political rally). I'll never buy another book, attend another lecture, or promote anything Marianne Williamson again.

    Er (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:53:27 PM EST
    not so much, actually.  We generally lean more towards elected officials who've come up the ranks and know what they're talking about.  You think Marianne could get up to speed real fast on dairy prices and land use?

    Vermont voters are nowhere near as airy-fairy as you think.  We still have a Republican governor and lt. gov.  Bernie Sanders is our senator not for his socialist views but for his very, very hard work on state concerns over decades.  Etc.


    Well, I wish folks here (none / 0) (#124)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:20 PM EST
    would stop being so wishy-washy about Marianne Williamson.

    Seriously ... I tossed out her name for some mostly mischievous reasons (I'd best not mention one of them), but also because in the heat of the moment of the above exchange, it occurred to me in a blast of brilliant insight that MW might be the sort of stark antithesis to the "tough aggressive" prosecutor type being spoken of earlier.  I mean, she's considered "New Age" who writes "soft" self-help books, is for a Dep't of Peace and is/was a Kucinich backer, if memory serves.

    I'm roughly aware of her fervent Obama and anti-Hillary politicking from the recent primary season, but decided, courageously if I might say so, to toss her name in there in spite of same.

    Now, as for VT, actually it's politically just fine with me, though this liberal Bay Area resident wouldn't use your "airy fairy" characterization.  But it is the only state, to my knowledge, that has elected statewide to high office a guy, one of my favorite pols in Congress, who is not ashamed of using the socialist word in (partly) describing his politics.  He doesn't run from it, and I applaud him for it.  

    VT is also the place where people thought Howard Dean as Gov was too moderate -- a "centrist" in their view.   Maybe so, but only by VT perspectives.  Elsewhere, in the rest of the nation, he'd be a liberal.

    But if you have some other state in mind where the likes of the two non-prosecutor people I mentioned could get elected running statewide on a pro-Dept of Peace/anti-Pentagon platform, let me know.


    I get a little reactive (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:36:42 PM EST
    about the sometimes pretty silly stereotype about Vermont voters, I'm afraid.

    I know what you were reaching for with Williamson, but I'm more than lukewarm about the idea of celebrities of any particular ilk suddenly appearing at high levels in politics.  Bob Franken is an exception to that, obviously, but he'd proved his policy chops over the years pretty strongly.

    VT did not, btw, think Howard Dean was "too moderate."  He was pretty much down the line standard Vermonter.

    Gotta remember there's a fairly substantial difference here between the small but noisy bunch of NYC and Boston hippy-dippy transplants mostly clustered around what we humorously refer to as our cities and the long-time Vermonters, who are overwhelmingly farmers and other rural people.

    The state is really quite conservative in many ways, but socially they're rock-ribbed "live and let live" people-- unlike rural people everywhere else in the country, and for reasons I can't even begin to have a clue about.

    And also fwiw, Bernie Sanders would never get elected to anything here if he suddenly appeared and campaigned on his ideology, which most Vermonters really don't share much of.  He earned the trust of the voters because of his hard work, devotion to their needs above all, and his constant presence and accessibility.  Vermonters mostly consider his socialist identity as the amusing personal quirk of a favorite uncle.


    I also opposed (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    Janet Napolitano for her over-heavy prosecutorial background (AG of AZ, US Attorney.)

    I don't think it's because they are viewed as tough. If that was it, they'd pick women criminal defense lawyers too.

    Guilt sells. For the same reason the public loves missing white girl stories and Nancy Grace, they love former prosecutors. They buy that they are all about truth, justice and the American way. And some are, but in my view. Coakley isn't one of them.


    Interesting. But prosecutors are pols (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    and ambitious to move up in politics.

    Criminal defense lawyers like private practice, from the ones I know.  Only one I know ever has indicated ambition for politics, and that's for a judgeship.  Of course, you know many more.


    I think you also have to look at (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 07:08:17 AM EST
    The way society looks at the criminal justice system in general.  Poll after poll will show you that generally people believe criminals = bad, those who put them away = good.  And frankly, when most people make snide or joking remarks about how sleazy lawyers are - they're picturing criminal defense attorneys (They don't think of patent attorneys or real estate attorneys the same way).  People just don't like them as a group, whether they are defending rapists, thieves, or murderers, or whether they are the slick ones you see defending the big corporate execs who steal money. Is it fair?  Maybe, maybe not, but that's the reality of it.  

    Just my guess as to why more defense attorneys don't get elected.


    Forget about getting results at Boston.com (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    The Globe's servers are glacially slow at 3:00 AM when there's no news.  You can't even get to them now.  Don't know whether there are any other sources that will be better, but Boston.com is surely the worst.

    can't even (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:17:05 PM EST
    open the website right now.  Probably too much traffic, servers down.

    Three people (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    is too much traffic for the Globe's servers.

    Drives me nuts because I'd like to be able to keep up a little bit with my old home from my new one, but the combo of the Globe's wretched Web site and my slow country DSL makes it an unpleasant chore.

    (CST, you been there long enough/old enough to remember Bob Gamere in his heyday?  I'm just sick about it.)


    nope (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    don't remember him.

    I'm on (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    and it has a nifty town-by-town feature...52-47 Brown with 4% reporting...

    And it automatically refreshes (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    eat your heart out....52-47 at 5% reporting...

    Alas, I've have tempted the gods (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:36:35 PM EST
    and have been unceremoniously dumped from the Boston Globe site.

    Drudge has Dems ahead (none / 0) (#12)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    No linky, you know where to go.

    D 9,037

    R 8,947

    Early reporting..... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    Brown 52% - Coakley 47% - Kennedy 1%
    By Herald staff
    Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - Updated 1m ago

    E-mail   Print   (0) Comments   Text size   Share   Buzz up!According to results culled from cities and towns and around the Web, the race for the open Massachusetts Senate between Republican Scott Brown, Democrat Martha Coakley, and independent Joseph Kennedy currently stands at....Brown 52% - Coakley 47% - Kennedy 1% with 4% reporting

    No idea what area of MA these results are from.

    Cambridge results (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:29:23 PM EST
    show 88-11 Coakley with 3% reporting...

    That shows we've got it in the bag....


    I wouldn't go that far (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    who knows if that will stick, or if turnout there is high enough

    Uhmm, my point was that if Harvard (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:34:19 PM EST
    went for Coakley, surely blue collar Mass. would too....  

    Methinks there may be a flaw in that reasoning....


    Uh-oh, blue collar Quincy (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    has Brown 54-45 with 3% (one precinct out of 30)...

    Looks like a narrow Brown win (3-5%) (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:36:30 PM EST

    Has anyone called it 'A Bloodbath' yet? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    GStef hyperbolically said "If Martha Coakley loses to Brown, it would certainly be the biggest political upset I have seen in my career."

    (I assumed that would be the win of one Wm. J. Clinton over GHWBush, but my recollection could be as hazy as Stef's here.)

    Is it really an upset (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    if there is no incumbent?

    Actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    Coakley wins western MA, loses central MA, and 1/3 of the Boston vote is in.

    This sucks.

    As I said, watch central MA. . . (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:02:21 PM EST
    45% reporting, according to AP (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    still 52-47.  Worster big for Coakley.  Troublesome Quincy 52-46 Brown with 2/3 reporting.

    Boston 59-40 Coakley with 21% reporting...

    It's about Boston turnout (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    and reports are conflicting re that.

    turnout high (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    but margin isn't...

    How high is the question (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    as it needs to be really high -- above 60 -- for her to even squeak through at best, is the bet.

    But I bet Boston reports latest?  That's what it's like here.  Big-city voters vote late, after work, and big-city polling places can have a lot more voters.  Plus, at times, there has to be time for some votes to get, um, mislaid. :-)


    Every model I saw (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:06:48 PM EST
    said that Coakley needed to break 60% in Boston--at least.

    With 37% reporting in Boston (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    it is Coakley 62-37, but overall still 53-46 with 60% reporting.

    There are going to be just over 2M votes cast (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    For some perspective, that's about the same as in the April 2008 Pennsylvania primary.

    Quincy 100% reporting (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    Brown 53-46....

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    it looks like Brown is going to win at this point.

    About half (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    of Boston votes in.

    Coakley down by 90,000

    This is over folks.

    Since a supermajority that depends (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    on Joe Lieberman is no supermajority at all, I can't get too upset about losing it.  Worst part will be the media harangues.

    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:18:16 PM EST
    the abysmal stuff they've produced so far it really doesn't matter to me either.

    Not if you don't watch TV for a week it won't. (none / 0) (#60)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    Besides, I think the House votes in the Seanet bill within 2 weeks (along with a jobs bill, I hope).

    And then it will only be a short time before the Republicans over-reach.


    That's the absolute best we can hope for now (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    and I'd say it's pretty effing unlikely.

    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    they don't vote on that horrible bill. The only good thing about Coakley losing is that it might kill that bill.

    As long as you know the choice is between (none / 0) (#72)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    this bill (with the possibility of improvement next year or the year after), or nothing for 10 years.

    You will not even have the 50 votes in the Senate if you have to start from scratch, rather than trying to "improve" something that's already been voted on.


    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:27:28 PM EST
    is that this bill does nothing. Most of the things don't even go into effect for four years and by then there might be total government control by the GOP who will trash it. HCR can't wait another 10 years. It will have to revisted before then. Obama completely and totally botched the job and passing garbage to make him or yourself feel better just doesn't cut it. I mean we lost a senate seat in Mass. That should show you HOW unpopular this stinking bill is.

    I believe that is true. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:29:23 PM EST
    It won't be another 10 years before it is addressed. The status quo cannot hold that long. And this bill does not do enough to change the status quo.

    The things that go into effect immediately are the (none / 0) (#85)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:31:08 PM EST
    most popular--restrictions on insurance companies denying coverage, recissions, etc.

    I WANT the Republicans to campaign on repealing that.


    Fine (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    then pass a bill with those in it only. That would work against the GOP but the whole bill gives a ton of ammunition to the GOP. In fact it's a wet dream for them.

    I suppose that is why (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:36:33 PM EST
    Obama is all "I will campaign for it after it passes."  Oy...

    Well, the Senate is full of cowards, so their (none / 0) (#65)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    part is done.  I still think the House will do a decent salvage job, as best as can be expected under the circumstances.

    Yes - the Republicans will manage to (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:26:25 PM EST
    overreach, even being the 41 in a 59-41 distribution. Sounds impossible, but it is probably true.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    they will and the scary part is that Obama will give them everything they want instead of fighting.

    It's not impossible...look how stupid it's gotten (none / 0) (#81)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:29:34 PM EST

    They are calling it the "death of health care reform" EVEN THOUGH THE SENATE HAS ALREADY PASSED IT.

    The House should pass the bill tomorrow, and Obama should sign it Thursday, just to show some "FU" to the media and Repubs.


    I do believe that would be (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:31:15 PM EST
    Obama should sign it Thursday, just to show some "FU" to the media and Repubs

    a solid FU to the people of this country. The Republicans didn't do this, the voters did -- and they did it because of that lousy HCR bill.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    did this to himself and he is certainly welcome to commit political suicide by signing it but the sad thing is that he'll take the whole party down with his stupid ego trip.

    What is it they say about needing to (none / 0) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:42:23 PM EST
    hit bottom before one looks for help? The party needs to take a good look at themselves and fix their problems. They are behaving like a brand new teenage driver who ends up steering the car wherever they are looking, and the dems have been looking at the republicans instead of straight ahead.

    Did the bill get posted already?? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    They sneak in the 72 hours posting while people were paying attention to MA?

    although for some reason (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    cambridge still has only 1 precinct reporting

    Only 1 of 33 Cambridge precincts (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:20:21 PM EST
    reporting with Coakley winning 88-11.


    AP called it for Brown (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    I'm turning off the tv.  Can't stand the pundits.

    Pretty disgusted right now.

    AP calls it for Brown (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    Boston and Cambridge still out but apparently not enough left....

    It was over at least 20 minutes ago (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:26:48 PM EST
    NPR Radio - Coakley has conceded to Brown (none / 0) (#79)
    by noholib on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    hate to report this

    no shooting the messenger (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    I'm getting all my news here - maintaining media silence. So thanks!

    Guess who else didn't turn on cable news (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    this week, but was still plenty informed?

    Those people are useless, useless, useless.


    they are. They bring nothing worthwhile (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    to the conversation, not even humor, and plenty that is just destructive, and hurting to my head.

    I can't stand TV either (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by noholib on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:36:37 PM EST
    You note my old-fashioned source: radio!
    plus this blog and web-sites
    Don't want to watch any network or cable TV instant pundit blowhards!

    There's gonna be a holy racket (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:30:20 PM EST
    and America is going to learn about the filibuster.

    I think the health care bill will happen but not before the SOTU.  

    I'd actually rather see Obama split the bill and fight it out than have the House pass it...


    If the politics of this are getting so ugly anyway (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:33:07 PM EST
     sure would be nice if they were making it worthwhile with a decent  plan. Put in Medicare for all and many people would be more than happy to fight the good fight.

    One thing you could do is say (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    to the Senate Republicans that we'll take the Nebraska deal out if they allow an up or down vote, but otherwise the House eats the Senate bill. Nobody will like that, though.

    Yeah, I doubt the Reps will play ball (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    They'd be happy if the House passes the Senate bill and they get to campaign on hatred for the bill for the next 10 months.

    If that is the Dem plan I really hope the 11 dimensional chess plan of selling the bill after it is passed works out for them. I do want to keep the majority - I'm keeping hope alive they will figure out what to do with it at some point - with a new leader.


    With panic this high, I don't think there (none / 0) (#98)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    are even 50 votes in the Senate right now to do anything more with health care.

    There may be the promise of fixing things through reconcialiation in the future, but it ain't happening soon.

    I really think the House passing this bill and QUICKLY passing a jobs bill and bank tax bill is the only way to salvage something here.


    I guess you're right (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:40:52 PM EST
    but there is going to be some political pain to be endured in the short term by doing it that way.

    All the same, better short term than long term...


    So is the SOTU still on schedule? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:31:05 PM EST
    Or will there be word of some reason to have to delay it?  It's only a week from now, as I recall.

    Jan. 27 (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    Considering all the gloating (none / 0) (#116)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    Dems indulged in just a year ago, I have to say I'm extremely pleased with this outcome. The preening have taken down a notch by the voters.

    This should never have been an election about 'Ted Kennedy's seat' or Brown supports violence against women. KO's disgusting last minute smears didn't manage to make to the front page of TPM or DKOS, thank goodness.

    Marshall and company want to jam through a really cruddy health care bill. There's a good diary at the top of the DKOS rec list.

    Rasmussen claims 20% of MA Dems voted for the Republican. I'm sure they had their reasons.

    If Dems get the message, Brown will be gone next election. If Dems don't get the message, a lot more blue states are going to turn red.

    This (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    isn't the DLC. This is Obama. He's the head of the party and he should take the heat. It's his disastrous handling of HCR and his inability to empathize with the average American that made the people of MA turn on him.