Great news. Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley to replace of all people Ted Kennedy (and the appointed Paul Kirk) representing Massachusetts in the US Senate. With 95% of the vote in, Brown leads 52%-47% with 1% going to Joe Kennedy (not RFK's son).
This sends some gigantic messages to Washington, several of them to be exact.
1. Run good candidates who fit the district. Bad candidates or incumbents lose seats that should not be lost. Like this one for example. Or Don Sherwood and Bill Sali on the Republican side in 2006 and 2008.
2. No seat is completely safe.
3. Arrogance fails. The beltway never learns. 1994. 2006/2008, and possible 2010. The "we know what's best for you" mentality is a killer. When government says and promises one thing and does another. When government is corrupt. When government forces strongly unpopular legislation. When government is incompetent. People get fired.
4. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is and was a good strategy. Many republicans laughed at Howard Dean for this. I wasn't laughing. Every democrat should be challenged with a solid race. Not all will be won, but it's better to keep John Dingell campaigning in home and not helping other candidates, which he does very well.
5. It's always great when MSNBC cries in their beer. Keith Olbermann showed once again that the only thing more pathetic than the race card is when white leftist whiny wusses play it. Keith, I don't know if you noticed, but Coakley is white. Dummy. This guy is even worse as a commentator than he was on FOX Sports.
At worst this should get Obama and Congress's 1000+ page health care takeover sent back to the drawing board. They can start with taking out the insurance requirements, tax/fine/prison penalties, end of life decisions, abortion coverage - even indirectly, and massive regulations out of there, shrink it by at least 1000 pages, and bring back something that can be worked with.
We'll see. I don't think Obama gets real America outside of what his insulated team says about it. Bush had that same problem in 2006, and I expect the same results - a lot of people being sent home.
Showing posts with label Massachusetts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Massachusetts. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Scott Brown and Massachusetts - Act like we're down 5 points.
Right now the big special election is in Massachusetts. January 19th is the day. One thing I've always said about special elections is throw the rules out. Turnout is lighter, and usually the winner is who gets their people out to the polls. It doesn't matter where. These are different elections than normal.
That aside, by all accounts, the Republicans should not be able to compete there. This isn't a state that is a swing state like Virginia or slightly blue state like Michigan. This isn't the 19th state senate district which is a bellwether district. This isn't Long Island NY or New Jersey which in a good GOP year is about 5 points democrat. Tough, but winnable at the right time. This isn't even Illinois, solidly democrat, but elects an occasional republican to federal office statewide (Peter Fitzgerald won in 98). This is Massachusetts. George McGovern won here. Reagan was the aberration, and had a great last name for the state, and it's gone much more liberal since then as the Irish yellow dog democrat domination has lessened and the professor crowd is more dominant (UMass, Harvard, Tuffs, MIT, Boston U, Boston College, etc).
Most polls right now have Brown ahead. Now, I know the democrats have been attacking pollsters lately, but remember one thing. When polls are correct, they are a snapshot in time of the opinions of the populace. Polls may be wrong. People may change their mind between today and Tuesday. Irony is that Rasmussen, who the dems hate, has Brown down by 2%. From Real Clear Politics
What happens Tuesday? Do the weak dems come home? Do the dems stay home? Do they vote for Brown. I don't know. I'd like to predict a Brown win, but I can't get past the fact that this is Massachusetts, consistently 62% Democrat in presidential elections, and more in senate elections. Only twice did Ted Kennedy get under 60% of the vote. Once in 1962, and later in 1994. John Kerry's first three races were tougher, but only once had less than 55% (1996). The US House delegation is 10-nothing (Gerrymandered), and only four of those seats in great years like 1994, I'd consider winnable outside of the perfect storm if they open up. That said, it's the perfect storm if Brown wins despite places like Amherst, Holyoke, Springfield, Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, and Newton.
Scott Brown for US Senate. Good luck to Brown, if he wins, that will send a big message to the democrat, that even their home base is no longer secure. I wrote last November about a possible
Republican comeback in the Northeast. It's still a long ways off from a comeback, but this could be step 4 here, after the 09 wins in New Jersey, Long Island, and Pennsylvania judges.
That aside, by all accounts, the Republicans should not be able to compete there. This isn't a state that is a swing state like Virginia or slightly blue state like Michigan. This isn't the 19th state senate district which is a bellwether district. This isn't Long Island NY or New Jersey which in a good GOP year is about 5 points democrat. Tough, but winnable at the right time. This isn't even Illinois, solidly democrat, but elects an occasional republican to federal office statewide (Peter Fitzgerald won in 98). This is Massachusetts. George McGovern won here. Reagan was the aberration, and had a great last name for the state, and it's gone much more liberal since then as the Irish yellow dog democrat domination has lessened and the professor crowd is more dominant (UMass, Harvard, Tuffs, MIT, Boston U, Boston College, etc).
Most polls right now have Brown ahead. Now, I know the democrats have been attacking pollsters lately, but remember one thing. When polls are correct, they are a snapshot in time of the opinions of the populace. Polls may be wrong. People may change their mind between today and Tuesday. Irony is that Rasmussen, who the dems hate, has Brown down by 2%. From Real Clear Politics
| Poll | Date | Sample | Brown (R) | Coakley (D) | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PJM/CrossTarget (R) | 1/14 - 1/14 | 946 LV | 54 | 39 | Brown +15 |
| Blue Mass Group/R2000 (D) | 1/12 - 1/13 | 500 LV | 41 | 49 | Coakley +8 |
| Suffolk/7News | 1/11 - 1/13 | 500 LV | 50 | 46 | Brown +4 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 1/11 - 1/11 | 1000 LV | 47 | 49 | Coakley +2 |
| PPP (D) | 1/7 - 1/9 | 744 LV | 48 | 47 | Brown +1 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 1/4 - 1/4 | 500 LV | 41 | 50 | Coakley +9 |
| Boston Globe | 1/2 - 1/6 | 554 LV | 36 | 53 | Coakley +17 |
| Suffolk | 11/4 - 11/8 | 600 RV | 27 | 58 | Coakley +31 |
| Western NE College | 10/18 - 10/22 | 342 LV | 32 | 58 | Coakley +26 |
| Suffolk | 9/12 - 9/15 | 500 RV | 24 | 54 | Coakley +30 |
What happens Tuesday? Do the weak dems come home? Do the dems stay home? Do they vote for Brown. I don't know. I'd like to predict a Brown win, but I can't get past the fact that this is Massachusetts, consistently 62% Democrat in presidential elections, and more in senate elections. Only twice did Ted Kennedy get under 60% of the vote. Once in 1962, and later in 1994. John Kerry's first three races were tougher, but only once had less than 55% (1996). The US House delegation is 10-nothing (Gerrymandered), and only four of those seats in great years like 1994, I'd consider winnable outside of the perfect storm if they open up. That said, it's the perfect storm if Brown wins despite places like Amherst, Holyoke, Springfield, Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, and Newton.
Scott Brown for US Senate. Good luck to Brown, if he wins, that will send a big message to the democrat, that even their home base is no longer secure. I wrote last November about a possible
Republican comeback in the Northeast. It's still a long ways off from a comeback, but this could be step 4 here, after the 09 wins in New Jersey, Long Island, and Pennsylvania judges.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Upset Watch
This goes into the "I'll believe it when I see it" category, but nobody expected the Giants to beat the Patriots either.While most pundits laughed at Howard Dean's 50 state strategy - it worked. The Republicans need to do the same thing. It looks like they MIGHT be making a run in Massachusetts of all places. Now are they expected to win there? No. However, this is a special election. In a recent special election in a district that went 75% for Obama, the GOP one. Joseph Cao won in New Orleans for the first time since I don't know when. Maybe reconstruction.
If a 75% district can be won in a special election, albeit against a crooked incumbent, an open seat in a 62% democrat state is winnable in a special election. The special election for the Massachusetts US Senate Seat is January 19th. It'll be cold. Politics won't be on the mind of most people. Nothing else is on the ticket more than likely. Some think there's a puncher's chance.
From Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics.
And National Review reporting some reader reports at their site.
I wouldn't be shocked if this was closer than the 62-38 races which we've had for the presidency the last three elections. However, I will be shocked if there is an upset. That aside, every race should be contested, and especially in special elections. There is a puncher's chance, and the GOP needs to throw a ton of punches to get back into the game.
Good luck to Brown.
If a 75% district can be won in a special election, albeit against a crooked incumbent, an open seat in a 62% democrat state is winnable in a special election. The special election for the Massachusetts US Senate Seat is January 19th. It'll be cold. Politics won't be on the mind of most people. Nothing else is on the ticket more than likely. Some think there's a puncher's chance.
From Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics.
There's been a fair amount of excitement in the rightosphere regarding the January 19, 2010 special election to fill the seat of Senator Ted Kennedy. The race pits Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley against Republican state Senator Scott Brown. The cases for GOP optimism are pretty well spelled out in Jim Geraghty's piece at National Review.
There's some truth to these arguments, as Massachusetts isn't as monolithically Democratic as most make it out to be; the real power brokers in the state are the Independents, who make up a near-plurality of the electorate. Hence, Republicans have been able to elect a number of GOP Governors over the last few decades (and in a straight-up match up with Deval Patrick, would probably be poised to do it again in 2010). Jim Ogonowski's near-win in MA-05 in 2007, during the depths of anti-GOP sentiment in the country, gives further proof of the state's willingness to embrace the right kind of Republican (ie a non-Southern, non-conservative Republican without ties to the religious right.
.......
In any event, if we take a 38%D, 19%R, 42%I electorate and have Coakley win 90% of the Democrats, 4% of Republicans and 38% of Independents, we come out with an exceedingly close 51.06-48.9% Coakley win. I did not expect that.
Now, for three caveats. Obviously, Independents in Massachusetts are probably more liberal than Independents in New Jersey or, certainly, Virginia, so they might swing less. But that's baked into the pie somewhat by using 2008 as the baseline, where they voted more for Obama than NJ and VA Independents did to begin with. And remember, oddly enough, Independents swung more toward Republicans in New Jersey than they did in Virginia.
And National Review reporting some reader reports at their site.
I wouldn't be shocked if this was closer than the 62-38 races which we've had for the presidency the last three elections. However, I will be shocked if there is an upset. That aside, every race should be contested, and especially in special elections. There is a puncher's chance, and the GOP needs to throw a ton of punches to get back into the game.
Good luck to Brown.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Electoral College Math - Part 1 - New England
I thought about the electoral college math when the latest Gallup poll out has McCain leaning by 4% and 3%. Rasmussen has a lot of polls out, and that one was a tie. Those are the two most recent polls, before that Hotline had Obama up by 6, CBS was tied, and CNN had Obama up by one. The translation? It's anybody's game. A good site for poll checking is Real Clear Politics. It shows a lot of different pollsters.
One of my professors back in a political science class I took at MSU said this best. Polls are a snapshot in time. That means they are not the election. Sometimes they get them right, oftentimes they are slightly off but relatively close to the actual results. Sometimes they are way off. That does not mean that the polls are wrong. It could mean that, and it could also mean that the people had a different opinion the next day, or two months from now on election day.
National polls and the popular vote are important, but it is the states that matter most. I haven't had a lot of strong original material here since my 2nd Amendment Supreme Court preview close to a year ago, so I'll start something here.
The goal of each campaign is to get 270 Electoral votes from 50 states, Washington DC, and five seperate electoral districts. All the states except two, along with Washington DC, have a winner take all format. All the states have two (senate) electoral votes plus one vote for every congressional district. DC has 3 votes. The two states that do not have winner take all formats are Maine and Nebraska. Those two states award two votes for the winner of the state, plus one vote for winning each congressional district. It has not mattered much recently. Maine's 2nd district is sometimes close, but leans democrat. Gore won it by 3% and Kerry by 6%. Maine's first district is more democrat and I expect will easily go that way again in 2008. All three Nebraska district are solidly Republican. Even in the democrat congressional tide in 2006, none of those districts, even Omaha or Lincoln, were within 10%, and local democrats do much better in the plains than national democrats.
Taking first past federal election history, secondly polls, and lastly the candidates themselves, this is how I currently have the states.
New England:
Solid Obama - 29 votes
Lean Obama - 1 vote
Tossup - 4 votes
I don't think there is a lot of doubt here. Some people have Connecticut or Maine going for McCain over Obama, but that's a pipe dream unless there is a Dukakis blunder of momumental proportions. If either of those two states go for McCain, it's over and it will be a landslide, at least compared with the last two elections.
Solid Obama states in New England:
Vermont (3 votes) - Kerry won with 59% Gore won with only 51%, but that was due to 7% going for Nader. Bush got 41% in 2000 and 39% in 2004. There hasn't been a poll since February, but one had Obama up 57-36 (Survey USA) and the other 63-29 (Research 2000). This is one of the safest states in the country for Obama, if not the safest. I except Vermont to be Obama's top state in the country. It culturally fits the white base of Obama.
Massachusetts (12 votes) - A name that starts with Mc may help McCain, but it won't be enough. Even if he wins the blue collar whote vote, there's still the very strong university vote and sizable minority populations in Boston and Springfield. Kerry won 62-37 and Gore won 60-33-6. The polls show some weakness for Obama here compared to previous democrats, with the latest August poll (Rasmussen) showing a 51-39 Obama lead. I expect most of the undecideds to come home in the end based on previous showings.
Rhode Island (4 votes) - Massachusetts South, a little more blue collar. Kerry on 59-39% Gore won 61-32% Obama will struggle with the Catholic vote to a degree, but not as much here as elsewhere. The last poll (Brown Univeristy) and only August poll has Obama 51-McCain 30.
Connecticut (7 votes) - A mixture of New York influence, Boston influence, and two democrat strongholds of Hartford and New Haven. The last two elections had Kerry win 54-44% and Gore win 56-38% The last poll was in July by Rasmussen and had a 53-40% Obama lead. I'm hearing some talk about Connecticut and Maine being dark horses to flip McCain now. This was before a lot of the national momentum, but the last two election results can not be overlooked, nor can Hartford and New Haven's major bases, combined with the growth of the New York influence. I'd love to see a 50 state strategy, preferably long term, but I think this is a big reach. If I'm wrong, it'll be a landslide.
Solid/Lean Obama:
Maine (2 votes, 1 vote, and 1 vote) - I have Maine overall as solid for Obama as well as Maine 1. Maine 2 I have has a leaner. Under the Maine/Nebraska system, there are three presidential races in Maine. First is at statewide for two votes with the other two being for that district. In order of difficulty for Republicans is Maine 2, state wide, and Maine 1. District 1 went 55-43% Kerry and 50-43-7% Gore. It contains Portland, a democrat stronghold. Maine 2 went 52-46% Kerry and 48-45-7% Gore. It is more socially moderate and blue collar compared to District 1, although it has the democrat stronghold of Lewiston. I can possibly see a competition in District 2, but District 1 is a stretch, and Maine as a whole has moved more towards the democrats.
Toss up:
New Hampshire (4 votes) - One of the few states that flipped in 2000/2004. The myth is that Massachusetts transplants turned this once solidly Republican state to a swing state. The reality is that according to exit polls in 2004, Massachusetts transplants voted for Bush. Native New Hampshire residents and other state transplants did not. Western New Hampshire did him in in 04 along the Vermont border, along with Concord. Manchester, the major city near Massachusetts went for Bush along with that border. The transplants there voted against Taxachusetts. It was the rest of the state that voted against him. The races here were close. Kerry won 50-49% in 2004, and Bush won 48-47% in 2000. Bush is very unpopular there today though, much like the rest of New England. There is still a strong libertarian streak in New Hampshire, and if McCain can tap it based on his spending, he's got a chance to flip the state. If its isolationist streak comes back like it did in 2006, big trouble. The latest poll (Rasmussen) from August has it 47-46 Obama. I think this could be another close race typical of New Hampshire.
One of my professors back in a political science class I took at MSU said this best. Polls are a snapshot in time. That means they are not the election. Sometimes they get them right, oftentimes they are slightly off but relatively close to the actual results. Sometimes they are way off. That does not mean that the polls are wrong. It could mean that, and it could also mean that the people had a different opinion the next day, or two months from now on election day.
National polls and the popular vote are important, but it is the states that matter most. I haven't had a lot of strong original material here since my 2nd Amendment Supreme Court preview close to a year ago, so I'll start something here.
The goal of each campaign is to get 270 Electoral votes from 50 states, Washington DC, and five seperate electoral districts. All the states except two, along with Washington DC, have a winner take all format. All the states have two (senate) electoral votes plus one vote for every congressional district. DC has 3 votes. The two states that do not have winner take all formats are Maine and Nebraska. Those two states award two votes for the winner of the state, plus one vote for winning each congressional district. It has not mattered much recently. Maine's 2nd district is sometimes close, but leans democrat. Gore won it by 3% and Kerry by 6%. Maine's first district is more democrat and I expect will easily go that way again in 2008. All three Nebraska district are solidly Republican. Even in the democrat congressional tide in 2006, none of those districts, even Omaha or Lincoln, were within 10%, and local democrats do much better in the plains than national democrats.
Taking first past federal election history, secondly polls, and lastly the candidates themselves, this is how I currently have the states.
New England:
Solid Obama - 29 votes
Lean Obama - 1 vote
Tossup - 4 votes
I don't think there is a lot of doubt here. Some people have Connecticut or Maine going for McCain over Obama, but that's a pipe dream unless there is a Dukakis blunder of momumental proportions. If either of those two states go for McCain, it's over and it will be a landslide, at least compared with the last two elections.
Solid Obama states in New England:
Vermont (3 votes) - Kerry won with 59% Gore won with only 51%, but that was due to 7% going for Nader. Bush got 41% in 2000 and 39% in 2004. There hasn't been a poll since February, but one had Obama up 57-36 (Survey USA) and the other 63-29 (Research 2000). This is one of the safest states in the country for Obama, if not the safest. I except Vermont to be Obama's top state in the country. It culturally fits the white base of Obama.
Massachusetts (12 votes) - A name that starts with Mc may help McCain, but it won't be enough. Even if he wins the blue collar whote vote, there's still the very strong university vote and sizable minority populations in Boston and Springfield. Kerry won 62-37 and Gore won 60-33-6. The polls show some weakness for Obama here compared to previous democrats, with the latest August poll (Rasmussen) showing a 51-39 Obama lead. I expect most of the undecideds to come home in the end based on previous showings.
Rhode Island (4 votes) - Massachusetts South, a little more blue collar. Kerry on 59-39% Gore won 61-32% Obama will struggle with the Catholic vote to a degree, but not as much here as elsewhere. The last poll (Brown Univeristy) and only August poll has Obama 51-McCain 30.
Connecticut (7 votes) - A mixture of New York influence, Boston influence, and two democrat strongholds of Hartford and New Haven. The last two elections had Kerry win 54-44% and Gore win 56-38% The last poll was in July by Rasmussen and had a 53-40% Obama lead. I'm hearing some talk about Connecticut and Maine being dark horses to flip McCain now. This was before a lot of the national momentum, but the last two election results can not be overlooked, nor can Hartford and New Haven's major bases, combined with the growth of the New York influence. I'd love to see a 50 state strategy, preferably long term, but I think this is a big reach. If I'm wrong, it'll be a landslide.
Solid/Lean Obama:
Maine (2 votes, 1 vote, and 1 vote) - I have Maine overall as solid for Obama as well as Maine 1. Maine 2 I have has a leaner. Under the Maine/Nebraska system, there are three presidential races in Maine. First is at statewide for two votes with the other two being for that district. In order of difficulty for Republicans is Maine 2, state wide, and Maine 1. District 1 went 55-43% Kerry and 50-43-7% Gore. It contains Portland, a democrat stronghold. Maine 2 went 52-46% Kerry and 48-45-7% Gore. It is more socially moderate and blue collar compared to District 1, although it has the democrat stronghold of Lewiston. I can possibly see a competition in District 2, but District 1 is a stretch, and Maine as a whole has moved more towards the democrats.
Toss up:
New Hampshire (4 votes) - One of the few states that flipped in 2000/2004. The myth is that Massachusetts transplants turned this once solidly Republican state to a swing state. The reality is that according to exit polls in 2004, Massachusetts transplants voted for Bush. Native New Hampshire residents and other state transplants did not. Western New Hampshire did him in in 04 along the Vermont border, along with Concord. Manchester, the major city near Massachusetts went for Bush along with that border. The transplants there voted against Taxachusetts. It was the rest of the state that voted against him. The races here were close. Kerry won 50-49% in 2004, and Bush won 48-47% in 2000. Bush is very unpopular there today though, much like the rest of New England. There is still a strong libertarian streak in New Hampshire, and if McCain can tap it based on his spending, he's got a chance to flip the state. If its isolationist streak comes back like it did in 2006, big trouble. The latest poll (Rasmussen) from August has it 47-46 Obama. I think this could be another close race typical of New Hampshire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
