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 Scott Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Brown. 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
