Brown favored to win

ARG now confirms the trend, showing Brown ahead of Coakley by a 48-45 margin. Yesterday, I had a virtual tie, at 49-49, but today it moves to Brown by a 49.5 - 48.5 - 2 margin over Coakley and Kennedy.

I see that Chris Bowers is holding out as this contest still being Coakley's favored, and not a toss-up. His numbers are correct, but an allocation of the undecideds, which is what I compute, leaves me to believe that Brown is now very slightly favored to win.

I just haven't seen any reason to believe that Coakley is stemming Brown's momentum. Certainly her seeming so out of touch to remark that Curt Shilling is a Yankee doesn't qualify (ugh). The internals blogged about by Jim Geraghty seem in line with the trend. Republicans are good at taking advantage of these sort of slips, seemingly on a daily basis by Martha Coakley.

Here's another prediction, based on ARG's and other poll findings:

Brown leads Coakley 94% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 58% to 37% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 71% to 20% among registered Democrats. A total of 8% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans remain undecided.

Brown leads 54% to 39% among men while Coakley leads 50% to 44% among women. Brown leads 52% to 42% among likely voters aged 18 to 49 and Coakley leads 47% to 46% among voters 50 and older.

Contrary to the CW, I think a higher turnout is going to benefit Brown. That's Brown's strong lead among Independents and younger voters. Given this is a three-day MLK weekend, its unlikely to change. This latest mailer by the Coakley campaign smells of a desperation moment reached by senior campaign consultants of Coakley in the past week.

I also notice that Sean Paul Kelly is ready to walk away from the Democrats if they pass this horrendus HCR bill. You can't really blame him or the multitudes of like mind, given how disastourous the past year has been. Whether or not HCR is doomed to failure, if Brown wins, that may not be the worst outcome for Democrats up for re-election in 2010.

I remember the day when, not very many years ago, Democrats lost special election after special election, each time the netroots getting stronger through the defeat. The momentum built enough to help create a wave election in 2006. With a win now, and gridlock (bipartisanship) later, a Brown win could turn out to save a lot of incumbent Democrats (a bird now saves two in the bush).

If Coakley does win, then Obama is going to deserve the credit. The President has timed his visit well; and if she loses, well, Coakley was already behind.

Tags: Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, 2010 (all tags)



high Indy turnout helps brown

since most MA voters are I - thats obvious.

When i read that people were fighting over, stealing and begging for Brown lawn signs - I knew this election was over.

Guess Nate Silver and the other slanted polling-pundits are gonna have to get used to being very wrong - a very lot.

by 2010-01-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
You really know a lot about elections ? when was the last time independents went ahead
and voted in great numbers in a special election?
by louisprandtl 2010-01-16 08:02PM | 1 recs
So let me get this straight

killing the HCR bill is a better option for Democrats in November because some dude no one has ever heard of is threatening not to vote for them?

by ND22 2010-01-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Here's why:

1.  No Stupak amendment

2.  Killing it now is better than killing it later.

3.  If there's more focus on jobs and the economy, the better.

4.  No more deals with Big Pharma.

But Obama has to pivot in his SOTU speech, addressing the dire economy and "apologize" for all the time wasted on HCR.  That's what's driven the Dems' numbers down so much.

by esconded 2010-01-16 03:10PM | 0 recs
Oh please

don't act like if he had focused on "jobs" and not health care, liberals won't be pissing on him cause he wasn't tackling healthcare.

He wanted this done in August, and Congress said no.

by ND22 2010-01-16 03:14PM | 1 recs
But he focused on an insurance bailout and not

health reform. If we had a real health reform this election wouldn't be in question.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-16 03:26PM | 1 recs
Another person who hasn't seen the bill, but sure hates it

Can we skip the Liar blog Fake talking points?

There are real reforms in that bill that real people need. And just because you didn't get your pony, the bill isn't a disaster.

And what bill are you talking about anyways? Has that merged bill come back from the CBO yet?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-16 04:23PM | 0 recs
RE: Another person who hasn't seen the bill, but sure hates it

Hey calling me names won't win the elections, but I guess it makes you feel good. 

I do believe Obama can be a great President, but so far  he has chosen to be only average. Bi-partisanship is killing his presidency.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-16 10:17PM | 0 recs
If we're losing a fifth of the party to a teabagger

then that means PARTISANSHIP is killing his presidency.

by ND22 2010-01-16 11:41PM | 0 recs

Time to fight fire with fire.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 12:50AM | 0 recs
RE: Agreed.

Yes, but what exactly do you suggest he do?

The only thing I can think of is killing the filibuster.


by Georgeo57 2010-01-17 02:02AM | 0 recs
RE: If we're losing a fifth of the party to a teabagger

How so?  What is the argument behind that conclusion?  And do you think the public's views on the bank bailout and health insurance reform play any part in the defections? 

by orestes 2010-01-17 01:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Another person who hasn't seen the bill, but sure hates it

I agree that bipartisanship was his downfall. I never agreed with it, but I admired his effort, as quixotic as it was.

But at the very end of trying the bipartisan route, Obama found himself back where he started: with 55-59 votes.

All great Presidents have been tested early in their career, and almost always have failed that test. Lincoln and JFK are excellent examples. The difference between a great president and an average president is whether he/she will learn from those mistakes.

I'm betting Obama does. But it is too early to tell.

On Obama, we agree 100%.


I'm not calling you names. There are other trolls here who I do call names. I am calling Jane (pay attention to me) Hamsher names, along with her blog. But I am not calling you names, and I am begging you to please withold judgment until the bill is produced besides passing along talking points.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 12:48AM | 1 recs
I hear you

and respect your position. The problem is for this election the liberal base of the Democratic isn't fired up. We aren't fired up because too many people like nd22 are telling us to shut up.

I know us Liberals cannot get everything we want, but it would be nice to get our fair share of the pie.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 12:55AM | 0 recs
RE: I hear you

There are lot more liberal bits to strip out of the bill to please conservatives - medicare expansion and the subsidies to start with. Won't that be wonderful - we'll have a bill that costs 50-60 billion instead of 900-1000 billion, helps <1 million people instead of 30 million, maintains the medicare overpayments and the donut hole, dosn't bend the cost curve or control rising prices. We might even get tort reform thrown in as a bonus. Then we'll have a pie and call it reform.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:29AM | 1 recs
I told

a notorious concern troll to shut up, not you, keep it straight

by ND22 2010-01-17 03:42PM | 0 recs
He hasn't, and won't fall

Bipartisanship is what he campaigned on, but it's also a strategy.  Now that Americans know so well that Republicans want nothing to do with bipartisanship, Obama will have much more leeway in 2010 to strongly and unilaterally address the number one issue this November; jobs, jobs, jobs.  By refusing to work with him on health care, Republicans won a pyrrhic battle (health care will pass), and have set themselves up for losing the battle (2010 and 2012).

I've just finished reading Richard Wolffe's Renegade, and yes, Obama does learn quickly and thoroughly from his mistakes.

by Georgeo57 2010-01-17 02:11AM | 0 recs
RE: He hasn't, and won't fall

I disagree that the health insurance reform bill will be seen as a plus by the electorate after it passes.  The republicans will tout their opposition to the problematic provisions of the bill.  This bill is unpopular with a lot of lifelong Democrats and public opposition will only increase when the republicans remind the non-political majority of the country that they are now forced to buy crappy health insurance.

by orestes 2010-01-17 01:55PM | 0 recs
yeah sure, that's right

I'm sure a more liberal bill would have Independents and young voters running to Coakley instead of Brown. They're only voting Republican because Democrats are too right wing.

The sad thing is some of you even believe this.

by ND22 2010-01-16 06:18PM | 0 recs
If the Bill had passed, Brown would have ran to repeal it

He still would have mounted a strong surge. If anything, a Brown victory may have been more likely upon bill passage.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 12:50AM | 0 recs
RE: If the Bill had passed, Brown would have ran to repeal it

Which bits would he have campaigned on for repeal?

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:31AM | 0 recs
"Government Run" "Medicare Cuts" "New Taxes"

those, would they have flown in Mass? I used to not think so, now I'm not so sure.

by ND22 2010-01-17 05:35AM | 0 recs
RE: "Government Run" "Medicare Cuts" "New Taxes"

What's "governement run"? The PO is not in the bill


"Medicare cuts" - no cuts to services, only on overpayments.


"New taxes" - would they prefer to add to the deficit instead?

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:51PM | 0 recs
Who said

they had to be facts? Republicans win by lying and twisting the truth all the time

by ND22 2010-01-17 03:41PM | 0 recs
RE: yeah sure, that's right

The sad thing is that so many have not learned from the past 30 years that Dems lose support when they move rightward.  Real health care reform would have secured Democratic loyalty and votes for years to come.  It would have rekindled the old, now tarnished, mantle that the Dems work for the little person. 

by orestes 2010-01-17 02:15PM | 0 recs
RE: yeah sure, that's right

Famalies who make less that 80K a year (avg. household income in 50K) get help to purchase insurance. What to do the rich dudes, get? Nothing except slightly higher taxes.

How is that not helping the little person?

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:20PM | 0 recs
RE: yeah sure, that's right

There is nothing to indicate that a stipend to help pay for health insurance is a benefit at all.  If the government is supplementing the purchase of health insurance with high copays and deductibles and which cannot be effectively used because of the expense, the insured is not getting much of any benefit- especially when it is compared to the public (and private) money the insurance companies are guaranteed.

Furthermore, it is a common phenomenon that any government funding is immediately subsumed by the beneficiary of the funding.  For example, college costs were able to rise so outrageously because the available loan sources increased.  Given the behavior of the insurance companies, there is no reason to expect the same will not happen here. 

If the Dems wanted to help the average American, they would have crafted a more pro-insured bill.  But, let's not forget this is the bill that Obama wanted all along. 

by orestes 2010-01-17 04:05PM | 0 recs
RE: yeah sure, that's right

Acurial values are set under the legislation as well. And the subsidiy is not a fixed amount, instead it increases to cover increased costs while the net cost to the insured remains fixed. So even if inurance companies jack up rates that entire amount will be borne by the state, not passed on.

Maybe you should read the bill before shitting over it.

by vecky 2010-01-17 08:19PM | 0 recs
RE: yeah sure, that's right

See, there you go again.  Low on substance, but high on hostility.  And if you weren't so driven by that hostility, you might have stepped back before posting to realize that your knowing [sic] rejoinder does not refute the point.  The insurance companies will continue to raise rates to suck more money from the public till.  And if you don't think congress will tire of increasing the subsidies and leave the beneficiaries out in the cold.  But, I guess the government shoveling money to the insurance cos is one of the benefits of the bill in your eyes.

As far as reading the health insurance bill, I would bet money you have not read it.  You merely regurgitate the talking points of the conservative dems who rally around Obama.  I tried to read the senate bill, but as an honest man, I admit I gave up after about thirty pages because the cross-referencing got the best of me.  I sincerely doubt you got through the entire thing.  Hell, I bet most of our senators did not.  So, don't try to high horse me. 

I shall go back to my wiser view of ignoring you completely because you are nothing but a troll.  You have no interest in engaging in sincere debate.  You simply look for any opportunity to spew your bile.  You can direct it in another direction.  You're too hostile and moronic for me.

by orestes 2010-01-17 08:47PM | 0 recs
RE: yeah sure, that's right
Come back when you have know something about the bill and it's provisions. I believe the HS can handle rate increases far better than individuals can. That's already been proven by medicare - sure it has problems, but it's infinitely better than leaving individuals on their own. You've shown nothing more than irrational RW talking points - when one of your agruements get's shot down you switch to another that makes even less sense, and then have the terminity to label me a troll when I merely lay out the facts to you. Take a good long look in the mirror.
by vecky 2010-01-17 08:59PM | 0 recs
this tuesday


and thank Obama.

by 2010-01-16 09:07PM | 0 recs
Why should I care who wins?

In the last election, we voted for change and got more of the same.

We voted for a Real Health Care Reform and we got an Insurance Company bailout.

We voted for ending the Bush wars and we got more troops sent to war.

We voted for ending don't ask don't tell and we got nothing more than talk.

We voted for a real jobs bill and we got useless tax cuts for the rich.

etc, etc and etc

Taking Liberals for granted is going to cost the Democratic Party it's majority in 2010.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-16 03:08PM | 1 recs
Lots of noseless faces around here

I'm sorry you didn't get what you want. Change takes years, not months.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-16 04:24PM | 0 recs
I aqree completely

the health care insurance give away. linked with the big Pharm giveaway - is unforgiveable.

Add the fake stimulus (it stimulates insiders pocketbooks only) and the banking trillions -

My prediction - We will lose both bodies next year.


by 2010-01-16 09:12PM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?

You should care because Democrats are a million times better for America and the world than are Republicans. 

We'll actually win seats in 2010 because the vast majority of Liberal and Moderate Democrats have invested too much over the last three years to throw it all away just because Obama hasn't done as much as we would like as soon as we would like.

We're not going to cut off our nose to spite our face; that is a habit we gave up while winning back Congress in 2006, and we're not going back to it.

It's time for Liberals like you to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.  Be grateful for what we've done, and help Democrats become stronger so that we can do a lot more.


by Georgeo57 2010-01-17 02:19AM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?

The argument that Dems are better than the republicans is not going to be effective at this point with many voters.  We are at a critical juncture in our history.  We stand at a point where we either change course or we continue to decline- through the destruction of the middle class and the use of taxpayer dollars to feed the moneyed interests.  To say the Dems will not hasten the decline as much as the republicans doesn't really help the suffering middle class.  The American people voted for change because they know it is essential for their (and the country's) survival.  Kinder, gentler republicans (the Dem establishment) are no salve.

by orestes 2010-01-17 02:26PM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?

You assign a lot of blame but as susual have no solutions. With the GOP in charge the USA is sunk. With the Dems they atleast have a chance. But the world must look all roses and daisies from up on your high horse.

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:53PM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?

This is why I usually refrain from engaging you- your preferred method of response is petulance.  With snarky personal attacks.  As you mature, you may learn more effective means of engaging those with whom you disagree.  In substance, the only topical comment you make is not much different from what I said.  The only difference is that you are more optimist (with Dems, they at least have a chance) than I.

As for solutions, the Democratic establishment should stand up for their principles- instead of trying to elbow the republicans from the money trough.  But their actions over the past year in particular have demonstrated that they are more interested in serving the moneyed than the average American.  Look at the credit card bill, for example.  It reforms the industry very little.  The major abuses (usurious interest rates being the worst) are permitted to continue unabated- except now they have to print their outrageous terms in larger print.  If you're satisfied with these meaningless "reforms," more power to you.  Just recognize that there are others who are not.  And they do not deserve your snark just for disagreeing with you.  In short, grow up!

by orestes 2010-01-17 04:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?

Again no solutions... and if your upset about me stating your on a high horse to moral purity, maybe you should get off and get your feet a little muddy? The world looks and acts a lot different from down here in the trenches.

As for the CC BoR:


The legislation would require lenders to apply payments to balances with the highest interest rates first. It would prohibit increasing a consumer’s rate on existing balances based on late payments to another lender, a practice known as “universal default.”

It also would mandate 45 days’ notice before lenders can increase a card’s interest rate. It would prohibit retroactive rate increases on existing balances unless a consumer was 60 days’ late with a payment. Companies would have to revert to the original, lower rate if a cardholder stayed current six months after a late payment. The effective date is nine months after enactment.

The bill would tighten restrictions on lending to students and how gift cards are redeemed. It bans fees for paying by phone or over the Internet, except for live services to make expedited payments. "


A "little reform" is better than no reform. These are all steps to a fairer and freer republic, not an endpoint. And ofcourse the HC bill, which you are oppossing, would also go a large way to reduce CC debt since a lot of it is from medical costs.

by vecky 2010-01-17 10:12PM | 0 recs
The solution is just end the

filibuster and allow majority rule in the Senate. I do know about you but I am tired of allowing the Lieberman and the Nelson push our Party to the right.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 05:21PM | 0 recs
RE: The solution is just end the

I'll support that but I doubt it's political feasability.

by vecky 2010-01-17 10:16PM | 0 recs
Well if we failure end the filibuster

then we only have ourselves to blame for our failure. It only takes 51 votes to allow the majority to rule.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 11:01PM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?
srliberalguy, I agree 100% with you! These phoney's who got elected on "YES WE CAN CHANGE" coatail could have done lot better in creating job by spending all those tax dollar's by - Reducing Stafford Loan Interest to variable like Prime + 2% so that parent and student's to take all those high interest loans - Stafford Loan's are 6.5% and Stafford Parent's and GRADPLUS loans are 8.5%. Adding the clause to bail-out money that 90% of those money has to be used in small business loans and FIXED Rate Mortgages - new and refinance at Prime + 2% rate and eliminating closing cost, and can't use any of that to pay any bonus to executives. Have let AIG, GMAC, etc. go bankrupt instead of bailing them out - If AIG was gone bankrupt, Goldman-Sach would not have got any of their money back and they would not have awarde those big bonuses. And with AIG and Goldman-Sach and other banks ging bankrupt would not have affected common people as none have benefited so far. Spend the $$$ to immediately repair bridges and Interstate, and other infrastructure.
by PK 2010-01-17 11:50AM | 0 recs
RE: Why should I care who wins?

" And with AIG and Goldman-Sach and other banks ging bankrupt would not have affected common people "

Bahahahahahahaha.... we would be looking at an unemployment rate of 15-20% now and still counting if the financial industtry collapsed. And who would be left with that bill - right us, the people.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:53PM | 0 recs
The 60 votes strategy was the worst thing to happen to the dems

It gave a bunch of Blue dogs "democrats" the power to water down HCR to the point where it's just plain bad now.

I won't be sorry to see those 60 votes go away.

ps: I hate bipartisanship, it makes elections irrelevent

by TaiChiMaster 2010-01-16 03:30PM | 0 recs
RE: The 60 votes strategy was the worst thing to happen to the dems

This is the result of all this Selling out of principle: the base is pissed of and is staying home. Hopefully it will be a teaching moment.

More drama Obama, lol

by TaiChiMaster 2010-01-16 03:33PM | 0 recs
RE: The 60 votes strategy was the worst thing to happen to the dems

Yup it will be a teaching moment. Just like Democratic losses in 1994, 2000 and 2004 pushed them more to the right, the same will happen here. Of the 4 major domestic priorities to liberals - health care, immigration, energy and the deficit, only the latter will survive. Lessons of 94 anyone? Or have you forgotten that teaching moment already....

by vecky 2010-01-16 06:52PM | 0 recs
What if the wakeup alarm came early?

Jerome may be on to something. This lesson had been coming since summer, when we first got 60 votes. But what if a Brown loss (a seat that will be recovered in 2 years) means saving a seat in a swing state for 6 years?

The question is: what lesson do the Democrats learn?

My guess is Obama doesn't go right. I saw fiercely progressive statements from him in the past week that I hadn't seen since the campaign (the bank tax). Will the pantywaist house and senate follow him?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 12:54AM | 0 recs
RE: What if the wakeup alarm came early?

It's not a question of Obama going right - it's what happens in the house and senate. No matter how liberal Obama is, with the GOP in control or close control of Congress Obama's sole path to any accomplishment is the deficit & economy (like clinton) and even there they will try to screw him.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:37AM | 0 recs
Feingold said that THIS is the HC bill that Obama wantted all along

I believe him.

by 2010-01-16 09:13PM | 0 recs
You really can't blame the Nader voters

Either, can you?

Honestly, I am disappointed in the willingness of the Democratic Party to be captive to its right, but I'm no less disappointed in the stupidity of the remainder: it's as if the past eight years never happened.  They've returned to the view that defeat is victory and that victory is defeat. 

by Drew 2010-01-16 03:53PM | 0 recs
The naderites are a minority

The majority of non-voting democrats here in Mass are as arrogant and as complacent as Coakley was in her camapign.

I guarentee you there will be a moment of shock on Wedensday morning here that this happened.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-16 04:27PM | 0 recs
Not following closely; instinct is Coakley wins narrowly

If she led a couple of weeks ago by fairly wide margin, that should be enough to hold on. I'm never a prisoner to late overreaction. Las Vegas will teach you that in a hurry. The guys who scramble to the window based on the last bit of information are the ones who leave town on a bus within six months. Far better to step back and evaluate the big picture, the most valid foundational variables.

I've been burned by that approach in primaries. Late waves can carry over and produce a seemingly bizarre result that defies weeks old polling, particularly if it's an obscure race. This race does have some characteristics like that since neither is an incumbent and voters are forming new opinions of them every day. But since it's D vs. R and not a primary, and in a major D state in federal terms, I tend to put more stock in the edge of a week or more ago.

I wouldn't compare it to anything. Special elections of this type are so rare I think it's useless to scramble for a few dozen or a few hundred supposedly similar examples. How often do we vote for senate during the NFL playoffs?

by Gary Kilbride 2010-01-16 04:32PM | 0 recs
Time for Barack Obama to step down

This job was always way too big for him and he has not done his job.  It is time for him to be a man and admit that he does not have the skills or ability to do this job. 

by Kent 2010-01-16 04:44PM | 1 recs
RE: Time for Barack Obama to step down

really ridicoulous comment .... He is for the most part doing what he campaigned on ...

by lori 2010-01-16 04:52PM | 0 recs
RE: Time for Barack Obama to step down

He is getting neither of them done. 

by Kent 2010-01-16 05:56PM | 0 recs
There is still time

 for Obama to be a great President

by srliberalguy 2010-01-16 10:29PM | 0 recs
Friday the Brit Independent newspaper predicted

that Hillary - being 25 % points higher in the polls than Obama, already - (and hes not coming back before November people, nobody ever has) - well, they predicted she'll run against him -

Personally, because of the racial climate, I dont think she can -

Unless he loses the Congress and announces hes a one termer - but hey -

Stranger things have happened -

NOBODY thought LBJ wouldnt run again in 64 -

So you do have that hope.

by 2010-01-16 09:28PM | 0 recs
What would MyDD be without the PUMA?

I wonder.

by ND22 2010-01-16 09:51PM | 0 recs
That PUMA stench.

This one has sock puppets too, so keep an eye out. I'm not so sure this one is a PUMA, but a clever troll trying to resow the primary divisions in a moment of crisis.

But to aaaonbuhhh, did you notice? Not in a long, long time have democrats been more united than in the past week.


by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 01:27AM | 0 recs
Time for you to step down from this site

And take your concern trolling elsewhere.


by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 12:59AM | 0 recs
A couple of points

Sean Paul Kelley is ridiculous, and got put in his place by a respondant:

If healthcare does not pass... I will leave the underclass that is what I will do...
Ridiculousness aside, I am very curious about the Plan B. I sure hope there is one, as Democrats will find themselves in a lose-lose proposition. Pass the bill and anger everyone. Don't pass anything and anger everyone. I am desperately searching for some pragmatic solutions. My heart changes from one alternative to the next, trying to find a good solution, but I can't. My thoughts break down into two categories: move fast or punt. Move fast is politically risky, and the only alternative is to ping pong the senate bill. If we punt, then my suggestion is to break the bill into smaller pieces and use reconciliation. Will the populist angst go away if the bill changes and hides for a while?
by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-16 04:46PM | 0 recs
RE: A couple of points

If the bill goes away for a while it will stay hidden for far longer. The problem with reconcilliation is not just the votes (they're aren't 50) but also the timeline - in 5 years it will expire and need to be renewed. How much fun is that?


If Coakley loses, whether to punt or pass will be upto Obama. He wanted this done by August it's already mid-Jan. But he's not up for re-election in 2010. Though he must be wondering what's the point of having a democratic congress if they can't even get a bill passed.

by vecky 2010-01-16 06:57PM | 0 recs
My friend at Bob Menendez's office said this

It's interesting you pointed this out, because supposedly one of things told to Senators by Obama or some administration official was in response to an unnamed Senator saying "You need us, you can't get anything done with a Republican Congress." It was "We can't seem to get anything done with a Democratic one either"

by ND22 2010-01-16 07:11PM | 0 recs
RE: My friend at Bob Menendez's office said this

I think it will be entirely interesting what Obama will do when Coakley loses. I can see him punting and I can also see him digging in and demanding it pass.

by vecky 2010-01-17 12:11AM | 0 recs
The GOP ran out the clock

And I think pantywaist democrats wanted the same.

I mean, come on! I'm sitting here watching the clock tick by, growing more nervous every day. What must Obama have been thinking?

Let's say Brown loses and we still have 60. You can lose a democratic senator any minute and fall back to 59. It's too perilous. I have mentioned this before, but Robert Byrd is in failing health and would be replaced with a Republican. There could be a scandal or heavens forbid an accident. Lieberman could bolt the party any minute. I would not be surprised that even if Brown had never stood a chance, Lieberman would have balked at the compromised bill to tap into the same energy Brown did.

I'm beginning to wonder what the point is too?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 01:05AM | 0 recs
RE: The GOP ran out the clock

Ya... the House bill passed in SEPTEMBER. The Senate passed it's bill on Dec 24, but that bill was essentially fixed since Dec 20th. The bills are 90% similar, congress leadership has known what's in each of the bills for weeks. But here we are in the latter half of January... and they are still "negotiating". WTF...

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:42AM | 0 recs
RE: The GOP ran out the clock

The governor of WV is a democrat at the moment.  Byrd would be replaced by a dem.  Now, when that term expires... well, that's a different story!

by LordMike 2010-01-17 02:44AM | 0 recs

My understanding was that it would create a problem similar to that here in MA, where there would be a gap of no 60th senator.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 10:59AM | 0 recs
A couple of extra points


  • I found the robocall by Curth Shilling objectively distasteful and a bad move. The first words out of his mouth were about "being angered by the negative tone of the campaign". Interestingly, the calls from Clinton and Obama were upbeat and positive. Too bad this doesn't counterract every other bad decision by the Coakley campaign. I know many liberals who were appalled by the flyers. When it rains it pours.
  • You have been very astute in your observations of this race. I believe you are the most correct of any of the people I have read.
  • I agree in your polling assessment. I had come up with a similar figure by plugging Rasmussens and Suffolk's independent spread into Blue Mass Group's results. But I am not changing my line yesterday from Brown 49/Coakley 49/that other guy 2, with the margin fo victory just over 0.5% and therefore necessary to avoid a recount. I think Obama gives Coakley that little extra amount to make it super close. So I guess if I have refine my numbers, I'll say 49.3/48.7/2.0.
  • When ARG says "younger voters", beware. They draw a line at 50. From what I have observed, Brown has been consistently drawing heavy support from people in their 30's and 40's. Older and younger people go for Coakley. So I think ARG should have worded it more accurately as middle age group voters.
  • I think Jonathan Singer, Mike Barnacle, and the AP were right at the moment when they said higher turnout helps Coakley. Instinctively it seemed true, because there are so many Democrats here. But the dynamic seems to be changing radically, and the only thing consistent is the poor campaigning. If the Ras poll comes out tomorrow showing a tie or Coakley behind 1 (maybe 2), Obama will have sucked all the air out of the room for Brown.
by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-16 04:56PM | 1 recs
Instead of pissing and moaning

we should be fighting to win this race.  I see no call here to do everyhting to get out our vote.  And the criticisms of Obama for abandoning the liberals, etc. is just such bullshit.  It should be simple enough to keep this straight: the opposition is the Republicans.  Get it?  They have obstructed every effort to get effective health care reform.  They have been aided by Blue Dog Democrats.  This is not Obama's fault.

There is a lot to like in the health care bill that will emerge.  You will not get your pony; neither will I.  The WORST thing we can do is start taking shots at Democrats instead of recognizing that this will only fulfill Jim Demint's pla to make health care reform Obama's Waterloo.



by Thaddeus 2010-01-16 06:51PM | 0 recs
RE: Instead of pissing and moaning
I'm not a hard-line pro-Obama supporter--well, not initially. As a matter of fact, I supported Hillary, but, even I, can see that it is not good to miss the forest for the trees. Some people want to throw the entire bucket of tea out, because someone added too much water. Yet, they still forget that it's tea (Health Care Reform). Sometimes things have to move in smaller increments, for the HCR Bill is by no means small but just smaller. Please folks remember that or get ready for more Blue Dogs or more Republicans. I truly understand the phrase..."with democrats/liberals like that...who needs republicans/right-wingers."
by Check077 2010-01-16 07:19PM | 1 recs
RE: Instead of pissing and moaning

reform isn't furuther locking private-for profit corporations in as the very heart of our system.

This bill goes the opposite direction of where we want to go.


by jeopardy 2010-01-16 07:51PM | 0 recs
Where is it "we" want to go?

I thought we wanted to go the direction of getting access to healthcare for everyone and making it affordable...we don't need to eliminate the insurance industry and put the government completely in control of everything for that be so.

If the direction "we" need to go is eliminating private industry, then yeah, this isn't the right direction, but as far as I can tell, the Democratic Party doesn't run on eliminating industries.

by ND22 2010-01-16 08:09PM | 1 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

Jeopardy has no answers. I've tried to ascertain what his plan is, what we will get for dumping this bill and starting something else. But as far as I can see it's a big zero.

by vecky 2010-01-16 10:29PM | 0 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

I've told you and others on here many times. 

Get what you can through reconcialiation, and put some of the really popular parts like recissions in their own bills and make the GOP and Blud Dogs vote to allow the insurance companies keep doing those those things. 


ANd before you say it one more time - no, you don't know that we couldn't get 50 votes. You have no idea what would happen with presidential pressure for reconciliation.


by jeopardy 2010-01-17 12:30AM | 0 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

What can we get through reconcilliation? Everything in reconcilliation expires in 5 years anyway and will then have to be renewed. Really in exchange for giving up on a compromise bill that has got 59-60 votes your offering generalities which might or might not have the requiste 50 for legislation that will last 5 years. That dosn't strike me as a good bargain.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:46AM | 0 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

Your 5-year argument is a bad one, and here's why:


THis entire thing, whether it is with 60 votes or whether it is with 50 through reconciliation, is premised on the idea that it is going to be very popular after it goes into effect and people see the benefits. If it is not pretty popular, then it's going to be gone whenever the GOP gets back into power anyway.

It is the popularity of the policy that dictates its staying-power. The GOP has been trying to get rid of Social Security and Medicare for a long, long time, but can't because people like them.


1) the current bill's positive effects mostly don't even go into effect for 3 or 4 years, while the negative effects start sooner, like the taxes to pay for it. That greatly increases the chance that it will be unpopular and is therefore gone sooner rather than later.

2) If it is indeed popular, then renewing it 5 years from now it will be likely, and if it is not popular then there's no real reason to believe that we will get any more time for the positives in this bill than 5 years (which would be 8-9 years from now, since they don't go into effect for years)

3) If there's a chance that the stuff getting through reconciliation would be more popular than this bill (hard to see how it could be less, that's for sure), then there's a better chance for long-lasting reform through reconciliation. At the very least, it could have less of a lag time for the popular parts to start instead of just the unpopular instead of the delay that the current bill has.


by jeopardy 2010-01-17 03:05AM | 0 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

Neither Medicare nor SS were passed through reconcilliation therefore were not up for renewel in 5 years, they were thus correspondingly harder to kill. Killing a reconcilliation measure only requires Congress do nothing, something Congress is very good at. With reconcilliation we're going to have the exact same deabte in 5 years we're having now, and i highly doubt it's going to be any easier to pass in 5 years when who knows who will be in power with how much of a majority.

The "lag time" in the bill is part of how it's paid for, unless you want to add to the defecit. It will take a couple of years or more for the overpyaments in the medicare system to be scaled back and generate savings.

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

And I've stopped responding to you and nofortunatewhatever because you act like Bush's 25% that stayed with him no matter what. You reflexively defend Obama now matter how much he gives the insurance and banking industries and you are disrespectful to anybody who dares disagree with you. It's pointless to talk with you.

by jeopardy 2010-01-17 12:34AM | 0 recs
Nah, we're just Obama's 51%

I'm well aware of Obama's missteps and shortcomings this first year. But he is our only hope now. He's the President for another 3 years. And if he goes down right now, we all go down.

But I think that's what you'd like. You'll never get that satisfaction, though.

So start making calls with the rest of us, okay? I've made dozens today. How about you?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 01:34AM | 1 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

You may have missed it, but the trade-off to the banking and insurance industries are what was required to get 60 votes, not Obamas signature. Your in fact more like the Bush 25, reflexingly blaming Obama for stuff done by Nelson and Liberman & the GOP.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:49AM | 1 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

sorry, but it's what you get when you run as fast as you can to give into every new demand by people who want to kill real reform while you tell progressives to take a hike.


You decide to givbe lieberman what he wants then what you get is this bill - a furter entrenchment of for-profit companies as the gateway we have to pass through to get our health care, and a lack of enforcement for anything besides the mandate.

It's the opposite of what we need, which would be to move away from private insurance companies. Instead, we force more people to be their customers and throw even more money at them that will then be used to buy even more of our legislators.


I think it is pretty clear we are not going to agree on this. But just know that a lot of us who worked for Obama's campaign see this as selling out the American people to the insurance companies to preserve Obama's "bipartisan" image and to be able to call something, anything, "health care reform"

by jeopardy 2010-01-17 02:51AM | 2 recs
RE: Where is it "we" want to go?

The logic circuits aren't firing - it's hard for me to understand how folk who currently don't have insurance receiving credits to buy it is "selling out the American people to the insurance companies." Or how adding a further 15 million people to the medicaid roles is the same.

I support a single payer system either like the VA or medicare, but I understand there aren't 50, let alone 60 votes in the senate for it (not to mention 218 in the house).

I've asked you before how many votes you have for your "real reform" plan, and you've dodged and weaved. You really offer nothing as a way to move forward so you cna see why I and others have a problem supporting your position.

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:08PM | 0 recs
RE: Instead of pissing and moaning

Ah, the argument of last resort:  just shut up and get in line.  With a this is not Obama's fault chaser.

Better to make this plea to our elected Dems than disenfranchised voters.  If they just shut up and rallied around the party's principles, we wouldn't be in this mess. 

by orestes 2010-01-17 04:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Instead of pissing and moaning

Ah, the argument of last resort:  just shut up and get in line.  With a this is not Obama's fault chaser.

Better to make this plea to our elected Dems than disenfranchised voters.  If they just shut up and rallied around the party's principles, we wouldn't be in this mess. 

by orestes 2010-01-17 04:44PM | 0 recs
The most important finding of the ARG poll is the followinig

Brown leads Coakley 94% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 58% to 37% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 71% to 20% among registered Democrats.

It is clear why Coakley is behind. Brown is pulling support from one in every five Democrat. Flip that Democrat, and Coakley would be coasting. The Democrats have the right focus in bringing in Clinton followed by Obama and others to help consolidate Democrats behind Coakley. Notwithstanding the punditry of TV talking heads, the fight is far from over


by louisprandtl 2010-01-16 08:07PM | 0 recs
of course

those 20% of Democrats are voting for Brown because they want single-payer dammit!!

Just like the 49% of Democrats who want to keep Gitmo open really only want to free everyone and turn it into a resort, or the 57% of Democrats who think the government hasn't done enough to safeguard the country really feel that way because they're upset Obama is like Bush on national security, the 49% of Democrats who think we should stay in Afghanistan really think so because they're so anti-war, and 47% of Democrats who support the Stupak amendment really only do so because they want women to be given more rights to have an abortion...somehow.


by ND22 2010-01-16 08:53PM | 0 recs
Don't believe the 20%

In Massachusetts, most of our voters are unenrolled. There about 3 democrats for every unenrolled. Based on the responses, what I think ARG did was not rigidly differentiate between D and U. Many people are U and just identify over the phone as D, even if they are not registered. The question might not have been clear. Coakley was losing 12+% of democrats in the Ras and R2k polls, while Brown was losing ~7% of Republicans. I do not believe that 1 in 5 real registered D's are falling for Brown.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 01:09AM | 0 recs
Turn out

We need a high turn out!  Damn it wake up MA!

by kevin22262 2010-01-16 09:13PM | 0 recs
RE: Turn out
Where has the DNC been in this race? Would be intered to know where the local offices were...funded? When Dean had his active 50 state strategy with focus on local races it was a different strategy. I get the feeling that Kaine has reverted to the former Emanuel (DLC) stategy...blowing out there in the wind. Kaine dropped the ball on this one!
by lja 2010-01-16 09:24PM | 0 recs
Kaine needs to be fired

Howard Dean would have never let this happen.  Never in a million years.  We need someone who will bring back the much needed 50 state strategy. 

by Kent 2010-01-16 09:56PM | 0 recs

shut up already.

by ND22 2010-01-16 11:38PM | 0 recs
Why so rude nd22?

Us liberals will not just shut and vote for Democrats anymore. Have fun trying to win elections without the liberal vote.

BTW polls based on likely and liberal voters are less likely to vote at this point.  I hope Coakely wins but I am not willing to work for it and then be told by people like to:

shut up already

by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 12:48AM | 0 recs
RE: Why so rude nd22?

This is not about winning elections, it's about the fate of the country. If some liberals want to sit home and not vote then we'll keep ending up with "leaders" like Bush, McCain or Palin. If you don't want to vote for the democrats that's fine, but vote for the USA.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:53AM | 0 recs
So I as a Liberal

should vote for bad Democrats because they are not as bad as Republicans. Maybe you are right but maybe we should start demanding more from President Obama. I want him to be Great because I know he has the ability to be Great. I am done with settling for bad over terrible.

Like or not Democrats cannot win if Liberals stay home. Give us a reason to come out vote and we will. Even if the Democrats lose this election we can still pass any bill we want. Just kill the filibuster. Losing this election is only the end of the world if we let it.

How about passing the union card check bill?

by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 02:40AM | 0 recs
RE: So I as a Liberal

I'm sure Obama WOULD pass the card check bill if he could, but he can't...  He's not the legislative branch.

BTW, if Brown wins, there dcertainly won't be ANY card check bill ever....  Trumka was predicting a card check bill passed before spring with the HC stuff almost done.  That won't happen with Brown!

by LordMike 2010-01-17 02:49AM | 0 recs
RE: So I as a Liberal

Hate to break it to you but the card check provision of the EFCA was an even greater uphill climb than the PO.

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Somehow I'm not moved by threats

from people who just showed up on a blog in the last few days.



by ND22 2010-01-17 05:21AM | 0 recs
RE: So I as a Liberal

You should vote for who you think will be better for your country. That's all that I do.

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude
if you weren't some PUMA sock puppet, you'd know that Kent is a troll who has been predicting doom since before Obama was even elected, even going so far as calling the race for McCain after Palin was chosen and seeking to "save the House" In fact, Kent suggested on this site a few months ago that we should never have bothered with healthcare, period and just passed tax cuts.
by ND22 2010-01-17 02:07AM | 0 recs
Still Rude nd22

Well I'll live.  I work for, gave money and vote for Obama, but people like you are driving people like me out of the Democratic Party. Well good luck with that.


by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 02:47AM | 0 recs
RE: Still Rude nd22


it seems that on this blog, if you dare to criticise the giant giveaways to the very companies that are screwing us get personally attacked with vulgarities.


by jeopardy 2010-01-17 03:11AM | 0 recs

nice knowing ya...for the five minutes since you showed up here.

by ND22 2010-01-17 05:19AM | 0 recs

nice knowing ya...for the five minutes since you showed up here.

by ND22 2010-01-17 05:19AM | 0 recs
RE: Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude

The banking bailout wasnt much different under Obama as it was under Bush. Healthcare reform doesnt affect me personally. So what has really changed for me to give a damn? Sure the Gitmo thing was better under Bush, but the human abuses there pale next to collateral damage suffered in needless wars.

How is my life better now than it was last year? Obama is pandering to the likes of Lieberman. So why should I give a damn?

Politicians cant have it both ways. Give the middle finger to progressives and then expect them to show the same enthusiasm which translates to high turnout. There were things that Obama people have done that had nothing to do with political expediency - like the marginalization of people like Dean. Do you think a single right winger who hates Dean will now vote for a Democrat because of that? The bailout of banks was the perfect time to get concessions. Now Obama foolishly asks for some reforms when he has nothing more to offer them. He failed the very basic lesson of negotiation. Such incompetence embarrasses me.

by Pravin 2010-01-17 08:44AM | 1 recs
RE: Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude

I mean the abuses at Gitmo were worse under Bush.

by Pravin 2010-01-17 08:45AM | 0 recs
Doesn't affect you personally?

A real progressive doesn't think only of themselves. There are a lot of people who will be hurt by a Republican return to power and a lot of people who will be helped by even watered down reform, if you can't think of them when you vote, then I'm not sure how you can consider yourself progressive?

I would personally beneft from Republican rule. That estate tax is really eating into my inheritance. Whether abortion or gay marriage is illegal or legal makes no difference in my life, but when I vote, I think of the greater good of society, not whether or not I've been personally attended to. Doesn't sound like you're interested in really helping people, sounds like you're only interested in feeling personally vindicated and victorious in political fights, because if you were really interested in helping people and felt our current crop fell short, you'd be out there fired up for primaries, rather than threaten to committ political suicide.

I never thought I'd see such selfish people touting as progressives.

by ND22 2010-01-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
RE: Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude

SCHIP expansion... vetoed by Bush, signed by Obama. Is that waving the middle finger at liberals?

Ya... your life might not be "any better". But this is not about you.

by vecky 2010-01-17 02:15PM | 0 recs
RE: Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude

It was an intentionally flip comment from me. I would gladly vote for someone who stands up for certain principles even if they dont benefit me as long as there is leadership and courage. I don't see that in the Democratic Party's ruling power bases.

In the absence of that, I am going to say fuck it and see what harm am i getting by disengaging myself temporarily. It's the progressives being taken for granted(I am not a typical lefty as I subscribe to some conservative views) that makes me thikn that the only leverage we have is to be passive at the polls. The problem is not us, it is the lack of introspection among the Democratic leaders why they are not geting the support they took for granted. Instead, they just whine and act petulant towards the base they take for granted.

by Pravin 2010-01-18 04:44AM | 0 recs
RE: Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude

Being passive at the polls is not leverage, at least not as far as I can see.

Coakley, who is a pretty solid progresive, is getting support of 90% of liberals. But only 42% of moderates. She may win with GOTV but it's clear it's moderates who are bolting, not progressives.

by vecky 2010-01-18 12:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Good God, pull the stick out of your ass dude
Can you grow up? Seriously, you do nothing but name call here. Just ignore what you don't like.
by Jerome Armstrong 2010-01-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Pot Kettle Black Jerome


by ND22 2010-01-17 03:38PM | 0 recs
I do not think you agree with me on this election, but

Thanks Jerome

What some do not get is I want President Obama to be the Great President and that is why people like me are demanding more from him. We know President Obama has the ability to be great and our nation needs a Great President in this point of our History.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-17 05:32PM | 0 recs
RE: Turn out

The Boston Herald is predicting presidential-election like turnout... could be as high as 70% of registered voters!

by LordMike 2010-01-17 02:46AM | 0 recs
I don't know if that is good or not now

The CW last week was that higher turnout was good. I want to see polls tonight to see if Brown's momentum has been stopped. If polls like PPP and Ras show the race with Coakley down 1 or better, then I think we have a good shot. If the polls show her down 2, then I think it is a nail biter. If polls show her still down 3, then I think it is a long shot, but hope that she gets close enough for a recount. Worse than that, and I retain my sentiment that this race was over.


by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
Mixed hints from PPP


More democrats, but a higher percentage of Obama voters for Brown.  I'd say it's about Brown by one percent, which is unchanged from last week.  So even if it's a more Democratic electorate, I think Jerome may be right--he's getting a chunk of less engaged Obama Democrats.

BTW, the weather forecast in Massachusetts for Tuesday is for temps in the 30s and no snow.


by esconded 2010-01-16 10:41PM | 0 recs
RE: Mixed hints from PPP

<blockquote>I think Jerome may be right--he's getting a chunk of less engaged Obama Democrats.</blockquote>


Why is HE getting them? Why would they vote Republican unless they felt the Democrats were too liberal?

You see why Brown winning would be the end of any progressive agenda? Because a fifth of Democrats feeling to Republicans means a fifth of the party thinks we're already too liberal.

by ND22 2010-01-16 11:39PM | 0 recs
Don't misread this part of the poll

Obama won here on an almost 2:1 margin.

Low information voters cut both ways. Obama surely received a portion of low information voters in the general election here. It is only expected that they could fall for this turkey and his tactics.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 01:25AM | 1 recs
RE: Mixed hints from PPP

That is a silly argument- and part of the reason why Dems are so ineffective.  This is Teddy Kennedy's seat.  There is no reason to believe that voters want a more conservative Democratic party.  If you have an argument to back your conclusion, I would be interested to hear it.  If Dems take the view that they need to move to the right, it is because that is the direction in which they want to move and this provides them the excuse.  And shame on them if they try that canard again.

by orestes 2010-01-17 02:51PM | 0 recs
Brown is pulling 20% of DEMOCRATS
for Ted Kennedy's seat, how can this not mean they're looking for a more conservative Senator?!?!
by ND22 2010-01-17 03:37PM | 0 recs
RE: Brown is pulling 20% of DEMOCRATS

Isn't it just as possible that some Dems are venting their frustration at the failure to achieve any sort of the reform (change) promised by Obama?  Can it not be an expression of anger at the bank bailouts and health insurance reform?  Especially if they see Coakley as another Dem who would be willing to cave to these un-Democratic actions? 

I don't see how any Dem could reasonably think that the American people do not real progressive reform.  I think many are disillusioned that they are getting the opposite.  Of course, we can revisit this issue when we see how Dems actually vote on Tuesday.  I would expect the 20% are more likely not to vote than to vote for Brown.

by orestes 2010-01-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
By voting for the Republican

no, there aren't that many idiots in the Democratic Party, sorry.


Not to mention many of these Brown Democrats approve of Obama, check the polls, he has a high approval rating in Massachusetts, so no, that's not why.

by ND22 2010-01-17 08:36PM | 0 recs
RE: By voting for the Republican

OK, you can choose to disregard the possibility.  I never think that is the best course.

As you to your support, you are making a false correlation.  There is no evidence to support your claim that the Brown voters approve of Obama.  It is just as likely that they are part of the polled who did not approve of Obama. 

by orestes 2010-01-17 09:21PM | 0 recs
ok, I'm going to try to be as nice as possible here

the polls have repeadidly, clearly, shown that Obama's approval rating is 5-10 points hire than Coakley's share of the vote and his disapproval is 5-10 points LOWER than Brown's share of the vote, meaning there is a big overlap of Obama supporters who are voting or Brown. Another words if Obama's disapproval in Massachusetts is 57% and Brown is getting 47% of the vote as Rasmussen showed last week, that means there's at least a 4% overlap. 100-57=43, meaing 43% is Obama's disapproval/unsure rating, assuming Brown is getting all those votes, which even isn't certain, he's getting at least 4% of the 57% who approve of Obama. Nate Silver even talked about this.

The Rasmussen poll that just came out -- one which shows Coakley's lead shrinking from 9 to 2 points -- also shows Barack Obama with a 57 percent approval rating (versus 41 percent opposed) among likely voters, and the health care bill favored by 52 percent of likely voters (versus 46 percent opposed).

According to the poll's internals, right now about 8 percent of the electorate both (a) favors health care reform, and (b) has not been brought into Coakley's column. This includes 5 percent of the electorate which favors health care but is planning to vote for Scott Brown, 2 percent for the independent candidate, and 1 percent who favor health care who are undecided.

In addition, about 11 percent of the electorate approve of Barack Obama but are not planning to vote for Coakley.

If that isn't clear enough, here's a letter to Andrew Sullivan from an Obama supporter who is voting for Brown;


I was a very early supporter of Obama. I was living in New Hampshire two years ago. I signed up to go door-to-door to talk to people about his candidacy and in contrast to Hilary. I trudged through feet of snow in the week before the primary. I entered homes and had great discussions with my fellow residents. I went to Claremont, NH and shook Obama's hand. I rallied the night before the primary in Concord. He lost the state but I knew we were on the right side of history.

I'm with you in thinking that Obama is the best thing the Democrats have going for them right now. But I also think that in having the supermajority, they actually undercut him. They don't have to compromise and so they don't try to. Instead, what passes as legislation is a horrid mismash of corporate interests and traditional, not progressive, balms of the Democratic Party. I know this country can do much, much better. And I think Obama needs a less powerful Democratic party to make it happen, like Clinton did.

For all the reasons you cite about Coakley, I'm voting for Brown. But let me add a few more. I'm a split-the-ballot kind of guy. I don't think the dominance of the political system by one party is ever good for the country. Too much changes too quickly and without the necessary compromises to slow the pace and make it more realistic. We all agree that the GOP is a mess. But we also all agree that we need a stronger GOP. And despite the rhetoric, I can't think of a better candidate to help than Scott Brown. He's not perfect, but if he thinks he can go along with the national GOP and keep the seat in the next election, he's going to be out of a job. In voting for him, I hope he'll moderate that party. And that's what's funny to me about the rush of support he's getting from the Right. If a Republican from Massachusetts isn't a RINO to them, I don't know who is. It also helps that Brown has already voted for a health care plan with a public option. So to someone like Malkin who was ready to toss away a Congressional seat in NY for "purity", I now laugh at their support of Brown

My only hesitation in voting for Brown is how that vote will be spun by the mediots in the Beltway. Let me say emphatically that my vote for Brown isn't a vote against Obama. It's a vote against the Democratic Party, and hacks like Coakley, but also a vote to help moderate the GOP. One more New England Republican is necessary. Of all the places the GOP might find it's path again I hope it's from where it was born.

I was a very early supporter of Obama. I was living in New Hampshire two years ago. I signed up to go door-to-door to talk to people about his candidacy and in contrast to Hilary. I trudged through feet of snow in the week before the primary. I entered homes and had great discussions with my fellow residents. I went to Claremont, NH and shook Obama's hand. I rallied the night before the primary in Concord. He lost the state but I knew we were on the right side of history.


How much more proof do you need?

by ND22 2010-01-17 10:19PM | 0 recs
RE: ok, I'm going to try to be as nice as possible here

To add to that the latest PPP poll (today), Brown leading 51-46 shows:

" - Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote. "


" the likely electorate now reports having voted for Barack Obama by 19 points, up from 16 a week ago, "


Browns lead has increased as more Obama voters are supporting the anti-HC anti-PO candidate over the one who is in favor of both.

by vecky 2010-01-17 11:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Brown is pulling 20% of DEMOCRATS

Maybe it is because the Dems are doing the bidding of the Insurance and Pharma industries, and Coakley is one of the worst of them:


Part of a Washington Examiner article re: the Coakley fundfraiser:

Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients.

Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.

All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

by jeopardy 2010-01-17 06:05PM | 1 recs
That is actually good news for Coakley

Remember, Obama won the state 2:1. It is not surprising that 1 in 5 Obama voters are breaking for Brown. There are a large number of Independents here.

Too close to call (Coakley down by 1, maybe 2) and an increasingly enthusiastic democratic base are good news.

I can't ride the emotional rollercoatser anymore. But if Obama hits it out of the park tomorrow at (one of my two) alma mater(s) and gets national attention for the content of his speech, it may be enough to help her come within the magic 0.5% needed for a recount.

Remember that number: 0.5%

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 01:18AM | 1 recs
Failure to pass health care bill is bad for Dems

"if Brown wins, that may not be the worst outcome for Democrats up for re-election in 2010."

It's not that the health care bill is any good, it's awful, it's that public will perceive Democrats as ineffective as they did in '94.  So if Brown wins, the GOP and GOP media will spin it as public moving to the right when in fact the reason Coakley will lose is that Democrats alienated the activist Democratic base which we see in the 70% of Democrats number for Coakley.

Democrats can still pass it by killing the filibuster or using the reconciliation process.  60 votes is the reason the health care bill is not health care reform.  So killing the filibuster in response to Brown win allows Democrats to add some actual reform to the bill and to deal with other issues like global warming, deficit/debt, equal rights since Democrat will certainly lose the 60 vote majority in 2010 anyway.

by Themistocles 2010-01-16 11:20PM | 0 recs
RE: Brown favored to win

IN the end, this is all the begining of a fight over the incorporation.  Do we expect our Govt. to do the work for us (Extreem liberal Dems), Help us protect ourselves from bad business (Mainline Dems), Help us protect ourselves from inefficiency (mainline Republicans), or hobble Govt. and let the free market run free (Extreem right Republicans).

I know this is a very general statement, but this country was founded on, has lived by, and is currently in lock step

Most people are not pissed about HCR one way or the other.  They are pissed that the Govt. IS NOT WORKING...just like the Republicans want.  The Republicans way does make the Govt. workable, but usually in a way (lately) that placates the religous right while ethically/morally/financially raping the rest of us in a business way.

Look at who Dems (as a whole) are facing...Big Pharma, Big HealthCare, Big Oil, and the Media.  All of them business that have lots more to gain with the system staying the same right now and all of them with lots to LOOSE (they think) if the system starts to change.

This all boils down to business.  I have absolutely no idea how to stop us from strip-minig ourselves into becoming the UK at this point...we are cutting our own throat while China bides her time...stupid.

by Hammer1001 2010-01-17 12:57AM | 2 recs
RE: Brown favored to win

Good post. That's my own view as well.

by vecky 2010-01-17 01:56AM | 0 recs
How Sad

Ted Kennedy fought so hard for health care reform all through his career. How sad it is that his death is one of the events that are about to kill health care reform.

Obama made the same mistake as Clinton by not taking advantage of his honeymoon period to pass major legislation such as energy, financial regulatory and health care reform. Studies show that the bulk of a president's major domestic achievements occur during the honeymoon period. It was admirable that he tried a bipartisan approach. Unfortunately, the GOP took it as a sign of weakness and they took advantage, and in the end, his bipartisan approach was his downfall.

The good news is that there is an inverse correlation to popularity in the first year of a presidency with eventual success in a presidency. I predict after the Democrats lose big in 2010, Obama will comeback and score a big victory in 2012.

by Zzyzzy 2010-01-17 02:05AM | 2 recs
Yeah, just wonderful

Obama will get reelected after signing Social Security Privitization and then after he gets reelected, signs a huge capital gains tax cut.  Obama is the problem here.  He is the one that is causing our downfall. 

by Kent 2010-01-17 03:09AM | 0 recs
You are the problem here

Not Obama. The Bush fanboys only wish he would do just that.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-17 11:13AM | 0 recs
RE: How Sad

Remember that this is the heath insurance bill Obama wanted all along.  So, it appears that he used his honeymoon period to get passed exactly what he wanted.  It is just not a very Democratic or popular bill.

by orestes 2010-01-17 02:47PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads