MLK Day open thread

The trend is not Martha's friend. I don't believe that it'll be a 10% blowout like Pollster shows, but at this point, the upset would be for Martha Coakley to win. Republicans would flip their wig.

Basically though, Mass voters have a history of liking the forced bipartisanship. Four of their last five governors have been Republicans. It's only Deval Patrick, which was Axlerod's first go at the hope-and-change narrative, subsequently used by Obama, which changed that equation.

Coakley is said to be releasing an ad that nationalizes the contest. I'll update with the ad, but this sounds like a good move; something that should have been done a week ago, rather than the poor and desperate negative assults over abortion and rape that didn't dent Brown, but did lower Coakley's approval ratings.

Also, I had mentioned this previously, and now see there's a poll to confirm my suspicions. Barbara Boxer is probably going to have a very competitive election in 2010 in CA. A ticket of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer at the top of the slate for Democrats there will be vulnerable. Rasmussen is showing Boxer up over Carly Fiorina by 46-43, a mere 3 percent. By far, Fiorina is the strongest of the three potential GOP candidates.



Brown is wiping Coakley out on the SocNets:

As of Monday morning, Republican Scott Brown has 76,538 fans on his Facebook page. With polls opening in less than 24 hours, Democrat Martha Coakley has 14,441 fans.

On Twitter, Brown has 10,187 followers compared to Coakley's 3,514 followers. The total uploaded views for Brown's YouTube videos are 578,271 versus 51,173 for Coakley.

[UPDATE] Two more polls out. IA showing a 9% Brown lead, and R2K moving from a 8% Coakley  lead last week to a tie yesterday. My own calculations now predict Brown-Coakley-Kennedy at 53-46-1. I think we can expect a Ras. poll out tomorrow, and that's about it.

Tags: Martha Coakley, Scott Brown, Barbara Boxer (all tags)



Agree. National works

Especially if its National Health Service.


by Trey Rentz 2010-01-18 12:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Agree. National works

Progressives = GOTV. Only 20 percent of the voters are going to actually show up. Its all GOTV who will win. Progressives will show up in DROVES if Martha decides to go with an NHS.

God. Ted Kennedy's voice for Healthcare reform silenced, and a republican voice installed. Think about how lame that truly is.


by Trey Rentz 2010-01-18 12:02PM | 0 recs
RE: Agree. National works

what is lame is calling the current legislation health care reform. That's the problem right there.  The country isn't buying, even the good people of MA know a turkey when they see one.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-01-18 12:28PM | 0 recs
DId it ever occur to any of you nuts

that healthcare is NOT an issue in Massachusetts as this is the only state that already has universal health care.

I guess the people of Massachusetts know a turkey, since this bill is roughly the same system they have...and love.

by ND22 2010-01-18 04:11PM | 0 recs
RE: DId it ever occur to any of you nuts

It did. And I already knew the Massachusetts system existed - here's the thing:  Coakley went negative and she went local.

And at the same time she went into the pockets of the lobbyists. This blew her out of the water with the independents and progressives.


My point is that this is a special election, and its all about Get out the vote.  Progressives vote primaries and they vote specials. John Q. Average ignores them and keeps driving to work.


And so, Coakley's patent inability to articulate anything even near progressive about the key issue of healthcare alienated her from the people that would be out to vote for her.


And so, you've got the GOP machine working on GOTV there -and they use their own tactics. If the progressives leave the Dems, they will lose everything they have.


And right now, the key indicator that the Dems couldn't give a damn about progressives is what precisely the senate did for healthcare.



by Trey Rentz 2010-01-18 08:23PM | 0 recs
RE: DId it ever occur to any of you nuts

P.S. My point was that Coakley can go National and that will boost her GOTV

by Trey Rentz 2010-01-18 08:25PM | 0 recs
Don't see how she turns it around...

3 things ....

His gap with independents is too wide...

Her favorability rating is almost dead even while his is 20 points apart...

She seems to be losing by double digits in  bellweather communities....

The race is somewhere between the blowout in VA and the close race in NJ . I think the 10 point margin is indeed realistic .

I don't think Obama can help her...

Unless something dramatic happens , I don't see how the train is stopped...



by lori 2010-01-18 12:15PM | 0 recs
RE: Don't see how she turns it around...

How do you know she's losing by double digits in "bellweather" communities?

by LordMike 2010-01-18 12:53PM | 0 recs
RE: Don't see how she turns it around...

Suffolk (or Survey?) new poll of certain key counties has Brown ahead. Not 2-1, but a good 10-15 pts.

by vecky 2010-01-18 02:09PM | 0 recs
how she might win

by apologizing for saying she would vote for the senate HCR legislation and promising to vote against it.

She may have not been visible enough or said some dumb things, but she is losing because people do not like the healtcare bill.  No one except the senate, congress and people who think Obama must be supported at all costs believe this bill is a good thing.

The party is NOT helping Martha by saying a win for her is the only way to get it passed.  It is as if they want her to lose to have a way out of the mess.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-01-18 12:26PM | 0 recs
Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

The smug projection of the Heighten the Contradictions people sickens me. Why not let 48,000 more people die than necessary. If anything it will hasten the day of the Revolution!

Typically voiced from comfortable living rooms where everyone has a health insurance card in their wallets. Vanguard Revolutionaries always claim to speak for the people "No one except" even as they let those people die in the streets. Because it is for the Revolution you know.

The New Left took this approach in the late sixties and all through the seventies and finally achieved the revolutionary change they were looking for.

Kinda. The got themselves the Reagan Revolution. And killed the reformists of the New Frontier/Great Society type and delivered the Democratic Party to the DLC, i.e. Joe Lieberman. Heckuva job purists. Hope you sleep well, because that cancer on my ear is growing only slowly, the operation will probably wait for the perfect bill.

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". Boy Howdy.

Discussion of this from another blogger

by Bruce Webb 2010-01-18 02:47PM | 2 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

quite frankly, the "purists" were willing to live with some compromise. But not everyone has the time to read every freaking clause in the HCR bill. What we get are the numerous bend over moves by the Democrats to a few Blue Dogs without much compromise from the other side(at least what is conveyed to us). Maybe you should blame the Obama people for not doing a better job explaining why the bill is still good. It doesn't help that they openly alienate the people the "purists" trust which makes people distrust the HCR even if is still better than nothing. What the common person, which includes someone like me, sees is that we have this mandate that everyone is forced to get insurance, but the payback to the common citizen doesn't offset it. Now, if we are offbase, then it is the failure of the Obama admin and senior Democrats to relay that. Republicans did an excellent job with repetition of their talking points when they were in power. With the Democrats, it is tough to see what is going on. I follow MYDD and I confess that I am confused as to what is going on.

This is the key thing. When there are complex issues many of us do not have time to examine in close detail, it is part of the selling job the senior democrats need to do to earn our trust so we can place our blind trust in the details while they convince us of the bigger issues involved with a bill.

by Pravin 2010-01-18 06:59PM | 0 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

Ahhh, so I get it. It's about marketing and PR rather than policy.

The tradeoff/payback for the mandate is quite clear: ban on recession and pre-exisiting condition discrimination. With the exception of PO the bill is pretty close to what Obama laid out in his Joint Session speech to Congress. So i'm not sure what else you would have us do.

by vecky 2010-01-18 07:15PM | 0 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

except they set up an enforcement mechanism for the mandate, but not for the ban on recissions or pre-existing conditions


by jeopardy 2010-01-18 07:21PM | 0 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

The didn't "setup" anything new. The IRS, the Justice Dept and the HS are all exisiting departments. The HS in particualr has been gratned expanded power to police insurance comapnies and ensure those particpating in the exchanges are complying with the law.

by vecky 2010-01-18 07:32PM | 0 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

They didn't set up anything new, that's correct. They assigned the enforcement power for the mandate to the IRS. 


The Senate Bill didn't assign enforcement power for recissions to any part of the Federal Government, and the Seante leadership briefed reporters that it will fall to each state to enforce it, and they won't even get Fed money to do it. 

In other words, the mandate is getting enforced, while the enforcement for the recission ban will be pretty much nonexistant.

by jeopardy 2010-01-19 01:40AM | 0 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

Provided a confrence bill ever emereges the exchanges will most likely be national, thus under the HHS.

But even if not it's not the end of the world. How does MA enforce their recission ban?

by vecky 2010-01-19 02:55AM | 0 recs
RE: Plus the 50 million people without health insurance

I'm not sure how/if they enforce it in MA.


But I do know that CA hasn't been able to properly enforce their recission ban. I've given you links before.


And those are states with mostly Dems in the legislative/judicial branches. You think that Mississippi is going to do anything to enforce it?





by jeopardy 2010-01-19 03:53PM | 0 recs
How about a wager on who would win?
You buy me a drink if MC wins and vice versa for Brown win next time when I visit DC area.
by louisprandtl 2010-01-18 12:29PM | 0 recs
RE: How about a wager on who would win?

OK, with the only caveat that I have to still be picking Brown come tomorrow-- still a couple of polls out in the field.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-01-18 12:59PM | 0 recs
The last two polls might indicate any effect from the visits of Obama
and Clinton if any...
by louisprandtl 2010-01-18 01:06PM | 0 recs
by The BBQ Chicken Madness 2010-01-18 12:35PM | 0 recs
Carly Fiorina?

The person who destroyed HP?  God help us!

I would think that there would be tens if not hundreds of thousands of current and former HP employees working hard to defeat her...

by LordMike 2010-01-18 12:52PM | 0 recs
We can get Tony Perkins and heirs of Hewlett and Packard to fund
that race for sure...
by louisprandtl 2010-01-18 01:04PM | 1 recs
Speaking of California...

....the Democratic Bench is very thin.  Boxer needs to retire, and we're stuck with Jerry Brown. 

There's nobody out there.


by esconded 2010-01-18 01:26PM | 0 recs
This is Obama's swan song

You can't spend the whole first year demoralizing your base and expect them to turn out for you.  It's a basic equation.

by Drummond 2010-01-18 01:41PM | 1 recs
Progressive purists at it again

Just like in 1980 and in 2000 the progressive purists are going to screw us again.  After Reagan it has been a 30 year slide in the middle class.  After Bush - well we all know that story. 

Now the so-called progressives are going to help a tea party candidate win.  I think like the old prophets we will be in the wilderness of a long time. 

Beck and Limbaugh along with a compliant MSM will spin this that the teapartiers are mainstream - just like they did for Reagan and Bush. 

by Moonwood 2010-01-18 02:14PM | 2 recs
RE: Progressive purists at it again

It's not about being "pure."  A politician has to earn votes.  Obama hasn't earned liberal votes, and many of them are sitting it out tomorrow.  You can whine about how unpragmatic that is, but most people aren't political activists.  They expect to get something for their vote.  He's delivered nothing really, and continues to take the base for granted.  He did it at his peril, and now he's going to pay the price.

by Drummond 2010-01-18 02:44PM | 1 recs
RE: Progressive purists at it again

Great, let's throw around the pork and everyone will be happy.

by vecky 2010-01-18 04:04PM | 0 recs
Actually, if you've been paying attention

High turnout is expected, including liberals, who are going 90-10 for Coakley, it's moderates who are going overwhelmingly for Brown.

Lesson, you can't win unless you please the base and moderates at the same time.

by ND22 2010-01-18 04:09PM | 1 recs
RE: Actually, if you've been paying attention

Well he's done everything he can to appease moderates.  In a way I'm glad we're going to lose the 60th vote.  Now the party leadership will be less obsessed about watering everything down to get the Lieberman or Nelson vote.  And maybe they'll fight for something.

by Drummond 2010-01-18 09:12PM | 0 recs

unless they eliminate the filibuster, they're not going to have to water bills down to get not only Lieberman and Nelsons, but Snowes too.

by ND22 2010-01-18 09:14PM | 0 recs
RE: How?

By fight drummond means blame republicans. Sure it may not result in any substantive policy, but it'll be a useful foil going into the elections. haha.

by vecky 2010-01-18 09:30PM | 0 recs
RE: How?

And Snowe is going to be hard to get now that Reid has insulted her multiple times in public.

by LordMike 2010-01-18 10:18PM | 0 recs
the purists know

they can't win, so they're mad. I mean who the fuck is so naive to think Independents are fleeing to the Republican candidate because we didn't pass single payer or tax the hell out of the rich?

I mean really, there's a lot of delusion in that kind of thinking.

by ND22 2010-01-18 04:14PM | 0 recs
RE: the purists know

I'm not so sure.  I understand the political realities of why single-payer or high-end taxes don't fly these days, but outrage among moderates is not the primary hurdle.  Having blocks of votes locked up by various industry groups seems like a better explanation.  I think the simplicity of having a single-payer system would speak to a lot of independents.  When things get as complicated as they now are in the HRC bill, people (Indies) just assume it's because politicians are all crooks.  I don't disagree with these people.

Let me reiterate that I support HRC and I think the Dems should pass it.  But, I've had a long-standing hypothesis that if someone could actually run Congress without the heavy-handed influence of corporations, they would sweep up vast majorities of Indies.  These people aren't Leftist or Rightist in their thinking, but they don't stand complex compromises too well, because they figure it's an elaborate scheme to enrich certain interests.  They're probably right.

by the mollusk 2010-01-18 05:18PM | 0 recs
RE: the purists know

Independents are fleeing 'cos nothign is getting done.  Had "single payer" passed in June, we wouldn't even be talking about this... We'd be onto toher things.  The gcongress has been amazingly ineffective, especially with one party running things.  That rubs off on poeple, especially suring a bad time.

by LordMike 2010-01-18 08:48PM | 0 recs
yes and no

Had single payer passed in June after being rammed through, I think we would've been talking about this. "Hello sir, say goodbye to Aetna and hello to the Department of HHS" would not sell with moderates, even if it does eventually work. Remember one of the concerns about the bill with the public was "I want to keep my plan if I want to"

Having said that, if the bill passed five months ago (like the President wanted btw), no, we wouldn't have had this problem. But Lieberman, Nelson and the GOP knew that and because Lieberman wants revenge, Nelson fears a larger caucus and the GOP fears a permanent Dem majority, they had to drag it on until the public got tired of it.

This is why, btw, I think some bloggers ideas that letting the Republicans filibuster would've been a terrible idea. They would've won the battle in the end.

by ND22 2010-01-18 09:01PM | 0 recs
RE: yes and no

Well, that's a hypothetical... obviously, single payer would never be in the cards anywhere, but, yeah... had the bill passed in the correct timeline, things would be much better right now...

The funny thing is, the media will blame the left for this loss, when it was the blue dogs stalling everything left and right that got us in this predicament.

by LordMike 2010-01-18 10:21PM | 0 recs
RE: yes and no

What I want to know is who is stalling now? The Senate bill was unvield by Reid almost a month ago, Dec 20 if memory serves. So it's been close to 4 weeks since the senate passed it's bill and Dems are still "negotiating"... That's just crazy... do they have no sense of urgency.

by vecky 2010-01-18 11:10PM | 0 recs
same people

liberals are demanding changes and blue dogs are stalling on accepting those changes. The longer they stall, the better the chances the bill dies and they can run on "I'm a Democrat, but I stopped socialized healthcare!" People apparently like it when their congressmen are "independent"



by ND22 2010-01-18 11:29PM | 1 recs
RE: Progressive purists at it again

Wait, it is good strategy for the Obama people to court conservatives on issues, but all of a sudden it is the fault of "purists" when purists lose trust when they get ignored and treated with contempt at times by the Obama people(witness the takedown of Dean and the tone they adopt in bashing him periodically when they could have easily taken the high road and just tell Dean they agree to disagree).


YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You can't excuse one strategy of courting mso called moderates(I am actually your classic moderate if one examines my views)  but then blame the failure of another strategy on the demographics being too much of purists.

by Pravin 2010-01-18 07:03PM | 2 recs
R2K- Kos Poll

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 1/15-17 (1/12-13). Likely voters. MoE 4.5%.

Martha Coakley 48 (49)
Scott Brown 48 (41)

All it comes down to who is voting and grassroots efforts to get folks to vote tomorrow.

by louisprandtl 2010-01-18 02:20PM | 1 recs
For My Friends in Massachusets

Every Vote Matters. You can either ignore the decades of work by Ted Kennedy to get Health Care for all Americans, you can ignore the two terms of George W. Bush and the six years of Republican led Congress that brought us to the dismal near-Depression that the Obama Administration has been busting a tail to get us away from, you can fall for the cries of the wealthy and the Corporations that taxes are coming (for them... not 95% of you)... or you can buy into the lies that have been told by Scotty Brown to suck up to the Teabaggers.

If you are a woman who needs womens health coverage, if you are unemployed and know it was the Republicans and the Banks and operations like AIG that got us there, if you are a Union member who forgets that the number of Union members in the USA is half of what it was when we started all this Conservative crap under Reagan and continued it right through George W. Bush... Then you better be ready to Vote For Coakley.

If you don't get out there and do it, we weaken the Senate that we need to make America strong for ALL of us again.

<a href=""&gt;Under The LobsterScope</a>

by btchakir 2010-01-18 02:50PM | 1 recs
RE: For My Friends in Massachusets

The Republicnas were in charge for more than six years - 12 in total, the first 6 being under Clinton where their signature accomplishment was an attempted impeachment of the President. You can be sure they've learned from history and will try to do the same thing again after 2010.

by vecky 2010-01-18 04:06PM | 1 recs
Coakley's internal polls now showing she is leading by couple of points..

 Remember earlier there was a report that her internal polls show her trailing by three points last week.

There is a report that Martha Coakley's internals for Sunday night put her ahead by two points, 48 to 46 percent. For what it's worth, my little birdie tells me that her Sunday night poll put her ahead by one point and that the three-night average for Friday, Saturday and Sunday also put her ahead by one. Recall that Scott Brown had pulled ahead (by as many as three points ) in Coakley's polls that last week. So this might indicate potential tightening.

With R2K polls out and now this report, it might be Coakley might be catching up. So keep on plugging fellas, we can still turn this one around..


by louisprandtl 2010-01-18 05:00PM | 1 recs
by louisprandtl 2010-01-18 05:04PM | 0 recs
"High" Turnout

Special elections are always low turnout.  It would frankly be amazing to see 30 percent turnout.


by Trey Rentz 2010-01-18 08:28PM | 0 recs
RE: "High" Turnout

This is no normal special election... it's been nationalized, with ads and calls all over the place...I don't think it will get out the vote of, say, a presidential election, but it should have midterm election type turnout for sure...

by LordMike 2010-01-18 08:49PM | 0 recs
Rasmussen didn't release numbers

which makes me wonder whether he found Coakley ahead and doesn't want to publicize that.

by desmoinesdem 2010-01-18 09:42PM | 1 recs
RE: Rasmussen didn't release numbers

He said on Hannity that Coakley has the edge right now 'cos of GOTV.. of course, that could have just been motivation for his folk to get out there.

by LordMike 2010-01-18 10:22PM | 0 recs
RE: Rasmussen didn't release numbers
Ras released his final NJ-Gov poll a week before the election, and it turned out to be pretty accurate. But I wouldn't get my hopes up. What's puzzling Tom Jensen's take on tomorrow's likely result. He thinks it's a repudiation of Obama, and from what he's posting, it's HCR. And I think he's suggesting to vulnerable Dems (at least in NC) to run away from Obama, while attacking the Republicans. I think many will take that advice.
by esconded 2010-01-18 10:47PM | 0 recs
RE: Rasmussen didn't release numbers

In 1994, a lot of dems ran away from Clinton... they ended up faring much worse.  You can't run away from the president.  It looks cowardly and weak.

by LordMike 2010-01-19 01:12AM | 0 recs
Use and Misuse of Populism

I don't think it's a matter of left vs moderate on this. They kind of come together in a health care deal where backroom deals with the drug companies and the favors given to insurance companies led to a reform which enshrines the current system. I'm not saying that single payer would have won moderates. But I think the disgust at our current state of politics was heightened by how Obama/Rahm went about this process. So that the right can be populists again, in the midsts of a great amount of economic pain and unemployment, whether it's on health care or the bail outs, etc. I guess folks need to crack open there What's the Matter with Kansas? book, blow the dust off it, and take a gander it. Or we could bash the "left of the left" and "purists", who have all so much power in *coughs*. The Obama administration seems to have made a past time of this, so why stop the precedent?

by universalist 2010-01-18 10:59PM | 1 recs
RE: Use and Misuse of Populism

It's frustrating, 'cos no one cared about all the backroom deals and corruption when Republicans were in power.  I mean, did anyone lose their seat over Medicare Part D even though it was a worse corporate giveaway than HCR?  No!  Some people complained aobut it, but that was it.  And now people are mad 'cos Nelson got a deal for Nebraska.  Well, that's how legislation works.  Yeah, it sucks, but every spending bill is filled with that kind of crap...

by LordMike 2010-01-19 01:15AM | 0 recs
RE: Use and Misuse of Populism

It's not a good sign when we have to reach to Medicare part D as a comparable example to our current health care bill. But I do think the "culture of corruption" did work against the GOP in 06 and 08. A lot of other things were part of that but Democrats cleaning house and not doing business as usual was one of the strengths the Dems and Obama had and they do not have this this time around. And also with a recession and nigh unemployment the sort of populism one can use this time around has more punch then it would have any time before 08.

by universalist 2010-01-19 01:36AM | 0 recs
An MLK speech…

…which amazingly, I hadn't heard until today. It was given a year to the day he was killed:


by tru blu 2010-01-19 03:18AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads