TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 13, 2010 14:30:56 GMT -5
They don't have the votes b/c the Stupak and company already rejected the abortion language in the Senate bill as not being strong enough when they were doing the House bill. And, obviously there are a lot of possible outcomes that don't lead to this certification tactic being used, but, say Brown wins by enough that under normal circumstances, he'd be certified and assume the seat, but the certification is delayed specifically so he won't be able to vote on the Health care bill. Ok? Not ok? Justifiable? The voting situation changes immediately if there's only 59 Dem Senators. The House will have to make a choice between swallow it or throw the bill out and there will be enormous pressure to take that bill and all of the pressure to tighten up the bill on abortion, excise tax, public option, and community health funding disappears. A lot of the fuss now to me seems to liberal House members not wanting to be seen as going down without a fight. As for seating the next MA Senator, Republicans have given Reid all sorts of cover in the Franken and the Burris incidents. I don't think she'll lose, but I can't imagine that Coakley wouldn't court-challenge and recount a loss. MA automatically triggers a recount where there's a 0.5% or less margin of victory.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 13, 2010 15:14:34 GMT -5
Apparently Coakley has a goon squad ;D to rough up reporters who dare ask her to explain her Afghanistan comment: www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1225332I don't think it's a huge deal, but she risks making it a bigger deal that it is by saying she is not “privy” to the facts surrounding the incident while a photo shows her staring at the reporter who was pushed down. Also, the guy who pushed the reporter down is Michael Meehan. Any relation to Marty?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 13, 2010 18:56:27 GMT -5
Apparently Coakley has a goon squad ;D to rough up reporters who dare ask her to explain her Afghanistan comment: www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1225332I don't think it's a huge deal, but she risks making it a bigger deal that it is by saying she is not “privy” to the facts surrounding the incident while a photo shows her staring at the reporter who was pushed down. Also, the guy who pushed the reporter down is Michael Meehan. Any relation to Marty? After much obfuscation all day, and an assist from the AP, whose report indicated that McCormick "tripped over himself" , Meehan has issued something akin to an apology for his behavior. I wonder if Chuck Schumer will do the same. "Right-wing teabagger"? You stay classy, Chuckie! On the other hand, Scott Brown has Doug Flutie on his side (about 40 seconds in), so I'll keep up hope 'til the very last minute! ;D
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 13, 2010 20:01:31 GMT -5
My understanding is that it's simple vanity/ambition: both want to be governor for the next four years because being governor of Texas rocks. Complicating the matter is that KBH's people claim that Rick Perry promised not to run for re-election in 2010 in order to keep Kay out in 2006, and has subsequently reneged on that promise, which his supporters obviously claim he never made. The interesting aspects to the race are 1) allegedly Texas is a net donor to conservative/GOP races nationwide, and this year their money will stay home and even bleed resources from other states for the first time in decades, and 2) absent a particularly vicious primary, the winner would be heavily favored against whatever Texas Dem is put forth. I'll defer to real Texans on the details. rosslyn more or less nailed it. Here's a Robert Draper (Bush biographer, former Texas Monthly staffer, and "real Texan") article on the subject from a few weeks back with a little more info. The only statement I'll disagree with is: "absent a particularly vicious primary, the winner would be heavily favored against whatever Texas Dem is put forth." As I said above, ex-Houston Mayor Bill White (who is the D candidate for Gov.) has a good shot, particularly if Perry, loathed by independents of the non tea-party persuasion, is the R candidate. A Houston Chronicle poll from October (before White was even a candidate) has him defeating Perry in Harris County (Houston) by a 33% margin. There are 1.9 million registered voters in Harris County. Add in the fact that Texas has gone blue or purple in heavily populated urban areas since the last real gubernatornial election (In '08, Obama won Dallas County by 12%, Travis County (Austin) by 28%, Bexar County (San Antonio)by 6% and Harris County by 2%), coupled with the fact that Texans of all political persuasions are sick of Rick Perry, and I think you're looking at a closer-than-expected race. ON EDIT: One of the interesting subplots of the Republican primary is that KBH has managed to Edited off all the Republican insiders in Austin by hanging on to her Senate seat. Had Hutchison resigned, that seat most likely would have gone to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, AG Greg Abbott would have moved into Dewhurst's spot, and Abbott's solicitor general, Ted Cruz, would have moved up to AG. (Never mind those pesky elections.) Now the Dew and Abbott are running for re-election, and Cruz is wondering what the heck he's supposed to do with all the campaign cash he raised. Also, as long as I'm throwing NYT Magazine articles on 2010 primaries out there, here's last weekend's write-up of the Crist-Rubio race: www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10florida-t.html
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 14, 2010 9:37:35 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 14, 2010 10:25:28 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to stand outside Fenway in the cold either. That said, the Coakley campaign is just downright awful. I got a mailer in the mail yesterday that was all brown and compared George Bush and Scott Brown (Martha, 2006 called and it wants its campaign ideas back). Thank god other groups like SEIU have ads out there that actually land a punch on Brown because Coakley's ads and campaign is pretty lame.
EDIT : Every ad I've seen on this board this morning is asking me to volunteer for Scott Brown. I don't know if DFW makes any money off of this, but I've been clicking on them to bleed donations.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 14, 2010 13:02:19 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to stand outside Fenway in the cold either. That said, the Coakley campaign is just downright awful. I got a mailer in the mail yesterday that was all brown and compared George Bush and Scott Brown (Martha, 2006 called and it wants its campaign ideas back). Thank god other groups like SEIU have ads out there that actually land a punch on Brown because Coakley's ads and campaign is pretty lame. EDIT : Every ad I've seen on this board this morning is asking me to volunteer for Scott Brown. I don't know if DFW makes any money off of this, but I've been clicking on them to bleed donations. I see "Ads are currently disabled on all forums" at the top of the page. Interesting. Also, I think if Brown pulls this off (which I hope for but still doubt will happen) I think it will be a matter of Coakley losing the race as much as it is Brown winning.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 14, 2010 13:13:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know what's up with that, but earlier this morning I was getting non stop ads from Scott Brown here. He must have placed a big internet ad buy targeted at Massachusetts IP addresses - I see them all over the place when going to other boards or sites like TalkingPointsMemo or any Forumer board. TalkingPointsMemo has 3 Brown ads on the same page.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 14, 2010 13:29:18 GMT -5
Hey, it's Col. Mustard! Good to see he's still blogging.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 14, 2010 13:47:05 GMT -5
Brown appears to be on the defensive today as it relates to his ties to Tea Party cells in Massachusetts.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 14, 2010 13:54:38 GMT -5
Brown appears to be on the defensive today as it relates to his ties to Tea Party cells in Massachusetts. Hmmm, thank you for calling them "cells." Whatever were you trying to imply? I don't doubt that some mileage has been gained from that. Never mind that it's not accurate at all. But I haven't seen anything that would indicate that he's on the defensive about it. On the contrary, his campaign seems to shrug off the negative attacks with better skill than many.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 14, 2010 14:04:53 GMT -5
The story is not a winner for Brown. To the extent he has to explain anything about his ties to the Tea Party, he is losing votes in Massachusetts. He also does not want to be held to account for his participation in their events and fundraisers with them by associating himself directly with the Tea Party. That's what I got out of the quote, anyway.
I'm not sure the "Obama - stay out" talking point is a winner for him either since Obama may be the most popular politician in the state at this point.
Nonetheless, Brown has run a good campaign and one that normally crops up in Massachusetts when there is blood in the water. The Romney challenge to Kennedy came in 1994 (great year for Republicans) and followed a legal controversy involving a bar in FL and one of Ted's nephews with Ted and Patrick. (Resulted in acquittal)
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 14, 2010 15:52:49 GMT -5
The story is not a winner for Brown. To the extent he has to explain anything about his ties to the Tea Party, he is losing votes in Massachusetts. He also does not want to be held to account for his participation in their events and fundraisers with them by associating himself directly with the Tea Party. That's what I got out of the quote, anyway. Again, I don't doubt that this is your opinion, but I have to question whether it is even an issue at all. It has probably helped with Coakley fundraising, so that's the mileage I was talking about earlier, but outside of that? Looking all over the tubes today, I saw the usual. Kos, TPM and Salon trying to make it an issue. Their conservative counterparts like RedState and Hot Air poking holes in the legitimacy of the story...pretty much what you'd expect. But as far as I can tell, the story has no mainstream traction. I haven't seen any significant coverage in Massachusetts media online, nor have I seen any statements about it -- let alone defensive ones -- from the Brown campaign. I do not, however, have access to local Massachusetts television or radio, so maybe it's become an issue there. I can't speak to that.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 14, 2010 16:07:22 GMT -5
Yeah, it's not an issue as far as I've seen.
The Massachusetts media has turned kinda crazy - the Herald and Fox 25 and WEEI have turned into just commercials for Scott Brown, the Globe is obviously carrying water for Coakley.
Got another mailer today for Coakley, this time from the Massachusetts Democratic Party rather than from the Coakley campaign. It was slightly better, had Scott Brown dressed up as a UPS deliveryman shipping jobs to China and India.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 14, 2010 16:18:23 GMT -5
Yeah, it's not an issue as far as I've seen. The Massachusetts media has turned kinda crazy - the Herald and Fox 25 and WEEI have turned into just commercials for Scott Brown, the Globe is obviously carrying water for Coakley. Got another mailer today for Coakley, this time from the Massachusetts Democratic Party rather than from the Coakley campaign, rather than from Coakley. It was slightly better, had Scott Brown dressed up as a UPS deliveryman shipping jobs to China and India. Politics aside, that's pretty funny, I have to say. (ergo, not surprising that it did not come from the Coakley campaign). As we all know, Brown is not averse to dressing up in costume (birthday suits are costumes, right?) EDIT: This, also, is pretty funny..... (my apologies to TC who, as a Massachusetts resident, is probably ready to stick red-hot pokers in his eyes if he sees too many more campaign commercials).
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 15, 2010 12:17:20 GMT -5
I know everybody dismisses Rasmussen and their poll results seem to be the most favorable to Brown, but I read today that an 7NEWS/Suffolk University Poll shows Brown, with 50%, in front of Coakley with 46%. Maybe he really does have a shot.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 15, 2010 12:46:18 GMT -5
I know everybody dismisses Rasmussen and their poll results seem to be the most favorable to Brown, but I read today that an 7NEWS/Suffolk University Poll shows Brown, with 50%, in front of Coakley with 46%. Maybe he really does have a shot. I think that's right. It seems like a toss-up. Suffolk had problems with their screening methods in NJ (had Corzine by 9 in its final poll). Still, I think Suffolk/Rasmussen are hitting on something - the election will come down to turnout. Analysts are also spot on to suggest that Congress will grind to a halt when the election is certified in February if Brown wins.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 15, 2010 13:19:05 GMT -5
Did anyone notice Scott Brown with the "Barack Obama needs to stay out of Massachusetts and leave the issues to Martha and I"? Obama is still wildly popular here, Martha Coakley is not. I don't think Brown has to worry much about that though - it would be wildly tone deaf if Obama spent the weekend and Monday here campaigning while the Haiti thing is going on.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 15, 2010 13:36:06 GMT -5
Did anyone notice Scott Brown with the "Barack Obama needs to stay out of Massachusetts and leave the issues to Martha and I"? Obama is still wildly popular here, Martha Coakley is not. I don't think Brown has to worry much about that though - it would be wildly tone deaf if Obama spent the weekend and Monday here campaigning while the Haiti thing is going on. I'm not sure about that. According to PPP, Coakley's approval, despite the tighteining race, remains at about 50%. Obama's approval in Massachusetts is at 44%, not what I would call stellar. publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-and-coakley.htmlPlus, as PPP also notes, his presence didn't really help Dems at all in Virginia or New Jersey. But, as you note, it's probably a non-issue as Obama is otherwise occupied this weekend. I forgot that Monday was a holiday. As hot as this has been this week, it will definitely cool down some as people enjoy their three-day weekends. I have to think that favors Brown, whose supporters are far more enthusiastic, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jan 15, 2010 13:50:17 GMT -5
Looks like Obama didn't get the tone deaf memo and is coming to Massachusetts. Huge risk on a lot of levels but one I don't think he can run from. link - www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9D8BDB80&show_article=1I also don't believe a Brown election brings congress to a grinding halt (though I have to admit I wouldn't really mind that). Supermajorities are not required to run congress. But his election - and probably just his showing right now - will change the direction of congress as the calculus of who is really at risk of losing their election changes. Things will go hard back to the center and focus almost solely on economics. The only thing IMHO that could change that would be a big bounce for the health care bill once the final version is unveiled and gets reviewed by all. Highly doubtful.
|
|