IDBillzFan Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 An off year election coupled with the lack of enthusiasm from the left and the vigorous disdain for the health care bill, rising taxes and out of control government spending could make this a much closer race than it would normally be. Coming off a holiday weekend, in freezing temps no less. All you needs now is one of Coakley's aides tossing a reporter to the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 Coming off a holiday weekend, in freezing temps no less. All you this needs now is one of Coakley's aides tossing a reporter to the ground. That's an interesting point, if you aren't too jazzed to vote in the first place and the weather is freezing then the turnout will be even lower. I'm thinking she will still win, but probably by no more than 5-7%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 That's an interesting point, if you aren't too jazzed to vote in the first place and the weather is freezing then the turnout will be even lower. I'm thinking she will still win, but probably by no more than 5-7%. Isn't this a good thing for Scott Brown, though? From what I've been reading, the Brown camp has enthused Republicans, many independents, and even some Dems to the point that they're going to turn out to vote no matter what the weather is like or what date it is. Meanwhile the Coakley campaign has seemingly only been losing momentum as the weeks pass, even among members of her own party. It is imperative for her camp to get as many Democrat voters as they possibly can on Tuesday. If Dem turnout isn't strong, Brown has a very good shot at the upset IMO, because voter turnouts for his party and independents that are supporting him looks like it is going to very strong no matter what at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 Isn't this a good thing for Scott Brown, though? From what I've been reading, the Brown camp has enthused Republicans, many independents, and even some Dems to the point that they're going to turn out to vote no matter what the weather is like or what date it is. Meanwhile the Coakley campaign has seemingly only been losing momentum as the weeks pass, even among members of her own party. It is imperative for her camp to get as many Democrat voters as they possibly can on Tuesday. If Dem turnout isn't strong, Brown has a very good shot at the upset IMO, because voter turnouts for his party and independents that are supporting him looks like it is going to very strong no matter what at this point. For sure, which is what the Rasmussen polling takes into account. Weak voter turnout is a must for him to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 For sure, which is what the Rasmussen polling takes into account. Weak voter turnout is a must for him to win. I would love to see it. Brown was down by as much as 31 points according to Rasmussen as recently as early November. This would truly be an incredible comeback, especially in a span of only a couple of months. Fascinating race, for both the people of Massachusetts and all Americans. It's damn near equally as important to both in some respects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 From what I've been reading, the Brown camp has enthused Republicans, many independents, and even some Dems to the point that they're going to turn out to vote no matter what the weather is like or what date it is. One of the biggest indicators of Brown's momentum, at least to me in the cheap seats, was when he reached out last week to raise $500,000 to kick his campaign into overdrive, and in 24 hours he pulled in over $1.3 million from all over the country. From what I read about their debate, he crushed her. He's focusing on two simple points: no on the health care bill and no to trying KSM in NYC. The left simply doesn't seem to understand or care how much those two points are important to people. Like Magox said, it's still not likely that he wins, but if he stays within five points in what everyone calls "the bluest of the blue states," the left can't treat that victory like they did with NY23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I would love to see it. Brown was down by as much as 31 points according to Rasmussen as recently as early November. This was truly be an incredible comeback, especially in a span of only a couple of months. Fascinating race, for both the people of Massachusetts and all Americans. It's damn near equally as important to both in some respects. It will be extremely interesting. Brown has the momentum. He just might pull it off!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Welcome to America.....politics as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Welcome to America.....politics as usual You think a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts for the first time since 1953 is politics as usual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I remember conservative talking heads recently discussing Coakley being an absolute lock for the seat, and that there was absolutely no chance in hell of her losing. Next thing you know, she's "measuring for drapes" (as someone wrote this weekend) and it's not only a dead heat, but the Dems are now discussing holding up Brown's certification while they push through health care, which wouldn't surprise me. I still can't imagine him winning, but if he does, you'd think it would have the Dems crapping purple Twinkies. And this? Mass is like a banana republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 You think a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts for the first time since 1953 is politics as usual? Absolutely- when is the last time a non-democrat/republican won that seat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 Absolutely- when is the last time a non-democrat/republican won that seat? So are you thinking about supporting a Tea Party candidate, if you get the chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 So are you thinking about supporting a Tea Party candidate, if you get the chance? Well, I can't really vote up there. I will listen to what any candidate has to bring to the table- I have never registered with a party and I never will. The Tea Party wouldn't have so many supporters if they didn't represent something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Well, I can't really vote up there. I will listen to what any candidate has to bring to the table- I have never registered with a party and I never will. The Tea Party wouldn't have so many supporters if they didn't represent something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Absolutely- when is the last time a non-democrat/republican won that seat? Wouldn't it make life easier to support who you deem to be the best qualified Democrat/Republican candidate, rather than crying about there not being a Green Party candidate on the ballot in every election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Wouldn't it make life easier to support who you deem to be the best qualified Democrat/Republican candidate, rather than crying about there not being a Green Party candidate on the ballot in every election? The easier way isn't always the best way. The two party system is a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Wouldn't it make life easier to support who you deem to be the best qualified Democrat/Republican candidate, rather than crying about there not being a Green Party candidate on the ballot in every election? Welcome to why you're part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Welcome to why you're part of the problem. Actually, I wasn't trying to advocate the two party system with that comment, I was trying to express that I think it's foolish to ignore or discount a good candidate simply because he is either a Democrat or Republican. Just because you think that there should be more than two parties with significant influence, which is perfectly fine, doesn't mean that the current two major parties are incapable of producing quality people to run for office. Good candidates are what catch my attention in any election, not the party that they're attached to. Thanks anyways, though. You're always so helpful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 Actually, I wasn't trying to advocate the two party system with that comment, I was trying to express that I think it's foolish to ignore or discount a good candidate simply because he is either a Democrat or Republican. Just because you think that there should be more than two parties with significant influence, which is perfectly fine, doesn't mean that the current two major parties are incapable of producing quality people to run for office. Good candidates are what catch my attention in any election, not the party that they're attached to. Thanks anyways, though. You're always so helpful! I completely agree with what you are saying. Those who automatically discount candidates just for the sole reason that they belong to one of the two main parties is just as much of a retard than those who only consider candidates from the main political parties. By the way, Brown appears to be solid. I was watching him get interviewed the other day by Hannity, and Hannity was trying to get him to answer some of his "purity" bull **** tests, and Brown was having none of it. He was focused on the Health Bill, taxes, national security, jobs and government spending. That's the winning platform, the rest is bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Actually, I wasn't trying to advocate the two party system with that comment, I was trying to express that I think it's foolish to ignore or discount a good candidate simply because he is either a Democrat or Republican. Just because you think that there should be more than two parties with significant influence, which is perfectly fine, doesn't mean that the current two major parties are incapable of producing quality people to run for office. Good candidates are what catch my attention in any election, not the party that they're attached to. Thanks anyways, though. You're always so helpful! I can agree with you on this- and I never do discount either party. I look at them as much as I look at any other candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts