The mother of all upsets?

[Magox]

Interesting article written by Curt Schilling.

 

http://38pitches.weei.com/sports/boston/ba...-coakley/print/

 

If she hasn’t done it yet, Martha Coakley may have just killed her campaign.

 

She’s apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park. [2]

 

The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.

 

… Despite that, there is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.

 

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

 

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’

 

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.

 

It shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election” and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,” is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. — if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.

 

Finally, has she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

Very interesting, well thought out article by Schilling. He obviously is very interested in the race, and I think he is on point with his criticism of Coakley. That really is a pretty shocking comment for her to say just days before the election, IMO, and I thought he hit it spot on when he mentioned the elitist quality of the statement. Coming off like that to people, not democrats or republicans, but people in general, is not going to help her cause. The more you portray yourself as anything more than a normal human being, the less likely voters are to sympathize with you. That doesn't change in a "Special Election", and I don't know why Coakley seems to be under the impression that it does.

[Magox]

Very interesting, well thought out article by Schilling. He obviously is very interested in the race, and I think he is on point with his criticism of Coakley. That really is a pretty shocking comment for her to say just days before the election, IMO, and I thought he hit it spot on when he mentioned the elitist quality of the statement. Coming off like that to people, not democrats or republicans, but people in general, is not going to help her cause. The more you portray yourself as anything more than a normal human being, the less likely voters are to sympathize with you. That doesn't change in a "Special Election", and I don't know why Coakley seems to be under the impression that it does.

It was a well written article by Schilling, and if it gets some real exposure it is a damaging one for Coakley.

 

Also, it looks as if the race really is tightening.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/01...e_a_tossup.html

 

The Rothenberg Political Report changed its rating of the Massachusetts Senate race today to a pure tossup and, boldly, declared Republican Scott Brown will win the election if he continues to receive positive coverage in the final five days of the campaign:

 

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

 

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

 

Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.

[Magox]

Another poll shows Brown leading.

 

A Suffolk University poll released Thursday evening shows Republican Scott Brown four points ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley as he continues his improbable surge in the Massachusetts Senate special election.

 

The poll reports Brown is leading Coakley, 50 to 46 percent, just within the margin of error. Independent candidate Joe Kennedy received 3 percent.

 

Suffolk pollster David Paleologos told the Boston Herald even he was surprised by the poll’s results, noting that their models show a likely high turnout of independent voters next Tuesday, which is likely to benefit Brown. The results also showed Brown leading in all the state’s regions except Suffolk County.

 

Brown’s favorability ratings are also higher than Coakley’s, with 57 percent saying they have a favorable opinion of the state senator and just 19 percent having an unfavorable opinion. Forty-nine percent say they have a favorable opinion of Coakley, while 41 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the attorney general.

 

Against the backdrop of an election that could possibly play a decisive role in the health care debate—a point both parties have begun to press on their supporters—51 percent said they did not support the health care bill, with 36 percent supported it. Sixty-one percent said they didn’t believe the government could afford such a plan.

 

A plurality of respondents also believe Brown fared better during the televised debates between the candidates, with 41 percent saying they believed Brown won, compared to just 25 percent for Coakley.

 

The survey was conducted Jan. 11-13 and surveyed 500 registered voters, with a margin of error of 4.4 percent.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think that Brown leading is good. We need more stalemate. Times aren't really ripe for civil unrest/class warfare yet... They will be with more stalemate. We need to keep everything the same and balanced.

 

Ya.. I am being sorta sarcastic... What I am saying is nothing will never really changed until you get the lazy asses off the couch to take a stand. Things are not bad enough.

[IDBillzFan]

What I am saying is nothing will never really changed until you get the lazy asses off the couch to take a stand. Things are not bad enough.

I can't speak for you libs, but from a conservatives standpoint, if Brown wins a seat held in Massachusetts for over 50 years by the left, I'd say the conservative lazy asses are off the couch and took a stand, because things ARE bad enough, and they're only going to get worse as long as Obama and his his four-fingered puppet masters are running unchecked.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I can't speak for you libs, but from a conservatives standpoint, if Brown wins a seat held in Massachusetts for over 50 years by the left, I'd say the conservative lazy asses are off the couch and took a stand, because things ARE bad enough, and they're only going to get worse as long as Obama and his his four-fingered puppet masters are running unchecked.

 

Maybe. I would love to see what is going to happen. There is always a day of reckoning. Something has has got to happen!

[Jim in Anchorage]

I can't speak for you libs, but from a conservatives standpoint, if Brown wins a seat held in Massachusetts for over 50 years by the left, I'd say the conservative lazy asses are off the couch and took a stand, because things ARE bad enough, and they're only going to get worse as long as Obama and his his four-fingered puppet masters are running unchecked.

This is a little shocking. Will old uncle Teddy being gone mean a sea change in Mass. similar to Spain after the death of Francisco Franco? Will they actually have a say in their Representative? Coakley seems to think not.

[Nanker]

I think that Brown leading is good. We need more stalemate. Times aren't really ripe for civil unrest/class warfare yet... They will be with more stalemate. We need to keep everything the same and balanced.

 

Ya.. I am being sorta sarcastic... What I am saying is nothing will never really changed until you get the lazy asses off the couch to take a stand. Things are not bad enough.

Well, then clearly you're misreading the Tea Party and Town Hall meeting protests of 2009. A large percentage of Americans are truly upset at the direction the country is being forced to march in. This is political coercion at its worst and people don't like it.

 

From the right-wing scab yellow newspaper "The Washington Post," Mass Senate poll shows shift toward GOP candidate.

He's up 50 - 46 over the empty pant suit chosen one who disdains meeting with the people.

 

I hope Teddy is rolling over in his grave, and that Mary Jo is giving him Hell.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Well, then clearly you're misreading the Tea Party and Town Hall meeting protests of 2009. A large percentage of Americans are truly upset at the direction the country is being forced to march in. This is political coercion at its worst and people don't like it.

 

From the right-wing scab yellow newspaper "The Washington Post," Mass Senate poll shows shift toward GOP candidate.

He's up 50 - 46 over the empty pant suit chosen one who disdains meeting with the people.

 

I hope Teddy is rolling over in his grave, and that Mary Jo is giving him Hell.

I haven't heard scab in years.

[IDBillzFan]

This is a little shocking. Will old uncle Teddy being gone mean a sea change in Mass. similar to Spain after the death of Francisco Franco? Will they actually have a say in their Representative? Coakley seems to think not.

How bad are things in Massachusetts? Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, is off to help Coakley today.

 

Great cartoon

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

How bad are things in Massachusetts? Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, is off to help Coakley today.

 

Great cartoon

 

What a joke. A telling one, though.

[IDBillzFan]

What a joke. A telling one, though.

Interesting dilemma for Dems in Massachusetts per this article. I recognize it's the Washington Examiner, but it's hard to argue with the truth of it.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

Interesting dilemma for Dems in Massachusetts per this article. I recognize it's the Washington Examiner, but it's hard to argue with the truth of it.

 

I agree. I think that it makes an interesting comparison with the Deeds campaign for Governer in Virginia. Something that a friend and I were comparing to Coakley's during a conversation this morning, as well. Although I am with the author, Byron York, in the sentiment that Coakley has run a brutal campaign and that may turn out to be her greatest downfall, I don't know that it is accurate to say that the Obama administration doesn't have much to do with the outcome if she in fact blows it. After all, the single biggest area that Brown and Coakley differ on is Obama's Health Care Bill, and this has been the biggest talking point for both candidates since day one. Brown wins, it probably gets defeated. Coakley wins it probably finally passes. Obviously this has to be at the forefront of voters' minds when they have been developing their preference between the two over the past couple months.

[IDBillzFan]

Brown wins, it probably gets defeated. Coakley wins it probably finally passes. Obviously this has to be at the forefront of voters' minds when they have been developing their preference between the two over the past couple months.

Except you see Obama working around the clock to get this bill done so it's a non-issue.

 

"Here's a little something for the unions. Here's a little something for Louisiana. Here's a little something for Florida retirees. Here's a little something for Ben Nelson. LET'S JUST PASS SOMETHING!!!! ANYTHING!!! HURRY!!! THIS IS HISTORIC!!!"

 

Idiots.

[Magox]

It looks like the big guy is coming afterall.

[Magox]

I can't remember a politician that has made so many gaffes in such a short period of time.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/011..._Schilling.html

 

 

In the intensifying Democratic precriminations game over who to blame if Coakley loses, here's one for the blame Coakley camp: On another talk radio show, "Nightside With Dan Rea," Coakley jabs Rudy Giuliani as a Yankee fan, then goes on to describe Brown supporter Curt Schilling, the great former Red Sox pitcher, as a Yankee fan as well.

 

The host sounds incredulous -- "Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?" -- and Coakley initially sounds unfamiliar with him. She eventually reverses herself, but it's an odd moment in a state that was transfixed by Schilling's performance in the 2004 World Series, where he helped the Red Sox win for the first time since 1918.

 

A Republican supplied the audio (and the YouTube caption). Coakley spokesman Alex Zaroulis described it as a "very, very deadpan" joke, and another Coakley spokesman emails to note that she has Sox among her supporters and that "Curt Schilling has been involved in a lot of strike outs over time. I guess Martha whiffed on that joke."

 

Ok, if there is anyone on this earth that is NOT a Yankee fan, it is Curt Schilling.

[Nanker]

of her pronouncement of Shilling being a Yankees Fan

Coakley's foreign policy experience One can only hope that Saturday Night Live will cut her with a line like, "I've got a sister that lives in a foreign place."

 

Martha Coakley's Convictions And you thought the Salem witch trials ended centuries ago.

[BillsNYC]

of her pronouncement of Shilling being a Yankees Fan

Coakley's foreign policy experience One can only hope that Saturday Night Live will cut her with a line like, "I've got a sister that lives in a foreign place."

 

Martha Coakley's Convictions And you thought the Salem witch trials ended centuries ago.

 

I see your 3 and raise you one gaffe..uses trade towers in an ad to describe Brown's greed...whoops:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/15/dscc...-anti-brown-ad/

[Nanker]

I see your 3 and raise you one gaffe..uses trade towers in an ad to describe Brown's greed...whoops:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/15/dscc...-anti-brown-ad/

Oh good grief. That's despicable.

It's incredible to me how clumsy the Democrats are. You would think they'd have learned something from their successes during their relentless eight year war on Bush and the Republicans. They've learned nothing, and this woman is an empty pants suit who should lose her job as SAG as well as being turned down for the Senate.