Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 14:55 / 2 edits
    Quick primer for those not in the loop: MA is holding a special election next Tuesday to elect Ted Kennedy's replacement in the Senate. MA is among the bluest of all blue Democratic strongholds. Other than some moderate governors, a la Bill Weld and pre-primary Mitt Romney, Republicans rarely stand a chance in MA.

    Martha Coakley, the Dem nominee has been the heavy, heavy favorite. Once up by more than 20 points not too long ago, the race has tightened dramatically. The latest 2 polls show a toss up.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html

    A GOP (Brown) victory in MA would be an absolute disaster for the Dems. That is beyond question. Their filibuster proof majority in the Senate would be gone, the healthcare bill would die a grizzly death and the national party would be hit by an embarrassment the magnitude of which has rarely been seen in recent history. Such a crippling blow would be tough to spin, even for the DNC, and the pundits would be lining up to predict enormous carnage in November for the Dems. Comparisons to 1994 would become thick as fleas and Obama's Presidency would take a staggering blow. He may recover; but it would take months.

    Now, given the Dems institutional advantage in MA, it comes down to turnout and enthusiasm.

    to that end, check out this:

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/13/globe_endorsement_martha_coakley_for_senate/?comments=all#readerComm

    This is the Boston Globe's endorsing Coakley. As a typical northeast daily, the Globe is of course dominated by liberals. The endorsement of course comes as no surprise.

    But check out the comments under the story. It stands to reason that Globe readers would tend to be fairly liberal. But, as of now, not a SINGLE comment on the front page supports Coakley. It's one after another after another ripping the Globe and the Dem candidate.

    Unscientific as can be, no question. But is this further evidence of the enthusiasm gap?
  2. 14 Jan '10 14:58
    Nothing like having two threads just started about the same thing
  3. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    14 Jan '10 14:59
    Originally posted by sh76
    This is the Boston Globe's endorsing Coakley. As a typical northeast daily, the Globe is of course dominated by liberals. The endorsement of course comes as no surprise. But check out the comments under the story. It stands to reason that Globe readers would tend to be fairly liberal. But, as of now, not a SINGLE comment on the front page supports Coakley.
    Maybe it's been freeped?
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 15:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Maybe it's been freeped?
    Possible, certainly.

    The unanimity is incredible though.

    2 pages so far and only one pro-Coakley comment of 50.

    Edit: Sorry, make that 2 pro-Coakley comments of the first 50.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 15:03
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Nothing like having two threads just started about the same thing
    Sorry. I didn't see yours before I started this one.
  6. 14 Jan '10 15:06
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sorry. I didn't see yours before I started this one.
    Thats alright.Yours comes off less partisan than mine does.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    14 Jan '10 15:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    The unanimity is incredible though. 2 pages so far and only one pro-Coakley comment of 50.
    What do you think it means? Could it be that only 2 out of every 50 liberal/Democrat voters in Massachusetts is going to vote for Martha Coakley. How has she gone from heavy favourite to attracting only 4% of Democrats in only "not too long"? If this "unanimity" gathers momentum, do you think there could be a situation where she gets less that 2% of Democrats' votes, less than 1%, or even a statistically insignifacant number of votes from her own party's supporters? She must have done something really bad.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    14 Jan '10 15:13
    Originally posted by sh76
    Quick primer for those not in the loop: MA is holding a special election next Tuesday to elect Ted Kennedy's replacement in the Senate. MA is among the bluest of all blue Democratic strongholds. Other than some moderate governors, a la Bill Weld and pre-primary Mitt Romney, Republicans rarely stand a chance in MA.

    Martha Coakley, the Dem nominee has been the ...[text shortened]...

    Unscientific as can be, no question. But is this further evidence of the enthusiasm gap?
    Right wingers don't have much to do with their time apparently.

    Coakley will win by at least 5%, probably more.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 15:22
    Originally posted by FMF
    What do you think it means? Could it be that only 2 out of every 50 liberal/Democrat voters in Massachusetts is going to vote for Martha Coakley. How has she gone from heavy favourite to attracting only 4% of Democrats in only "not too long"? If this "unanimity" gathers momentum, do you think there could be a situation where she gets less that 2% of Democrats' v ...[text shortened]... of votes from her own party's supporters? She must have done something really bad.
    Of course it's unscientific and doesn't mean anything like that.

    It's just one small indication of which side is more "into" it and more involved. In 2008, a big reason for Obama's win was that the Democrats were more enthusiastic about their candidate.

    I agree with no1 that Coakley will still probably win. It's MA after all and it's Ted Kennedy's seat. But if the results are this close, that is not a good sign for the Democratic party.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    14 Jan '10 15:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course it's unscientific and doesn't mean anything like that.
    Out of curiosity, I just clicked on 5 or 6 of the people who have posted over and over again on that thread of comments at the Boston Globe web site and you can see their posting histories. They are clearly Republicans. I don't see how Republicans endorsing Scott Brown is evidence of, or even an "...indication of which side is more "into" it and more involved." Look, I'm not particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of this election race. But I am a little surprised at the nature of the 'evidence' you have brought to this forum. Do you really think it demonstrates something politically real? Genuine question. I am curious.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 15:32
    Note that the left leaning bloggers (and I'm not using that perm pejoratively) are already starting the spin in the event of the Doomsday scenario.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-chart-of-day.html

    Nate, who I like by the way, is great at hedging his bet and lowering expectations. They should hire him as chair of the DNC.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    14 Jan '10 15:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course it's unscientific and doesn't mean anything like that.

    It's just one small indication of which side is more "into" it and more involved. In 2008, a big reason for Obama's win was that the Democrats were more enthusiastic about their candidate.

    I agree with no1 that Coakley will still probably win. It's MA after all and it's Ted Kennedy's seat. But if the results are this close, that is not a good sign for the Democratic party.
    The Democrats have messed up the health care bill beyond belief; I still find it hard to believe that none of the provisions that will help consumers are going to go into effect until 2014. Our Nobel Peace Prize President hasn't kept to anywhere near his schedule of troops withdrawals from Iraq and has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan. No reform of the financial or banking sector has been accomplished or even attempted.

    It's small wonder that the liberal Democratic activists, the backbone of Obama's campaign in 2008, aren't as enthused as they were in 2006 and 2008. I did not think the Dems would be stupid enough to repeat their errors from 1994, but the possibility is now there.

    I still don't think Coakley will lose and find Brown's position supporting Massachusett's health care bill enacted in 2006 while opposing the national one on conservative grounds to be inconsistent in the extreme.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 15:36
    Originally posted by FMF
    Out of curiosity, I just clicked on 5 or 6 of the people who have posted over and over again on that thread of comments at the Boston Globe web site and you can see their posting histories. They are clearly Republicans. I don't see how Republicans endorsing Scott Brown is evidence of, or even an "...indication of which side is more "into" it and more involved." ...[text shortened]... think it demonstrates something politically real? Genuine question. I am curious.
    It means that the 5 or 6 Republicans you looked up are posting, while the 20 or 30 Democrats for every 5 or 6 Republicans that read the Globe are not bothering to post.

    Do you remember the heady days of the Obama movement in February of 2008? You couldn't go to any non-freepish site and not see Obama gushers by the thousands.

    It's a sign of who is more motivated and who is more enthusiastic. A scientific sign? No. Hard evidence of anything? No. But an indication? Yes.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    14 Jan '10 15:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's a sign of who is more motivated and who is more enthusiastic. A scientific sign? No. Hard evidence of anything? No. But an indication? Yes.
    So if me and scherzo and howardgee and another two far left communist scallywags go there, log on, and post multiple times, saying angry stuff about Brown, you'll be back here to update what that Comments Thread 'means' and talk about how it might not be quite so dire for Coakley after all? No I don't think so. You know how easy it is to post something on the net. Do 5 or 6 Boston Republicans on the internet really provide a credible political weather vein? Are you surprised that President Obama is not causing the same frissons now as he did 2 years ago?
  15. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    14 Jan '10 16:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    It means that the 5 or 6 Republicans you looked up are posting, while the 20 or 30 Democrats for every 5 or 6 Republicans that read the Globe are not bothering to post.
    I am edging into zeeblebot territory:

    User Image
    incredible1 wrote:
    More to the point, she has done nothing to address corruption in the cesspool that is the Democrat party in Massachusetts. And she will bring nothing new to Washington; just the same old lefty, liberal line of gimmee policies demanded by public sector labor unions. Haven't we had enough of that?
    1/14/2010 10:15 AM EST
    Recommend (3)

    Report abuse

    Permalink
    User Image
    jimmyjames2009 wrote:
    The GLobe just sent me an invitation to re-subscribe to their paper. I sent back their prepaid envelope with a little note saying once they stop suckling on martha's teet, I will consider it.
    1/14/2010 10:43 AM EST
    Recommend (1)

    Report abuse
    Permalink
    User Image

    FMF of RHP wrote:
    I can safely speak for about 50 of my friends when I say that we not only welcome The Boston Globe's endorsement of Martha Coakley, but we also endorse her. And each of my 50 friends could probably summon 20 or so friends who would say the same thing. So that's loads of people, most of whom have jobs, which explains why they haven't posted here themselves, and instead left it to me.
    1/14/2010 10:56 AM EST
    Recommend Report abuse


    But, at least it's the first time I have had any concrete impact on U.S. domestic politics. And I will continue to do so, now that I've tasted what it's like, as long as I can remember the password I just used.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/13/globe_endorsement_martha_coakley_for_senate/?comments=all&plckCurrentPage=19