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

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    18 Jan '10 01:29 / 1 edit
    Coakley to win is now trading at 30.4 on Intrade!

    The latest polls are truly, truly stunning

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

    The local papers are lining up to beat Coakley's brains in.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1226129

    Brown, who Nate Silver cast as a 20:1 shot a scant few weeks ago, now seems a juggernaut.

    If anyone would have predicted this a few weeks ago I would have recommended a psychiatrist.

    This could be one of the truly stunning election results in the annals of recent US history.

    Is "Schilling's a Yankee fan" Coakley's "macaca"?
  2. 18 Jan '10 01:48
    I'll believe a Republican winning a Massachusetts Senate seat when I see it. I think the Democrat will win, but even so, it should be a huge wake up call for Democrats who want to get re-elected.

    This health care bill is turning into a third rail.
  3. Standard member Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    18 Jan '10 02:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I'll believe a Republican winning a Massachusetts Senate seat when I see it. I think the Democrat will win, but even so, it should be a huge wake up call for Democrats who want to get re-elected.

    This health care bill is turning into a third rail.
    If Brown does win, what strategies do you think could be employed to keep him from taking his seat? Is Kirk still eligible to cast Senate votes after the polls close in MA?

    EDIT: Oops. I responded to the wrong post. My question was intended for sh76.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    18 Jan '10 14:55 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    If Brown does win, what strategies do you think could be employed to keep him from taking his seat? Is Kirk still eligible to cast Senate votes after the polls close in MA?

    EDIT: Oops. I responded to the wrong post. My question was intended for sh76.
    They could use reconciliation, they could blow up the filibuster (the "nuclear option" ). They could push for a quick vote before Brown is seated. They could tie up seating Brown in red ink for weeks, etc.

    But the point is: If Brown wins, every moderately vulnerable Dem incumbent (I'm talking to you, Blanche Lincoln, Michael Bennet and Arlen Specter) will (or should) start fearing that the healthcare bill will cost them their jobs. In that climate, it's tough for me to see Reid being successful in blowing up the filibuster. Also, the House, which barely passed the original HC vote (220-215, IIRC), might not pass it again anyway after the moderates see how poisonous it is.

    If Brown wins, I'd give you 10-1 odds that the whole healthcare bill is toast.

    Did someone say 1994?
  5. 18 Jan '10 15:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    They could use reconciliation, they could blow up the filibuster (the "nuclear option". They could push for a quick vote before Brown is seated. They could tie up seating Brown in red ink for weeks, etc.

    But the point is: If Brown wins, every moderately vulnerable Dem incumbent (I'm talking to you, Blanche Lincoln, Michael Bennet and Arlen Specter) will (or ...[text shortened]... s, I'd give you 10-1 odds that the whole healthcare bill is toast.

    Did someone say 1994?
    I agree that the Democrats should running scared from the healthcare bill. Especially considering more Americans are in favor of it passing than not.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx


    Now factor in Democratic congressmen are out of Democratic districts, which would weigh even heavier in favor of the bill passing.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    18 Jan '10 15:15
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I agree that the Democrats should running scared from the healthcare bill. Especially considering more Americans are in favor of it passing than not.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx


    Now factor in Democratic congressmen are out of Democratic districts, which would weigh even heavier in favor of the bill passing.
    Americans favor healthcare legislation; but probably not the hodgepodge ineffective pork-laden compromise-strewn sad little treatise currently one the table.

    In any case, polls or no polls, the proof is in the pudding. If a Republican can win in MASSACHUSETTS by running on an anti- healthcare bill platform, you think your average Plains-and-Mountain-crat is going to take comfort in a series of polls that show a toss-up on this question?
  7. 18 Jan '10 16:16
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I agree that the Democrats should running scared from the healthcare bill. Especially considering more Americans are in favor of it passing than not.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx


    Now factor in Democratic congressmen are out of Democratic districts, which would weigh even heavier in favor of the bill passing.
    From your link....

    "Bottom Line

    Public support for passing healthcare reform legislation this year is marginally higher than it was three months ago, but still doesn't rise to majority level. Thus, neither party in Washington can claim that advancing or, alternatively, defeating the legislation represents the will of the people on this important issue. However, the Democrats may have the politically riskier position (headed into a midterm election year), as more than half of political independents side with most Republicans in opposing the bill."
  8. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    18 Jan '10 16:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    From your link....

    "Bottom Line

    [b]Public support for passing healthcare reform legislation this year is marginally higher than it was three months ago, but still doesn't rise to majority level. Thus, neither party in Washington can claim that advancing or, alternatively, defeating the legislation represents the will of the people on this import ...[text shortened]... as more than half of political independents side with most Republicans in opposing the bill."
    What will be the impact on Obama's agenda if Coakley loses after his visit yesterday?
  9. 18 Jan '10 16:46
    Originally posted by monster truck
    What will be the impact on Obama's agenda if Coakley loses after his visit yesterday?
    I dont think it will be good for his agenda one bit, and you?
  10. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    18 Jan '10 16:49
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I dont think it will be good for his agenda one bit, and you?
    First off, I doubt Coakley will lose.
    It will be interesting to see how the White House reacts if she does.
    I think the momentum of politics in the U.S. is a pendulum that swings back and forth somewhere between the 2 extremes. I believe it is now swinging from the left back towards the center.
  11. 18 Jan '10 17:07
    Originally posted by monster truck
    First off, I doubt Coakley will lose.
    It will be interesting to see how the White House reacts if she does.
    I think the momentum of politics in the U.S. is a pendulum that swings back and forth somewhere between the 2 extremes. I believe it is now swinging from the left back towards the center.
    Win or loose, this race being as tight as it is in the most liberal state speaks volumes.
  12. 18 Jan '10 17:21
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    From your link....

    "Bottom Line

    [b]Public support for passing healthcare reform legislation this year is marginally higher than it was three months ago, but still doesn't rise to majority level. Thus, neither party in Washington can claim that advancing or, alternatively, defeating the legislation represents the will of the people on this import ...[text shortened]... as more than half of political independents side with most Republicans in opposing the bill."
    That's nice. That doesn't at all negate what I said.

    "more Americans are in favor of it passing than not. "
  13. 18 Jan '10 17:27
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    That's nice. That doesn't at all negate what I said.

    "more Americans are in favor of it passing than not. "
    yes it does,read it again.
  14. 18 Jan '10 17:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    yes it does,read it again.
    OK, genius. Let me break it down for you.

    For/Lean for: 49%

    Against/Lead against: 46%

    The rest have no opinion.

    Is 49 a bigger number than 46? I thought so.

    What you quoted is saying neither obtained a 51% majority (remember, the "no opinion" people are also factored in). So my statement that more Americans are in favor (49% than not in favor (46% remains true.

    Now that I'm done taking you to school. Class dismissed.
  15. 18 Jan '10 18:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    OK, genius. Let me break it down for you.

    For/Lean for: 49%

    Against/Lead against: 46%

    The rest have no opinion.

    Is 49 a bigger number than 46? I thought so.

    What you quoted is saying neither obtained a 51% majority (remember, the "no opinion" people are also factored in). So my statement that more Americans are in favor (49% than not in favor (46% remains true.

    Now that I'm done taking you to school. Class dismissed.
    "Bottom Line

    Public support for passing healthcare reform legislation this year is marginally higher than it was three months ago, but still doesn't rise to majority level. Thus, neither party in Washington can claim that advancing or, alternatively, defeating the legislation represents the will of the people on this import ...[text shortened]... as more than half of political independents side with most Republicans in opposing the bill."
    1. "marginally" means,about the same,barely noticeable,,not decisive enough to make a call.
    2. "but still does not rise to majority level" self explanatory
    3. "neither party...can claim... ( it )...represents the will of the people" self explanatory again.

    Either, you are so blinded by partisanship that you read and hear only what you yearn to here.
    Or, you are being deliberatley deceitful and mis leading.
    also from your link.....
    "For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
    In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."