They might as well have made a facebook-style flyer with it saying below the figure:

Scott Brown likes this.

The kitchen sink.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Massachusetts Democratic Party does not like losing. Holy $#@! what an over the top piece of crap flyer this is.

That is the kind of stuff I absolutely loathe about politics!

Reminds me of Corzine's "Christie will stop paying for your mammograms" ads. Those worked out well...

Up 51-46 in the last PPP poll

On the whole I can't really believe this is all happening, and as much as I enjoyed winning the NJ Gov race in November, if Brown wins Tuesday, it will be the best election night a Republican has had since November 2004.

Two negative (well, negative depending on your point of view) nancy things from me: 1) If Brown loses, and there's probably something like a 50/50 shot that he will, Obama is going to get credit for saving Coakley's ass. The main post election narrative will be Coakley was a failed candidate, but Obama's personal and political popularity was enough to put her over the top. A two point win in (one of?) the bluest state in the country should be interpreted as a rebuke to national Democrats even if the candidate was freaking Hitler, but the dynamics involved will lead to an Obama as savior storyline. Not that it won't be at least partially accurate. I don't think there's a shot in hell that she would have won if he didn't come today and try and change the race up, but if Congressional Dems and Obama were more popular, he wouldn't have needed to come in the first place.

2) A week ago, I would have taken losing by 5% in a heartbeat. Now losing by 5% will ruin my week.

Man, Ted Kennedy's seat in Congress...

As a progressive/liberal who voted for Obama I actually hope Brown wins just to shove it up Obama's ass.

well then youre dumb

I just read one of Brown's speeches. I don't know what he's been saying otherwise, but one thing struck me - he's not attacking the president all that hard - he makes needling little jokes, "But as the president might remember, upsets like that have been known to happen.", "The president may recall as well how much he used to talk about a new kind of politics – about campaigns based on conviction, instead of just false and small-minded negative ads. Well, as long as he’s paying a visit, he might want to talk to Martha about that." but not attacks, etc.

I wonder if this is or will become a strategic template for opposition midterm candidates, particularly in states that voted for Obama. Even though his approval is low, it's probably not a good idea to tell people "the guy you all voted for is EEEEVVVVIIIILLLL, you MESSED UP". Brown's rhetoric seems to be directed at "the machine", which is far less popular, has a few known faces who are far less popular than Obama, and is a much riper target (plus, no one in Mass can be responsible or have regret for Pelosi, Reid, etc - so they're an even better target). In some ways, this is probably good for Obama personally, as the tactic does separate himself from the legislative majority (a group he seems to already take certain steps to distance himself from).

One aspect of this scenario that the DNC ought to learn from - based on campaign behavior there, they've made it very easy for Brown to come off as just "this poor underdog Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type. If they don't change up this game going into November, they're going to be their own worst enemies.

It really makes no sense for anyone who identifies themselves as progresive or liberal to vote for or root for Brown to win. Will he help advantage their agenda? No. I find these types of voters the most annoying, as it almost seems like they're holding a little temper tantrum because they don't get their way right away. So what they've decided to do is to work against their goals because they feel like it. It makes no sense to me. It's simply illogical.

Coakley is no great shakes, but who cares, really? Brown will not vote for ANYTHING that you (war, ptk, etc) hold dear. WHy are you rooting for him to 'shove it up Obama's ass'? I mean really. This is why the Democratic party is just a joke. They let themselves get in their own damn way with petty infighting. They hold so much right now, have been slowly getting a lot of important legislation on the table, and people want to throw it away because things are going fast enough for them. WEll guess what, I don't think those people understand how policymaking works, or how long it takes to advance an entire agenda.


Vox is completely correct that Brown isn't really campaigning on anything here. He's portraying himself as a moderate, which he of course isn't. That's the way it's been done in the past to have more conservative candidates elected when the numbers say they really shouldn't have a chance. It truly amazes me how easily moderate and progressive Democrats are basically tricked into staying home or changing their votes. THIS IS HOW RICK SANTORUM GOT ELECTED. This is how Pat Toomey may get elected, by ignoring the super conservative aspects of his record. It's really so transparent to me, and so obvious, and yet people continually buy it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Massachusetts Democratic Party does not like losing. Holy $#@! what an over the top piece of crap flyer this is.

I think we just found another example of "Hail Mary" advertising. Someone post this in the case study threat

For anybody who hasn't seen it already, here is some stuff from Nate Silver over at 538:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ayhem.html

dajafi wrote:More good times at the Gitmo vacation resort

But Charlie Daniels said it was like a Club Med!

traderdave wrote:For anybody who hasn't seen it already, here is some stuff from Nate Silver over at 538:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ayhem.html

Brown should just go ahead & pose with a mocked-up copy of the front page of the Boston Globe trumpeting a "Coakley Defeats Brown" headline

pacino wrote:It really makes no sense for anyone who identifies themselves as conservative to vote for or root for Obama to win. Will he help advantage their agenda? No. I find these types of voters the most annoying, as it almost seems like they're holding a little temper tantrum because they don't get their way right away. So what they've decided to do is to work against their goals because they feel like it. It makes no sense to me. It's simply illogical.

McCain is no great shakes, but who cares, really? Obama will not sign ANYTHING that you (war, ptk, etc) hold dear. WHy are you rooting for him to 'shove it up Bush's ass'? I mean really. This is why the Republican party is just a joke. They let themselves get in their own damn way with petty infighting. They hold so much right now, have been slowly getting a lot of important legislation on the table, and people want to throw it away because things are going fast enough for them. WEll guess what, I don't think those people understand how policymaking works, or how long it takes to advance an entire agenda.

This is what Limbaugh/Hannity/etc were saying in the lead up to the 2008 election. I mean, I'm not kidding, this is word for word the exact same argument.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:It really makes no sense for anyone who identifies themselves as progresive or liberal to vote for or root for Brown to win. Will he help advantage their agenda? No. I find these types of voters the most annoying, as it almost seems like they're holding a little temper tantrum because they don't get their way right away. So what they've decided to do is to work against their goals because they feel like it. It makes no sense to me. It's simply illogical.

Coakley is no great shakes, but who cares, really? Brown will not vote for ANYTHING that you (war, ptk, etc) hold dear.

You sound like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc in the lead up to the 2008 election. Just substitute Brown for Obama and Coakley for McCain. I mean, I'm not kidding, this is word for word the exact same argument.

And? Is this supposed to make me upset? They believe whatever crap they believe, and they wanted their listeners to support the guy they thought would help.

Is Brown going to help Obama and Democrats do anything? No. Republicans are not serious about governing, they are serious about winning.

No - just observing that you are no different than they are in terms of winning at all costs, means to an end, settling in order to achieve the larger agenda, etc. That doesn't bother me one bit, pretending otherwise does.

dajafi wrote:More good times at the Gitmo vacation resort

A very disturbing article; with stories like this circulating it really should be no surprise that Americans are hated around the globe.

Code: Select all

County         ADJ R TOT       ADJ D TOT
Barnstable     56.74%          43.26%
Berkshire      35.51%          64.49%
Bristol        48.12%          51.88%
Dukes          38.88%          61.12%
Essex          54.18%          45.82%
Franklin       39.49%          60.51%
Hampden        49.94%          50.06%
Hampshire      38.50%          61.50%
Middlesex      48.52%          51.48%
Nantucket      47.99%          52.01%
Norfolk        53.01%          46.99%
Plymouth       58.51%          41.49%
Suffolk        34.90%          65.10%
Worcester      55.90%          44.10%
Total          50.00%          50.00%

So I threw random numbers together from 2002, 2004 and 2008, and got this as a sort of baseline for watching the results tomorrow. Hampden is Springfield/Springfield suburbs, and it looks like an almost perfect bell weather for the state. Middlesex (Boston suburbs) has been a bit more Democratic than the state, but Romney won it when he won in 2002. It is also the biggest county in the state. Suffolk is Boston.

VoxOrion wrote:No - just observing that you are no different than they are in terms of winning at all costs, means to an end, settling in order to achieve the larger agenda, etc. That doesn't bother me one bit, pretending otherwise does.

Winning at all costs? OH please. I am about setting policies in place. I don't like campaigns, I don't like campaigning, I don't like raising money, I don't like the sport of politics. I don't like politics. I like macro-level changes and slow, steady, level-headed policy decisions and governance. I don't need to 'win' campaigns and races because it's gets my blood boiling or I feel something in that special place; I want to 'win' so they can actually run things.