pacino wrote:how will he act in the senate, though?

Rococo4 wrote:

pacino wrote: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.

sounds also alot like how obama ran in 2008.

dajafi wrote:I kind of enjoy that hardcore right-wingers believe they have a better idea who really is and isn't ultra-liberal than actual ultra-liberals. That those people are bitterly disappointed with Obama seems to me a pretty good hint that he's in the big middle... which, in a time when extremists and borderline sociopaths get to have all the fun, isn't a politcally advantageous place to be.

As with almost every special election, the larger significance of this one will be hyped vastlybeyond the reality. It sucks, but the Dems in part brought this on themselves. Hopefully it (or more to the point, the total gridlock that might ensue now that 41 has been decreed to equal 59) won't push us too much closer to the crisis of legitimacy I see coming in the next ten years; we'll see.

dajafi wrote:I kind of enjoy that hardcore right-wingers believe they have a better idea who really is and isn't ultra-liberal than actual ultra-liberals. That those people are bitterly disappointed with Obama seems to me a pretty good hint that he's in the big middle... which, in a time when extremists and borderline sociopaths get to have all the fun, isn't a politcally advantageous place to be.

As with almost every special election, the larger significance of this one will be hyped vastlybeyond the reality. It sucks, but the Dems in part brought this on themselves. Hopefully it (or more to the point, the total gridlock that might ensue now that 41 has been decreed to equal 59) won't push us too much closer to the crisis of legitimacy I see coming in the next ten years; we'll see.

kopphanatic wrote:If I'm understanding what you mean by "crisis of legitimacy", I think we're already at that point and have been for the past two decades. The right never accepted Bill Clinton, a draft dodgin', weed tokin' hippie, as their president. The left never believed that W. was legally elected in 2000. And now a frighteningly large amount of Republicans don't believe that Obama even was born in the United States, much less won election fair and square.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

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.

dude - in your line of work, you should be aware that bellwether is one word, not 2, and not about meteorology (sorry SK790).

The greatest disadvantage, of course, is the possibility of mass panic, resulting not just from Coakley's loss but also from retirements, worrisome polling, and a toxic media environment. 2010 has gotten off to a really bad start on so many levels for the Democrats.

I'm reminded a bit of what happened to the New York Mets after their spectacular playoff collapse of 2007, the second-biggest choke in baseball history, after which the Mets surprisingly did not fire their manager, Willie Randolph. The collapse had been so sudden, so total, and so unexpected that the the Mets sped straight through anger and immediately into grieving, and you don't fire anyone during a wake. (Randolph was fired once the Mets came to their sesnes 69 games into the 2008 season.)

The Democrats will be in a similar state of mind if Coakley loses tonight, and the White House's idea will be to give them something to focus upon before the the numbness wears off and the pain sets in. It might not work, but the State of the Union is fortuitously timed, and perhaps the only chance that Democrats have to turn Plan B into Plan B-plus. The only prediction I'd make is that ping-pong will happen quickly, or not at all.

drsmooth wrote:Good time for a weather guy to show up, as it will be raining in Beantown today.

Jersey, do the usual assumptions re: weather hold for special elections, or are they, y'know, special?

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think given the differences in the level of motivation that's apparent in the polling, anything that raises the difficulty of voting a plus for the Republicans today. The caveat on that is I'm sure there's a sizable Dem base in Massachusetts that votes come hell or high water, and Brown is really counting on getting the support of independents, who appear to be strongly committed to him, but maybe don't want to work too hard to vote. If it wants to rain real hard in Boston, but be nice in the suburbs, that would be the best of all worlds.