(no subject)

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

[Poll #1512191]

Given the recent hysteria about the upcoming election ( http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_underes.html ), do you think Brown will win?

Comments

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

And by "NO" I mean "Dear god I hope not!" Not that I am thrilled at voting for Martha...

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

She does nothing to inspire me. Nothing at all. Her campaign has been lackluster at best. I feel like only voting for her to keep the other guy out of office, and I'm not happy about it.

Same here...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Capuano would be doing better. Probably.

[arrowintwolakes.livejournal.com]

I protest that there is no third option.

[obstruksion.livejournal.com]

Joe Kennedy doesn't qualify?

[arrowintwolakes.livejournal.com]

In the poll. That the poll has no third option.

[zdenka]

No, but I'm still voting for him.

[ron_newman]

Why?

[zdenka]

I realize this is a bit simplified in some areas, but I don't have time to write any more than this. The short version is, because he's not part of the Massachusetts Democratic party machine, which I am disgusted with. If it's "business as usual" vs. "someone else," I'll go with someone else, thank you.

Though I do have positive reasons for supporting Mr. Brown as well: It's important to me that he's against the current monstrosity of the national health care bill. The economy is a mess right now. Mr. Brown describes himself as a free-enterprise advocate. He wants to control state spending and keep the national debt from ballooning quite so rapidly. I don't want to see Massachusetts follow California and New York into economic disaster. As someone with libertarian leanings, I believe that less government regulation is the way to go. Mr. Brown is against national cap-and-trade and for school choice, both of which I agree with. I trust Mr. Brown to make better economic decisions than any Democrat. Unlike many Republicans at the national level, he's not trying to force his religion on other people. Again, that's important to me as a libertarian.

It's been my observation that when a group of politicians, of any political party, thinks they can't be defeated, they start acting irresponsibly. The Democratic party in Massachusetts has been complacent, corrupt, arrogant and unresponsive to the voters for a long time now. I believe it would do a lot of good to shake up the one-party system in this state. As Mr. Brown said in a recent debate: "With all due respect, it is not Ted Kennedy's seat, it is not the Democrats' seat, it is the people of Massachusetts' seat."

Ms. Coakley's arrogance, as noted by other commenters, is a case in point. If she's so disdainful of the voters -- her potential constituents -- before the election, is it going to be any better once she's securely in office? I am also concerned by some of her history as prosecutor and district attorney, such as the Amirault case, the Woodward case, and others. (See here for a Wall Street Journal piece on the Amiraults and here for a blog post on Ms. Coakley's legal career.)

Along the same lines, I think the Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate could use some shaking up. And I find it appalling that the Massachusetts Secretary of State is talking about delaying the certification after the election, so that the Democrats can potentially keep their 60th vote if Mr. Brown wins. Whoever wins, I hope that Mr. Galvin will respect the people's choice and certify the new senator promptly.

The last time this argument was used we got

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

f***ing Mitt Romney! And see the mess he made.

[teko.livejournal.com]

I don't feel Massachusetts has a "one party system". We have a liberal-leaning state which has occasionally elected more conservative candidates who've shown the state exactly WHY we're liberal-leaning. I feel Mr Brown's track record is dismal, and no good can come of "shaking up" the Democratic majority just for the sake of 'shaking things up".

[pushupstairs.livejournal.com]

You know who'd be a better electoral fit for you, a self-described libertarian?

Joe Kennedy, another self-described libertarian.

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

???

[zdenka]

I am entirely serious. Please see my above reply to Ron for some of my reasons.

The Suffolk U. poll was a fluke, probably.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Let's hope so.

Sadly not. I think we're going to have Sen. Brown (R-MA)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

I have been following the numbers very closely online. Coakley's own internals now show her down 3 points, which is very bad.

Brown's campaign was a sneak attack on sleeping liberals.

And really Martha Coakley never did anything to get us involved. Have you seen a single bumper sticker in Somerville or Cambridge? Was anyone here ever contacted by her campaign? I cannot tell you how many liberals I contacted who were surprised that there was even an election on January 19, or who simply stated they were too disinterested or busy to vote?

There was an ulterior motive behind my "non-partisan" reminders about absentee ballots.

The ARG poll came out last night, pretty much confirming the results of the Suffolk poll and Martha Coakley's own internals. Anything can happen between now and Monday. Voters may have some remorse over Scott Brown between now and then, but it appears that everything Martha Coakley does backfires. Whatever she does now is likely too little too late.

I think it is now more likely than not that we will have Sen. Brown. My bet was a 49/49/2 split, with Brown coming out ahead. I think it is a powerful reminder for liberals to never fall asleep and take something for granted. The good news? This seat warmer's there only for 2+ years, and he goes up for reelection with Obama on the top of the ballot.

Re: Sadly not. I think we're going to have Sen. Brown (R-MA)

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

The Coakley people did a great job initially. I remember they were collecting signatures like crazy on the first day, to put her on the ballot. Then... Nothing...

Politics 101

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

If you don't define your opponent, they will define you.

We saw this with Kerry in 2004, and Dukakis in 1988.

It's pretty sad to watch such an implosion. I already voted for her, and I hope for a miracle on Tuesday night.

I hope the following happens.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Many folks may have planned to vote for Brown just to send some kind of message to Coakley. They may have done the same when polled. But now, seeing that Brown may have a chance, they'll definitely vote for Coakley because they never meant to send Brown to the Senate, just to make Coakley sweat a bit.

I only hope you're right

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

But the people I talked to are dead set on this guy as the only way to stop Obamacare, restore balance in government, blah blah blah. Remember, we elected GOP governors for 16 years. Watch for the Rasmussen poll on Sunday night, or another Globe poll.

Re: I only hope you're right

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Well, just read the comments on the Globe, though, it could be 10 people writing 100 comments each under different names.

[genesayssitdown.livejournal.com]

god i hate politicians

[kennygster.livejournal.com]

The Bush/Cheney comparisons are yesterday's news. Democrats have the Presidency and substantial majorities in Congress including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. No matter who wins the election, we aren't going back to Bush/Cheney and hopefully we never will. I think it is good to have some checks and balances in government so I will be voting for Brown (who will serve for 2yrs and be replaced by a Democrat who is stronger than Coakley).

Besides Coakley's lackluster campaigning, my view is that Brown is doing well due to growing disapproval of Obama and especially ObamaCare (started out with some good ideas but the final bill is very disappointing, even to liberals).

[rethcir.livejournal.com]

I dunno, the yuppie and townie segments of MA society are pretty conservative.

Martha has really screwed the dog on this one.