Hot Rumor!

Joe Lieberman Close to Endorsing Scott Brown?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2429689/posts

1/17/2010 11:12:50 AM

That's badass... I'm hoping that Lieberman will be a stop-gap if Brown wins and they try to pull some shennanigans by delaying his confirmation until they can ram through the health care bill.

1/17/2010 12:39:07 PM

I'm curious if this would be enough to get him kicked out of his committees.

1/17/2010 3:48:32 PM

Quote :

"Republicans have already won this race, Jim. I mean, let's get that straight."

--Mark Shields

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june10/sb_01-15.html

1/17/2010 6:01:13 PM

Quote :

"BOSTON – The President of the United States came here Sunday to make the case that voters should turn their anger away from him and Democrat Martha Coakley and back on a Republican Party that they cast off just over a year ago. Obama attacked Brown for opposing his proposed fee on big banks, a populist strand that the White House and its allies began driving in earnest late last week. “Martha’s opponent is already walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans opposing that fee and defending the same fat cats who are being rewarded for their failure,” Obama said. But Obama and a parade of Democrats who appeared on stage before a crowd a local fire official put at 1,100 at Northeastern University’s modest gymnasium spent much of their time trying to explain to the audience, and to themselves, how they had lost their grip on the public “anger” – a word that has replaced “hope” as the emotion Democrats seek to channel."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31596.html#ixzz0cuuZ11BS

Just over 48 hours to go. Right now it is snowing in Mass and the weather Tuesday is supposed to be 35 / 26 with no precipitation. About par for the course for Massachusetts voters, so it isn't going to be the kind of weather that keeps voters indoors.

1/17/2010 6:54:55 PM

Brown win could spark legal battle

Quote :

"A victory by Republican Scott Brown Tuesday in Massachusetts could quickly turn into a legal battle over the man he would replace – Sen. Paul Kirk – with the future of health reform in the Senate hanging in the balance. Conservative commentator Fred Barnes is arguing that Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday's special election, no matter who wins, signaling a possible GOP line of attack against health reform if it passes with Kirk’s vote. GOP elected officials haven't embraced that argument, and two academic election law experts contacted by POLITICO refuted the notion that Kirk will no longer be a senator after Tuesday's election. But it’s a sign of the fierce legal and political battles likely to ensue if Brown upsets Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. And Kirk would be in the middle of it all. Brown would take over for Kirk, a supporter of reform, and become the 41st vote against the health bill - ending the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority and throwing reform's future into serious doubt."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31599.html#ixzz0cvkqoyu1

1/17/2010 10:38:08 PM

Quote :

"“Martha’s opponent is already walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans opposing that fee and defending the same fat cats who are being rewarded for their failure,” Obama said."

Will Mass voters rather think about the Washington democrats exempting whole states and union workers from new health-care taxes? And Washington democrats who let their fat-cat lawyer contributors off the hook by leaving out any kind of tort reform from the bill.
And Washington fat-cat democrats like Barney Frank who helped get our economy into this mess with Fannie & Freddie.

And who really rewarded failing banks? Instead of letting them go under like they should have...Bush and Obama bailed them out.

[Edited on January 17, 2010 at 11:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2010 11:34:07 PM

Obama is such a peice of shit (like most politicians). The fats cats eh? You mean like the mega HMOs and Pharma companies that are donating to Coakley? The Insurance companies and Pharma companies all support the Democrats plan... I wonder why that is... maybe because they stand to reap substantial profit from it.

1/17/2010 11:39:44 PM

Quote :

"“Martha’s opponent is already walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans opposing that fee and defending the same fat cats who are being rewarded for their failure,” Obama said."

As if saying the guy's name is going to sway voters to vote for him.

I just hate that...."My opponent"

WE DON'T SAY HIS NAME!!!

1/18/2010 2:29:16 AM

The whole "votes with XYZ 90% of the time" deal is crap anyway since it counts procedural votes.

1/18/2010 2:32:13 AM

Here is a poll that was released about 6 hours ago I believe from North Carolina's own Public Policy Polling:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_117468963846.pdf

Quote :

"Massachusetts Race Still Close Raleigh, N.C. – Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in Public Policy Polling’s final survey of the Massachusetts"

She doesn't have much hope of winning this on her own and with special elections tending towards older folk turn out which leans right, her only hope is that the President brought enough attention to this election to reach younger voters who are less likely to vote and to turn out the party base. Based on both candidates making this a referendum on health care reform and now being somewhat a referendum on the President himself this is either going to grind Washington to a halt in terms of legislating, or it is going to start building momentum towards the passing of health care reform and the upcoming state of the union.

But based on these numbers, it looks more likely that the Grand Old Party is going to get to filibuster right and left for the next few years.

1/18/2010 5:10:58 AM

at least then we can have some semblance of checks and balances

1/18/2010 6:35:03 AM

^^

1. That depends on the weather, if it is particularly nasty older voters will probably stay home. Now what counts as nasty for a voter from North Carolina may not meet the nasty threshold of a Massachusetts Yankee.

2. I think you'll see less filibustering when the DP realizes it has to craft legislation which won't be filibustered.

1/18/2010 9:15:11 AM

Also from Public Policy Poll...

Quote :

"-Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote."

Independents are realizing how they got snookered by Obama and the democrats in '08

1/18/2010 10:49:32 AM

Quote :

"2. I think you'll see less filibustering when the DP realizes it has to craft legislation which won't be filibustered."

1/18/2010 11:06:58 AM

I've seen some claims that part of that shift is accounted for by the idea that after Bush a lot of republicans there unhappy with their party registered as independents, which leaves an even more die hard party base which is slightly smaller, and a shift in independents towards republican candidates even if not a single person change their stance on which party they support, only in what they call themselves.

1/18/2010 11:24:30 AM

Quote :

"I think you'll see less filibustering when the DP realizes it has to craft legislation which won't be filibustered."

I don't think such legislation exists.

1/18/2010 11:32:23 AM

221 years worth of bills passed by the US Congress would prove you wrong.

1/18/2010 11:38:09 AM

Given the current political climate I think the right would rather block everything and call it a failure of the president and win for themselves, and likewise they left would rather the right be seen as the party of no, the party of gridlock, the party that keeps government from functioning. So I think Boone will be right, at least for a while, if the republicans gain the power to filibuster.

1/18/2010 11:44:55 AM

Well, the right doesn't have to block anything for Obama to be seen as a failure. I think we all know that the state of the economy in November will be the single largest factor when voters go to the polls.

The messiness of this bill (and lets be honest, it was messy in the House long before it made it to the Senate), and their inability to get a bill passed at all (there are plenty of moderate Republicans like Snowe who aren't supporting it) reflects more poorly on the DP than the GOP. So . . . ok, maybe you're right, but I don't see the left being as legislatively active once they lose the Senate super-majority because they won't want to give the GOP the opportunity to make them look incompetent. You'll also see moderate Democrats whose vote had to be bought with rather excessive amounts of earmarks back away from more controversial legislation.

Either way, I don't think either party has to work too hard to make the other side look like a bunch of asses.

1/18/2010 12:25:25 PM

Launched today . . .

Quote :

"Hoping to capitalize on President Obama's visit to the state on Sunday, state Attorney General Martha Coakley's (D) campaign has launched a new ad featuring the president in the waning hours of the Massachusetts Senate special election. "Martha knows the struggles of working families because she's lived those struggles," says Obama in the ad before rattling off a laundry list of Coakley's accomplishments as Attorney General. "Every vote matters," says Obama at the ad's conclusion. "Every voice matters. We need you on Tuesday." The ad is yet more evidence that Democratic strategists have placed all of their chips in energizing and turning out the party's base, believing that, in a state as strongly Democratic as Massachusetts, even a moderate turnout among the base can deliver a victory to Coakley. What remains the most important unknown in the race is how the obvious intensity among Republican -- and even independent -- voters for state Sen. Scott Brown (R) translates into votes tomorrow. Even Democrats acknowledge an intensity gap remains between the two sides but argue that, unlike their Republican counterparts, the Democratic turnout operation will deliver every possible base vote that is out there for Coakley."

It looks like a pretty good ad, one that should have been used a few weeks ago as soon as her momentum began to stall and before Massachusetts voters had been ad saturated.

1/18/2010 1:04:54 PM

im glad our taxpayer dollars can go to obama traveling to Mass to give speaches. so much for that 'working together' and 'working across the aisle' rhetoric that obama is always talking about. (not that we believed any of that junk, just the uneducated libs would)

she is on the losing side of history because of the democrats failure of late - so why get their leader? her strategy should have been to distance herself from obama if she wanted a fighting chance.

1/18/2010 2:18:32 PM

I think JCASHFAN is right, she should have been playing that ad much earlier, and geared up before the final stretch. MA is 3 to 1 in the democratic favor in terms of registered voters, distancing herself from President Obama would have been a horrible idea. Rallying the base earlier to get them to turn out more heavily in a special election is what she should have done because in the recent polls the base hasn't been energized and thus hasn't been in the likely voters category. And if she wins it will only be because Obama was able to wake them up in these final hours rather than thanks to her lackluster campaign.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34909501/ns/politics-capitol_hill//

Quote :

"There is evidence in a recent Suffolk University poll that linking Obama’s name to health insurance reform increases support for the idea among Massachusetts voters. When asked in the poll whether they support “the proposed national near universal health care law,” 36 percent of the poll respondents said they did. But when the same sample of voters was asked whether they support “the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats,” 47 percent said they supported it."

If anything she needs to cling to Obama's popularity as hard as she can.


And I'm glad to see Brown still has the tea party support, since he has spoken at their rally and all:



Here's Brown implying Obama's mom had him out of wedlock, and then saying Coakley made it up that he said that, which strikes me as somewhere along a similar line of thinking as birthers just a farther means of trying to discredit him.



http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/brown-campaign-now-says-he-doesnt-believe-obama-born-out-of-wedlock-but-no-apology/

Quote :

"The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog Brown Campaign Now Says “He Doesn’t Believe” Obama Born Out Of Wedlock; But No Apology As you may have heard, an incendiary video is making the rounds in which Scott Brown questioned whether Obama’s parents were married when he was born — and Dems are pounding him over it. But a Brown campaign spokesman has now clarified his stance in an email to me, saying Brown “doesn’t believe” it’s possible Obama was born out of wedlock — though he isn’t apologizing for the remark and even appeared to blame it on Martha Coakley. In the 2008 video, which is below, Brown defended Sarah Palin’s family follies, and then seemed to chuckle as he questioned whether Obama’s mother was married when he was born: BROWN: Barack’s mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old? GUEST: And married! BROWN: Well, I don’t know about that. The record shows, of course, that Obama’s parents were married when he was born. Asked directly whether Brown believes it’s possible Obama was born out of wedlock, Brown spokesman Eric Fehrnstom emailed: He doesn’t believe that. This is more desperate campaigning from Martha Coakley. When she isn’t calling for higher taxes, she’s making things up about Scott Brown. This walk-back comes after the Brown campaign initially refused to directly address or clarify his previous remarks — and after Dems pummeled Brown over them today."

I wonder how much supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is going to hurt him in the state that has had gay marriage the longest?

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2010 2:38:51 PM

time to bring out the "nuclear option" which the GOP threatened to do when the Dems were thinking of filibustering W's Supreme Court nominee. Change the Senate rules to end debate with 51 votes, to change that would take a simple majority and I believe it is filibuster proof (changing rules).

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 2:56 PM. Reason : w]

1/18/2010 2:55:10 PM

Quote :

"And who really rewarded failing banks? Instead of letting them go under like they should have...Bush and Obama bailed them out."

damn fucking right

1/18/2010 4:57:01 PM

There's not a single person in this thread, who if they were president, wouldn't have bailed out the banks.

1/18/2010 6:00:06 PM

The WH announced today that the State of the Union is going to be on the 27th. Originally, they were going to wait until after they got health care passed but from the rumors I've heard this pretty much means they're giving up on the health care legislation. The only way I can figure it, this means internal polling is pointing towards a Scott Brown victory tomorrow.


We'll see.

Quote :

"Change the Senate rules to end debate with 51 votes, to change that would take a simple majority and I believe it is filibuster proof (changing rules)."

Political suicide. People forget that the original bill barely passed the house with 5 votes. It isn't as if this bill was massively popular by any measure and an obstructionist GOP alone stood athwart the legislative process holding this up.

1/18/2010 6:13:31 PM

If the tea party succeeds here, I wonder if we're going to see it here in NC for the 2010 elections?

1/18/2010 8:17:08 PM

with the race as narrow as it is, given how much the Democratic Party has spent on the race, it has already worked . . . so yes.

1/18/2010 8:22:59 PM

I think a bigger question is if we'll even keep hearing from the tea partyers if the republicans re-take congress?

1/18/2010 8:32:02 PM

depends, there is a core of what is now called the "tea party" movement who was opposed to the spending of the Bush years, and they'll still exist, but since the Tea Party movement isn't taken seriously by anyone outside of Fox anyway, I think it depends more on what drives up viewership on MSNBC and CNN and less on who wins the elections.

1/18/2010 8:38:55 PM

Quote :

"Here's Brown implying Obama's mom had him out of wedlock,"

Are you going to also post some of the stupid things Coakley has said?

Quote :

"time to bring out the "nuclear option" "

In 2005, democrats threatened to shut down the gov't if the GOPers used the nuclear option. So of course democrats won't complain if the repubs also threaten a shut-down if the Nuke Option is used on them. Right?

Quote :

"but since the Tea Party movement isn't taken seriously by anyone outside of Fox anyway"

The liberals like to lump everyone who disagrees with Obama into the Tea-Party movement. But they do this at their own peril. There are a lot of independent voters out there..many of whom
voted for Obama in '08 who are fed up with his socialist agenda. They might not consider themselves "Tea-Baggers", but they sure as shootin' are voting against democrats in 2010.

1/18/2010 9:20:34 PM

Quote :

"So of course democrats won't complain if the repubs also threaten a shut-down if the Nuke Option is used on them. Right?"

Oh, didn't you hear? The MSM is calling it "reconciliation" now. "Nuclear Option" is so 2005.

1/18/2010 10:06:41 PM

I can't wait to see the spin when Brown wins this thing.

1/18/2010 10:15:34 PM

Quote :

"Oh, didn't you hear? The MSM is calling it "reconciliation" now. "Nuclear Option" is so 2005."

considering those are two entirely different things, i don't understand what your point is.

1/18/2010 10:18:17 PM

cOakely really is a terrible candidate. I'm surprised she's made it this far.

Brown is far more charismatic than she is, and doesn't come off as a frothing lunatic, from what i've seen, like the rest of the prominent republican these days.

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 11:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2010 11:13:01 PM

Yeah, politics is all about packaging and Brown got it right this time around. (Hell, the difference between HRC and BHO was minimal, really, it all came down to packaging).

1/18/2010 11:22:55 PM

Quote :

"Are you going to also post some of the stupid things Coakley has said? "

Sure, Coakley is definitely a gaffer. She said Catholics who oppose all birth control & follow the religion in such a way that they wont give emergency contraception to a women who has been raped probably shouldn't be working in the emergency room. And in a 44% Catholic state, that was about as stupid a thing to say as it gets politically.

1/18/2010 11:38:44 PM

Quote :

" the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says. ... "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose." "

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massachusetts-Bottom-has-fallen-out-of-Coakleys-poll-numbers-Dems-prepare-to-explain-defeat-protect-Obama-81681862.html

1/18/2010 11:39:09 PM

Quote :

"Are you going to also post some of the stupid things Coakley has said? ""

Quote :

"Sure, Coakley is definitely a gaffer. "

Thank you Sir. You are a gentleman!

1/19/2010 12:32:49 AM

Jon Stewart's review of Democratic fuck-ups in Massachusetts tonight was pretty telling.

I don't know much about either candidate because I'm not voting for either of them, but from what I gather they really did fuck up quite badly.

1/19/2010 2:47:36 AM

Well, polls are open.

The race could still go either way and the Democrats have the organizational edge when it comes to getting out the vote. Organized Labor is . . . well . . . organizing and they're notoriously efficient (amongst other things) in New England. Weather today is light snow with a high of 38.

Assuming polling is split 50/50, I'd have to give the edge to Coakley based on turnout, but we'll see.

1/19/2010 9:13:29 AM

I predict a Brown win.

1/19/2010 9:40:04 AM

Yeah, I also think Brown is going to win this one.

1/19/2010 9:50:14 AM

Its a Brown win.

1/19/2010 10:17:50 AM

^
Don't forget a key Mass. voter base....

Quote :

"(CNSNews.com) - Massachusetts had 116,483 dead people on its voter registration rolls and another 538,567 people who were no longer living at the addresses on their registrations, according to a study released Oct. 28, by Aristotle International Inc., a nonpartisan political technology and data firm. The study that Aristotle released on Oct. 28 surveyed voter registrations in all 50 states. It found that Massachusetts ranked among the states having the worst problems with “deadwood” voters."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59993

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2010 12:19:28 PM

Quote :

"A study conducted by the Emerging Media Research Council out today found that Brown had a more effective strategy of using social networking tools including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to promote his campaign and connect with supporters. Here’s a look at the numbers: Facebook Posts since Jan. 1: Brown (128), Coakley (58) Facebook Fans: Brown (70,800), Coakley (13,529) Tweets since Jan. 1: Brown (142), Coakley (144) Twitter Followers: Brown (9,679), Coakley (3,385) YouTube Videos: Brown (57), Coakley (52) YouTube Video Views: Brown (578,271), Coakley (51,173) The study concludes that Brown’s use of social media helped in several ways, including boosting his name recognition both in and out of Massachusetts. They note that just 51% of Massachusetts voters had heard of Brown in a Nov. 12 poll, by Jan. 14 his name recognition was at 95%. The study also found that Brown more openly embraced social media sites on his campaign Web site, where he “prominently” features social networking channels including a Twitter feed while Coakley “gives social networks less prominent real estate.” In recent elections, Democrats—including President Barack Obama–have gotten the bulk of the credit for using social media networks to boost their campaigns. However, other recent studies suggest that the tech divide between the two parties is narrowing."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/01/19/atwitter-in-mass-browns-social-media-skills-top-coakleys/?mod=e2tw


I thought that was pretty interesting. With both parties tanking in popularity, I wonder if we won't see more "insurgent" candidates over then next few cycles using social and "earned" media to compete against much better financed incumbents and establishment candidates.

1/19/2010 3:26:42 PM

Zogby thinks Coakley will win by 1%

I can see the dems pulling some shit today. Too much on the line for this Admin.

1/19/2010 4:03:21 PM

^^i sure as hell hope so.

actualized as opposed to manufactured grass roots campaigns

1/19/2010 4:11:04 PM

They'll all be co-opted eventually, but I'd argue that Brown's was close to actualized than Coakley's was.

^^ Wouldn't surprise me. I don't see a 1% victory as going unchallenged though, and it will likely cause repercussions within the DP as far as moderate Senators like Lincoln possibly backing out of the final bill. I don't see Coakley winning in a state which is 3:1 Democratic being evidence of the DP "pulling some shit" though.

1/19/2010 4:23:57 PM