Comments on: Dems Won’t Lose Kennedy’s Seat

By: franco 2

franco 2 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:30:03 +0000

More inside the beltway naval-gazing in Frum Forum. Funny, this race should garner more attention here but Frum wants to talk about Palin and Beck, Fox etc.

Now Brown is up 4%. Many in the GOP are still operating on outdated models. The game on the ground has changed and the generals are clueless.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:35:19 +0000

mlindroo: This election is essentially a referendum on Ted Kennedy’s legacy, and on Obama’s policies in general.
I live in Massachusetts.

I’ve seen no evidence that the race is a referendum on Teddy. Coakley’s video ads don’t wrap herself in the Teddy legacy.

In the last debate, Gergen, the moderator, called the Senate seat “Kennedy’s seat” with his question to Brown–and Brown hit it right out of the park with his answer. (One of the few times I’ve seen a moderator make a worse gaffe than any of the debaters.)

If Coakley wins, it will simply be because Democratic voters outnumber Republican voters by huge margins–and she’s a Democrat. Not for any other reason than that.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:29:19 +0000

As of the time I’m writing this, the race is widely judged as too close to call.

Even if Scott Brown should lose by a small margin,
this is going to throw the fear of God into Democrats everywhere.

Because a near-miss by the GOP in Massachusetts (one of the Bluest states in America) foreshadows big wins in swing states in the November election.

By: mlindroo

mlindroo — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:37:54 +0000

Vecchione, on what would happen if Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy’s old seat:

> To pass healthcare they will have to deny him his seat and rush the bill through.
> This will be worse for them than Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker surprise.

Actually, I hear the most likely scenario in that case would be that the House simply approves the existing Senate bill as it is. Not an ideal outcome, but still better than abandoning health care reform which certainly won’t improve Democratic turnout in the 2010 elections.
—
For the reasons given by Vecchione, it seems highly unlikely that the Dems will lose this seat, though. This election is essentially a referendum on Ted Kennedy’s legacy, and on Obama’s policies in general. I don’t see any evidence that either is particularly unpopular in the Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.

MARCU$

By: DFL

DFL — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:21:43 +0000

Sad to say that the alarm has gone out amongst Massachusetts liberals in somewhat the same way that Paul Revere alerted the Minutemen. Coakley will win 53-45, a solid but unspectacular win. Had Andrew Card been the candidate and he had not served as Bush’s Chief of Staff, he might have pulled it off. But Scott Brown is no perfect storm for Republicans. Henry Cabot Lodge’s seat will not be his.

I hope I am wrong.

By: franco 2

franco 2 — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:08:21 +0000

I don’t know much about the inner workings of MA electoral politics, and I’m sure it is true that it is a tremendous uphill battle, however I have the (anecdotal) feeling that there is a political tsunami on the way. Let this be my prediction FWIW

Brown wins the seat.