Interesting. When everyone knows turnout is important, how do polls affect what people do? Why do people lose "intensity" when they think their candidate is likely to lose? Do people lapse into the passive observation of what seems to be destiny — and forget that they are voters? Or is there something particular about the Coakley/Brown race, in that people assumed Coakley should easily win and never thought too much about her, never bonded with her or worked for her? Now that Scott Brown is surging, they are inert and fatalistic?
But what this unnamed strategist is really talking about is how we should interpret a Coakley loss:
"With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.
Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.And Obama has decided not to travel to Massachusetts to help Coakley out. It's all about cutting her loose to sink on her own. Strange to give up and look ahead beyond the predicted loss when her vote is so crucial.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," 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."
UPDATE: Obama will go to Massachusetts.
Posts
105 comments:
Good. God I hope this is true.
Coakley is definitely not a very good candidate.
"defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party."
The intellectual dishonesty required to be a political operative just makes me shake my head in amazement.
I wonder about two things.
There are so many unemployed, especially men, that a lot of people have the free time to vote on a Tuesday. Men break more Republican than women.
Also, I wonder how much of a problem for Coakley it is being a woman? Americans seem down on female candidates lately.
News just broke that she did not declare $262,000 on her federal disclosure form.
She just disclosed this YESTERDAY.
I was hopeful for an underdog a few weeks ago, but I think with that last little tidbit and the fact that the dems are starting to meme themselves away from her, I'd say get the fork out and poke her with it. She's done.
And Obama has 60% approval in MA. If this was a referendum on him, shouldn't the Democrat be winning?
"Strange to give up and look ahead beyond the predicted loss when her vote is so crucial."
But her vote isn't crucial. There have been two articulated strategies for what they will do if Brown wins: i) delay his confirmation, or ii) the House passes the Senate bill exactly. They don't need her.
I was going to post a link to the 'Catholics shouldn't work in the Emergency Room' clip (since religion and the law is one of Prof. Althouse's specialties), but Fred4Pres' link has that one covered.
The political reality of offending Catholics in Boston....I don't know how good a candidate Scott Brown really is, but it would be nice to have one of the two Massachusetts Senate seats turn red for a few years.
@John: Obama's personal approval is higher than approval of his policies.
People may like Obama but still dislike his policies and what he's done over the past year.
As for the "horrible candidate having nothing to do with Obama" thing, MAYBE that flies in Virginia. In Massachusetts? No. Maybe a part of it is that she's a horrible candidate and he's a good one, but a large part of this is anger at the business-as-usual politics in Washington (this being a race for Senate, not Governor) where the recent party-line voting means that the Democrats own the current situation.
OM-
Yeah, I think that's true. It makes me wonder how long that will remain the case.
"This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem....
Really? The Obama agenda isn't a problem?
Consider that we only have an Obama agenda because:
1) McCain was a terrible candidate, 2) that ran a terrible campaign, 3) in a terrible climate, and 4)Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose.
The only aspect of Obama's administration that doesn't have terrible poll numbers is where he is most like George Bush -- in his expansive view of overseas military operations.
Is a well-connected Democratic strategist a Democrat who works for Republicans, or someone -- Republican or Democrat -- who works for Democrats?
The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults' name would be known around the globe.
Great WSJ piece by DOROTHY RABINOWITZ who knows the case and Coakley
.Martha Coakley's Convictions
If Democratic internal polling shows the probability of her victory somewhere between "toss-up" and "leaning Republican", I doubt Obama's advisers would support a campaign appearance. His support in NJ did nothing to reverse the NJ gubernatorial results and started to give him the appearance of a lame duck before his first year in office had concluded. I think events of late have confirmed Mr. Obama is at heart an ambitious politician, focused more on style than substance. With his opponents having more and more success in defining him to the public, he cannot afford very many more missteps before the likelihood of a failed presidency (one term) becomes fairly high.
For a man with a resume which appears to stress pedigree more than experience, for a man whose philosophical sympathies appear to lie more with the politically correct creeds of the academy than the challenges of empirical verification, for a man who refuses to lead the efforts of his own party in forging legislature, the best thing that could happen to him may be the lose of his supermajorities, if not majorities, in the legislature. It certainly proved to be that for Mr. Clinton.
He sounds like a moderate MM.
wv enarksw
Martha Coakley has no heart.
Actually she denied a transplant to a person who needed one.
I welcome Scott Brown to the national political scene.
I'm just being snarky about anonymous sources in articles. Let's say I'm not a fan.
wv: demon (!) Yes, that is what they are, and obviously blogger agrees with me!
Why is her vote so crucial? How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities?
I just red that link from Fred..
Do the people of Mass. even know about this?
"When everyone knows turnout is important, how do polls affect what people do? Why do people lose "intensity" when they think their candidate is likely to lose? Do people lapse into the passive observation of what seems to be destiny — and forget that they are voters?"
In part what the anonymous Dem strategist was saying (albeit inartfully) was that Dem candidates tend to underperform poll results in MA, even polls using a 'likely voter' filter. That has to do with who their voters are -- often younger or lower income folks who are less motivated to show up. In part people lose intensity for losing candidates for the same reason that they lose intensity for losing football teams -- the diehard fans will always turn out, but more normal folks have more pressing demands and better things to do.
For what it's worth, I think the 'losing intensity' meme, offered as an after-the-fact explanation for why a candidate lost, is overdone. It used to be a standard theme in the MSM to explain disappointing Dem results on the West coast when the networks 'called' a presidential election early for the Rep candidate. There was a lot of that in '80 when Reagan swamped Carter (and Carter conceded early), and again in '88 when Dukakis lost bigtime. Since then, the networks have avoided 'calling' elections early and losing candidates have delayed their concessions. But no one ever produced any real data showing that the 'losing intensity' factor caused a significant number of West coast Dem voters to stay home. It's strikes me as mostly spin in advance of an expected loss.
The intrade market for Brown went from 18 yesterday to 45 today, which would be consistent with new or leaked polling information.
Why is her vote so crucial? How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities?
By, er, successfully reaching across the aisle. This is not Obama's strong point, but either way, his task is severely complicated by rising and hardening public opposition to the Democrats' schemes. This is a democracy, after all.
How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities?
They didn't try and pass something so odious.
an article via Byron York of all people, quoting a "well connected" source (WHO?) is your source for a likely defeat?
karl rove wasn't available for comment?
get real.
Why is her vote so crucial? How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities?
Well...it shouldn't be so critical. Presidents can usually use the bully pulpit and their powers of persuasion to get a few opposition Senators to back their legislation.
Obama hasn't been able to convert any Republicans to his health care bill. Not even nominal Republicans like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. Leadership fail on his part, IMO.
Beth:
I suspect her vote is so crucial because the Dem / Obama agenda is so radical left, they can't get anyone but Dems to vote Yes.
Original Mike said..."How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities? They didn't try and pass something so odious."
actually, you're flat our wrong about president obama's abilities to "push agendas."
As you can see...
In his first year in office, President Obama did better even than legendary arm-twister Lyndon Johnson in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position, a Congressional Quarterly study finds.
The new Congressional Quarterly study gives Obama a higher mark than any other president since it began scoring presidential success rates in Congress more than five decades ago. And that was in a year where Obama tackled how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.
"Unprecedented Success Rate"
Obama has been no different from his predecessors in that he's always ready to send a firm message to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue as he "urges members of Congress" to come together and act. All presidents demand specific action by Congress — or at least they ask for it. But when you look at the votes of 2009 in which Obama made his preference clear, his success rate was unprecedented, according to John Cranford of Congressional Quarterly.
"His success was 96.7 percent on all the votes where we said he had a clear position in both the House and the Senate. That's an extraordinary number," Cranford says.
The previous high scores were held by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, with 93 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower, who scored 89 percent in 1953. Cranford notes that George W. Bush's score hit the high 80s in 2001, the year of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. But Obama surpassed them all, Cranford says.
allen - when you were in the big house, was "duh" considered a term of endearment or just your nickname?
How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities?
Other Presidents actually had to have some bi-partisan support in Congress. So their policies weren't so awful they could ever rely on straight party-line votes to enact them.
Some Presidents even appealed to the people to put pressure on Congress - the reverse of what's happening now, where Congress ignores the electorate to pass a horrendous healthcare disaster.
Great WSJ piece by DOROTHY RABINOWITZ who knows the case and Coakley
Martha Coakley's Convictions
I found the story on you tube.
AJ Lynch said...
...the Dem / Obama agenda is so radical left, they can't get anyone but Dems to vote Yes.
and not even all the Dems.
what does that tell you?
This just in:
Two early votes have been received already from Teddy Kennedy & Mary Jo.
actually, you're flat our wrong about president obama's abilities to "push agendas."
He is able to push the Democrats' agenda because both houses are dominated by Democrats. In the Senate, for example, they have an un-fillibuster-able majority. Any legislative failures in the Senate result from his inability to persuade his own party. And his party, while slightly more diverse than it was in the mid-2000s, has nothing like the crippling internal divisions that Johnson had to deal with, when a leading faction of the Democratic Party was made up of vocal White supremacists.
This unfillibuster-able majority, and Obama's limited persuasive abilities are why people are attaching such importance to the MA race.
When I am president I will immediately throw my support behind whatever a majority in Congress is about to do anyway. You can put my head on Mt. Rushmore right next to Obama's.
Mr. Cranford appears confused by the position of the tail on the dog.
It's all about the "O!"
wv: amace hit'm on the head!
Also votes in from Frank Skeffington, Ditto Boland, Studs Lonigan, Andrew Greely, Mary Daly, The Rev. Charles Curran, & the would-be Rev., Sr. Schneiders.
I thought that Jersey was lost to the Dems in 2009, but there was enough of a real GOP vote to avoid the parachuting corps of election-fraud lawyers, you know, the kind who find more votes for the Dems in strange places. Apparently these frauds are limited in the amount of fraudulent votes they can sneak by an all too willing party hack who has been made a judge.
Balfegor said..."He is able to push the Democrats' agenda because both houses are dominated by Democrats."
that's not true.
he has a substantial majority in the house, but has 2 less votes than the 60 necessary to override a filibuster in the senate.
you need to read more and talk less.
Henry said..."Mr. Cranford appears confused by the position of the tail on the dog."
if you have statistics to refute the congressional quarterly report (which EVERY presidential administration has relied upon for decades)...let's see it.
otherwise, your snarky comment is just that wing nut snark.
Except that Senators Sanders and Lieberman caucus with the Dems--but nice try anyway Jeremy
@Jeremy -- You are confusing statistics with analysis. I don't dispute Mr. Cranford statistics.
This is not Obama's strong point, but either way, his task is severely complicated by rising and hardening public opposition to the Democrats' schemes. This is a democracy, after all.
You totally discount that a lot of the opposition is from his own base from the watered down legislation on the table. Liberals get polled too.
"...but has 2 less votes than the 60 necessary to override a filibuster in the senate."
Oh, right. Sanders is an independent. I forgot. Thanks for setting me straight.
Ah, Jeremy showing his ability to be just smart enough to really show ignorance.
..."He is able to push the Democrats' agenda because both houses are dominated by Democrats."
that's not true.
he has a substantial majority in the house, but has 2 less votes than the 60 necessary to override a filibuster in the senate.
you need to read more and talk less.
The numbers don't tell the whole story, Mr. Nuance. Who chairs the committees and therefore the agendas, votes, schedules, etc? Domination can easily mean more that just raw numbers. Having the majority in both houses, by whatever margin, is a substantial advantage.
I, personally, wouldn't have used the word dominate, but his point is valid and yours, well, is just so much milquetoast.
This is what happens when you have a one party state for a half century. Once you're in with the machine, you theoretically don't have to worry - unless the challenger isn't some RINO picked by the state committee or the RNC to be a sacrificial goat, but makes a fight of it.
At that point, you find out what slugs some of these people are because they've never had to fight for anything, just like TOTUS.
The Drill SGT said...
The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults' name would be known around the globe.
Great WSJ piece by DOROTHY RABINOWITZ who knows the case and Coakley
Ann Coulter also did a piece on the case a week or two ago.
Jeremy said...
an article via Byron York of all people, quoting a "well connected" source (WHO?) is your source for a likely defeat?
karl rove wasn't available for comment?
get real.
I'd say the Baaston Herald poll showing Brown up by 4 and the panic at the DNC is quite real.
Original Mike said..."How is it that other presidents have managed to push their agendas through Congress without 60-vote, veto-proof, super majorities? They didn't try and pass something so odious."
actually, you're flat our wrong about president obama's abilities to "push agendas."
As you can see...
In his first year in office, President Obama did better even than legendary arm-twister Lyndon Johnson in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position, a Congressional Quarterly study finds.
First, who writes CQ and are they in the tank for the Demos the way Politico is? Second, the showpiece legislation, along with cap-and-tax, is in a state of coma. Stimulus got through because it was packed with earmarks, RINO as well as CommuCrat.
The Zero and Company expected some of the usual suspects on the RINO side to "reach across the aisle to their friends in the Democrat Party" - the Weird Sisters from Maine, Lindsey Grahamnesty, McCain.
They got nada. And had to bribe a lot of Demos, cooking their political careers in the process, to come on board. Tell me all about his ability.
What has Obama passed other than the Porkulus Bill? Not saying he hasn't. Just asking for someone to refresh my poor memory. What has he passed?
The Boston Phoenix, OK, an "Arts and entertainment weekly newspaper", but one which has endorsed The Hon Coakley: Dem operative admits to cheating on Brown '04 state Senate race
OK, no admision of vote fraud here; nothing to see; move on.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/15/boston-paper-dem-operative-admits-cheating-brown-0/
Oh no, another unnamed Dem operative. They're all over the place lately.
Americans seem down on female candidates lately.
You know, though it hurts to admit that, I think that's right, John.
Voters seem to like women candidates UP TO A POINT -- maybe over the first hurdle of nomination. There were a lot of us Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton supporters, but clearly there were more against her. Surely Caroline Kennedy had her own fans, but like Martha Coakley, they come off as a bad overall candidate (with more than a whiff of incompetence).
Cheers,
Victoria
should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.
A bald faced lie by the cowardly anonymous strategist.
If that's true, why hasn't Martha been getting more than just a campaign ad spot by the President, and that, very late in the game? He should've been out there at least twice by now, stumping on her behalf.
Also, where are the Kennedys? I heard Coakley was the only candidate during the nomination process, that didn't tie herself to the teat of the Kennedy family, but my God -- Vicki Kennedy, who isn't even a "real" Kennedy, writing her a letter of support?
Dude, a phalanx of Kennedys should be out there 24/7 outside of Fenway, down in Southie, shaking hands and knocking on doors, instead of hitting the Aspen slopes which they are.
My personal take on this election is that if Coakley is not down by 10 points in her internals, on Monday, she'll win. Massachussetts is just too cobalt blue.
I WANT Brown to win so so much. But I won't believe it until Reid is swearing him in on the Senate floor...at the last possible moment.
Victoria, I'm afraid you're right. When was the last time Massachusettes had a Republican Senator?
Gotta agree with the pessimists. We're all (well, some) going to be very disappointed when Brown falls short, which he almost surely will.
Original Mike wrote:
When was the last time Massachusettes had a Republican Senator?
It was Barbara Walters' main squeeze, Edward Brooke, one of those Reid "light-skinned" Negroes.
He was elected in 1967 and lost re-election in 1979.
The last time a white Republican was elected to the Senate from MA was the fabled Leverett Saltonstall -- whom Brooke succeeded in 1967. There was also dear Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. who was beaten by Jack Kennedy in 1952.
So it's been done, sure, but it's once in a blue moon type thing in that State, certainly since WWI.
Cheers,
Victoria
Clinton skips Haiti to stump for Coakley.
Wow, Victoria's house of knowledge! Thanks.
I think it's fair to say it hasn't happened "in the modern era".
Re: garage:
You totally discount that a lot of the opposition is from his own base from the watered down legislation on the table. Liberals get polled too.
Yes. Elements of his own base opposing the legislation that is actually on the table is so totally going to help him pass the legislation on the table. How does that work exactly? A majority of the people think the bill is crap, but they disagree as to exactly why the bill is crap, so therefore we should pass it? Do Congressmen really think like that?
the local wingnuts can spin their bullshit any way they want, but if president obama had a "substantial" majority in the house and the senate, we wouldn't have the stalemates we've had over the past months.
the democrats would push through literally every measure or bill they wanted...and that just is NOT the case.
taking part in caucus doesn't assure a vote, and the fact that the republicans vote NO on everything and anything merely illustrates their inability to even negotiate.
read more...talk less.
But Jeremy, I've heard that "His success was 96.7 percent on all the votes where we said he had a clear position in both the House and the Senate. That's an extraordinary number," Cranford says."
Having the majority in both houses, by whatever margin, is a substantial advantage.
Yes, but 60 votes is better than 59, for obvious reasons. It's a fair point that Lieberman and Sanders, though they both caucus with the Democrats and typically vote with the Democrats (at least, for Lieberman, on domestic issues), are not actually Democrats, but rather Independents.
"First, who writes CQ and are they in the tank for the Demos the way Politico is?"
CQ was founded in 1945 by Nelson Poynter and his wife, Henrietta Poynter, with the aim of providing a link between local newspapers and the complex politics within Washington D.C. CQ has the largest news team covering Capitol Hill, with more than 100 reporters, editors and researchers. CQ's readership includes 95 percent of the members of Congress, academic and media outlets, as well as members of business and nonprofit organizations, government affairs and the executive branch.
Talk about tone deaf.
A new ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee usesan unlikely symbol of Wall Street greed: The World Trade Center.
Is a well-connected Democratic strategist -
Its a strategist that supports Democracy...
Thats why I choose "Democrat primary" instead of "Democratic primary".
Original Mike said..."But Jeremy, I've heard that 'His success was 96.7 percent on all the votes where we said he had a clear position in both the House and the Senate. That's an extraordinary number," Cranford says.'"
having a "clear position" isn't the same as having the 60 votes necessary in the senate.
and 96.7 isn't 100%.
are you actually arguing that the GOP is helping out? that president obama can do whatever he wants...because of his "substantial" majority in house and senate?
i think you're just doing your best to bitch about anything the president does...period.
are you actually arguing that the GOP is helping out?
Well, I think they're helping us all by standing in the way of the Democrats' plans. But from your perspective, GOP senators have occasionally broken ranks to "help." A few of them were turned for the stimulus vote, for example.
Jeremy: the local wingnuts can spin their bullshit any way they want, but
Damn, you may be an idiot, but its delicious to see you so desperate.
read more...talk less
But the more you talk, the less we read you.
"are you actually arguing that the GOP is helping out?"
I'm trying to figure out your scatter-brained arguments.
Why? I do not know.
Also, it's better to frame it as the Democrats rather than "President Obama" doing whatever he wants, simply because I don't see that Obama has had much of a hand in crafting any of the legislation that has passed. He made a big show over the stimulus bill, for example, but he had minimal involvement in actually working it out. On the health care bills, I am suspicious that he still may not grasp how the mandate works (cf. his comments denying that the mandate was a tax, even though that's how it's characterised and implemented in the bills), and that he does not understand how the timing of the bills provisions has been rigged to get a favourable CBO score (he has made comments about how benefits will begin flowing immediately, when in fact, they do not begin flowing until 2013 -- the only thing immediate is the taxes.) So when Jeremy says:
that president obama can do whatever he wants
Of course he can't. But if the Democratic party can get itself together, they pretty much can -- I don't think there's a single bill on which Republican opposition has been decisive, or even the two independents crossing over have sealed the deal. It's been Democratic defections in the Senate (although unfortunately, they seem to have won over internal opposition now, with the health care bill).
There is also the possibility that this is just spin to hide the real reason why Obama and the Dems are not worried
The steal sign is on. ie a Franken vote lift. (found votes)
I'm curious about the methodology -- is the success rate based on separate House/Senate votes, or for final, passed legislation?
Does unsuccess include bills which were stymied without a vote?
Based on the sidebar in the NPR report, I think the success rate is based on "On roll-call votes where the president had a clear position".
This means that Obama's rating is happily pushed up by the Democrat's absolute majority in the House (no filibuster there). While in the Senate, if a vote is delayed, it doesn't count against him.
As I wrote above and as the reporting on the CQ study affirms, Obama is successful by the way success is defined. He takes a clear position on issues where Congress -- especially the House -- is already ready to act. He proclaims his position in broad generalities that grant his support to anything that the Democratic majority is likely to pass.
This isn't about leadership. It's about image management.
To put it another way, Obama is the Eddie Gaedel of leadership. Nobody's on base percentage is better.
lol Henry.
Obama walks everytime his up.
I find it hard to believe the Democrats won't win. Don't they have election insurance?
wv: pleme - when Valerie has a cough.
Had to look that one up, Henry.
Hey, Jeremy? I'm still trying to find that "evidence" you proimised on that www.teabag.org website you were touting yesterday. Can you help a girl out here? 'Cause otherwise I might need to think that you just make shit up to bolster your arguments when you don't have any of those reality-based fact thingies.
In which case I'd ask you to stop tooting that same old rusty trombone.
Lem said...
Clinton skips Haiti to stump for Coakley.
She's toast, then. Willie is the kiss of death for any candidate.
vbspurs said...
My personal take on this election is that if Coakley is not down by 10 points in her internals, on Monday, she'll win. Massachusetts is just too cobalt blue.
Don't know if that's true in a straight up-or-down vote (Brown is up by 4 with four days to go), but you want it that way to put it out of ACORN's reach
BREAKING: Obama to campaign for Martha "Annie" Coakley on Sunday in Mass.
Thoughts? Help? Hinderance?
Since God is getting the billing for Haiti's natural disaster, the watching of Coakley's disaster of a campaign made me remember that the Hebrew's God was always the most angry about un-just Courts making unjust rulings in his name. As the scriptures say, "the scepter of righteouness is the scepter of His kingdom". After what Coakley did so easily to the innocent in the Amireaults case, her sudden loss to Brown may actually be Devine intervention. Being an appointed Judge or the Attorney General that knowingly crushes the innocent with a finding of guilt is way worse than everyday pacts made with the Devil.
I've never understood why politicians stumping for each other would have an effect one way or the other, but the professionals seem to think that it does.
The left right now reminds me of nothing so much as the people in the musical Into the Woods. Ever seen it? In the first act, the people slay the dragon and they all live happily ever after. The rest of the play is about how happily ever after has its own challenges.
Obama won. Bush was slayed. And Democrats have huge Congressional majorities. Yet all the problems that existed before still exist now. Voters still vote. And a kind of gloom and paranoia seems to be setting in.
HOLY CRAP. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe (DSCC) is coming out with an anti-Brown spot...tying him to Wall Street greed by placing the images of the Twin Towers behind him!
Is this the much vaunted Democratic Massachussetts machine at work, or a bunch of ninth graders running for Student Government?
that's not true.
he has a substantial majority in the house, but has 2 less votes than the 60 necessary to override a filibuster in the senate
Ok then. 58 democrat to 40 republican. Still dominant numbers. He didn't mention fillibuster.
You need to learn to count.
Fen said..."But the more you talk, the less we read you."
yeah, i've noticed there are very few responses to my comments.
still dumb as a bag of rocks i see.
Johanna Lapp said..."Hey, Jeremy? I'm still trying to find that "evidence" you proimised on that www.teabag.org..."
sorry, dude...but i promised nothing of the kind and have never visited the site you mention.
Duh Bunny - "Ok then. 58 democrat to 40 republican. Still dominant numbers. He didn't mention fillibuster."
any president needs at least 60 votes...when he has an opposition party that only say NO.
what is it about this you don't understand?
oh, and that nasty red cross you bitch about all the time has done a hell of a job so far in haiti...especially in raising money.
why not forgo a few bottle of booze and take the time to donate some yourself.
johanna - sorry, i confused you with a one of your male wing nut counterparts.
i should have referred to you as dudette.
my bad.
but you're still wrong.
Democrats are in danger of losing a Senate seat in arguably the nation's most Democratic state.
Democrats' response on Althouse: ridicule.
Truly brilliant.
yeah, i've noticed there are very few responses to my comments.
And yet you never seem to take the hint.
How do you respond to someone who is obviously crazy and unreasonable?
"Democrats' response on Althouse: ridicule."
what does that even mean?
who are the democrats here (what few there are) "ridiculing" in regards to the election to which you refer?
*and why do you continue to use a terrorist as your moniker pic?
Original Mike said..."And yet you never seem to take the hint."
and yet you continue to respond.
are you really that dense?
if you don't like what i post...just move on.
I usually do.
Democrats' response: ridiculse
Thoughts? Help? Hinderance?
It won't change minds but it will probably motivate more Dems to get to the polls.
BJK said:
I was going to post a link to the 'Catholics shouldn't work in the Emergency Room' clip (since religion and the law is one of Prof. Althouse's specialties), but Fred4Pres' link has that one covered.
The political reality of offending Catholics in Boston....
Indeed; but one hopes that more than Catholics would be offended by her "no Catholics need apply" quip in conjunction with discussing religious freedom implications!.
Henry asks--regarding the CQ study being bandied about as so significant:
I'm curious about the methodology...Based on the sidebar in the NPR report, I think the success rate is based on "On roll-call votes where the president had a clear position".
Based on how NPR reported it the other day (and we know how anti-Obama NPR is!), the study doesn't mean very much; because the reporter explained that "the clear position" thing means that the President can assure a high "win" rate simply by declining to take a clear position (however that's measured) on things he doesn't feel sure to win.
Actually, it's all the more remarkable that President Obama has had the difficulties he has, given his party's big majorities in both houses. The thing is, his own Democrats have balked at the legislation he, himself, talks up: the health care measure and the so-called "Cap and Trade" measure.
I'm not knocking CQ as "in the tank" for Obama; based on my reading of CQ, admittedly over a decade ago now, they were more "in the tank" for the "ins," because that's who they have to work with.
Original Mike said...
I've never understood why politicians stumping for each other would have an effect one way or the other, but the professionals seem to think that it does.
The theory is it "gins up the base" and gets them to the polls; and maybe it works; or maybe most political operatives mistakenly think it does. How does one prove the matter empirically?
My own view is that it very well may hurt--because in the final weeks and days of the campaign, each side is going to have a significant, "get out the vote" operation in full gear--with mailings going out, phone calls being made, and all manner of organizational work being done to that end.
Now we get word the President is coming! Woo-hoo! OK, shift gears everyone--we have to work on getting this event together, so it's a success; everyone start working on getting folks to the rally.
One side shifts a share (perhaps a large share) of its effort now to good turnout for the rally--which is simply not the same thing as voter-turnout. The other side does not.
Can't say, but it seems very possible that a presidential visit a few days before doesn't help, and could actually hurt.
Now, if I can figure that out, why haven't these smart people figured it out?
Who says they haven't?
Could be it's a desperation play. Could be the campaign figured, we're going down, let it be Obama's fault. Could be they really think they're far enough ahead they can afford it.
I am very dubious Mr. Brown can win this election. On the other hand, I don't buy the idea that only a Brown win equals repudiation of the Obama agenda.
Original Mike said:
@John: Obama's personal approval is higher than approval of his policies.
Some anecdotal info to back that up:
Went to the doctor yesterday, here in bluer than blue MA. He had never mentioned politics before, but felt compelled to say how the negative ads against Scott Brown were a turnoff (he had the radio running in the background).
He also went on at length to say nice things about Obama ( I got the impression he had voted for O); mostly how "he speaks so well", (cue Chris Rock ); but concluded by saying, "It's too bad he's a socialist".
Just Lurking's good doctor: concluded by saying, "It's too bad he's a socialist"
yeah, we need to get rid of these horrible "socialist" programs:
medicare
medicaid
veteran's administration
social security
unemployment insurance
child welfare
temporary assistance for needy families
food stamps
special supplemental nutrition programs for women
infants
children national school lunch programs
and we need to get rid of our:
parks
federal highways
prisons
beaches
military bases
post offices
GFL that anyone here isn't already or won't be taking advantage of many of these terrible "socialist" programs.
If you go to www.obama.org, there is definitive proof that obama's agenda sucks and he is completely unsuccessful as POTUS. And to save time should someone actually go there to verify what I am claiming and finds nothing to support my claims, just remember... i promised nothing of the kind and have never visited the site you mention.
What most of the finer Junior Colleges teach about debate is you just make a statement, and throw up a link. If the link doesn't represent the statement, well....that's your problem.
Carry on.
jeff - low on meds?
talk to allen...he's got plenty.
This will go down as another Obama mistake.
Peter, don't worry. Coakley is SO inept that Obama actually has cover with her losing, if she does.
"Not even Obama could save that train-wreck", etc.
Besides, I like it. He's all in. Good politics, that.
duh?
Post a Comment