Through the bedazzling technology of my new iPhone app --
FuggedFuture-- I am able to advance you an exclusive photo of what the U.S. Senate will look like 24 hours from now. Astounding, no?
The betting line on tomorrow's by-election Senatorial race in Massachusetts is now hovering at 3 to 1 in favor of the GOP. None other than liberal odds-maker
Nate Silver rates Republican conservative
Scott Brown as a 74% favorite. Says Silver of the chances of Democratic nominee and current fill-in for Dead Teddy
Martha Coakley:
Overall, while I would probably take Coakley's side of a 3:1 wager, her situation looks to be increasingly difficult. She is basically relying upon getting solid turnout from a "silent majority" of voters who have done little to make themselves seen and heard. We know that there are a huge number of potential such voters in Massachusetts, which remains a very blue state and which until the past three weeks had not behaved unusually in any obvious way. But the pollsters are no longer seeing and hearing from them.
Silver also explains why there is a slim chance she might pull it out. But 3 to 1 sounds like a yummy bet to me.
The probable outcome is somewhat less appetizing. But a Republican victory tomorrow would, indeed, be the mass roosting of all those frenzied chickens. I never have a problem blaming the electorate for some dumb choices. That's a given, however, in politics. And if and when the Democrats lose their 60th seat tomorrow, they will have absolutely no one to blame but themselves.
Granted, this comes from a fairly conservative source, but the crux of this report on Coakley's recent fundraiser with a pack of corporate lobbyists is pretty damning.
Of course, the Coakley debacle runs much deeper than your usual K-Street fund raiser. Bob Kuttner lays it on pretty thick on the more generalized failure of the Democrats over the past year, failures that now seem destined to crest in tomorrow's voting.
Losing that Senate seat ain't gonna be no joke. It will be the end to what was already the tenuous 60 vote Democratic majority in the Senate. It will mean, at best, that we will get the worst health care possible (the one already passed by the Senate which the House will have to adopt word for word). Just as likely it will mean the demise of any such bill as Blue Dog Dems (and others in the House), spooked by Coakley's loss, head for the hills.
I suppose this will be good news for Dennis Kucinich and Jane Hamsher as they will now have their chance to "start over again." And they will have plenty of time to do it. Maybe like 15 or 20 years, if we are lucky.
I am not going waste my breath here detailing just what a pathetic pack of fools the Democrats are. I believe that will all be self-evident 5 minutes after the polls close tomorrow night.
This entry was posted
on Monday, January 18th, 2010 at 5:04 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Through the bedazzling technology of my new iPhone app -- FuggedFuture-- I am able to advance you an exclusive photo of what the U.S. Senate will look like 24 hours from now. Astounding, no?
The betting line on tomorrow's by-election Senatorial race in Massachusetts is now hovering at 3 to 1 in favor of the GOP. None other than liberal odds-maker Nate Silver rates Republican conservative Scott Brown as a 74% favorite. Says Silver of the chances of Democratic nominee and current fill-in for Dead Teddy Martha Coakley:
January 18th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
But will it mean that with Lieberman no longer vote #60, they can finally kick him to the curb? (Not that they’ll have the stones to actually do so)
January 18th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I don’t know why progressives attack the Democrats for being idiots, especially when there’s an election they can lose. It’s not like the DNC is a progressive party, or even capable of doing anything good. You may as well be yelling at the RNC for failure to elect progressives or uphold progressive principles. Once upon a time, perhaps.
January 18th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
The right won in Chile yesterday and the right will win tomorrow in Massachusetts. 2010 is not a good year.
But the teabaggers = the pinochetistas of the US? I see a lot of resemblance…
January 18th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
More resemblance between U.S. Democrats and defeated “concertacion” alliance in Chile. Both organized their own defeat.
January 18th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Um, Howie. Can u be a little ore obvious. I think my view of Democrats has always been abundantly clear. I am not yelling at them. I expect nothing from them. I only note their inability to even defend their OWN rather narrow interests. I also note that independent of what one hopes or desires we are all subject to the collateral fallout of such debacles i.e. we live here. It is indeed foolish to believe that Democrats are a vehicle of change. It is equally stupid to assert there is no difference between the two parties. The problem is that there isnt enough difference to either motivate enough people nor to enact significant and deep enough reform.
January 18th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Looks like you just wrote the same piece as the one about the defeat of the concertacion…the two situations are really rather horribly similar, aren’t they?
January 18th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Yeah, the Democrats definitely have some Concertacion like qualities (the bad qualities of the Concertacion). Which isn’t good because the Republicans right now are pretty insane.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Yes. I did write the same piece, more or less because the similarities are great. They are not identical, of course. Historically, the concertacion raised expectations than the Democrats ever could (even though they are basically the same). And, historically, the Pinochetistas are a much more dangerous force than shit head Republicans. Historically, that is. Unfortunately for the concertacion, Chileans are sophisticated enough to know that the Chilean Right no longer has any use for Pinochet and that’s why they werent afraid to pull the lever for Pinera.
Much like in Italy where the direct heirs of Mussonlini have been integral to the ruling coalition. They’re no sweethearts, but neither are they black shirts. No need when you can accomplish most of your goals thru good old Democracy and rule of law.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
No need when you can accomplish most of your goals thru good old Democracy and rule of law.
And in Italy’s case until recently control of both private and public media as well as a compliant judiciary.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Just to put things in perspective – we really didn’t have a “60 seat majority” in the Senate – i.e. an effective “supermajority.” The majority will hold. But the healthcare brouhaha proved that the Dems – Coakley or no – don’t have a super-majority that’s really workable. This will get a little bit tougher in the unlikely event of a Brown victory (don’t believe polls in these kinds of races – it’s all GOTV, and my bet is on the freaked-out Dems in that contest, although I won’t be shocked at a Brown squeaker) but it’s not nearly as different with 59 as the pundits will play it.
In fact, this could be a wake-up call for 2010 with a shift toward ground teams and fund-raising getting into place for shaky Dems, the White House reassessing it’s strategies and the whiners and doom-gloom internet lefties re-focusing on immediate political tasks rather than their wish lists and anal-ysis. All of that said, I’m glad Obama doesn’t give out the vibe that he’s governing according to polls. At this point in his presidency, none other than faithful Reagan hagiographer Lou Cannon had prounced the Gipper a “failed President” based on polls and his legislative record.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“the two situations are really rather horribly similar, aren’t they?”
Uh….no. Get a grip.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Note: In MA, similiarities…but don’t overproject.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Nate Silver’s post is one of the most interesting I’ve ever seen by a pollster – it’s sort of an admission that they don’t really know what might happen and that the variables are, shall we say, “numerous.”
I’m standing by my GOTV assertion – whoever does best on the ground, rounding up their potential voters in a special election, wins. Since I’m sure the Obama campaign had a much better GOTV operation in MA than McCain, my bet would be that they will do better than the GOPers at the real task at hand. But as I said, that’s my “bet.” And, like Silver, I’d definitely take those odds with a bet on Coakley.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
And all of that said, it’s disgraceful that the Massachusetts Dems aren’t fielding a better candidate to fill TK’s shoes. The sad truth is that Coakley won a primary. It’s also likely that she won it soley because she had enough establishment Dems rallying round her. If this turns out to be a loss, it might be a useful loss – despite the insult of having another voice for insanity fouling the Senate.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Ph banking for Coakley from the heartland.
Not conceding shit.
Not yet.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
A referendum on selfishness ?
Byron York: “On health care, Massachusetts is in a unique position. It already has near-universal coverage, enacted in 2006 by Republican governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic legislature, so a national measure designed to extend coverage to millions of currently-uncovered Americans means little to Bay State residents. But the Democrats’ national health care plan would force Massachusetts residents to pay higher taxes to expand coverage elsewhere in the country — with relatively few new benefits at home.”
People is strange…
January 18th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Food for thought… or angry responses, whichever you prefer:
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/oh-for-cryan-out-loud-do-dems-really-want-coakley-to-win/
January 18th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Not thought…nor anger…it’s too idiotic. “RiverDaughter” still hasn’t gotten over Obama winning the nomination. What planet…? etc . etc.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I’m calilng “reg’s” mother for advice on online bumpkin logorrhea.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Did an ant fart ?
This, on the other hand, is funny…
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001180005
January 18th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
The problem in a nutshell. Coakley hasn’t exposed herself enough to voters…Brown has.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo
January 18th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Not that it hasn’t been obvious for quite a while, but the Democratic Party of today is the proverbial Texas Bankroll: Barack Obama wrapped around a wad of newspaper.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:29 am
[...] Massachusetts: It’s All Over, Rover (marccooper.com) [...]
January 19th, 2010 at 6:45 am
You can’t give credit to Obama for helping Coakley after his elitist slam of people who own pickup trucks in attempting to belittle Brown. Democrats are out of touch with ordinary people, which is one of the reasons that the tea parties have arisen and the Democrats are in trouble. To avoid responsibility, if they can’t blame Bush, they should blame the teleprompter.
- – -
Why reg would consider Brown the right candidate for me: Olbermann: Scott Brown is a homophobic racist
reg must be on Olbermann’s writing staff.
- – -
Also, the continued use of the term “teabaggers” by the Left to identify traditional conservatives is so wrong and so crude that it only disparages them. And “teabaggers = the pinochetistas of the U.S?” Either that’s a stretch or Pinochet must have only been the Sarah Palin of his time.
Name calling doesn’t have to be accurate. It simply has to be repeated enough so that total idiots will believe it. I see who the idiots are.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Let’s get my name straight in the above comment — Woody. If a teleprompter can be blamed, so can a keyboard.
January 19th, 2010 at 7:35 am
This may be a surer bet than Marc anticipated.
Bookie pays off Scott Brown bets early
Is it too late to get in on that?
Actually, I never count the Democrats out as long as there are dead people who still cast votes.
January 19th, 2010 at 7:55 am
“The problem in a nutshell. Coakley hasn’t exposed herself enough to voters…Brown has.”
Unfortunately reg, neither did President Obama on Healthcare Reform. That a Republican could take the seat of a Democrat (yes Scott it is a Democratic seat because the math is two thirds of ‘the people’ are registered Democratic) is astounding.
Brown has run on defeating the current Healthcare Reform bill as his primary plank. This bill has devolved into a huge albatross around the Presidents neck that he thinks he must pass for his own reputation, and desire, but if it does, could very well sink him and his party majority, similar to President Clinton’s situation in his first term.
Forgetting how he got control of all three branches government, by candidates running clearly in the center to right, including the President himself, and the dire economic situation he inherited, he put his most important trillion dollar legislation in the hands of the most leftist leader in Washington, then left her alone for the most part to emerge with a bill that clearly was not in the center and doomed to political difficulty. This difficulty has meant too much time in the negative limelight, too costly, and too much lack of gov’t transparency, a central plank of the President’s campaign, to get the it done.
The President could have been a hero now by leading change in the healthcare area the huge majority of the country knew was needed and supported, by showing his concern with gov’t inefficiency and fraud in a down economy by simultaneously dealing with the current Medicare and SS abuse and fraud, using the powers he already had, and leading a bill that would have given him the power to deal equally with; Insurance Industry abuse and fraud, Tort Lawyer abuse and fraud, tax free Cadillac Insurance for Management as well as Labor, and using reasonable taxes and saving to begin to directly subsidize insurance for all.
Sadly he now has an ugly albatross that pleases way to few, and the political conniving and complexity required to get it is confusing and pissing off the rest.
At this point, whether Coakley wins or loses in MA, it is not too late for the President to save himself and his party to dig themselves out of this Healthcare hole. Drop this ‘thing’ this ‘blob’ this slowly consuming your presidency and support a Special Committee of independent respected people, appointed from both sides in the House and Senate, to come up with an alternate bill to address the whole inefficiency ridden, fraud ridden, politically ridden Healthcare Money Eating BLOB!
January 19th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Shut the fuck up Woody.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:12 am
One has to wonder who pays for Woodhead’s health, since he clearly has no time to hold a job.
I’m betting it is the ‘government intruder’ he rails about, the giving hand he bites. Add to his health dependency, food stamps, utilities, and rent dependency.
Get a job Woodhead!
January 19th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Shut up? I presume that you disagree with me, but your explanation is quite lacking. It must be because what I wrote is true and that you hate to admit it.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Jim R – the problem is that you can’t do the changes in the health care industry that you allegedly support – like ending recissions and pre-existing conditions without making it a universal system. Otherwise too many people would wait until they needed it to enroll and the costs for those who were paying for their insurance would skyrocket. This is such basic economics that when I read tripe like yours attacking Obama for doing “too much” health care reform, it’s just the mark of someone childish who has never really studied the issue. The problem with the health care reform is that it was a slave to a corrupt political process – most notably defiled by a GOP that is rotten to the core and nothing but obstructionist. All I get from your “centrist” rant is that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Put forward some specific plan that could work – and I guarantee you that the stuff you claim “everybody wants” put in place without universalizing the system could not work – and don’t push the nonsense about the existing legislation being not “exposed” enough. That’s simply not true – it’s a fiction of the media and disingenuous opponents who rely on soundbites rather than sensible dialogue. The simple act of following Ezra Klein’s blog on domestic policy issues at the Washington Post would allow you to discuss the issue with a modicum of common sense. As it is, you’re swimming in your own simple-minded rhetoric and asking us to jump in and drown ourselves in it. It’s bullshit.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:54 am
there should have been a dash after “pre-existing conditions-”
January 19th, 2010 at 8:56 am
“Because they’re MAD. The most progressive voters in the most progressive state will stay home and allow the teabaggers, the footdraggers, the dittoheads, the homophobes, the mysogynists, the religiofascists, the IDIOTS to send one of their own to the Senate.”
This quote from a blogger link above.
Now why would independent voters, the ones that count and keep the party-line voters halfway sane, and happen to be a very large bloc in MA, be mad at the Democratic ‘progressives’ right now? The excuses dreamed up to justify failure, the voters are MAD but not us, followed by a list of insults and slurs, is the real kind of madness. The chronic madness, the long term madness, the madness of the kind that even reality administered by ‘the people’ cannot treat.
No, it is reality and the sane that are MAD. Classic.
Let’s not under-estimate the voters by printing any headlines, Truman style, just yet.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Actually – Jim R when I look at your piece, you propose so much stuff that is actually covered by this bill, that you really are simply taking the luxury of not actually having to craft legislation and get it passed that a majority of congress would support. I don’t see how you can do all of the stuff you propose without a bill of at least the current legislation’s scope. You are engaged in magical thinking – it “can” be done if I wish it. Obama actually has to make the fucking donuts. Your criticisms are peevish, when all is said and done. Doing actual legislation is a lot harder than internet comments. I’m not kidding. But keep at it…
January 19th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Jim R – I’m surprised that you didn’t suggest that all of our problems could be solved by “cutting abuse and fraud” AND “cutting taxes.” That’s the platform Arnold used to save California from fiscal disaster.
Oh…wait a minute.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:47 am
As the reactionary clowns (Marc Cooper’s true Allies) drone on and
on, it might be of interest to try and untangle some of this
mess. Those worthless, stupid Democrats just pushed through
a healthcare bill (little thanks to his heroic President) that
he SUPPORTS, yet still says they are worthless.
Actually, Coop doesn’t like much like the Healthcare Bill,
probably because it does too MUCH, but in a few years
his “fundamentally decent” Republicans will be back in
power, his sleazebo buddy Hitchens will be cracking
cute and wise and all will be right with the world.
Mar’sc old boss Arianna is a lot more honest about
this: “Hope” has been a bust. If She was really being
honest (give it another year maybe, when the Dems
lose both houses) She would say “Hope” has been a
con. Why isn’t the Dem’s majority “workable?” Because
the White House seems to have no clue about how to
get it’s ducks in a row. Huffington also forgets the
keystone of Obama’s campaign (which She employed
every dirty trick in the book supporting) was that
it was supposed to create a Presidency that included
and energized THE PEOPLE. Tough to do when you
are denying them Healthcare and selling them out
to Wall Street.
And that’s EXACTLY the thing Bill Clinton was demonized
for by Marc Cooper, when he wasn’t lending his credibility
to this week’s phony scandal. Golly, did you know
Whitewater was designed to take advantage of working
class people?
Love the crazed slam at Kucinich and Hamsher. Yeah,
it’s all there fault.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Third Charmer, you pay more attention to me than my wife does. Will u help pay my car insurance and wash the dishes?
On a more serious note and at the risk of gross understatement, I BELIEVE you are a Clinton supporter. Isn’t Mrs. Clinton the Secretary of State in the despised Obama admin that can’t get its duck straight? Or is she just one of Bill’s old lovers who has spitefully taken on his surname to embarrass him?
January 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Interesting take on the nitty gritty of MA…
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/former-kennedy-aide-does-the-m.html?hpid=topnews
January 19th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I’ve siad it here before. All of this stems from the badly broken filibuster. That’s the #1 thing that needs to change.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
And…
The Dem wins this race. There! I put my bet on the table.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Here’s one Democrat’s position on the filibuster, if you can look past the slobbering and spitting. – Barney Frank: ‘God Didn’t Create the Filibuster’
The comments under the video add clairty.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
If you call them “teabaggers,” then you’re a racist. – Black Conservatives Take Lead Role in Tea Party Movement
January 19th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Unless the dead vote comes in late, it looks as if Scott Brown will hold onto his lead and win.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Not looking good, DanO. Also, it’s been brought up before, but how ironic that just as healthcare reform is about to pass, Ted Kennedy’s replacement ends up killing it.
Wicky wacky times we live in.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Not looking good, but wide open – this is still very much up in the air according to the Globe map I’ve been looking at. The weird thing is that the county maps seem to have this pattern of somethiing close to 60-40 whichever way they go. Not many places where it’s 49-51 or something on that order.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Brown’s campaign slogan on health care: “We’ve got ours!” He didn’t have the balls to actually run against the virtually identical MA plan, just against extending the same rights nationally…he supported the Mass Plan in the state senate. I guess that’s why he had his hand so carefully placed in that Cosmopolitan centerfold.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
I predict a candidate who backs the government guaranteeing health care, supports abortion rights, supports busing minority kids to white school districts, supports tax hikes, supports government investment in green energy, opposes any federal action against gay marriage and backs Obama’s foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East is going to win the election.
That is, in fact, a 100% sure bet. Odds don’t get better than that.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I should have refreshed that election map…luckily I still was accurate in my only dead certain prediction.
Anyway, no cause for hysteria. Take some lessons and move on. Here’s Steven Pearlstein’s take…
http://tinyurl.com/ye93u23
January 19th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
And I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb with another prediction…
This means energized and chastened Dems will lose LESS in November than they likely would have in the election cycle and make economic populism more credible as an effective strategy within the party. (Not because Brown is an economic populist – far from it, but because the Dems need to look beyond complacency and reconstruct a motivated base.)
January 19th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Incidentally, what we will most likely learn from the punditry commenting on the Mass race is that it proves whatever the commentator was saying all along…
January 19th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
From Politico:
“The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall,” a presidential adviser said. “The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.”
Absolutely…in fact, that’s what I’ve been saying all along !!!
January 19th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
OK, bad bet.
January 19th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
“Third Charmer, you pay more attention to me than my wife does. Will u help pay my car insurance and wash the dishes?”
Yes, the blogosphere tends to be a manly zone of combat in which commentators, almost all men, puff out there chests and hurl insults at one another. Still this outbreak of misogyny on Marc’s part was pretty awful. Coop why dont you help your wife out with the dishes, say 50/50?
January 19th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
I will also mention, before the hysterical tea leaf reading begins, as it always does, based on nothing, and bent on constructing some wise sounding narrative, that the primary driver of voting behavior outside of party loyalty, is economic performance, and the party in power always suffers when the economy is bad. How was that for a great big run on sentence?
January 19th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Exhibit A in the “narrative” line: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate
There is a huge corpus of scholarship on voter behavior, and there will be all kinds of analysis done on this race, but all we get is a bunch of ad hoc bullshit about how this was about the health care bill, and how the market reacted to X, and one guy’s comments which is supposed to suggest a valid conclusion about what happened. This sort of reporting is just lame.
I really don’t know anything about Coakley and don’t much care. But I do hate this kind of reporting that tells us what it all means, when they have no real idea at all and are just making up stories they think might sound good.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Dan O: hysterical tea leaf reading
Don’t you mean tea party?
Boston Tea Party
January 19th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
shut the fuck up loses meaning here.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
What happens when government fails to connect the dots. People die.
What happens when politicians fail to connect the dots, like New Jersey, followed by Virginia, followed by Massachusetts? Politician’s careers die.
The General in a war never falls on his own sword after a string of lost battles, though many under him may. He changes tactics. So will Obama.