MA Senate - Special Election Results thread

[J. J.]

Anyone have a live feed for MSNBC?

http://a962.l2152922961.c21529.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/962/21529/v0001/reflector:22097?MSWMExt=.asf

I'll just watch it.  It takes for ever to download.

[J. J.]

Anyone have a live feed for MSNBC?

http://a962.l2152922961.c21529.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/962/21529/v0001/reflector:22097?MSWMExt=.asf

I'll just watch it.  It takes for ever to download.

It works fine for me. I don't have cable.

I still have a dialup.  It is not the link, but my connection.

CNN might have the updates on their site.  I'll check.

[J. J.]

MSNBC just said that Coakley HQ was talking about a 5%+ loss.

South Boston was a problem.

[J. J.]

Nothing on CNN count.

[J. J.]

MSNBC has someone on saying ANY other Democrat would have won by 10 points. That is very, very true.

Any other candidate that didn't go on vacation in the middle of the campaign.

[J. J.]

Nobody is declaring it.

[J. J.]

Coakley's pollster (Lake, according to Fox) blaming the White House; White House blaming Coakley.

Just love circular firing squad before the result is announced.

[J. J.]

Nobody is declaring it.

How do you propose they declare a race like this without exit polls?

Well I am watching Fox. 

[J. J.]

I won't believe it till I see it. But I'm hopeful Brown has pulled this one out.

Ditto.  I'm still skeptical.

[J. J.]

Coakley's pollster (Lake, according to Fox) blaming the White House; White House blaming Coakley.

Just love circular firing squad before the result is announced.

I don't know what Coakley's people think Obama was supposed to do differently. She's the one that squandered a 15 point lead in a week. Obama and the national party's numbers stayed pretty constant throughout the same period, so it's clear that it's largely her fault.

Too soft on Wall Street; not enough attention to Main Street.  I'm just reporting, not commenting.

[J. J.]

Even Olbermann is talking like it's curtains for Coakley. The media seems to have completely written Coakley off, bad sign for her.

Actually, Fox is a bit more reserved.  I'm surprised; I generally don't watch FNC.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen did exit polls!!!

[J. J.]

Coakley's pollster (Lake, according to Fox) blaming the White House; White House blaming Coakley.

Just love circular firing squad before the result is announced.

I don't know what Coakley's people think Obama was supposed to do differently. She's the one that squandered a 15 point lead in a week. Obama and the national party's numbers stayed pretty constant throughout the same period, so it's clear that it's largely her fault.

Too soft on Wall Street; not enough attention to Main Street.  I'm just reporting, not commenting.

Even if that's so, the national situation has not changed in the past two weeks or so, while her poll numbers have. She was winning by a healthy margin even when Obama was "too soft on Wall Street; not enough attention to Main Street."

Lake, I think, is saying, *You made the environment toxic.*  True or not, that is what Lake is saying (and she at least should have waited to say it until the polls were at least closed).

[J. J.]

Yeah, J.J. is always commenting.

Rasmussen has hyperactivity, much like much of the Right these days... too bad you can't trust them. Rasmussen is fine with horse race polls but when they're crafting questions on other topics it's total BS.

I don't know why you are complaining.  I'm just relaying it, not saying it.

[J. J.]

Coakley's pollster (Lake, according to Fox) blaming the White House; White House blaming Coakley.

Just love circular firing squad before the result is announced.

I agree with the WH on this one.

I think if Obama was stronger there would be a win or if Coakley was a better candidate there would be a win.  Both together is the problem.

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

[J. J.]

Well, yes, at this point it does start looking much worse for D. Still, I'd wait for bigger cities to show: little from Boston, Worcester, etc. Though, of course, it does start looking like R pick-up

2% of Worcester is in, C at 75%

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

maybe?  those are the results.  what are you talking about?  what are you ever talking about?

I wouldn't read into Boston right now -- there is so much more to read into.  And 95% of it says Coakley is screwed.

The cities are out, Worcester is bad for B.  I'll hold.

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

maybe?  those are the results.  what are you talking about?  what are you ever talking about?

I wouldn't read into Boston right now -- there is so much more to read into.  And 95% of it says Coakley is screwed.

The cities are out, Worcester is bad for B.  I'll hold.

At 40% Worcester is 57% for C.  It's over.

[J. J.]

Currently Brown has 43% in Boston.

Black voters stayed home.

[J. J.]

Chelsea -26.45%, marking like the third remotely semi-promising sign for Coakley tonight, and not nearly enough of one.

It's too young to know whether black voters stayed home or not -- and considering that the precincts before have had lots of Brown votes, it's pretty obvious that black areas probably are largely not in yet.  J. J., man, seriously.

I'm agreeing with Howie Brown (whoever that is) in calling this for Brown.  I mean, waiting until we had enough Boston to make it an appropriate call wouldn't be fun.

Alcon, Fox reported that the was low African American turnout.  

[J. J.]

Ok, that's cool, but inferring that from the precinct results is stupid and anecdotal turnout reports suck.  I'm 19 and I've watched politics long enough to know that.

I'm relaying a report on Black turnout.  

Boston 37% in, C at 60.7%.  There are additional reports of lower turnout there.

[J. J.]

Ok, that's cool, but inferring that from the precinct results is stupid and anecdotal turnout reports suck.  I'm 19 and I've watched politics long enough to know that.

I'm relaying a report on Black turnout.  

Boston 37% in, C at 60.7%.  There are additional reports of lower turnout there.

I don't think it was unreasonable to assume from your lack of sources or "reports of..." that you were inferring that from the Boston numbers.  But, thanks for your confusing anecdotal evidence presented as fact I guess?

(Re: Torie) Brown is also short in Great Barrington, Medford, Lawrence, and a scattering of less significant towns.

Which I posted; I generally don't footnote things on election night.  AP give it to Brown.

[J. J.]

Boston was 81% in, so it is possible that Brown will drop below 5%.  I'm still stunned.