MA Senate Special Election Poll

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Brown(R)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In the special election for US Senate in Massachusetts, would you rather vote for a centrist Democrat or a right-wing douchebag?

Um, Coakley...

Coakley is no centrist.

Coakley a Centrist? ROTFLOL

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would probably write in someone.

why?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would probably write in someone.

why?

Scott Brown wants to kill babies.

Well then he should just think of it as vote against Obama and Coakley rather then for Scott Brown. This is the Waterloo that DeMint spoke. Its like the Michigan special election in 1931 that signaled no Republicans were safe anywhere even in there own base districts. We win here and Obama his finished for the rest of the year. By next Congress we will have 45 or 46 Senate seats. He needs to look at the larger goal. And Brown will be gone by 2013 anyway. We win here and any Democrat even in 15% Obama districts could be vulnerable in 2010.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would probably write in someone.

why?

Scott Brown wants to kill babies.

Well then he should just think of it as vote against Obama and Coakley rather then for Scott Brown. This is the Waterloo that DeMint spoke. Its like the Michigan special election in 1931 that signaled no Republicans were safe anywhere even in there own base districts. We win here and Obama his finished for the rest of the year. By next Congress we will have 45 or 46 Senate seats. He needs to look at the larger goal. And Brown will be gone by 2013 anyway. We win here and any Democrat even in 15% Obama districts could be vulnerable in 2010.

I it when people made cold political calculation instead of policy proposals!

Don't play dumb with me Marokai. Politics and Policy Proposals run hand in hand. You can't offer your policy proposals till you are in control, and to get in control you need to destroy your opponents and knock them out of office. Winning this seat helps further that.


Think about it Marokai. Would your policy proposals have stood a Ice cube's chance in hell if we had Mitt Romney as President with 48 Senate seats and 190 members in the House right now? No. And what put Obama in the White House? The Financial Crisis of late 2008, not his proposals. Get my point?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would probably write in someone.

why?

Scott Brown wants to kill babies.

Well then he should just think of it as vote against Obama and Coakley rather then for Scott Brown. This is the Waterloo that DeMint spoke. Its like the Michigan special election in 1931 that signaled no Republicans were safe anywhere even in there own base districts. We win here and Obama his finished for the rest of the year. By next Congress we will have 45 or 46 Senate seats. He needs to look at the larger goal. And Brown will be gone by 2013 anyway. We win here and any Democrat even in 15% Obama districts could be vulnerable in 2010.

I it when people made cold political calculation instead of policy proposals!

Don't play dumb with me Marokai. Politics and Policy Proposals run hand in hand. You can't offer your policy proposals till you are in control, and to get in control you need to destroy your opponents and knock them out of office. Winning this seat helps further that.

Oh yeah, remember the Democrats? They proposed nothing until they got in control, right? What we really should do is vote for people on the hope they'll come up with something.

It's the only way.

Actually technically the Democrats haven't come up with anything in decades. They did come up with a lot of sh**t I will grant you that but thats not saying much.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The one that comes from the party that doesn't control the entire state. (I)

Is that how you make all your political decisions; voting, who to criticize, etc? Just whoever has power?

In a state overrun by wacko Liberals the only to be Independent is to vote Republican.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marokai, how is this any different then Liberals voting for Blue Dogs like Jason Altmire, Heath Shuler, Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor? Or supporting very conservative candidates in Red states because they are the only ones that can win there? Because having your party in controll increases the liklihood that you will get some of your policies enacted. Look I me I support primarying of all Amnesty supporters but only in Red states and give people like the Maine ladies a free pass. Why? Because that is the best I can hope for in Maine. Whereas I know we can do better then some of these Amnesty supporters in Red or Swing States. I oppose most pork barrelers regardless of state or ideology. Those are the only two real deal breakers for me. Other then I don't give a damn if the candidate is Pro-Gay or Pro-Abortion, or whatever. I supported Lynn Jenkins in the general election in KS-02 for the same reason. She was a tax hiker and pro-choice. However she was tough on border security, pork spending and got us the House seat back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marokai, how is this any different then Liberals voting for Blue Dogs like Jason Altmire, Heath Shuler, Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor? Or supporting very conservative candidates in Red states because they are the only ones that can win there? Because having your party in controll increases the liklihood that you will get some of your policies enacted. Look I me I support primarying of all Amnesty supporters but only in Red states and give people like the Maine ladies a free pass. Why? Because that is the best I can hope for in Maine. Whereas I know we can do better then some of these Amnesty supporters in Red or Swing States. I oppose most pork barrelers regardless of state or ideology. Those are the only two real deal breakers for me. Other then I don't give a damn if the candidate is Pro-Gay or Pro-Abortion, or whatever. I supported Lynn Jenkins in the general election in KS-02 for the same reason. She was a tax hiker and pro-choice. However she was tough on border security, pork spending and got us the House seat back.

It's not really the fact that you're supporting him that irks me. You can support him if you like, and it makes sense to support someone over another if the "other" is someone who is so contrary to your beliefs, though it bothers me a teeny tiny bit because I don't really think people actually understand anything about Scott Brown other than "he's kinda pro-choice and he's not a Democrat" I'm willing to let that go.

My beef with Vepres is that he seems to base all of his political endorsements or his positions or his choices of targets to criticize soley on who is in power. If Republicans controlled congress and the Presidency right now, I'd happily bet you fifty dollars he'd be cheering on the Democrat. Vepres' sort of backward idea of how a government should be arranged is a recipe for an utterly deadlocked and paralyzed nation that accomplishes nothing but the most watered-down slap-on-the-wrist reforms and changes.

But that's neither here nor there.

My problem is a broader one, one I brought up with you to begin with. People are supporting the Republican to play a part in the grander scheme of things. Which is what? The right-wing opposition right now seems, to me, to be a movement based on complete and utter ignorance and an unwillingness to go along with any deviation from the status-quo. It doesn't care what the situation is, it doesn't care what the facts are, it doesn't care if something is effective or not, the movement does not care about the truth. And it's let to the Republican party having no message. no policy proposals to flaunt, nothing at all to run on.

What they are running on is, "stop the Democrats" and I simply find that to be absurd. The Republicans aren't running on anything at all, they have no ideas of their own, no solutions whatsoever, but people will happily line up in support of someone who, Hoffman from New York as one of my previous examples, doesn't care about policymaking or any of that complicated "work" stuff.

It simply baffles me that a party that has proposed absolutely nothing of it's own can actually run and possibly win on such a message, and that people such as yourself justify this complete lack of substance by saying "well, maybe when he gets in, we'll come up with something!" It's dangerous, and it's irresponsible, and it's just stupid.

Marokai, what do you want. You want us to kneel down and accept a Public Option that will just create another bankrupt entitlement and won't solve the problems. And don't you dare throw the fact that even a non-public option bill won't get GOP supports. Thats you guys fault for pushing the public option so long, letting Dem leaders ignore us, and stipping good parts of the bill to try and save the public option.  That we should just sit back and accept Climate change legislation that risks sending millions of jobs overseas with mere "hopes" that it will create new industries, based on a "debateable" theory. That we should sit back and watch as Barack Obama restarts that great Wave of Illegal Immigration by passing Amnesty with only show piece border security and faux crackdowns on employers. The idea that we have proposed nothing is created by your leftward bias. It should be phrased, "You haven't offered anything, I like" lol. Well Marokai, thats why you are a Democrat aren't you? Get mad, get glad and get over it.

I prefer the crossroads or inflection point analogy of Romney. We can go left or right. Either way American will be fundamentally changed. But the idea that the GOP fights for no reforms is nonesense. In 2012 our nominee, if he is too win, will have to have a set of reforms in mind on Education, Health care, and Energy. These will not be cave ins to utopian visions of Liberals such as yourself either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Currently its:

Coakley(D) 52.8%
Brown(R)    45.2%
Kennedy(I)   1.9%


Wouldn't be surprised if thats the final result of the special election.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Brown in a heartbeat.   It's one of the last shots we have at taking down that villainous healthcare scheme that violates the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  And Yankee, not all of the GOP supports "universal coverage".  That is Rat verbiage, which we do not use.  The word "universal" has a highly positive connotation that does not match the reality of its primary purpose which Rats look to create - which is single-payer government run healthcare that allows complete financial access into an individual's life.  It also implies a federal government mandate and regulation of some kind.  Most conservatives support the right to choose whether a person wants insurance or not. 

Should have used different terminology but if Obama had started with what he had in Sept when he gave his speech to congress, minus the Public Option and mandated coverage but with some other provisions that weren't in that, it would have passed with 80 Votes. But yeah, this wasn't about health Care reform it was about getting the Liberal wet dream of a public option to eventually get to the socialist wet dream of single payer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Brown in a heartbeat.   It's one of the last shots we have at taking down that villainous healthcare scheme that violates the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  And Yankee, not all of the GOP supports "universal coverage".  That is Rat verbiage, which we do not use.  The word "universal" has a highly positive connotation that does not match the reality of its primary purpose which Rats look to create - which is single-payer government run healthcare that allows complete financial access into an individual's life.  It also implies a federal government mandate and regulation of some kind.  Most conservatives support the right to choose whether a person wants insurance or not. 

Should have used different terminology but if Obama had started with what he had in Sept when he gave his speech to congress, minus the Public Option and mandated coverage but with some other provisions that weren't in that, it would have passed with 80 Votes. But yeah, this wasn't about health Care reform it was about getting the Liberal wet dream of a public option to eventually get to the socialist wet dream of single payer.

Do we really need an argument about health care in a thread about Massachusetts?

No, we don't

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

We can't be sure of that. I am inclined to think that if Obama had restrained Pelosi and Reid from treating us like crap during the Stimulus and stuff and completely, thinks would have been different. The cooler heads in the GOP like Hatch, Grassely, Alexander, Corker, Isakson would have voted for a less controversial bill. You guys have no one to blame but yourselves. This isn't a European parliament and as such you have to be actually willing to work with the minority to get stuff done. The alienation of the GOP caucus is Obama's fault. DeMint, Coburn would have been a loud but irrelevant side show, but instead of that Obama empowered them but giving a free hand to congress on everything and letting Pelosi continue her most corrupt congress in history that she had established in 2007, which included alienating all hope of Republican input. I really hope the GOP takes back the House in 2010.

The other miscalculation the Dems made was that American had shifted to being a Center Left country, in a way opposition to Obama is making it more Center-Right.