I'd like to extend my congratulations to the democratic party of Massachusetts, for the fine manner in which they decided to honor Ted Kennedy's legacy.

I blame the liberals, because everyone else does.

Leave it to the Dems to run for Senate the only person in MA who doesn't know that Curt Schilling was a Red Sox.

Great going guys.

Yet another victory for teh DLC! They have the perfect model: Raise amazing shitloads of cash, then refuse to spend any of it on actual elections. However, they're willing to sign blank checks to guys like Bob Shrum and Mark Penn because those two have established track records of losing big while spending big.

Oh, well! If the GOP can manage to turn over a House seat that had been safely Republican since before the Civil War, I guess there's no reason why the Dems can't at least reciprocate with a Senate seat.

God bless the DLC for dampening the spirits of the base. It's almost like they want to lose! DC is kabuki at its finest. There was never any intention of getting anything done other than robbing from the poor and giving to the rich.

I so hope this is wrong. The only possible silver lining I can see is that MA voters have been robocalled to death -- I myself have heard from Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Victoria Kennedy, Curt Schilling, both of Scott Brown's daughters, and assorted self-proclaimed experts on the horror that is universal health care, not to mention the candidates themselves. We've been called at least five times a day. So it's possible that at this point most people are just hanging up on anything election-related.

What a fantastic bellwether that Obama Year Two is gonna be even more gooder than Obama Year One...

What a wonderful new member of the US Clown Car Senate both to make it more clowny for democracy, and to fulfill the final destiny of futility for Ted Kennedy and the entire Kennedy legacy!

(and this is true even if Ms. CloakFern wins...)

Yahoo! Whatta country!!!

The strand of hope I'm holding onto now is the fact that Coakley out-performed the polls in the primary and could do that again today.

I'm holding on to that,too, Paul.

Yes, of course this would be something of a message about the wounded and bent version of health care reform legislation limping along in Congress.

Yet, I think it would be more than that. You can be a Democrat or a Republican, a progressive or a conservative, and still be a "populist". And underneath it all, I think the election of Scott Brown, about whom I know little except his bio on Wikipedia, I think his election would be an expression of populist anger, like a lightening bolt.

Of course, the powers-that-be in Washington, both sides of the aisle, might choose to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears, and go on with the charade that has passed for governance these many years. At their peril, I would think/hope. If a Scott Brown can upset someone in Mass, then lots of incumbent dumping would seem quite possible.

I regret that a quality person unaligned with EITHER of the two parties isn't in the position Brown finds himself in this morning. But if he IS elected, and if he DOES resist being easily categorized, that's worth something ... especially if it turns out that he has a good brain and manageable ego to go along with his "humble beginnings" career path.

It would be refreshing if he were not a lawyer, in my opinion. Small business person, or entrepreneur, or educator, or health care guru would be nice. But that's wishful thinking in the extreme.

A SHARP candidate (in re Bloody Red Sock) would have said, "I'm running for United States Senator, not Baseball commissioner. Next question."

Instead she said, "humminahumminahummina," and spouted the first lie to enter her head.

Maybe Brown's election will result in a badly needed testosterone eruption in the Democratic Caucus. . .

So it turns out that while the Dems were congratulating themselves on an unfinished health care reform, earnestly debating fine points of airline security, and otherwise napping, the Republicans were working to win back the Senate:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31639.html

Republicans play to win. Democrats play to tie. No change in that over the past, oh, forty years or so.

This is what happens when you constantly disappoint your constituency. Great job, Barack! (Of course, the villagers will say the Dems were destroyed because they overreached and were too liberal.)

We may soon add Massachusetts to the list that includes Connecticut as a State that that misplaced it's anger/priorities to elect a numskull. The short turm euphoria of standing on some ill-design thought process to elect someone who will in the long run thwart their constituents overall desires in the same manner LIEberman has done to Connecticut will not soon be forgotten by the other Blue States and most definately not by the numskulls in Mass who will elect him.

Remember: Careful what you wish for. Nauseating...

The Obama administration ends with a whimper in Massachusetts. Who would have thought.

The DC professionals Democrats are full of themselves, have abandoned their base and have obviously lost their minds. We need a third party.

What exactly did Obama expect when his friends moved heaven and earth to help their buds at Goldman Sachs and on Wall Street while abandoning their voting base to fend for themselves in the midst of the worse recession since the great depression. Ok they passed a small stimulus package, but BFD. That thing hasn't made a dent in unemployment.

Since before the Vietnam War we Liberals have been both cowardly and stupid. Cowardly because we seem afraid to take our principles out and explain them to the people and stupid in that since early post-war era we can't help to show contempt for the poor rubes West of the Hudson and East of the Beverly Hills.

As Bob Somerby notes in The Daily Howler, with few exceptions (Bill Clinton, surprise, surprise), most voters view liberals unsympathetic them and their concerns. As he said yesterday: "it almost seems that liberals and progressives work to be seen as fundamentally un-sympathetic to the voters who largely decide where our nation will head." Which gives the folks on conservative talk radio lots of grist to devour the Sarah Coakley's of this world.

It should be obvious that this is a reflection of the profound disappointment Obama has created in his first year.

Economy in the toilet, no financial reform, less-than-exciting health care reform.

AND the Republicans have been controlling the message constantly.

AND the Democrats have been asleep at this particular electoral switch.

Aside from the obvious fact that Coakley was drunk on her own hubris, and hasn't run a campaign worthy of the name, the only reason that a little known and undistinguished state senator named Brown has gotten anywhere is his pretty face. Yes there is a lot of anger in the electorate, but I guarantee you if Brown looked like Dick Cheney he would be toast. It's a now familiar GOP ploy: go for the superficial because often it works.

If Brown wins, as seems likely, it will just ratchet up the political realignment that is definitely coming. But until it does the country will be as ungovernable as California is today.

I am beyond disgust.

Laughing at you, not with you...

"We need a third party."

Funniest line of the day...

We also have the problem of Rubin Democrats, liberals in that they are pro-choice and feel that something should be done for the enviroment, but who definitely are unsympathetic to way the inscecurity, anxiety, and direct economic pain that the middle and working classes have suffered (see Dan Froomkin's piece on the Huffington Post on January 15). And as a result the President and the Democratic Congress have essentially continued to support the pro-banker Hank Paulson/Ben Bernanke policy of the last three years of the Bush administration as a result. I note that this policy (let the banks do what they will, give them money unconditionally, along with fighting two interminable foreign wars at the same time) did not work to well for the Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. No reason to expect it to turn out any better for the Democrats.

Ahhh, the smell of Democratic discombobulation in the morning. Refreshes the old bones. Think I'll take a walk later today now that I'm getting my country back.

From MA, voted in the North End of Boston this morning. Surprisingly had to wait in line. The line consisted entirely of young professionals under or around the age of 30. I think turnout is going to be higher than anticipated but I'm not sure that is a good thing.

The Obama administration ends with a whimper in Massachusetts. Who would have thought.

No one who doesn't spend way too much time staring at his own fat navel thinks this. This is the statement of a child, and a not very bright child at that. It's doubly funny because the idiot who posted this spent all last year raving about how wonderful Obama is with no ability to read BHO's flaws or weaknesses.

I'm picking on this guy because he's always such low hanging fruit, but he's just an example of the way too people who are deep in the throes of bubble disease. Zero sense of perspective. Zero understanding of how people who don't squat on blogs all day might think. Zero ability to analyze data without falling off the cliff of self indulgent hysteria.

There's a lot to be depressed about nowadays. Even taking into account the many missteps and foolish decisions of the president and Democratic caucus, the inability of certain horribly insular elements of the left to look beyond themselves or to act like grownups once in a while is fairly high on the list of things to be bummed about.

Brown is a teabagger. He will hoist himself by his own petard eventually.

Since when does one election determine the course of the future not counting the stolen Presidential election of 2000? I believe way too much is being made of this and I'm also not at all sure that Coakly is going to lose.

I live in CT but resided in Massachusetts for 35 of my 38 years of life. Most of my family is there and most of my friends are still there. From my non professional polling, and my face book page, I do not see how Coakley wins. As much as it pains me to say, it probably serves the Democrats right for 1) putting up such a bad candidate and 2) taking it for granted early on.

Hopefully I am wrong on all of this but I am not seeing it.

It aint over yet folks. There are a number of things in our favor here. This is, afterall Massachusetts. The Democrats really do have a machine here. We outnumber republicans 3 to 1. Our biggest guns have visited and given great speeches the last couple of days. Expectations have been set so high by republicans that if they don't pull it off, it will be seen as a stunning victory for Democrats again. There is nothing I love more than a close election. Tonight should be pretty darned exciting. Don't give up until votes are counted. Get out and vote!

With very few exceptions (the election of JFK was perhaps the last time at the Presidential level), elections are for registering discontent, rather than enthusiasm. The 2008 elections were not an endorsement of Democrats, they were a repudiation of GW Bush and the Republicans. The Massachusetts special election (and, I'm afraid, the same is true for the upcoming 2010 general elections) is an expression of impatience and unease with the newly elected Democratic majority, rather an endorsement of the Republicans.

koreyel,

You mock the idea of a third party, and I simply think it is unlikely. It might also be a poor idea, depending on what it stands for and who leads it and for what reasons. Especially poor if it models itself after "The Big Two" in significant ways.

But, a question for you: What do you think about a "non-party" (like 7-up used to be the "un-cola") that is, instead, a "movement" of populists who are united in their principles of governance, eschewing special interests, taking direction from the open dialogue they have with constituents, favoring term limits, etc. Does that have merit in your view? And would it have a chance of attracting candidates, probably only a few of whom would be incumbents?

Had Obama himself been at the head of such a movement, he of the "no blue states, no red states, etc..." rhetoric, I would have been thrilled.

Attention Massachusians: (what do you call someone from Massachusetts?)

You can't complain if you don't vote.

Geez, you'd think you'd wait for the outcome of the election first before you get ready to hang yourselves.

Wasn't it only 24-hours ago this site was reporting that Coakley's internal polling showed her up by two points? Anything happen in that time period to change this that I missed?

What will determine the outcome is what Woody Allen said, 90 percent of life is about showing up. If the Left cares about health care reform that much, Coakley will win. If not, then she'll lose.

Sean Scallion: Anything happen in that time period to change this that I missed?

Yes. Go find out what it was.

If the Left cares about health care reform that much, Coakley will win. If not, then she'll lose.

Cute. Perhaps yet another thing you're unaware of is that Massachusetts already has universal healthcare?

The short turm euphoria of standing on some ill-design thought process to elect someone who will in the long run thwart their constituents overall desires......

Short term? Lieberman has been in the Senate 22 years, and George Bush got elected twice. Republicans have had the Presidency for 20 out of the past 30 years.

I expected 8 years of Bush/Cheney to be the education America needed, but apparently not, not even in Mass. If the general electorate is so gullible as to believe the TEA movement is a sincere one, I suggest they stack the government with supposed TEA hardliners and see what they get. I already know, but would be entertaining to watch as at least a few dim bulbs would come on.

The U.S. government is a stagnate mess, and I'm tired of the two dominant parties playing good cop/bad cop kabuki theater while problems remain unsolved and the rich continue to rape the middle class. I'd rather that only one party got to make all the legislative decisions. That way, when the TEA baggers got control the electorate would see that either 1. they followed through on their "ideology" and collapsed the economy while balancing the budget, cutting taxes, and gutting all government programs (except military), or 2. they revealed themselves as the phonies they are and continue shifting money to the banks and let big corporations sell out the middle class while gutting consumer protections.

Never have I seen so many wanting to throw a pity party before the polls have even closed. Why wait 24 hours I guess.

For once, just once, is waiting and seeing to much to ask before we all show and how wise and clever we are because we knew ahead of time the outcome?

Please don't become like TV news and political shows.

Today is a prime example of the US system of checks and balances.
Tea us off and we WILL send you packing.

My political philosophy for years has been, "Democrats are stupid, Republicans are evil."

The Dems are certainly proving me right this year. (To be fair, the Repubs have never proven me wrong.)

Well, Sean, there WILL be a pity party somewhere I suppose. Question remains about the menue: Will it be elephant steak and horse apples, or tea and crow?

Or as we sometimes spell it: "menu".

So thanks MA. Due to the "logic" of the senate rules, if you elect your republican in some sort of misplaced 'populist' anger, you will be giving more voice, and power to:

Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett - Utah [and note, Bennett is being pressed from HIS RIGHT in his re-election...]

Shelby and Sessions - ALA

McCain and Kyle AZ

Ensign NV {you dick my wife and I give you a job to shut you up]

Chambliss [sorry about your lost limbs in your service in Vietnam there, but I think you are a terrorist] and Isakson - GA

Crapo and Risch _ ID

Inohofe and Coburn - Ok - two of the dumbest people ever to grace the senate

Grassely IA

Vitter - "hey know any good hookers" - LA

Enzi and Barraso WY - never met a oil and gas subsidy they didn't like

Cochran and Wicker - MS - shovel more pork our way, baby

Graham and DeMint _ SC don't even get me started

SO, thanks MA; Thanks Demos. If this gets F***ed up, you will get to hear from more of "my" senators, who, trust me, ARE NOTHING LIKE Collins and Snowe, and will make Brown look like a liberal. Thanks for nothing.

"Leave it to the Dems to run for Senate the only person in MA who doesn't know that Curt Schilling was a Red Sox.

Great going guys."

And that is it in a nutshell for me.

This was the frontrunner of the Democratic Party in MA?

Are they THAT tone-deaf up there?

We Democrats are certainly stupid, that's true. It saddens me that many of us will sit, arms folded, and revel in the moral certainly that comes from being "truly liberal."

Will liberals still act smug as the Republicans drag this country back into the ditch? Probably. Like I said, we're stupid.

IT IS TIME TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR FILIBUSTERS. Jimmy Stewart and this election aside, for one person who intends only to obstruct to run and have a really good shot at winning because of outdated senate rules which never existed until recently is stupid.

@bigutah -

Fun post. Re: Ensign, you mixed up some pronouns.

Basilisc

Thanks. I lose track of which guy is doing what to whom when ....

Anybody who sits at home or votes for Brown and yet calls themselves a "progressive" simply doesn't know what that word means. As a lifelong Democrat and Obama voter, I understand the disappointment and anger over a variety of Obama's decisions and policies, but moving from that to sitting the election out is nothing other than cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Yes, Coakley was a ridiculously dreadful candidate, and the national Dems—up to and including Obama—have been completely asleep at the switch on this election. If the polls are correct, there will be plenty of Massachusetts residents with no shnozz left to blow in their hankies when Brown starts casting votes with his Neanderthal GOP colleagues. Anybody who thinks Brown will steer a moderate course is setting a new record for naive gullibility, but that's what Americans seem to be especially proficient at.

i know i'm whistling past the graveyard here, but a commentor on nate's site (on another post about this election: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/25-0.html#comment-235310273812071979) pointed out something about "all the polls" that show brown ahead:
all of nate's highest rated pollsters are sitting this one out...

"seltzer & susa [no shows]

rasmussen [punting - toss-up]

then it drops to:

r2000 [toss-up]

mason-dixon & quin [no shows]

then ppp [brown +5]

then down to lower rated insider advantage & suffolk & fox & arg

plus the unknowns like crosstarget [pajamas]

in other words, the available pooling is dominated by lower rated pollsters + unknows/dubious + leaked internals...

= low confidence level for the final prediction in an abbreviated special election

wv = unhook [lol]"

tho i have no idea what "wv = unhook [lol]" means, this commentor (dm in fla) makes a good point: everyone is basing their prediction of a brown blow-out on a combination of polling firms that either (a) are new and untested or (b) don't have that great of a track record.

also, every report this morning speaks of a high, high turn out, and if i recall correctly, everyone has said that that would favor the dems.

we'll see.

"Think I'll take a walk later today now that I'm getting my country back."
Posted by: MynameisAL on January 19, 2010 at 9:29 AM

I have no idea if this is a real post, a parody, or what.
But any white "middle-class" person (a term which, properly applied, might encompass maybe 60-70% of the population, but which almost every American from part-time-min-wage to owner-of-enterprise-with-8-figure-worth seems to think applies to them) who thinks they'll be "getting [their] country back" is even more of a fool than they seem.
Our country -- OURS, you reprobate reptile, since we're more faithful to the founders' visions, documents, and institutions than you, and we're more willing to actually fight and die for it than you -- is now owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by many non-American individuals and enterprises, and by less than 2% of the American population, and you are not one of them.
If the Publicans return to nominal control (as well as the actual control that they enjoy because of their ownership of way too many Democrats and of the mass media), you will get nothing except more fucked. You and your offspring (if, God forbid, you've reproduced) will have less political power, less opportunity for wealth and income, and less security -- in every conceivable sense of the term.
And that's fine by me because you thoroughly deserve it.
The problem is, the rest of us -- those of us who live in the "blue" states that provide much of the financial support that those in the "red" states rely on, and those of us who, wherever we live, have three-digit IQs, and some vague appreciation of exactly how, why, and by whom the American middle class is being demolished, and our country's wealth and power squandered, stolen, and trashed (here's a clue: it's because of the people, parties, and powers you've been voting for, donating money to, and furthering with your imbecilic lies and inaccuracies) -- we don't deserve it.
Yet we have to deal with it.
Because of you, and the millions of shortsighted, selfish moral and mental midgets like you.
Go fuck yourself very, very hard.

@smartalek

Say it, bruthah - you made my day with this posting.

this Democratic National Committee has set up a slightly more useful polling locator they contact Raise Your Vote. this web site still needs your handle and zip code, but then displays your assigned polling station in addition to the best route to get there at your homw.