Notes from the Massachusetts Senate Race

Nigerian Zionists for Coakley, Irish Republicans for Brown, and thousands of angry Bay Staters


Cambridge, Massachusetts—In 1989, at the apogee of his exceedingly rebellious teenage years, my brother's band released their first full-length record (1,000 copies, available on both black and red vinyl). To be iconoclastic in the suburbs of Boston—especially the progressive pocket where we grew up—was rather difficult. Everyone in high school smoked pot and drank beer, and everyone's parents had stumped for Mike Dukakis the previous year. So the hardcore punk band in which he played drums was "straight edge"—i.e., no booze or drugs allowed (a commandment he abandoned the following year)—and the record would open with the song "Nuke the Duke," a full-frontal assault on Dukakis and the tyranny of "Taxachusetts."

Perhaps, as with so much punk rock, the inevitable has finally happened: dissenting from Massachusetts political orthodoxy has finally been "commodified" by the mainstream. In this bluest of blue states, I have been following Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown and Democratic gaffemaster Martha Coakley as they weave their way back to Boston. I have spent the past few days talking to union members, former Democrats, current Democrats, Kennedy voters, former Deval Patrick enthusiasts, and gay rights campaigners who are—as almost all of them say—Scott Brown supporters worried about the "explosive growth of government." All natives of the commonwealth and reflexively Democratic, they kvetch about spending, taxes, and health care. As one member of a pipefitters union told me, "none of the guys in my union trust that Obama won't hit us with that 40 percent health care tax."

When I was a student in this state, before one could get any book overnighted from Amazon.com, I had to special order Road to Serfdom from a local bookstore. On Sunday, in front of Northeastern University, I chatted with a Massachusetts native—if I recall, he had an accent as broad as the Shannon, though after a day one tends not to notice the "bubblahs" and "packies"—carrying a hand-lettered sign that made reference to Hayek and his 1944 classic defense of classical liberalism. At a rally in Littleton (Obama 58, McCain 41), almost every car that drove by honked horns in support of Scott Brown and more than a few people explained that they had always voted for Teddy Kennedy.

What on earth is happening here? A local Republican Party Chairman was blunt: It's health care, big government, and national security that are driving Brown's spectacular bounce in the polls, but no one in state party politics expected something like this. To lose by 15 points would, this time last month, have been considered a good, if not really good, result.

Everywhere I turn there are r-dropping Bostonians complaining about government, insisting that Americans need to "take their country back." One woman, who seemed overly familiar with all of my childhood neighbors—the Flynns, the McBreens—compares herself to a passenger on Flight 93 who wants to yell "let's roll" and regain control of our hijacked country. Or perhaps she was suggesting that President Obama is a Muslim. It was, like many of the arguments I heard, not completely clear.

Those who say that the foot soldiers coming out in the bitter cold, in a wet and soggy snow, to hoot and holler for Scott Brown are hirelings, out-of-staters, both teabaggers and carpetbaggers, are talking nonsense. I came across a man from Michigan selling "second American revolution" flags, an Atlanta native who, veins popping on his neck, told me that the government was run by "thieves," a woman from Pittsburgh who "blogs on Facebook" (whatever that means), and a handful of people from New Hampshire who would rather die than not live free. Or so their license plates informed me.

But most were like Nick Redmond, a native of Dorchester—the neighborhood famous outside Massachusetts for bequeathing New Kids on the Block and Donna Summer to American culture—who was voting for Scott Brown because, under the current administration, "the middle class is getting screwed." Or John Camuso, a gay man from Boston who said he was "proud to give [Brown] my vote," despite thinking that Coakley, whom he knew from his neighborhood, was a "nice lady."

Perhaps this explains Coakley's appearance last night at the Eire Bar in Dorchester, a redoubt of working class, union-affiliated Irish Catholics. The crowd was surprisingly small and unsurprisingly sedate. The candidate gave no speech, was surrounded by union heavies and representatives of local media, and quietly sipped a pint of Guinness. Across the bar, a boisterous Belfast native called Larry was holding a Brown sign and telling the Coakley people who surrounded him, hoisting their own signs, to "fuck off."

When we spoke, Larry identified himself as a conservative, a union member, a supporter of Sinn Fein, and a Scott Brown voter. "Obama has demonized every facet of the private sector [and his policies] have given us huge unemployment," he says. Outside, a Nigerian man in a red, white, and blue vest and holding a Coakley sign patiently explained to me that Israel was his "favorite country in the world"; that African-Americans need lessons in entrepreneurship from Nigerians; and that because of a Muslim student in the chemistry department at his local university, he received an unfair C+ on a recent exam. "I am the American dream," he proclaimed.

Nigerian Zionists for Coakley. Irish Republicans for Brown. It is becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of any of this.

This much is, and has always been, clear: The working class Massachusetts Democrat—or the constantly referenced Reagan Democrat—isn't so hip to, say, gay rights or political correctness and cannot be counted on as a natural Democrat. One registered Democrat I spoke to launched into an incoherent rant about a friend who has a "faggot purple phone." These guys support labor unions, not civil unions. And if they can ignore the social stuff that makes them uncomfortable and pull the lever for a Democrat, what's to stop them from rolling the dice on Brown, who the Coakley campaign accuses of being a mustache-twisting free trader who will ship Massachusetts jobs to "India and China"? Here, again, the issue seems to be concerns over health care and rising taxes trumping union-stoked fears of foreign competition.

At the Obama event on Sunday, the union guys were hard to spot (though a small contingent of "SEIU for Brown" supporters were camped in the middle of Huntington Avenue). Perhaps they were all inside the Obama revival tent, but the Brown contingent outside Northeastern was large, loud, and energized, while the Coakley sign carriers not only look drained of energy, they look defeated and depressed. They are also in no mood to be forgiving. As I walk towards the front lines, looking to take the temperature of these morose supporters of a floundering campaign, I am shouted at by a small woman in a North Face jacket and New Balance sneakers—i.e., the middle-aged Cambridge liberal uniform.

"We have been here since this morning. Go stand somewhere else."

They are waiting to see the Obama motorcade.

"No, no. I don't want your space, I just wanted to ask you a few questions."

Another shouts, "Who do you write for?"

"Reason magazine."

"Heathen magazine?"


"You wanna quote?" someone yells. I make eye contact with a flame-haired, sign-toting Coakleyite. He looks like an extra from Gangs of New York; a prize fighter from Sligo. "Here's your quote: Scott Brown sucks."

And there you have it. As one Massachusetts libertarian said to me, no one is voting for Martha Coakley. They are voting against Scott Brown. All polls look rather promising for a Brown upset, but it's too close to call—and after all, as every Republican official has told me, this is still Massachusetts.

Michael Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

NEXT: Everyone Hates Health Care Reform

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The people are revolting!!

    1. Dumb white woman has got that right.

      1. Hey! Where all the white women at?

        1. I was wondering the same thing…

    2. Of course they’re revolting…

      Wait. Haven’t we done the gag before?

    3. That’s Marsh Coakley ? get it right

      1. Marsha Marsha Marsha!!!

  2. Anyone can buy a truck.

    1. There are no trucks left in Afghanastan.

    2. It’s a GMC truck. Shouldn’t you be more solicitous toward your company’s customers?

  3. Christie and McDonnell and Brown, oh my! Christie and McDonnell and Brown, oh my! Christie and McDonnell and Brown, oh my! Christie and McDonnell and Brown, oh my! Christie and McDonnell and Brown, oh my!

  4. Heathen Magazine. Amusing.

    1. We should be flattered if it catches on among the haters.

  5. I really want to see a shitbag prosecutor like Coakley lose, but these are Masshole voters we’re talking about here. They voted for Chappaquiddick-boy forever.

    1. “They voted for Chappaquiddick-boy forever.”

      And now he spends eternity in my urinal.

      1. Hey, Satan, how does Pat Robertson know so much about you and Haiti? Does he have any secret allegiances you can tell us about?

        1. He irons my shit.

          1. So that old school reggae joint was supposed to be “I’m gonna put on a iron shit”?

          2. Must I have yet another anal pineapple, Herr Satan?

            1. I like my new job shoving pineapples up Hitler’s ass… but I sure could use a scotch.

  6. In other news – Debra Medina, the Ron Paul pre-candidate for the Texas Governor seat, is gaining ground against the incumbent candidate (Rick Perry) and his closest rival Hutchinson.

    Sunday, January 17, 2010

    Early post-debate polling: leaders lose ground

    posted by paulburka at 9:40 PM

    This report comes from a polling firm that did a post-debate survey of Republican primary voters. I am authorized to publish these numbers. I have no further information to provide other than what I am publishing here.

    ?Perry and Hutchison lost support as a result of the debate. Perry fell into the high thirties, Hutchison into the high twenties.

    ?This lost support went to undecideds, which are now close to 20%, and to Medina, who is in the low teens. Medina is hurting Perry among men and Hutchison among women.

    ?Medina’s positive name ID is up to 30%, her negative name ID is at 20%

    ?Perry name ID is 55% positive, 45% negative
    ?Hutchison’s name ID is 55% positive, 39% negative

    These numbers seem very plausible to me. I would have been very surprised if Medina’s numbers had not gone up. A credible case can be made that she won the debate. The Dallas Morning News ought to reconsider whether she belongs in the January 29 debate. They are going to look mighty silly if Medina is sitting home with 15 to 20 points in the polls. (The paper’s threshold for qualifying for inclusion in the debate is 15%.) I think Hutchison is in more danger from Medina than Perry is. Medina is younger and fresher than Hutchison. She has a little of Sarah Palin in her, an element of sincerity with considerably more intelligence. If she can raise money from Ron Paul’s mailing list, she might be able to make a move.

    Assuming that these numbers hold up over the next few weeks, the Republican primary race appears to be headed toward a runoff. This is very dangerous territory for an incumbent.


    Rassmusen polling results:

    GOP Primary (source: WFAA)

    Rick Perry ? 43%
    Kay Bailey Hutchison ? 33%
    Debra Medina ? 12%
    Undecided ? 11%


    1. Perry is a piece of shit. That bastard had state ABC agents in bars arresting drunk people for ‘attempted drunk driving’. No kidding. I was living in Texas then. I sent the only nasty letter I have ever sent to a politician. I would vote for anyone over him.

      1. You never lived in Texas. Stop lying (if you can).

        1. It was me. My penance for bad trolling above. And I did live in Texas and Perry is a rotten governor.

  7. Republicans with Rand references rattle me with rage.

    1. +1 for WWJGD

      1. Weep with me, my brother comrade! Tonight is the beginning of the downfall of the Obama kingdom!

        1. That tingly feeling just isn’t as moisture-inducing as it used to be…

  8. Republicans with Rand references rattle me with rage.

    Awesomely alliterative anger?

    1. Atlas is Shrugging … Vote Mr. Thompson!

  9. “Faggot purple phone” guy has a gift for evocation.

  10. One registered Democrat I spoke to launched into an incoherent rant about a friend who has a “faggot purple phone.” These guys support labor unions, not civil unions.

    Even though civil unions are far less destructive than labor unions . . .

  11. Actually, doesn’t “faggot purple phone” only really mean that the person is implying the phone is gay?

    And if you don’t know how phones have gay sex, Warty will have to help you there.

    1. “A Texas Chili Bowl involves Tabasco sauce, a telephone, and the anus.”

    2. When an iPhone and a Nokia 2300 love each other very much, the Nokia sticks its antenna into the iPhone’s USB port and ….


  12. I voted this morning and felt so good to cast my ballot for Scott Brown.
    Over a year late, this is a real vote for change. A vote to rid ourselves of 48 years of failed neo-socialism.

    1. Yeah because Republicans will suddenly become a free market party because of this election, sure.

      1. They’re only the freer market party, but that’s better than nothing.

        1. It might be if it wasn’t for the fact that they are so bad on every other libertarian issue other than free trade. I question whether they even are the freer market party also. Do you mean giving govt subsidized corporations the right to consolidate? Oh boy… Vive le March? Libre and innovation!

    2. I can hardly wait to see how MSNBC and the asshole triumverate of Brown, Matthews and Olbermann will handle a defeat of a Dem.

      Matthews may well break down crying when someone suggests it might be a vote against Obama and his Plan.

      1. Don’t forget MSNBC’s own Limbaugh doppelganger, Ed Schultz.

        Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth! The rending of garments! Oh, the humanity!

        Their tears would be soooo sweet ‘pon my Count Chocula in the mornin’…

        1. Count Chocula? That’s racist!

  13. You have to want Brown to win for entertainment value if nothing else. If he wins, the whining and gnashing of teeth and thumb sucking in the media about how mean and vicious and ungovernable the country is will just be priceless.

    1. Even if Brown loses, it’s going to be by a couple of percent. I’d be curious to see what the media’s reaction would be. They can’t really gloat over the fact that a Democrat won by 2% in that most azure of blue states.

    2. Which of Obama’s cabinet sloths or shrubbery czars called americans “troublesome children”? I just wish we even meaner, vicious-er, and ungovernable.

      1. So do I. I guarantee you every, smart thoughtful pundit in the media will write a column where they genuflect on how ungovernable of America is and how its people are just too simple to fully appreciate Obama’s greatness.

        1. Thomas Friedman is already on the case, my friend:

          visiting the greater China region always leaves me envious of the leaders of Hong Kong, Taiwan and China, who surely get to spend more of their time focusing on how to build their nations than my president, whose agenda can be derailed at any moment by a jihadist death cult using exploding underpants.

          [from his column on Saturday]

          1. [E]xploding underpants? The man clearly plays Fallout 3.

            Why doesn’t he come right out and say that he’d prefer an autocratic regime in the U.S.? With a dictator and everything? He’s like so close–why not take the tyranny plunge?

            1. Wait, I thought he did that in the piece about China…

              1. Pretty much, yeah. But I want him to take the last, tiny step and announce his love of dictatorship here. Apparently, you have to be that direct to get our excuse for an intelligentsia to pay any attention.

    3. John, after having voted for Joe, I do hope that, as between the two statists, Brown prevails for just the reasons you articulate.

  14. Friends of liberty, I am proud to declare that I voted for Joe.

    In my view, a vote for Brown would have been a truly wasted vote. If I had voted for Brown, I would have to live with the fact that I endorsed a statist. Let there be no mistake about it, Brown is a statist, through and through.

    Is he less of a statist than Coakley? Its hard to say. He has campaigned upon a platform that has been more about the manner in which the healthcare system shall be finally socialized and not whether it should be soicalized at all.

    Brown has not campaigned upon a platfrom of killing “reform” or even rolling back the nature and role of government in healthcare. To the contrary, he has campaigned upon a platform of “look at those evil democrats, they want to reduce the MASSIVE TRANSFER OF WEALTH that is Medicare.”

    There will no no “net gain” for liberty if this big government statist wins.

    1. In case you were wondering, libertymike, I have not lost any respect for you because of that.

      1. I agree. I see the logic behind both the “lesser of two evils” selections and the “vote for the candidate that best matches my own.”

        I tend to lean toward the latter (I did for Pres. in 2008) but can’t say I haven’t been tempted by the former. If I were a Mass resident I’d surely be tempted this time.

      2. Well, don’t want to disappoint.

        I did have lots of fun jousting with several sign holding minions of Martha. Technically, they started it by waving to me. Hey, I took the waves as invitations to debate.

    2. If Brown loses by one vote……well, you should be fine with your vote but be pissed that you totally would have beat longer odds than winning the lottery. Of course voting is not the same as playing the lottery, so I guess I’m saying good for you for sticking to your principles.

    3. No objections. I think I would’ve voted for Brown, only because of the healthcare bill (and the hope for somewhat more gridlock), but I don’t live there, either. I’ve voted LP enough to know the joys and futilities of such votes.

    4. You’re at assuming (hoping) that if by the time Libertarian candidates in the very far distant future somehow miraculously won enough seats to have any kind of power they would be any different than R’s or D’s. Ha! Ha!

    5. I’ve read that over 50 percent of the electorate Massachusetts describe themselves as Independents. Too bad that doesn’t mean they’re also libertarians.

      1. Apparently for many of them it’s so they can vote in whichever primary they want.

    6. If I had voted for Brown, I would have to live with the fact that I endorsed a statist

      From what I’ve seen of him, Joe is a statist too. Maybe less of a statist, but still a statist. But at least you won’t have to live with the fact that you voted for anyone who won.

  15. Everything makes so much sense these days that it’s not that difficult to accept the punk rock band theory on nothing more than it sounds unlikely and therefore must be valid.

  16. If Coakley can spit the bit in Massachusetts, could we dream that Boxer will do the same in California come November?

    Think about it, this time next year the Senate could be without Specter, Dodd, Reid and Boxer. Between that and losing Biden to the Vice Presidency, the average IQ might reach triple digits.

    1. Unfortunately Carly (I screwed up HP) Fiorina is polling closest to Boxer.

      1. I used to be on the Fiorina screwed up HP band wagon to. But, honestly her buying Compact turned out to be a good decision. HP makes decent computers again.

        For the longest time I thought she was a poster child of corporate incompetence. But now I wonder if maybe she was right.

        1. You were right the first time. She was the Obama of CEOs.

          1. I’m not thrilled with her HP tenure, either, but she couldn’t be any worse than Boxer.

  17. The Shillings gaffe was good for at least three percent. That should be enough to overcome the acorn bump.

  18. Libs are impolite? Who would have guessed?

  19. Joe was the only voice of reason in that whole clusterfuck. A vote for Brown is a vote for Neocons and a vote for Coakley is a vote for socialism. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

    1. Rather than voting for Kennedy, you could have just spent your time jerking off. It would have been more fun. And you would have at least had something to show for your efforts.

      1. Yet a vote for Brown really is a vote for the neocons.

        I can practically guarantee that before the end of his abbreviated term, everyone on this board will be cursing his name and comparing him to Rick Santorum.

        1. I guarantee you he will be a nondescript Senator and everyone on this board will forget his name by next week.

          Further, Coakley supported the war and so does Obama.

        2. I couldve sworn that Politico did a piece saying that Santorum is considering a 2012 run. (groan)

        3. I don’t see much evidence that Brown is a neocon on his web site.


          1. j.i.am,

            Dont brink facts and common sense into the argument, they are having too much fun being ‘more libertarian than thou’.

          2. He seems like more of a mushy moderate Spector or Snowe type.

      2. Someone has watched George Carlin recently. Also, as Carlin noted: Jerking off is preferable to any vote for anybody, so voting Brown or Coakley is just as useless.

        1. Haven’t watched it recently. But I have always remembered that bit fondly.

    2. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

      Sure there is. Plenty of votes for the winner are “wasted” too, though.

      Despite all that, I vote anyway. Doesn’t make any sense.

  20. I’m calling this race now
    Brown by >10 points

  21. Team Coakley: The Integrity of This Election Is In Question

    A media source in Massachusetts sends word:

    Kevin Conroy, Coakley’s campaign manager, says “we have gotten several disturbing incidents from the polls calling the integrity of this election into question.”

    Nobody’s taking this live; the word “desperation” is being tossed around this newsroom…

    He says they’ve gotten reports of five ballots, premarked for Brown, being given to voters entering the booths. This is very, very desperate.

    1. They have got to give liberals a myth to believe in rather the facing the reality that they lost the election. Saying “we didn’t lose, it was stolen” makes things much easier to accept.

      1. We were stabbed in the back!

        1. I did not know that the November Criminals worked in January.

      2. John, if the numbers resemble the ass kicking that the Patriots took from the Ravens a week ago Sunday, not so much?

        Its hard to blame a loss on the refs when you have just been pulverized.

        1. I have a brother that was complaining about the refs screwing the Cowboys the other night. I told him the same thing.

          1. brotherben-

            OTOH, there are some games where some folks have a point. Seems to me, if my memory is correct, your brother’s Cowboys got the benefit of several iffy calls in a playoff game against the Vkings in 1975-the game that gave birth to The Hail Mary.

            Just as the Patriots got screwed in the 1976 divisional playoff game against the Raiders, the silver and black got hosed in with the tuck rule in the Snow Bowl.

            That is why the Brown campaign better have a big lead so as to render moot all of the democrat party machine machinations-the dems control almost all of the local governments in Mass.

            1. The Pats have no grounds to complain about officiating, whatwith the Tom Brady rule and the denial of the Ravens’ 2pt conversion last week.

        2. There are starving football fans who haven’t had a championship since 1957, and you have the GALL to complain about a couple of botched calls?! And what is this “playoff” of which you speak?

          1. Look on the bright side. You have had the Tigers and the Pistons to keep you happy while the Lions rebuild.

            1. …and sometimes the Wings

            2. Thank you, bb 🙂

    2. I’ve seen this on some lefty websites, they’re jumping on this with both feet. They must be losing big time.

      1. Next we will be hearing about police cars in black neighborhoods. They are going to throw up as much shit as possible so their hacks can use it to justify not seating Brown until they ram Obamacare through.

      2. Can you blame them? Since at least ’04 their complaint is the Dems have not been aggressively left wing ideological enough. The idea that Obama has taken the Dems too far left for the voters of Massachusett’s to tolerate must make the people running those websites brains explode.

    3. [Jack Bauer]This conversation happened between 10:00 am and 10:05 am.

      Rahm: “Hello?”

      Coakley: “Em! Hi! Hey, what am I to do? Brown is kicking my ass!”

      Rahm: “Calm down, girlfriend! Listen, we already released our dogs of war and they are doing their thing!”

      Coakley: “Wait, Em, darling . . . If the population finds out I won throguh fraud, I . . .”

      Rahm: “No, no, Martha, you don’t understand – we want the election to be questioned. It will give us time while the courts sort it out to pass the healthcare bill. If the courts throw out the election, what’s the worst that could happen, except that people would have to go to the polls again?”

      Coakley: “Oh, I see. Em, that is brilliant! But, what if I don’t win?”

      Rahm: “Why worry, darling? Don’t you think Uncle O doesn’t have a special gift for you, for all your discipline and obedience?”

      Coakley: “Why, Rahm – AG?? Oh, that would be lovely! But what about . . .”

      Rahm: “Him? Oh, don;t worry – let’s just say Operation Long Knives will be put to effect. Don’t worry.”

    4. Shades of Florida.

      Does anyone believe that polling places under the control of Democrats would give ballots premarked for the Republican to anyone?

      1. Yes, Florida where the Democrats tried to steal an election. Naturally, the meme on the left (and in much of the media) is that it happened the other way. Stuff like this makes me hate the Democrats just a little bit more than their godawful counterparts.

      2. If it hadn’t been for the stupidity of the Broward County Election Commissioner (who was of course a Democrat) instituting the butterfly ballots, Gore wins FL in 2000. I don’t think that’s really disputable. Pat Buchanan getting 20% of the vote in a heavily Jewish district is pretty hard to believe.

        1. Of course, if the news media had actually waited for the polls to close in Florida instead of declaring Gore the definitive winner an hour before the polls in the Panhandle closed, there may well have been enough additional Bush votes from those very red counties to make the mistakes in southeast Florida utterly irrelevant.

          Dan Rather is the one who announced Florida first. Anyone want to try to pretend Dan wouldn’t try to deliberately influence an election in favor of the Democrat?

      3. Of all the possible ways to cheat in an election, handing people a pre-marked ballot must be one of the stupidest ways to do it.

    5. They have got to start setting up an election recount to delay Brown’s entry into the Senate so that the Dems in Congress can push through Obamacare before he can get there.

  22. As one member of a pipefitters union told me, “none of the guys in my union trust that Obama won’t hit us with that 40 percent health care tax.”

    How dare he make you pay for some epic government program that you’d otherwise probably be completely in favor of!

    (Not the greatest support to have, but hey, we’ll take what we can get.)

  23. Evan Bayh (D-IN) on ABC News:

    if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up

  24. It’ll be nice to see a check on the Dems power, but Scott Brown is no libertarian. He’s to the right of Bush on national security/civil liberties issues:

  25. That was beautiful.

  26. This:

    “The House and Senate bills would provide coverage to about 95 percent of eligible Americans, offering federal aid for low-income and middle-class uninsured households. People who buy their own insurance and those working for small businesses would gain the most from the legislation, which would forbid insurance companies from denying coverage based on medical problems. For the first time, most Americans would be required to carry medical insurance.”

    is part of a supposed ‘story’ (not editorial), here:
    Sounds too good to be true, and of course, there’s no mention of where the free money will come from to accomplish the supposed outcomes.
    But the story itself suggests some real desperation: “Dem health care overhaul endangered by Mass. race”

  27. Wow. I was flippin’ channels and saw Chris(?) Matthews interviewing a Globe columnist and some other guy about Coakley’s possible loss. He asked decent questions that got answers that basically put the blame on her. She was too self-assured of the vote and didn’t work hard enough to get the victory. Her ignorance of local heroes and customs also made her look bad and didn’t help. The globe columnist said they’ve seen her numbers slipping for 3 months and she did nothing to stem the tide. No voter fraud or election stealing talk. Just a bad campaign against a strong opponent in hard times. Matthews at one point referred to her having lost the race. He corrected himself, but it seems he has given the seat to Brown already.

  28. According to O’Reilly, there was NO exit polling in MA today. What the F?

    1. From what I heard, the race had been considered such a foregone conclusion in Coakley’s favor that no one was interested in exit polling and by the time the race tightened up there was no time to put the people in place to do exit polling properly.

    2. That doesn’t bother me. I hate when the networks start giving exit polling numbers before the polls close. I’ve heard them calling races based on exit polls. It impacts races where polls are still open and the numbers are not reliable.

      1. brotherben|1.19.10 @ 8:09PM|#
        “That doesn’t bother me.”
        Bothers me.
        The job of news organizations is to report news; it’s up to me to decide what to do with it.

        1. Exit poll models aren’t really that reliable in a special election contest.

          1. I’m not sure they’re ever ‘reliable’, but we all get to discount the market as we see it.

    3. I’ve been watching off and on, and have seen zero comments on the vote, exit polls or anything of the sort.
      Is it a new government policy that only the government can announce any and all results?

    4. O’Reilly is wrong.

      * Among those who decided how they would vote in the past few days, Coakley has a slight edge, 47% to 41%.
      * Coakley also has a big advantage among those who made up their mind more than a month ago.
      * Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters for Brown said they were voting for him rather than against Coakley.
      * Sixty-six percent (66%) of Coakley voters said they were voting for her rather than against Brown.
      22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.

  29. Michael, the only thing worse than a pompous jackass is a pompous jackass who writes.

  30. According to the Boston Globe reports, it’s Brown 52%, Coakley 47%, Kennedy 1% with 4% of the vote in.

  31. MSNBC/chuck todd reports with 13% counted- Brown has 53%, Coakley has 46%

  32. 53-46, Brown, 21% in

  33. CNN Wolf Blitzer : 52-47 with 17% of precincts.

  34. Unless they’re holding back Cambridge and Dorchester precincts, Coakley is already toast.

    Call it. Put her out of her misery and CALL IT.

    1. Nope.
      Tell her to stay in jail, since it’ll help my political career.

  35. There’s a full map here:

    Boston Globe

    1. Thank you very much for the link.

  36. Coakley up 53 to 46 in Boston proper.

  37. Boyo, no one who spent ANY time in Dot would call the Eire Pub the Erie BAR!!!

  38. 53 – 46 Brown with 40% reporting.

  39. 53 -46, Brown with 57% reporting.

    I expect it to be called before too long.

  40. If Coakley is only getting 53% in Boston itself, I don’t see any way she can make up that deficit.

    1. She’s made some ground there as it was early, she’s now 63-36, but that’s still not enough.

      Would be colossal for Brown to lose from here.

  41. Another notable impact of the election having no attention paid to it until the week before: the absentee ballot application deadline had passed already. That makes that favorite avenue for fraud much more difficult.

  42. Brown is up almost 100,000 votes with 65% reporting. Still up 53 to 47. It’s pretty much over.

  43. I’ve never in my life seen a case of voters’ remorse as big or as fast as the one sweeping the nation now.

    Unless the economy makes a huge unexpected turnaround in the very near future, November is going to be an even bigger electoral tsunami than 1994 was.

  44. Word of Coakley’s concession is on Boston’s airwaves…

    1. So will Obama show up to deliver the address?

  45. Can we retire the “wake up call” metaphor please? Does anyone actually use those things anymore? Andy Card on FNC has used it at least once in every sentence so far.

  46. FNC is calling it for Brown with 75% in…Coakley has conceded apparently too…

  47. AP Calls it for Brown

  48. Nothing about this?


    THAT should have sunk Miz Coakley’s career, right then and there. Double-standardness!

  49. Chuck Todd has called it for Brown at MSNBC

  50. Wall Street Journal says Brown has won.

  51. Joe from Lowell is here in spirit, folks, and he’s weeping and wailing for your general amusement.

  52. Juan Williams on FNC is saying that this defeat just means Obama and the Dems need to “double down” on health care. Sounds familiar.

    1. So Williams is officially in denial that after the Clinton’s and now Obama’s experience that health care reform is political disaster for the Dems? Incredible.

    2. I think he was making a prediction and not a recommendation, but I may have misheard.

  53. Coakley has conceded – from Voros’ Globe link.

  54. Brown will be a useful check on the Dems, but he’s certainly no libertarian. In fact, on homeland security/civil liberties, he is quite conservative:

    1. One battle at a time.

  55. Nigerian Zionists for Coakley

    That’s gotta be one small group!

  56. The “r-dropping” Bostonians voted 70-30 for Coakley. Anecdotal drivel.

  57. Please go to Amazon.com and pre-order my new book coming out in three weeks: What’s the matter with Massachusetts?

  58. Alright! No more big government! Now our money seized by the gov through taxation will only be used for corporate socialism, war, torture, agencies to curtail our civil liberties but not healthcare! Fuck yeah, that’ll show em! Brown, you horrendous hypocritical faggot purple fucker, you suck, as was so thoughtfully and concisely expressed by the man quoted in the article.

  59. I had been to the Fiorina screwed ” up ” H . P . group wagon to be able to. Nonetheless, legitimately your girlfriend acquiring Sleek and stylish turned into an excellent verdict. H . P . can make good desktops once more.

    For any top moment POST notion your lady appeared to be any poster little one regarding business enterprise and incompetence. Nonetheless right now POST ask yourself when perhaps your lady appeared to be correct. Finnish Lapphund breed

  60. Thanks for article,It’s grea

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.