Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Massachusetts Senate Race (Special Election, January 19th 2009)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Massachusetts Senate Race (Special Election, January 19th 2009)

    Massachusetts will be holding a special election, to fill the vacancy of one of it's Senate seats that was held by longtime Senator Ted Kennedy(D-MA) who died in August of 2009. The two main candidates that are running are Democrat Martha Coakley who is the current Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Republican State Senator Scott Brown. There is also an independent candidate, Joesph Kennedy, who is an IT executive however his support is rather marginal.

    So far in terms of the campaign for the Senate seat, the race is being treated as a forgone conclusion by both the Republicans and Democrats. So much actually, that Martha Coakley has been on vacation and out of the pubic eye for most of the Campaign time, In addition Coakley has made a number of verbal errors and flip flops recently including saying that her election to the Senate "would be on the job training". However recent polling in the Commonwealth has shown the race closer then expected, and Scott Brown has been campaigning heavily despite a lack of support from the National and Senatorial GOP.


    I think in the end Coakley will win since this is Massachusetts. However, it could be by a close margin the way things are going, and the slim chance of an upset can't be ruled out.

    Here are some links on the race,

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2010/senate_race/

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opi...e_for_answers/

  • #2
    The ultimate irony would be for the republican to win and the dems lose their 60th vote before the health care monstrosity passes.

    This after they changed their law to allow the Governor to appoint an interim democrat to the seat.

    Gawd, that would be hilarious.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by highsea View Post
      The ultimate irony would be for the republican to win and the dems lose their 60th vote before the health care monstrosity passes.

      This after they changed their law to allow the Governor to appoint an interim democrat to the seat.

      Gawd, that would be hilarious.
      Could happen,

      What this race in MA reminds me of is the 2006 Virginia Senate race where one candidate was heavily favored to win. Then slacked off and ran a very poor campaign and lost to a heavily underfunded underdog. I think that could happen here.
      Last edited by Kevin Brown; 08 Jan 10,, 01:26.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kevin Brown View Post
        Could happen,

        What this race in MA reminds me of is the 2006 Senate race where one candidate was heavily favored to win. Then slacked off and ran a very poor campaign and lost to a heavily underfunded underdog. I think hat could happen here.
        And if it does, the Republican Chair should be bounced from his seat immediately and with extreme prejudice. After NY-23, it is simply unforgiveable that he's once again chosen his battles poorly, and a change would be imperative.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
          And if it does, the Republican Chair should be bounced from his seat immediately and with extreme prejudice. After NY-23, it is simply unforgiveable that he's once again chosen his battles poorly, and a change would be imperative.
          In Steele's defence though,

          In all likelihood politically, no one was expecting a Senate race to replace the liberal lion of the Senate in the most liberal state in the nation to be this close. Especially given that the late Senator Kennedy was big on the main issue being discussed in Washington health care reform, and also given the fact that Obama is still fairly popular in the Commonwealth.

          Also few could have predicted that Coakley could have been this bad of a candidate for the Democrats.

          While in the case of NY-23, the district was fairly close in 2006 and 2008. Also the conservative candidate really didn't show potential until later in the race, while the so called moderate the Republicans where backing was in easy striking distance of the Democrat.

          Comment


          • #6
            The republican in NY 23 got a lot of help but ultimately resigned from the race when overwhelming forces from outside the district made winning impossible. I hope they pour money in based on a Rasmussen poll.
            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
            ~Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
              The republican in NY 23 got a lot of help but ultimately resigned from the race when overwhelming forces from outside the district made winning impossible. I hope they pour money in based on a Rasmussen poll.
              I read they are beginning to, however whether it will be close is a matter of debate.

              Comment


              • #8
                New polling for this race has come out showing it strikely close between the two candidates

                Brown-48%
                Coakley-47%
                Undecided-6%

                Source,

                http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...A_45398436.pdf

                Comment


                • #9
                  So Kevin, I have a question, you may not know the answer but I am curious.

                  How does MA law address the interim seat that was appointed if the election ends up being contested?

                  Reason I ask is this; if the repub challenger actually won, it would be close and the dems would absolutely go berserk. There would be months and months of recounts, lawsuits, etc.

                  Would the appointed Senator say in the seat until the special election results were finalized, or does his term end on Jan 20 and the seat goes vacant?

                  This Senate race has a huge impact on the health care bill, assuming the repub would side with his party in the Senate.
                  "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by highsea View Post
                    So Kevin, I have a question, you may not know the answer but I am curious.

                    How does MA law address the interim seat that was appointed if the election ends up being contested?

                    Reason I ask is this; if the repub challenger actually won, it would be close and the dems would absolutely go berserk. There would be months and months of recounts, lawsuits, etc.

                    Would the appointed Senator say in the seat until the special election results were finalized, or does his term end on Jan 20 and the seat goes vacant?

                    This Senate race has a huge impact on the health care bill, assuming the repub would side with his party in the Senate.
                    This may answer that....well to the subject of the "health care bill"

                    By Frank Quaratiello
                    Saturday, January 9, 2010

                    It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform - and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

                    At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

                    “We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

                    The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

                    “Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

                    Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

                    But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

                    The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

                    Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

                    “Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

                    Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president’s address.

                    Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

                    In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

                    Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

                    “This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.” A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment Friday.
                    - [email protected]

                    Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform - BostonHerald.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by highsea View Post
                      So Kevin, I have a question, you may not know the answer but I am curious.

                      How does MA law address the interim seat that was appointed if the election ends up being contested?

                      Reason I ask is this; if the repub challenger actually won, it would be close and the dems would absolutely go berserk. There would be months and months of recounts, lawsuits, etc.

                      Would the appointed Senator say in the seat until the special election results were finalized, or does his term end on Jan 20 and the seat goes vacant?

                      This Senate race has a huge impact on the health care bill, assuming the repub would side with his party in the Senate.
                      You've been reading ahead of the class, haven't you?

                      There's already a plot afoot to play as dirty a political game as the Democrats can possibly manage to delay the seating of anybody whose name isn't Coakley for as long as possible. Y'all want a link to this dirty, slimy story, or can we just go ahead and take it as read that Democrats are filthy rotten cheaters that have no sense of fair play, legality, morality or shame?

                      Either way is fine with me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ah. I shoulda hit your link. You've already posted the first one, but there's acually more coming out about this hijacking of the democratic (small-d) process, by the Democratic (BIG-D) machine.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^^^ This squares with my take. The Dems will do whatever it takes to get their way, no matter how the election comes out. They've already re-written their election laws to suit them, so stalling the seating of a new senator won't phase them a bit.
                          "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            And you'll still get an argument about their nature on this very Board. It's as plain as it has ever been, but STILL there are those that vote Democrat and enable this evil.

                            They're the enemy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yeah, they will challenge the election then, even when it's hopeless they keep filing court challenges just so they can deny their opponents the number they need. I bet the Govenor will refuse to certify the election for 6 months to aid his Presidential aspirations. It's so unfair to the Republicans.

                              Acorn probably already stole the election already;)

                              He wins I won't even visit this forum till 2011 Don't get your hopes up you are in for a letdown
                              Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                              ~Ronald Reagan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X