Posted on 01/13/2010 12:50:41 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
"The most volatile factor in our politics in the first decade of the 21st century," Michael Barone writes in the 2010 Almanac of American Politics, "is the balance of enthusiasm." Enthusiastic Republicans turned out in droves to support the GOP and President Bush in 2002 and 2004. By 2006 and 2008, however, Bush's popularity was tanking and the Democrats were bent on "taking the country back" from the right-wing attack/noise/nihilist machine. It's common-sense: The party with the most enthusiastic supporters wins. But it's refreshing to see a truism unfold before your eyes.
Here's the nonpartisan election analyst Amy Walter, for example:
Can Republican Scott Brown really win? If you look at just those who say they are the most interested in voting on Jan. 19, the answer is yes. Among those in the recent Boston Globe poll who said they were "extremely interested" in the race, Coakley and Brown were tied at 47 percent. Last week's Rasmussen poll showed similar results. Among those who said they were most likely to go to the polls, Coakley led by just 2 points -- 47 percent to 45 percent. (Coakley still had an overall lead of 15 points in the Globe poll and 9 points in Rasmussen.)
Another less scientific but still telling statistic from the Boston Herald: Brown's crushing Coakley on Facebook. Brown has 20,000 supporters compared to Coakley's 6,000. More interestingly, the "Facebook Women for Brown" group has over 1,000 members, while the "Women for Coakley" group has just 45.
Clearly, there are more than 45 women in Massachusetts who support Martha Coakley (I think). But if those women aren't enthused enough about Coakley's candidacy to join a Facebook group, are they going to canvass neighborhoods and man phonebanks to rally support for their candidate? Doubtful.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Hypocrisy: Martha Coakley Takes Money From Health Insurance Lobbyists ( Scott Brown Ad Youtube )
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe even that State went for Reagan in 1984, miracles do happen!
you are correct MA voted for Reagan i think both times
but definitely for his reelection
granted it was pretty much downhill after that but in 84 they had some sense
Despite a “Coakley-ar Implant”, the Dems still don’t hear the will of the people...
A cruel lie for political purposes.
Read Dorothy Rabinowitz's account of this debacle.
Homosexualism was, in 84, not yet the official Massachusetts State Creed.
1980
1984
Republican enthusiasm for a pro-abort liberal. What a spectacle.
He may well end up somewhere between Snowe and McCain in his votes, sometimes ok and sometimes maddening when it counts. But given that the state had seemingly forever been represented on the one hand by a murderer and on the other by a traitor an honest, patriotic, pro-abort liberal is reason for enthusiasm. And the Democratic response to a Brown win would surely call for Schadenfreude on our part. Just don't let the MSM make him over into the roll model for Republicans elsewhere, because that IS what they'll try once they're over the shock.
That’s a pretty map....
OR...maybe God will abandon your party for sacrificing thousands of babies per day on the altar of political expediency.
I believe He forgave Churchill for supporting Stalin in WWII. This is a lesser evil. I think Stalin’s body count still exceeds that of Roe, although admittedly not all of his victims were innocents. And the alternative of supporting Coakley would likely directly incur blame for even more abortions as she is a full bore abortion advocate, whereas Brown is at least against partial birth ones and is against her morally repugnant desire to force pro-lifers to provide abortions. Indirectly Brown’s election does more good as it makes it more likely that sufficient pro-lifers will be elected next fall to block the Obamanation’s pro-abort agenda and more likely that enough will be elected over the next couple years to turn the tide in our favor. Kennedy won’t win, I doubt he’ll break 5%. Your only choices here are to cheer for Brown win or a Coakley one or defiantly sit things out. Some may say the latter is the only moral choice. I think it is the coward’s choice. Take RINO Brown now, but don’t put him the leadership and for God’s sake don’t let the MSM make him into a GOP role model for next fall. Work for a better Governor in MA next fall and a legislature that will let the public vote on overturning gay marriage (both also need to happen in my Iowa next fall.) Work on the hearts and minds in the state. Brown would be up for re-election in ‘12. If he lives down to your fears, and he might (but he won’t live down to Teddy’s standards), then run somebody better against him then.
Until Christians make a firm determination to stop offering political support of any kind to pro-abortion politicians or their enablers, the carnage will continue.
Some of us have made that pledge and will keep it. Go ahead and tell the political bookies they can just count us out of their calculations.
If every man and woman who call themselves a Christian would take my position, abortion in this country would end.
Think about it.
We still are a self-described solidly majority Christian nation, so technically you are correct. Obviously many folk’s Christianity needs some work. After 2000 years we still have only one non-infant who’s remained without sin. However, I don’t think we all need to reach His level to correct this. As a first step, how about getting all those who call themselves Christian ministers to take your position? There seem to be a lot who don’t. It’s hard to keep the flock in line when the shepherd strays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.