Posted on 01/14/2010 9:33:21 PM PST by bitt
.."Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2010/01/14/martha-coakley-nuns-are-bad-pedophiles-are-good/
Martha Coakley: Nuns are Bad, Pedophiles are Good.
No, seriously. I didn\’t believe it either.
Posted by Leon H. Wolf (Profile)
Thursday, January 14th at 9:34PM EST
18 Comments
Every once in a while a combination of stories comes along in politics that is so bizarre you can’t believe you’re actually writing about it. This is one of those times. Fresh after taking a run at Fenway Park fans in a public interview yesterday, Martha Coakley decided today that she’d insult another institution nobody in Massachusetts gives a crap about: Nuns. Here she is discussing why Nuns shouldn’t be allowed to work in Catholic Hospitals - private institutions that have zero problem with accomodating the consciences of the nuns:
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
Okay. So a private employee of a private company doesn’t want to perform a particular duty because of her religious beliefs, and her private employer has no problem accomodating that… and this somehow constitutes a violation of the First Amendment? I suppose it’s hypothetically possible that Martha Coakley is stupid enough to actually believe this manifest crap (and as this campaign goes on, it becomes more believable!), but the more likely explanation of course is that she finds the nuns icky and just wants them out of sight where she doesn’t have to look at them when she goes out in public. And believe me? Plenty of Massachusetts Catholics are gonna take that last sentence exactly that way. So, to review, in the last two days, Martha Coakley has, in public interviews, dissed A) Fenway Park and B) Nuns. Like my inestimable colleague Moe Lane, I am forced to wonder whether she has any public comments she’d like to share about clam chowder?
WAIT. THIS STORY GETS WORSE.
While Nuns and Fenway Park are on Martha Coakley’s bad list, it turns out she has a good list. Know who’s on it? Pedophiles.
Read on below the fold…
I believe it is their first but my gut feeling is it is accurate, I’m feeling very good. You can’t believe the lack of Coakley support & us Tea Partiers / Republicans are FIRED UP!
The Dems I think have realized that they’re basically assured of their worst performance in Mass since 1972.
They would not like to tie Coakley’s poor performance with Obama, Obamacare or the Democrats legislative agenda. They’d like to say, on Wednesday January 20, that Coakley did badly because her campaign was poorly run, that Coakley was a poor candidate. If Obama comes in, win or lose, if Coakley doesn’t win by more than 7%, it’s more evidence that Republicans can use to say either “Obama is so unpopular that he couldn’t even save Coakley in the most Democratic state” or “Obama helped Coakley to the worst performance by the Democrats in the US Senate race in Mass in 38 years”.
Obama doesn’t want to lose the votes of Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, etc etc etc on Obamacare or other legislation throughout 2010. He’s hoping to say “Nelson, it’s not that the people hate this legislation and will throw you out of office if you vote for it, no, the people love the legislation. The people just didn’t like Coakley, she ran a bad campaign.”
Obama doesn’t want Nelson to say back to him: “You went there to help her and she did terrible. Are you sure Coakley was the problem?”
The poll showing Coakley up 15% was a joke back when it was done(ridiculous turnout assumptions), and is badly outdated to boot. Polls done since then have shown (i) Brown up 1% (PPP), (ii) Coakley up 2% among likely voters but Brown up 2% among those certain to vote (Rasmussen, which the prior week had found Coakley up 9% among likely voters but up only 2% among certain voters), (iii) Coakley up 8% in a poll sponsored by the liberal Blue Mass Group that shows a much narrower Brown lead among independents than any other poll (Research 2000) and (iv) this poll showing Brown up 4%.
Coakley’s internal polls from Wednesday reportedly show Coakley up 2% (48% to 46%) and “fading fast,” while Brown’s internals from the same day showed him up by 1% or 2%.
Basically, this appers to be a 2% race right now, with Brown having a slight advantage. This long weekend will be crucial to what happens on Tuesday. Coakley can still win it if turnout is much larger than expected, but, for the first time in this race, I believe that Brown is well positioned to win. I don’t want to jinx it, but it looks to me like a 49% to 47% Brown victory.
After I posted this, I checked - it appears to be their THIRD poll for this race. The last one was one month ago, and showed the dem with a 30+ lead as did their first poll. A 35+ point swing.
Rasmussen released a poll a few days ago, had Coakley up 2% among likely voters and Brown up 2% among those certain to vote.
The Rasmussen poll came out a couple days ago and it had Coakely up by 2 and Brown up by 1 with certain to vote.
Brown gets the debate surge...it don’t look good for Coakley.
You may think I'm nuts, but I think that the reason is very simple.
After making excuses for Kennedy for decades, MA voters want someone they can be proud of in DC. Coakley is so dull, such an obvious party hack, and she has that tiring liberal tone.
I think it's just that people see Brown and he isn't Kennedy or Barney Frank, or even Patrick.
She doesn't realize that you can't fake your humanity.
that Rasmussen poll was released Saturday, I believe...polled respondents from last week... :)
look at the momentum!
nothing like a nice honest guy running with enough national attention to shine the light on the machine trying to thug him out of the way...
gotta go look at the shoving video again. that idiot thug might just be a republican operative who assumed the body of Michael Meehan....
I hope it ends up being the RATs’ worst perfornance in Mass. since 1984—1972 was a good year for the RATs in Mass., if nowhere else (it was the only state carried by McGovern).
Wow, that’s amazing. I wasn’t aware of the previous polls but a lot of us here have been working hard on the internet and working on family, friends, co -workers letting them know how we need to change things.
Bottom line - unemployment, scaring the hell out of seniors, taxing “Cadillac” plans, etc, etc and Brown has run a smart campaign and Coakley - not.
I think we are going to stael this!
I can’t say your wrong. But my thinking is what do they have to lose?
I’m also thinking Obama doesn’t have a backup plan to push Obamacare through ahead of Brown, should he win.
I could be wrong on the second part.
To contrast Scott with Coakley, I was working in my driveway in Norfolk, MA, when Scott came jogging up, introduced himself as a Republican, and said, " I'm running (literally) to be your Representative." (He jogged to every house in the district!)
I said, "there's a Constitutional question I'd like to ask", and he volunteered, "I'm a Major in the Army Guard -- and I carry!"
Bingo!!
After a few minutes of conversation, I asked (for the first time in my life) for one of his signs to put in my yard. I actively supported him as long as I was in MA. And I never regretted it!!!
As far as I'm concerned, Scott Brown is top-notch! I wish him every success -- from here in the Northeast Texas Piney Woods...
Too bad I can't vote in that election -- but I'll stay here in God's Country, thanks... '-)
No shock. Coakley is a dullard and it shows.
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.