The battle for Kennedy's seat

YouTube- Massachusetts Miracle

Reps seem pretty pumped!

Seems like local issues are playing a large part, but the President is going up on Sunday to stump for votes and Clinton and Kerry are already working. In one article I was reading it is mostly about the economy and national security with health care further down the list (Per David King, a Harvard Professor).

It also appears that the word "reconciliation" is creeping back into the healthcare discussion as the polls are tightening (per The Hill). I don't know how that would affect the process, but would expect that some parts of the current bill would have to be left out since it would piecemeal the bill. The question will be if that would open the parts that would be voted on to further modification by the progressives since the moderate vote would be less necessary if it only took 51 in the Senate (i.e. would the final outcome look more like the House Bill and less like the Senate version).

Also, the Mass. Supervisor of State (a Democrat) has already said it could take a couple of weeks to certify the election and the Senate cannot confirm the new person prior to certification (expected date is around Jan 29th per the Hill). So, the current placeholder will get to vote until that time. My question is if the election goes to Brown and since the Mass. Sec of State is Dem, could the certification take even longer or is their a statute that governs how long they have after the election occurs? I see a lawsuit coming no matter who wins as it is expected to be close like with the Franken election so the Dems will probably have enough time irregardless..

So many "if's" and "but's" will make the next few days interesting, but by Tuesday (or soon thereafter with absentee and military votes added in) it could be a moot point if the Coakley wins.

Seems like local issues are playing a large part, but the President is going up on Sunday to stump for votes and Clinton and Kerry are already working. In one article I was reading it is mostly about the economy and national security with health care further down the list (Per David King, a Harvard Professor).

It also appears that the word "reconciliation" is creeping back into the healthcare discussion as the polls are tightening (per The Hill). I don't know how that would affect the process, but would expect that some parts of the current bill would have to be left out since it would piecemeal the bill. The question will be if that would open the parts that would be voted on to further modification by the progressives since the moderate vote would be less necessary if it only took 51 in the Senate (i.e. would the final outcome look more like the House Bill and less like the Senate version).

Also, the Mass. Supervisor of State (a Democrat) has already said it could take a couple of weeks to certify the election and the Senate cannot confirm the new person prior to certification (expected date is around Jan 29th per the Hill). So, the current placeholder will get to vote until that time. My question is if the election goes to Brown and since the Mass. Sec of State is Dem, could the certification take even longer or is their a statute that governs how long they have after the election occurs? I see a lawsuit coming no matter who wins as it is expected to be close like with the Franken election so the Dems will probably have enough time irregardless..

So many "if's" and "but's" will make the next few days interesting, but by Tuesday (or soon thereafter with absentee and military votes added in) it could be a moot point if the Coakley wins.

They certainly have precedent on that. The RNC is filled with idiots. They should have bowed out of that one graciously. (Something I remind them of every time they come a calling for donations. ) But I think there's enough that needs to happen on healthcare (plus waning support by moderates like Nelson) that a vote could be held up long enough. Once he's certified, that's it, game over.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: As Democrats rush to get a deal on health care, they are doing so with a an eye on the Massachusetts Senate race.

If Democratic nominee Martha Coakley loses, Democrats in Washington want to be in a position to pass a bill through the Senate before Republican Scott Brown is sworn in and they lose their 60th Senate seat. Under Massachusetts law, the MA Secretary of State must wait “at least” ten days before certifying the results, to give time for absentee and military ballots to be received and counted. That means Brown could be sworn in as early as January 29, leaving Democrats very little time to maneuver … in fact, it may be impossible to get it done in time.

After a final health care deal is struck (and Democrats are hoping that will happen tonight), it goes to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for a cost estimate, a process expected to take 10 days. After that, it will take at least seven days to go through the procedural hurdles to pass the bill in the House and the Senate. That adds up to a vote on February 2 at the earliest.

Bottom line: Unless either 1) the certification in Massachusetts is delayed; or, 2) CBO works much faster than expected, Democrats would be unable to pass a health care bill before losing their 60th vote.

Bill Buckner Curse Haunts Health Care? - The Note

This is all getting a head of things, I'm still not convinced Brown has a chance. It should be interesting though, I'll definitely be tuned in Tuesday night.

Left wing hit squads enter the race...

Dem Mail: Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Away All Rape Victims | The Plum Line

Left wing hit squads enter the race...

Dem Mail: Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Away All Rape Victims | The Plum Line

I cannot even phathom that this is a part of the race~~~~~
Is this really a platform of Scott Brown? More than anything, this article drives home the point of politics before human capital, in more ways than one.....and, on both sides! Disgusting!

I cannot even phathom that this is a part of the race~~~~~
Is this really a platform of Scott Brown? More than anything, this article drives home the point of politics before human capital, in more ways than one.....and, on both sides! Disgusting!

No, he voted on some bill in 2005 that gave people who work in hospitals the right to make personal decisions based on faith, and the DNC twisted that.

Republican "hit squads" have pulled similar stunts (swift boat veterans for truth?) - I think it's just sad when campaigns fall into the mud.

Left wing hit squads enter the race...

Dem Mail: Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Away All Rape Victims | The Plum Line

I see no need for this kind of exaggeration. The real truth about Brown's views on this would have served just fine.

No, he voted on some bill in 2005 that gave people who work in hospitals the right to make personal decisions based on faith, and the DNC twisted that.

Republican "hit squads" have pulled similar stunts (swift boat veterans for truth?) - I think it's just sad when campaigns fall into the mud.

This one in particular, exploiting rape for political gain. That is an absolute disgrace! I am concerned as to what happens with this seat to determine a filibuster proof Senate or not. Otherwise, I have no ties to MA. I so wish an Independent could win this seat.......

This one in particular, exploiting rape for political gain. That is an absolute disgrace! I am concerned as to what happens with this seat to determine a filibuster proof Senate or not. Otherwise, I have no ties to MA. I so wish an Independent could win this seat.......

Brown seems to be very close to an independent - pro-choice, lower tax rates, health reform without private industry hand outs, smaller government, common sense enviro policy.. I sense this is just the beginning of what we'll be hearing from Mr. Brown. The guy might be running for president some day if he can pull this out and keep is hands clean.

Issues | Brown for US Senate

Brown seems to be very close to an independent - pro-choice, lower tax rates, health reform without private industry hand outs, smaller government, common sense enviro policy.. I sense this is just the beginning of what we'll be hearing from Mr. Brown. The guy might be running for president some day if he can pull this out and keep is hands clean.

Issues | Brown for US Senate

Interesting. I'll tune in Tuesday night, also. When will this new Senator take office?

I have been really nervous, but optimistic, about this race for a week. I am no longer nervous. A new poll released today shows Brown up by 9 points:
Poll Gives Brown Solid Lead Over Coakley -- Political Wire
Also Intrade, which is like vegas for politics. You can buy or sell a candidate and it is amazingly accurate no has Brown at 65% odds and Coakley at 35% odds. Prior to the weekend, Coakley had the edge and believe it or not the avalanche came after Obama's visit.
Intrade Prediction Markets

CNN reported today that the WH advisors already think that Coakley is going to lose and have blamed her campaign, ala Creigh Deeds in VA.

We can all celebrate as this is the death knell in the horrible piece of legislation they are calling health care reform. This is also going to end the energy tax and will put show the dems that they need to get republicans on board before they can get anything else done. I think the Republicans will be shown to not be pure obstructionist, but will not tolerate a leftist agenda being shoved down their throat.

This is really bad for the Dems in 2010. I see the Dems losing 6 more senate seats and close to 40 house seats. Its going to be real close to seeing pelosi's tail out of power. We can only pray.

Interesting. I'll tune in Tuesday night, also. When will this new Senator take office?

Depends on how close the vote is.

YouTube- Different People, Same Message

Man, this guy is good.

Depends on how close the vote is.

Yes, I caught a clip on this and it seems the vote will be challenged no matter who is elected. There is even chatter of law suits. FLTOG!

If we are one Senator short, can any bills go to a vote?

Yes, I caught a clip on this and it seems the vote will be challenged no matter who is elected. There is even chatter of law suits. FLTOG!

If we are one Senator short, can any bills go to a vote?

We won't be one senator short. The person who was appointed and is currently serving in the Senate will continue until the special election is certified and the Senate confirms.

We won't be one senator short. The person who was appointed and is currently serving in the Senate will continue until the special election is certified and the Senate confirms.

There will be a legal battle over this. The Senate rules state that once the victor is "qualified" that the interim Senator is no longer allowed to vote. Repub attorneys have already confirmed that once Brown wins, any vote Kirk (Kennedy's replacement) makes is not valid. Same is supposedly true if Coakley wins.

Charlie Cook and Stewart Rotherberg, who are non-partisan election predictors, have both moved this race into the Republican column. Every poll except for one shows Brown up from 5-10 pts and the one that didn't had them even. It was a dem poll sponsored by the Daily Kos.

Health care is toast, unless they pass the Senate bill as is unamended in the House. I have a feeling there are a few House Dems that are going to be shaken to the bone by this Repub Senate win.

The realization of what a Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts means for ObamaCare has slowly dawned on the White House — and they’re getting desperate for a way out. Even the AP now reports of panic in the Obama administration from the collapse of the heavily-favored Martha Coakley in the special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy. How panicked have they become? After holding a days-long, closed-door meeting with leading House and Senate Democrats and union lobbyists to hammer out a new compromise ObamaCare bill, Barack Obama may abandon it and demand that the House acquiesce to the Senate.

Hot Air ? Blog Archive ? WH plans to cram Senate ObamaCare bill down House throat if Brown wins

Is the great "cram down" upon us? In light of how unpopular the current Senate bill is (which already passed) I'd think dems would see this option for what it truely is - pure political suicide. The house bill only passed by 3-5 votes though so the odds the Senate bill maeks it through appear to be slim.

Brown (55%) leads Coakley (40%) by 15 points in Gardner. Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy polls 2%, while 3% are undecided.

In Fitchburg, Brown (55%) has a 14-point lead over Coakley (41%), with 2% for Kennedy and 2% undecided.

Peabody voters give Brown (57%), a 17-point lead over Coakley (40%), with Kennedy polling 1% and 3% undecided.

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk's bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.

Final poll tallys looks really good for Brown. We find out tomorrow. With margins like this, there won't be any basis for law suits.

There will be a legal battle over this. The Senate rules state that once the victor is "qualified" that the interim Senator is no longer allowed to vote. Repub attorneys have already confirmed that once Brown wins, any vote Kirk (Kennedy's replacement) makes is not valid. Same is supposedly true if Coakley wins.

Charlie Cook and Stewart Rotherberg, who are non-partisan election predictors, have both moved this race into the Republican column. Every poll except for one shows Brown up from 5-10 pts and the one that didn't had them even. It was a dem poll sponsored by the Daily Kos.

Health care is toast, unless they pass the Senate bill as is unamended in the House. I have a feeling there are a few House Dems that are going to be shaken to the bone by this Repub Senate win.

That's what I thought, too. But, it's the confirmation of the winner that is in question. I am hearing it will take weeks....it's going to be challenged on both sides regardless of how the vote looks tomorrow evening. So, will the appointed Senator be allowed to vote in a case where we can't confirm the new Senator?

The fact that this race is so close in MA speaks volumes as to what the public wants and I remain strong in my beliefs that 'we the people' do not want any party having /basically/ full control....while it can happen in very rare situations, we at our very core know it's not what this country is about. I love this about our incredibly brilliant system!

As one of the "public" I can definitively state that any lawsuits, squabbling, or attempt to "cram" will blow up in their faces.

The backroom deals and exceptions have already pissed off a lot of initial supporters of the bill.

One party in charge isn't really the issue for me. I'd just like to see voters react strongly to all of the utter crap that is taking over politics.

There will be a legal battle over this. The Senate rules state that once the victor is "qualified" that the interim Senator is no longer allowed to vote. Repub attorneys have already confirmed that once Brown wins, any vote Kirk (Kennedy's replacement) makes is not valid. Same is supposedly true if Coakley wins.

That's what I thought, too. But, it's the confirmation of the winner that is in question. I am hearing it will take weeks....it's going to be challenged on both sides regardless of how the vote looks tomorrow evening. So, will the appointed Senator be allowed to vote in a case where we can't confirm the new Senator?

I am not disagreeing about the timing, I believe it is the definition of "qualified" also that is the issue. I would take qualified to mean "certified" by the state of Massachusetts, and in that case it would take until around the end of the month for all precincts to submit their final election counts that include absentee and military voters. I don't see how Brown can be immediately "qualified" without the precincts having the ability to report all their absentee votes. Maybe it will come down to the percentage that Brown wins by. I believe the case could be made that until all the votes were counted and reported by each precinct then you don't know the winner. Who knows though it could be Florida Part Duh. Supreme Court here we come...

I am not disagreeing about the timing, I believe it is the definition of "qualified" also that is the issue. I would take qualified to mean "certified" by the state of Massachusetts, and in that case it would take until around the end of the month for all precincts to submit their final election counts that include absentee and military voters. I don't see how Brown can be immediately "qualified" without the precincts having the ability to report all their absentee votes. Maybe it will come down to the percentage that Brown wins by. I believe the case could be made that until all the votes were counted and reported by each precinct then you don't know the winner. Who knows though it could be Florida Part Duh. Supreme Court here we come...

I think we are looking at Supreme Court Part Two if they try to cram through a health care bill in the Senate. If the House accepts the Senate bill as is, that is the only way it will happen without making the Dems look really bad.

I think we are looking at Supreme Court Part Two if they try to cram through a health care bill in the Senate. If the House accepts the Senate bill as is, that is the only way it will happen without making the Dems look really bad.

Agreed.