Massachusetts Senate Race: Election Night

Let’s just get to the bottom line, if the Dems lose Mass. there is only one group to blame, liberals, especially those with computers and Internet access.

The only salvation for the Democratic Party now is to move closer to the center, and let people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson run everything.

I can’t imagine for the life of me why the Democratic party would alienate its state technocrat, centrist think-tank and corporate lobby base by not letting New Democrats and DLC’ers like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Rahm Emanuel run everything.
.
You’re right, they have only the netroots activists and ordinary liberals who organized, donated, communicated and came out to vote in record numbers for Democrats in 2006 and Barack Obama in 2008 to blame for the party’s woes.

This is hilarious:
.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/01/19/future-shock-strikes-the-coakley-campaign/
.
Those idiots didn’t even get the day right.
.
Did anyone else catch Coakley’s lame-o attempt to blame the national party? They actually said that she was forced to oppose the Afghan war because of voters. Now I am all in favor of politicians responding to the electorate, but do we really want Senators basing their positions on matters of war on what their finger in the air tells them.
.
Amateur hour.

“How do you know you are at a Republican event? Diet Pepsi at the Brown election night party is $5. And they don’t even give you the can.”
.
Some things never change . . . .

Preposterous statements. Blame the Liberals for a loss if it were to come. Its the ignorant belief a Republican will bring us back to the righteous. They started the crap and ruined us in 8 years of absentee leadership. If you Republicans don’t like the drive for a medical insurance then give back your Medicare coverge given to you by the Democrats in 1964 when you also yelled the sky is falling. You unforgiving hypocrits.

Thanks for the coverage Karen, I’m here in CT waiting with bated breath.

It’s so predictable one doesn’t even need to watch any longer. The election hasn’t even been called yet and the idiots on CNN can hardly contain their glee at the thought that millions of people may be denied health care, all because of how radical the extremists on the Left are.

If Coakley, who I had never heard of before like a month ago loses I will personally take responsibility because I use the Internet and the Internet, which was invented by Al Gore, costs Democrats elections. Want proof? Al Gore kind of lost an election once and now look at him. He’s fat.

Yeah… Republican weak dollar policies cause inflation…

Mitt Romney for President!!!

Dem parties tend to have cheaper drinks; longer lines at the bar.

Apology in advance for being snooty, but it’s abated breath. One of my little itches. As in could not care less, not could care less. The corruption of both phrases has, however, become accepted use. Sorry, I can’t help myself.

[...] Updates from TIME's Tumulty here. tiiQuigoWriteAd(755778, 1290697, 600, 240, -1); [...]

Cheap drinks, long lines, expensive virgin drinks, short lines. There is some political analogy there, I just need to think about it.

Howard Dean as chair and the Democrats pick up majorities including the republican Speaker of the House and the republican Majority Leader’s seat.

Tim Kaine as chair and the seat held by Ted Kennedy flips.

Nice organization DNC.

Dictionary.com dates the verb “bate” back to 1250-1300. Given that pretty much the entire English language has changed since that time, I think “bated breath” is probably okay.

I’m with you on the issue of caring less, though.

lol–Dean got screwed with the “Dean scream”.

formerlyjames: Your sphincter is way too tight. Bated breath is a perfectly correct use of the term. But – that’s all you have on this historic night? Correcting grammar? I could really care less. Or more. I don’t know. Go Brownie!

All he did was whip republican behinds. So of course he had to go.

I see someone beat me to verbally beating you on the issue of “(a)’bated breath” – in fact, as a long time wordsmith, I can honestly say I had never heard or read that phrase until you posted it here; so, thanks for the education.

As far as “(not) caring less”, I’d say that’s a matter of literalism vs. sarcasm, as in the joke wherein the English professor claims that while two negatives make a positive in many languages, there is no language in which two positives make a negative, to which someone pipes up from the back row of the class with “Yeah, right.”

My point is that I would not describe you as snooty so much as literal and reactionary. Therefore, I’m guessing you are a Republican, yes? Voted for State Sen. Brown, did you? He seems particularly humorless, snooty, and stuck in the past, and could care less (or not) about a lot of things. Peas in a pod, and all that, eh?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNjMjJjNGExMzI2OGVlOTU4MTZhNGQ1MjdmODZkN2U=
.
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

formerlyjames, we make up for that by being better lovers

National Review is calling it for Brown:
.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmJlNWE5MTYyYTNmNTRlYWJhNDVkN2U2MWMzODg0NTA=

Can Flutie see over the drums?

icono, are you baiting me? I enjoyed your response and it is my pleasure to serve as straight man. But, nooo, I am not by any stretch a Republican. A lazy Democrat with time on my hands.

PNNTO–pithy.

Thanks, spob. And has the bonus of being accurate.

spob, there seems to be enough scumbag politicians in both parties vying for the role of better lovers.

coakley concedes

swampland,

I will be working as a voluteer at the U.S. Sports Aviation EXPO Jan. 19-24 at Sebring FL. One of my unpaid retirement jobs. I was an aviation crew member in the Navy when I was 18-22 [1957-61]. I always wanted to be a pilot and at the age of 66 I recieved my Sport Pilot License.
Keep up the good work and solve a few of the world problems while I’m gone.
3xfire3

Smells like Diebold.

Everyone, in the interest of bipartisanship, let’s celebrate the fact that the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not send a person to the Senate with the record of Martha Coakley. Maybe she will do the decent thing and push for Gerald Amirault to be pardoned. An innocent man, whom she lobbied to keep locked up, deserves at least that.

I think that congratulations to Scott Brown and the Republican party in Massachusetts for a well-fought underdog campaign are in order.

I congratulate the GOP on their new 41-59 majority in the Senate.

The KosKidz ain’t pleased:
.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/19/827053/-Its-time-to-put-Howard-Dean-back-in-charge

Only if we can jeer a thoroughly poopy campaign by Coakley. Boo.

And remember: When Republicans lose races, it shows they need to tack hard to the right. But when Democrats lose races, it shows they need to tack hard to right.

Art FTW!
.
Can we brush Reid, Nelson and Lieberman under their respective rocks and get a read Dem majority?

…and they’re right. They predicted this kind of catastrophic loss for Democrats weeks ago. There’s more to come.
.
Remember Kos telling it to David Gregory on Meet The Press?
.
There’s a price to be paid for Democrats governing like this, as if the New Democrats can just tell us all to screw ourselves, and run things in the corrupt and inept manner they inevitably will without the base’s will being respected.

SZ:

A gentleman til the end.

Art, 2 for 2.

A new dawn is on the horizon. Thank you voters of Massachusetts for voting your conscious, voting what you know deep down in your heart is the wrong direction the Democrats in Congress with President Obama at the helm WERE taking us.
.
As the tsunami of this victory proclaims, “beware Washington, we are coming for the rest of you next”.
.
Good night America, we can sleep well tonight.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the wake-up call, not the end.
.
Plus it’s true: Republicans are accountable to Republican voters, but the same cannot be said of the current Democrats.
.
Scott Brown’s supporters know what they’re getting, something Democrats should emulate going forward if they want to hold on to power for a minute or two.

I was wondering. Does this mean Obama needs to be more bipartisan?

The establishment Dems turned their backs on Progressives and the liberal internet sites that got the vote out for Obama. Obama won because of his charisma and message and because the internet energized the base and brought in blacks, hispanics, and young people who had not participated. When the voting patterns are looked at for MA, you can bet the majority will be white, middle aged or older. The Dems had a weak candidate, which I think the establishment wanted, that could not energize Obama voters and they demeaned the liberal internet.
My thoughts are establishment Dems really don’t want true Progressives to have power. It would diminish their access to K Street money. They turned their backs on Howard Dean and replaced him with Kean, a centerist tool. Like the Republicans, Dems. are all about pleasing K Street.
Even though it seems to be futile at times, Progressives need to find and support genuine liberal candidates. They have done so with several candidates. The Donna Edwards campaign is an example of liberal web sites supporting a candidate who unseated a troglodyte Dem, Al Wynn. Her campaign was financed by individual donations through Act Blue.
By using the power of the internet, donating through Act Blue, and denying establishment fund raising institutions, we can over time, take back our government.
Other than the crazy gun toting racists that are the fringe of the tea party gang, some of our goals are the same. The Washington DC political and media stenographers have to understand enough is enough. Let them be afraid of us.

WOW. Just wow. If this isn’t a warning shot for the Democrats, I don’t know what is. It seems the Democrats were hit with the perfect storm in this race: weak, over-confident candidate with baggage, sour (for D’s) political climate, an energized opposition, and a smart, clever opponent.
.
Relax though, Democrats. There’s still 10 1/2 months until November, which is an eternity in the political world. The D’s still have enough time to get it together, but if tonight is any indication, they had better start soon.

Correction: Leader of DNC Tim Kaine

Coakley was a crappy candidate, and thus her base was apathetic. Republicans, however, actually managed to field a strong candidate for once. If anything, Republicans should be taking home the message that far right candidates will lose, but conservatives closer to the center can hold their own.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-
I punched the air a little bit.

Ok, side note. If Brown won the election by being more moderate than traditional GOP candidates (an interesting proposition in and of itself), what does this mean for future liberal candidates? (Rhetorical question, of course) Moderates get elected. Better start fielding those bipartisan uniters, swampers.

Brown’s election is a good thing. For the good people of Massachusetts because Coakley has shown herself as having nothing of what it takes to be a US Senator. For the people of the US because the more Republicans there are in Congress, the more seriously they have to take the business of serving the people rather than indulging the self – serving tantrums of the Becks, Limbaughs and Palins who currently control the GOP.

Yes, the Left needs a lecture from the Republicans on the need for more moderates, a species that has been completely driven out of the Republican Party, a party that doesn’t have a single, independent thinker left in it.

“Let me see if I have this straight. You need to replace perhaps the most beloved liberal in the history of the Senate with a candidate that believes Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan. Because if this lady loses, the health care reform bill that the beloved late senator considered his legacy will die. And the reason it will die is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only have then an 18-vote majority in the Senate. Which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whenever the f**k he wanted.”
.
~Jon Stewart

abdullah,
Your postings are becoming more rationial. Keep up the good work. The country and it’s citizens are better served when we try to find common ground and actually solve problems that meet their needs.

How many hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts Democrats were duped by the Karl Rove flier that went out all over Massachusetts urging all Democrat voters to be sure to vote for Croakley on Thursday, January 21, 2010?

Where is the idea that Brown is a moderate. He was relatively moderate until he decided to run for the Senate, then he flipped on many of his moderate positions to please the right. He became the Romney candidate: yes I did, and then I didn’t, then I did.
Besides, once he is in the Senate, he will need to conform to the Republican mantra: The Dems will not be allowed to pass anything of significance. After all, they have had more filabusters than any other Congress.

Stuart, I agree it is hard to understand how Dems have a difficult time passing significant legislation with their large majority. Bush had a smaller majority but they voted in lock step. Plus the STUPID, WUSSY, Dems too often allowed themselves to go along. The Reps, as usual, scared them into folding.
Dems have the fake Lieberman (who never gets punished for his disloyalty) and a large group of conservative Dems. They have no intention of voting with their party, if it isn’t expedient.
Jon Stewart is right. It hard to f**king understand but that is the way it has been since the Dems started believing in a “third way” and triangulation. LBJ would have twisted arms and steam rolled the votes. Doesn’t happen anymore.

“Plus it’s true: Republicans are accountable to Republican voters, but the same cannot be said of the current Democrats.
.
Scott Brown’s supporters know what they’re getting, something Democrats should emulate going forward if they want to hold on to power for a minute or two.”
.
SZ you often make some very good points, but I’m not certain I agree with you here. I think it is fairly reasonable to conclude that many people who affiliate themselves with the Democratic party do so for characteristics that directly prevent what you suggest.
.
Taking all these things as relative (ie: oppossed to their Republican counterparts) the Democrats are more inclusive and diverse in almost every way. That inclusion is one of the characteristics that affords them support of more youth, minorities, women, etc.
.
Secondly, even if that were not the case, are you truly suggesting that A) holding onto power for a minute or two should be one of their primary goals and that B) copying characteristics of their opponents is a promising way to achieve said goal?
.
Yes, the Republican party has a (well earned) reputation of cut-throat to your enemy (party of “no” or look at the McCain vs. Bush primary) and then a fall in line with the leader at all costs to get things done (see oppossing opinions in Republican ranks vs. within Democratic ones). This certainly means they get “something” done easier than the Democrats, but it doesn’t mean they get the right things done. It means someone like Cheney definitely can steamroll what he wants as VP, but someone like say Powell is a relative outcast, even with his military background.
.
The Dems are going to have a harder time by-design, and people who aren’t applying their fan based mentality to politics recognize that from the start. That in no way guarantees their results will be better or worse in the long term end, but regardless it certainly doesn’t suggest they should somehow be a mirror of their counterparts, just with a different tag line.
.
I continually hear people essentially suggesting that the Dems (Obama specifically) should basically be just like Cheney, only supporting liberal causes. This is a really counter-intuitive argument and shows just how irrational the general public can be. The characteristics that make Obama who he is, and those that make the Democratic what they are, essentially prevent them from doing this. It is a package deal, for better or worse. You don’t get to have your hard nose, my way or the highway Republican fighting for your liberal causes.
.
As SZ said, most republicans know what they’re getting and have come to accept the good and the bad of that. I think the broad range of perspectives and opinions is a characteristic of the Democratic party (again, in relative terms) that anyone who proposes to support it should know they’re getting that going in as well. A characteristic with pros and cons just like anything else, but pretending Dems are going to be the representative of the left to the same degree that Republicans are of the right is an assumption certain to end in disappointment.
.
People get the government they deserve (because government is just another job title for people).

It’s Mr. Clast to you. Then I’m afraid this is why Coakley lost – Dems with no sense of humor. Specifically, I have read that a couple of remarks about the Red Sox and their fans by ex-Senator-to-be Martha contributed to her downfall. Well, those “idependents” sure showed -her-. Now they have one of their own inside the Beltway – completely independent of … well, of the DNC, right? Right? Completely independent of Sarah Palin, because she didn’t -personally- contribute to Brown’s campaign, it was just her adoring thralled minions. Sigh. Oh well, former, at least you had the energy to log on and snipe on Special Election Day. They can’t take that away from you. That and your knowledge of 14th century lexicography. You mah dawcga.

Lecture? This is a deduction. I notice you don’t object to the conclusion.

I continually hear people essentially suggesting that the Dems (Obama specifically) should basically be just like Cheney, only supporting liberal causes. This is a really counter-intuitive argument and shows just how irrational the general public can be.

-
General public? I thought that was coming from the progressives.

Funny thing is you must believe this statement infuriates us or something. Well it doesn’t. Anybody who did the research on Coakley knows all about Amirault. Most of the Liberals here that put in the effort did not support Coakely because she stinks just like a republican.
.
I personally saw her blatant attack adds as proof that she is more interested in power than doing the right thing. Which basicly confirmed that she is far from innocent with Amirault.

maurice2u:
.
Thanks very much for reading and responding to my commentary. I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to rebut my arguments, and this is a discussion that certainly needs to be had.
.
I guess the quickest response (I have appointments now) would be to correct this

I continually hear people essentially suggesting that the Dems (Obama specifically) should basically be just like Cheney, only supporting liberal causes.

so that you understand that I’m not suggesting that the Dems (Obama specifically) should basically be like Cheney or Bush or Frist or the GOP or what have you.
.
I’m suggesting that they should be like FDR and his Democratic Congress.
.
I’m also suggesting that the New Democrat centrist minority in the party be stripped of power and ejected, as they have destroyed the ability of the Democrats as a whole to emulate FDR and FDR Democrats for the good of the country.
.
It’s not Cheney who is the model, it’s the Democrats who passed the New Deal come hell or high water.
.
Democrats are split into two very different political philosophies, one is Third Way centrism, and the other is liberalism. Even though they constitute a minority, even though they don’t have a natural popular constituency, and even though they’ve f*cked up everything they’ve touched, the Third Way people are still in charge of the national party institutions, money and apparatus. That needs to change, or we will not get FDR’s policies.
.
New Democrats don’t subscribe to FDR’s kind of policy as a means to fix problems, because they have their own “Third Way”, which means the government abandons its adversarial role with respect to industry and finance, and embraces a “partnership” role. In order to convince industry and finance that they really are the best partners, centrists continually need to prove that they’re not FDR liberals, which means voting against liberals and their own party even if it ruins the prospects for successful legislation of any kind. It’s one thing to have a diversity of opinion, it’s quite another to have a bloc whose sole ideological platform is the rejection of the majority of the party in favor of the “expertise” of big industry and finance.
.
Think FDR and New Deal, not Cheney and bad deal.

“How do you know you are at a republican event?”

All your garbage has been eaten and your dog has been raped?

[...] Massachusetts Senate Race: Election Night 6: 32 p.m.: I’m set up in the ballroom where the Scott Brown campaign will be holding their election night party, [...] [...]

[...] Massachusetts Senate Race: Election Night – Swampland – TIME.com [...]

Sorry for the late reply, and I appreciate the response. If you don’t happen to see this here, I’m sure we’ll get to the topic again. (ha!)
.
I have to say I understand the support for having FDR and the type of supporters he had, but reality is we do not. And not only do we not have them now in Congress, but we don’t have the pool of people like them to pull from to get the “in” Congress. This is what I mean about the cries for Obama to somehow strong arm all the things he spoke of when campaigning. People know that today’s Congress is not FDR’s Congress, so they somehow figure that Obama would just do it the way the Bush administration did, just in support of the opposite ideology. Of course, reality is it doesn’t work that way for all the reasons I described in the first post.
.
I would also note that the Democratic party is not as rigid as to fit into two specific models (call it liberal and 3rd way). If you ask 20 people what those words mean, you’ll get a minimum of 5 differing views. And since the Democratic party is the “inclusive group” (again relative to their counterparts) one can imagine a wide range of variance. As noted before, Republicans pride themselves on setting an agenda, and everyone fall in line, or else. Most people who are not Republican aren’t due to a philisophical rejection of that concept. However, that also means they must accept things that are different in some ways, and still respect them enough to be affiliated with them as a group.
.
I think at varying points in our country’s past, Congress as a whole had this capacity, to be made of of opposing parties and views, but respect each other to a degree that still meant they were all “The Congress”. The Democratic party still holds onto that a bit more than Republicans, but I suspect that is motivated more out of political expediency these days than any other factor. Regardless, the trend is but a reflection of our day-to-day world where the fan mentality has taken dominance.
.
Just like a fanatic about his football team, people entrench themselves behind a person, group, or movement and declare them absolutely right or wrong with no sense of context or variability. You are either for them, or against them, on everything. Career politicians exploit this (among other societal shortcomings) and the result is a revolving door of the same small minority of people influencing all manner of public and private macro level policy for the entire country. It is an entirely self-sustaining process now, and it will take something extraordinary to break the chain. “Voting the bums out” will be the basic equivalent of replacing one member w/ a clone and a new haircut.
.