Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

National Republicans have a new rallying point in Massachusetts Senate nominee Scott Brown, with presidential contenders and party committees flooding the zone with cash, staff and endorsements as health care becomes the central issue at stake for the special election.

2012 hopefuls Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty are helping the campaign, and Sen. John McCain endorsed Brown to win over attorney general Martha Coakley.

Republicans believe the key in what's expected to be a low turnout race will be independents, and note the trend in Massachusetts is similar to what's been seen nationally - voter frustration over spending issues and the economy.

Brown (R-MA) and Coakley (D-MA) are neck-and-neck in some polls leading up to next Tuesday's special election for a permanent replacement for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

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.

dbackjon wrote:Once the great state of Massachusetts realizes what more damage another Republican in the Senate will do, they will do the rational thing, and elect Coakley

dgreco wrote:Had the chance to watch the debate thanks to PBSRI and IDK how Scott Brown was gaining in the race. He was disjointed in his speaking, he was arrogant and just an overall bad performance.

On the other hand, Coakley wasn't any better and I can see why she is losing ground.

I would not be sanguine about either one because they both are subpar candidates.

UNHWildCats wrote:The gop aint going to win.

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

mainejeff wrote:Who the F cares? Let Republicans control everything (don't they already? ).......then they can have fun fvcking up and off.

SeattleGriz wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Who the F cares? Let Republicans control everything (don't they already? ).......then they can have fun fvcking up and off.

I care.

Because the vote on the upcoming healthcare legislation is important. I already pay a ridiculous amount in taxes and really don't want more.

CID1990 wrote:

dgreco wrote:Had the chance to watch the debate thanks to PBSRI and IDK how Scott Brown was gaining in the race. He was disjointed in his speaking, he was arrogant and just an overall bad performance.

On the other hand, Coakley wasn't any better and I can see why she is losing ground.

I would not be sanguine about either one because they both are subpar candidates.

Sanguine is my favorite word in the the whole English language, bar none.

Robert E. Lee loved to use it.

"I am less sanguine about our prospects of taking that hill today."

Carry on.

Col Hogan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
I care.

Because the vote on the upcoming healthcare legislation is important. I already pay a ridiculous amount in taxes and really don't want more.

I care...for the same reason as Sea...and because I hope Massachusetts might move more to the center as I'd like to go back there some day...

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
I care...for the same reason as Sea...and because I hope Massachusetts might move more to the center as I'd like to go back there some day...

Jesus. Whatever for?

dbackjon wrote:Once the great state of Massachusetts realizes what more damage another Republican in the Senate will do, they will do the rational thing, and elect Coakley

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Once the great state of Massachusetts realizes what more damage another Republican in the Senate will do, they will do the rational thing, and elect Coakley

Yeah, things have improved greatly under Democratic leadership in Washington. How about, voting for the best person regardless of party? One day Jon...one day.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Yeah, things have improved greatly under Democratic leadership in Washington. How about, voting for the best person regardless of party? One day Jon...one day.

They have improved.

It can get a lot better, to be sure, but better than under the Bush nightmare.

If Republicans would offer enough candidates that weren't beholden to the extremist radical Evangelical right, then they would get some consideration. But until then, they are bastards in my book.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
They have improved.

It can get a lot better, to be sure, but better than under the Bush nightmare.

If Republicans would offer enough candidates that weren't beholden to the extremist radical Evangelical right, then they would get some consideration. But until then, they are bastards in my book.

...as opposed to the extremist radical moveon.org lefties that Obama is beholden to?

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
...as opposed to the extremist radical moveon.org lefties that Obama is beholden to?

You don't realize that Obama has basically told the left to piss off. The far left has little or no influence on Obama.

SeattleGriz wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
You don't realize that Obama has basically told the left to piss off. The far left has little or no influence on Obama.

That is because Obama followed the far lefts agenda so far and look where it has gotten him! Obama really needs the Republicans to win so he can REALLY tell the far left to piss off and preside over a more centrist administration. Problem is, I don't think Obama will come to the center very much.

dbackjon wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
That is because Obama followed the far lefts agenda so far and look where it has gotten him! Obama really needs the Republicans to win so he can REALLY tell the far left to piss off and preside over a more centrist administration. Problem is, I don't think Obama will come to the center very much.

NOPE

Obama has run a very CENTERIST/CORPORIST Admin so far. He has done almost nothing leftist.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Sanguine is my favorite word in the the whole English language, bar none.

Robert E. Lee loved to use it.

"I am less sanguine about our prospects of taking that hill today."

Carry on.

Takes some sang froid to use them big French words around these parts, bubba.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Takes some sang froid to use them big French words around these parts, bubba.

Actually, I mis-spoke. Sanguine is my second favorite word.

My favorite word is "beclowned."

dbackjon wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
That is because Obama followed the far lefts agenda so far and look where it has gotten him! Obama really needs the Republicans to win so he can REALLY tell the far left to piss off and preside over a more centrist administration. Problem is, I don't think Obama will come to the center very much.

NOPE

Obama has run a very CENTERIST/CORPORIST Admin so far. He has done almost nothing leftist.