Obama and Coakley can’t fill a 3000-person hall in Boston. I guess the magic is gone.
Meanwhile, it’s standing-room only at the Brown rallies.
[Sunday evening update]
The latest Cross-Target poll is out, taken this afternoon, while Obama was rallying the troops (what few he could get to attend). It has Brown up by over ten points among likelies, with a 4% margin.
To me, the tale is here:
2. And do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott Brown? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you are undecided press 3.
1. Favorable 60.3%
2. Unfavorable 31.9%
3. Undecided 7.8%3. And what about Martha Coakley? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Martha Coakley? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you’re undecided press 3.
1. Favorable 39.7%
2. Unfavorable 54.2%
3. Undecided 6.1%
The Donkeys will use this as an excuse, saying that they just had a terrible candidate. I think that the turnout at the president’s rally today belies that. They were stupid enough to think that, because it was Massachusetts, and Teddy’s seat, that they could nominate a ham sandwich and win. She certainly thought so, since she quit campaigning after she won the primary.
They completely misread the mood of not just the nation, but of the state. If they try to ram this crap sandwich down our throats now, the retribution in the fall will be apocalyptic for them. Of course, at this point, even their efforts will be pretty devastating to them, as they were in 1994. And also of course, when it happens, they’ll say (and even insanely delude themselves into believing) that it wasn’t because they tried to socialize medicine, in defiance of all the polls, but rather because they failed. Because, you know, they’re never wrong.
From the comments:
“…and many others just stood in a large crowd outside hoping to see the president”
My question is “Why?”
Maybe, probably, it’s just me. But I really don’t understand the need of some people to put themselves to the trouble (and discomfort, this time of year!) of standing outside waiting to see The President.
I suppose it’s the same ‘need’ that drives people to stalk famous movie stars. I don’t understand that one, either, but there ya go.
It’s excitement and something to talk about. This last summer, Obama briefly stopped by Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park (that’s where I worked last summer). Life got interesting for a few days (they even cut internet for a couple of days, roped off some areas, had snipers roaming in the hills, and guys in suits on top of some of the buildings). Anyway, a couple of my coworkers (who happened to be big Obama fans) went into stalker mode, trying to get pictures of Obama wherever he was rumored to be. I think they got two sets of photographs. Afterwards, they were excited and showed off their bounty.
So my take is that stalking is just like any other human endeavor that’s done for ego, fun, and excitement.
in defiance of all the polls
That word all does not mean what you think it does. For instance, in the latest CBS poll, those who say that the health reform bills go too far are outnumbered by the plurality who say it does not go far enouth.
In covering Americans, the bills:
Go too far: 32%
About right: 22%
Not far enough: 35%
At controlling costs, the bills:
Go too far: 24%
About right: 21%
Not far enough: 39%
At regulating health insurance companies, the bills:
Go too far: 27%
About right: 18%
Not far enough: 43%
Other polls tell a similar story: the lack of enthusiasm for the health reform bills is more about them being too incremental than about them being a government overreach. A solid majority either support them or want something even more drastic.
If the Dems get punished in 2010 for passing health care reform it will be in the form of poor turnout from supporters who wanted more.
That’s a poll of “adults,” Jim (i.e., idiots and people not likely to vote). And at that it doesn’t have very good news for the president. But you just keep whistling past that graveyard, and we’ll continue to laugh at what a tool you are.
“not going far enough” covers a lot of territory.
How many of those who answered “not far enough” meant it as in not far enough in allowing more personal choice or in allowing interstate insurance sales or in leveraging free market solutions?
“not far enough” doesn’t only mean more government control to everyone, just to left wingers like you Jim.
But keep on deluding yourself, you’re easier to defeat when you deny reality.
All the Sunday polls favor Brown and the Intrade odds have increased to 7:4 in his favor.
Nevertheless, everything must go flawlessly in an upset of this magnitude. One glitch and Brown wins a moral victory.
The Monday holiday might help the Democrat machine regroup: most people will be available at home instead of inaccessible at work.
Golly, Jim, don’t you have any experience with lawyers? Even very carefully crafted language can be interpreted in amazingly different ways. It’s not hard at all to craft a poll that gives you the result you want, and even easier to interpret one that way.
If I were you, the polls I would pay attention to are the elections that have happened since ObamaCare became 24/7 news. Corzine, Deeds, and now Coakley. That ought to tell you something, Jim. You can, of course, argue that each is a “special case” and lost for some peculiar reason entirely unconnected to the national goals of the Democrats — and the Democrats themselves, from the President on down, have said the most important of those plans is Obamacare.
But it seems a little unlikely. Frankly ridiculous, even.
Furthermore, the idea that people are pissed because the Democrats haven’t gone far enough to the collectivist left is a charmingly plausible effort in convoluted logic, but it fails the essential common-sense and empirical fact test. If people were pissed at the Democrats for not being more to the left, they certainly wouldn’t vote to replace them with Republicans. They might punish more centrist Democrats in primaries — but that’s not what has happened. They might refuse to vote in the election, depressing turnout. But to the extent turnout has been lowered, it’s among hard-core Democrats. Turnout among independents has been strong — and they’re voting for Republicans. They’re voting for people who are squarely to the more conservative side of Democrats.
There’s really no rational way to square those facts with the hypothesis that people are angry at Democrats for moving too far towards the Republican side of issues.
Well, there’ll be plenty of time for soul searching and blame finding once the Dems lose the House in November.
idiots and people not likely to vote
If only there were more overlap between these two groups…
Rand – true believers on both sides don’t think their beliefs failed, but rather that their beliefs were failed. For example, we had a conservative government from 2000 to 2006, which failed miserably, yet you and your commentors want to be more conservative.
In short, the knife cuts both ways.
Rand – true believers on both sides don’t think their beliefs failed, but rather that their beliefs were failed. For example, we had a conservative government from 2000 to 2006, which failed miserably, yet you and your commentors want to be more conservative.
All I know is that Bush spent like a drunk sailor. That’s not my brand of conservative. Obama and company are currently spending like a sailor on harder drugs, so that makes me even less enthusiastic than I was with the Bush administration.
we had a conservative government from 2000 to 2006, which failed miserably
In February 2006, unemployment was 4.7%. As I recall, this was considered FAIL in 2006 by lefties. I guess Change! is higher unemployment (double to triple higher) is now considered success.
Karl – your side supported Bush while he spent like a drunken sailor.
Leland- the Republicans presided over the economic collapse, and passed the bank bailout.
Failed miserably? Well, it didn’t attempt anything as radical as ObamaCare, but it did create a prescription drug benefit. Would that be an example of “not far enough”? It tried, and failed, to reform Social Security. Failed at reform but succeeded at moving it off the “third rail”. Not Far Enough? It reacted to 9/11 in ways that arguably weren’t completely effective at times but did prevent any new instances of domestic terrorism. Not Far Enough? It endorsed mortgage lending policies of past administrations and congresses that led to a global financial crisis, but it did ensure thousands of minorities could buy their own homes, even if many couldn’t pay the mortgages back. Not Far Enough?
I don’t think “Rand and his commentors want to be more conservative”. I think they want to learn from history and apply those lessons practically and intelligently.
I’m curious, if the democrat party sees significant losses in November, and we say goodbye to a one-term Obama in 2012, with the consensus agreeing that the cause was largely his overreach, will you still characterize 2000-2006 as a miserable failure?
In short, failure is in the eyes of the majority of voters. And right now, there’re telling Coakley-Obama et al. they don’t want anything to do with them.
lol
we had a conservative government from 2000 to 2006
Not that I’m a conservative, but it’s lunacy to think that there was anything very conservative about the government in that era. That kind of nuttiness might make sense in the echo chamber over at Kos, but here it just makes you look like a fool.
your side supported Bush while he spent like a drunken sailor.
I can’t speak for whoever’s side you’re fantasizing about, but I and most of the people I know lambasted him for it. It’s one of the big reasons he lost the Congress in 2006 — because we couldn’t support it any longer. But we weren’t insane enough to put the Dems in charge instead, because we knew that would only make things worse. As they’ve proven since then.
“That kind of nuttiness might make sense in the echo chamber over at Kos, but here it just makes you look like a fool.”
That, plus your snaps at Jim….somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, eh?
somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, eh?
No, I just tire of having people spew nonsense at my web site, and then I have to clean up the graffiti each day.
That’s a poll of “adults,” Jim
You’re the one who specified “all the polls.” And there are plenty of other polls that tell a similar story. Rasmussen, the favorite pollster around here, has found support for single payer in the high 20s to low 30s. Most polling shows majority support for a public option, which is in the House bill but not in the Senate.
The opposition to health care reform from the right comes from a minority of voters.
But keep on deluding yourself, you’re easier to defeat when you deny reality.
I think the “Coakley is losing because voters don’t like health care reform” meme is a distortion of reality. If people on Capitol Hill buy that distortion, then it could become self-fulfilling. So I understand the motivation for pushing it, but that doesn’t make it any more true.
The GOP and other anti-Obama folks have aligned themselves with failure; the worse things are for the country, the better for them. Lenin called it “heightening the contradictions.” They’ve been given an opening by the abuse of the filibuster, which gives the majority party responsibility without power. It’s the same dynamic that is destroying California.
Whatever happens tomorrow, I expect that a health reform bill will be signed into law. And regardless of whether a health reform bill passes, I expect that Obama will be re-elected. But unless the filibuster is reformed, I don’t expect him or his successors to be able to tackle major problems; it will be too easy for the minority party (whether that’s the GOP or Dems) to profit by obstruction.
Leland- the Republicans presided over the economic collapse, and passed the bank bailout.
Republicans ran the Congress in 2008? I think not.
@Jim: “They’ve been given an opening by the abuse of the filibuster, which gives the majority party responsibility without power. It’s the same dynamic that is destroying California.”
I’m in California, and Rand is in California. Maybe Rand agrees with you (not likely), but I think what you said is nonsense, and you’re welcome to try and back that up.
The minority party (Republicans) has no power here, even though one is Governor. The power is in the Democrat-controlled state legislature, and they are willing to use the budget process to shut down the state government if they don’t get their way.
The minority party (Republicans) has no power here, even though one is Governor. The power is in the Democrat-controlled state legislature, and they are willing to use the budget process to shut down the state government if they don’t get their way.
You mis-read what I wrote. The Democrats do not have the power to raise taxes, because that requires a supermajority in CA. As the majority party they get the blame for the crisis, but as long as the minority party sticks together the majority doesn’t have the votes to do anything.
This is not a comment on the parties — the political incentives and dynamic would be the same if the roles were reversed. There’s a reason that Hamilton argued against supermajority requirements in the Federalist papers: they’re a prescription for crisis.
They have the power to roll back spending to pre-OMG-this-tech-bubble-is-going-to-last-forever!!! levels. That they could do. In this instance, the supermajority requirement just keeps things from getting worse. Feature, not bug.
In this instance, the supermajority requirement just keeps things from getting worse.
No. If the Dems could pass their plans, they could be judged on the results, and the voters would have a chance to return them to power or hand the reins to the GOP. As things stand neither party can implement its program, and neither can be held completely responsible for that failure or the results.
If the Dems could pass their plans, they could be judged on the results,
We’ve already seen the results of their plans. It’s what brought us here.
and the voters would have a chance to return them to power or hand the reins to the GOP.
Spoken like someone unfamiliar with the state. FYI, that will never happen.