“…and he still beat us.”
I’m reasonably confident that they’re cheating now, too. Let’s hope he beats them again.
[Update a couple minutes later]
The rats are abandoning the Coakley ship. And they still don’t understand what’s happening:
…some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor’s race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama’s policies or those of the national Democratic party.
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.”
Of course, they’re confusing nebulous support for the president among the general population with the views of likely and passionate voters. I’ll bet that exit polls on Tuesday won’t show anything close to sixty percent for the president.
Jen Rubin explains:
In September, Coakley was ahead in the polls by 30 points.
Since then, however, something has fundamentally changed. Since September, the country has witnessed the visible battle over ObamaCare — late-night votes, Cash for Cloture deals, and a bill that offends a wide array of groups. Democrats have never looked up or paused to consider the public’s views on the matter. They tell us they will “sell it” to us later. That arrogant defiance of public opinion and the unseemly legislative process that produced a grossly unpopular bill have fueled a resurgence of anger and determination among conservatives and even usually apathetic independents. They now are anxious to send a message to Washington: stop ignoring the voters. We saw it in New Jersey and Virginia. Now we learn that even Massachusetts may not be immune.
The Democrats’ agenda, specifically a hugely unpopular health-care bill, has unified and energized not the proponents of big government but the opposition, which now is itching for the chance to exact revenge. We’ll see on Tuesday if that wave of resentment is so powerful as to extend even to a state so Blue that a little over a year ago, Obama carried it by more than 25 points.
I hope that the Dems continue to delude themselves, even after what now looks like a loss in the Bay State. It will make the tsunami in November all the more powerful.
[Update a while later]
Some amusing thoughts on “climate change”:
The Democratic party is panicking like brothel patrons with the cops at the door. They’re dropping shock troops of muckety-mucks, hacks, spinners, and door-knockers into Boston like Rangers into Normandy.
Meanwhile, the liberal press establishment is in near-total denial. Yes, the race is getting a lot of attention, but Coakley’s problems are being chalked up to the fact that she is a bad campaigner and this is a bad “climate” for the Democrats.
They use “climate” to suggest that things are bad for Democrats for reasons beyond their control (ironically, they don’t talk about the climate that way when it comes to global warming). Orange growers in Florida can’t be blamed for a bad crop if the climate won’t cooperate, and Democrats can’t be held accountable for their crop failure now. It’s the economy! It’s the obstructionism of the Republicans and that satanic whatchamacallit, the filibuster. Jupiter is aligned with Mars, NutraSweet has poisoned the water supply, Lost has been on hiatus too long, Mongo likes candy: It’s the climate, you see, the horrible, horrible climate! Democrats didn’t do anything wrong!
Except they did.
The Democrats’ “bad climate” is a direct result of how they’ve governed. The populist backlash is fueled by a sense that Democrats are acting on their preferred agenda and by their own rules. From the shenanigans of the people who write our tax code and collect our taxes to special deals and secret arrangements for big businesses and legislators who play ball, the Democrats have abandoned transparency in favor of transparent arrogance.
Coakley is a creature of this climate. She hasn’t been running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” she’s been strolling to it like someone who knows it’s been reserved for her and all she needs to do is swing by the will-call window to pick it up.
I think that the climate is going to get a lot worse for them before it gets better. Especially if they ram this crap sandwich down the nation’s throat.
If it’s not close, they can’t cheat.
Well, they’ll still cheat but it’ll be harder for them to “discover” enough votes to make up the shortfall.
If Brown wins, that’ll put pressure on Congress to pass health care change before Brown enters the Senate. It certainly a lot different than a week ago. Amazing how one weak, out of touch candidate can fumble a huge edge that fast. I wonder if the Obama ads helped worsen her position.
It’s Bush’s fault!
If Brown wins it will be a warming shot across the bow for all those who intend to vote in favor of the health care monstrosity. Will it cause any to waver?
If Brown wins it only takes one current Dem Senator deciding that the healt care bill is not worth dieing for.
Say Senator Ben Nelson …
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/nelson_booed.php
If Brown wins even having the vote before he is seated won’t save health care.A Brown win in Ma will be a huge wake up call ofr all the senators.
http://wolafen.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cost-of-long-life.jpg?w=500&h=378
just sayin’
Ethan, the US reports as infant deaths what most other countries report as stillborns. This and some other reporting differences make US life expectancy artificially low.
Grizzled – I’d really like to see a link that supports the infant mortality claim.
So what’s your point Ethan? That we spend too much keeping geezers alive? How much do you think we should spend on such endeavors?
Here, let me make it personal. I had a heart attack last week. I survived, got diagnosed and treated, had an artery or two roto-rootered and shored up. I’m in pain this week, but all in all I feel better than I have in a couple of years. (Heck, I recommend everybody have this done every 40-50 years.)
The bill for all this is about $60K. Is that too much for you? Am I a burden to the system? For all we know I could die in the next few years and that would be $60K wasted on treating me in my last couple years of life. Or not. As far as I’m concerned anybody who has a problem with that can kiss my (newly) rosy ass. It’s also why I’m vehemently opposed to the healthcare “reform” ghouls having any role in my treatment process.
For you it’s a statistic, for others it’s their life. (We all get but one.) Something folks should keep in mind when they’re looking at charts and graphs and trying to measure “efficiency”. Just remember what efficiency actually means in this case.
Grizzled – I’d really like to see a link that supports the infant mortality claim.
Jurgen, it isn’t that you’re a burden to the system or anything even remotely resembling that. It’s that our system is structured such that we pay more money to achieve the same results seen in other countries. I went to the emergency room a few years back because I was having severe chest pains…it turned out I had undiagnosed acid reflux. I was there for a half an hour, they gave me a cup of Maalox and told me to make an appointment with my regular doctor to get on Prilosec or something similar. The cost to me was $50…but my insurance company and the state each paid about $500. How is $1050 for half an hour (most of which was spent sitting alone, I only spent about ten minutes with a doctor) and a cup of Maalox reasonable by any measure, whoever’s paying it?
Even if true, the siutation won’t be changing anytime soon.
A perfect moral being, then the fact that he participates in the act of murder either means that God is an immoral being or else He has lied, and Murder is infact a moral activity to participate in. Considering Gods word is supposed to be perfect and innerant, that means He cannot lie which means that He is willfully breaking his own morality rules and therefore… disgustingly immoral judging by his actions in the Old Testement. So much for perfectly moral Jesus, meek and mild. Cont…