MA-Sen: Map of Special Election Results by Town

With all but five precincts reporting, this is what tonight’s election results look like on a town-by-town basis (click image for larger version):

UPDATE: Jeffmd does some quick number crunching to look at performance by congressional district. The preliminary conclusions:

Coakley Wins: 1st, 7th, 8th

Uncertain, but likely Brown wins: 4th, 9th

Brown Wins: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th

UPDATE: Dave Wasserman tweets:

Q: Where are the other potential Dem collapse areas this Nov? A: Almost precisely the places Hillary carried in the 08 prez primary

He’s definitely on to something. Below is a map of the 2008 presidential primary results in Massachusetts between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Red is Clinton, blue is Obama:

The results between tonight’s race and the presidential primary correlate at a rate of 0.56, which is quite high.

142 thoughts on “MA-Sen: Map of Special Election Results by Town”

  1. What districts are situated in those dark red spots in the middle and in the lower right hand center?

  2. Coakley won:

    MA-1 John Olver (Western MA)

    MA-4 Barney Frank (Brookline, Newton)

    MA-7 Edward Markey (Medford/Malden… even though she lost Waltham, she only lost by 1%–this district was probably pretty close)

    MA-8 Michael Capuano (Cambridge/Boston)

    She probably lost the rest.

  3. Here’s one of Coakley v. Baseline:

    She underperformed strongly in Worcester/Central Mass. Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Medford all better than what she needed, as were most of the Berkshires.

    Coakley underperformed in 250 towns by an average of 3.79%, she overperformed in the other 100 (excluding Paxton which has no results) by an average of 3.88%.

  4. The membership of both the United States Senate and House of Representatives is exactly the same now as it was at the very beginning of the 111th Congress.

    Senate: Democratic gain through party switch (Arlen Specter, PA) is neutralized by Republican gain through special election (Scott Brown, MA).

    House: Democratic gain through special election (Bill Owens, NY) is neutralized by Republican gain through party switch (Parker Griffith, AL).

    Think anyone in the media’s going to point that out? I don’t either.

    Also, memo to the DCCC: GET YOUR ASSES ON HI-01, RIGHT NOW.

  5. Guys,

    I’ve been thinking about this for a while and the results last night reaffirm this idea further. I’m more and more open to the idea of a Clinton Primary challenge to Obama in 2012. It’s drastic yes, but so is our situation currently, we lost VA, NJ and now MA, Obama is now one of the most unpopular presidents in modern US history. I no longer believe we can recover with Obama. 2010 will be disastrous, but we can and must salvage 2012.

    There is now doubt in my mind that Hillary can resurrect this party. Rasmussen polls released recently show she has deep popularity among democrats, independents, and even moderate republicans. This popularity isn’t the mile-wide paper thin popularity of some well known faces which evaporate on runnung, she’s been battle tested and people know her.

    On every critical demographic we need, Hillary is massively popular. The white working class, Catholics, Latinos, southern dems, she has made her electoral base on the groups paramount to our success. She would destroy the GOP in every swingstate, and every swing demographic and could regain in 2012 our 2010 losses.

    I was a Hillary supporter in the primary, and supported Obama in the general, but it is clear to me that he is not delivering. My loyalty is to my party and my principles, not Obama. Hillary has made HCR her life’s work and I am confident she can deliver a strong bi-partisan bill, as well as cap&trade, immigration reform etc. that Obama is looking unlikely to pass. Our situation is desperate, we need to take drastic action, draft Hillary 2012

  6. from da internets, MSM news, blogs etc for about 2-3 days, or maybe a week if you can. Do something different.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Clinton was to Nixon as Obama is to Reagan (in terms of political fortunes and electoral circumstances). 2010 will be tough but not that bad. Once the economy picks up (it is doing so right now and will do so in a big way soon), all this will be history.

    So if I can channel my late Rabbi’s favorite quote of Moses in the Exodus…”these Egyptians you see today a.k.a. Teabaggers), you shall no more..”


  7. You think regardless of where she lives the machine there would go all out on her because he’s running to keep the Senate seat. Maybe they knew she was a dud and didn’t care, who knows but a intrestring quote.

  8. very low total votes in Boston. I mean, way low.

    I kept waiting for the Boston and Cambridge percincts to close the gap and they never materialized. These are easy areas to whip the GOTV.

    One suspects the mayor and his machine reckoned they’d rather loan the seat to Brown until 2012 than let Coakley get entrenched.

  9. In the lower right hand corner is MA-10, Bill Delahunt’s district. The one is the middle I don’t know, maybe John Tierney’s district but I saw a lot of red in thr northeastern part of the state is Niki Tsongas’ district. Hope that helps.

  10. The part of the state I though was Tsongas district is Tierney’s distict. The middle part of the stare is in MA-2 and MA-1 which is represented by Richard Neal and John Olver respectively.

  11. Jim McGovern’s district is mixed in there as well. Seems like the only districts Coackley did good in were Frank, Lynch, Tsongas and Capuano’s disticts.

  12. Delahunt and Lynch look like they are taking worst brunt of this loss. Both are protected to a degree by their conservative reputations but one can’t predict the future. My views on Lynch’s position are taking into account somewhat on the fact that I suspect the parts of Boston he represents were those more likely to go for Brown. I also think Brown’s performance on the South Shore might be strong enough to spill over into Rhode Island  

  13. Minus Ed Markey’s district, forgot to mention his district. She didn’t do too bad in Tsongas district, not of pink areas but as for John Olver’s distict. She didn’t do swell in the eastern part of his district. Also she won Lynch’s district as well.

  14. The more I think about Barney Frank he might actually be in serious trouble. While Coakley did well in Brookline and Newton almost all of the rest of his district from Wellseley south to New Bedford went heavy Brown. Barney would also have a heavy anti incumbancy factor going against him just like Chris Dodd.

  15. Brookline + Newton are like 1/5 of the district’s population. she also won New Bedford and Fall River (part of it is in Frank’s district) as well as Sharon and Wellesley (barely!) but she lost the rest of the district badly.

    I would say she won in Ed Markey’s district decisively. Same for MA-01 and (obviously) MA-08. She probably got blown out in MA-06 and MA-10 and lost MA-02, MA-03, and MA-05 by a bad but not landslide margin.

  16. CD Coakley Brown Coakley% Brown%
    1 107,665 103,561 50.97% 49.03%
    2 89,493 121,799 42.36% 57.64%
    3 82,588 121,627 40.44% 59.56%
    4 108,079 110,323 49.49% 50.51%
    5 91,585 121,594 42.96% 57.04%
    6 104,787 144,168 42.09% 57.91%
    7 118,283 101,739 53.76% 46.24%
    8 46,795 11,884 79.75% 20.25%
    9 76,164 101,140 42.96% 57.04%
    10 109,489 163,812 40.06% 59.94%
    3, 4 10,341 7,489 58.00% 42.00%
    5, 7 3,597 2,915 55.24% 44.76%
    8, 9 105,289 46,468 69.38% 30.62%
    9, 10 1,254 3,067 29.02% 70.98%

    Coakley Wins: 1st, 7th, 8th

    Uncertain, but likely Brown wins: 4th, 9th

    Brown Wins: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th

    If someone can get precinct data for Fall River and Boston, those would be huge in finding out whether Coakley won the 4th and 9th.

  17. Because that district is socially conservative. Alot of the GOP areas of the state coe from Bill Delahunt’s district centered in East Mass such as Plymouth.

  18. perhaps a Republican could run up margins in the Blackstone Valley and “rural” towns like Foster and Scituate but I still think the Democrat would win with a map similar to the 2006 senate race.

  19. Seriously people this has little bearing on House races. Remember the pickup in Virginia last week?

  20. The GOP got luck by election Scott Brown as the nominee because the guy was elected offical and not a sarfical lamb. Who in that district would beat Frank? Your grasping at straws here withthat.

  21. Frank hasn’t done anything to earn the wrath of the voters over the financial crisis. Sure the GOP could turn him into a boogieman because he’s gay and he chairs the House Financial Committee, but he hasn’t done anything like Dodd did to royally piss off the voters.

  22. Was surprised Brown won Falmouth outright. Thought Frank had most of the Cape. the old Studds seat, isn’t it?

    Think they can make a good case on Frank. Hang Fannie Mae and the meltdown right around his neck a la Dodd. They don’t have a pre-packaged Friends of Angelo narrative, meaning something simple to explain, but would be easy to play ethnic politics on resentment on housing policy and impact on banking practices. Target it heavily to Italian, Irish and Portugese Catholics. Same crew Obama had trouble with in NH and got waxed on in E. Ohio and W PA.

    Can even hit him on the left a bit with his actions on behalf of the Committee to Reinflate the Bubble.

    Of course, if we have to worry about Frank’s seat, then there are about 80 more seats throughout the South, Midwest and West which would already be gone.

  23. Always impressing me with your stats, jeffmd :)

    Part of the reason (among many) that Coakley lost tonight: look at the turnout numbers in Capuano’s district!!!!

  24. I’ll say she probably barely lost Frank’s and lost Lynch’s by a significant margin (maybe 43-44%?)

    Fall River is ~45% in the 4th and 55% in the 3rd, with Frank’s portion being slightly more Republican (71% Obama in the 4th, 73% Obama in the 3rd).

    Since Coakley won in Fall River by ~3,000 votes, we could (generously) allocate a +1,500 margin to her from Fall River, which isn’t quite enough to overcome her ~2,000 vote deficit.

    Lynch’s district is completely up in the air, but most likely a loss. Coakley won Boston by 60,000, but Boston is 65% in Capuano’s district, so we could give Coakley a margin of +21,000 out of Boston’s part of the 9th, best case.

    Add in Stephen Lynch’s reports of Southie leaning toward Brown (at least compared to the city as a whole), and even the +21,000 beings to look optimistic.

    So I think Coakley won the 1st, 7th, and 8th, and lost the rest.

  25. Well, if Democrats get less then 51% in 1st district, and (probably) lose Frank’s district – the situation becomes not serious, but extremely dangerous. On first glance – main losses come from “working class Democratic” towns, which voted HRC, not Obama in 2008 primary, which are recptive to “conservative populism”, eloquently and skillfully used by Brown in this campaign, and which tend to be a somewhat socially conservative. The turnout in minority areas also doesn’t seem to be high, while turnout in Brown’s areas (small towns and much of suburbia) seems healthy (more motivated voters?). It’s good for Democrats, that Republicans have very shallow bench in a state (5 state Senators, 1 of which is Brown and 2nd – Tisei – is running for Lt. Governor). I could easily imagine someone like Tisei winning a seat in House, should he run there.

    Substantial part of former Obama’s coalition (including majority of Independents) soured on him and Democrats as a whole, so there may be very unexpected surprises in November. Until recently i calculated possible Republican’s gains in Senate as 2-3 Seats. now – 5-7 is real possibility, and, under some circumstances – even more. In House i still stand at 25-30 level, but who knows – i can’t absolutely exclude “waive election”, especially if economy will remain in present condition.

  26. Brown and Hillary did well among blue collar voters, while Obama and Coakley did well among more liberal voters, but lost the blue collars.  

  27. look how the Democrats have sanked in Arkansas. If there’s some correlation between Hillary’s supporters and Democrats who voted for Brown, that would make for an interesting dynamic.  

  28. Boston isn’t included in the 8th’s status. Fall River, Hanson, and Wayland are all not included because they are split between district.

    Boston is about 65% in Capuano’s district, so add about 110,000 votes to that total to get the true turnout figure.

  29. But, I will say this all of the congressional delegation in MA seriously has to start picking up their game. While I think tonight’s election is a fluke I don’t think it is out of realm of possibility for at least house member to have problems this Nov probably either McGovern, Tsongas, or Tierney. Tierney’s and McGovern’s seats used to be held by Torkildson and (uggh)Peter Blute while Tsongas is fairly new and had a close call in 2007.

  30. McCain did well in those areas. People might have to distance themselves the president. Most have the ability to do that without undercutting him.

  31. and same thing popping up in heavily Catholic areas in Ohio. Obama just waxed among catholics in NH… which means Mass transplants. Heavily Irish with substantial Italian.

    Obama has had persistent problems with Catholics. Reckon leaking from same group. And not necessarily Reagan Dems. Lot of them too young to have voted in 1984. But drawing water from same demographic well.

    I expect there will be a large overlap if anyone asked 2008 primary support in the exit polls Lake and Rassmussen are releasing tomorrow morning. OK, this morning.

    Not sure how they each cobbled together exit polls so fast on their own. Expect robo exit polls… which means they aren’t really exit polls. Almost a panelback without a panel.

    Rural whites and Catholics and Indy women.

    That and Boston not TOing.

  32. Sure. But Martha Coakley isn’t running in November and neither is Creigh Deeds or Jon Corzine. I have plenty of confidence that people like John Hickenlooper, Mike Beebe and Robin Carnahan can do the business just as Anthony Foxx, Bill Owens and Dave Marsden did despite the environment. Again, candidates and campaigns matter.

  33. Blute and Torklidsen won because of 1994 and was soundly defeated by McGovern and Tierney the next cycle. Tsongas faced a close election but unlike Martha Coakley she won and didn’t face ANY GOP opponent. Once again you didn’t answer my question What candidate would be strong that they beat any of the Mass Congressional delegation? Yyour grasping at straws man.

  34. many of us are just shocked and are trying to rationalize what has happened. We all knew that there was a good chance Coakley would end up on the losing side tonight, but just like with Jon Corzine, we all hoped that the fact she was a Democrat in a deep blue state would bring her across the finish line. Especially since unlike losing the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, whoever won in Massachusetts would determine the fate of Health Care reform. Right now what’s going through me is a mixture of shock, despair, and anger right now. I myself knew what was going to happen when Brown was leading with 50+% of the vote in, I hoped that somehow Boston had not come in and Coakley would surge into the lead. But like New Jersey it didn’t happen. For the next few days many of us will be gripping about what happens now.  

  35. won because of 1994.

    Hell, we lost a Speaker in that one along with another 40-some seats. Lost two in deep blue Mass that cycle as well. Rent-a-seats where historic patterns are overturned by national tide.

    2010 has that feel to it. We just lost Ted Kennedy’s seat, for goodness’ sake.

    Usually you can’t beat someone with no one, but when the wind is right you can.

  36. And you and everyone else here have the right to gripe. I just get pissed that because of this people blame the party leadership when it was Coakley who’s to fault or that we schould scrap HCR when we all know that would lead to devastating consequences and that well lost 70 seats in the House and 10 in the Senate withno data to back it up when I believe 30 at most and a couple in the Senate or the the Mass delegation is in trouble because of this when we all know there are no strong GOPers to truely challenge them. Shit the GOP got lucky with Scott Brown. That’s when I pissed and forced to respond because of these responses are stupid and kneejerk and dangerous.

    But to complain about Coakley, everyone here has the God given right to do that, that’s why I don’t tell everyone to chill or calm down because you and everyone else are are angry and need to get it out of their systems.

  37. I think most of the MA Republicans who have won in the past like Cellucci, Blute, Torkildson, Swift, Healey, Weld, Romney were incredible pathetic and all seemed to be interested in holding the positions either to get a better a gig doing something else or talking control of Democratic patronage machine for themselves. Brown and Charlie Baker(himself a Cellucci confidant) I don’t see as any different and have even ressurected some more low life MA GOP figures from 1990s such as Sandy Tennant. Having said all that the names I previously mentioned all won elections in “Democratic” Massachusetts. Blute and Torkildson actually won their House seats in 1992 a year Bill Clinton won MA handily. None of this talk of Menino’s machine possibly scuppering Coakley’s election helps the narrative at all because it simply turns MA politics into a competion between Menino’s machine and Sandy Tennant’s MA GOP booze cruise machine.

    I also pose the question after Teddy’s death who really is the public leader of the MA Democratic party other than Menino. Patrick is extremely damaged goods Coakley barely won his hometown of Milton. John Kerry and the MA delegation need to step up now.

  38. From what I heard from here that the MA machine wasn’t exactly excited to bust their hump for Coakley so thinking longterm let Brown win so in two years they’ll be back to retake the seat from a strong candidate they like. If it wasn’t for HCR I would say that a half decent strategy.

  39. You meaning because HCR was on the line? If that’s what you mean then I agree they are playing with peoples lives. But when can you say, she ran a crappy campaign and the machine wasn’t going to bust their ass for a candidate that no matter what was going to lost because of stupidity.

  40. But if people are wilfully not trying so they can win later down the line that is pathetic and playing a game.

  41. 1994 was more of a realignment election because alot of seats the GOP picked up were from defesting incumbents or winning seats in districts that have been trending their way for years like how it was in ’06 and ’08. Speaker Tom Foley lost because of the reason, his Spokane based district was trending red for years and it took 1994 to make it flip. That year the GOP won seats they had no business winning like the two mass and Dan Rostenkowski seats in Illinois seats but we quickly took back those seats the next cycle. This race has not that much of a implication of the national environment because like I have said 60 million times on this board if Martha Coakley would of just kep campaigning and didn’t go dark after she won the primary for a month, she be picking out her Senate staff right now and Scott Brown would go back to Beacon Hill. It’s plain and simple. Losing Ted Kennedy seat wasn’t because of political winds, it was because the stupidity and incompetence of Martha Coakley’s campaign and the GOP not getting a scaficial lamb in Scott Brown. Believe me in two years when he runs for a full term, he’s DOA by someone more competent and a better campaigner like Mike Capuano for example. If it wasn’t for HCR I wouldn’t be getting so worked up. Well maybe I would because it was Ted Kennedy’s seat.

    Sorry we let you down Ted, fucking shame.

  42. And your right it is pathetic and it is playing a game. Yeah Martha was a bad candidate but regrdless if you love her or hate her, the machine is supposed to be out there to GOTV for their candidate no matter what. Guess they thought Coakley wasn’t worth it. Csn’t blame them for thinking like that. Woman dosen’t sound to bright to me. But I digress.

  43. Not that I’d read a ton into these results as having predictive value for future contests, but it’s a handy “worst case scenario” baseline one could use when map-drawing.  

  44. Remember early on in the campaign, Obama didn’t do so well in Massachusetts polls, even tying McCain at one point, and McCain made up ground from Bush in Worcester and Plymouth Counties (which appear to be Brown’s strongest btw), while losing ground in Boston and in the Berkshires.  

  45. metrics and all that stuff… hell, even money within reason… are nothing in comparison to the quality of the candidate. That’s the product and you have to have someone to sell.

    Been plenty of rich empty suits who blew big wads and succeeded only in making their media guys very rich.

    And your point on her timing going dark is quite valid: the best time to kick someone is when they’re down. Never let them breathe or they might get up and kick your ass in return.

    And, she was in effect a de facto incumbent… A Dem running for Teddy’s seat in deep blue Mass. She made Brown’s job a lot easier than she should have. One less gaffe and she might have pulled it out.

    Normally, though, unseating an incumbent is about firing the guy holding the job more than hiring the replacement.

    And when a national tide gets rolling, free media and word of mouth  make the argument about firing the incumbent for the challenger. Still have to pass the smell test but that is only a fraction of the degree of difficulty of convincing the electorate to fire the person in office AND be comfortable with you taking the gig.

    I would disagree with the trending argument for 1994, however. Most of the 1994 districts in the south and west looked nothing like the districts through the 80s. Don’t forget Atwater’s idea of dealing with the black caucus in the South and Latin groups in the west to pack AAs and Hispanics in majority-minority seats, stripping the previous margins out of a lot of white Dems in the Southern seats and adding new tracts of voters to whom these incumbents were newbies.

    Yeah, we lost heavily in the South and West… but the districts were not the same. Note how in 1992, after the redistricting after the 90 Census, the GOP actually gained seats while Bush the Elder was going down.

    As for rural areas, 1994 created a new dynamic. We had plenty of Dems holding rural HR seats prior to 1994. The Assault Weapons ban did not fly in areas where folks knew the difference between a semiautomatic and an actual assault weapon. This opened the door to the GOP. Kyoto then kicked it right off the hinges in energy-producing areas.

    1994 just created the perfect storm for them to cash in on the changed electoral map. And we have not substantially redrawn it yet.

  46. Yeah it’s al about the candidate and with Martha running the poor campaign, that opened the door to Scott Brown and he quickly took advantage of it. As for 1994 I can’t comment on what you said because I need for infomation but I think it was a bit of a realignment mixed in the fact that the Dems were in power way too long and casted votes on things that were not popular with it’s voters like the assult weapons ban. There is nothing close to shit like that for 2010, not even the stimulus and HCR. Cap and trade maybe. Plus the GOP had a plan then. They had national leaders like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and a platform in the contract with america. The GOP don’t have that. Their national leaders consists of people like Rush, Beckand Sarah Palin and they don’t inspire everyone. There leader who I thought could rebuild the GOP is now the Ambassador to China. Despite the comparisons I don’t beleve this will be a 1994 like election unlike something terrible happens like a major scandal, a terrorist attack or HCR failing.

  47. He hasn’t done anything to desrve thr boot and there no one credible to challenge so there won’t be a 80 seat loss, a 100 seat loss or a loss of the whole goddamn Dem caucus.

  48. but I think the real problem for the GOP is the split between their actual party leadership establishment and the rank and file.

    Like Dems in the W era, they have a rank and file ready to rumble. They want to find hills to die on and kill for. They want to fight, not triangulate.

    I don’t think the problem for the GOP is having leaders like Rush, Beck and Palin. The problem is they have leaders who think and act like Frum. They sort of miss the point that the point of an opposition party is to oppose, not cleverly hide and bide time while hoping the other side jumps off a cliff on their own. The GOP rank and file wants them out there pushing.

    They ought to go whole hog on this populist tea party theme and cram it down our throat. Trying to get HCR through we have cut deals with and showered money on the same folks we screamed at the GOP for coddling in their time in control. Look at PHRMA and the Senate version of HCR!

    But they have a bunch of guys holding office who would rather play it cute so they can still land big-ass lobbying jobs when their numbers come up. They think they can offer lip service to their base and play their DC game. Kind of forget that in a mass party the actual mass gets to make the calls. Ignore them long enough and they just hire someone else to rep them. Look at all the primary challenges RINOs and GOP wets are facing. Charlie Crist being a fine case in point.

    Of course, now folks on the D side will be arguing about whether we jumped off the cliff on HCR. The DLC types will say we veered too far left. The hardcore left will say we pussied about with half-measures which pleased no one. Others will think it’s a question of finding the proper messaging.

    All I know is we should have done health care right after the stimulus. Should have got it done before the election year hit.

    Yow! Both parties have big and growing splits between their respective rank and file and their own leadership. Good thing Ross Perot isn’t still viable. If our left and their right win their respective internal debates, then the center is gonna be wide open for a pox-on-both-houses third party.

  49. Just because he dosen’t have a 70 percent approval rative dosen’t mean they soured him at all. He’s been in the high 50’s and for whats een going on i’ll take that. I’ll take jumping ship when his numbers are Dubya like numbers. No your wrog, they haven’t soured on him for the most part. There still there.

    Sorry I don’t see 5-7 as a real posbilitiy. I suspect 4. AR,NV,ND and maybe PA but well take NH and MO. OH is a tossup and KY is gone with Jim Bunning out of the picture. As for your predicttion on the House, I have do disagreements on that.

  50. You make good points about the problems with the GOP i.e leadership. As for HCR and the deals i’m not going to get into that all that but i’ll say this: regardless of some of it’s flaws it’s a good bill that will cover 30 million more americans and bring benefits to our system. If we don’t psss that well be in deep shit, I think we can agree on that.

    They did HCR after the stimulus. They wanted to get this shit done before the 2007 election but because of guys like Baucus and Co. dragging their feet, the process was dragged on to today.

    As for our base, it’s always hard to please thrm it’s a catch 22. The moderates (DLC) think it’s too liberal the far left thinks it’s too conservative. The rest don’t know what to think. The best things Dems to do is get this passed and make the bill the best you can under the circumstances because no matter what they’ll never please the Chris Bowers’,David Sirota’s and Jane Hamsher’s and the “activists” of the left. But I fault this on bad messaging and I think it was the summer it got out of hand with the town hall meetings and death panel bullshit.

    And your right about the bases having splits of idelogy because of their leadership. Shoot the tea baggers think the conservatives aren’t conservative just because they veered away on one issue. But in the end you made some very good points.

  51. Weld and Cellucci were anything, but pathetic, as Governors. in fact – i would easily vote for any of them over Deval Patrick (not sure in 2006, but sure – now). I would be ready to support Charlie Baker over Patrick too, but still my first candidate would probably be Cahill. Democratic party in Massachusetts has more then it’s share of corruption, scandals and so on, comparable only with New Jersey and Louisiana. Blute, Torkildsen, Swift, Healey – not heavyweights, sure, but not fluke either. Romney? He is nasically Utah’n, and we will see after 2012.

    I see Massachusetts as surely blue, but less lopsided Democratic in future then now, and it’s probably good – outrageous lack of competition sharply lowered quality of Democratic candidates last years

  52. Weld and Celluci were popular Govs there’s no question but to say Mass is going to be competitive and less lopsided in the future is obsured. I said it once i’ll say it again. If it weren’t for Martha Coakley’s screwups Scott Brown would be going back to Beacon Hill while Coakley would be preparing to be a Senator it’s as simple as that. Now because of tis screwup you think Frank, Capuano and the whole delegation is in danger which is obsured. What’s next, John Kerry’s going to get the boot in 2014?  

  53. They have soured on him in extremely sharp way. If health care reform (as good or bad as it is) loses during a poll in Massachusetts – that means not even souring, but greatest and deepest disappointment and animosity. According to more credible polls Obama is close to 50-50 now (i don’t consider very optimistic dKos polls as credible) – one of the lowest level for corresponding period of presidental term in 50 years.

    5-7? AR, NV, ND – almost for sure.  PA, CO – very likely. I am not sure even for CA, especially if Republicans will be smart and nominate Tom Campbell. I am not sure about DE either, even with Beau Biden. And i don’t believe in Democratic victories in NH (unless Republicans will help by nominating an unacceptable teabagger) and Missouri (magic of Carnahan’s name doesn’t always works)

  54. People in Mass sour on HCR because everyone there already is covered so it dosen’t matter to them whatever it passes or not. But if it dosen’t pass there will be a bloodbath. People expect this to pass and if it dosen’t the consequences are dire. Wow Obama being in the 50’s is the lowest period for a President. Guess you don’t remember when Bush had ratings in the high 30’s. Wrong again. I don’t mind his ratings being in the 50’s because in these times I never expected his ratings to stay in the 70’s forever.

    As for your Senate ratings your wrong again. Yeah well lost AR,NV and ND no question but CO is looking good in the polls, Tom Campbell will never win since he’ll be spliting the moderate vote with Carly Fiorina leaving teabagger Chuck DeVore the GOP nominee so Boxer is cool. Beau Biden will enter the DE-Sen race and win. The race will swing Paul Hodes way since he’s facing a unknown plus who knows if Ayotte will win with all the teabaggers in the racr and Robin Carnathan is uber popular in MO and Roy like hiss son the ex-Governor is not. So wrong again, sorry.

  55. Last poll I checked Obama had a 57 percent approval rating in Mass and national ratings in the high to mid 50’s. That’s not sharply souring to me in any way. Come back to me when his numbers are in Bush teritory.

  56. You don’t consider R2K by Daily Kos polls as credible? why because the polls ar funded by a Democrat so there some big left wing conspiracy going on with his polls. Your crazy. Their polls are as accurate as SurveyUSA and PPP. I’m guessing the pols you consider credible are Right wing pollsters like Rasmussen and polls funded by conservative news sources like Poltico. Your thinking on that is absurd. R2K by Kos is just a credible and provides with alot of infomation with their polling and their trustworthy like PPP.

  57. I think we can learn a lot from Reagan and to a much lesser extent Bush. There is a need to project confidence and optimism even if its dumb and not warranted. There might be a slaughter in November but what good does it do wringing your hands over it now. The American people seem to look this sunny outlook; not so much this sky is falling stuff. Just my opinion.

  58. Both Specter and Boxer run very effective and nasty negative campaigns, they both know how to destroy their opponents, even in bad environments.  Specter should have been toast in 1992, he was losing by 15% to a generic Democratic in early 1992.  Same with Boxer in 1998.

    As long as Specter and Boxer run and remain healthy, I’m confident in predicting their reelections even in a GOP wave election.

    At this point today, I think we’ll lose ND, NV, AR, and CO, and DE if Biden doesn’t run.  I think we’ll pick up MO today, for a loss of 3-4.  If things get worse, I could easily see IL going and DE also going even if Biden runs, and not picking up MI.  If things get better, then our losses may be reduced to ND, NV, AR, and we may gain MO, OH, and NH. (If things get really bad for the GOP, I suppose KY, FL, and NC might come into play, but this is very unlikely)

    So I see losses between 0-6, with 3-4 most likely.

  59. Outside the fact eople there are already covered is because they don’t understand whats going on and are tired of it getting politicalized. Many want the system to change but are tired of the politics. That’s why the leadership wanted this done by the end of the year but because of various Senators like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad dragging their feet msde it impossible. It got out of control when the town halls happened and the death panels shit happened. But they do want this passed and if it dosen’t there will be a bloodbath. They worked on this more than six months and expect it to pass. If it dosen’t, the consequences will be dire and no one wants that.

  60. You are utterly unable to convince me by your “arguments” and i see that vice versa is also true. So – why bother?  I remain convinced by MY arguments, not yours. If you wish we will continue this talk (and may compare results) after November.

  61. After one year in office? He had 80-90% ratings then. I remember Bush having “high 30th”, but this was in 2006-2008. I can’t rule out, that Obama’s ratings in 2014-2016 (if he will be reelected at all) will be lower.

  62. He had a 80-90 percent rating because of 9/11. Before that his ratings were in the 50’s. Reagrdless if it was 06-08 he still had ratings in the 30’s and that’s bad. As for Obama if HCR is passed he’ll win in a breeze if it dosen’t I don’t know but if it does I see his ratings rise not falter.

  63. All this debate will do it go on forever with no end in sight, so yes why bother. I wasn’t trying to convince you by my agruements (which were good). I was simply trying to state my point of thr matter. Same goes with you. We were unable to convince our arguements to each other because our convictions are so deep. I remained convinced by MY arguements just like you are with yours so yes lets call a truce and agree to disagree and move on. And hey if you o talk about the results after the electionno problem, i’ll be here.

    Have a good day.

  64. is to blame Bush and the entire GOP and go all out on an attack on these scumbags.  A large part of the problem is that many independents think that the Dems are the Wall Street party now.  

    We need to push financial regulation hard, but more importantly, we need to use demagoguery against the GOP on this issue.

  65. I lived in Chicago for three years when the original Dick Dailey was Mayor.  If the machine was interested in a race, you got a leaflet under your door every day for weeks and at least two or three visits.  Lots of TV ads, too.

    US Senate is mostly not a race that turns on the machine.  County Assessor, yes. County Attorney, big time.  Maybe President (because of the appointment of the US Attorney).

    MA’s own Tip O’Neill said that all politics are local.  Think extremely local here.  

  66. But couple of Democrats from Massachusetts will get much tougher competition this November then usually, Baker will give Patrick good run for his money and republicans will make gains in State legislature. 2014 is fsr away, so i will give my prediction concerning Kerry somewhere in December 2013))))

  67. First off the SoS isn’t going to challenge the sitting President. Second Obama is FAR from the most unpopular Presidents in modern US history. He’s not even unpopular. Ever heard of George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover. All these morons are more popular than Obama? Third we lost NJ because Corzine was a bad governor and VA because Deeds was a awful candidate. Fourth if Hillary was the most popular person on earth she would of beaten Obama in the primary. Oh wait you’ll probally tell me that lame talking point our primary system was flawed like all the other Hillary supporters said. Fifth Hillary never made HCR her lifes work Obama did, even going far to say he be a one term President if it means getting passed. Sixth Cap and Trade was dead to the Senate regardless of who’s in office Eight out situtation is not desperate only to knee jerk reactionaries like you.

    And nine, shut the hell up. You have absolutely no idea what your talking about and you sound like one of those disgruntled PUMA’s. Calm down and stop posting crap like this because this is the most absurd thing i’ve read on here.

    Jesus with you people.

  68. If HCR is not passed. Even if it is passed you’ll still say it because you a knee jerk reactionary.

  69. Yeah that will work, worked for Ted Kennedy when he challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980…oh wait. Yeah lets challenge a sitting President so we can bloody him up for Mitt Romney. I swear that what everyone here wants. Romney or Palin as President with these stupid ideas.

    If you literally don’t have anything constructive to say. Stop posting crap like this. Your idea is the ost dangerous, knee jerk and redicious idea i’ve read here.  

  70. He’s not toxic, hes not George W. Bush who no GOPer wanted to go near to and was nothing but fodder to the papers and late night talk shows. Well be fine. Stop with this already.

  71. Martha Coakley was a bad candidate who was lazy, made gaffes and took a month off from campaigning. That’s no one but her and her campaign’s fault. Forgot to mention that when I responded to your insane post.

  72. Obama is now one of the most unpopular presidents in modern US history.

    Unlike his previous eight predecessors, Obama’s approval ratings haven’t dropped below 40%…in fact, Obama’s approval rating has yet to actually be NEGATIVE at all.

    This sounds trollish.  

  73. My loyalty is to my party and my principles, not Obama. Hillary has made HCR her life’s work and I am confident she can deliver a strong bi-partisan bill, as well as cap™, immigration reform etc. that Obama is looking unlikely to pass

    Because Republicans will roll over and play nice with Hillary fucking Clinton running things? I mean no one is this fucking stupid, this HAS to be snark.  

  74. Baker will give Patrick a run for his money that’s true and it dosen’t help that Tim Cahill is running as a indy. The Republicans making gains in Beacon Hill? Big whoop, what will there margins increase in the Senate from five seats to eight? Come on.

  75. in 2006 and 2008 and are now at the lowest point for many years. So – going from 5 to 8 will be 60% increase and big achievement for them (no irony intended). As China saying goes “the 1000 li (li is slightly more then 4 kilometers if i remember correctly) way begins with the first step”.

    As i said earlier – i expect Democrats be a leading party in Massachusetts for long time to come. But i also expect (and, possibly, would like) it to be somewhat more competitive both on legislative and Congressional level then it is now…

  76. Going from 5-8 seats would be improvement. Better whan the GOPers at the Hawaii Senate, which makeup a whopping two members. As for the Congressional level until I see some stronger candidates emerged i’ll believe it when I see it.

  77. I might take a few days off from this place due to all the craziness. I mean there is a poster in the mass town rsults thread that suggest Obama is the most unpopular president in history, all of our losses are his fault only and that Hillary should primary him because she would win the swing votes and that HCR is her life. What a knee jerk reaction and a crock. But Shinigame, sorry for this but would you mind explaining this more to me, I don’t understand:

    “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Clinton was to Nixon as Obama is to Reagan (in terms of political fortunes and electoral circumstances).”

  78. PPP’s problem in that case was not so much the poll but their foolish decision to poll given the circumstances. Polling on Halloween was a terrible idea, so was polling in the midst of a huge shakeup (ie Scozzafava dropping out and endorsing Owens). Siena got a much better result because they waited for that stuff to clear up before polling, even though overall PPP has a much better record than Siena.

    although it’s true that every pollster has their day. normally-accurate Rasmussen was off by 7 points…in the Democrat’s direction (?!)

  79. You couldn’t of said it better. And your right I do see Hilary running in ’16. Believe me she’s not done.

  80. Thanks for pointing thst out. Remember this is the same person who thinks Scott Brown would be a good Senator for Mass when we all know that’s not true.

  81. the trolls know Hillary wouldn’t have an easier time delivering, it’s that they like to watch Obama bleed…satisfies their bitterness in losing.  

  82. So I’m a troll or worse suggesting its time to look into a primary challenge? We’re sitting here one year sine president Obama took office, the biggest majority in both houses in decades and virtually nothing passed.

    We have just lost Ted kennedy’s seat. Obama’s approval rating is the lowest  at this point in his presidency of any president since Eisenhower, (with the exception of Reagan). The GOP have resurged, incumbents are resigning or worse, and you won’t even consider the possiblity of a primary in 2012?

    By a 2 to 1 margin, polls say Hillary would have been a better president than Obama

    I know that a contested primary is an undesirable thing so I’ll wait and consider the situation after the MA/HCR fallout over the next month. However, to me and to more and more democrats, the time has come to consider HRC 2012.

  83. it’s easy to say that when the idea of her being president is an abstract concept that most voters can’t really solidly envision in their heads. There’s a reason why Obama’s approvals were higher when “Obama as president” was a blank screen where people could project their own ideas of what would happen. When “Obama as president” became a daily reality people could no longer make optimistic predictions of what he WOULD do and instead looked at what he DID do. if you don’t think the same thing would happen to Hillary (or anyone) I’m sorry but that is just naïve.

    and as for HCR not being passed within the year…Rome wasn’t built in a day. I think you’re underestimating how big of a deal HCR is.

  84. of course Hillary polls better, she doesn’t have to govern, she’s just the Sec of State. She’s not all over the news.

    Geez, this is ridiculous. Both Reagan and Clinton saw their approval ratings drop lower at or before this point in their presidencies and both were reelected in landslides, neither faced a primary challenge.

    And to think that Hillary would have an easier time getting legislation through? WTF? I’m really hoping you’re a troll, cause otherwise you’re just hopelessly ignorant.  

  85. I’ll take that deal. Hillary is an non-partisan role and hasn’t been attacked by the GOP for almost two years now. I guarantee you that if she were president now things wouldn’t bemuch different and people would be saying “Shoulda gone with Obama”.

  86. That proves to me your a troll. Virtually nothing has passed? how bout the lily ledbetter bill, expansion on S-CHIP, Matthew Shephard Act, the stimulus, getting out of Iraq, closing Gitmo, working on HCR. He’s done nothing HE’S DONE NOTHING? Please go and never come baxk because you have no idea what your talking about.

    As for his rating Obama has ytto be in the negative and him, Clinton and Reagan went through rough spots in thirs presidencies and won re-election with ease. One year and you want him primaried. Troll.

    As for HCR taking too long, this is a complex process that takes times to get done. If you thought this would get done in two hours sister you are mistakin. Like the one poster said here Rome wasn’t built in a day. Glad everyone else here thinks the same way I do that your a disgruntled Hillary troll. Back to MYDD now.

  87. So you and the 10 people you know think it’s time for a primary change. Seriously you embarrased yourself by writing your primary comment, don’t go further.

  88. It’s been documented here on why we lost that seat and it’s certainly not because of him. Good Lord.

  89. A bad candidate who was lazy, made gaffes and took a month off from campaigning would have still handily won a open Senate race in Massachusetts.

    There is no question that the overall political landscape has changed.  If the election were today, I have no doubt that we would lose the House.  Obama has several months to change that, possibly jobs and financial regulation legislation might turn the tide.  

  90. in a state as blue as Massachusetts, there is a lot of leeway to screw up. But as Coakley learned that doesn’t mean infinite leeway.

  91. This was something that was going on for awhile. If Coakley would of not quit after the primary and kept on trucking she be preparing for the Senate. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the environment but the campaign and candidate.

    Were not going to lost the House regardless of what you keep saying here. Were lost about 25 seats but I can’t see no more and 4-5 in the Senate. If we lose Congress then you might as well say hello to President Romney or Palin because you’ll get that soon if every single one of you lays down and gives up like that. He’ll pass other things Smith such as HCR, regulation and the jobs bill which will be imprtant because of high employment.

  92. Clinton and Nixon: Both were elected by pularities and came into office after an extended period of dominance by a political ideology quite different from what they believed in and campaigned on. However, both were unable to translate their electoral victory into a mandate to change the dominant political culture. As such their elections were seen as aberrations, and they were constantly at war being hounded by the establishment. Nixon and Clinton, were really the forebearers of the electoral change that Reagan and Obama later inherited. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” effectively pushed the Deep South out of the Democratic fold, while Clinton remade the image of national Democrats in a way that made the East Coast and a good chunk of the Mid-West blue states. Nevertheless, Nixon and Clinton, as well as their antagonists in the dominant political establishment, overreacted when they fought each other. Eventually Nixon’s and Clinton’s 2nd terms were defensive presidencies (in Nixon’s case, it was terminated in Aug 1974).  Likeiwse, their political antagonists thought that all was well and refused to change course…which eventually lead to Reagan and Obama’s rise.  

    Obama and Reagan: Both were risky choices nevertheless elected by majorities in times of great economic insecurity. But while Clinton and Nixon’s election were the first shots at realignment, Obama and Reagan’s election was the real battle that completed it. Not surprisingly, Reagan & Obama implemented somewhat un-orthodox remedies (the former on taxes and the latter on health care), but when these remedies did not bear immediate fruit, their erstwhile enthusiatic voters were discouraged and either stayed home or punished them at the ballot box (see 1982 House elections). Many will argue for a u-turn or “moderation”; these are the real cowards and enemies of change. Reagan forged ahead b/c the status quo was untenable, and soon enough, he reaped great rewards that allowed his party to retain the White House when his term ended. Obama, like Reagan, must do the same, objections from suspect company notwithstanding.  

  93. If he gets someone to challenge then he’s dead and Romney will be running this country, you really want to throw him under thr bus for that. I banged on too many doors and called alot of people to get this man elected like alot of people did and i’m not having that flushed down the toiler. So stop Smith.  

  94. Seriously, shut up Smith. You have no idea what your talking about. That happens and you can say hello to President Palin and I’M GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN!!!

  95. the talk of Dean as a primary challenger may actually help him do his job better.

    FDR didn’t start actually fighting for the working class until the threat of Huey Long running third party got going.

  96. I’m not supporting a challenger so I can bloody Obama up throw him under the bus and have Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney or whoever run this country. I can’t take that risk.  

  97. Cause Long wasn’t getting that third party thing going until 1935 and there was a lot of working class legislation that passed before that.

    Granted it had to be watered down often since Long kept Kuciniching everything

  98. But was that comment directed towards Ireland, the person who started this farce or all of us? Because if it’s directed towards all of us i’ll try to stop and Iapologize. I just get angry when people who have no idea what ther talking about proposed stupid stuff like this.

  99. Just the serious threat of one is sufficient.  

    And if the economy doesn’t improve by 2012, and the GOP picks anyone but Sarah Palin, they will win.

  100. that Coakley would have lost if the election was held 6 months ago?  I don’t.  

    *If we lose Congress then you might as well say hello to President Romney or Palin* because you’ll get that soon if every single one of you lays down and gives up like that. He’ll pass other things Smith such as HCR, regulation and the jobs bill which will be imprtant because of high employment.

    Tell that to one term President Clinton.  That President Dole was a really bad one, wasn’t he?

    Seriously, we are not laying down.  I’m just giving my honest analysis.  I’m working on a project to recalibrate the 2008 House results using projected 2010 turnout numbers. And let me tell you, the results so far look really ugly.  But if Obama doesn’t start getting things done and hammering Wall Street, we’re gonna be in a world of hurt.

  101. that Coakley would have won if her campaign didn’t suck. However what we’re saying is that if the environment were better, Coakley’s inferiority as a candidate would be canceled out by the blueness of Massachusetts. It was a combination of Coakley’s craptasticness AND the environment.

  102. You’ve posted about 50 posts on this topic alone today. I and everyone else, hear your opinion loud and clear. There’s no need to reinforce your crass arguments over and over again. I’d advice you to start a diary and just go nuts.  

  103. The Second New Deal, Wagner Act, Social Security, and WPA passed in 1935 almost solely due to pressure from Long.  

    FDR was scared shitless of Long, his advisers estimated that Long would take 4 million votes away.

  104. Back then wasn’t suggesting a primary challenge and wasn’t ready to throw Clinton under the bus like you and some other people are with Barack. Plus Clinton after ’94 although shifted a bit to the right became a stronger President. Well i’m glad you saying your not laying down because it sounded to me it is. As for Obama no he needs to get HCR done or he’ll be in a world of hurt. Wall Street comes after. People will be more pissed when they see a body of government spend half a year working on a complex bill then not pass it. Tome that spells a world of hurt. He needs to tackle Wall Street yes your right, but he’ll be in a bigger world of hurt if he dosen’t pass HCR. And regardless of what you think the numbers aren’t that ugly. I see us losing 25 seats and 4-5 in the Senate. I don’t see a total bloodbath like what your thinking.

  105. WPA never passed btw, it died in the Senate, in part because Long thought it wasn’t liberal enough.  

  106. Jesus that’s two years down the road, not of fixing can be done by then. Regardless a threat is still not good because i’m not risking someone bloodying up the President and handing the WH over to Sarah Palin. But hey sound to me you wouldn’t mind that with how you been talking these past few days. Then when that happens i’m packing my bags and moving to Canada because I won’t live in a country that’s runned by that nutcase Smith.

  107. All a primary threat do will cause alot of panic and bloody up the incumbent because the left dosen’t think he’s liberal enough and i’m not letting that happen. Sorry Smith.

  108. You got alot of nerve calling my arguements “Crass”. Youur arguements are crass and dangerous because your talking points come from the PUMA/MYDD playbook of Obama hating. Obama dosen’t need a primary challenge from Hillary because that will do no good. The talking points about Hillary being the strongest of them all didn’t work in the primary and they don’t work now. You get your poll numbers from a RW pollster. You say HCR was Hillary’s life cause when that bull. It’s Obama’s he even said that he be a one term President if it means getting it done. Sure Hillary’s numbers are high because she dosen’t govern. She’s the SoS. She’s not out there getting attack by the RW spin machine like Obama is. You say Obama has the worst approval ratings in history when it fact that’s false. He’s never hit the negative and Hoover, Nixon and Bush all had ratings below in the 40’s and 30’s. That’s the worst, not Obama’s. You blame losing NJ, VA and MA on him when it was bad campaigning and candidates that done them in not him. You say my arguements are crass? Boy you got some nerve you know that. Your post is a textbook post from a disgruntled Hillary supporter and a troll to boot.

    FYI, I don’t need a diary for this. All I need is for you to stop posting obsurd and rediclous comments on here and you won’t have to here me and my 50 goddamn posts.

    I’m done. I get any further into this i’m going to get banned from here and your not worth getting ban for. Good day.

  109. I just said my peace with Ireland and i’m done. It’s just people like this poster just get me angry because of their knee jerk and absurd comments that I derail and forget the rules. I got banned for a week here for engaging into a long debate about morality and the six tax with a poster named Mark and I don’t want to get banned over this so I said my peace, it’s out of my system and i’ll move on. I apologize James for going off topic. I respect SSP tight rules of staying on elections, not politics.  

  110. It was probably stupid of me to bring up this issue at this time. Tempers are frayed and we have yet to see the extent of the repercussions of this loss. At his stage I believe it would be prudent for us in this party to consider HRC and examine the possible effects a primary challenge would have on our general election chances in 2012.

    In short, I was/am a Clinton supporter, but first and foremost I am a democrat and only want what’s best for the party.

Comments are closed.