You can bank on it.

So, may be you could calm down, let people from MA a chance to choose a candidate, and come back later to help.

Yes, I know it is much higher, but nobody has yet announced his/her intention to run.

MA will elect a Democrat to replace him. We thought we would get rid of Walker in WI last year just by recalling him and we saw how that went. Sorry, but when the Senate is as close as it is I really don't want to take chances.

2011 to Nov 2012 is a long time to build

A special not as long. It would require a strong campaign. And you have pointed out no one has announced their intention to run. It could be someone not mentioned that would fare much better against Brown.

Regardless of who runs the campaign needs to remind the voters that Brown supported Romney and use his record against him.

That would be convenient, wouldn't it?

So much for "Get us a bigger majority so we can get more done!!!"

what Obama wants.

Those states screwed themselves.

Massachusettes is another story entirely and there is no reason, no excuse, not to be able to hold that seat with a good Dem candidate. None. John Kerry is not going to be around forever.

Yeesh. This is like the fourth or fifth time I've heard her name. She was going out anyway. She couldn't run for reelection and the seat would've probably gone Republican 2010 regardless if Sebelius stayed on for an extra two years.

see why he was elected in the first place? All he is going to do is be a vote against Warren and Obama. That just doesn't make sense at all. It is the reason why Congress is dysfunctional.

Kerry would be great, but there have to be other people who would be great.

Outside of just being the jackasses they are, this, obviously, is a big part of their taking Susan Rice down.

Brown was far ahead of Warren in polls, as well. It will be a matter of running an effective campaign...which Martha Coakley did not do, but Elizabeth Warren did. MA Dems have learned a lot form the Brown/Coakley special election, and now realize that GOTV is absolutely essential - especially in special elections, where turnout is typically low.

They should had won that election.

She seemed to assume that the seat was hers for the taking because she is a Democrat. She ran a horrible campaign, even going out of the country on vacation during the closing weeks.

If she thought a vacation was more important than seeking out their vote.

She took it for granted that she would win Teddy's seat because she is a Democrat. It backfired on her bigtime.

I just don't get it.

going to stick them in his cabinet. This has cost us dearly in the past and he seems to have absolutely no concern about it. There are real people who are not in the senate who could actually hold these jobs but apparently thats not good enough for the president.

It just makes me tired and discouraged. Why even bother? Just give the senate to the assholes and be done with it.

While Clintons' New York seat was relatively safe, it still cost a bundle to keep and Salazars' in Colorado was very nearly lost. Plus Obama gave Arizona Jan Brewer as governor because he had to have Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security. Aren't there any retired senators, governors, college presidents, diplomats or Nobel prize winners he can choose from without raiding current office holders?

And remember, Massachusetts has a long history of electing so-called "moderate" governors from 1990-2006. For a supposed safely liberal state they often disappoint.

I'm just venting. Its a pain in the ass to have people work so hard and sacrifice so much to win these seats just to see them put up for grabs-and 2014 is going to be another awful year with far more Democratic senators running for re-election.

on edit: he also almost cost us Bidens' seat in Delaware (thank God for Christine O'Donnell being a nutcase) and we did lose his own senate seat in Illinois..

about to let that seat fall into the hands of Toolboy.

And who do the Kennedys have that could run? Is there anyone remaining in the family in that state that could mount a legitimate political campaign. I know that people have mentioned Vicki Kennedy as a possibility recently, but they certainly didn't move in that direction back then. It's not unusual for the widow of a politician to be named to fill their deceased husband's seat in government, but they didn't back then. Why now? Would she even have a prayer of a chance?

said that Obama owed Kerry BIG TIME. I don't get where that mindset comes from. No one is "owed" anything. If I were Harry Reid, I'd be really concerned about this, unless they change the rules of the Senate next year. I don't want to see Brown's smirking ass-face back in the chamber. No Way!

Let's face it, many of the people that voted for the President only voted because he was on the ballot. We lost 2010 not because liberals stayed home but because all those minorities and young voters that came out to vote for Obama didn't come out in the midterms.

We only turn out strong for Presidential elections. The Republicans come out the same for every election. Unless the President keeps that ground game out there are stresses over and over that voting for Dems in the mids is the same as voting for him "one last time" we're going to get killed again in '14.

As I said from the second Kerry was being considered, making him SoS gives the seat right back to Brown. It's a poor strategic move.