Two weeks ago I saw a RW poll claim the race in Massachusetts was close...

I think it was Politico. Ironically another more neutral poll came out that day and had Coakley at 15%.

As soon as I saw that poll I knew the media would pick up on it and try to give Brown the 'victory' 2 weeks before the election. Sure enough that's what happened. The whole ploy was to discourage voters who felt that the race was already over so why bother to vote?

Anyone else see this coming from a mile away?

but you and other DUers are much more plugged in than I am.

Unless "close" was the Rasmussen poll showing her up by nine points. And in that case, the Boston Globe poll showing her up by 17 was also a warning sign.

The first poll that really showed that the race had closed was from PPP... a decidedly Democratic-leaning firm.

And, if anything, those early polls should have helped her. Democrats in MA had to get a wake up call that this wasn't going to be a cake walk.

My guess it was a bluff & the press was fooled yet again.

They say that they were sharing their internal polling in early December and that the DNC didn't get them enough help.

Now... that doesn't remove blame from a lousy candidate, but it does mean that they knew things were getting dangerously tight long before these polls were released.

but let's label it what it is. If they cannot create impartiality then they are not a News Channel but entertainment like Lifetime, MTV and VH1

Any time I hear anyone talk about how we "need" campaign finance reform (or, more often, how we "need" it before we can hope to get reform in any other field), I feel like throwing up my hands in frustration.

Don't you realize that there is zero chance of that every happening? Why? Because the decision to scrap it would have to be made by legislators -- the very people who, by getting elected, have proven that they can "play the game" of fund-raising under the current system better than their competitors. Some have been doing so for decades. Passing campaign-finance reform would mean, for them, putting aside a system in which they do very well, and replace it with a system where they will no longer hold an advantage over the average guy. Who's going to do that? You'll sooner see the richest one-percent of Americans decide unanimously to turn over all their assets to the poor, and start again from scratch.

Seriously, saying "first, we need to pass campaign finance reform, then we can do X or Y" pretty much translates to "we'll never do X or Y."

In other words, we have to figure out what we can accomplish under the current system...because that's the one we're going to be stuck with, like it or not.

:applause:

They have been going at it full tilt all week..and last night and this morning.. all the stations.. including MSNBC.. proclaimed Brown the winner.
\
Here is the rub... not only is that suppression of the vote..

But when Coakley does win (I hope she does) the next meme will be it was so close that it did not count.

They have had to choke on crow so many times, that they are trying their best to make it so..

LEAVE OUR NATION ALONE

When they been allowed this much power to sway elections, something needs to be done. It's been like this for far too long.

I'm not sure what needs to be done, exactly. But things have got to change.

On the way back from the polls, I was listening to the all (cough, cough) "news" station, WBZ. They were playing supposed "samples" of people interviewed at the polls, with 80-90% saying Scott Brown was their man. It sounded like an infomercial. I'm sure alot of people bought what they were selling.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html

It wasn't just one right wing poll. PPP the polling arm of Democratic Party showed the same decline.

Guess the Democratic party wanted to *make* Coakley lose?