(R) Brown 50% (D) Coakley 46% - Suffolk University

..from a distance, the problem with their approach up there is going to be the problem with 2010 in general. Dems seem to think they can coast on good will and fumes and that people are going to show up.....well just because. They don't seem to think they have to do any actual work, think they can split the differences on important things, and lay low and rely on people not liking republicans rather than being aggressive and proactive and giving a reason to like and vote for dems beyond.....well just because.

We'll see. I hope this isn't the case. Of course if I'm right, that won't be the lesson the dem leadership pulls away from this debacle, they will think it means the country is turning conservative and they need to tack even further right.

Again...I hope it's not the case but nothing the democratic leadership has done over the past year has led me to believe otherwise.

gonna pay the price . . .

They predicted Corzine by 9 and their final MA primary poll in 2008 had Obama winning.

is that Suffolk skews left. If that's still the case, then Brown is winning by a landslide.

seeing their works. They tend to skew to the right as often as to the left.

In this case, it would be interesting to know why their sample is much heavier toward the SE of the state than nearly every other sample I have seen, for example.

The real issue is that the internals of nearly every single poll I have seen, leaning toward Coakley or Brown, has some very weird stuff in it that show that the race is a toss up and pollsters dont know how to choose their sample. This race result is everyone guess depending of who shows up to vote and if the independents showing up are Suffolk model or the Globe/UNH model.

Historically, UNH has a better record in the state, but their poll is kind of old at this point.

and if you know of some where they skewed right, then it's news to me.

Now, I've only been to Boston about a half dozen times, and only driven through the state twice, but isn't the SE section where most of the people are? Perhaps the skew is because of heavy pro-Obama turnout in that corner of the state in Nov. 2008. Pollsters like to use "likely voters" in their polls, and coming out for the last major election is a prime measure of that characteristic.

Every single other poll I know uses around 20 % for SE, 25 for the West and 55 for Boston area (which is the most populous part of the state).

30 % is very out of norms.

and posts something to discourage. Hilariously transparent.

This said, there are a lot of problems with Suffolk.

even if the news is valid.

Let me suggest where the hilarity really exists.

you don't matter to me.

He is not happy with here or the party. He in the past has voted mostly dem. The thing to watch here is not if he wins but the margin and how the independent voters like my FIL went. MA is dark blue, but if the independents are going to the reps what happens in a purple state in November.

I live in MA and there are very few women in positions of power. Those who have run for high office or served in high positions were often disparaged in the ways similar to the way Hillary was attacked years ago. Shannon O'Brien ran for governor and received undue attention for her smirk and expression. Jane Swift, who became acting Governor when when Paul Celucci stepped down about 10 years ago, was attacked relentlessly for allowing staff to babysit her children. The criticisms may have been warranted, but they were way over the top. I think it would serve Coakley's chances well if the residents of MA were reminded this state never elected a woman as a Governor or US Senator. Even in the House, the state only has one woman (Nikki Tsongas, the daughter of former Senator Paul Tsongas), who won a narrow victory to become the first woman Congressperson from MA in 25 years.

the nominee

Jane Swift used a state owned helicopter and state employees for babysitting duty if I recall correctly, I don't feel like looking it up. That would be an abuse of power and criticism is deserved.

Niki was Paul's wife, not daughter and she won handily.

I don't see MA as being any more sexist than any other state.

and I was no fan of hers, but the attacks on her were relentless and at the time I felt over the top. If MA isn't any more sexist than any other state, why have we never had a woman governor or senator and rarely had a woman in the House of Representatives? I don't think there's ever been a woman mayor of Boston or a woman leader in the MA House or Senate. How many prominent women politicians can you name from MA? Think of the most prominent women politicians in the US, even in US history -- were any from liberal MA?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/women_senators.htm

There have been only four women Congresspeople from MA, which seems like a small number for a liberal state. (NY has had 20.)

http://womenincongress.house.gov/member-profiles/

Which women have run against them? Ha, other men haven't had a chance against them.

We wouldn't even have Niki if Marty Meehan hadn't retired.

Jane Swift was the Governor of MA.

Martha Coakley is the Atty General.

You can believe it's sexism if you like, I think don't that's an accurate description.

You make it sound like her staffers said OOOH! OOOH! ooOOO LET ME BE THE ONE TO BABYSIT THOSE DARLING LILLUNS!

If she was attacked for using staffers who were living at the public trough as babysitters, the was certainly attacked rightfully.

attacking people for facial expressions or using state paid staff for personal needs are both legit non sexist attacks.

against Romney for governor. Coakley has run a very poor campaign and all but disappeared from campaigning during the holiday periods. I heard her today on NPR talking about how hard a short election period is, how tough it is having all the holidays getting in the way of campaigning, how getting people out to vote in a cold mid-January day is difficult, and on and on, one negative after another. I kept waiting for her to be positive and upbeat but the best I heard was how happy she is with how the campaign is going. Come on Martha, tell us how you want to be the first female elected Senator from Massachusetts. There's nothing wrong with that. But the poster is correct, Dems need to get off their arses and make sure Brown won't win. I'm just not sure they will.

43% disapproval. Also most people think Brown won the debates.

Special elections are weird--there's virtually no way now to predict how this one will shape up.

Mitt Romney. Since Brown is fiercely against the HCR bill going thru
congress, his win means Mass residents are not happy with Romneycare which to my
understanding is similar to the current HCR. But I could be wrong on that
since I am not at all familiar with Romneycare.

My worry is that "IF" Coakley loses to Brown, Rahm will tell Obama "go right young man." The American people want to take away the exemption that the pigs have. My pop always told me if you're punching a guy in the stomach and he is in pain, you don't stop and start hitting his face. We know the insurers are afraid of the public option and not of the Senate Bill.

I'm glad I'm not a Mass voter. I just read this article about Coakley's involvement in the spurious prosecution of one of those fake child abuse cases:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

to balance that controversy against her long-time record of achievements before you pronounce her "unlikable."

**********
"Coakley was elected Massachusetts Attorney General in the 2006 general election as a Democrat, defeating Republican Larry Frisoli with 73% of the vote. She was sworn in on January 17, 2007. Coakley is the first woman to serve as Attorney General in Massachusetts.
During the Aqua Teen Hunger Force bomb scare in January 2007, Coakley was widely quoted in the press defending the reaction of Boston's emergency services.<6> Small electronic signs advertising a cartoon had been mistaken for bombs; Massachusetts authorities halted traffic on two bridges and closed the Charles River before realizing the signs were harmless. Coakley defended the precautions because the LED signs had looked suspicious: "It had a very sinister appearance, it had a battery behind it, and wires." <7>
Both were given plea bargains, received community service and apologized publicly.<8>
In May 2007, Coakley testified before the Massachusetts State Legislature in support of the passage of a "buffer zone" law that created a 35-foot buffer around entrances and driveways of reproductive health care facilities that offer abortion services.<9><10> The law was signed into effect by Governor Deval Patrick on November 13, 2007 and challenged by opponents.<11>
After the law was struck down by a federal court judge, Coakley successfully defended the law before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on July 8, 2008.
In September 2008, Coakley worked with Apple Inc. and the National Federation of the Blind to have Apple redesign the popular iTunes software, so it complies with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act.<12>
On February 5, 2009, Coakley led an 18 state coalition, as well as the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York and the City Solicitor of Baltimore,<13> urging the Environmental Protection Agency to take action in response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. Though the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the Agency had yet to make an official decision on whether it believes that greenhouse gas emissions pose dangers to public health or welfare.<14>
Coakley inherited litigation of the fatal 2006 Big Dig ceiling collapse from outgoing Attorney General Tom Reilly in 2007. On March 26, 2009 she settled the final lawsuit pertaining to the incident.<15> Through eight lawsuits attached to the incident, Coakley's office recovered $610.625 million on behalf of the State of Massachusetts.<16>
On July 8, 2009, Coakley filed a suit,<17> challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."<18> Massachusetts is the first state to challenge the legislation.
In 2009, Coakley won settlements of $60 million from Goldman Sachs <19> and $10 million from Fremont Investment & Loan <20> for their abuse of subprime loans and lending.<21>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Coakley
******

If I were a Mass voter, there is no question but that I would support her wholeheartedly.