In his report from Scott Brown for Senate headquarters in Needham, Massachusetts, Cornell University Law Professor William A. Jacobson takes note of an issue on the minds of Massachuesetts voters:
There also was a lot of animosity surrounding the announcement that the Democrats would delay Brown’s certification if he won. People were calling in about that issue, and it was brought up on phone calls by the voters (the issue was not on the call script).
The attempt to delay certification has the potential to be a defining issue in the campaign because it crystallizes in voters’ minds everything that is wrong with politics.
I agree that this delay could well become a defining issue for exactly the reason Jacobson offers.
On Friday, Brian McNiff spokesman for Massachusetts’ Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, said certification “would take a while“:
Because it’s a federal election, [w]e’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.
And until that certification comes, appointed Senator Paul Kirk could vote for cloture on health care, allowing the unpopular bill (even in the Bay State) to pass. And while the Democratic official threatens to delay certification in this ace, in 2007, his office did not delay the swearing in of Niki Tsongas, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives an special election that October. She was sworn in just two days after her election. And that wasn’t a federal election?
It’s not just the delay in certification which hurts Brown’s Democratic opponent Martha Coakley. She’s heading down to Washington on Tuesday “for a lobbyist-infested fundraiser,” which Michael Barone believes is “not a good move given the anti-lobbyist feeling that’s so evident this year (and which Obama played on during the 2008 campaign).“
In short, this well-educated woman is resembling the type of special interest politician against whom Barack Obama ran against so effectively in 2008.
My sense is that these issues will help strengthen Brown’s support among independents and rally Bay State Republicans, increasing the likelihood they’ll brave the cold Massachusetts winter to vote on January 19. It’s likely even to turn off a good number of Democrats, keeping them from voting or causing them to cast a protest vote for the Republican.
But, will it be enough to secure a Republican victory in a state where registered Democrats outnumber them 3 to 1?
Brown must win by a significant margin – I should say, at least a solid two points, like 51.1 to 48.9 of the two-party vote, or better – or else Democrats will surely try to steal the seat through shenanigans, as they did in the Coleman-Franken contest in 2008.
If Brown wins, and would be eventually certified and seated, that would be yet another reason for Senate Republicans to *delay* passage of ObamaGreidCare as long as possible and by any means necessary. Frankly, I don’t understand why they are not already pulling every procedural trick in the book to delay it as long as possible. If it is delayed even a week, that will represent some small number of lives saved.
“Will Partisan & Special Interest Shenanigans Hurt Coakley?”…………Let’s hope so.
However should Scott Brown win, the Democrats will thrown the kitchen sink at him to keep from being certified and seated before the Health Care Vote. Obama on down to the MA elections office will be in on it.
Voting on ObamaCare aside, if Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat…well, that would signal a political earthquake for November. I would dearly love to see that happen, though I remain doubtful he can win. Eh, perhaps.
Looking at the comments by both William Jacobsen and the folk on Hillbuzz there is “movement at the station” (ha ha that one is going to baffle you…. it is the start of a well-known Australian poem)…. for it seems that there is a real groundswell amongst moderate Democrats against Coakley. From the comments that I saw it seems that there are even oldies who have always voted Democrat who are intending to (or have already cast their absentee ballot) in favour of Brown. Several have made comments about the positive results from the phone bank activities. There is an overwhelming response in favour of Brown amongst those who seem to have the most incentive to vote.
From what I have been reading Coakley has given a lack lustre performance. She even had the nerve to go on vacation for 6 days instead of spending her time campaigning. She is taking the electorate for granted, believing as she does that she is the Kennedy anointed. Her attitude really sucks.
The thing that will make the difference in this election is who wins the hearts and minds of the independents who have the will to go out and vote. If Brown wins them over, then this is going to be a very tight race. Coakley thinks she has the seat in the bag and that she needs to do nothing. I suspect that this is going to piss people right off… and that this attitude will influence the outcome of the election.
Also, if the Dems try the said stunt I think it will blow up in their faces. The issue to be considered is whether Kirk will be legally seated in the Senate after the day of the election. If they try this stunt it might end up yet another way in which the Crapcare can be overturned on Constitutional grounds.
I remember when the Dems broke the law and replaced disgraced Senator Torecelli in NJ with the old and decreped Lautenburg just so they could hold on to the power. Damn the rules, damn the laws. Whatever it takes. And their voters didn’t care. And the media marveled at the “political skills”. It was funny to them.
I agree with LCRW…if Brown wins I thoroughly expect Democrats to demand a recount, EVEN if his win is outside the margin of error and even if Democrats have to pay for it.
The very deeply insightful movie I re-watched last night, Live Free or Die Hard (yes, that was sarcasm), kept talking about heroes, and the qualities it takes to make you, “one of those people”. But there are also villains in the world; people who will go to any length to get and maintain power. People who lie, cheat and steal to get what they want from you. Their admission that they would so abuse the system to pass a health care bill that even the People’s Republic of Massachusetts doesnt want (or barely wants) is what makes Democrats “those people”.
Whats fair is fair.
Norm Coleman managed to deny the Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate for months while he tried to win in the courts what he could not win amongst the voters. Actually, he certainly knew all along that he had lost the race, fair and square, and that he would lose in the courts as well. He pursued the case soley for political reasons – denying his own state full representation because it would give the Dems their supermajority.
If, God forbid, Brown wins, he should be made to wait 5 months at least while Coakley explores the judicial aspects of the case. Fair is fair.
Actually Norm Coleman had unconstitutional inconsistent vote counting to justify his challenges. Had all the votes been counted consistently, the mess, Al Franken, would almost assuredly not be in the Senate today.
But you inadvertently bring up a good point, Democrats swore Al Franken in before he was even certified in order to pass their corrupt “stimulus” bill, and yet they claim NOW that the law prevents them from doing anything but waiting until Brown is certified before they can swear him in.
Which is it Tano? I mean Democrats are sleazy liars in either case, and perhaps both, but just for shits and giggles why dont you tell us which time they were lying and breaking the law, and which time they were telling the truth?
How is Brown on DADT? Does he think that all Gays should be fired from the military? Me thinks yes.
[You thinks or you has evidence? Since you keep asking about this, why don’t you do a few google searches and find out and get back to us when you do. Oh, and, why don’t you bother to address the points in the posts to which you attach your comments? –Dan]
Of course you do, Tom.
But as we know, you don’t care about DADT when Obama Party members push and support it, just like you don’t care about people opposing “Gay” marriage when it’s your precious Obama and your Obama Party, so all you’re doing is making obvious that you’re nothing more than the “Gay” equivalent of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Meanwhile, we know that you have decreed that the fact that Coakley wants to massively increase taxes, that she wants to send people to jail for not buying health insurance, that she wants to confiscate guns, and that she supports stripping people of the right to vote on their own constitution to be all right — because no “Gay” person owns a gun, pays taxes, has to purchase their own health insurance, or wants to vote, because the Obama Party that controls them has told them that all of these things are bad.
Um, Tano, go back and look at the MN race. Coleman was winning until Franken asked they delve into ballots not normally counted–and which different counties ended up counting in different manners.
No one will ever really know which candidate got more votes on Election Day. Had Coleman’s team played a better legal game in the first few weeks after the election, he likely would have been the the 41st vote against Obamacare.
Exactly. Coleman played a gentleman’s game in the recount, Franken didn’t. It worked; the election was stolen.
Hey Tom, how is Obama on DADT?????? Excuse me, but he hasn’t done shit about it now has he? How is Obama on DOM? He talks a good game, but he sure as shit don’t play one. You’re a jerk.
14: I echo the comments of this other John.
As far as Brown & DADT go, I would be interested to hear his views on the matter. Same for Coakley. I suspect they aren’t that far apart on this one issue.
So quoth the Tano.
Words to live by, so long as there is no quibbling about what is “fair.” Not that we need quibble. Tano will decide for us. If it is clear and obvious to Tano at the time and under the circumstances and considering the prevailing winds and the slings and arrows of outrageous personal fortune and mood swings and mortal lapses and peer pressure and temporary insanity………… it has to be right.