AP Projects Brown Wins

The Associated Press has projected that Republican Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for the Massachussetts Senate seat formerly held by Teddy the K.

Brown's daughter, a former semi-finalist on "American Idol," is currently singing "Dancing In The Streets" on stage at his election headquarters, with former BC quarterback Doug Flutie on drums.

The Associated Press has projected that Republican Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for the Massachussetts Senate seat formerly held by Teddy the K.

slider wrote:

So the Dems lost one seat, is this the start of the apocalypse! Been listening to too much bullshit Faux Noize propaganda? The world will still revolve around the Sun and the Political Landscape hasn't dramatically been changed by one seat.

What about my statement led you to draw that conclusion?

However, now that you brought it up, the "one seat" now means that the Dumbocrats have lost their super-majority that is necessary to end debate and send a bill to vote, which means that the the healthcare takeover and the cap-and-tax scheme are dead in the water, barring any ill-advised manuevering by The Three Stooges (aka BO, Dingy Harry and Nancy P. Lousy). It should also give pause to the senators who were bribed into voting for the initial version of the heathcare takeover and also face a re-election campaign this year.

slimer, it sounds like you're trying to downplay this. Coakley was ahead by 30 percent in November. Her lead shrunk to single digits after the Christmas Eve vote on healthcare. From there, her mis-management of the campaign took over, culminating in her debate proclamation last week that "there are no terrorists left in Afghanistan. They're all in Yemen and Pakistan." Then BO came to Mass last weekend and dissed Brown for driving a GM pickup with 200,000 miles on it. In most average citizens' minds, that would be something to be admired. He's not out wasting money on a luxury vehicle to show off how much better he is than the rest of us or taking his wife on "date night" to Broadway or Paris at taxpayer expense.

Don't read too much into my statements about Brown, though. From everything I can see, he's pretty much a party line Republican in a state in which the few existing Republicans are just moderate Dumbocrats. I'm sure there will be problems with him for the more conservative national GOP, just as there are with other Rockefeller Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. If I was a residents of the PRM, I probably would have voted for the Libertarian candidate, whose name, ironically, is Joe Kennedy.

It just sounds like slimer has already received tomorrow's Dumbocrat talking points. Ramblings of a loser.

all it really means is that mr. brown will now get single payer socialized healthcare....

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

slickjay12 wrote:

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

what we are really witnessing here is a backlash by progressives for not taking health care far enough. the general public isnt against reform, just this reform.

robert wrote:

all it really means is that mr. brown will now get single payer socialized healthcare....

If that happens, we'll also get a Republican majority in the House and the Senate next year. Not to mantion something that I'm not too thrilled with personally, namely Gov. Sam Brownback.

slickjay12 wrote:

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

Dingy Harry says he will be seated "as soon as the proper paperwork is submitted." It took one day for Paul Tsongas to be seated following a special election in the PRM. It appears that Brown's lead is insurmountable, even if every single absentee vote goes to Coakley. Unless they find some extra "absentee" ballots in the local cemetary.

The general public is for a better healthcare system. We just don't appreciate getting their agenda being shoved down our throats. There are obviously issues with the way the healthcare system currently runs. The hospitals and insurance companies are more worried about the almighty dollar and how much they can get out of us. Both are guilty of overcharging for drugs etc. If those things were regulated better the cost of healthcare would not be so much.

robert wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

what we are really witnessing here is a backlash by progressives for not taking health care far enough. the general public isnt against reform, just this reform.

bobby is drinking something, but it's a little stronger than Kool-Aid.

nobodysbusiness wrote:

The general public is for a better healthcare system. We just don't appreciate getting their agenda being shoved down our throats. There are obviously issues with the way the healthcare system currently runs. The hospitals and insurance companies are more worried about the almighty dollar and how much they can get out of us. Both are guilty of overcharging for drugs etc. If those things were regulated better the cost of healthcare would not be so much.

How about insurance portability and tort reform for starters?

Chris Matthews is wringing his hands and trying to affix blame for the loss.

Better healthcare isn't the issue. Lowering costs is. Many ways to do that without trashing everything. My big problem with it is that if it's so great and being someone who could benefit from it like many could, why all the back room deals and no details?

MSLSD is broadcasting from a bar full of Coakley supporters who are drowning their sorrows.

Somehow, hearing paid liars say "Once it passes, everybody will be grateful. Trust me.", Makes me nervous.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Somehow, hearing paid liars say "Once it passes, everybody will be grateful. Trust me.", Makes me nervous.

Matthews just said that they should get the House to pass the Senate version so they could bypass a Senate vote, which would mean even more bribes. Not that P. Lousy would be above that.

If that happens, we'll likely see something else in January: Senator Danny Tarkanian.

nobodysbusiness wrote:

The general public is for a better healthcare system. We just don't appreciate getting their agenda being shoved down our throats. There are obviously issues with the way the healthcare system currently runs. The hospitals and insurance companies are more worried about the almighty dollar and how much they can get out of us. Both are guilty of overcharging for drugs etc. If those things were regulated better the cost of healthcare would not be so much.

This is one reason we have a problem. Democrats want socialized government medicine. The pharmaceutical companies support mostly republicans. I havn't researched to see how hospitals go, but my guess is they mostly support republicans and malpractice attorneys support democrats. I think the whole healthcare issue has become part of the us verses them mindset in Washington and neither side wants logical compromise.

Ratzilla wrote:

The pharmaceutical companies support mostly republicans.

Then why is it that the pharmaceutical companies have been included in the not-public meetings where they helped the Dumbocrats write the bill?

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

The pharmaceutical companies support mostly republicans.

Then why is it that the pharmaceutical companies have been included in the not-public meetings where they helped the Dumbocrats write the bill?

gee ep... when cheney did this with his energy task force meetings you said it was ok because who better to know about what needed changed... look at you now...

The Other One wrote:

nobodysbusiness wrote:

The general public is for a better healthcare system. We just don't appreciate getting their agenda being shoved down our throats. There are obviously issues with the way the healthcare system currently runs. The hospitals and insurance companies are more worried about the almighty dollar and how much they can get out of us. Both are guilty of overcharging for drugs etc. If those things were regulated better the cost of healthcare would not be so much.

How about insurance portability and tort reform for starters?

those are both "joke" issues

The Other One wrote:

Matthews just said that they should get the House to pass the Senate version so they could bypass a Senate vote, which would mean even more bribes. Not that P. Lousy would be above that.

i watched that too. not what he said. he asked someone if that was an option they would consider. he never said that he thought they "should" just do that.

The Other One wrote:

bobby is drinking something, but it's a little stronger than Kool-Aid.

you're sooooo cool!

robert wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Matthews just said that they should get the House to pass the Senate version so they could bypass a Senate vote, which would mean even more bribes. Not that P. Lousy would be above that.

i watched that too. not what he said. he asked someone if that was an option they would consider. he never said that he thought they "should" just do that.

Yes, he did.

guess well have to go to the video... got any?

Would a Democratic loss in Massachusetts actually strengthen progressives on the specific issue of health care? Hear me out.

If reconciliation is only "on the table" if Democrats lose the Massachusetts race, then that loss means Democrats would only need 51 votes - rather than 60 - to pass health care (or at least some of the big parts of it). Many progressive initiatives passed in the House health care bill (like the public option) were struck from the Senate bill in the name of obtaining 60 votes - that is, in the name of working in a non-reconciliation scenario. But if after the Massachusetts election, Democrats suddenly say they only need 51 Senate votes to pass big parts of the health care bill, doesn't it stand to reason that those progressive initiatives could now be put back in the Senate bill?

Put another way, a situation that only requires 51 votes suddenly makes the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans far less able to singularly stop the progressive initiatives in the House bill. All of a sudden in a 59-seat Democratic majority Senate where reconciliation is necessary to pass health care, Democrats would be able to give up 8 anti-public-option Senate Democratic votes and still pass a health care bill. In short, there would be no reason to not push forward a public option and other progressive provisions previously stripped out of the Senate bill.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/26147

im telling you, this election was about progressives not being satisfied because the legislation goes not far enough...

He won. Chappy K must be spinning in his grave.

robert wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

what we are really witnessing here is a backlash by progressives for not taking health care far enough. the general public isnt against reform, just this reform.

No you're both wrong, according to BO. He says that people aren't just mad about the past year, they're mad about the previous eight years.

In other words, it's Bush's fault that Brown won.

I wondered how long it would take for them to blame Bush. Talk about being in denial.

Bush is easy to blame, heaven forbid this administration take things into their hands to turn the economy around and create jobs. Much easier to tax those with money. "Lower the price on dressing and sell more lettuce" metaphorically speaking of course.

alg8tr wrote:

...heaven forbid this administration take things into their hands to turn the economy around and create jobs.

The government said they were expecting a drop in new unemployment claims this week. Instead, the report out this morning showed a rise of 480,000 new claims.

That was probably GW's fault.

Justoo wrote:

That was probably GW's fault.

No doubt. Maybe he reprogrammed his machine that caused Katrina to get companies to lay people off.

The Other One wrote:

robert wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

what we are really witnessing here is a backlash by progressives for not taking health care far enough. the general public isnt against reform, just this reform.

No you're both wrong, according to BO. He says that people aren't just mad about the past year, they're mad about the previous eight years.

In other words, it's Bush's fault that Brown won.

I wondered how long it would take for them to blame Bush. Talk about being in denial.

Might be a reference to Browns comments about a new kind of republican that doesn't play follow the leader and cater to special interests just because the party says so.

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

robert wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

Now we see the democrats delay Brown seating as long as they can to cram the health care bill up our asses.

what we are really witnessing here is a backlash by progressives for not taking health care far enough. the general public isnt against reform, just this reform.

No you're both wrong, according to BO. He says that people aren't just mad about the past year, they're mad about the previous eight years.

In other words, it's Bush's fault that Brown won.

I wondered how long it would take for them to blame Bush. Talk about being in denial.

Might be a reference to Browns comments about a new kind of republican that doesn't play follow the leader and cater to special interests just because the party says so.

It was a response to a question about what Brown's victory says about the BO agenda.

That may have been the question, but Obama didn't tell Brown to say republicans need to get away from the same old politics.

Ratzilla wrote:

That may have been the question, but Obama didn't tell Brown to say republicans need to get away from the same old politics.

No, he probably had a focus group to tell him that.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

The pharmaceutical companies support mostly republicans.

Then why is it that the pharmaceutical companies have been included in the not-public meetings where they helped the Dumbocrats write the bill?

Who included them? I havn't checked campaign contributions in the last few years, but a few years back when I did a good 80% of the Congress getting contributions from drug companies were republican. Might be now that they might think they need to kiss new butts in case government healthcare will pass.

Guess this means the free trips to the doc are on hold again.