Special Senate Election - Final

Who will you likely vote for January 19?

  • Scott Brown(R)

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Martha Coakley(D)

    Votes: 16 53.3%

  • Joseph Kennedy(I)

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Total voters
    30
Did anyone get to go inside the Cabot Center at NEU. I tried to but the line was way too long.
 
czsz said:
^ Or get rid of your landline.
Click to expand...

The DNC is calling cells also, and of particular peculiarity, I've been a registered Republican since shortly after Deval took office.
 
Why are most conservatives against basic human rights such as getting a good education, health care, and equal rights for minorities (yes this includes gay people)?
 
lolz - you're the guy that plans to vote for the libertarian and you can't figure out why conservatives are against good education and health care reform?
 
lolz - I'm not a libertarian, I'm just not voting for the GOP or the dem in this election.

I strongly believe we need more than two parties in this nation and right now we're stuck with a religious far right party (republicans) and a center right party (the dems). For those of you who believe the Dems are "liberal," you need to do more research and start comparing their national agenda to other conservative parties around the world; such as Canada and the UK, and you will realize they have a lot in common. Hell, Canada's Stephen Harper has more in common with Barack Obama than he ever did with GW.
 
Last edited:
I have a 617 area code cell and no one's called me. I didn't even get the funny "What will Brown do to you?" or "This bush is brown. This Brown is Bush" mailings! Damn.

armpits, you can vote for the third party candidate all you want (or not vote), but in a first past the post system you're just taking votes away from the (even if only slightly) more attractive mainstream candidate you would have preferred if given no other alternative.
 
Think about this: Scott Brown will be one of the most powerful people in the United States when he is elected.

The people who control power in this country are centrists like Olympia Snowe, Sue Collins, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

Add Scott Brown to that mix, and Masschusetts is going to be in a pretty good bargaining position when Obama starts doling out his trademark bribes-for-votes.

Martha Coakley would be another machine Democrat, relegated to background by her poor intellect and disastrous political skills. She would be doomed to a short career, playing second-fiddle to a fiddlehead like John Kerry. She would be nothing more than a reliable "yessir" vote on anything the machine asks of her. She has already shown she doesn't care what the voters think.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
lolz - I'm not a libertarian, I'm just not voting for the GOP or the dem in this election.

I strongly believe we need more than two parties in this nation and right now we're stuck with a religious far right party (republicans) and a center right party (the dems). For those of you who believe the Dems are "liberal," you need to do more research and start comparing their national agenda to other conservative parties around the world; such as Canada and the UK, and you will realize they have a lot in common. Hell, Canada's Gordon Brown has more in common with Barack Obama than he ever did with GW.
Click to expand...

Actually, Gordon Brown's from the UK, and he's in a center-left party.
 
pelhamhall said:
Think about this: Scott Brown will be one of the most powerful people in the United States when he is elected.

The people who control power in this country are centrists like Olympia Snowe, Sue Collins, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

Add Scott Brown to that mix, and Masschusetts is going to be in a pretty good bargaining position when Obama starts doling out his trademark bribes-for-votes.

Martha Coakley would be another machine Democrat, relegated to background by her poor intellect and disastrous political skills. She would be doomed to a short career, playing second-fiddle to a fiddlehead like John Kerry. She would be nothing more than a reliable "yessir" vote on anything the machine asks of her. She has already shown she doesn't care what the voters think.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall Massachusetts making out pretty well under reliable Democrats Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill. Robert Byrd is a reliable Democrat who does more for his home state than any other Senator.

Everyone hates the people you mentioned - Lieberman and Nelson especially. Holding the Senate ransom for bribes is not a good long term strategy for bringing home pork.
 
A question to MA voters:

To what extent is the national health care issue a moot point for you because MA already has universal health care? Discuss.
 
It's a good question. I think ultimately HCR will put pressure on insurance costs across the board, which will mean coverage in MA gets cheaper, even if it looks like the state will face higher costs in the longer term.
 
If our universal health care plan is so great, why haven't the other 49 states jumped on board with their own plans?

We were told it would drive down costs.

It has not.

Fail.

Why multiply failure on a national level? 0 X 350,000,000 = 0
 
I disagree with fail.

Its soul purpose was not to lower costs, but to also extend coverage. We are now the state with the lowest number of uninsured. How long it is sustainable is questionable though, and overall it should not be replicated on a federal level.

I would say half fail. Maybe FA.
 
^ Agreed. At no point did universal coverage promise to lower costs. In fact, the entire compromise that allowed it to pass said explicitly that discussions around cost would be postponed to a later time - in effect, separating the two conversations and saying universal coverage was the priority. The thinking, as I understand it, was that universal coverage combined with the state option would somehow force insurers and healthcare providers to the table to work on the cost issue. This was more difficult than anticipated, however, and not much progress has been made in that direction.

Commonwealth Cares, the state plan, is an absolutely necessary social net that removes some pain from unemployment and underemployment. But, more crucially, it begins to chip away at the historical links between health care provision and employment. That marriage has created all manner of employment rigidities and fostered a lack of creativity and mobility in the AMerican workforce. Divorce can't come soon enough.
 
It went up less.

Bravo to the state. We have made it work. The plan is now ready to be adjusted to make it work better.

We have an unemployment rate that many states would be envious of. Our population hasn't gone down during past several years.

We have a health coverage plan that covers the vast majority of residents. It's amazing. My insurance has always been paid for, so it doesn't affect me. But, I'm overjoyed with the results.
 
I just heard from the news that some ballots given to voters already had Scott Brown marked. I think if Brown wins, the election will be under scrutiny.
 
If there are recounts and challenges it will be Washington driven for the sole purpose of delaying Braun's seating in the Senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top