Scott Brown Wins Mass Senate Seat

UNT90 · January 20, 2010

A.P. calls it for Brown. How will this affect the November elections?? I think it could possibly hurt republicans. How? Well, there is no more super majority. Health Care is essentially dead. Nothing can get out of the Senate without at least 1 Republican defection. I think government is set up to come to a grinding spending halt from now to November. With govt. out of the way, might the economy start to come around? If so, might the notorious short attention span of Americans return?

Be careful what you wish for, my fellow conservatives, it might comed back to bite you in November.

BUT, 1st Conservative Senator in Mass since the mid 70's? Awesome!!!

FirefightnRick · January 20, 2010

http://www.boston.com/

Coakley won 70% of the vote during her AG election. There wasn't even any statewide exit polling scheduled because Kennedy held this seat, unopposed for so long. So this is a huge blow to the Democratic party and to any candidate, Democratic or Republican, who chooses to ignore this nation's history, traditions and constitution.

This is only the beginning of the bloodletting for the libs and truly is a statement that this country wants no part of the marxist agenda that Obama has been pushing.

Rick

KingDL1 · January 20, 2010

Way to go Brown!!!

UNT90 · January 20, 2010

Interesting focus group of Mass voters on Fox News. Most had voted for Pres. Obama. None raised their hand when asked if Pres. Obama had met their expectations. Bout half had voted for Brown. When asked why they changed, the 1st words out of all but 1 of their mouths was health care. If the dems want to keep the house and the senate, they better realize that voters get angry when you ignore them. Should have listened to their town hall meetings and got off the bus at that point. If they don't get off the bus at this point, they are committing political career (no one should ever have one of these) suicide.

FirefightnRick · January 20, 2010

Interesting focus group of Mass voters on Fox News. Most had voted for Pres. Obama. None raised their hand when asked if Pres. Obama had met their expectations. Bout half had voted for Brown. When asked why they changed, the 1st words out of all but 1 of their mouths was health care. If the dems want to keep the house and the senate, they better realize that voters get angry when you ignore them. Should have listened to their town hall meetings and got off the bus at that point. If they don't get off the bus at this point, they are committing political career (no one should ever have one of these) suicide.

Did you hear that it took Luntz till late this afternoon to even find enough Democratic pollers willing to sit in with his panel and admit they voted for Coakley so that he could have a balanced panel for the show?

Rick

Edited January 20, 2010 by FirefightnRick

UNTflyer · January 20, 2010

Nobody wants the kind of Health Care reform offered by Obama and the Democrats. They better drop it right now or they will face the biggest Congressional turnover in history.

Side Show Joe · January 20, 2010

I never thought I'd live to say this, but "thank you people of Massachusetts!"

I'm not a huge fan of Brown, (not far enough on the right for me) but he is as good as we can get out of that state.

Obama will celebrate one year in office tomorrow, and if the Dems read the writing on the wall, and jump ship off the president's agenda, Obama will be a "Lame Duck" with three years left in his term.

I think the Republicans need to use this as a blueprint for routing the dems in November. The GOP must clean out the old guard in Washington and run fresh principled candidates. I don't think America will be happy if it looks at the candidates and sees the same old wrinkled stiffs. I think they want candidates that are hopefully less corrupted then the jokers in Washington right now.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Side Show Joe

bstnsportsfan3 · January 20, 2010

my dad called me today and told me he was so proud of his state and that they finally got someone in their who will do what the people wants, not what Washington dc wants...

UNTflyer · January 20, 2010

It means he runs for President in 2012. Imagine the election dynamic if a conservative-moderate Republican can put Massachusetts in play.

Eagle1855 · January 20, 2010

It means he runs for President in 2012. Imagine the election dynamic if a conservative-moderate Republican can put Massachusetts in play.

Err, Mitt Romney? Or was that the joke?

KRAM1 · January 20, 2010

It's a great day! WOW! Even Kennedy's home town of Hyannis Port (spelling?) voted in the majority for Brown. This is a repudiation of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid health care plan plain and simple. BUT, if Republicans think this is their victory they have another think coming! This was the doing of the independent voter and the Republicans, if they want to make some big gains in the 2010 midterms, had darn well better take notice. Brown never mentioned the word "Republican" in his acceptance speech last evening and the only thing...the only thing he has promised is to vote against the health care bill as it now stands.

The independent voter has left the Obama cause in droves and they carried the day in Mass...In MASS of all places. This is CHANGE I can believe in...and hope too...hope for the possibility that the 2010's get some more balance to the house and senate...THAT is what the independent voter wants. Obama promised openness and bi-partisanship and the independent voter believed him in a big way. What they got was secrecy and partisanship from day one and they are boiling mad that he lied to them and keeps shoving this stuff down their throats which the American public has clearly said they do not want.

Health care rates 4th on the independent voters list of priorities behind jobs, the deficit and I believe the war on terror. FOURTH...and you would think it was the ONLY issue facing American today if you listen to Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

The arrogance of this administration is beginning to make Cheney look like a humble man. Mass sent out a message that arrogance will not carry the day.

Republicans had better not for one second think this was about them...it was NOT...but, if they can get their act together the Republican party stands to gain BIG TIME in the mid-terms. If they can't well.....

On this note...Perry and Hutchison had better also take a look...the petty bickering that took place at the UNT debate between the two leaves the door wide open for Medina. Medina has already gained in the polls enough to be invited (at the onset) to the next debate. If Perry and Hutchison just want to act like two children and bicker, then Medina has a chance to be the "Brown" in Texas. Right now, I am personally thinking Medina is looking more and more like the candidate to vote for in the primary...Perry and Hutchison need to take note, grow up and start acting like adults!

It's a great day in the neighborhood...who would have thought Ted Kennedy's seat would go Republican? Certainly not the lazy and appearing aloof Coakley! I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the White House last evening as the returns started pouring in. Reid better seat this guy fast...no playing around...he seated the guy (can't recall his name right now) that took Obama's Illinois seat as fast as he could...Brown better get the same deal. I think the voters are actually watching! What do you think?

GO BROWN!!!!!!

UNTflyer · January 20, 2010

Err, Mitt Romney? Or was that the joke?

Even Reagan lost a primary.

yyz28 · January 20, 2010

What does this mean?

...ask me again in a month. The ball has just been volleyed back to Democrats - it is SQUARELY in their court. This will go one of two ways:

1. They have the ability now to back off, open up the process and spend the next few months leading up to the election trying to work on issues including Healthcare with the Republicans and could come out of this looking like they got the message and while I think no matter WHAT happens they lose some seats in the mid terms, it may not be as big a turn around as it could be. ...small enough a loss that it wouldn't really change their ability to govern as compared to what it will be once Brown is seated.

or

2. They go all out, full steam ahead, including trying some back door way to get this through despite the filibuster, and keep pushing forward with a VERY unpopular agenda because they know this may be the last chance they have in a while with as one sided a government in place. Making these moves will cause a turnover in congress that will make 1994 look like a blip on the radar.

When you consider the recent history of the actions of Obama, Peolsi and Reid, (especially since Reid is dead in the water, he WILL lose his seat) I would expect to see number two. I belive these people are willing to lose in the short term to get policy on the books today that will encrease their power base down the road. Make more people dependant on the Government for their well being, and the left party will gain power over time. The real question is how many of their party are willing to lose and throw themselves on the fire for long-term party gains.

Like I say, you'll have to ask me in a month. Nobody really knows what this means until we see the Democrat's reaction to this. The lipservice so far makes me feel that #2 is the more likely scenario, but cooler heads may yet prevail.

Either way, this is a big deal, and last night was a historically significant event.

Censored by Laurie · January 20, 2010

What does this mean?
...ask me again in a month. The ball has just been volleyed back to Democrats - it is SQUARELY in their court. This will go one of two ways:
1. They have the ability now to back off, open up the process and spend the next few months leading up to the election trying to work on issues including Healthcare with the Republicans and could come out of this looking like they got the message and while I think no matter WHAT happens they lose some seats in the mid terms, it may not be as big a turn around as it could be. ...small enough a loss that it wouldn't really change their ability to govern as compared to what it will be once Brown is seated.
or
2. They go all out, full steam ahead, including trying some back door way to get this through despite the filibuster, and keep pushing forward with a VERY unpopular agenda because they know this may be the last chance they have in a while with as one sided a government in place. Making these moves will cause a turnover in congress that will make 1994 look like a blip on the radar.
When you consider the recent history of the actions of Obama, Peolsi and Reid, (especially since Reid is dead in the water, he WILL lose his seat) I would expect to see number two. I belive these people are willing to lose in the short term to get policy on the books today that will encrease their power base down the road. Make more people dependant on the Government for their well being, and the left party will gain power over time. The real question is how many of their party are willing to lose and throw themselves on the fire for long-term party gains.
Like I say, you'll have to ask me in a month. Nobody really knows what this means until we see the Democrat's reaction to this. The lipservice so far makes me feel that #2 is the more likely scenario, but cooler heads may yet prevail.
Either way, this is a big deal, and last night was a historically significant event.

Is that still possible this day in age? Actual bi-partisan comprimise? Or would either party's respective news network jump all over those willing to work together as weak/traitors/turncoats ect?

yyz28 · January 20, 2010

Is that still possible this day in age? Actual bi-partisan comprimise? Or would either party's respective news network jump all over those willing to work together as weak/traitors/turncoats ect?

It's a good question. I don't know that the bulk of the folks who are paying attention are welling to be told how to think by their respective networks.

The bigger issue is if a compromise is possible, as the left isn't going to want to bend on the public option in some way shape or form. If the plan doesn't include more people recieving healhcare at the taxpayer's dime, the left will reject it. That's the real sticking point that will make compromise difficult.

KRAM1 · January 20, 2010

Is that still possible this day in age? Actual bi-partisan comprimise? Or would either party's respective news network jump all over those willing to work together as weak/traitors/turncoats ect?

Don't know, but what we do know for 100% certainty is that the arrogance of the current administration is allowing for absolutely no bipartisan cooperation/debate. The Mass election was not about "turncoats" willing to go against their party but rather the fact that there seemed to be no one willing to do just that in the democratic party. When the American voter is promised open hearings and debates and bipartisan cooperation over and over on the campaign trail and then see 100% the opposite...well he/she gets just a tad ticked off. You can fool them with "change" during a campaign, perhaps, but they will come back and give you "change" you might not have been looking for if you thumb your nose at them. Exactly what the Obama Administration, Pelosi and Reid have been doing. There just might be some interesting conversations taking place today in the White House and on Capital Hill.

Again, however, Republicans had better not think this had anything at all to do with them. They can take the lead or waste this chance. It is in their court now. This election was lost by the dems because they have absolutely LOST the independent voter in one short year since taking office. The independent voter was definitely ready for change, but what was promised is definitely not what was delivered. Want proof? Just scan the election return numbers from last evening.

FirefightnRick · January 20, 2010

2. They go all out, full steam ahead, including trying some back door way to get this through despite the filibuster, and keep pushing forward with a VERY unpopular agenda because they know this may be the last chance they have in a while with as one sided a government in place. Making these moves will cause a turnover in congress that will make 1994 look like a blip on the radar.

Obama to stick to agenda despite Massachusetts defeat

You may be right. Axelrod, after blaming Bush for the reason Coakley lost, indicates it will still be full steam ahead on the issues.

Rick

yyz28 · January 20, 2010

Obama to stick to agenda despite Massachusetts defeat
You may be right. Axelrod, after blaming Bush for the reason Coakley lost, indicates it will still be full steam ahead on the issues.
Rick

Well, the rhetoric doesn't really mean that's what they are going to do. It's easy (and probably prudent) for them to beat their chest and act like this is no big deal. Their actions, not their words, will tell the truth about what they really think the impact of this is on them.

FirefightnRick · January 20, 2010

You can fool them with "change" during a campaign, perhaps, but they will come back and give you "change" you might not have been looking for if you thumb your nose at them. Exactly what the Obama Administration, Pelosi and Reid have been doing.

They simply don't get it. The B.O. administration still thinks it's ok to attack it's citizens, the Tea Party movement etc.... Just look at Obama's stump speech for Coakley on Sunday, making fun of Brown for driving around in a pick up truck? How more American can you get than driving around and working in a pickup truck?

Rick

Censored by Laurie · January 20, 2010

After his victory, Senator-elect Brown told NBC's Today show he did not think the vote was a referendum on President Obama's first year in power.
He said it was a sign of voter disenchantment over partisan gridlock in Washington.
We already have 98% of our people insured here already in Massachusetts, so we do not need the plan that's being pushed upon us," he added.
"We would have lesser care, longer lines and pay higher taxes and it makes no sense."
But he denied he was intent on derailing the reforms.
"I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop healthcare," he said.
"I believe everybody should have healthcare, it's just a question of how we do it."

I'll buy this.

Eagle1855 · January 20, 2010

Even Reagan lost a primary.

I'm a Romney fan... just wasn't sure if you were talking about Romney or Brown.

FirefightnRick · January 20, 2010

Axelrod, Pelosi: Full Steam Ahead.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod told POLITICO: “I think that it would a terrible mistake to walk away now. If we don’t pass the bill, all we have is the stigma of a caricature that was put on it. That would be the worst result for everybody who has supported this bill.” He said the administration will work with Capitol Hill to figure out how.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/...l#ixzz0dAfWhQgz

Rick

UNT90 · January 20, 2010

Is that still possible this day in age? Actual bi-partisan comprimise? Or would either party's respective news network jump all over those willing to work together as weak/traitors/turncoats ect?

Fox / MSNBC really have no control over who works together and who doesn't. The problem will be that Republicans may misread this and believe that they only have to stall until November, at which time they will take power again. The Dems may believe that they have to get healthcare done before Brown is appointed and may try to delay his appointment (huge mistake, as voters will be VERY aware of Dem's actions over the next few weeks), and the Dems may also try to ram everything through (Cap and Trade, 3rd stimulus, etc...) before November, hoping to get a weak Republican (read: Olympia Snow) to cave with yet more legalized bribery.

So the short answer is no. There will not be any bi-partisianship. Neither party will ever approach the other. Both parties see themselves as one election away from having their whole agenda legitimized by the American voter.

Republicans need to understand this election has far more to do with anger and frustration at Pres. Obama's policies than it has to do with any of the Republican views.

But, as a conservative, it was a gas to watch MSNBC last night. I think Oberman needs to be put on suicide watch.

Edited January 20, 2010 by UNT90

untbowler · January 20, 2010

Fox / MSNBC really have no control over who works together and who doesn't. The problem will be that Republicans may misread this and believe that they only have to stall until November, at which time they will take power again. The Dems may believe that they have to get healthcare done before Brown is appointed and may try to delay his appointment (huge mistake, as voters will be VERY aware of Dem's actions over the next few weeks), and the Dems may also try to ram everything through (Cap and Trade, 3rd stimulus, etc...) before November, hoping to get a weak Republican (read: Olympia Snow) to cave with yet more legalized bribery.
So the short answer is no. There will not be any bi-partisianship. Neither party will ever approach the other. Both parties see themselves as one election away from having their whole agenda legitimized by the American voter.
Republicans need to understand this election has far more to do with anger and frustration at Pres. Obama's policies than it has to do with any of the Republican views.
But, as a conservative, it was a gas to watch MSNBC last night. I think Oberman needs to be put on suicide watch.

Nah we need to set outside his office and chant "Yes, you can"...... err sorry that was a little rude.