Could a Republican win Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?

For those of you who don't know, there is a BIG special election in MA on I believe the 19th this month to decide who is Ted Kennedy's replacement for the rest of his term. Normally in a neutral environment Republicans would seriously be lucky to get 35% of the vote in an election like this. I mean I've read that the official party registration in the state is D-41%, R-17%, and I think I-35%. I'd have to look it up but I believe that MA hasn't had a Republican Senator since 1972, or earlier. This is from the Boston Herald (link in title)


“I haven’t been to the U.S. Senate, so. . . I’m learning about how it works.” - Martha Coakley on WTKK-FM yesterday.

Massachusetts, haven’t we made enough “history?”

In 2006 we cast an “historic” vote for Deval Patrick. What did we get? The highest unemployment in 20 years, $1.5 billion a year in new taxes and taxpayer-subsidized green jobs outsourced to China.

In 2008 we cast an “historic” vote for Barack Obama. What did we get? A trillion-dollar “stimulus” that left us with 2.5 million fewer jobs; a health-care fiasco that will cost $2 trillion more and a would-be Undie-bomber consulting with his attorney in Detroit.

Now it’s 2010, and Martha “as the only woman in the race” Coakley wants us to trust her with on-the-job training. Do we really need that deja vu all over again?

Perhaps not. The Rasmussen poll giving Coakley a narrow 9-point lead shows that even uber-liberal Massachusetts can only take so much.

The poll also shows that Scott Brown supporters are far more motivated than Coakley’s - and that was before yesterday’s debate.

On question after question, Coakley offered every possible response save one: an answer.

Does she support the billion-dollar bribery offered to senators for their votes on ObamaCare? Her answer: “There’s been horse trading.”

OK, but does she think that’s good or bad? “I agree people are questioning the process.”

Yes, Martha, people are. But what about you? No answer.

Does she support profiling airline passengers in the wake of the Jock-Strap Jihadist case? “We’ve increased profiling to everyone who flies an airplane.”

But a profile that includes everyone is - obviously - not a profile. It’s just a passenger list. Does she favor real profiling that would include a Nigerian Muslim with no luggage and a cash ticket?

Again, no answer.

Does she support trying Osama bin Laden as an unlawful combatant instead of treating him like the Undie-bomber and lawyering him up? “He will be tried in the military tribunal system,” Coakley said on WTKK.

Finally, a straight answer . . . but wait!

“I assume he won’t be landing on a plane in Detroit,” Coakley said. “If he is captured as an enemy combatant, then he will tried” by a tribunal.

Get that - if.

Coakley’s anti-terrorism strategy comes from the real estate industry: location, location, location. Terrorists who are cooperative enough to get caught in Afghanistan may (or may not) be handled by the military. But if the Islamist’s lingerie doesn’t explode until he gets over sovereign U.S. soil, he gets a lawyer and the right to remain silent on future attacks.

Osama bin Laden, book your flight now!

Listening to Coakley play debate dodgeball, one could hear Nixonian echoes: What does she not know, and how long has she not known it?

When asked about the burden of the $2 trillion Obama cap-and-trade plan she supports, she claimed she didn’t know where that figure came from. (Answer: the White House, as reported in many media outlets.)

When asked about ObamaCare’s costs, again she demurred. We don’t really know what it’s going to cost, she admitted, but we ought to do it anyway.

If you’ve had enough of Washington liberals’ “do it anyway” agenda, a defeat for Martha - or even a narrow victory - in deep-blue Massachusetts would be felt in every Democratic swing district across Obama’s 57 states.

Yep thats the Boston Herald people. This article is as surprising as if the Red Star did a hit piece on a major DFL contender. This just doesn't happen. I think what's most striking is the first paragraph.
“I haven’t been to the U.S. Senate, so. . . I’m learning about how it works.” Oh joy. The Rasmussen numbers are surprising, despite what DailyKos tries to bitch about Rasmussen is the MOST reliable polling, with the possible exception of fivethirtyeight.com. Tomorrow (well later today) I will analyze the polls that are out there. Of course the most important one will be right before the election. Oh and in case you forget if Scott Brown (please donate, shameless plug I know, link to his campaign site embedded in his name) wins, he's vote #41, bye-bye fillerbuster proof majority :)