Poll Shows Republican Can Win Mass. Senate Seat

[Guest]

Poll Shows Republican Can Win Mass. Senate Seat

Monday, 11 Jan 2010 12:41 PM

By: Jim Meyers

With the election only nine days away in what Politico is calling a possible “Massachusetts miracle,” the Republican candidate now has a strong chance of defeating his Democratic opponent in the race for Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate.

A poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic survey firm, shows Republican Scott Brown has overtaken Democrat Martha Coakley, and holds a 48 percent to 47 percent lead as the Jan. 19 special election approaches.

State Sen. Brown leads 63-to-31 percent among independents, and is winning 17 percent of the Democratic vote, while Attorney General Coakley receives only 6 percent support from Republican voters, according to the poll completed on Jan. 9.

The survey also found that 66 percent of Republicans are “very excited” about turning out to vote, while only 48 percent of Democrats feel that way.

“Brown is benefitting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing,” PPP observed.

“Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16-point margin, in contrast to his actual 26-point victory in the state. That decline in turnout from Obama voters plagued Democratic candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last fall.”

The poll found that 57 percent view Brown favorably and 25 percent unfavorably, while 50 percent view Coakley favorably and 42 percent unfavorably.

Among the respondents who plan to vote in the special election, 47 percent oppose Obama’s healthcare reform plan, while 41 percent support it and 12 percent have no opinion. Only 44 percent approve of Obama’s job performance, 43 percent disapprove, and the rest are not sure.

“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling.

“Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”

Brown entered the Massachusetts House in 1998, then joined the state Senate after a March 4, 2004 special election to replace Democrat Cheryl Jacques, who had resigned. He was re-elected in November of that year, and again in 2006 and 2008.

He supports a woman's right to choose, though he opposes partial-birth abortion and federal funding for abortion, according to The Washington Post. He opposes same-sex marriage but believes the decision should be left to states.

On fiscal matters, he favors tax cuts, opposes the current government expansion and would oppose a second stimulus bill. He has criticized Obama for being "too slow" in responding to the Christmas Day bomber and thinks we should treat terrorists as war criminals, trying them in military courts.

Coakley joined the District Attorney’s office in Lowell, Mass., in 1986, and won an election in 2006 to become Massachusetts’ first woman Attorney General.

In July 2009, she filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing that it limits states’ efforts to recognize same-sex marriage.

“Brown in his ads and media appearances comes across as likeable, independent and knowledgeable and as a person of convictions,” Michael Barone wrote in the Washington Examiner.

“Coakley has been avoiding the campaign trail and two-candidate debates (she insists on a libertarian splinter candidate participating), and she tends to avoid giving firm answers on anything.”

But in the event Brown does pull off a surprising victory and become the 41st Republican elected to the Senate, Democrats have another trick up their sleeve to save their healthcare reform bill, according to the Boston Herald.

If Brown wins, Democratic Secretary of State William Galvin will delay certifying the race for 10 days or until February 20, the Herald reports. That would let Democrat Paul Kirk, appointed to fill Kennedy seat until the special election, cast a 60th vote for the healthcare bill.

Brown opposes the bill and has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the legislation.

“Because it’s a federal election, we’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in,” Galvin’s spokesman Brian McNiff said.

But in 2007, Galvin certified the special election victory of Democratic Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas within two days, in time for her to cast a vote to override George W. Bush’s veto of a Democratic children’s healthcare bill.

http://newsmax.com/Headline/brown-kenned...omo_code=9514-1

[phkrause]

Poll Shows Republican Can Win Mass. Senate Seat

Monday, 11 Jan 2010 12:41 PM

By: Jim Meyers

With the election only nine days away in what Politico is calling a possible “Massachusetts miracle,” the Republican candidate now has a strong chance of defeating his Democratic opponent in the race for Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate.

A poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic survey firm, shows Republican Scott Brown has overtaken Democrat Martha Coakley, and holds a 48 percent to 47 percent lead as the Jan. 19 special election approaches.

State Sen. Brown leads 63-to-31 percent among independents, and is winning 17 percent of the Democratic vote, while Attorney General Coakley receives only 6 percent support from Republican voters, according to the poll completed on Jan. 9.

The survey also found that 66 percent of Republicans are “very excited” about turning out to vote, while only 48 percent of Democrats feel that way.

“Brown is benefitting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing,” PPP observed.

“Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16-point margin, in contrast to his actual 26-point victory in the state. That decline in turnout from Obama voters plagued Democratic candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last fall.”

The poll found that 57 percent view Brown favorably and 25 percent unfavorably, while 50 percent view Coakley favorably and 42 percent unfavorably.

Among the respondents who plan to vote in the special election, 47 percent oppose Obama’s healthcare reform plan, while 41 percent support it and 12 percent have no opinion. Only 44 percent approve of Obama’s job performance, 43 percent disapprove, and the rest are not sure.

“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling.

“Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”

Brown entered the Massachusetts House in 1998, then joined the state Senate after a March 4, 2004 special election to replace Democrat Cheryl Jacques, who had resigned. He was re-elected in November of that year, and again in 2006 and 2008.

He supports a woman's right to choose, though he opposes partial-birth abortion and federal funding for abortion, according to The Washington Post. He opposes same-sex marriage but believes the decision should be left to states.

On fiscal matters, he favors tax cuts, opposes the current government expansion and would oppose a second stimulus bill. He has criticized Obama for being "too slow" in responding to the Christmas Day bomber and thinks we should treat terrorists as war criminals, trying them in military courts.

Coakley joined the District Attorney’s office in Lowell, Mass., in 1986, and won an election in 2006 to become Massachusetts’ first woman Attorney General.

In July 2009, she filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing that it limits states’ efforts to recognize same-sex marriage.

“Brown in his ads and media appearances comes across as likeable, independent and knowledgeable and as a person of convictions,” Michael Barone wrote in the Washington Examiner.

“Coakley has been avoiding the campaign trail and two-candidate debates (she insists on a libertarian splinter candidate participating), and she tends to avoid giving firm answers on anything.”

But in the event Brown does pull off a surprising victory and become the 41st Republican elected to the Senate, Democrats have another trick up their sleeve to save their healthcare reform bill, according to the Boston Herald.

If Brown wins, Democratic Secretary of State William Galvin will delay certifying the race for 10 days or until February 20, the Herald reports. That would let Democrat Paul Kirk, appointed to fill Kennedy seat until the special election, cast a 60th vote for the healthcare bill.

Brown opposes the bill and has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the legislation.

“Because it’s a federal election, we’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in,” Galvin’s spokesman Brian McNiff said.

But in 2007, Galvin certified the special election victory of Democratic Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas within two days, in time for her to cast a vote to override George W. Bush’s veto of a Democratic children’s healthcare bill.

http://newsmax.com/Headline/brown-kenned...omo_code=9514-1

So what happen to the poll that shows Coatley winning 50 to 35 percent? If your going to show one poll show all. Personally I don't care who wins. They're both politicans who talk but don't don anything!

pk

[Dr. Shane]

The Republicans winning Kennedy's senate seat would be almost too much to believe. I don't see that happening. If it does, the show is over for Obama. Republicans get a seat at the table and will have to be included on all legislation. Of course I think that is a good thing. I don't like one party having all the power in the federal government.

[Woody]

What is interesting is that one state (MA) gets to decide if this country gets Health Care shoved down it's throat or not.

[phkrause]

What is interesting is that one state (MA) gets to decide if this country gets Health Care shoved down it's throat or not.

Like I've mentioned on a number of occasions, we here in Mass are all required to have Health Insurance. When we fill out are taxes we are required to write in the Health Insurance number that is supplied to us every year by our health insurance provider. And I for one see that as a good thing, because I heard that all those being treated in our ERs that don't have HI, the rest of us pay for them to be treated. Have you been to an ER, they are just packed full. I'd say that 3 Quarters have no coverage, that's why they are at the ER instead of at there doctors office, and the rest of us here pay for there coverage. Not sure what the costs is, but its in the billions I heard. I would have to guess that other states have the same problem? I just asoon pay for my own and not everybody else's.

pk

[bonnie]

Quote:

Like I've mentioned on a number of occasions, we here in Mass are all required to have Health Insurance. When we fill out are taxes we are required to write in the Health Insurance number that is supplied to us every year by our health insurance provider. And I for one see that as a good thing, because I heard that all those being treated in our ERs that don't have HI, the rest of us pay for them to be treated. Have you been to an ER, they are just packed full. I'd say that 3 Quarters have no coverage, that's why they are at the ER instead of at there doctors office, and the rest of us here pay for there coverage. Not sure what the costs is, but its in the billions I heard. I would have to guess that other states have the same problem? I just asoon pay for my own and not everybody else's.

pk

I don't think any state or federal government has the constitutional right to order me to purchase something. Allowing for that,your state ordered health insurance is a far cry from what the federal government wants.

In order to pass that requirement into law in your state did they also put into effect a half trillion cut in your health care? Did they exclude some? Did they buy off cities like Obama and friends did with states?

Were small businesses hit by that law in your state? Now they are looking at a new medicare tax,Taxing investment credit.

That is in addition to the tax already taken from your paycheck?

Federally you are already helping pay for others. When my husband made the switch from private pay insurance to medicare

and had a near fatal stroke costing thousands and thousands from medicare. That didn't fall from a tree. The 100.00 for two months that we paid for medicare when he had the stroke didn't pay for the clean sheets.

The government cannot manage any business economically and efficiently.They do not care they were many thousands in the hole with my husband's care,they just take more from people like you.

If I have to have much more of their savings in my health care I won't be able to afford it

[Guest]

Wow, how depressing.

[bonnie]

Wow, how depressing.

This faceless medicare can never hope to break even on my husband's care. When the cuts in financial payments begin and the care comes between my husband and a young man,a family and years of productive work ahead of him who do you think is going to receive it.

If they had left their socialist mitts off my health care it would not have cost the other taxpayers a dime.

Instead I pay more for their savings and so do you everytime my husband needs care.

The really depressing aspect of this is those pushing this have had to admit there will still be millions that are not covered.

[Dr. Shane]

We are all mandated to purchase a retirement plan. The government takes money right out of payroll checks for it.

[bonnie]

We are all mandated to purchase a retirement plan. The government takes money right out of payroll checks for it.

Maybe someone has not shared with you. They have spent the retirement fund. The money they took,they spent.Used it as a convenient slush fund,while talking about that mysterious lock box.Any business man that treated his employee's retirement plan in that manner would likely find himself behind bars.

[Dr. Shane]

And yet they still force me to pay for the plan.

[Guest]

That's right Shane, you still have to pay.

[bonnie]

And yet they still force me to pay for the plan.

If they don't how else will they have a continuing source of general revenue.

[bonnie]

That's right Shane, you still have to pay.

While it may have had good intentions to begin with has long since passed that.

At least if they were going to force a retirement plan they could have done it so the money went only for what it was claimed to be for. It is very easy for the IRS to keep track of any interest you may earn,it shouldn't have been to hard to prove a personal retirement plan.

Same with insurance. If it is an issue we have no choice over then at least do it so the taxpayer doesn't have to pick up the tab for others