from what I've been hearing, Coakley is the charismatic equivalent of a doorknob.
Nevertheless, the fact that any national race in Massachussetts is this close is VERY VERY bad for the Dems.
The reason? You hear various polls about whether Americans favor or oppose the current healthcare bill. You never hear any polls on what % of Americans actually know what's IN the bill. I'd be surprised if it was more than 5%. The Dems have done a TERRIBLE job with this. The town hall meetings were a joke. Obama was AWOL from the process for way too long. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became the "faces of the healthcare reform" which was almost as bad as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh being the "faces of the GOP".
And ever since the public option disappeared, the current bill seems to be little more than levying a tax on everyone and handing all the money to the insurance companies. And I suspect that many liberals in Massachussetts are now realizing this.
I predict that Coakley will lose. It might not even be close. But if Coakley loses this race, it might be the Sputnik moment that Obama and the Dems need to finally get their acts in gear.
Originally posted by FMFI think you're overestimating the number of repeat posters. It's more than 5 or 6. Unless individuals are posting under numerous pseudonyms, it's many, many people against very few.
So if me and scherzo and howardgee and another two far left communist scallywags go there, log on, and post multiple times, saying angry stuff about Brown, you'll be back here to update what that Comments Thread 'means' and talk about how it might not be quite so dire for Coakley after all? No I don't think so. You know how easy it is to post something on the ne ...[text shortened]... u surprised that President Obama is not causing the same frissons now as he did 2 years ago?
But your underlying point explaining why the sample is unscientific is duly noted.
Originally posted by sh76ace8842 wrote:
Quick primer for those not in the loop: MA is holding a special election next Tuesday to elect Ted Kennedy's replacement in the Senate. MA is among the bluest of all blue Democratic strongholds. Other than some moderate governors, a la Bill Weld and pre-primary Mitt Romney, Republicans rarely stand a chance in MA.
Martha Coakley, the Dem nominee has been the ...[text shortened]...
Unscientific as can be, no question. But is this further evidence of the enthusiasm gap?
If the Globe did not endorse Scott Brown in this race, they will never, ever endorse a Republican, which makes their endorsement worthless. Coakley has run a lacklaster campaign, she thinks that Afghanistan is terrorist free, and she's simply part of the big political machine - look at all the lobbyists that attended her fundraiser. In contrast, Brown got his money from everday human beings with small local donations, not big government.
1/13/2010 5:30 PM EST
User Image
Somerschool wrote:
When Michael Meehan (Obama's nominee for the Broadcasting Board of Governors) shove a credentialed journalist into a metal railing, Coakley denied seeing it and the Globe wrote "reporter stumbles." AFTER the videotape proved that Meehan assaulted McCormick AND Meehan issued a statement of apology, the Globe changed its headline.
Nobody is surprised that a paper that has been so one-sided in it's so-called "reporting" would be any different in its endorsement--but the Globe has taken its stand FOR thuggery and intimidation and against journalism. You have endorsed a candidate who can't spell Massachusettes [sic]. Don't expect your readership to rise.
1/13/2010 5:32 PM EST
wait, here's a guy pulling La Palanca. he's on the first page. but vastly outnumbered.
----
JimMarine wrote:
Yes why add a republican to the mix to bog down this great agenda!!!! Look how well one party rule has worked in Mass!
The Globe will have even less clout after 1/19/10.
Go BROWN!!!!!!!!!!!
1/13/2010 5:32 PM EST
Originally posted by MelanerpesI disagree. One of my favourite parts of a newspaper is its leader columns and I particularly enjoy reading a well written leader that I disagree with. I think the news pages should be neutral and comprehensive, of course. But if newspapers as public domain entities withdraw from political discourse and participation, they just leave the field open to frothing bloggers, spammed up InBoxes and payrolled talking heads peddling disinformation and inuendo.
Newspapers should never endorse any candidates. (I doubt too many people take them seriously anyway). Their job is to objectively gather and discuss the news. Leave endorsements to the various pundits.
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou don't think it was a major coup when Steve Forbes got the endorsement of Forbes magazine in 1996?
Newspapers should never endorse any candidates. (I doubt too many people take them seriously anyway). Their job is to objectively gather and discuss the news. Leave endorsements to the various pundits.
Originally posted by FMFA good newspaper provides well-written columns from pundits representing a wide variety of viewpoints. The newspaper's editors should focus on their job which is EDITING.
I disagree. One of my favourite parts of a newspaper is its leader columns and I particularly enjoy reading a well written leader that I disagree with. I think the news pages should be neutral and comprehensive, of course. But if newspapers as public domain entities withdraw from political discourse and participation, they just leave the field open to frothing bloggers, spammed up InBoxes and payrolled talking heads peddling disinformation and inuendo.
If someone on the editorial board desperately wants to publish an opinion about something, he or she should create their own column with their OWN name on it. It might even be interesting if various editors had differing opinions about the same subject.
But I don't like it when newspapers issue essentially anonymous opinions as if everyone working at the paper all agreed about something. It has the feel of the paper saying "We, the Holy Editors know what's best for you, the peasant reader. Don't bother trying to figure it out for yourself"
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt has no such feel for me. But I am not a peasant reader. Nor am I politically illiterate. Newspapers are political entities catering to consumers of politics (among other things). The idea that 'everyone working at a paper all agrees about something' has never crossed my mind. When I read a good, punchy, honest leader column, endorsed by the paper's editors, the word 'Holy' never enters my mind unless the topic is of a spiritual or religious nature. I just don't see how reaching a decision and advocating something should be considered tainted or counterproductive in any way. I don't see the tangible advantage of stripping a quality newspaper of its political orientation, as manifested in its leader columns. Then again you live in a horrifically polarized political culture so perhaps that explains your discomfort.
I don't like it when newspapers issue essentially anonymous opinions as if everyone working at the paper all agreed about something. It has the feel of the paper saying "We, the Holy Editors know what's best for you, the peasant reader. Don't bother trying to figure it out for yourself"
Originally posted by FMFI wouldn't want a law to ban these types of editorials. The editorial board has every right to publish their "collective opinion" if that's what they want to do. I just find the whole thing to be off-putting. Clearly you feel differently.
It has no such feel for me. But I am not a peasant reader. Nor am I politically illiterate. Newspapers are political entities catering to consumers of politics (among other things). The idea that 'everyone working at a paper all agrees about something' has never crossed my mind. When I read a good, punchy, honest leader column, endorsed by the paper's editors, t e in a horrifically polarized political culture so perhaps that explains your discomfort.
Originally posted by FMFLike Sarah Palin, I don't buy newspapers. I prefer to access everything online for free. It's more convenient anyway. I subscribe to exactly one magazine: Foreign Policy.
Yes. I buy newspapers for their leaders and op-eds, readers' letters, obituaries, certain sports news or info, book reviews. News I prefer online.
Though, unlike Sarah Palin, I can, at least, name a few newspapers. 😉