Senate super majority in serious jeopardy

[Damocles]

What person?

Paul Kirk.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

To remove that little doubt and make it a lock in an important election with national consequences where its the only election occurring at this time and all resources can easily be concentrated on it? Maybe?

yeah... I am sure that is the reason. Good job Sherlock Hack.

 

[Chapdog]

Ah - we'll see. You're clearly all wired up this morning, so it doesn't really make sense to try to reason with you.

It's MA, and they're replacing Kennedy; I'd put money on something at least close to a double digit win...

You could be right.. but dont underestimate the effect of Mondays debate.. Past couple days has been crazy.

"it's not the Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the Peoples seat"

Scott brown Monday night.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ah - we'll see. You're clearly all wired up this morning, so it doesn't really make sense to try to reason with you.

It's MA, and they're replacing Kennedy; I'd put money on something at least close to a double digit win...

I also think that she will win. I just can't see a Rep taking a MA Senate seat.

I am not 'wired up' at all. I just found it funny that you would say there is little doubt when clearly they are in over drive to protect the seat and when the polls are showing the race is pretty tight.

That said, in a special election like this, polls have to be taken with a large grain of salt given it tends to be especially hard to predict who will turn up at the polls to actually vote.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/union_plans_maj.html

If there is 'little doubt'... then why is the SEIU wasting money on a major ad buy?

You're a smart guy. You can do simple arithmetic and figure out the national implications of this election. You can also do more complex mathematics to figure out that even if the odds are slim that Brown can win, given the benefits the Republicans will derive from a Brown win they are entirely justified in expending huge amounts to win the seat even if the chances of willing are slim.

Likewise, the Democrats have a lot to lose if Coakley loses and, even if there is little doubt that she will win, they are justified in expending vast amounts in making sure that she will keep the seat. The risk-reward analysis for both sides justifies spending lots of money and breaking out the big guns.

 

[Onceler]

You're a smart guy. You can do simple arithmetic and figure out the national implications of this election. You can also do more complex mathematics to figure out that even if the odds are slim that Brown can win, given the benefits the Republicans will derive from a Brown win they are entirely justified in expending huge amounts to win the seat even if the chances of willing are slim.

Likewise, the Democrats have a lot to lose if Coakley loses and, even if there is little doubt that she will win, they are justified in expending vast amounts in making sure that she will keep the seat. The risk-reward analysis for both sides justifies spending lots of money and breaking out the big guns.

Pretty well-reasoned answer.

But I bet he still comes back with little more than "hack!"

I'm surprised Damo hasn't chimed in on that. He usually has a low tolerance level for the "yer a hack" repetition...

 

[Damocles]

I would like to see Brown win, but that doesn't mean I think he will. As I said long ago I thought that whomever the Ds anointed would walk in without much of a fight, but fight there is.

 

[Damocles]

Pretty well-reasoned answer.

But I bet he still comes back with little more than "hack!"

I'm surprised Damo hasn't chimed in on that. He usually has a low tolerance level for the "yer a hack" repetition...

Yeah... Just an FYI, Dungheap isn't me. He can point out the constant repetition of the same thing from another as much as I can. I chose to use my capacity to communicate to laugh at you while pointing.

Unless you are going to attempt to say I used some sort of Admin magic on you to get you to finally start posting information rather than "hack"...

 

[Bonestorm]

Paul Kirk.

Here's everything that Paul Kirk said in that piece:

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

OK. Not seeing any mention of a contingency plan. It's a simple statement that "we" want to get the healthcare reform bill resolved before the State of the Union address.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

And here is Paul Kirk saying he'd vote for the bill if Brown won. Is this the part you are talking about? He's responding to a hypothetical about how he would vote if Brown won but was not sworn in yet and unsurprisingly says he'd vote for the bill. I don't see how responding to a hypothetical question supports the claim that the Democrats have a contingency plan to hold up Brown's confirmation until after a final vote on healthcare.

 

[Chapdog]

my wife's a MA nurses union member and some of that union is pissed about the secrecy of the healthcare plan because they want to know how it affects nurse unions. There was some leak or something about it possibly being negative to them. Uncertainty is scary when your a voter.

 

[Chapdog]

Here's everything that Paul Kirk said in that piece:



OK. Not seeing any mention of a contingency plan. It's a simple statement that "we" want to get the healthcare reform bill resolved before the State of the Union address.



And here is Paul Kirk saying he'd vote for the bill if Brown won. Is this the part you are talking about? He's responding to a hypothetical about how he would vote if Brown won but was not sworn in yet and unsurprisingly says he'd vote for the bill. I don't see how responding to a hypothetical question supports the claim that the Democrats have a contingency plan to hold up Brown's confirmation until after a final vote on healthcare.

Ok.. BUT lets stay hypothetically Brown wins and the dems do stall until after healthcare? would that be a smart thing for them to do?

 

[Damocles]

Here's everything that Paul Kirk said in that piece:



OK. Not seeing any mention of a contingency plan. It's a simple statement that "we" want to get the healthcare reform bill resolved before the State of the Union address.



And here is Paul Kirk saying he'd vote for the bill if Brown won. Is this the part you are talking about? He's responding to a hypothetical about how he would vote if Brown won but was not sworn in yet and unsurprisingly says he'd vote for the bill. I don't see how responding to a hypothetical question supports the claim that the Democrats have a contingency plan to hold up Brown's confirmation until after a final vote on healthcare.

Hence the word "extrapolation"...

It is an opinion piece, as you pointed out, but it uses what people say (sourcing) and what they refuse to answer (more sourcing) to extrapolate that opinion. One that I tend to agree with. If it were my party and I felt the legislation was important enough to lose a supermajority over I would do the same thing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're a smart guy. You can do simple arithmetic and figure out the national implications of this election. You can also do more complex mathematics to figure out that even if the odds are slim that Brown can win, given the benefits the Republicans will derive from a Brown win they are entirely justified in expending huge amounts to win the seat even if the chances of willing are slim.

Likewise, the Democrats have a lot to lose if Coakley loses and, even if there is little doubt that she will win, they are justified in expending vast amounts in making sure that she will keep the seat. The risk-reward analysis for both sides justifies spending lots of money and breaking out the big guns.

As I stated to Lorax, while I agree that it is likely she will win, we do have to take the polls with a grain of salt. At this point, I am going to take what Chap is stating with a higher degree of acceptance given that he actually LIVES in the state and is experiencing the day to day reactions of the people he interacts with. Given that the polls agree with his assessment does seem to add additional credence to a tight race (again provided the polls are accurately predicting who will show up).

I understand completely the ramifications of this race. My point to Lorax was that if this was in the bag with 'little doubt' they would not be sending in the big guns or spending a lot in the last week on ads with the tight races they are going to be facing in November. Given Chaps assessment of what he is seeing in MA... there is a good deal of doubt about a Coakley win and realistic optimism from the Reps that Brown can win.

to pretend they are acting in this manner to erase the 'little doubt' seems nothing more than the opinion of a hack... with Lorax apparently intent on kissing said hacks ass and trying to protect the poor lil guy.

 

[Damocles]

Ok.. BUT lets stay hypothetically Brown wins and the dems do stall until after healthcare? would that be a smart thing for them to do?

I think it would, but then I don't have the best interest of their political party at heart...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/s...-warns-mass-senate-race-is-very-tight-urgent/


Note to Dung... this is just a blog... not an article... so don't bother reading any further.

"In a sign of serious worry about the increasingly tense battle for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the Democratic National Committee and the Martha Coakley campaign have blasted a private memo to top national Dem donors claiming internal polling shows the race is “very tight” and making an “urgent” appeal for donations.

The memo, which was sent over by a source, is the latest sign that the campaign surge of GOPer Scott Brown has caught the Dem establishment off guard. It admits that the mobilization by big national conservative groups for Brown is “working” and acknowledges that the Dem camaign is “having trouble moving independents.”

“Our internal polling shows the race to be a very tight race that means we must do everything we can to ensure we are victorious,” reads the memo, which was written by Coakley’s finance chairman and sent to top donors late yesterday by the DNC.

“This additional assistance being spent on Brown’s behalf seems to be working,” the memo continues, alluding to outside cash being spent by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth. “Polling shows that Republican voters are more energized than Democrats and that we are having trouble moving Independents.”

“We have a battle on our hands,” the memo continues, beseeching donors to “max out” with a contribution of $2400. “We cannot win this race unless everyone comes together and gives this race everything they can.”

The memo’s claim that the Coakley campaign’s internal polling shows the race to be “very tight” appears at odds with another leaked internal Dem poll that showed Coakley with a double-digit lead.

Separately, Ben Smith reports that the DNC is poised to sink $500,000 into the race — still another sign that national Dems see the need for an urgent last-minute push to salvage Kennedy’s seat.

The underlined portion does show a bit of a conflict with another leaked internal memo... so it is possible all this 'panic' is just a way to get more funds from donors.

 

[Bonestorm]

Hence the word "extrapolation"...

It is an opinion piece, as you pointed out, but it uses what people say (sourcing) and what they refuse to answer (more sourcing) to extrapolate that opinion. One that I tend to agree with. If it were my party and I felt the legislation was important enough to lose a supermajority over I would do the same thing.

Right, there's no actual source for the claim. Thanks for backing me up on that one.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ok.. BUT lets stay hypothetically Brown wins and the dems do stall until after healthcare? would that be a smart thing for them to do?

No. The smart thing for them to do is to have the House approve the version that passed the Senate without modification.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/s...-warns-mass-senate-race-is-very-tight-urgent/


Note to Dung... this is just a blog... not an article... so don't bother reading any further.



The underlined portion does show a bit of a conflict with another leaked internal memo... so it is possible all this 'panic' is just a way to get more funds from donors.

Note to SF, the piece has actual sources and even has a link to the memo itself so that the reader can verify the claims being made and can assess whether to value the claims based on the identity of the source.

Here's the memo:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CoakleyforSenateUrgentMemo11010.pdf

 

[Damocles]

Right, there's no actual source for the claim. Thanks for backing me up on that one.

Translation:

I really want to be right, even though it was pointed out to me that sources were noted as well as the method of extrapolation from those sources in the actual story. I'd rather pretend that I am incapable of understanding language, what a source is, or what extrapolation means than actually be right.

/Translation

 

[Onceler]

As I stated to Lorax, while I agree that it is likely she will win, we do have to take the polls with a grain of salt. At this point, I am going to take what Chap is stating with a higher degree of acceptance given that he actually LIVES in the state and is experiencing the day to day reactions of the people he interacts with. Given that the polls agree with his assessment does seem to add additional credence to a tight race (again provided the polls are accurately predicting who will show up).

I understand completely the ramifications of this race. My point to Lorax was that if this was in the bag with 'little doubt' they would not be sending in the big guns or spending a lot in the last week on ads with the tight races they are going to be facing in November. Given Chaps assessment of what he is seeing in MA... there is a good deal of doubt about a Coakley win and realistic optimism from the Reps that Brown can win.

to pretend they are acting in this manner to erase the 'little doubt' seems nothing more than the opinion of a hack... with Lorax apparently intent on kissing said hacks ass and trying to protect the poor lil guy.

LOL

You should remove that stick from your arse before trying to debate anything.

Like I said, we can reconvene on this next week, and see who was right, and who was wrong, and who the hacks are (for example, the guys who continue to blindly insist that Lott's comment supporting Dixiecrat victory had nothing to do with segragation)