Damo - There isn't any source. The beginning and end of this piece is that an op-ed writer for the Herald *shock* thinks Democrats are bad. You, SF and Chappy *shock* agree with him. I *shock* don't.
Senate super majority in serious jeopardy
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
Damo - There isn't any source. The beginning and end of this piece is that an op-ed writer for the Herald *shock* thinks Democrats are bad. You, SF and Chappy *shock* agree with him. I *shock* don't.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, I know... I actually read the information...
I am sure you will now concede the point that Lorax's comment of 'little doubt' was off base.
Palin would be kryptonite for a Republican in MA....
I never agreed or disagreed with Lorax's point. I was simply offering you an explanation as to why both sides would break out the big guns if there were little doubt that Coakley would win.
Personally, I put Brown's odds at 30% or so, which is more than enough to justify the millions being spent and the big guns being broken out.
The one thing that tells me there is more than a slim chance that Brown can win is that Obama isn't getting himself involved notwithstanding his high approval numbers even in a poll where Coakley leads by only 2%. He injected himself in the NJ and VA governor's races, the Democrats lost and he took a beating. It seems to me that his people thnk he shouldn't inject himself in this race, because if Brown wins he will gt absolutely pounded.
Though, it I were advising Obama, I'd tell him that he'll get pounded if Brown loses anyway so he might as well do what he can to elect Coakley.
Again, he names the sources and his method of extrapolation. You are just ignoring it because it is inconvenient to your insistence that you are always correct. I mean, it isn't as if it matters all that much, I'm just pointing out he used sources and extrapolated from them, gave his method of extrapolation, all to gather his opinion and inform him why he thought that way. He didn't hide this, he pointed it out directly in the piece.
That you don't like his method is clear, but he pointed out his sources vague as they might be.
people hate palin here. even the pubs.. Most of the pubs in this state are pro choice, pro gay marriage. We have a HUGE independent core as well.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Translation: "I pretended I wanted a response, but now that I have one I will pretend it doesn't exist. Instead I will try to interject another topic all together to try to divert attention away from my lack of response. I will further try to pretend you are 'wired' or that you 'have a stick up your arse' in order to further deflect attention away from my lack of response."
thanks Lorax. In depth replies such as yours are quite welcome.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I doubt Obama will... with the public against his health care bill, that may actually detract. Also doubt that Palin goes... that too would likely have a negative impact as she is way too socially conservative for MA.
Your translations are very poor this morning.
Are you really talking about "in depth replies?" Do you want me to bump some of the idiocy you have tried to pass off as "in depth replies" this morning?]
You've been a real fool today. We'll catch up w/ you again on this particular topic next week, Lott lover....
He has no source. He has an opinion. You agree with it. I don't. Move on.
Not only is the Massachusetts public in favor of the healthcare reform bill, but a majority of Massachusetts likely voters under Rasmussen's Republican-friendly voter model are in favor of the bill. Obama would definitely help.
we already have a healthcare plan in this state. So voters are not motivated to vote to get a national plan here. makes no difference in fact our state plan prob better then the national one they doing.
Rubbish, he extrapolated that opinion from sources he named. You just don't like his method of extrapolation and so pretend that his source doesn't exist.
Socrtease
Verified User
Anonymous sources are not by definition unreliable either. Remember, Deep Throat was anonymous and he brought down a president. If watergate happened now I could just hear the Nixon supporters screaming about the anonymous tips.
I was simply responding to SF's contention that the public is against the bill. That may be true nationally, but it isn't true locally.
Now, whether that makes all that much of a difference for voters is subject to debate. Clearly, the candidates think it matters as both Brown and Coakley have made is a reasons for voting for them. I think it probably matters more to Brown voters than to Coakley voters but I haven't seen polling on it.
Regardless, Obama has a 57% approval rating among Rasmussen's likely voters so he would seemingly be a benefit for Coakley independent of the healthcare issue.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Translation: "I am still going to pretend that I didn't see the response and will instead point to the times you called the hack a hack and pretend that is the only type of response you have posted on this thread. Instead of responding with any sort of intelligence this time, I will call you a fool and once again try to bring Lott into this discussion as I have nothing of importance to add"
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Try listening to Chap, since you clearly are going to knee jerk every response to my posts. He lives there. He is telling you what it is like in MA.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
agreed, which is why I included this portion.... "anonymous sources when dealing with sensitive info like this. Because we all know these sources are going to continue providing inside info on politicians if they are identified. Their jobs wouldn't be in jeopardy or anything"
You've been lawyered
Uh, I live here, too. And citing to the latest Rasmussen poll to rebut your claim that the public doesn't like the healthcare bill isn't knee-jerk. It's rebutting your assertion with available information.