Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
Post Reply
User avatar
pavelbure
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:50 pm
Location: PA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by pavelbure » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:58 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... nate-race/

Washington woke up Wednesday to a new Senate make-up, one featuring Republican Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown, who defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in a victory few thought possible just a month ago.

The race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy is a win that could grind President Obama's agenda to a halt and portend unexpected losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

In his victory speech, Brown declared that he had "defied the odds and the pundits," and said he would try to be a "worthy successor" to Kennedy.

"Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown said. "This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party. ... This is the people's seat."

With nearly all precincts reporting, returns showed Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of 120,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.
related links

*

RAW DATA: Scott Brown Biography
*

RAW DATA: Martha Coakley Biography

The victory marks a stunning upset in a race thought to be safe for Democrats until Brown's campaign began to surge just weeks ago. Even Brown appeared a bit in shock by his victory. Visibly giddy during his remarks, Brown went script and at one point offering up his daughters to the dating circuit -- and later he earned supporters' laughter by flubbing his campaign pitch line, "I'm Scott Brown. I'm from Wrentham. And I drive a truck."

Brown's victory has powerful ramifications for Obama's agenda. The GOP state senator, once sworn in, will break the Democrats' 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in Washington. This creates problems for proposed legislation ranging from financial regulatory reform to cap-and-trade.

But most immediately the win sends Democrats into a scramble to pass health care reform before Brown arrives in Washington. Democrats were already weighing options for how to fast-track the bill before polls closed Tuesday.

Brown blasted the health care bill in his victory speech and urged the Senate to seat him as soon as possible. But a schedule for Brown's swearing-in was up in the air on Tuesday night.

"The people of Massachusetts have spoken. We welcome Scott Brown to the Senate and will move to seat him as soon as the proper paperwork has been received," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected.

Coakley, in her concession speech, said she was "heartbroken" by the result but thanked the Kennedy family for their support in the race and said she respects the voters' choice.

"There will be plenty of Wednesday-morning quarterbacking about what happened, what went right, what went wrong .... We will be honest about the assessment of this race and although I was very disappointed, I always respect the voters' choice," she said.

Brown's margin of victory is significant, making it difficult for any potential challenges to slow down his certification as the winner. The state senator becomes the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from the Bay State since 1972.

Kennedy, who died in August, held the post for 47 years.

"This is a lot different than my victory," former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney told Fox News. "To have a Republican senator, that's unheard of. ... This is monumental. This is epic."

He and other Republicans said the race sends a warning sign to Washington that voters are not happy with Obama's policy decisions.

The White House said Obama has spoken with both candidates. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama told Brown he "looks forward to working with him on the urgent economic challenges facing Massachusetts families and struggling families across our nation."

Considering how much was on the line, Brown's late-in-the-game surge commanded the attention of the Democratic Party establishment, which dispatched top officials over the past week to try to keep the seat formerly held by Kennedy in Democratic hands. Voter interest in the race for U.S. Senate also seemed high throughout the day. Poll workers reported a steady stream of voters at the ballot box despite the snow.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin was predicting turnout could be as high as 50 percent.

Brown's campaign marked an upset just by being as competitive as it was against Coakley's.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 in the state -- 37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated. Obama won the state by 26 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election.

But Brown pulled far more support across the state Tuesday than Republican presidential candidate John McCain did in 2008.

The campaigns had been inundated with help from outside the state in recent days. Obama and former President Bill Clinton both came to campaign rallies for Coakley, and Obama appeared in a television ad.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington also "emptied out the building" of staff to send nearly everyone to Massachusetts to help Brown get out the vote. The NRSC reportedly quietly shifted $500,000 to help Brown's campaign in the last two weeks.

Brown's swift rise in the reliably blue state has startled Democrats nationally who are already worried about a backlash in the midterms.

"When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere, and they know it," Brown said Tuesday night.

Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged the rough road ahead for the party.

"I have no interest in sugar coating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now," he said in a statement. "In the days ahead, we will sort through the lessons of Massachusetts: the need to redouble our efforts on the economy, the need to show that our commitment to real change is as powerful as it was in 2008, and the reality that we cannot take a single thing for granted and cannot afford even a second of complacency."

Brown will have to run for re-election in November 2012.
:lol:
How many more people do the Radical Islamic Subhuman Cockroaches have to kill before people realize they need to be taken out ?
FFXI Server: Gilgamesh
FFXIV Server: Figaro
Liberals click here !!!!
Lartrak
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 6166
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:28 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Lartrak » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:46 pm

From what I gather, Coakley ran a pretty poor campaign and was a weak candidate. Brown doesn't seem like much of a candidate either, considering his platform was basically, "I'll vote against any attempt to change health care!". Single issue politicians rarely amount to much.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
User avatar
SuperMegatron
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 8:47 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by SuperMegatron » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:22 pm

This was inevitable. Most americans wanted the economy fixed first before health care. They rebelled. The dems will likely lose the senate next election.
User avatar
SuperMegatron
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 8:47 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by SuperMegatron » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:29 pm

My girl just informed me of some irony here. In the midterm elections for Bush 2, the government of mass. assumed Kerry would win. They didnt want Romney the republican governor to appoint himself to the position so they passed a law demanding a special election. So democrats in their attempt to change the law to protect a seat inadvertently helped elect a republican hahahaha.
User avatar
pavelbure
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:50 pm
Location: PA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by pavelbure » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:46 am

SuperMegatron wrote:My girl just informed me of some irony here. In the midterm elections for Bush 2, the government of mass. assumed Kerry would win. They didnt want Romney the republican governor to appoint himself to the position so they passed a law demanding a special election. So democrats in their attempt to change the law to protect a seat inadvertently helped elect a republican hahahaha.
:lol: :lol:

Also, weren't they supposed to have the election in nov. but put it off so they could appoint someone so this travesty of a health care plan could go through ? The dem would have won if they held it then. The dems try ramming this health care crap through, which a majority of americans do not want, and then they lose. :lol: classic
How many more people do the Radical Islamic Subhuman Cockroaches have to kill before people realize they need to be taken out ?
FFXI Server: Gilgamesh
FFXIV Server: Figaro
Liberals click here !!!!
OneThirty8
Damn Dirty Ape
Damn Dirty Ape
Posts: 5031
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
Location: Saugerties, NY
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by OneThirty8 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:30 pm

pavelbure wrote:
SuperMegatron wrote:My girl just informed me of some irony here. In the midterm elections for Bush 2, the government of mass. assumed Kerry would win. They didnt want Romney the republican governor to appoint himself to the position so they passed a law demanding a special election. So democrats in their attempt to change the law to protect a seat inadvertently helped elect a republican hahahaha.
:lol: :lol:

Also, weren't they supposed to have the election in nov. but put it off so they could appoint someone so this travesty of a health care plan could go through ? The dem would have won if they held it then. The dems try ramming this health care crap through, which a majority of americans do not want, and then they lose. :lol: classic
I think a majority of Americans do want health care reform, and that's why Obama is in the White House now. This should be interesting now that the Democrats don't have the 60 votes to block a filibuster, but I think we'll still see health care reform. People are still raising money, petitioning Congress and the President, and holding demonstrations. I don't believe it will be nearly progressive enough for my tastes, but something is going to get passed.
User avatar
Eviltaco64X
DCEmu Mega Poster
DCEmu Mega Poster
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Eviltaco64X » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:33 pm

OneThirty8 wrote:
pavelbure wrote:
SuperMegatron wrote:My girl just informed me of some irony here. In the midterm elections for Bush 2, the government of mass. assumed Kerry would win. They didnt want Romney the republican governor to appoint himself to the position so they passed a law demanding a special election. So democrats in their attempt to change the law to protect a seat inadvertently helped elect a republican hahahaha.
:lol: :lol:

Also, weren't they supposed to have the election in nov. but put it off so they could appoint someone so this travesty of a health care plan could go through ? The dem would have won if they held it then. The dems try ramming this health care crap through, which a majority of americans do not want, and then they lose. :lol: classic
I think a majority of Americans do want health care reform, and that's why Obama is in the White House now. This should be interesting now that the Democrats don't have the 60 votes to block a filibuster, but I think we'll still see health care reform. People are still raising money, petitioning Congress and the President, and holding demonstrations. I don't believe it will be nearly progressive enough for my tastes, but something is going to get passed.
Obama was voted in on all his promises. Many people I know who voted for him and were behind him 100% just a few months ago now regret it.

He promised less taxes. A month after he gets in, cigarette taxes go up another dollar a pack.
He promised bipartisanship only to appoint all these far-left czars.

His methods of "saving" the economy aren't too great either. All stimulus money does is allow the government to walk right in and take over companies. Tell me, if a business is doing bad and on the verge of bankruptcy, how is it going to pay back all that money within such a limited amount of time?

Off topic, they should legalize marijuana and tax it like cigarettes. It'd probably be another cash crop. :lol:
Ex-Cyber
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3641
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Ex-Cyber » Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:09 pm

Eviltaco64X wrote:He promised bipartisanship only to appoint all these far-left czars.
"Far left" people mostly consider the Democratic Party to be a bunch of corporatist/plutocratic traitors with the same fundamental goals as Republicans, merely differing in their methods of controlling the lower classes. They're not the sort of people that the Democrats are going to put in positions of influence.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
Lartrak
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 6166
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:28 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Lartrak » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:49 pm

He promised bipartisanship only to appoint all these far-left czars.
Obama has done far more attempts to reach across the aisle than Bush ever did. In fact, quite a few progressives think he does TOO MUCH of it, as he ends up compromising principles in the attempt.
His methods of "saving" the economy aren't too great either. All stimulus money does is allow the government to walk right in and take over companies. Tell me, if a business is doing bad and on the verge of bankruptcy, how is it going to pay back all that money within such a limited amount of time?
The irony being it appears to be working. Even if the plan was a total failure, often enough that the government is attempting to help is enough to jump start the economy, as it helps restore faith and brings people back into the economic fold who were headed for cover. It's kind of like the stock market, where what people think sometimes matters more than what actually works best.

I might add that most of the businesses the government has taken over and given loans to actually do quite well.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
User avatar
Eviltaco64X
DCEmu Mega Poster
DCEmu Mega Poster
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Eviltaco64X » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:56 pm

Ex-Cyber wrote:
Eviltaco64X wrote:He promised bipartisanship only to appoint all these far-left czars.
"Far left" people mostly consider the Democratic Party to be a bunch of corporatist/plutocratic traitors with the same fundamental goals as Republicans, merely differing in their methods of controlling the lower classes. They're not the sort of people that the Democrats are going to put in positions of influence.
The Democratic Party has been moving more and more to the left wing of the political spectrum for years. I mean, Clinton was considered pretty liberal for his day but Obama definitely beats him. Lieberman, who was their VP candidate 10 years ago, was pretty much ousted from the party back in '06, I believe. Hell, Obama was even the most liberal guy in the Senate.

I wouldn't consider myself a Republican. I'd be more of a Libertarian.
User avatar
Eviltaco64X
DCEmu Mega Poster
DCEmu Mega Poster
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Eviltaco64X » Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:41 pm

Lartrak wrote:
He promised bipartisanship only to appoint all these far-left czars.
Obama has done far more attempts to reach across the aisle than Bush ever did. In fact, quite a few progressives think he does TOO MUCH of it, as he ends up compromising principles in the attempt.
In all fairness, I think he did compromise with the war, but what did he compromise with health care, Guantanamo Bay, and cutting Military spending?
The irony being it appears to be working. Even if the plan was a total failure, often enough that the government is attempting to help is enough to jump start the economy, as it helps restore faith and brings people back into the economic fold who were headed for cover. It's kind of like the stock market, where what people think sometimes matters more than what actually works best.

I might add that most of the businesses the government has taken over and given loans to actually do quite well.
Of course the company will work if it's backed-up, that's not the point. The more they're spending invisible money, the more our debts rise. Then when the government can't pay off it's own debts with invisible money and decided it needs more... there's more taxation. Then citizens have less money to spend, there's less productivity since demand for a lot of things are down, and our economy and productivity fall as a result. It's just a downward spiral.
Ex-Cyber
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3641
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Ex-Cyber » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:02 pm

Eviltaco64X wrote:The Democratic Party has been moving more and more to the left wing of the political spectrum for years.
I think what's actually happened is that the Republican Party has been so successful at branding (both itself and the Democrats) and marketing "conservatism" as a tribal identification that the perception of the center has shifted right (even though polling on the issues themselves indicates much stronger support for "liberal" positions than this would suggest). Dennis Kucinich is now considered to be on the left fringe of the party; 50 or 60 years ago he'd probably be a mainstream (non-Southern) Democrat. Nixon would probably be considered a "RINO" by today's standards. It doesn't matter how far right the Democrats move, though; the Republican marketing machine will continue calling them the "far left" despite the presence of the Green Parties, the various Socialist Parties, and so on (even the Communist Party USA is still around, albeit with greatly diminished membership). Similarly, the "far right" is mostly represented by parties such as the Libertarian Party (on economic issues) and the Constitution Party (on both social and economic issues).
Eviltaco64X wrote:I mean, Clinton was considered pretty liberal for his day but Obama definitely beats him.
Clinton was rather centrist. His administration pushed for a balanced budget, passed "welfare-to-work", cut the number of government employees, and fought for tougher sentences for criminals.
Eviltaco64X wrote:Lieberman, who was their VP candidate 10 years ago, was pretty much ousted from the party back in '06, I believe.
He was "ousted" in the sense that he lost the primary to be the Democratic candidate. He still caucuses with the Dems and was allowed to keep his committee chairmanship. He's never been especially liberal; I think he's more of an opportunist than anything else. His opposition was also a key reason that the "public option" was scrapped.
Eviltaco64X wrote:Hell, Obama was even the most liberal guy in the Senate.
This is total BS. There's just some group out there that cooks up a way to rate them so that the candidate they want to bash comes out as #1 and then issues a press release. Somehow, it just happened to be Kerry in 2004, too. Both of these while Ted Kennedy was still in the Senate, and Obama's while Bernie Sanders was in the Senate.
Eviltaco64X wrote:The more they're spending invisible money, the more our debts rise. Then when the government can't pay off it's own debts with invisible money and decided it needs more... there's more taxation. Then citizens have less money to spend, there's less productivity since demand for a lot of things are down, and our economy and productivity fall as a result. It's just a downward spiral.
The main point of deficit spending in a recession is that demand has to come from somewhere in order to get the economy moving again. If the private sector is frozen/sluggish, the only other place that increased demand can come from is the government, whether by the government spending money or the Fed increasing interest rates.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
User avatar
DaMadFiddler
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
Posts: 7953
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:17 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by DaMadFiddler » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:50 pm

I was about to write a reply here, but Ex-Cyber pretty much covered everything I was going to say. Way to hit the nail on the head :thumbsup:
User avatar
Eviltaco64X
DCEmu Mega Poster
DCEmu Mega Poster
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Rep. Scott Brown Beats Coakley

Post by Eviltaco64X » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:21 am

Ex-Cyber wrote:I think what's actually happened is that the Republican Party has been so successful at branding (both itself and the Democrats) and marketing "conservatism" as a tribal identification that the perception of the center has shifted right (even though polling on the issues themselves indicates much stronger support for "liberal" positions than this would suggest). Dennis Kucinich is now considered to be on the left fringe of the party; 50 or 60 years ago he'd probably be a mainstream (non-Southern) Democrat. Nixon would probably be considered a "RINO" by today's standards. It doesn't matter how far right the Democrats move, though; the Republican marketing machine will continue calling them the "far left" despite the presence of the Green Parties, the various Socialist Parties, and so on (even the Communist Party USA is still around, albeit with greatly diminished membership). Similarly, the "far right" is mostly represented by parties such as the Libertarian Party (on economic issues) and the Constitution Party (on both social and economic issues).
I believe both parties are moving more to the left now. Wouldn't the Democratic Party be the target for the more far-left if it is more left-wing than the Republican Party? The conservatism the Republicans are pushing now is pretty bullshit. I'd say Ron Paul is a true conservative, and he's mocked by the GOP and Fox News.
Clinton was rather centrist. His administration pushed for a balanced budget, passed "welfare-to-work", cut the number of government employees, and fought for tougher sentences for criminals.
While this is partially true, a few of those actions aforementioned were done after Newt Gengrich and the Republicans won the Senate. I believe he was definitely more liberal when the Democrats had majority in the first half of his first term. After the Republicans won, he did move more to center.
The main point of deficit spending in a recession is that demand has to come from somewhere in order to get the economy moving again. If the private sector is frozen/sluggish, the only other place that increased demand can come from is the government, whether by the government spending money or the Fed increasing interest rates.
These companies (like General Motors) aren't turning profits, so the government is really just backing up companies that are failing and adding to the debt in the process of "aiding the economy".

Maybe it's these restrictive policies the government has where companies are stuck behind so much bureaucracy and red tape that they're forced to pay millions of dollars to jump through bullshit inefficient hoops (unless they can bribe) that cripple industries until they go bankrupt or get swallowed up by the government.

For example, the plant my father used to work at, Finerran & Haley, was forced to undergo several changes to make it more environmentally-friendly back in 1993 that ended up costing them millions of dollars. In 1999-2000, they were forced upgrade everything that they bought because it was "obsolete" and had to take out everything added in '93, which cost even more money. This badly hurt the company, and a lot of it's productivity and jobs were cut due to it.

I can understand having policies protective of the environment (i.e. no dumping, proper recycling of wastes, cleaner burning smoke stacks, etc.), but what they did to the FH plant ended up destroying the company!

I'd say a good way for the government to make money is through maintenance of roads (as shown by toll boths, turnpikes, pike passes, etc.) and railroad tracks. A high-speed transcontinental railway could be incredibly profitable if utilized properly, but it'd require an incredible amount of work (jobs anyone? from construction to manufacturing to engineering) and effort. I know I'd prefer hopping on a train to Philadelphia or New York in about half the amount of time without traffic and driving.
Post Reply