It's a Suffolk/CH7 poll as reported by the Herald. All you need to know is it's not reported anywhere in the print edition of the Glob. But hey don't let the facts get in the way...
I really thought that Brown had peaked. The Dems had better deliver their base like never before.
If the Herald poll is accurate, Brown's surge is part of a twisted rebelling against health care reform. It is with real sadness that I wonder how the fortunes of health care legislation might've gone very differently with Ted Kennedy leading the charge.
So many other parts of the world are looking at us and asking, how can this land of plenty not provide decent, affordable health care for all?
Because we have too many people and not enough of them who CARE.
Health care could cost a fraction of what it does now with competition. If Johnny Surgeon opened Johnny's Hospital in his garage, your angioplasty would cost very little, because Johnny Surgeon works for himself and only has to pay his rent and his own malpractice insurance.
I'd get surgery in some guy's garage. Most people would not, so the market demands are met by only a few corporate providers. These corporations are run by people who view whether you're sick or healthy, whether you live or die, as a commodity. They care more about having your money than they do about how you feel.
I don't begrudge them for that. But I do begrudge those who keep insisting on paying for the brand name hospital for their care, and then balk at the price tag.
As is frequently stated in Freakonomics, "people respond to incentives." There are no incentives right now that would result in health costs dropping because you overpay for drugs, and Pfizer and Lilly give doctors loads of cash. And no, reforming that practice won't fix anything, because all the activity will be more secretive.
Why would a doctor leave a hospital to start his/her own clinic? There's no INCENTIVE. They're all fat and happy because they have everything they need. Maybe we should do with doctors what we do with farmers if we're going to throw money at this problem: Subsidize them. Here's 20 grand, stop growing corn. Here's 500 grand, turn that vacant warehouse into a small hospital, then undercut the big hospital on the amount that you bill the insurer. Watch how quickly your business grows. Watch how quickly people start getting care.
Oh, and the same answer also applies to our war on drugs.
Her record has finally caught up with her - the win at the expense of justice prosecutions, the lack of respect for basic rights, the sense of entitlement, playing the gender card over and over. The reference to "Scott Brown stalkers" is right out of a closing argument in a weak domestic violence case.
I'm voting for Kennedy, but I have no doubt that Brown would provide better individual constitutent services as a senator.
How many candidates lose for being tough on crime. It never happens and it's not happening here. And Scott Brown looks like a Republican John Kerry to me... if he wins it's because the country is sending a message to Obama.
Keep repeating your fantasies, they might come true.
If Coakley loses, it’ll be her own doing and testament to her very poorly run campaign (assuming she’d just walk in) and character (That’s MY seat). Many independents and progressives are very tuned off by her as well as teabaggers. If Brown sneaks by it’s a protest vote against Coakleys ordination.
I know I’m grudgingly voting for her, but will be the first to support a primary challenge in a few years. I know some liberals who are also voting for brown because they don’t care about the bigger picture, and can’t stand her either.
1) 10% turnout.
2) Branded an appealing title of "First Woman Senator from MA" early on.
3) ZERO confrontation by her opponents on ANY topic.
4) Only statewide name easily recognizable on the ballot.
It was a piss poor Democratic primary (thanks a pantsload, party leaders) that has given us a dud of a candidate who will probably eke out a win over a completely uninviting Republican nee-teabagger.
This vote is going to only come down to whomever goes out and votes more. If more Democrats go out, then Coakley will coast in. If more Democrats stay home, then Brown will just barely win. While I've gotten a video e-mail and rallying cry from Obama in my inbox and 1 robocall from Coakley's campaign last night, the Democrats are not really putting on the "Get Out The Vote" like I think they should.
Not at all... the urgency of it is mimicking her campaign.
Then again, this is classic establishment DLC crap that the dems need to fight tooth and nail. It's ordained uninspiring establishment candidates in Dem strongholds, and it's scared shit-less DINO's in red states.
The primary really was sad, because I saw this coming a mile away if any of her opponents got their campaign off to a running start. Brown did, and now the nation will pay the consequences for Coakleys mistakes.
"As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’
-Dumbass M Coakley
Really.... REALLY
Someone hasn't been paying attention to politcs for the last 8 or so years. She's pollitically enept, and lacks a legislative record to run on. The Ma Dem party should be ashamed.
And she doesn't know you can't spend the entire special election meeting union leaders and holding campaign meetings.
She should get off herass and meet the people of Massachusetts (and I don't mean bum rushing a meeting room and leaving hastily like she's too important for them.) MA voters, Democrats, Independents, Republicans MUST BELIEVE SHE CARES ABOUT THEM.
I hear this every election from lefties who think there is a vast untapped vote for their candidate out there... the truth is usually that if everybody else turned out, the winner would have won bigger.
Please give recent examples of Coakley playing the gender card. Weak domestic violence case... exactly what do you mean by that in this context? You're spewing right-wing garbage, so it's hard to take you seriously without some concrete examples to back up your claims.
Politics can be a rude rough and tumble trade, but what that interviewer was doing was in very poor taste. He asked his question, she wasn't going to answer, so give it up. Instead he bull rushed a B line strait at her.
That when things move from an annoyance, to a security issue. No one knows his real intentions or who he flipping is.
It's one thing to berate someone like the asshole you are; it's another to do what he did. He's lucky he didn't get hurt worse for his stupid, childish stunt.
Oh, and everything I said above goes for the liberals too. This paparazzi, in your face faux-journalism on both sides is sicking. It's more tailored so that incidents like this happen, and the poor old blogger can get a rise out of his internet community, and get huge page hits. Seems it worked as intended with you deselby...
I was in One Financial yesterday morning, across from South Station.
R. Robert Popeo of Mintz, Levin, etc ( a high end version of Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe!) was holding an invite-only brunch for Coakley.
So tens of thousands of VOTERS are streaming out of South Station, going to work. And Coakley is inside this financial fortress, being feted by Boston's power brokers. While her commercials are braying about Brown's unwillingness to take on the bankers who brought us the financial crisis.
Sorry, I'm tending to go with the guy who drives a pickup truck and stood outside of a hockey game at Fenway Park.
Mintz-Levin Financial Advisors LLC (http://www.mintzlevinfinancial.com/) actually. I would argue that an invitation-only brunch with an outfit like that, given what's gone on financially in the last 18 months, makes her part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Not to mention the fundraiser in DC earlier in the week, attended by Biotech and Pharma lobbyists. (And ex-hockey players who knock down inconvenient journalists.)
And nice ad hominem attack on the American Idol thing. When you can't argue, deflect.
She's run a miserable campaign that's ignored the voters and embraced the moneyed, entrenched classes. That these people happen to be Democrats may be tough for us all to swallow in an era of Change and Hope, but that doesn't change the facts.
Ad hominem would be if I said "you're an addle-brained moron who votes based on veneer instead of substance". But I didn't. I just figured you for a big American Idol voter and one that would vote for the "hometown" girl instead of the talented ones.
As far as where campaign finances have come from, Brown is hardly scraping by on the pocket change of his neighborly MA Republican friends. In fact, teabaggers held a benefit meal for him (just like Coakley's DC dinner) and it seems like more of his dollars are coming from out-of-state than in-state...it would be interesting to see the facts on that. It's definitely the case that more right-wing loonies across the nation seem to have a big vested interest in seeing him win than the rest of the country seems to care at all whether Coakley wins.
If I had to choose, I'd rather have a Senator paid for by the Boston Scientific PAC than Dittoheads #124-#355 from Ohio, Kansas, and all points South and West.
So, if you want to vote for Brown because you like his policies, feel free...but this extraneous crap about driving a truck, not being funded the same as Martha (guffaw..), or standing outside hockey games is about the dumbest reasons outside of hair color (and you know it's his true hair color if you've been keeping up on your Cosmo these days!) to vote for someone.
...just skewers her campaign "strategy." Required reading for those who want to understand in a few hundred words how running-by-disappearing is not how to get elected.
The Democrats chose a dull, pseudo-liberal and possibly corrupt party hack for their candidate leaving Massachusetts large number of independents completely uninterested and opening the door for the Republicans to march right in.
Martha Coakley's nothing to write home about, but the election of Scott Brown would spell disaster for Boston, the Bay State, and possibly well beyond.
I didn't see it in the linked story. I'm voting for Kennedy, so I don't give a rat's ass if Brown or Coakley is leading according to any particular poll, but let's not forget that polling can easily be skewed via the choice of words.
"Are you planning to vote?"
"Yes."
"Given the following choices, which candidate would you be likely to vote for?
Candidate A is an uncaring shrew-like woman who really doesn't care if some innocent person was behind bars for many years, and she will raise your taxes to the point where you will need a third job just to pay the taxes taken from the other two. Her major source of funding has been evil lobbyists, and she also wants to invite terrorists to roam our streets and bayonet small children. She will vote in lockstep with the people in Washington who are already bleeding us dry and have us embroiled in unwinnable foreign wars.
Candidate B is a heartless bastard who wants to force rape victims to have their attacker's children. He also favors torturing prisoners by pouring water into their noses and throats until they believe they are drowning. He wants to give rich people what little bit of money poor people now have, and he also prefers having poor people die rather than cutting them a break on medical costs. He's a hypocrite of the first order who invites out-of-state politicians to come and show their support for him after he complained about his opposition doing so.
Candidate C is the son of a minister and a really nice guy. He won't force rape victims to have their attacker's children, unlike that horrible Candidate B, nor would he ever leave an innocent man to rot in jail like that bitch Candidate A. He's an independent thinker, much as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington (The Father Of Our Country!)"
"Hmmmmmmm. I think I'll vote for Candidate C."
Next day, in the Belchertown Libertarian Times:
Poll Shows Joseph L. Kennedy Leading Brown And Coakley combined, 91 - 8
There's only one poll that really counts, folks, and that will be taken on January 19th.
Comments
But it's the Herald...margin
But it's the Herald...margin of error...it's the Herald...
Only 4%?
Within the margin of ACORN. Anything this close will likely end up with a legal battle where they "find" a bunch of Democrat "votes".
it is a 7news and suffolk
it is a 7news and suffolk university poll, reported by the herald.
It's a Suffolk/CH7 poll as
It's a Suffolk/CH7 poll as reported by the Herald. All you need to know is it's not reported anywhere in the print edition of the Glob. But hey don't let the facts get in the way...
Stunning poll numbers
I really thought that Brown had peaked. The Dems had better deliver their base like never before.
If the Herald poll is accurate, Brown's surge is part of a twisted rebelling against health care reform. It is with real sadness that I wonder how the fortunes of health care legislation might've gone very differently with Ted Kennedy leading the charge.
So many other parts of the world are looking at us and asking, how can this land of plenty not provide decent, affordable health care for all?
The answer
Because we have too many people and not enough of them who CARE.
Health care could cost a fraction of what it does now with competition. If Johnny Surgeon opened Johnny's Hospital in his garage, your angioplasty would cost very little, because Johnny Surgeon works for himself and only has to pay his rent and his own malpractice insurance.
I'd get surgery in some guy's garage. Most people would not, so the market demands are met by only a few corporate providers. These corporations are run by people who view whether you're sick or healthy, whether you live or die, as a commodity. They care more about having your money than they do about how you feel.
I don't begrudge them for that. But I do begrudge those who keep insisting on paying for the brand name hospital for their care, and then balk at the price tag.
As is frequently stated in Freakonomics, "people respond to incentives." There are no incentives right now that would result in health costs dropping because you overpay for drugs, and Pfizer and Lilly give doctors loads of cash. And no, reforming that practice won't fix anything, because all the activity will be more secretive.
Why would a doctor leave a hospital to start his/her own clinic? There's no INCENTIVE. They're all fat and happy because they have everything they need. Maybe we should do with doctors what we do with farmers if we're going to throw money at this problem: Subsidize them. Here's 20 grand, stop growing corn. Here's 500 grand, turn that vacant warehouse into a small hospital, then undercut the big hospital on the amount that you bill the insurer. Watch how quickly your business grows. Watch how quickly people start getting care.
Oh, and the same answer also applies to our war on drugs.
not about health care, it's about Coakley
Her record has finally caught up with her - the win at the expense of justice prosecutions, the lack of respect for basic rights, the sense of entitlement, playing the gender card over and over. The reference to "Scott Brown stalkers" is right out of a closing argument in a weak domestic violence case.
I'm voting for Kennedy, but I have no doubt that Brown would provide better individual constitutent services as a senator.
Coakley
How many candidates lose for being tough on crime. It never happens and it's not happening here. And Scott Brown looks like a Republican John Kerry to me... if he wins it's because the country is sending a message to Obama.
Keep repeating your
Keep repeating your fantasies, they might come true.
If Coakley loses, it’ll be her own doing and testament to her very poorly run campaign (assuming she’d just walk in) and character (That’s MY seat). Many independents and progressives are very tuned off by her as well as teabaggers. If Brown sneaks by it’s a protest vote against Coakleys ordination.
I know I’m grudgingly voting for her, but will be the first to support a primary challenge in a few years. I know some liberals who are also voting for brown because they don’t care about the bigger picture, and can’t stand her either.
How did Coakley win the primary?
1) 10% turnout.
2) Branded an appealing title of "First Woman Senator from MA" early on.
3) ZERO confrontation by her opponents on ANY topic.
4) Only statewide name easily recognizable on the ballot.
It was a piss poor Democratic primary (thanks a pantsload, party leaders) that has given us a dud of a candidate who will probably eke out a win over a completely uninviting Republican nee-teabagger.
This vote is going to only come down to whomever goes out and votes more. If more Democrats go out, then Coakley will coast in. If more Democrats stay home, then Brown will just barely win. While I've gotten a video e-mail and rallying cry from Obama in my inbox and 1 robocall from Coakley's campaign last night, the Democrats are not really putting on the "Get Out The Vote" like I think they should.
Not at all... the urgency of
Not at all... the urgency of it is mimicking her campaign.
Then again, this is classic establishment DLC crap that the dems need to fight tooth and nail. It's ordained uninspiring establishment candidates in Dem strongholds, and it's scared shit-less DINO's in red states.
The primary really was sad, because I saw this coming a mile away if any of her opponents got their campaign off to a running start. Brown did, and now the nation will pay the consequences for Coakleys mistakes.
And she keeps making it harder
-Dumbass M Coakley
Really.... REALLY
Someone hasn't been paying attention to politcs for the last 8 or so years. She's pollitically enept, and lacks a legislative record to run on. The Ma Dem party should be ashamed.
Deaf or in denial and too smart x 2.
Apparently, you cannot tell this woman ANYTHING.
And she doesn't know you can't spend the entire special election meeting union leaders and holding campaign meetings.
She should get off herass and meet the people of Massachusetts (and I don't mean bum rushing a meeting room and leaving hastily like she's too important for them.) MA voters, Democrats, Independents, Republicans MUST BELIEVE SHE CARES ABOUT THEM.
Coakley = too smart x 2.
Math?
I think you mean "too smart X 0.5"
the vast silent left
I hear this every election from lefties who think there is a vast untapped vote for their candidate out there... the truth is usually that if everybody else turned out, the winner would have won bigger.
playing the gender card; domestic violence
Please give recent examples of Coakley playing the gender card. Weak domestic violence case... exactly what do you mean by that in this context? You're spewing right-wing garbage, so it's hard to take you seriously without some concrete examples to back up your claims.
repeatedly
In the primary, supporters raised her gender as a reason to vote for her repeatedly.
prosecutorial language
Describing Scott Brown's campaign workers as "stalkers" is loaded and coded gender talk. It's a "dog whistle."
would attention whores be any
would attention whores be any better?
Politics can be a rude rough and tumble trade, but what that interviewer was doing was in very poor taste. He asked his question, she wasn't going to answer, so give it up. Instead he bull rushed a B line strait at her.
That when things move from an annoyance, to a security issue. No one knows his real intentions or who he flipping is.
It's one thing to berate someone like the asshole you are; it's another to do what he did. He's lucky he didn't get hurt worse for his stupid, childish stunt.
Oh, and everything I said above goes for the liberals too. This paparazzi, in your face faux-journalism on both sides is sicking. It's more tailored so that incidents like this happen, and the poor old blogger can get a rise out of his internet community, and get huge page hits. Seems it worked as intended with you deselby...
our state does and w/o
our state does and w/o raising taxes. that other states don't isn't our problem.
"Land of plenty?" Are you
"Land of plenty?" Are you kidding me? Our national debt is 11 trillion dollars. We're broke.
While there are issues and
While there are issues and problems down the road, they can be dealt with.
History, btw, fails you.
It's not a "Herald Poll",
It's not a "Herald Poll", it's a Suffolk University poll...and we all know how right wing our universities are...LMAO
I think the ACORN/SEIU poll still has her up at around 75-80%....
Even the Globe now says it's close and is burying the news of Coakley's impending demise off of the top fold
Her campaign has been pretty thin gruel
I was in One Financial yesterday morning, across from South Station.
R. Robert Popeo of Mintz, Levin, etc ( a high end version of Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe!) was holding an invite-only brunch for Coakley.
So tens of thousands of VOTERS are streaming out of South Station, going to work. And Coakley is inside this financial fortress, being feted by Boston's power brokers. While her commercials are braying about Brown's unwillingness to take on the bankers who brought us the financial crisis.
Sorry, I'm tending to go with the guy who drives a pickup truck and stood outside of a hockey game at Fenway Park.
Lawyers aren't bankers, but
Lawyers aren't bankers, but nice try. Vote for a guy because of his japanese truck. That's a good reason, REALLY.
He drives a chevy colorado.
He drives a chevy colorado. Not a japanese truck, but also not very fuel efficient. Maybe he should have chose an escape hybrid.
I'm voting for Scott Brown
I'm voting for Scott Brown because he drives a truck. What kind of position is that?? Extricate brain, insert rocks.
Let me guess
You probably also voted for his daughter as American Idol, too.
Sorry
Mintz-Levin Financial Advisors LLC (http://www.mintzlevinfinancial.com/) actually. I would argue that an invitation-only brunch with an outfit like that, given what's gone on financially in the last 18 months, makes her part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Not to mention the fundraiser in DC earlier in the week, attended by Biotech and Pharma lobbyists. (And ex-hockey players who knock down inconvenient journalists.)
And nice ad hominem attack on the American Idol thing. When you can't argue, deflect.
She's run a miserable campaign that's ignored the voters and embraced the moneyed, entrenched classes. That these people happen to be Democrats may be tough for us all to swallow in an era of Change and Hope, but that doesn't change the facts.
It's not ad hominem
Ad hominem would be if I said "you're an addle-brained moron who votes based on veneer instead of substance". But I didn't. I just figured you for a big American Idol voter and one that would vote for the "hometown" girl instead of the talented ones.
As far as where campaign finances have come from, Brown is hardly scraping by on the pocket change of his neighborly MA Republican friends. In fact, teabaggers held a benefit meal for him (just like Coakley's DC dinner) and it seems like more of his dollars are coming from out-of-state than in-state...it would be interesting to see the facts on that. It's definitely the case that more right-wing loonies across the nation seem to have a big vested interest in seeing him win than the rest of the country seems to care at all whether Coakley wins.
If I had to choose, I'd rather have a Senator paid for by the Boston Scientific PAC than Dittoheads #124-#355 from Ohio, Kansas, and all points South and West.
So, if you want to vote for Brown because you like his policies, feel free...but this extraneous crap about driving a truck, not being funded the same as Martha (guffaw..), or standing outside hockey games is about the dumbest reasons outside of hair color (and you know it's his true hair color if you've been keeping up on your Cosmo these days!) to vote for someone.
You're right so right.
Actually providing local information like name, date, website, address, etc of the financial company providing the 'time' really kills my credibility.
As opposed to specifity like your "Dittoheads #124..."
I did-she's very talented -
I did-she's very talented - and gorgeous ;-)
I had to scroll back up...
...to understand that you were talking about Brown's daughter and not Coakley. :)
well we know Coakley certainly is not talented
She can't manage to run away with an election that was served to her on a silver platter.
Brian McGrory's column in today's Globe...
...just skewers her campaign "strategy." Required reading for those who want to understand in a few hundred words how running-by-disappearing is not how to get elected.
It's Shannon O'Brien all over again
The Democrats chose a dull, pseudo-liberal and possibly corrupt party hack for their candidate leaving Massachusetts large number of independents completely uninterested and opening the door for the Republicans to march right in.
Uh-Oh!
Martha Coakley's nothing to write home about, but the election of Scott Brown would spell disaster for Boston, the Bay State, and possibly well beyond.
Wording Of Poll?
I didn't see it in the linked story. I'm voting for Kennedy, so I don't give a rat's ass if Brown or Coakley is leading according to any particular poll, but let's not forget that polling can easily be skewed via the choice of words.
"Are you planning to vote?"
"Yes."
"Given the following choices, which candidate would you be likely to vote for?
Candidate A is an uncaring shrew-like woman who really doesn't care if some innocent person was behind bars for many years, and she will raise your taxes to the point where you will need a third job just to pay the taxes taken from the other two. Her major source of funding has been evil lobbyists, and she also wants to invite terrorists to roam our streets and bayonet small children. She will vote in lockstep with the people in Washington who are already bleeding us dry and have us embroiled in unwinnable foreign wars.
Candidate B is a heartless bastard who wants to force rape victims to have their attacker's children. He also favors torturing prisoners by pouring water into their noses and throats until they believe they are drowning. He wants to give rich people what little bit of money poor people now have, and he also prefers having poor people die rather than cutting them a break on medical costs. He's a hypocrite of the first order who invites out-of-state politicians to come and show their support for him after he complained about his opposition doing so.
Candidate C is the son of a minister and a really nice guy. He won't force rape victims to have their attacker's children, unlike that horrible Candidate B, nor would he ever leave an innocent man to rot in jail like that bitch Candidate A. He's an independent thinker, much as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington (The Father Of Our Country!)"
"Hmmmmmmm. I think I'll vote for Candidate C."
Next day, in the Belchertown Libertarian Times:
Poll Shows Joseph L. Kennedy Leading Brown And Coakley combined, 91 - 8
There's only one poll that really counts, folks, and that will be taken on January 19th.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
well said Sully
well said Sully