By Williams35 - 2/4/10 - 4:43 am
ONE TERM
70% (235 votes)
TWO TERMS
14% (46 votes)
THREE TERMS
3% (11 votes)
FOUR TERMS
1% (5 votes)
FOR LIFE
11% (37 votes)
Total votes: 334
Comments
One-third of a term
two years.
Actually closer to half a term
Three years minus one month.
Plastic Man is Short Timer
A..non may even have it right. Brown has to show more than truck ownership when the seat comes up for its normal cycle in 2012. If he "performs" anything like he did as a state senator, the voters will WTF him out. Inertia is not the change they seek. Move along.
Not to mention, 2012 is a
Not to mention, 2012 is a Presidential election year, and the would-be buzz has already begun (That's four links there).
quadruple link score
quadruple link score bitches!
How Long?
How long will Brown be a senator? Well, let's see- the last Senate incumbent to be defeated by a challenger in this state was Edward Brooke back in 1978 when he lost re-election to Paul Tsongas. And before that we have to go back to 1952 when JFK defeated Henry Cabott Lodge for his Senate seat.
So to sum up- in the last 58 years only two incumbent Senators have lost re-election bids. It has been 32 years since a Mass Senate incumbent has lost a re-election bid.
Ummm, folks- I don't know how to break this to you- but Soviet elections for the central party committee had more competition than do our sclerotic and ossified two party fraud system "elections". Our Congress, on average has a re-election rate of 98 percent. Sometimes this re-election rate of Senators and House reps dips to 95 percent (the Soviet rate of re-election) and when this happens- our press calls it a "landslide" victory for the side that picked up a few more seats than expected.
At this point- I'm not sure it is possible for our elections to be any more the anemic jokes they are now.
Brown, unless he is a total blathering idiot or near retarded will be in that seat for life. Get used to it.
I tend to agree
First of all the poll is flawed, since he's starting with a partial term. The poll should be asking how many times do you expect him to get re-elected.
But putting that aside, I would tend to agree with Chris Dowd, except to say that his first re-election bid will be the real test. If he wins re-election once, he'll likely have the seat as long as he wants it. But that first bid will be the tough one.
FWIW I tend to think that the Democrats in this state have become so inbred and corrupted that they may well nominate another loser in 2012. The governor's office was held by Republicans for what, 16 years straight, four consecutive elections. Something similar will likely happen here.
1/3 to life
If he gets past his first 2 years, he'll probably have the seat for as long as he wants it. Re-electing incumbents is what we do, but in the first two years the intense spotlight will be on Scott Brown's honeymoon and the inevitable backlash when he can't be all things to all people. If the backlash coincides with the next election, back up the truck.
I believe the 2012 ticket will be..
Romney/Brown. Mitt's people were all over Brown's victory. According to ABC's Rick Klein;" “Governor Romney asked his entire political team to help the then-unknown Brown, and he raised early money for him at a time when very few people would give him a second look.”
Indeed, several key figures in Brown’s victory -- notably Eric Fehrnstrom, Beth Myers, and Peter Flaherty -- were and continue to be Romney people.
Brown’s campaign manager, Beth Lindstrom, was a member of Romney’s Cabinet; his press secretary, Felix Browne, was a deputy press secretary under Gov. Romney; Brown finance director Priscilla Ruzzo held that same post in Romney’s 1994 Senate race; and Will Ritter was a key advance staffer for Romney before he worked for Brown’s campaign."
If Romney can use Brown's skyrocketing fame with the right, he may have a chance at a nomination. Brown may even help people forget about Romney's well documented flip flopping on many issues sensitive to the far right.
It's do or die time. Recent
It's do or die time.
Recent comments and actions seem to have him stepping back from the Teabaggers and Palinites, which is smart. He even "Forgot" about Sarah's phone call.
Now lets see if he's going to be an actual conservative voice in Washington and work to craft legislation with the democrats, or if he's just another GOP lacky taking his orders from the leadership and the party of NO.
good point!
He said he wouldn't vote for health care. That's one chalked up to "GOP lacky taking his orders from the party of NO."
The jobs bill may be where he votes yes.
Another tell will be his vote on finacial regulatory reform. If he votes yes and the bill comes out of the Senate without being watered down to piss then I'd have to agree that he could "be an actual conservative voice in Washington" and not just "another GOP lacky taking his orders from the leadership and the party of NO."
It's his best bet to keeping the seat in two years.
If Congress cannot get anything done becuase of GOP obstruction between now and 2012 Obama and Brown will be voted out.
So much the independant Scott Brown
from the Phoenix
--Meanwhile, Brown made a concerted effort to woo the rank-and-file, lunch-bucket union guys, and played up their support -- for example, by sending around photos of purple-clad SEIU members showing up to events, and even touting his own Screen Actors Guild membership.
--Those rank-and-file union members (who surely would have elected Lynch in the general election) broke with leadership, with half voting for Scott Brown, according to the AFL-CIO.
--Scott Brown vowed to be an independent voice and not a rubber-stamp 41st obstructionist vote for Senate Republicans; however, after agreeing to a 2/11 swearing-in date, Brown suddenly demanded to take his seat immediate today in order to be the 41st obstructionist vote for Senate Republicans.
--The key, crucial vote that Brown is demanding to be seated for? Why, to block the confirmation of a pro-labor nominee for the National Labor Relations Board. Naturally.
And, for the denouement, Senate Democrats are agreeing to change the schedule that Brown had agreed to, so as to allow him to block the nomination. Oh, the delicious, disgusting ironies that abound! Don't you just love politics?
Sen. Scott Brown is not the people's Senator
I requestettd a meeting with someone on Sen. Brown's staff to discuss health care. The senator's scheduler sent a form requesting mthe name of my organization, number of delegates to attend, etc. So much for 'he people's sea.t' It's a load of malarkey. Sen. Scott Brown is all about campaign contributions and re-election. Bring on Mike capuano!