Coakley concedes

Calabrio

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Coakley concedes
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Globe_Coakley_concedes.html

The Boston Globe reports that Martha Coakley has called Scott Brown to concede, according to a Brown aide.

Two Democrats confirmed the concession to POLITICO.

Her concession marks the most dramatic political upset in a generation, one that will be plumbed for meaning and spun over the next few days.

Please let me know what you think it means in the comments section, as I figure out what I think it means.

Posted by Ben Smith 09:18 PM
 
It means the pugnacious Obama is on the precipice. He can follow Clinton and moderate his stance and probably get re-elected, or he can stubbornly cling to his hubris and try to force his leftist agenda down our throats, in which case he'll probably either be crippled politically or he'll destroy the Democrats.
 
From a poster at Democrat Underground:

“It absolutely sickens me…to see this solid blue state have some sleazeball, degenerate, scumbag filth republican as their ‘representative’. I’m even more sickened and disgusted to see Ted’s seat, that he held for decades on end go to this piece of garbage, cookie cutter, bottom feeding, dirtbag republican.”
Click to expand...
 
There's a beautiful irony that the opposition will be coming from the old "Kennedy seat."


....I have no idea how to comment on the humpbot though.
 
A few twitter insights from Larry Sabato:
Watching Brown, a star is born. He's sharp & the camera loves him. How long before the first columns touting him for the 2012 GOP ticket?

I'm told Scott Brown carried Hyannisport in a landslide. Hyannisport--so closely identified with the Kennedys.

For Dems, an appropriate response is critical. Will it be listening, learning, and humility---or anger & arrogance? Many are watching.​

And a few funnier twitter observations from Doctor Zero concerning Olberman tonight:
MSNBC asked Olbermann to hold back on the accusation that Scott Brown wants to open the tomb of R'lyeh and unleash Cthulhu on the world.

Olbermann crushed to learn that a spot of barbecue sauce on Brown's shirt is insufficient grounds to accuse him of cannibalism.

Olbermann last seen howling that Scott Brown wants to kill all the Na'vi so he can steal their unobtainium.​
 
It means the republicans have a new charismatic candidate for POTUS in 2012 who appeals to moderates and independants.
 
shagdrum said:
How would a Gingrich/Brown ticket sound? ;)
Click to expand...
Brown is fresh, Gingrich is not. I like his ideas, but he's got a lot of baggage - much more than Palin has. He embraced Pelosi and endorsed Scozzafavabeans, and that's something that will get hung around his neck if he runs.

Brown is charismatic. I'd rather see him at the top of a ticket than at the bottom. His position on abortion is nuanced, but not leftist. He's a fiscal conservative and that's something we can all get behind.

That said, Brown was elected to be #41. We need guys/gals like him in the Senate. I envision Coburn, DeMint, and Sessions mentoring this guy and keeping him there a while.

I'd rather see a governor type rise to the top of the GOP ticket. Jindal is good but sort of soft, Romney is slightly sprained, and Palin is an uncertainty. Palin is the most popular, but she's an easy target for the media which has effectively framed her in the past.

The success of Brown was due to, among other things like voter anger, his quiet and swift ride to the seat coupled with quiet GOP support. He ran an independent campaign and the GOP cleverly stayed in the background while sending him money. This is a template that can win the Presidency: Find a solid conservative candidate and run him/her with an independent-style campaign focusing on Obama's lies and flaws while promising to reduce government spending and size.

Platform can be nothing more than "FREEZE SPENDING IN PLACE!" and people will flock to it. Promise to veto any budget bill that increases the previous budget except for inflation and any budget bill that cuts defense spending in order to increase entitlement spending.
 
fossten said:
Brown is fresh, Gingrich is not. I like his ideas, but he's got a lot of baggage - much more than Palin has. He embraced Pelosi and endorsed Scozzafavabeans, and that's something that will get hung around his neck if he runs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, the fact that he has been comparatively "out of the spot light" for the past few election cycles (compared to the other big possibilities) may somewhat mute that. Palin will have the media harping at her, she will have to explain her resignation and be on the defensive a lot (though I am not ruling her out by any means). Romney will be killed by Romneycare. Huckabee will have to explain his pardon of a copkiller (that may well sink him).

Newt's baggage is old news and (mostly) not as relevant. The biggest hurdle for him would be getting the nomination. I am pretty sure the general election would go for him.
 
Newt could garner Rove... a big gun in the arsenal, however, Newt does have a lot of baggage, and it is all drug up when the fur flies. Brown - I think his liberal stands on many things could eventually sour him to the 'true right'. Primaries would be a difficult go for him if he ran against someone who really embraced the right. If you read Brown's positions he would be considered a 'republican' only by real centrists and the left. Put him in Oklahoma and he would 'read' democrat. Palin can't run as a Republican, she might splinter and run as independent. Romney is old news, and Huckabee is history.

Brown could be their hope-but he would have some of the same baggage Obama did - no real business experience, mostly a lawyer/civil servant. He does have his military background - a big plus. He will have been in the Senate almost the exact same amount of time as Obama, which was a detriment in the eyes of the right during the election.

Could be a very interesting horse race...
 
fossten said:
You have no basis whatsoever to make this claim.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes I do. She made, and continues to make a lot of enemies within the party's power structure. Many high up in the party see her as a liability, and an easy target for the Democrats. Quitting the Governorship, and then accepting a job with Fox is a hard sell. Within a primary structure she will probably fail. Her poll numbers are currently low, but that could change tomorrow, however they have been trending down. She is a loose gun, and the parties don't like loose guns.

The party would more likely back someone they 'know and trust' like Newt, or embrace someone with little baggage like Brown.
 
foxpaws said:
Ah, yes I do. She made, and continues to make a lot of enemies within the party's power structure. Many high up in the party see her as a liability, and an easy target for the Democrats. Quitting the Governorship, and then accepting a job with Fox is a hard sell. Within a primary structure she will probably fail. Her poll numbers are currently low, but that could change tomorrow, however they have been trending down. She is a loose gun, and the parties don't like loose guns.

The party would more likely back someone they 'know and trust' like Newt, or embrace someone with little baggage like Brown.
Click to expand...
Uh, no you don't. All your evidence does is support the theory that she won't run for president at all. There is no indication that she will go third party. She's also said flatly on TV that she does not support forming a third party. Even Ron Paul, virtually laughed off the state by his own party, but with quite a bit of support and money, decided not to go third party even though many pundits predicted he would.

You assume that she must run for President, which is the logical flaw in your reasoning, because your theory depends on that eventuality. But now you've boxed yourself into a corner because you've claimed (due to your 'wishful thinking') that she is definitely going to run for President, so you've left yourself only one alternative theory - third party run. It's a dumb logical leap, but typical of a myopic personality.

You're wrong on this one. You'll see.
 
Foss - I said she 'might' splinter (read a little closer). I doubt she can get the party's nomination, and I wonder if she wants it. I think if her ego is as big as it appears, and she sees a 'mandate' from the people - perhaps the tea party supporters - she could do it. She can raise money, and she doesn't have a political 'job' at stake, like Ron Paul. And make no mistake, it usually takes a pretty big ego to get that job, Ron Paul doesn't have it and Sarah Palin does. I also think a lot would depend on who appears to the front runner for the Republicans. Too moderate, or too decisive, she might do it.
 
foxpaws said:
Foss - I said she 'might' splinter (read a little closer). I don't think she can get the party's nomination, and I think if her ego is as big as it appears, and she sees a 'mandate' from the people - perhaps the tea party supporters - she could do it. She can raise money, and she doesn't have a political 'job' at stake, like Ron Paul. And make no mistake, it usually takes a pretty big ego to get that job, Ron Paul doesn't have it and Sarah Palin does. I also think a lot would depend on who appears to the front runner for the Republicans. Too moderate, or too decisive, she might do it.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not you think she can get the GOP nod, you claimed evidence that supported your theory that she could go third party. Your evidence doesn't support that. She is wise enough to understand that a third party spells victory for the Democrats. I've heard her say this. You underestimate her by assuming she's not very smart. That is another logical flaw.

It's also interesting to see liberals like you projecting big egos onto others just because your current President is an egomaniac. You have no evidence to support Sarah having a big ego either, but I'm sure you'll dumb down the definition of 'big' so that it fits your twisted idea.
 
Nope, I stand by big ego. It is hard to remember a president that didn't have a big ego - it goes with the territory. Ford - maybe not, Carter - probably not really big when he was in office, but now - yep, big ego.

And I think she could go third party. Politicians say many things, and I think she would back off her third party denial if she thinks 'the people' want her. She loves the attention. There is nothing wrong with that - nor is there anything wrong with having a big ego foss. You are the one that thinks it is a handicap or 'bad'. I think it is an asset in politics, as well as other areas. Ego works well for many people.
 
foxpaws said:
Nope, I stand by big ego. It is hard to remember a president that didn't have a big ego - it goes with the territory. Ford - maybe not, Carter - probably not really big when he was in office, but now - yep, big ego.

And I think she could go third party. Politicians say many things, and I think she would back off her third party denial if she thinks 'the people' want her. She loves the attention. There is nothing wrong with that - nor is there anything wrong with having a big ego foss. You are the one that thinks it is a handicap or 'bad'. I think it is an asset in politics, as well as other areas. Ego works well for many people.
Click to expand...
Sorry, fox, I thought you had some evidence. I guess you don't. Oh well, I was looking forward to seeing it.

As I predicted, you dumbed down your meaning of 'big.' You also failed to produce any evidence that she has a big ego, except by saying 'she loves the attention' which isn't evidence, but rather a new claim. I guess you'd better back that up also. That's two claims now, and zero evidence. Want to add some more?

Finally, you made a claim that I think having a big ego is bad. Where did you get this idea? All I did was challenge your claim about Palin. Talk about a logical leap. Sweeping generalization much? I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, but your connotation when you attributed it to Palin was definitely negative - and I support that by citing your further statement that 'she loves the attention.' I'm sure she loved the rumors that Bristol was really Trig's mother.

I guess that's THREE claims without evidence.:rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
Sorry, fox, I thought you had some evidence. I guess you don't. Oh well, I was looking forward to seeing it.

As I predicted, you dumbed down your meaning of 'big.' You also failed to produce any evidence that she has a big ego, except by saying 'she loves the attention' which isn't evidence, but rather a new claim. I guess you'd better back that up also. That's two claims now, and zero evidence. Want to add some more?

Finally, you made a claim that I think having a big ego is bad. Where did you get this idea? All I did was challenge your claim about Palin. Talk about a logical leap. Sweeping generalization much? I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, but your connotation when you attributed it to Palin was definitely negative - and I support that by citing your further statement that 'she loves the attention.' I'm sure she loved the rumors that Bristol was really Trig's mother.

I guess that's THREE claims without evidence.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Foss, I am taking this as how I see things, I have worked in politics for many years, I can read ego. And I didn't dumb down 'big'. Big is big - and good politicians usually have a big ego. It actually works in Palin's favor. Paul's lack of ego will keep him on the sidelines forever.

Obama has an ego because he likes to be on TV, he likes public speaking, he likes being in front of the people? (I am sure I have missed many) I think you could use those same pieces of evidence with Palin.

She went on book tours, she took a TV job, she likes attention. However, if you look specifically at her book tour, it was crafted to go to towns and locations where she would be positively received. Smart move. And a move that to me indicates she likes the attention, but is smart enough to head towards places where she won't have to deal with negatives. Look at the choice of Fox. She now has a platform that she can rebut any negative comments that are made about her elsewhere, without editing. Again, smart move, a political platform without the nastiness of having to deal with counterpoint. It is almost customizable for a third party run.

Once again, desiring attention isn't a bad thing if you are a politician foss - it is the name of the game. And she also apparently knows how to balance out the bad with the good. Yes she has had negative attention - as you brought up - questions regarding her family, but she is willing to risk that for having positive attention. Adoration is a pretty big carrot foss.

This is editorial completely. I don't have source, I don't claim to have source, I am just calling it as I see it in politics. Politics is shifting, fuzzy, and 'of the moment'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally, an actual argument, even though it's still based on assumptions and opinion and very little on facts.

But you haven't watched Palin on Fox, have you? Nope.

O'Reilly tried to get her to talk about herself and how she was treated during the campaign, and she often deflected the discussion away from herself and back to issues. He even pointed this out. Either she's not an egomaniac or she's very good at putting out a modest persona - but the latter wouldn't fit your perception that she's an airhead.

You spend too much time delving into talking points and media perception and not enough time actually listening to what she says. Of course, knowing that you support Obama, it's not a stretch to imagine that you're so cynical as to not believe anything a public figure says, especially a politician. But your lack of depth in this area does take away your credibility, and so does your admission that you refused to read Palin's book but rather depended on a biased source for your opinion.

Do you not agree that it is important to get a comprehensive view of someone in order to accurately comment on their state of mind? Or are you clairvoyant?
 
fossten said:
Finally, an actual argument, even though it's still based on assumptions and opinion and very little on facts.

But you haven't watched Palin on Fox, have you? Nope.
Click to expand...

Didn't see her with O'Reilly - did see her with Beck... :eek: and the 'eek' isn't for Palin... Beck came across as a stalker... downright scary...

You spend too much time delving into talking points and media perception and not enough time actually listening to what she says. Of course, knowing that you support Obama, it's not a stretch to imagine that you're so cynical as to not believe anything a public figure says, especially a politician. But your lack of depth in this area does take away your credibility, and so does your admission that you refused to read Palin's book but rather depended on a biased source for your opinion.
Click to expand...

I delve into talking points and media perception because that is what the public goes by foss. The public is caught up on the sound bite of the moment, the scandal of the hour, the feel good story of the day. And then we start all over again. And with the internet it is getting shorter and short the amount of play each scenario gets. What you said yesterday is old news.

Oh I am about 1/3 through Palin's book - sorry to disappoint you. I have set it aside because I can't put down Game Change.

Do you not agree that it is important to get a comprehensive view of someone in order to accurately comment on their state of mind? Or are you clairvoyant?
Click to expand...
I am giving you what I see. I don't think it is important to get a comprehensive view to get perceptions which in fact, is all you need to sway the public Foss. Cal likes these 'real' moments - that was a good one. In the world of politics today it is 90% perception and 10% 'meat'. It will not change because of the speed that information is delivered.

added-
Personally I like getting a better comprehensive view, but as a past handler for candidates, I am a realist and I know that perception is the name of the game. What I like for myself, and what I know is being processed as pablum for the public are very different things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
foxpaws said:
I delve into talking points and media perception because that is what the public goes by foss. The public is caught up on the sound bite of the moment, the scandal of the hour, the feel good story of the day. And then we start all over again. And with the internet it is getting shorter and short the amount of play each scenario gets. What you said yesterday is old news.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you don't seek to analyze people or events with any real depth, but rather have a very shallow interpretation of news seen along with the general public through the filters of the mainstream media. How very pedestrian of you.

Oh I am about 1/3 through Palin's book - sorry to disappoint you. I have set it aside because I can't put down Game Change.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, you admitted that you formed a conclusion based on hearsay. This squares with your shallow view of politics based on talking points and cliches.

I am giving you what I see. I don't think it is important to get a comprehensive view to get perceptions which in fact, is all you need to sway the public Foss. Cal likes these 'real' moments - that was a good one. In the world of politics today it is 90% perception and 10% 'meat'. It will not change because of the speed that information is delivered.
Click to expand...
No, you're giving me what you're being told. There's a difference.

added-
Personally I like getting a better comprehensive view, but as a past handler for candidates, I am a realist and I know that perception is the name of the game. What I like for myself, and what I know is being processed as pablum for the public are very different things.
Click to expand...
Your self-glossing notwithstanding, this contradicts your first paragraph. Maybe you should read Chris Matthews' book "Life's a Campaign." Jon Stewart gave a very lively review of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 56 (members: 0, guests: 56)
Back
Top