Monday, January 18, 2010

Not wanting to jinx things, but...

I tend to be a tad superstitious, but I'm willing to go on record predicting that Brown will not only win tomorrow, but I think he's going to win beyond the ACORN/SEIU margin of error.

Here is Charles Franklin's at Pollster.com analysis that concludes,
But no matter how you slice the data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Scott Brown has moved from well behind to a lead somewhere between 4 and 11 points.
Whether you want to look only at Democratic-leaning polling outfits or non-partisan outfits, things look good.

Even the White House sources are leaking that they think their candidate is going to lose.

And check out this result from Suffolk University (not a partisan outfit) where they polled three counties in Massachusetts that are supposed to be bellwethers in that their margins paralleled the margin across the state in 2006.
Brown (55%) leads Coakley (40%) by 15 points in Gardner. Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy polls 2%, while 3% are undecided.

In Fitchburg, Brown (55%) has a 14-point lead over Coakley (41%), with 2% for Kennedy and 2% undecided.

Peabody voters give Brown (57%), a 17-point lead over Coakley (40%), with Kennedy polling 1% and 3% undecided.

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk's bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.
Stuart Rothenberg, that bellwether of conventional wisdom is predicting "a comfortable win" for Scott Brown.

All that work, all that negotiating, all those corrupt deals, and the American people just don't seem to like what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama came up with for their agenda. Who would have thought, a year out from Obama's glorious ascension to the presidency when the skies opened and angels sang a year ago as he took the oath, that we would be witnessing such a repudiation of his personal appeals to the voters of Bluesachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy? It's just amazing!

11 comments:

equitus said...

We're counting chickens, Betsy.

The Mass Dems will NOT go quietly into the night on this, and they have a lot of ways to disenfranchise Brown.

It could get very very ugly. I hope not.

Bachbone said...

Here's hoping and praying you're correct, Betsy, but even if it happens, I'm willing to bet that won't be enough of a shock to jolt sense into leftist craniums that view anyone voting against them as truck driving, uneducated rednecks in a temporary snit who will come around to the 'correct way' of thinking and voting by 2010 or 2012. And let's face it, the GOP still has given precious little evidence that it gets it, either. Romney can't explain why the disastrous Massachusetts health care he supported (and Obamacare would essentially replicate except on steroids) was a good thing except to say, "It was better than what Democrats would have forced through."

Pat Patterson said...

As to the rhetorical question of last year's predictions I think more than one or two commenters here did claim that Obama would ape Jimmy Carter and his policies if not his personality would be a memory by now.

mark said...

If Brown wins, it will be interesting to see what the dems have up their sleeve for health reform, and if they can get away with it.
I look forward to the feigned outrage and whining from repubs, as if repubs would have taken the high road in that situation. Case in point: buying votes as was done with Ben Nelson was sleazy, but do repubs really think it was the first time? Do you really believe only dems do that. Maybe in the future, you folks will practice what you preach, and call out the sleaze and corruption within your own party. Maybe you'll earn back some credibility and politicians like Scott Brown won't have to hide the fact that he's a republican.

Karl said...

As long as we're counting chickens, this morning, intrade.com had Brown at 65% probability of winning. Right now, it's around 70%.

tfhr said...

mark,

The "repubs", as you put it, would not be in that position because up to this point they've not tried to nationalize a fifth of the economy in order to lay claim to helping 15 million people. Further, they've not tried to do so by offering bribes, ala Reid and Pelosi.

Why is it that you continually come back to the contest of parties rather than doing what is right for the country as a whole? You said, "Maybe in the future, you folks will practice what you preach, and call out the sleaze and corruption within your own party." I would hope so but why not stand up for some real house ( and senate) cleaning in the form of TERM LIMITS? There is a culture of corruption that runs rampant amongst career politicians. We know there are plenty of exceptions, but why we must continue to tolerate entrenched, corrupt power brokers passing themselves off as "public servants" is beyond me.

I have an idea that it comes down to "tolerance". Ever thought of that as a dirty word before? Maybe you should. How can Massachusetts tolerate John Kerry? Why should Arizona want to send John McCain back to DC again? I purposely chose two well known national figures that, for the most part, have survived challenges of corruption laid at their feet. I suppose they are retained time and again because life is, for the most part, tolerable for most people. But most people probably don't follow what these two do or don't do over the course of a year. Many don't vote at all, even if they are aware of what their government is doing.

There was a time in this country when exceptional people left their homes and jobs and served in the national legislature. They carried out their responsibilities and then returned home to resume their lives and live with the legislation they crafted.

Today we have a political class that lives above our means, its legislation, and above all, the notion that they are in DC to serve us. Today we need a means to put an end to "Senator so and so's seat". We need TERM LIMITS.

equitus said...

Yes, both sides have their corruption.

But it seems to me, mark, that when the corruption of a (R) legislator is exposed, he's more often than not run out of office - sometimes at the behest of the party. I NEVER see any such reaction among (D)s to the same situation. Can you point out some examples?

mark said...

Actually, tfhr, I'm for term limits.
As far as being lectured from you on partisanship, I think I'll pass. I'm unaffiliated because, as I've stated before, dems are as corrupt as repubs. Just as I didn't vote for Clinton in '96, I won't vote for Obama in '12 if he can't get his act together.
You, however, have a history of supporting some of the most disgraceful acts by Bush. You've even stabbed your fellow soldiers in the back to support Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a handful of corporations. You're as much a partisan hack as anyone here.

tfhr said...

mark,

Good for you for supporting TERM LIMITS and I'm glad to hear that you are "unaffiliated". So am I, according to my voter registration here in Maryland. May I ask why you choose to remain "unaffiliated"? As for myself, I firmly believe that promoting the rights of the individual serve the country far better than placing allegiance to a party first. There may have been a time when party identification was a noble thing but I don't think I can remember that far back.

As for the rest of your screed, you're always the drama queen.

So you think I "stabbed [my] fellow soldiers in the back...."? I remember helping hunt down some al-Qaeda terrorists in Al Anbar in February 2008 - 13 KIA in one night. It was actually my first night on the job. I can remember that but I don't recall that part where I knifed any Americans. Can you help me there? I mean, after you've recovered from your blinding case of BDS, of course.

mark said...

Too easy, tfhr. You've continuoulsy defended the despicable acts of Halliburton/KBR. Profits ahead of safety - I call it back-stabbing the troops/You've called it "spitting on the troops". As for your heroics; sorry, but I've caught you lying too many times to assume you're telling the truth this time.

The KBR scandals just don't stop.

One year after the company was implicated in the rape of KBR employee employee Jamie Leigh Jones , it's been hit with a new lawsuit from another former employee. This one accuses KBR, among other things, of serving US soldiers with ice that still had traces of body fluids and putrefied remains. The lawsuit from Joshua Eller, who worked as a civilian computer-aided drafting technician with the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing, accuses KBR and its former parent Halliburton of exposing people to unsafe water, food and hazardous fumes from a burn pit. More on this from Army Times.

This stuff is stomach churning. "Eller filed his claim after he deployed in February 2006 for 10 months. The lawsuit claims he developed skin lesions that subsequently spread, filled with fluid and burst. He said they went away, then reappeared, followed by blisters on his feet that made it painful for him to walk. He said they healed, but continue to return every three to four months.

"Then, Eller said he experienced vomiting, cramping and diarrhea, and continues to suffer severe abdominal pain.

'Plaintiff witnessed the open air burn pit in operation at Balad Air Force Base,' the lawsuit states. 'On one occasion, he witnessed a wild dog running around base with a human arm in its mouth. The human arm had been dumped on the open air burn pit by KBR.'

"Eller also accused KBR of serving spoiled, expired and rotten food to the troops, as well as dishes that may have been contaminated with shrapnel.

" ' Defendants knowingly and intentionally supplied and served food that was well past its expiration date, in some cases over a year past its expiration date,' the lawsuit states. 'Even when it was called to the attention of the KBR food service managers that the food was expired, KBR still served the food to U.S. forces.'

"The food included chicken, beef, fish, eggs and dairy products, which caused cases of salmonella poisoning, according to the lawsuit."

Add to that the allegations that the company has been using slave labor in Iraq, confining 1000 Asian workers in windowless warehouses.

tfhr said...

mark,

I did a tour in Iraq and you didn't. You have not seen the support contractors provided for us day in and day out but I did. I used the same services that you claim are so poor or hazardous.

I'm not claiming any heroics, as you say, mark. I was part of a successful team that depended heavily on contractor support. I'm just saying that I've been there and you haven't. That's the undeniable truth.

You have your politics and I have mine but I've lived by what I say. You, on the other hand, are left only to parrot the claims of others but for whatever fault you can find with contractors, they are still there working for troops today. Is Obama a bad guy for that?