Senate Special Election - Massachusetts
146 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
NAME VOTES Pct.
Scott Brown (R) 71,914 51%
Martha Coakley (D) 67,506 48%
Joseph Kennedy (I) 1,243 1%


posted 8:27

I love the early results. Lets hope the dead votes don't overtake the lead.

Brown seems to be holding a 5% lead pretty consistent, but Boston is not yet reported! Drudge.com has the MA breakdown by county.

If Brown wins - I hope it is while Rachael Maddow is on - I'd love to hear her rationalization - she'll probably blame the Coakley loss on GW!

Coakley concedes. Brown won!

Maybe Congress will finally get the message about what many have been trying to get through their heads. It's gonna get really interesting.

This, hopefully, is just the beginning of the reaction to Washington's arrogance toward us the people. Heads will roll....guaranteed!

November... we're coming for the rest of them too.

Originally Posted by dklassen

November... we're coming for the rest of them too.

YAHOO. Scott Brown the BIG winner. Onward, lots more libs to get rid of between now and November. Americans are united. We believe in the Constitution and what it says and stands for.

The change we have gotten over the past year is NOT the change I voted for.

has been handed the opportunity to take this nation back its core values. This can easily be lost if we allow people such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson to define us. We need to realize that we will not agree on 100% of the issues and no single issue can been used as a 'litmus test.'

We need leaders like Bobby Jindahl, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown. To be effective, we need Reagan's 'big tent.' The United States is a center-right country. We are rejecting the neo-marxism of the present leaders just as we rejected the neocons before them.

As we are proving in Haiti, the American people are incredibly generous and compassionate. Only if we show the same compassion and respect to each other can we effectively pull together.

Scott Brown's acceptance speech set a wonderful tone for going forward. His campaign was clean and positive. Let's learn from our winners and not go back into the mud just because those are the tactics used by far too many in the present leadership of the current party in power. Look where it's gotten them.

This could be just what the Democrats need without knowing it.

Brown isn't new. He's a state senator. This is a promotion for him.

Once the lightning-rod known as health-care reform has it's fate decided, there are a lot of other things on the table where I think Brown will be extremely vulnerable. This is especially true in financial matters. Even on health-care reform, he was opposed to outlawing "anti pre-existing condition" legislation.

In his ads, he quite correctly talked about small business being an engine. If he doesn't watch out, he could get tagged with the Big Business Bush/Cheney TaxBreakForTheRich tag and that may be the death of him.

He cannot appear to be to overconfident - though, being in the minority party should help him maintain his 'underdog' image.

Originally Posted by djplong

This could be just what the Democrats need without knowing it.

Once the lightning-rod known as health-care reform has it's fate decided, there are a lot of other things on the table where I think Brown will be extremely vulnerable. This is especially true in financial matters. Even on health-care reform, he was opposed to outlawing "anti pre-existing condition" legislation.

In his ads, he quite correctly talked about small business being an engine. If he doesn't watch out, he could get tagged with the Big Business Bush/Cheney TaxBreakForTheRich tag and that may be the death of him.

Could that be sour grapes and wishful thinking on your part? What would you have posted if Coakley had won? ......hmmmm.

being used on Brown to analyze Brown.

Why should he worry about being careful? Does anybody see any other elected official in Washington being careful about anything the don't do well....or have experience.....which is considerable.

Of all the Washington representatives currently in elected office, he is the least to fear. He has not yet been exposed to the corrupt methods of "negotiating" in Washington. Therefore, in my eyes at least, he stands head and shoulders above any of them.

Does anybody see any of the other elected representatives covering their weaknesses? Not by their actions they don't!!!!!!! Hence a flushing is due and has been under taken beginning last night.

Let's hope and pray the results inspire even more of the silent majority to rise up and be counted.

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

referring to an earlier post, i would not put rush limbaugh in the same category with pat robertson...i think he is usually right on in most issues and does not blame anything on the devil....just on the liberals!

"In his ads, he quite correctly talked about small business being an engine. If he doesn't watch out, he could get tagged with the Big Business Bush/Cheney TaxBreakForTheRich tag and that may be the death of him."

"Business", big or small, is what drives the American way. Business creates jobs, not government give away programs. Bill Gates built a giant of job creation, a welfare recipient (or SSI ripoff) creates a larger government anchor on business and individual taxpayers.

What would I have written if Coakley had one? Massachusetts politics as usual. Coakley should be in jail. She has no business being anywhere near a position of power. She's far more interested in image over justice.

I was simply postulating on ways the Democrats could benefit from Brown's victory.

There was so much negative campaigning on both sides that you couldn't really tell WHAT EITHER candidate was actually FOR. About all you got on the 'positive' side was:

Coakley: I'll continue Ted Kennedy's legacy.

Brown: I won't be part of the Democratic machine (and I drive a truck, and I know who Curt Schilling is and I know how to spell "Massachusetts").

There are SO many really odd ironies in this race.

For example, I disagree with what appears to be Brown's stance on what degree of rights *accused* terrorists have (convicted ones are another matter). I may have misinterpereted his statements, but it appears as though he wants to throw out the entire Constitution if you are *accused* of being a terrorist. (And of course, the government would NEVER get it WRONG, now would they? Ask the sad-sack of a guy who was accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombing). On the other hand, you have Coakley who not only refuses to go along with parole recommendations when it's discovered that someone was improperly convicted, but CAMPAIGNS AGAINST LETTING JUSTICE PREVAIL.

So who do you vote for from that point of view?

Coakley talks about continuing the push for 'Obamacare', while Brown is against it (fair enough) but doesn't talk about what he WOULD do to fight even SOME of the problems in the health care system. That's where the whole "Party of NO" slogan gets it's start.

Some worry that Coakley would have meant socializing banks and other industries, while Brown think they should be left to run free - and next time we might not be able to bail them out, IMO.

Not a pleasant view.