‘Absolutely’ Wrong To Call Coakley-Brown Race A Statistical Tie

MA election is interesting to us in the South. You know we are clueless about the real world and politics…but understand this…we love our country and hate what the Dems have done to it. Look at the economy, car industry, banking, the national debt. Im sure you can make a great case for keeping the senate seat in Dem hands. Health care is hanging in the balance and so is your party. Just wait until the 2010 elections. On your side will be crying and nashing of teeth.

Ah Tom, if Brown were elected how would he be the voice of another state? (SC or TX).I’m sorry but when you are elected by a majority of the voters of MA that makes you their voice plain and simple.Obviously not your voice but clearly that of the majority.Sorry.

Thank you, WBUR, for correcting the record on this. You have restored my trust in your good name. Now I don’t have to ask for my pledge back!

Paul, under the last two two-term republican presidents, deficit spending grew at a greater rate in % and absolute dollars than under any democrat not named FDR.

The idea that Rs are fiscally conservative is, unfortunatly, just not true.

Under a republican Senate, you will see cuts in support for science and stem cell research, hurting our biotech & academic community, increase in weapons made in places like mississippi (thank you, sen cochran) killing raytheon & the shipyards, and a limit on progams like H1-B1. All of these would devastate the MA economy.
Don’t pretend one party spends less than another; worry about what they spend it on.

I think everyone is for less pollution and affordable energy. The trick is how can it be done? Just saying no to oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy gets the country no where. Those resources are enormous in this country but we would rather ignore it and buy oil from Mexico, Canada and the Middle East. Do you actually think the wind and sun can provide this country with all its energy needs? If so, that would be great.

You might want to look up the off-shore drilling bill from this past summer proposed by democrat Byron Dorgan and accepted by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by democrat Jeff Bingaman to allow leasing as close as 45 miles off Florida’s gulf shores and much closer in a gas-rich area called Destin Dome.

As for banks and insurance companies, the top two AIG recipients for 2008 campaign contributions were Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, whom both received over $100,000. In fact, – there’s that word again – eight of the top ten Congress recipients from AIG were democrats. Some of the political money was even given after they received the bailout that the democrat congress gave authorization to the Fed and Treasury.

Wow! I guess I am naive about the MA voter mindset. I do not have anything against Mr Brown, per se. However, with the very extreme right calling the shots for the Republican Party, would a moderate Republican from MA even have a voice? Just leave the seat vacant if you are going to elect moderate Republican. Of course maybe the majority of MA voters don’t want a moderate at all. Maybe a conservative senator is what we need, right? Be careful what you wish for…….

The bottom line on Brown is this: the center of the national GOP is somewhere between Texas and South Carolina. Voting for Brown is tantamount for voting for another voice for those states. He will be toeing the line for THAT agenda, not an agenda that will benefit Massachusetts and not an agenda that is consistent with the values of New England. If you are in favor of a Southern agenda, roughly that of what we got from George W. Bush, then by all means vote for Brown.

Paul, we can see very easily what happens when the GOP has the majority in Washington. We got the Great Recession that started in 2007, we got torture, we got warrantless wiretaps, we got Iraq, we got corruption (Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff), higher unemployment, the largest national debt in history, a stock market crash, the bank bailouts (TARP), the auto bailouts. Please, look at the facts.

I agree with the comment of “Big T.” A vote for Brown is a vote for the national agenda of the GOP. This national agenda favors the red states like Texas, South Carolina and Utah. Don’t fall into that trap. Do what’s best for Massachusetts and vote for Coakley, the candidate who will have more clout for Massachusetts in these very difficult times.

Polls are wrong most of the time. I would expect Coakly to lead in the P.R.O.M state.I look out my door and Russia. Coakly cheated on taxes, humm that sounds familiar. If you want a good lair vote for Coakly.A DINO and RINO running. Vote for Mafia or Military?

How would Scott Brown serve as representative for Mass, when Mass is overwhelmingly Democratic, or moderate Republican. The US Senator has zero to doing with running the State and thus electing a Repbulican Senator will not change anything, other than the fact our state leadershipe will have more problems getting federal funds, but is very important representing Mass interests and views at the National Level. So electing a very right wing Republican would mean that the Citizens of Mass will not have their views represented at the National Level.

I am reading the comments by other people and would like to point out something I have learned over a period of years through observation.

SPEAKING: how to tell a liberal. Liberals interrupt more often, speak faster, and speak more loudly.

WRITING: I have repeated noticed that liberals throw personal vulgar epithets at their opponents. Sort of childish isn’t it?

I could hardly believe what I was reading when I read angie’s comments. Tripe, worn-out, overworked phrases.
She is so out of touch with the majority of Americans, it is sad.

It would be nice to see some change in the political leadership of Massachusetts. The country wanted change with the Presidential election after only 8yrs of one party. When was the last non-Democrat senator from Massachusetts? It’s time to give some change in this state.

I find it hard to believe anyone could support Coakley. She kept an innocent man in jail to show she is tough on crime and then didn’t prosecute another hard enough after he raped a 23 month old with a curling iron because he was in a union supporting her (see Globe article from yesterday). How could anyone vote for this highly unethical person? Vote for Brown!

Brown is a corporate panderer, not to mention a right-wing extremist and a bigot. He will absolutely not be a supporter of the middle class and the issues important to middle class working people. Unions have endorsed Coakley for good reasons; they know Brown is and will continue to be in high level corporate pockets.

Brown has essentially no experience at doing anything. He ran a one issue campaign to get his current seat, playing on unjustified fears regarding same-sex marriage in true bigot fashion. He is slick and devious, and like the other guy with “good hair” (remember him?), will say anything to get elected.

Massachusetts deserves to be represented by a real progressive, someone with the courage to stand up against corporate greed, fight for the middle class, work towards equal rights for all Americans, and truly honor the memory of a man who dedicated his life to those principles.

The democrats are looking quite petty over this. Stop embarrassing yourselves!

Citizens of Massachusetts, who cares about the polls and splitting hairs on who is winning! Vote for Scott Brown and give the Senate the filibuster it needs to stop the destruction of healthcare. These morons that believe it is “universal” and “you can keep your current plan”, forget to tell you they will tax it at 40%. What a bargain, we cover 3 million additional Americans and tax everyone else into the stone age. Do not put the political hack Martha Coakley in the Senate. Send a message. Vote Scott!

I am not even a person that think scott brown is all bad I just do not trust him.

If you care about healthcare reform and taking action on climate change vote for martha coakley.

Also, it may have helped for someone at WBUR to have read at least some of fivethirtyeight.com’s analyses on Rasmussen’s surveys, e.g. Is Rasmussen Reports Biased? and Putting the [R] in [R]asmussen?, not to mention Politico’s “Low favorables: Democrats rip Rasmussen”.

While I’m perfectly willing to accept that Rasmussen’s average rightward skew is the result of statistical sloppiness rather than actual human political bias, it’s still a real, measurable effect, and if anything makes it even less likely that the Coakley-Brown race would be “tied” if there’s a 9-point spread with a 4.5-point margin of error.

Rasmussen puts the likelihood of that being a tie at “less-than-5 percent chance”. My hunch is that Nate Silver would put at a 5% chance that it’s really a 5% chance.

Glad to see this — I heard that this morning and thought, “That can’t be right.”