I think the chance for the GOP candidate to win is roughly zero. The only reason it’s up in the air is the teabaggy mess from the last summers has certain pollsters producing crazy turnout predictions. If turnout is going to be so wingnut, how the hell did that upstate NY wingnut lose?
wahoo
1662
B/c the Republican was still on the ballot in upstate NY? Not sure that’s a great example b/c R’s and teabaggers were pretty split there.
But I think Coakley cruises. Remember, losers always talk up their chances and winners talk them down. b/c everyone wants more fundraising $$$$.
Hrm, good point. Still though.
JeffL
1664
Been talking to folks in Boston, and reading the Mass. papers, and I wouldn’t be so quick to attribute this to “wingnuts.” She’s really turning off a lot of independents and some Dems with her entitled air about her. I think it’s amazing that this isn’t the standard overwhelming Dem slam dunk, and I still think Mass is SOOO Democratic that she’ll win. But he’s making some good points and she’s acted like an arrogant ass a few times.
Are you talking about Doug Hoffman? He was a third-party candidate, an accountant, has the charisma of a wet paper towel (as he himself admitted), and when the Republican candidate pulled out, she endorsed the Democrat! And with all that against him, he still only lost with 46% of the vote, versus 48% for his opponent. Say what you want (after all, he still lost), but that’s a pretty strong wingnut turnout.
If you combine Hoffman and Scozzzfava you get a 51.7% non-Democratic result for the district. The cook PVI for the district is +1; so I guess the GOP exceeded expectations for the district by a whopping 1%. Clearly, this is the sort of massive turnout that would imply the MA senate seat (the state is +12) is at risk! Also note that having your party split so badly over the nominee that the GOP candidate drops out and actually endorses the Democrat implies some pretty bad things for winning; party disarray is almost universally associated with losing.
Given the two candidates - generic Democrat vs. generic Republican - you’d need a completely enormous turnout shift for the Democrat to actually lose, even given that it’s a strange special election.
This, in a dsitrict where the GOP candidate in a normal election gets in the range of 60-70% of the vote.
Alls I know is this Scott Brown boasts about driving a huge truck, like that’ll make him seem to be an everyman. No, you’re an every-douche, why do we need another giant gas guzzling vehicle on the road to cart your ass to and from the statehouse?
This guy is a colossal dick. Here’s his stance on the issues: http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
It’s like he cut and paste directly from GOP.com. “I will lower taxes and bring common sense back to Washington!”
Really? How?
I’m sure the other one is a dick too but I haven’t seen her ads that make me hate her.
EDIT: I bet Ronald Reagan is his favorite founding father.
Pogo
1670
Gee, I wonder why that is, Scott.
And how much does the third-party candidate normally get? 5%? 4%? Yet Doug Hoffman got 46%.
You know what else implies some pretty bad things for winning? Having a candidate who is 95% the same as her opponent, policy-wise. Even Kos was rooting for her! It’s not a victory if your candidate is indistinguishable from your opponent.
wahoo
1673
Back to health care…
I’ve heard the plan has guaranteed issue with no waiting period or pre-existing conditions. If that is true, why should anyone buy insurance unless the value of insurance + your subsidy is roughly equal to the mandate penalty.
You buy insurance to protect against risk for things going wrong. But if you have guaranteed issue why wouldn’t you wait till you’re sick and then buy insurance for the coverage? Is there a penalty for not buying HI except for the mandate? Many states for example allow insurers not to cover some illnesses that you had before buying insurance. So people still want to ensure themselves against the risk of cancer for example.
I know the work by Herring and Paul (NBER Aug, 2006) found that guaranteed issue resulted in a higher uninsured rating among low-risk (ie healthy) individuals. If the mandate isn’t set right, won’t a lot of younger males not buy insurance unless it’s heavily subsidized?
Which means that 15-25% of people who would rather not vote Democrat will, if the other option is hard right/endorsed by Fox/endorsed by Sarah Palin.
No, it means that 40% of the population who wouldn’t normally vote for a third-party candidate will, if it’s someone who shares their conservative values.
jeffd
1676
More polls out of Massachusetts are showing that the race is tied. Bummer!
I see that as a great thing, hopefully Brown will pull the election out, I dont have great faith in that happening, but it will be great if it happens.
Word is that union members will be exempt for five years beyond non-union members when it comes to paying taxes on Cadillac plans. What a load of crock. Not only that but dental and vision won’t be incorporated into the value of the plan for union members beyond that point. A total load of crap. Any representative, Democrat or Republican, that votes for this bill if this is included loses my vote. I’m with Dean, this abomination should have been used as a lesson and the process started over again.
I hate to break this to you, BigWeather, but my guess is that most people who have such “Cadillac” plans are union members anyway. Also, such a compromise sort of solves the problem of the fact that a lot of these generous plans were won in collective bargaining in lieu of higher cash wages.
Though the number of affected may be small (however I’m pretty certain my plan at work would be considered a Cadillac plan and I’m non-union – I’m trying to get the numbers through my manager) it is still a repugnant deal for them to strike. Saying that it’s OK because most are union members anyway is the same as saying the Nebraska deal is OK because “hey, they don’t have many people there that we’ll end up subsidizing anyhow.” Its wrong and sometimes the ends just don’t justify the means, not even for an end as important as healthcare reform.
