If a republican wins the seat of former senator Teddy Kennedy, will it signal the end of the dems power??? Will the signal be sent that America is fed up with the dems in general?? How will if affect the 2010 elections??

I know there will be a lot of Democratic heads explode in DC.

A lot can still happen before November.

If Brown would win, collective puddles of pee would form at the feet of many democrat congressmen up for re-election.

Healthcare/Cap & Trade would be finished prior to November.

I actually hope Brown does win just to see the aftermath. I can see it starting a wave that may continue to the fall leading to huge losses in November. I look at the political landscape and am actually rooting for the R's to gain more power so to reign in the crazy domestic D's.

It will signal business as usual. Politicians are only interested in getting re-elected. There will be no real change.

If Brown would win Tuesday, it will be worth it just to watch all the spin. In fact in some respects its already starting. I read some democrat talking heads already laying the ground work. She ran a bad campaign, she made a bunch of verbal gaffs, and the point out that Obama still has 55% approval in Mass.

Here's another question. Does Obama go in over the weekend to campaign for her???

Here's another question. Does Obama go in over the weekend to campaign for her???

He is going to. He has nothing to lose by doing so quite frankly. If he can help move the needle at all, then he will have averted disaster for his Presidency at least until November.

If she loses, whether he campaigned or not the fallout will be equally bad either way, as it will be a direct rebuke of his Presidency and the Democrat Congress.

The political consequences are no worse for him if she loses whether he stays or goes. So he is going to go, because at least there is some potential upside for him where as sitting in the White House does nothing to even try and help improve the situation.

He already went to Mass. today. Did anyone think he wouldn't?

BIGGEST ELECTION UPSET IN 100 YEARS


And I say that without any sort of bias here, just stating a fact. Ted Kennedy will role in his grave.

I think the question should be what is the over/under on the amount of recounts if the Dem loses? I'll say 4.

Brown will need at least a 5,000 vote cushion to pull out the win.

For what its worth....


I think the Democrat will win pretty handedly.


ITS MASSACHESETTS!!!

A Republican victory in Massachusetts? I don't think that will happen. Ted Kennedy's seat? I think there are some folks dreaming. I think that rumors of the Democrats' death are greatly exaggerated. I've always believed that the chickens can't be counted until they are officially in the coop. At present they are far from being there. There are also 10 months until the mid-term elections and add two years to that before the next Presidential Election. Things can change drastically between now and then. Wishing won't make it so. Votes will...and while we're on the topic, do you think the Democrats would refuse to demand a recount if their candidate lost by a very narrow margin? I wouldn't either. How about a Republican in the same situation? Of course not! So what have we proven...that Democrats demand re-counts and Republicans don't? Give me a break.

^^^Perhaps but if Brown does pull off a win by claiming "Kennedy's seat" in a highly liberal state that would have to send shockwaves throughout the Democratic Party and Capitol Hill.

Even if this race is tight and Coakley pulls out a narrow victory it will still pay similar political dividends.

Regardless of how you look at this the Dems have a real issue on their hands.

Swamp Fox wrote: A Republican victory in Massachusetts? I don't think that will happen. Ted Kennedy's seat? I think there are some folks dreaming. I think that rumors of the Democrats' death is greatly exaggerated. I've always believed that the chickens can't be counted until they are officially in the coop. At present they are far from being there. There is also 10 months until the mid-term elections and add two years to that before the next Presidential Election. Things can change drastically between now and then. Wishing won't make it so. Votes will...and while we're on the topic, do you think the Democrats would refuse to demand a recount if their candidate lost by a very narrow margin? I wouldn't either. How about a Republican in the same situation? Of course not! So what have we proven...that Democrats demand re-counts and Republicans don't? Give me a break.

Name the last time a Pub asked for more than one recount...i.e. counting the votes until he finally "wins." I'll wait.

Name the last time a Pub asked for more than one recount...i.e. counting the votes until he finally "wins." I'll wait.

Norm Coleman.

IggyPride00 wrote:

Name the last time a Pub asked for more than one recount...i.e. counting the votes until he finally "wins." I'll wait.

Norm Coleman.

That was just to even up the total count, since Al had all those ballots counted twice the first time.

Bottom line is that unless Brown wins by 5-10,000 votes, he's ratfucked.

If Brown wins we get more Republican worthlessness rather than Democratic worthlessness The US loses either way.

Bigdogg wrote: It will signal business as usual. Politicians are only interested in getting re-elected. There will be no real change.

That right there is the answer to the question.

Gardens35 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: It will signal business as usual. Politicians are only interested in getting re-elected. There will be no real change.

That right there is the answer to the question.

At least the Repubs could do something about this worthless Health Care bill if the Dems didn't have 60 votes.

tk421 wrote:

Gardens35 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: It will signal business as usual. Politicians are only interested in getting re-elected. There will be no real change.

That right there is the answer to the question.

At least the Repubs could do something about this worthless Health Care bill if the Dems didn't have 60 votes.

I'm with you.

tk421 wrote:

Gardens35 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: It will signal business as usual. Politicians are only interested in getting re-elected. There will be no real change.

That right there is the answer to the question.

At least the Repubs could do something about this worthless Health Care bill if the Dems didn't have 60 votes.

It won't affect Health Care in the slightest regardless of the outcome. The Dems have made it crystal clear they have zero intention of seating Brown until after the final vote.

That this contest is even polling as closely as it is should be telling Obama that the public doesn't like his domestic agenda and to cool his heels.

Of course, he's too arrogant to care what the people think, and his ego is too big to actually think twice before screwing over the country even more than he's already done.

I can only hope the voters have longer memories than the typical American attention span so that there is hell to be paid in the voting booth over the next several years.

fish82 wrote: It won't affect Health Care in the slightest regardless of the outcome. The Dems have made it crystal clear they have zero intention of seating Brown until after the final vote.

I heard that Lieberman and some other Dems will refuse to vote on a hurried bill until the winner is seated.