Brown def Coakley in Mass

[lostfan]

That's pretty typical of MA Republicans

[mr_genius]

538 did an analysis on his positions and ranked him in the Senate. He is the most liberal Republican out there, just slightly more liberal than Olympia Snowe. (and he should be, due to the state he represents) He's just right of Ben Nelson (D) of NE.

 

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=thG...GXyWA&gid=1

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/sco...beral-than.html

 

I was reading 538 yesterday, he was predicting a Coakley win haha

 

but i agree, Brown is not going to be a lock step GOP conservative.

Edited January 22, 2010 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

I was reading 538 yesterday, he was predicting a Coakley win haha

 

but i agree, Brown is not going to be a lock step GOP conservative.

Huh? Silver predicted 3:1 odds for Brown the day before/day of

[bmags]

I was reading 538 yesterday, he was predicting a Coakley win haha

 

but i agree, Brown is not going to be a lock step GOP conservative.

 

dude, i read 538 for the past 8 weeks, silver was NEVER, EVER confident about any of the polls or what was happening in MA. Special elections are impossible to poll for. He also "predicted" NY23 going republican. Neither of them, however, did he express even weak confidence.

[lostfan]

Yeah 538 posts trends and odds, he doesn't actually "call" anything except for during the general election where he predicted the electoral vote.

[mr_genius]

Huh? Silver predicted 3:1 odds for Brown the day before/day of

 

the last thing I saw yesterday, as the polls closed, he had coakley with the slight edge. he deleted the post from what i can tell. poor guy.

[mr_genius]

Yeah 538 posts trends and odds, he doesn't actually "call" anything except for during the general election where he predicted the electoral vote.

 

applied statistics are use to predict political races. as i already stated.

 

i didn't say he 'called' the race. totally different.

Edited January 22, 2010 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

applied statistics are use to predict political races. as i already stated.

The commentary there is obviously really biased, but it's otherwise pretty accurate.

[bmags]

So we are claiming the dude in charge of the web site that predicted the general election with shocking accuracy is just a biased pollster?

[mr_genius]

The commentary there is obviously really biased, but it's otherwise pretty accurate.

 

it's a good website. a lot of great info.

Edited January 22, 2010 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

The problem with calling this race was that there just wasn't enough reliable/updated polling data to use and everything swung so suddenly.

[mr_genius]

So we are claiming the dude in charge of the web site that predicted the general election with shocking accuracy is just a biased pollster?

 

na, you are just being too sensitive

Edited January 22, 2010 by mr_genius

[bmags]

YOU KNOW HE'S MY FATHER

[southsider2k5]

Or perhaps young people are generally ignorant morons who get the government they deserve.

 

I can't argue with that logic.

[lostfan]

We could force people to vote, but if they can't even be bothered to vote on their own, could you imagine who they'd elect if you made them? Ugh.

 

Although in a lot of cases it's not like you can really be that much worse. Hell, James Inhofe seems to be comfortable in his seat.

[bmags]

We could force people to vote, but if they can't even be bothered to vote on their own, could you imagine who they'd elect if you made them? Ugh.

 

Although in a lot of cases it's not like you can really be that much worse. Hell, James Inhofe seems to be comfortable in his seat.

 

This is truly terribl idea, it is the law in brazil and i find it disgusting. They just make lip service to the poorest, and since they are forced to vote, they vote for those making lip service even though ALLknow they are lying and then but so what, they have to vote.

[EvilMonkey]

We could force people to vote, but if they can't even be bothered to vote on their own, could you imagine who they'd elect if you made them? Ugh.

 

Although in a lot of cases it's not like you can really be that much worse. Hell, James Inhofe seems to be comfortable in his seat.

No. HELL no. I would rather people kept their asses at home if they don't care enough to vote, and especially if they don't care enough to at least know SOMETHING about the candidates and/or issues before they go.

[Y2HH]

No. HELL no. I would rather people kept their asses at home if they don't care enough to vote, and especially if they don't care enough to at least know SOMETHING about the candidates and/or issues before they go.

 

That's my problem with voting as it stands in this country right now. People voting without knowing their candidates platform/stance, etc...I can't stand party voting, whether that be democratic or republican. Vote the candidates, not the parties, or stop voting.

[jasonxctf]

interesting.........

 

Data points provided independently to the Huffington Post show that union voters in Massachusetts were 15 percentage points more likely to vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley if they simply had been asked. The problem was, unions weren't really operating on the ground until the final days.

 

Coakley ultimately lost the labor vote to Scott Brown by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the AFL-CIO's data. More surprising, however, was the explanation as to why union members voted the way they did. According to the data:

 

"Coakley won union voters who had heard from their union by 10 points, while losing those who said they had not heard from their union by 5 points."

 

Had unions been able to reach more people, and moved the vote breakdown to 60 percent for Coakley, 40 percent for Brown, "Coakley would have won the race by 2 points," the study concludes. (Union households usually vote 65-35 in favor of the endorsed candidate, the survey also notes.)

[Balta1701]

Kinda sad that our health care system will continue killing tens of thousands because the Mass. Dems were lazy.

[southsider2k5]

interesting.........

 

Data points provided independently to the Huffington Post show that union voters in Massachusetts were 15 percentage points more likely to vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley if they simply had been asked. The problem was, unions weren't really operating on the ground until the final days.

 

Coakley ultimately lost the labor vote to Scott Brown by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the AFL-CIO's data. More surprising, however, was the explanation as to why union members voted the way they did. According to the data:

 

"Coakley won union voters who had heard from their union by 10 points, while losing those who said they had not heard from their union by 5 points."

 

Had unions been able to reach more people, and moved the vote breakdown to 60 percent for Coakley, 40 percent for Brown, "Coakley would have won the race by 2 points," the study concludes. (Union households usually vote 65-35 in favor of the endorsed candidate, the survey also notes.)

 

So the Dems lost because the unions weren't working hard enough to influence the election? Hmm, they ought to be applauding the supreme court in that case.

[Rex Kickass]

So the Dems lost because the unions weren't working hard enough to influence the election? Hmm, they ought to be applauding the supreme court in that case.

 

Labor doesn't need more money to influence an election. It needs to inform its members. But organized labor won't take those steps unless they're asked to by the campaign they support. There is manpower cost and there are some organizational cost involved.

 

This election was close enough that you have to wonder if Coakley campaigned instead of vacationed between Christmas and New Years if that would have been enough to shift the election those 5 points. Brown campaigned from day one. Coakley campaigned from January 6.

 

Based on all the data that is coming out now, it seems like what holds true about this election more than anything is that your base will vote for you, but you have to show them the respect of asking for their vote.

[Y2HH]

Kinda sad that our health care system will continue killing tens of thousands because the Mass. Dems were lazy.

 

Because in magical liberal land everyone would have ceased dying had this monstrosity been passed, because everything would have been fixed overnight and working perfectly!

 

I'm glad this is dead.

[Balta1701]

Because in magical liberal land everyone would have ceased dying had this monstrosity been passed, because everything would have been fixed overnight and working perfectly!

 

I'm glad this is dead.

I wonder, tactically, if anyone on the Left has thought about doing the real hard hit here...dropping everything else and proposing a ban on having insurance companies discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, it's a bomb that would completely destroy the private health care system, and they could do it while looking all bi-partisan and saying "look, see, we pared the bill back to something the Republicans said they could support".

[Y2HH]

I wonder, tactically, if anyone on the Left has thought about doing the real hard hit here...dropping everything else and proposing a ban on having insurance companies discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, it's a bomb that would completely destroy the private health care system, and they could do it while looking all bi-partisan and saying "look, see, we pared the bill back to something the Republicans said they could support".

 

How about the government create a simple "pre existing medicare plan" for those who have such conditions. It would probably cost a lot less than 1+Trillion dollars to do that and not affect other people who have no such conditions, since they're probably already paying for these peoples care anyway. And give people who make below a certain amount of money per year a complete tax refund on all moneys used to purchase health insurance, or a percentage thereof. So if you make less than 50k a year and have a family of four, but have to buy your own insurance, the government subsidizes it at the end of the year by refunding a % of the money on a sliding scale depending on what you make, etc. Of course people would rather have insurance through their companies, so it would be a benefit to companies to do it, in order to attract better talent/employees.

 

Whatever the case may be -- this doesn't need to be 2000 pages of nonsense. It CAN be done, and done right, and be 20 pages long and understandable to all. I want them to keep their sneaky s*** OUT of this market, and believe me, that 2000+ page bill is FULL of sneaky s***.