GET FREE E-MAIL UPDATES: SEND US YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITH SUBSCRIBE IN THE SUBJECT LINE
or subscribe to our
Twitter service

UNDERNEWS

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See prorev.com for full contents of our site

January 16, 2010

HAVE THE POLLSTERS FORGOTTEN THAT MASSACHUSETTS IS A SPECIAL ELECTION?

Irish Central - The pundits are trying to say that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley will lose the race against Republican Scott Brown on Tuesday. I'll eat my hat if she does.

Some polls are showing Brown ahead but when you analyze them the fault line becomes clear. They over sample independents.

This is a special election, remember - when only the hardest of the hard core come out to vote. Independents are notorious for staying home. If this was a broader national election then Coakley would be in trouble.

The hard core Democratic vote however, will turn out as they always do in the Kennedy state. They are not about to let a Republican take over the late Ted's seat.

Coakley has run a horrible campaign, completely underestimating the violent mood of change out there and her opponent.

Yet she will still win easily in my opinion because the core vote is what will count.

I have a nice Irish cap that might be delicious with salt and onions if I'm wrong!


5 Comments:

Anonymous Mike Flugennock said...

This may seem incredible, but I'm actually seriously rooting for Coakley to go down in flames in this one.

Coakley's loss means much less chance of the corporate giveaway popularly known as "Health Care Reform" passing, and if you ask me, that can only be a good thing, because it's a bill that needs killing.

January 16, 2010 6:56 PM  
Anonymous THEN YOU'RE ROOTING FOR A FRAUD. said...

Navigate: POLITICOIdeasIs Martha Coakley committed to justice?Main Content
Opinion Contributor
Is Martha Coakley committed to justice?
Tags:Ideas ListenPrintCommentEmail Subscribe.By RADLEY BALKO | 1/13/10 4:42 AM EST Text Size-+reset.
Martha Coakley speaks during a news conference at her campaign headquarters.
Photo: AP
Wall Street Journal reporter Dorothy Rabinowitz, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of bogus sex abuse cases, recently told The Boston Globe of the Amirault case, “Martha Coakley was a very, very good soldier who showed she would do anything to preserve this horrendous assault on justice.” According to journalist Mark Pendergrast, Coakley herself prosecuted another questionable child abuse case in 1993, using the same recovered-memory testimony and now-discredited methods of questioning children to convict Ray and Shirley Souza of molesting their grandchildren.


It’s probably not surprising, then, that as DA in Middlesex County, Coakley opposed efforts to create an innocence commission in Massachusetts, calling the idea “backward-looking instead of forward-looking.” Of course, that’s sort of the point — to find people who have been wrongfully convicted. So far, there have been at least 23 exonerations in Massachusetts, including several in Coakley’s home county.


I had my own exchange with Coakley in the letters section of The Boston Globe a few years ago over the issue of prescription pain medication. Coakley had told the paper that “accidental addiction” to opiate pain medications such as OxyContin was a common problem among chronic pain patients, despite considerable medical evidence to the contrary. Such wrongheaded statements by law enforcement officials and the policies that go with them are a big reason why doctors have become increasingly reluctant to treat pain patients. Coakley conceded that she’s “no medical expert” but then went on to question the body of medical literature showing accidental addiction to be a myth. Coakley cited only her own experience as a DA to contradict the litany of peer-reviewed medical research.


As a member of the Senate, not only would Coakley be creating new federal criminal laws; given her record as a prosecutor, there’s a good chance she’d serve on committees with oversight over the Justice Department and the judiciary. She’d also be casting votes to confirm or deny federal judicial appointments. Advocates for criminal justice reform should be wary. Coakley may share Kennedy’s opposition to the death penalty, but her record as a prosecutor leaves plenty of doubt about her commitment to justice.
.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31413_Page2.html#ixzz0cp9f5r7R

January 16, 2010 7:18 PM  
Anonymous progressive/regressive/whats the diff? said...

What's the diff between the neocons and the neolibs? They both think they're right and everybodyelse is dead wrong. They see nothing wrong with twisting the law to fit their twisted idea of justice, which to them equates with getting their way 'cause they are the chosen.

January 16, 2010 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i concur with Mike Lugennock's post. never really thought i'd find myself rooting for a Republican victory, but as p/r/wh... above suggests, there really is little difference between the two these days.
seems Irish Central is grossly miscalculating the extent of anger and disappointment felt over the failure of the Obama administration to deliver on his agenda of 'bold, new ideas and change'.

January 18, 2010 5:18 AM  
Anonymous Walter F. Wouk said...

Obama and his Clintonian allies deserve a "slap down," and the sooner it comes the better it will be for the voters they betrayed.

January 18, 2010 10:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home