• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

The battle for Kennedy's seat

New posts
30ashopper

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Anyone else tuned into this race? Current polls have it dead even, between Scott Brown, a moderate rep., and Martha Coakley, the democrat incumbent. A republican hasn't sat in this seat in over 40 years. The race will be decided by independents. (Paging Mango..) I'm really curious why support from voters who a year ago gave dems huge majorities and the White House now appears to be souring. I can't answer that, maybe we have some moderates on the board who can? Or is this just a local election that has little to do with national politics? One thing is for sure, if Brown wins, it throws a big wrench into dems control of the Senate. The votes get tallied Tuesday...
 
Seems like local issues are playing a large part, but the President is going up on Sunday to stump for votes and Clinton and Kerry are already working. In one article I was reading it is mostly about the economy and national security with health care further down the list (Per David King, a Harvard Professor).

It also appears that the word "reconciliation" is creeping back into the healthcare discussion as the polls are tightening (per The Hill). I don't know how that would affect the process, but would expect that some parts of the current bill would have to be left out since it would piecemeal the bill. The question will be if that would open the parts that would be voted on to further modification by the progressives since the moderate vote would be less necessary if it only took 51 in the Senate (i.e. would the final outcome look more like the House Bill and less like the Senate version).

Also, the Mass. Supervisor of State (a Democrat) has already said it could take a couple of weeks to certify the election and the Senate cannot confirm the new person prior to certification (expected date is around Jan 29th per the Hill). So, the current placeholder will get to vote until that time. My question is if the election goes to Brown and since the Mass. Sec of State is Dem, could the certification take even longer or is their a statute that governs how long they have after the election occurs? I see a lawsuit coming no matter who wins as it is expected to be close like with the Franken election so the Dems will probably have enough time irregardless..

So many "if's" and "but's" will make the next few days interesting, but by Tuesday (or soon thereafter with absentee and military votes added in) it could be a moot point if the Coakley wins.
 
BeachSiO2 said:
Seems like local issues are playing a large part, but the President is going up on Sunday to stump for votes and Clinton and Kerry are already working. In one article I was reading it is mostly about the economy and national security with health care further down the list (Per David King, a Harvard Professor).

It also appears that the word "reconciliation" is creeping back into the healthcare discussion as the polls are tightening (per The Hill). I don't know how that would affect the process, but would expect that some parts of the current bill would have to be left out since it would piecemeal the bill. The question will be if that would open the parts that would be voted on to further modification by the progressives since the moderate vote would be less necessary if it only took 51 in the Senate (i.e. would the final outcome look more like the House Bill and less like the Senate version).

Also, the Mass. Supervisor of State (a Democrat) has already said it could take a couple of weeks to certify the election and the Senate cannot confirm the new person prior to certification (expected date is around Jan 29th per the Hill). So, the current placeholder will get to vote until that time. My question is if the election goes to Brown and since the Mass. Sec of State is Dem, could the certification take even longer or is their a statute that governs how long they have after the election occurs? I see a lawsuit coming no matter who wins as it is expected to be close like with the Franken election so the Dems will probably have enough time irregardless..

So many "if's" and "but's" will make the next few days interesting, but by Tuesday (or soon thereafter with absentee and military votes added in) it could be a moot point if the Coakley wins.
Click to expand...


They certainly have precedent on that. The RNC is filled with idiots. They should have bowed out of that one graciously. (Something I remind them of every time they come a calling for donations. :biggrin:) But I think there's enough that needs to happen on healthcare (plus waning support by moderates like Nelson) that a vote could be held up long enough. Once he's certified, that's it, game over.
 
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: As Democrats rush to get a deal on health care, they are doing so with a an eye on the Massachusetts Senate race.

If Democratic nominee Martha Coakley loses, Democrats in Washington want to be in a position to pass a bill through the Senate before Republican Scott Brown is sworn in and they lose their 60th Senate seat. Under Massachusetts law, the MA Secretary of State must wait “at least” ten days before certifying the results, to give time for absentee and military ballots to be received and counted. That means Brown could be sworn in as early as January 29, leaving Democrats very little time to maneuver … in fact, it may be impossible to get it done in time.

After a final health care deal is struck (and Democrats are hoping that will happen tonight), it goes to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for a cost estimate, a process expected to take 10 days. After that, it will take at least seven days to go through the procedural hurdles to pass the bill in the House and the Senate. That adds up to a vote on February 2 at the earliest.

Bottom line: Unless either 1) the certification in Massachusetts is delayed; or, 2) CBO works much faster than expected, Democrats would be unable to pass a health care bill before losing their 60th vote.
Click to expand...

Bill Buckner Curse Haunts Health Care? - The Note

This is all getting a head of things, I'm still not convinced Brown has a chance. It should be interesting though, I'll definitely be tuned in Tuesday night.
 
Lynnie said:
I cannot even phathom that this is a part of the race~~~~~
Is this really a platform of Scott Brown? More than anything, this article drives home the point of politics before human capital, in more ways than one.....and, on both sides! :eek: Disgusting!
Click to expand...

No, he voted on some bill in 2005 that gave people who work in hospitals the right to make personal decisions based on faith, and the DNC twisted that.

Republican "hit squads" have pulled similar stunts (swift boat veterans for truth?) - I think it's just sad when campaigns fall into the mud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter









Share this page




                               
Back
Top