Coakley campaign has ceased to be, it's expired and gone to meet its maker...

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

...if it hadn't been nailed to its perch it'd be pushing up the daisies.

In other words: this is an EX-campaign!

This is from Curt Schilling:

Want ANOTHER reason to NOT vote for Martha Coakley???

Posted By Curt Schilling On January 14, 2010 @ 11:02 am In Family, General, Life | 1 Comment

Picked this up from here… [1]

If she hasn’t done it yet, Martha Coakley may have just killed her campaign.

She’s apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park. [2]

The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.

… Despite that, there is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.

It shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election” and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,” is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. — if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.

Finally, has she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.

http://38pitches.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/curt-schilling/general/2010/01/14/want-another-reason-to-not-vote-for-martha-coakley/print/#comments_controls

Granted, Curt picked it up from another site but the fact is, he noticed he's pissed and he's telling the world.

Add to that this little morsel:

When unions endorse a Republican over a Democrat in any race these days, it’s news.  When two police unions in Massachusetts endorse Scott Brown over Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s highest ranking law-enforcement officer, it should be a big signal to voters...

...

This is Worcester, and some may wonder whether this is a bastion of conservative thought.  It wasn’t for Coakley in her last election.  In 2006, while winning her race for the AG spot handily over her GOP opponent, Coakley got over 30,000 votes in Worcester, while Larry Frisoli got less than 10,000 — about the same percentage as the vote went across the state.  The MA-03 Congressional district, in which Worcester sits, is so safe for Democrats that Rep. Jim McGovern ran unopposed in the last two elections.  It’s a very safe Democratic area … until now.
But the worst part of all is that law-enforcement unions have rejected Coakley.  One would expect police officers to trust an AG — if the the AG in question performed well.  While the unions are smart enough not to criticize Coakley in public (after all, they’ll be stuck with her if she loses the election), their endorsement of Brown is an obvious slap in the face to the person who sits atop the law-enforcement chain of command in the state.  They’re calling Brown a “tireless advocate of public safety,” which is supposed to be Coakley’s current job.  In effect, they’re giving her a very public “good, solid B-plus” for her efforts, in the most ironic sense possible.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/police-unions-endorse-brown-over-ag-coakley/

Could the modern democrat party--which dwarfs the Tamany Hall political machine--be coming apart?

We have Obama to thank for it.

[thundley4]

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’

 

Bostonians don't like digs at their team. 

[formerlurker]

Her elitist comments about shaking hands at sacred Fenway are so mind boggling stupid, I wonder about her intelligence level.  

Obama isn't coming to MA.  He made a you tube valentine instead:

[youtube=425,350]iylgBF3KTQA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

His physical presence in MA will yield nothing.   His reaching out to the loons who still support him will perhaps yield some donations to Coakley.  

Billy-Jeff will be in Worcester on Friday.  The police unions (state and local) will be lined up outside the event location picketing Coakley/and supporting Brown.   My husband is going.  I wish I could also --- I will post pictures tomorrow night.

[formerlurker]

 

Bostonians don't like digs at their team. 

We get rather ugly with that -- total homers that we are. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

We get rather ugly with that -- total homers that we are. 

How much pull does Curt Schilling have?

[formerlurker]

How much pull does Curt Schilling have?

Curt Schilling and Doug Flutie are gods here.  Both have endorsed Brown.   He has a lot of pull.  

[Chris_]

I'll believe it when I see it. Everyone thought the tide had turned with Hoffman too but looked what happened.

Until Brown is sworn in and casts that vote against ObamaCare, I'm not going to get excited. At all.

[franksolich]

Bostonians don't like digs at their team.

As I've unfortunately come to understand.

[miskie]

This made me laugh

It was put together for Michael Graham -  Republican talk show host on 96.9 Boston Talks, lampooning what the Coakley campaign has degraded into.

[youtube=425,350]mcFVRQi3ZEo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[Eupher]

I'll believe it when I see it. Everyone thought the tide had turned with Hoffman too but looked what happened.

Until Brown is sworn in and casts that vote against ObamaCare, I'm not going to get excited. At all.

I agree. As was stated in a different thread involving Harry "Hapless" Reid, the money ain't fully kicked in yet. A lot can happen in 10 days of campaigning.

OTOH, all this skulduggery does sound very convincing. But I'd prefer to remain cautiously optimistic.

[Happy Fun Ball]

It's just pining for the fjords.

[debk]

Quote
When unions endorse a Republican over a Democrat in any race these days, it’s news.  When two police unions in Massachusetts endorse Scott Brown over Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s highest ranking law-enforcement officer, it should be a big signal to voters...

...

This is Worcester, and some may wonder whether this is a bastion of conservative thought.  It wasn’t for Coakley in her last election.  In 2006, while winning her race for the AG spot handily over her GOP opponent, Coakley got over 30,000 votes in Worcester, while Larry Frisoli got less than 10,000 — about the same percentage as the vote went across the state.  The MA-03 Congressional district, in which Worcester sits, is so safe for Democrats that Rep. Jim McGovern ran unopposed in the last two elections.  It’s a very safe Democratic area … until now.

Just because she won AG, or that she won it handily.... does not a Senator make...

I live in a predominantly Republican county. Our county AG is a strong Democrat. He ran unopposed last time. He is highly respected by the police and sheriff's departments. He does a good job.

I know him personally, he was my neighbor for over 20 years. He's the only Democrat I have ever voted for.

He ran for governor....I didn't vote for him.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I wrote a column last week in which I dismissed the chances of Republican Scott Brown actually winning next Tuesday’s Senate special election in Massachusetts. The race would be close, I figured — 53-47 for Coakley, or something like that — but the state’s blue tint would be just enough to save the Democrats.

I’d now like to qualify that prediction. Coakley’s internal poll last night, I’ve been told, showed her barely ahead, 46 to 44 percent. The momentum clearly favors Brown, and one very smart Massachusetts Democrat I know told me this morning that “this may be too far gone to recover.”

So I was wrong: Brown may actually win.

http://stevekornacki.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-massachusetts.html

Gotta admit: she's worked hard for it. 

[formerlurker]

http://stevekornacki.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-massachusetts.html

Gotta admit: she's worked hard for it. 

Nice find MSB!

[ColonialMarine0431]

Rasmussen Reports has him in a statistical dead heat with CRoakley. In a state like Mass., that a Republican can challenge a democRAT is in itself a miracle.

[formerlurker]

Rasmussen Reports has him in a statistical dead heat with CRoakley. In a state like Mass., that a Republican can challenge a democRAT is in itself a miracle.

It absolutely is. 

[miskie]

There all squawking now about a bought and paid for poll by Blue Mass Group that shows Coakley with an 8 point lead.

www.BlueMassGroup.com
Exclusive BMG/Research 2000 poll: Coakley leads 49-41
by: David
Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 11:48:08 AM EST

(Bumped, because we shelled out BMG's hard-earned money for this. -- Bob - promoted by Charley on the MTA)

The results are in from BMG's exclusive statewide poll in next week's special Senate election.  Research 2000 interviewed 500 likely voters on Tuesday and Wednesday (and we do mean "interviewed" -- Research 2000 does live interviews, unlike robo-pollsters Rasmussen and PPP).  That means that our poll is the first (and so far only) one taken entirely after Monday's final televised debate.  Here's what they came up with (margin of error is +/- 4%).

Code: [Select]

   QUESTION: If the 2010 special election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Martha Coakley,
 the Democrat, Scott Brown, the Republican, or Joseph Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate?

                 ALL DEM REP IND
    Martha Coakley 49% 82% 7% 36%
    Scott Brown   41% 12% 85% 49%
    Joseph Kennedy 5% 1% 2% 11%
    Undecided     5% 5% 6% 4%


now, lets look at how they managed to contort this figure..

Code: [Select]

SAMPLE FIGURES:
Men             241 (48%)
Women           259 (52%)
Democrats       199 (40%)
Republicans      92 (18%)
Independents    209 (42%)
White           447 (89%)
Black            20  (4%)
Hispanic         18  (4%)
Other            15  (3%)
18-29            79 (16%)
30-44           126 (25%)
45-59           207 (41%)
60+              88 (18%)
Boston          279 (56%)
Southeast       106 (21%)
West/Central    115 (23%)

Even with this weighting, they can only come up with an 8% lead ? My,my,my.....

[thundley4]

She isn't much for pursuing justice.

Martha Coakley: Terrible Prosecutor
Show Us Where The Bad Prosecutor Touched You
Posted by Dan McLaughlin (Profile)
Thursday, January 14th at 4:53PM EST
3 Comments
It’s worth recalling, as the Massachusetts Senate election approaches, that Martha Coakley is not just some bland Democratic machine apparatchik. She’s a bland Democratic machine apparatchik with a long record as a prosecutor that includes some very ugly things.

Exhibit A is the notorious case, familiar to readers of the Wall Street Journal over the past three decades, of Gerald Amirault. The case, discussed in summary here, was a terrible miscarriage of justice involving fantastical accounts of sex abuse of children, exposed by Journal reporter Dorothy Rabinowitz; it was originally prosecuted by another politically ambitious Democrat, Scott Harshbarger. And then:

When Martha Coakley became district attorney of Middlesex County in 1999, the Amiraults were still in the news. But by this time hardly anyone believed they were guilty of the horrendous crimes they were alleged to have committed. In fact there was no evidence that anyone had abused any children in the Fells Acres Day Care.

But what did Martha Coakley do when the Parole Board voted unanimously (5-0) to pardon Gerald Amirault? She did everything in her power to see that he stayed in prison, including sending an assistant DA to oppose his release at the hearing. Coakley also went on talk shows to spout her views about his guilt. (Read about Martha Coakley’s involvement in Cheryl Amirault’s Plea Bargain also).

redstate

Anything less than a blowout by Coakley has to have the DimRats worried.  Massachusetts is as far left as any state, and with health care hanging in the balance, you'd think every single DimRat that wants this bill to go through would be voting. If Dem turnout is low, then that means those staying home want this bill to fail. imo

[redwhit]

And that's just it: everyone expected a blowout so the real race, or so it was thought, was the primaries.  After that anointing, Martha thought she would be able, with the Kennedy family approval, waltz into Washington.  Oops.

She's a lousy prosecutor because she's been too worried for years about looking stupid.  And now, when it matters, well would you look at that!

[miskie]

Anything less than a blowout by Coakley has to have the DimRats worried.  Massachusetts is as far left as any state, and with health care hanging in the balance, you'd think every single DimRat that wants this bill to go through would be voting. If Dem turnout is low, then that means those staying home want this bill to fail. imo

We have RomneyCare - the national plan combines all of the worst features of RomneyCare into one nasty high-cost package. We know what this bill is going to do, because we have experienced it first hand.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Dems spending big money Coakley...

...they should have just gotten up, gone home and left the money on the nightstand.

Senate Democrats and affiliated outside groups are outspending their Republican counterparts by an almost two-to-one margin on television in the final week of the tight-as-a-tubesock special election between state Sen. Scott Brown (R) and state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D). The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is now committed to nearly $1 million in television ads in support of Coakley while the Service Employees International Union ($529,000) and Citizens for Strength and Security ($278,000), a labor-backed 527 group, are also spending heavily. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is not on television in the state although the Chamber of Commerce ($443,000), American Future Fund ($375,000) and Americans for Responsible Health Care ($204,000) are combining to spend just over $1 million for Brown. The spending by outside groups affiliated with Democrats is further evidence that the party is in triage mode, trying to fix the problems of the Coakley campaign through an major influx of cash and commercials. Coakley is doing herself no favors. Her most recent eyebrow raising comment came in a conversation with Boston Globe; when asked whether she wasn't doing enough to win the race, Coakley shot back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election." Um, OK.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/1-2-3.html?wprss=thefix

In a way this is good because these are resources the dems could ahve spent on other close races later this year.

Meanwhile, Brown has raised over $1 million EVERY DAY this week.

[BEG]

This made me laugh

It was put together for Michael Graham -  Republican talk show host on 96.9 Boston Talks, lampooning what the Coakley campaign has degraded into.

[youtube=425,350]mcFVRQi3ZEo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

LOL that was funny.

[NHSparky]

How much pull does Curt Schilling have?

Think John Elway in Denver/Colorado politics, and multiply that by about 100.

[miskie]

Ruh Rho Shaggy !!!

Massachusetts Senate Moves to Toss Up

January 14, 2010
This race call is one of the toughest we've had in a long time. The modern electoral history of federal statewide races in Massachusetts argues strongly that while state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, could have a close race, at the end of the day it's unlikely that she ends up losing. After all, no Republican Senate candidate has won in the Bay State since 1972.

But the non-quantitative arguments are quite strong. Republican Scott Brown has been the superior candidate with, by a long shot, the better campaign.

Thursday, January 14, 2010
MA Senate moved to Toss-Up

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.

[Happy Fun Ball]

And just to make sure that the campaign is, in fact, dead, we now have this scintillating gem of abject boneheadery. I think we've just about ran out of forks to stick in her.