Go Vote for Coakley

Just to remind all my MA readers--there's a Senate election today. Go vote for Martha Coakley.


More like this

There's an election Tuesday in Massachusetts, and here's who the Mad Biologist endorses. U.S Senate: This is tough. Both Rep. Mike Capuano and Attorney General Martha Coakley have strengths and weaknesses. Both are reliable liberals, but they have different emphases. Capuano has very good…
These will have to be some quick hits, since I'm at a meeting; I'll try to revisit them later this week: 1) The absolute numbers indicate that Democrats lost this election: In 2008, Obama received 1,904,097 votes; in 2009, Coakley received 1,058,682. In 2008, McCain received 1,108,854 votes; in…
Dear Massachusetts voters: If for some reason you haven't yet decided who should get your vote in today's Senate election, consider this little piece of information about Republican candidate Scott Brown, courtesy of the Boston Globe: Brown typically skips climate change and global warming when…
If you're in Massachusetts, there's a special election for U.S. Senate tomorrow, and it's much closer than it should be--the Republican Scott Brown (who is horrid--who votes to eliminate tax breaks and aid for 9/11 emergency responders?) might actually win. There are several reasons why I'm voting…

I did, twice!

Actually once from me and once from my wife. The polls are very heavy which I think is good news for Coakley.

By NewEnglandBob (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

Boy, Croakley really got wiped out, didn't she? I mean, how bad is it when the Dems lose the bluest of blue states by 5 full points?

Too bad about that supermajority thang, too.

Well, looks like Coakley lost.

But the Dems would be sitting pretty if they'd only run a Leninist in Coakley's place and liquidated a few recalcitrant Senators, right?

Why is it that when the Democrats absolutely must win, they always get cocky and run a completely shitty candidate?

Actually, I blame Obama. He did not go after the liars of the previous administration. His "stimulus" was timid and inadequate. He tried to be bipartisan well after it became clear that the Republican party was just going to block everything he wanted and hope they could blame him when nothing got done.

So I guess it's back to tax cuts, right? After all, if it didn't work for Regan, and it didn't work for Bush the first, and it didn't work for Dubya, then it's got to be the only possible solution, right?