# Do you think the Democrats will lose the "Kennedy Seat"?



## kblesmis (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm not asking if you think they should lose or if governmnet is actually a diabolical organization bent on the destruction of mankind, just if you think they _will_ lose the seat.

I vote...no.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

My guess is that the Democrat will win, but I have no solid reason for thinking that, just a hunch that many who were thinking of supporting the Republican candidate will find it hard not to vote Democratic as they always have, once they actually enter the polling booth.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

If I could predict the future I would be sitting on a beach in Rio with a pinã colada.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

How do we know you're not?   You SAY you're in Illinois....

Betsy


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)




----------



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

I am mixed on what I want to happen, I am indepnedent just because I do not think people should stick to certain ideas just because of a label they have. Each issue is different and should be treated individually.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> How do we know you're not?  You SAY you're in Illinois....


'cause if I was on a beach in Rio, I sure as heck wouldn't be hanging out here.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> 'cause if I was on a beach in Rio, I sure as heck wouldn't be hanging out here.


Now that hurt.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> 'cause if I was on a beach in Rio, I sure as heck wouldn't be hanging out here.


But maybe you are on the beach in Rio and have passed out from all the pina coladas you had and are dreaming of Kindleboards (now that is pitiful) You better turn over, you can burn quick in Rio.

BTW, if anyone can blow a sure thing it's a Democrat. (I should know, I am one) The candidate has done nothing but alienate voters.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

We generally try to avoid political discussions on these boards... so please understand if we lock this thread. Absolutely nothing wrong with the posts above, but these threads can go sideways quickly, and it's just easier to lock it before the fracas begins. Just letting you know.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

I do hope that the thread can remain active. In spite of my "if pigs could fly" smiley, this is actually a very interesting question. The loss of Ted Kennedy's seat, which most of us thought was set in stone for eternity, would change the dynamics of the Senate and take away the filibuster-proof majority that the Democratic Party now holds. Let the drama continue please.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

Good analyzis of the situation.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

kblesmis said:


> I'm not asking if you think they should lose or if governmnet is actually a diabolical organization bent on the destruction of mankind


The government can't be a diabolical organization bent on the destruction of mankind. As an evil overlord and melodrama villain, that is _MY_ job!   

(and also my evil henchperson's)

(I was gonna not participate in this thread, but I can't leave a straight line like that laying there without grabbing it!)


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

kblesmis said:


> ....... if governmnet is actually a diabolical organization bent on the destruction of mankind,...


They are safe as long as the sheep are still around paying taxes and voting for them.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

I live in a small but very strong democrat town. Saw lots of Brown signs at the polls, and NONE for Coakley. That's shocking for the town I live in where dems usually have signs everywhere.
Seeing the same in nearby towns.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I haven't done research about this, but I bet Brown has much, much more campaign money.  

That's as far as I will go with this.  I don't want to get into trouble!


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

mlewis78 said:


> I haven't done research about this, but I bet Brown has much, much more campaign money.
> 
> That's as far as I will go with this. I don't want to get into trouble!


I tried to do the research for you but failed. Here's what the Associated Press says today:



> Senate race turning Massachusetts into campaign free-for-all as advertising swamps voters
> 
> By STEVE LEBLANC , Associated Press
> Last update: January 17, 2010 - 12:43 PM
> ...


----------



## bjazman (Aug 1, 2009)

yesterday, it looked like Brown might pull this out

Rasmussan now saying people who decided in the last few days breaking for Coakley
(via drudge)

still surprised this is as close as it is.  

i'll guess that Coakley wins in a squeaker

b


----------



## bjazman (Aug 1, 2009)

brown up early 638K  - 563K


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

9:02 p.m.: Mass counts its ballots fast. 57% in; Brown is up 78,425.


----------



## bjazman (Aug 1, 2009)

Drudge headline says Coakley has conceded by phone.

no story behind the link yet


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

Just saw on Twitter than Coakley conceded.....

(I am not going to argue and I don't want to offend but this is SUPERB news to me and my hubs)


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

AP is calling the win for Brown.  Wow.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

9:20 p.m.: Boston Globe reporting Coakley has conceded. There's pork in the stratosphere.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

KindleKay (aka #1652) said:


> Just saw on Twitter than Coakley conceded.....
> 
> (I am not going to argue and I don't want to offend but this is SUPERB news to me and my hubs)


I'm with you. Congrats.


----------



## Dana (Dec 4, 2009)

Bye Bye Super Majority.....


----------



## bjazman (Aug 1, 2009)

> There's pork in the stratosphere.


i have absolutely no idea what this means!


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Cobbie said:
 

> I vote yes.


Cheater.


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

Jeff said:


> 9:20 p.m.: Boston Globe reporting Coakley has conceded. There's pork in the stratosphere.


Is this kinda like hell froze over

A REPUBLICAN senator from MASSACHUSETS Kennedy is rolling over in his grave....

(muhahahahaha)


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

bjazman said:


> i have absolutely no idea what this means!


previous post regarding when pigs fly....


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

Cobbie said:


> lol...I had been lurking but I was afraid to post for fear of being the one to get us locked.


You are soooo right.... OK. I'm done.

Just wish I had some champagne.....

(Sorry mods. I'll shut up now.....)

SO....What are you reading?


----------



## bjazman (Aug 1, 2009)

Laurie said:


> previous post regarding when pigs fly....


thx. skimmed right past that one


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

Are you trying to antagonize me??

Have you read any great books lately on your Kindle??


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I don't normally talk in emoticons but...


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

bjazman said:


> i have absolutely no idea what this means!


Means Barry might as well spend his time weeding the vegatable garden in the back yard or work on his golf game. He ain't gonna get much else done.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

I must say I'm surprised. Pleasantly surprised. I sure didn't think Mass had it in them.


----------



## corkyb (Apr 25, 2009)

This is a very sad day for Massachusetts.  As the saying goes, though, the dems could screw up a .............
Unbelievable.  Poor Senator Ted Kennedy.  How long was he Senator from Mass?  For how many years did he advocate health care reform? The Democrats could lose a 50 year seat in Massachusetts?  We are in big trouble.
That video on The Daily Show someone posted here says it all.
Ok,now I'll shut up too
Paula from New Englanndy NY on a sad day.


----------



## Gayle (Aug 31, 2009)

Didn't the White House advocate "Change"?


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Zia Star said:


> Didn't the White House advocate "Change"?


Well, he finally delivered if that's the case


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

Zia Star said:


> Didn't the White House advocate "Change"?


No, that's what he said to get the job. Hasn't been any since he moved in. Just status and quo.


----------



## dnagirl (Oct 21, 2009)

"Pork in the stratosphere" may be one of the funniest things I've heard this week.


----------

