Temperatures hovering around freezing and below with precipitation in the form of rain and/or snow. A steady breeze will send the wind chill factor down into the twenties.

Just the sort of weather to discourage unenthused voters from going to the polls, but not bad enough to keep dedicated, fired-up supporters away.

Hello R4’12 community;

Here is your chance to post your predictions for the special election being held in the Bay State tomorrow.

1) Who will win in the Massachusetts Senatorial election,

2) What will be the vote break-down?

Remember, everything on the Internet is permanent. 

-

My prediction;

1. 54.4% Brown (R)
2. 44.2% Choakley (D)
3. 1.4% Kennedy (I)

I believe the early voting (54-44) numbers published in recent polls are an indication of the results we will be watching tomorrow evening.  During our election watch of last November, Matthew Miller published some interesting voter turnout numbers from working class New Jersey districts, in our comments thread.  We should expect similar results, i.e. demoralized Democratic turnout, high Republican turnout, among the middle/working class.

Bonus Question;

What will be the political fallout from the special election:  changes to the Congressional leadership in D.C., the pending health care legislation, and/or changes to the 2010 agenda of the Obama administration?

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Research 2000/Daily Kos Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown 48% (41%)
• Martha Coakley 48% (49%)
• Joseph Kennedy 3% (5%)

Among Independents

• Scott Brown 65% (49%)
• Martha Coakley 29% (36%)
• Joseph Kennedy 5% (11%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Martha Coakley 58% / 31% {+27%}
• Scott Brown 51% / 30% {+21%}
• Joseph Kennedy 38% / 44% {-6%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted January 15-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% (40%) Democrat; 19% (18%) Republican; 42% (42%) Independent. Results from the poll conducted January 12-13, 2010 are in parentheses.

American Research Group Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown (R) 52% (48%)
• Martha Coakley (D) 45% (45%)
• Joseph Kennedy (I) 2% ( 2%)
• Undecided 2% (5%)

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted January 15-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% (44%) Democrat; 15% (20%) Republican; 43% (36%) Independent. Results from the poll conducted 12-14, 2010 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Brown leads Coakley 97% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 64% to 32% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 73% to 23% among registered Democrats.

Brown leads 53% to 43% among men while Coakley leads 50% to 46% among women.

Brown leads 53% to 43% among likely voters age 18 to 49 and he leads 51% to 46% among voters 50 and older.

A total of 8% of likely voters say they have already voted by absentee ballot, with Brown leading Coakley 54% to 44%, with 2% for Kennedy.

Speaking just last week to wavering Democrats, the President made this promise:

“If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. I’ll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain about the arsenal of consumer protections; about the long-awaited stability that they’re going to begin to experience”

Sounds impressive, no? Just the sort of thing to calm the shaky nerves of Democrats looking forward to facing the voters this fall.

Well yesterday Obama was in Massachusetts. Now if there was any “end of the country” that would be favorably inclined to hear him “telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain…” with ObamaCare, it would be deep-blue Massachusetts. To sharpen the focus, the Republican in the race has made opposition to ObamaCare a cornerstone of his campaign. Scott Brown takes every opportunity he gets to promise to be the 41st vote against it . So you would expect Obama to take the opportunity to fight the good fight, right? To prove to his wavering troops that he means business, right?

Guess again. Instead of coming out all guns blazing in support of his health care initiative, the President barely mentioned Health Care reform except in passing. Beyond a comment that Brown was on the side of the insurance companies, he said nary a word about it.

Obama has become well known on both sides of the aisle as someone’s whose campaign promises carry an expiration date. Just a couple of weeks ago, his multiple promises to open up ObamaCare negotiations to C-SPAN blew-up in his face. Nancy Pelosi mockingly retorted, “He said a lot of things during the campaign”. Who would have thought that his campaign promise to vigorously defend his key domestic initiative would expire even before the campaign is over?

If you were a Democrat member of Congress facing voters this fall unhappy over your vote for ObamaCare, what would your reaction be? Would you be taking seriously Obama’s promise to back you up this fall? Would it start to dawn on you that once Obama gets what he wants, you become expendable? Would you want stick your neck out for such a man?

How certain is it that the Democrats will lose in Massachusetts? This certain:

BOSTON –With 24 hours to go before Massachusetts’ special election for a U.S. Senate seat, an Irish bookie already has paid off bettors who wagered that state Sen. Scott Brown, a conservative Republican, would win the seat held for nearly 50 years by liberal Democratic icon Edward M. Kennedy.

Enough is enough. It seems that Senator Brown just has to get out of bed tomorrow to win convincingly.  “As far as were concerned, this race is well and truly over,” said Paddy Power, Irelands largest bookmaker.

Before shutting down the betting, Mr. Brown had gone from 5-4 odds to 1-5 (meaning if a bettors put down $5, they only stood to make $1 if Mr. Brown wins). The odds against his opponent — Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general — soared, from 4-7 to win to 3-1 to lose.

Well and truly over indeed. While Republicans shouldn’t get too cocky, its breathtaking that a bookie would pay off like this.

There’s now a smattering of articles, mostly from Democratic strategists/pundits, laying out a possible future for Obamacare in a Coakleyless senate.  Jonathan Chait weighs in; as does Jonathan Cohn.  They suggest that Democrats either, 1.)  Reach out, again, to Olympia Snowe, 2.)  Pass the bill before Brown is seated, 3.)  Have the House pass the already voted upon Senate bill, 4.)  Move to reconciliation.

None of these strategies seem very promising from a Democratic perspective.  They all exist in a seeming vaccuum, where a Scott Brown victory hasn’t affected the political dynamics of voting for Obamacare by one jot.  In reality, the only vacuum will be the tinnitus in the ears of dozens of Democratic lawmakers; the sound of their careers being sucked into a giant blackhole.  Let’s look at their “solutions” in turn.

Turn Olympia Snowe

Olympia Snowe is, by any measurement, a moderate Republican.  But, she’s still a Republican.  She didn’t follow Arlen Specter to the Democratic caucus and, even after PPP polling that showed her numbers tanking among Maine Republicans,  she’s moved to the right.  She voted against Obamacare and cloture after that PPP poll.  And, as both Cohn and Chait point out, her reasoning was nearly incoherent.  It wasn’t that she was opposed to the bill, you see: she just wanted more time to think.  Whatever Olympia Snowe’s after, she seems to be trying to remain in the Republican Party.

Does a vote for Obamacare aid that prospect?  If anything, the final bill is going to come out MORE liberal then the version which passed the Senate.  If the Democrats had the votes for a more conservative bill, surely the House would just pass the Senate version and be done with it.   A Snowe vote for a more liberal version of Obamacare, after a Brown tsunami, makes no sense from a strategic perspective.

And let’s not forget: Maine is not Massachusetts.  It has voted Democratic in recent years, but it has nothing like Massachusetts’ historical leftward bent.  Maine was once so Republican that they joked, after FDR’s 1936 landslide, ” as goes Maine, so goes Vermont” (a play on Maine’s once historical swing-state status). In fact, this trend persisted through most of the 20th century.  Both Ronald Reagan, in 84′, and George H.W. Bush, in 88′, did better in Maine then they did in the country as a whole.  As a recently as 2000 Republicans were within single digits in Maine: George Bush lost the state by just 6 points.

In other words, Olympia Snowe can personally remember a time when Republicans were winning, fairly consistently, in Maine.  If conservatism can reach into blue Massachusetts’- a state which voted for a Republican President only 9 times in the 20th century (twice with Mass Governor Calvin Coolidge on the ticket)- does it really make sense for Snowe to bet so heavily against Republicans, for no apparent political gain?

Pass the bill before Scott Brown is Seated

What bill?  As other commentators have pointed out, there is no bill and when they come up with one, they’ll need to wait for a CBO scoring.  But, let’s assume they could manage it.  Why would they?  I don’t buy the current Republican argument that a Paul Kirk vote is illegitimate if Scott Brown wins.  Paul Kirk was appointed to fill out a set term.  He’s entitled to vote on any bill, regardless of what Massachusetts voters want, until his duly elected replacement is seated.  Still, the public is not likely to see it this way.  The optics don’t look good, to say the least.  And this all assumes, fairly bizarrely I think, that the drive to pass the bill will increase after a Brown victory.  Thus far Democrats have argued that they must pass something; that a failure to do so, with a 60 seat majority, will result in calamity when Democratic turnout craters for the mid-terms.  This narrative seems less tenuous by the day.  The far left- the group most likely to sit home if the Democrats can’t advance a progressive agenda- doesn’t like this bill.  Head over to 538 or DailyKos and you’ll find lefties openly cheerleading for Scott Brown because they think he’ll kill a bad bill.  In fact, as near as I can tell, almost no one on the left likes this bill enough to stay home if it isn’t passed.  So why, exactly, would Democratic lawmakers risk this type of political backlash?

Have the House Pass the Senate Version

The blue dogs alone could kill this possibility.  The senate version does not have the Stupak abortion language.  Now, I don’t have any illusions about the steadfastness of Democratic pro-lifers, but you don’t need to be particularly steadfast to oppose a bill which will end your career.  The Stupak amendment gives them a handy excuse to kill the bill and rescue their careers.

Use Reconciliation

If Democrats balked at this option before a Brown victory, I’m not sure why they’d bite afterward.  The backlash now will, if anything, be greater.  And think: if Democrats were willing to risk that sort of revolt, they could have used reconciliation to pass more progressive bill.  Had they abandoned Nelson, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Lieberman, they might conceivably have passed the House version, with a public option, through reconciliation.  That bill might actually have succeeded in increasing Democratic turn-out in the mid-terms.  So color me skeptical that this option is anything more than fantasy.  In short, Democrats who want a health-care bill this year can’t afford a Scott Brown victory tomorrow.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

From John R. Guardiano;

David Frum says that Republicans nationwide will long argue about the lessons learned from a (now likely) Scott Brown Senate victory in Massachusetts. Agreed — so let me be the second (after Frum) to join the fray.

David has it wrong. He says that a Brown victory would vindicate so-called RINOs — that political specimen many conservatives deride as “Republicans in Name Only.” David notes that although Brown is “strong on defense and school choice, [and] opposed to the Obama administration’s signature initiatives, he also holds some decidedly non-conservative positions.

-

But in the eyes of most savvy conservatives, these positions don’t necessarily, or in themselves, make a Republican a so-called RINO. Political context, of course, matters, as most savvy conservatives well recognize. They recognize that, in order to remain politically viable, a politician sometimes must trim his sails and make accommodations with political reality.

They recognize that a Republican running in deep red Texas has a certain freedom of expression and political commitment that a Republican running in deep blue Massachusetts does not. Thus, savvy conservatives are not inclined to lambaste a Republican in Massachusetts for being a “RINO” simply because he smartly bows to the political imperatives of his state or district.

Savvy conservatives recognize that Brown is an intelligent politician who wisely decided not to fight on the Democrat’s preferred turf. They appreciate that Brown’s saying he would have voted to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor was a throwaway line designed to neutralize left-wing opposition, court organized Hispanic groups, and, in general, show open-mindedness and inclusiveness.

What, after all, did Brown have to lose? The Senate already had confirmed Sotomayor’s appointment to the court; and conservative Republicans had long ago moved on to other court appointments and other issues.

Ditto with regard to so-called gay marriage. What Frum does not report is that Brown opposes it (though he supports “civil unions”). But why fight this issue again in Massachusetts when, as Brown rightly notes, it is now “settled law”? (In 2003, the Mass. State Supreme Court declared a “right” to homosexual marriage.)

Why should Brown allow the hard Left — which is very strong in Massachusetts — to try and paint him as a closed-minded right-wing bogeyman — especially when polls show that state residents are evenly split on the issue of “gay marriage”?

Savvy conservatives rightly sense that Brown is with them on the social issues, but has made a prudential political decision to downplay them and to fight on more politically hospitable ground.

That’s why Brown champions interrogating terrorists for actionable intelligence — he doesn’t believe terrorists are mere common criminals who are entitled to be read their Miranda rights. That’s why he’s been a staunch opponent of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi healthcare plan, which promises to effect a government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy.

In short, conservatives know that Brown is no “RINO” because when it matters most, and on the issues that are most visible and pressing, he is with them. Bona fide “RINOs,” by contrast, seem to take delight in sticking their thumb in the eyes of conservatives. They seem to enjoy abandoning the GOP on key issues and key votes, and at the most inopportune times.

Read the entire post, here.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Or, “Who is John Galt?”

In late 2008 and early 2009, the conventional wisdom, including that put forth by Yours Truly, held that the Enlightenment-based experiment of America as an individualistic nation had come to an end, and that what awaited the country was a race to the left between our two major parties, with the Democratic Party advocating social democracy and the GOP becoming the party of Christian Democrats — culturally conservative economic moderates who, like their European counterparts, would eventually become socially liberal economic moderates — heirs to Clinton, not to Reagan. David Brooks seemed to be John the Baptist, while Jon Huntsman loomed from the Obama White House as the Moderate Messiah that would bring the GOP back from the wilderness in 2016. American Exceptionalism seemed to be over.

It wasn’t just the psuedo-conservative talking heads like Brooks and Sullivan and Kathleen Parker who promoted this view. Prominent conservatives like Tim Pawlenty, conservatives who hoped to win the hearts and minds of Republican primary voters, trumpted that the era of small government was over. Such was the view of politics just two years ago. Small-governmentism was dead. The GOP voters that remained were seemingly a collection of denialist NeoCons, washed up SoCons, and FiCons who watched in horror as Wall Street collapsed. Meanwhile, a few crackpots were showing up at events called “Tea Parties” nationwide. Probably more of those Ron Paul types. Someone get the pepper spray.

And who could blame the chattering classes from behaving this way? What were the lessons of 1996? Of 2006? That every time Republicans attempted to lay a solitary hand on Medicare or Social Security, they’d get punished at the ballot box. It didn’t take a Pavlov to make that connection. Americans it seemed wouldn’t accept less government. But the problem with government is that it creates the demand for more government. Folks can’t afford college. Okay, let’s give them student loans from the federal coffers. Yikes, now those dastardly admissions offices are raising tuition due to the increased demand thanks to the student loans. All right, let’s guarantee private student loans with federal dollars. Or change the bankruptcy laws so that no one who borrows to pay for their education can utilize the protection available to every other sort of debtor. It’s for their own good, after all. Hmm, now tuition seems to be rising even higher. And so does the national debt.

This dynamic, of course, impacted far more than higher education. The same thing happened with K-12 education, which was quasi-nationalized by a Republican president, and with housing, and, if ObamaCare passes, the same sort of thing will happen to health care in America. And it was the national debate over health care this past year, against the backdrop of the collapse of the debt-based society, that resulted in Americans’ realization that the only thing that ever-increasing government would give them are the same things that they have now, only at a higher price.

When Democrats presented their vision of Future America to the nation, the vast majority of Americans, including those in places like Massachusetts, observed in horror their new road to serfdom. Future America is a nation with a double-digit national debt, a nation that is bankrupt and that must be bought back from the Chinese with higher taxes on everyone. Future America is one in which our major banks and corporations, deemed too big to fail, make a Faustian bargain with the state in which they essentially become public utilities under the control of the government in exchange for a bailout from bad decisions, protection from competition, and state-enforced mandates that we the people purchase their products and use their services. Future America is a fiefdom run by a corporate-government axis, in which markets and individual freedom are excluded.

In Massachusetts this Tuesday, scores of Obama voters from 2008 in one of the bluest states in the nation will cast a vote not only for a Republican candidate for Senate, but also for the ability of Republicans to filibuster any further Democratic legislation that is deemed to be too leftist. Yes, the Democrats’ monopoly on power in Washington will come to an end because of Massachusetts. That’s a big deal. And it may signal a sea change in the way Americans are thinking about government. Tim Pawlenty was wrong. The era of small government is not over, because Americans are awakening to the reality of the futility of big government. The reality that government can’t actually make goods and services free, that the state can’t transform finite resources into infinite resources, and that the state’s involvement in all of this usually ends up makings things worse for the average American is leading voters to reject corporatist leftism in favor of, well, freedom. And as Douthat and Salam argue with Brooks and Chris Buckley over whether the GOP should have a Huckabee-esque future or a Rockefeller-esque one, Massachusetts shrugs.

If you’re into American Idol, here’s someone to cheer for from an incredible family:

(Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)

For my part, after trying last year’s America’s Got Talent, I don’t pay attention to these shows any more.

In other news:

• The group “Republicans for Choice”  should probably be called “Suckers for Ann Stone.”  Only 1/2 of one percent of the group’s money has found its way into the pockets of pro-abortion Republican Candidates. An unseemly amount of money has instead found its way into the pockets of Stone and her consulting firms. (Hat Tip:Jill Stanek.)
• He’s not bragging, he just speaking the facts. Former Republican Congressman and Ohio Gubenatorial Candidate John Kasich said that he was part of the tea party before there was a tea party. Usually when a politician says something like that, they’re making things up. Not Kasich. The first time I heard Kasich’s name was in 1993, when he proposed to actually cut entitlement spending by tens of billions of dollars in partnership when Rep. Tim Penny (D-Mn.) Kasich is the real deal, and Ohio will be getting a good deal if they get him as their governor.
• The latest way for the Government to be a nuisance to religious believers. Noise ordinances that silence worship. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)
• Will we soon be hearing about the Green Divorce? The New York Times reports that environmental hypersensitivity is putting a strain on marriages.
• Major liberal blogger on Marsha Coakley: Too big a risk for Senator
• If you don’t file your own taxes, don’t feel bad. Sixty percent of Americans hire a tax preparer and twenty percent use software. What type of person gets confused by our tax code, considers the code too complicated and has to hire a guy to do his taxes. How about the director of the IRS?

.

(Hat Tip: Wizbang.)

http://www.fairtax.org

Grouping these two countries together in one post is a little odd – but as both Chile and Ukraine held presidential elections yesterday, I figure that it’s better to kill two birds with one stone.

First, the results from Chile, where a presidential runoff pitted conservative billionaire Sebastián Piñera against center-left former president Eduardo Frei.

Sebastián Piñera – 51.60%

Eduardo Frei – 48.39%

Chile is very moderate by Latin American standards, so there was really no drama here in terms of a potential Chavez-style leader. Nor is the result a huge surprise, as Piñera led the polls throughout the campaign. However, this is a major step forward for Chile as a nation in that Piñera is the first conservative elected since the fall of dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1990. He also breaks the 20 year presidential monopoly of the center-left “Concertación” coalition. So, in many ways, this is proof that Chile has finally moved past Pinochet. Free market policies are no-longer seen as associated with the former dictator, but rather represented democratically by President-elect Piñera and his National Renewal Party- nor is Concertación any longer seen as a monolithic force needed to protect democracy. So, congratulations to Chileans for taking a big step forward as a nation.

Now the results from the first round of the Ukrainian presidential elections, with the top two finishers advancing to a run-off. 

Viktor Yanukovich – 35.33%

Yulia Tymoshenko – 25.02%

Serhiy Tihipko – 13.00%

Aresniy Yatseniuk – 6.98%

Viktor Yushchenko – 5.51%

Again, few surprises here – although it is a bit odd that Tymoshenko did as well as she did, as one of the final polls showed her losing second place to a surging Serhiy Tihipko. Also worth noting is the total collapse of incumbent president and former Orange Revolution leader Viktor Yushchenko (although that was anticipated).

So, the runoff now pits Yanukovich- the pro-Moscow ex-Prime Minister whose disputed “victory” in the last presidential election sparked the “Orange Revolution” against Tymoshenko – the incumbent Prime Minister and the primary orator of the 2004 Orange Revolution (and the more radical of the revolution’s two faces). 

Once again, Ukraine is headed for a nail-biter divided along many of the same lines as the last election and the Orange Revolution. The pro-Kremlin Yanukovich will draw his support from the country’s east – where Russian is the main language and Russian Orthodoxy the primary religion. Likewise, the pro-Western Tymoshenko will be the candidate of the country’s western half – where people speak Ukrainian and practice Ukrainian Greek Catholicism.

However, the key difference this time is that the bloom came off the Orange Revolution years ago. Once allies, Yushenko and Tymoshenko have become bitter political rival – both having worked with Yanukovich at various times to gain advantage over the other (though ultimately everybody realized that working with Yanukovich is not a good idea). Tymoshenko may enter as the Orange candidate, but she also now has the baggage accumulated from two stints as Prime Minister and her feud with Yushchenko. So, while the polls are definitely going to narrow an Yanukovich is not likely to find much broader support, this will be an  uphill battle for the Orange forces.  

The man holding the most power right now may be Serhiy Tihipko - the country’s former finance minister and central bank chairman. Tihipko was an ally of  former president Leonid Kuchma an chairman of Yanukovich’s 2004 campaign. So, he’s hardly an Orange revolutionary. however, his campaign this time seems to have been more of “Third Way” approach, trying to thread the needle between  the diametrically opposed Yanukovich and Tymoshenko. From what I’ve read so far, he says he will endorse no-one in the second round, but Tymoshenko is eagerly courting his endorsement.

Furthermore – the differences between the two options have become more blurred. Tymoshenko has tried to stake out a position somewhat closer to Russia, while Yanukovich is trying to distance himself from his friends in Moscow. Still, it’s a race between the old Orange revolutionaries and their old foe Yanukovich – a sequel to the 2004 blockbuster. Sequels rarely match the quality of the original movie, and that’s certainly the case here, but the plot has indeed thickened.

Norm Coleman, battle-weary from the last couple of years, is not going to run for governor of Minnesota in 2010. Sorry, Kavon!

It was too soon after the brutal and extended 2008 Senate fight — which he lost to Democrat Al Franken after a recount and trial — for him to jump back into electoral politics.

“The commitments I have to my family and the work I am currently engaged in do not allow me to now go forward,” he said. Coleman has been working to create a think tank and action network for center right politics and policy.

He was the Republican nominee for governor in 1998, losing to Jesse Ventura, and was elected as St. Paul mayor first as a Democrat, then as a Republican, after he switched parties in 1996.

Without him in the 2010 race, the governor’s contest can settle in for the long haul. With Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s decision not to run for reelection while exploring a presidential bid, seven Republicans and another 12 Democrats have filed to run. Many of them have been campaigning a long time.

In the Third Man, Harry Lime famously remarked:

In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

Apparently old Harry Lime never messed with the Swiss. They have more than a cuckoo clock and brotherly love to defend themselves.

And Switzerland’s crime rate? Nearly non-existent.

PPP (D) Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown 51% (48%)
• Martha Coakley 46% (47%)

Among Men

• Scott Brown 56% (53%)
• Martha Coakley 41% (41%)

Among Women

• Martha Coakley 50% (52%)
• Scott Brown 46% (42%)

Among Democrats

• Martha Coakley 77% (77%)
• Scott Brown 19% (17%)

Among Republicans

• Scott Brown 90% (90%)
• Martha Coakley 8% (6%)

Among Independents

• Scott Brown 64% (63%)
• Martha Coakley 32% (31%)

Among Moderates

• Scott Brown 55% (49%)
• Martha Coakley 41% (42%)

Among McCain Voters

• Scott Brown 94% (90%)
• Martha Coakley 4% (7%)

Among Obama Voters

• Martha Coakley 76% (79%)
• Scott Brown 20% (15%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Scott Brown 56% (57%) / 37% (25%) {+19%}
• Martha Coakley 44% (50%) / 51% (42%) {-7%}
• Democrats in Congress 30% (33%) / 55% (55%) {-25%}
• Republicans in Congress 22% (21%) / 63% (59%) {-41%}

Among Independents

• Scott Brown 68% (70%) / 27% (16%) {+41%}
• Martha Coakley 31% (36%) / 63% (54%) {-32%}
• Republicans in Congress 24% (21%) / 56% (55%) {-32%}
• Democrats in Congress 16% (13%) / 66% (72%) {-50%}

Among Moderates

• Scott Brown 62% (62%) / 31% (21%) {+31%}
• Martha Coakley 40% (51%) / 53% (41%) {-13%}
• Democrats in Congress 25% (30%) / 60% (57%) {-35%}
• Republicans in Congress 20% (18%) / 62% (60%) {-42%}

Do you think Scott Brown is a liberal, moderate, or conservative?

• Liberal 4%
• Moderate 37%
• Conservative 58%

Among Independents

• Liberal 2%
• Moderate 47%
• Conservative 51%

Among Republicans

• Liberal 1%
• Moderate 47%
• Conservative 52%

Among Moderates

• Liberal 6%
• Moderate 46%
• Conservative 49%

Do you think Martha Coakley is a liberal, moderate, or conservative?

• Liberal 64%
• Moderate 32%
• Conservative 4%

Among Independents

• Liberal 71%
• Moderate 26%
• Conservative 3%

Among Democrats

• Liberal 47%
• Moderate 49%
• Conservative 4%

Among Moderates

• Liberal 62%
• Moderate 34%
• Conservative 4%

Do you think Scott Brown has made a strong argument for why he should be elected to the Senate?

• Yes 56%
• No 36%

Among Independents

• Yes 67%
• No 27%

Among Moderates

• Yes 61%
• No 31%

Do you think Martha Coakley has made a strong argument for why she should be elected to the Senate?

• Yes 41%
• No 51%

Among Independents

• Yes 29%
• No 62%

Among Moderates

• Yes 37%
• No 56%

Do you approve or disapprove of the work Ted Kennedy did during his time in the US Senate?

• Approve 63%
• Disapprove 24%

Would you like to see the next Senator from Massachusetts carry on Ted Kennedy’s legacy?

• Yes 47%
• No 41%

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 44% (44%)
• Disapprove 43% (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 33% (30%)
• Disapprove 52% (54%)

Among Moderates

• Approve 42% (42%)
• Disapprove 42% (43%)

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 40% (41%)
• Oppose 48% (47%)

Among Independents

• Support 29% (27%)
• Oppose 59% (59%)

Among Moderates

• Support 37% (38%)
• Oppose 50% (48%)

Do you think that Congressional Democrats are too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

• Too liberal 53%
• Too conservative 14%
• About right 33%

Do you think that Congressional Republicans are too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

• Too liberal 12%
• Too conservative 53%
• About right 35%

Do you think that ACORN will try to steal the election for Martha Coakley?

• Yes 25%
• No 38%
• Not sure 37%

Survey of 1,231 likely voters was conducted January 16-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% (44%) Democrat; 17% (17%) Republican; 44% (39%) Independent. Political ideology: 54% (47%) Moderate; 22% (27%) Conservative; 23% (26%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 7-9, 2010 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Republicans continue to show much more enthusiasm about the election than Democrats, with 89% of them saying they’re ‘very excited’ to go vote compared to 63% of Dems who express that sentiment. Brown has a 59-40 lead among voters in that category.

The following is an update on the Idaho 1st Congressional District race between Vaughn Ward and Id. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-14).

Former Boise City Council Candidate Lucas Baumbach isn’t that much into Vaughn Ward’s Congressional campaign, not anymore. In a scathing piece, posted at the Boise Picayune, Baumbach lambasts the Ward campaign.

To be fair, not of all of Baumbach’s assaults on Ward are reasonable. For example, Baumbach blames Ward for McCain losing Nevada. McCain lost Nevada by 12 points . Could a different state coordinator have made up 12 points? I doubt it. Baumbach also attacks Ward for “taking government jobs” his whole adult life. Given that many of these government jobs were in defense of our country, I’ll more than give Ward a pass on that.

However, where Baumbach hits pay dirt is on Ward’s failure to appreciate the local situation:

Ward’s staff is becoming highly divisive within the local party, refusing to speak to some local groups and proudly touting Washington DC contacts. Despite promising to speak to groups such as the Treasure Valley Pachyderms and Politichiks, Ward has avoided them. One insider said, “Vaughn told me he was going after the voters not the “party” which may be why he hasn’t been courting the statehouse.” Why is Ward running as a Republican then? Ward doesn’t understand how the party works for candidates. Each of the nearly 1000 precinct committeemen in Idaho is a political treasure, with years of political networking in his respective community. Candidates are supposed to campaign TO GOP precinct committeemen. In turn they campaign FOR HIM (for free). Instead Ward has chosen the national, impersonal model of campaign. He has no concept of how to woo and use the party to his advantage…

Walt Minnick panders to Tea Party events, braving the rough waters of town-hall meetings. But, Ward’s jarhead is too thick to understand the significance of tea parties, much less the power of the GOP. Meanwhile, Labrador is seen sailing these waters like a competent captain. Labrador wants the energy of these conservative movements to infuse the GOP. These reformist movements are youthful and vigorously pro-constitution and small government…

Baumbach also criticized Ward’s endorsement from Former GOP Chairman Kirk Sullivan.  I e-mailed the Ward campaign and asked for a comment on Baumbach’s piece. Here’s what I got:

We are continuing to travel the district and talk about bringing jobs to Idaho, limited government, and restoring fiscal discipline to Washington D.C. Idahoans are understandably concerned about the direction our nation is heading and are standing behind my record of service and my commitment to getting our economy back on track.

Nice, but it didn’t actually answer any question Baumbach raised, and suggests that the Ward campaign may be missing something very important.

One thing that Baumbach got wrong is that he stated with certainty that Minnick would lose the election. I don’t think that’s predetermined at all.  I think that Minnick can get re-elected the same way he got elected-a divided Republican Party.

Recently, I was speaking to a well-known Republican. I stated that I thought that regardless of who won, we’d be better off than with Minnick. He expressed doubt that Ward would be better.

Ward’s campaign has taken on a risky task, and has accepted some endorsements that endenger a lot of mistrust within the party. Kirk Sullivan comes in at the top of the list. Sullivan’s chairmanship was marked by an obvious disconnect between the will of the party’s volunteers and regular supporters and the actions of its state chairman. Sullivan is a nice enough gentleman, but to many conservatives he represents an out of touch Republican establishment.

This same GOP establishment, led by the Governor used passive aggressive tactics against former Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID) as the Governor refused to help Sali’s campaign until the very end of the campaign in a fit of pique. It was clear that the Governor was more than happy to accept one term of Democratic control of the congressional district if it’d mean being rid of Bill Sali, who’d crossed Otter in supporting the insurgent candidacy of Norm Semanko over Sullivan, who’d done the Governor’s bidding.

And these Otter types have been gravitating towards the Ward campaign. For conservatives who refused to submit to Governor Otter, the symbolism couldn’t be more striking.

The same goes with Ward’s support for Congressional leaders that he’s touted.  He’s got the support of John Boehner and the GOP leadership in Congress. Great. 74% of Republican voters say the Republican leadership in Congress is out of touch. The only endorsements that would be less impressive to grassroots Republican voters are that of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, or the anthrax virus.

Given Ward’s background in intelligence, what’s most shocking is that his campaign has failed in the critical area of intelligence gathering. Ward has been embraced by folks who get a very negative reaction out of a large group of party members.

Ward’s campaign reminds me of one I covered back in Montana for County Commissioner. A Mayor defeated an incumbent Republican Commissioner in the primary. The Mayor was a good guy and when he did win, he governed as a conservative. However, his campaign associated with the wrong people and didn’t respond well to the consevative Incumbent’s supporters. The result, a party splitting three way race, that the challenging Mayor won narrowly because the Democrats nominated a fru-fru candidate.

The situation in Idaho 1st against Blue Dog Walt Minnick is more perilous. If Ward is the GOP nominee and he doesn’t unite Republicans and conservatives have serious doubts whether he’s worth fighting for, he loses.

The tragedy for Ward is that he’s not a liberal. He received contributions from Rep. Mike Pence (R-In.) who is as conservative as they come, and doesn’t support liberals or RINOs. But Ward has chosen his intrastate allies poorly. He has taken money from a political establishment that has divided the Idaho Republican Party and tried to dictate to the grassroots, rather than listening to them.

Ward’s allies strengthen the case of ID. Raul Labrador (R-14), giving Labrador a natural anti-Ward vote. The Idaho Conservative blogger poll (which shows Labrador beating Ward by a 54-39%) is significant even though its unscientific, because it shows some weakness in Ward’s stock, particularly on a site where Ward had done very well and even has purchased top advertising space.

Even if Ward wins the nomination (which seems likely at this point, but two weeks ago it was likely that Marsha Coakley would be elected to the U.S. Senate in a landslide), he faces a task of building bridges within his own party, and if Ward doesn’t realize the mistakes he’s made and win over the grassroots voters, then we will be talking about Congressman Minnick until at least 2013.

Michael F. Cannon, of the Cato Institute, reports that the organization will soon publish a study on the Massachusetts health care system:

On Wednesday, the Cato Institute will release “The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain,” authored by Cato adjunct scholar Aaron Yelowitz and yours truly. Our study evaluates Massachusetts’ 2006 health law, which bears a “remarkable resemblance” to the president’s plan. We use the same methodology as previous work by the Urban Institute, but ours is the first study to evaluate the effects of the Massachusetts law using Current Population Survey data for 2008 (i.e., from the 2009 March supplement). Since I’m sure that supporters of the Massachusetts law and the Obama plan will dismiss anything from Cato as ideologically motivated hackery: Yelowitz’s empirical work is frequently cited by the Congressional Budget Office, and includes one article co-authored with MIT health economist (and Obama administration consultant) Jonathan Gruber, under whom Yelowitz studied.

Among our findings:

* Official estimates overstate the coverage gains under the Massachusetts law by roughly 50 percent.
* The actual coverage gains may be lower still, because uninsured Massachusetts residents appear to be concealing their lack of insurance rather than admit to breaking the law.
* Public programs crowded out private insurance among low-income children and adults.
* Self-reported health improved for some, but fell for others.
* Young adults appear to be avoiding Massachusetts as a result of the law.
* Leading estimates understate the cost of the Massachusetts law by at least one third.

I’m sure this will generate plenty of comments from angry Romney supporters. I surely do not intend to lay all of the blame for Masscare at his feet (I understand the context of working with an overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal legislature and making the best of a rough situation); I simply mean to relay the findings of the study.

On a personal note, I have training in Massachusetts for my new job (not politics-related) for the next 11 days, so hopefully I’ll get somewhat of a closer read on the special election. While I had the TV in my hotel room on for about a half-hour, I saw a Brown ad. While I won’t have the ability to do anything like speak with voters and visit polling stations, I’ll pass along any information I might glean.

No, I’m not kidding. Here’s Hotline’s report, with a bit of emphasis added:

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama’s rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley’s now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person — George W. Bush.

“People are upset because there’s so many problems,” Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight’s rally wrapped up. “But the problems came from the previous administration. So we’re blaming poor Obama, who’s working 36 hours a day … to solve these problems that he inherited.”

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by “George Bush and his cronies” are not so easily solved.

“If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown,” Kennedy said. “If you don’t, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole … then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president’s in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that.”

So have the Democrats made any mistakes? Yes they have, Kennedy said, in a burst of straightforward honesty. They’ve been wrong by trying so hard to fix the problems that they’ve totally forgotten to remind people that it’s all Bush’s fault.

Once again, no, I’m not kidding. He really said that:

“One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven’t kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We’ve tried too hard to do that right thing, and that’s to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place.”

This is one bit of blame I’m sure W would be glad to accept. Let’s hope he gets the chance.

Does the world really need The New York Times?  We’re about to find out, as The Times is about to move toward some form of pay-to-read model.  My guess is that this will be another noteworthy point in time at which Americans later can look, when they’re recalling the various stages of the un-doing of The Times.  Not that I’m critical of them for attempting to improve their profits.  Rather, I consider it unlikely that The Times provides such a high-quality level of journalism, that there will not be more efficient start-ups, from the left and the right.

My understanding is that ongoing technological innovation and the subsequent, continual increase in the “democratization” of the news media — that all of this has been very good for conservatism.  But that where we are still weak is in our ability to “drive” a news agenda.  We can hold accountable, and we can react, but we still are largely unable to drive a message that most Americans are then talking about the next day.

This is where organizations like the Associated Press and The New York Times are still very influential, even among the right.  My thinking is, as The Times becomes a pay-to-use online product, that it immediately increases the demand for AP-like, less-costly companies; where there is an un-met demand, there typically becomes a supply.

Reading the following article, it seems that The Times could not be more uncertain about exactly how to charge readers.  It’s oddly reassuring that they really do not have any more answers than the rest of us.

Lastly, I’ll note that I take issue with the theme at the very end of the article, where the writer suggests that the independent fates of both “journalism” and “The Times” are at all related or proportional, in the long run.

Gabriel Sherman at New York Magazine.  Emphasis added:

New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.

…

Executive Editor Bill Keller declined to comment. Times spokesperson Diane McNulty said: “We’ll announce a decision when we believe that we have crafted the best possible business approach. No details till then.”

…

The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record, with a vast audience — 20 million unique readers — that, [NY Times digital chief] Nisenholtz and others believed, would prove lucrative as web advertising matured. (The nytimes.com homepage, for example, has sold out on numerous occasions in the past year.)

….

At an investor conference this fall, Nisenholtz alluded to this tension: “At the end of the day, if we don’t get this right, a lot of money falls out of the system.”

…

Hanging over the deliberations is the fact that the Times’ last experience with pay walls, TimesSelect, was deeply unsatisfying and exposed a rift between Sulzberger and his roster of A-list columnists, particularly Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd, who grew frustrated at their dramatic fall-off in online readership.

…

“As we got into it, it was clear to me I was getting cut off from a lot of my readers in India and China where 50 dollars per year would be equal to a quarter of college tuition,” Friedman recently told me by phone.

…

I asked Friedman whether any of the technologists he meets during his globe-trotting had presented any groundbreaking ideas for how to save the Times and journalism. While he’s optimistic about the coming crop of tablets and e-readers, the answer is no. “We’re in a megatransition. It hasn’t ever felt like anyone has the answer,” he said. “My macro feeling is that I’m glad I had this job at this time. It was great working at the paper when it was on dead trees and could pay for itself.”

______________________________________________________________

Connect with Hodge on Facebook, his Web site, Twitter, and KansasProgress.com.  From 2005-’09, Hodge represented 300,000 voters and 50,000 students at Johnson County Community College.  He served in the Kansas House from 2006-’08.  His record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Sunday PJM/CrossTarget Poll: Brown up 9.6% among likely voters

• Scott Brown 51.9%
• Martha Coakley 42.3%
• Undecided 5.7%

Insider the numbers;

A poll taken Sunday afternoon while President Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning for Democrat Martha Coakley against Republican Scott Brown for the open Senate seat in that state showed Brown leading his Democratic opponent by 9.6% (51.9% to 42.3% with 5.7% undecided).

The poll, conducted via telephone for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget, was of 574 Likely Massachusetts Voters and has a margin of error of +/-4.09%. CrossTarget used the exact method – Interactive Voice Technology (IVR) – it used in a similar poll for PJM on Friday.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Merriman River Group/InsideMedford.com Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown 50.8%
• Martha Coakley 41.2%
• Joe Kennedy 1.8%

MRG surveyed 565 likely voters between 5:00 P.M. and 8:45 P.M. on January 15, 2010 using touch-tone polling technology. The margin of error is +/– 4.1%. Some columns do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Inside the numbers:

Not surprisingly, nearly all of Coakley’s supporters approve of President Obama’s job performance, while three-quarters of Brown’s supporters disapprove. Coakley may see a glimmer of hope in the fact that more than two-thirds of undecided voters approve of the president’s job performance while only 6% disapprove, especially in light of the president’s swing through the state to campaign for her later today.

47% of Brown’s supporters say that taxes, jobs, and the economy represent the most important issue to them in this race, while half of Coakley’s supporters say that healthcare reform is most important to them. Undecided voters are nearly evenly split between the two issues—40% say they’re most concerned with taxes, jobs, and the economy with 37% saying that healthcare reform that most concerns them. “For Coakley to have a chance, she needs to convince voters that the Democratic party’s agenda for the economy is the right one, and she needs to do it fast,” said MRG’s executive director, Matt Fitch.

Hat-tip: Hot Air

This isn’t “New Commie Rhetoric?”

Elected officials serve at the pleasure of their constituents.  Conservatives have always understood this principle.  Liberals have always abused this privilege.

-

“It’s the people’s seat“‘ – Scott Brown

“we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and … a servant’s heart” – Sarah Palin

“the people’s house” – Ronald Reagan

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Scott Brown’s riposte to the assertion that he was trying to take “Ted Kennedy’s seat” was that it was “the people’s seat.” And now he’s holding a “people’s rally” to counter the president’s own with Martha Coakley. Sarah Palin has long been repeating her mantra that she wants to put government back on the side of “the people.”

Am I the only one irritated by this new Commie-style rhetoric? Where’s Jose Ortega y Gasset when we need him? “The People” is a leftist phrase. See, for instance: Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” or, well, “The People’s Republic of China.”

I’m an elitist, country-club Republican of the old school. Conservatism’s not a “people’s movement.” Proud bourgeoisie-types like me don’t know what to do with the GOP’s new rhetoric. I’m sitting back and tolerating it, letting the masses have their plaything, I suppose: but at the end of the day, this had better translate into some good old-fashioned small government policies. I don’t want the government “on my side.” I want it out of my life.

Pro-lifers confront Democratic Senator Robert Casey who betrayed them.

Nelson had to leave pizzeria .  (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

Democrats talk about taxing investment income to pay for Obamacare.  (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Why some Insurance companies love abortion. (Hat TIp: Right Mind.)

Christendom college marches for life.

Join the Virtual March for Life.  

Homeschoolers win huge victory in New Hampshire.

New York theater group does play about “Gay Charlie Brown.”

Same sex marriage opponent fears for his life.

Christians convicted of “discriminating” against homosexuals to appeal. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

9 Vermont candidates call for secession. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

26 patients die in Cuban Mental hospital as a result of a cold snap.  (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In all its illegal and unethical glory:

Scott Brown is holding steady at 55% over at InTrade at the moment.

The Friday night Coakley internal polling has made it’s way public again just like Wednesday and Thursday night’s have. The number being reported through the grapevine:

• Wednesday: Brown +2
• Thursday: Brown +3
• Friday: Brown +2

Public Policy Polling tweeted about this saying:

The daily leaking of Coakley’s internals, when they’re not good news, sign of a highly undisciplined campaign.

When a candidate’s internals are leaking out every night and the numbers are not good, it can’t be a good thing – can’t it? The only way this could make any sense is that they are wanting people to wake up to how dire their situation is so that the Democratic base comes out but this would be sure one risky way to try to do that.

The Cape Cod Times is also reporting that Brown drew a large crowd at his event in Hyannis Saturday:

The red, white and blue signs. Chants of “Yes We Can.” People of all ages and races clamoring for one glance at the candidate.

It was state Sen. Scott Brown — not President Barack Obama — who received the rock star treatment yesterday in Hyannis, as several hundred supporters lined Main Street to cheer the Republican hopeful for the U.S. Senate on to victory against state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The hefty turnout surprised some people, including police officers, as Main Street was down to one lane in spots and Brown supporters crowded in the street caused frequent traffic backups.

The crowd began forming around 1 p.m. and waited for almost two hours before Brown arrived, as the car horns continually honked in support of the Wrentham resident.

Sounds like people are pretty fired up.

Washington Post/ABC News Survey on Barack Obama

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 53% {50%} (56%) [57%]
• Disapprove 44% {46%} (42%) [40%]

Note: 30% strongly approve; 32% strongly disapprove.

Obama has been president for about one year. Would you say he has accomplished a great deal during that time, a good amount, not very much or little or nothing?

• A great deal 12% [14%]
• A good amount 35% [35%]
• Not very much 30% [27%]
• Little or nothing 22% [23%]

(If not much/nothing) Who’s mainly responsible for that – Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• Obama 52%
• Republicans in Congress 20%

How much confidence do you have in Obama to make the right decisions for the country’s future?

• A great deal 24% [29%]
• A good amount 23% [20%]
• Just some 26% [27%]
• None at all 27% [24%]

Is Obama keeping most of his major campaign promises, or not?

• Yes 41%
• No 46%

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?

• Strongly favorable 38% (39%)
• Somewhat favorable 20% (21%)
• Somewhat unfavorable 13% (11%)
• Strongly unfavorable 27% (27%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 44% {44%} (47%) [48%]
• Disapprove 52% {53%} (49%) [48%]

Note: 24% strongly approve; 43% strongly disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 47% {46%} (51%) [50%]
• Disapprove 52% {52%} (47%) [48%]

Note: 22% strongly approve; 39% strongly disapprove.

Do you think Obama’s economic program is making the economy better, making it worse or having no real effect?

• Better 35% [41%]
• Worse 23% [22%]
• No effect 41% [35%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 38% {37%} (42%) [45%]
• Disapprove 56% {56%} (53%) [51%]

Note: 18% strongly approve; 41% strongly disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the threat of terrorism?

• Approve 55% (53%)
• Disapprove 42% (41%)

Note: 31% strongly approve; 28% strongly disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the government’s response to the attempted terrorist bombing aboard an airliner last month?

• Approve 62%
• Disapprove 35%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?

• Approve 50% {52%} (45%) [45%]
• Disapprove 45% {44%} (48%) [47%]

Note: 22% strongly approve; 27% strongly disapprove.

Would you say Obama is doing a better or worse job as president than you expected?

• Much better 12%
• Somewhat better 22%
• Somewhat worse 18%
• Much worse 17%

(more…)

A heads up for Kindle owners, Race42012 is now available for subscription for the astonishingly low price of $1.99 per month.

It’s a heckuva deal my friends… You can subscribe here.

Click here to watch Danielle Smith on CTV’s “Question Period”.

Yes, I’m bringing up Alberta and the Wildrose Alliance yet again. Why the obsession with provincial-level politics in Western Canada? Well, in this case it has little to do with Alberta and everything to do with the Tea Party movement here in the United States.

Danielle Smith is running a very effective insurgent operation and has shot from worst to first in the polls. Hence, I think that all aspiring insurgents south of the border need to be taking their cues from Ms. Smith and her renegade Wildrose Alliance.

The difference between where the Wildrose Alliance is (leading the political pack and humiliating the provincial government) and where the Te Partiers are (just getting started) is that the Smith and her Wildrosers are now conducting themselves with the quiet confidence of a leading party. By contrast, many Tea Party folks are (rightly) expressing themselves via outrage.

I have few qualms with the progress of the Tea Parties, as the movement is still embryonic, but as it comes of age we will need more people who talk like Danielle Smith. Her rhetoric is indeed peppered with “throw the bums out” populism and references to ”founding fathers” - in her case, citing the Wildrose-esque rise of  Peter Lougheed and Alberta PC Party over the then-dominant Social Credit Party in the late 1960s and early1970s (which is interesting, considering that she is now on the brink of sweeping out the party that Lougheed built). However, she is not  angry, nor does she come off as a loon. Instead, she calmly presents her case, shows herself to have a firm grasp of the issues, and presents the image not of a firebrand oppositionist but of a competent leader ready to assume power.

By the way, I do think a number of U.S. insurgents are capable of this. For instance, Smith’s delivery reminds me of Sarah Palin when she’s at her best, and I think there may also be some pointers here for people like Marco Rubio or even Mike Huckabee.  

Now, simply because I repeatedly cite the Wildrose Alliance does NOT mean that I’m interested in some of the third-party nonsense circulating here in the States. I think Wildrose-type parties are capable of succeeding independently in a parliamentary system of government, but that the USA’s presidential system dictates that such revolutions be kept in-house within the Republican Party. Furthermore, the GOP has a much more solid foundation (dating back to Lincoln) then does the Alberta PC Party (which, as noted, did not emerge as a major force until the 1960s). However, when it comes basic insurgent tactics of her party, I think that Danielle Smith should indeed be a guiding northern star for the building anti-establishment movement in the GOP.

That’s why I’m bothering to post a week-old interview with an obscure, sub-national Canadian politician. This woman ROCKS!

By the way, you can follow Danielle Smith on Twitter @ElectDanielle.

Watch at 0:45 where the video (recorded January 13th, 2010) goes:

Interviewer: I don’t want people to get the wrong idea so before you go, right now, the bill is a non-starter with you?

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5): “I don’t think this bill is going to go anywhere”

All the little data points seem to be showing that this health care bill is in a world of trouble.

The public still doesn’t like it:

Oh at the moment (10:36am PST), Scott Brown is favored to win the Massachusetts Senate seat based on financial bets over at InTrade:

Scott Brown: 55.0%
Martha Coakley: 45.1%

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy. You can reach him at david.schmidt@evercor.com.  Facebook | Twitter

While I am aware this has been done by many sources more reputable than I, here is my take on the winners and losers in the health care reform I feel is most likely to pass through Congress:

Winners:

1. Unions managed to get out of the so-called “Cadillac taxes” to be imposed on high-cost (and therefore likely overused) health care plans. The Heritage Foundation also tagged some other outs they got.

2. Insurance companies are getting a bigger share of the market, as enforced by the government. The government is, unfortunately, continuing to pick winners and losers, and will probably continue with its abysmal success rate. Insurance companies, following in their anti-free market practices, are quite okay with this.

3. President Obama, if he can get liberals online with him.

4. 2010 candidates running against most incumbent Democrats and some incumbent Republicans.

5. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for showing her ability to put together a health care bill that is practical versus ideological, at least in political terms. (Though, of course, that will mostly be the interpretation by liberal Beltway writers and political analysts. Most of the rest of the country will want her head, but since she’s from San Francisco that won’t matter for her re-election.)

6. Liberals who want a further destruction of competition in the private sector of America and who want a stronger central government.

7. Governor Sarah Palin, who can continue to say how bad the bill is, continue to declare herself the only non-establishment candidate in the upcoming 2012 Republican primary and defeat MassCare creator Governor Mitt Romney. Romney is, of course, the only probable 2012 candidate with a real shot of beating Obama and turning this country’s fiscal crisis around. (Here’s hoping Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels changes his mind and runs…)

Losers:

1. Moderate Democrats. No explanation needed.

2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). He’s toast in his re-election, and making things worse.

3. The Constitution. Heritage and George Will explain.

4. The unborn.

5. Moderate Democrats who vote for any form of Democratic health care reform.

6. The vast majority of Americans.

7. The inverses of those who are in the “Winners” category, such as Romney, many incumbents, the free market etc.

There is, of course, still hope. I’m going to Massachusetts tomorrow courtesy of Americans For Limited Government to observe the special election there, and hopefully Scott Brown pulls it out. If that happens, health care reform is probably toast. Too, here’s hoping Representative Stupak (D-MI) holds his pro-life coalition together to slam health care reform to a halt, or that budget and special interest concerns push honest liberals to jam the bill. Then, we can start on the real path to health care reform.Unfortunately, I feel there is a 70% chance health care reform will pass if Coakley wins, which still could happen.

(Note: President Obama has been calling health care reform “health insurance reform” for some time now, and does so again when calling for Massachusetts to vote for Coakley the other day. A subtle but important change in strategy and goal.)

Jay Cost has a savvy post up on the impossibility of permanent majorities.  And he addresses the “Republicans can’t beat something with nothing” idea.  He writes:

When the country is angry about the state of the union, and it feels that it’s time for a change, it will vote for the opposition party as a “protest vehicle.” Why? Because in our two-party system there is no place else for the people to go. They might not like the opposition, but it is a choice between them and the status quo….

If it’s a choice between the status quo and an opposition party that has disappointed in the past, sometimes circumstances demand the opposition. Historically speaking, that’s simply a true statement…

Ultimately, this is what dooms a majority party. Sooner or later, it’s going to find itself having to deal with voter anger when times turn tough. When that happens, the country will get behind the opposition. Sometimes this happens quickly. Sometimes it takes a while. But it always happens.

This is all pretty common sense stuff, which makes the twice a decade cooings about “permanent majorities” all the more bewildering.  But, one sentence in particular jumped out at me.  After noting the eagerness with which conservative Republicans are supporting the moderate Scott Brown, he writes:

Ideological diversity is a problem for a party to worry about only after its returned to the majority.

This is interesting.  I’d argue that a willingness to support “less than ideal” candidates, in less then ideal circumstances, is a leading indicator of a party’s resurgence.  After devastating defeats there’s a vocal “purify” segment of the party; and there’s a “broaden” segment.  The first group is relatively useful because enormous victories are inevitably followed by backlashes.  So a party can afford to move to their core in the short term; they’ll experience some success, however modest, whatever they do.  It’s not by chance that incumbent parties almost always suffer losses in mid-term elections: it’s a near law of the universe, floating around there with “girls like guys with muscles” and “boiled egg yolks are icky”.  It’s inexorable.  But, a party can’t cobble together any long-term coalition on purification.  Eventually there needs to be a broadening.  Eventually the purifiers need to get excited about a Scott Brown; they need to rally for conservatives in conservatives areas (Hoffman in NY-23) and moderates in liberal areas (Brown in Mass).

So we’re getting there.  But I think Cost is wrong about when a party ought to start worrying about ideological diversity.  Big-tents don’t work unless they’re well-crafted, as we see with the current Democratic majority.  Democrats, in 2006, built their congressional majority primarily on opposition to the Iraq war.  This paid short-term dividends but created long-term problems.  When Iraq improved they were left without a very coherent majority and, indeed, they seemed like a party without an agenda prior to the 08′ economic collapse.  That collapse just kicked the fundamental structural can down the road.  They’re now discovering that their majority wasn’t built for anything- that none of the major domestic issues they’re tackling received broad support from the public or their new blue-dog colleagues. Which Obama supporters thought they were voting for a massively expanded federal debt and an expansive, intrusive health care bill which panders to the insurance industry?  Which Obama voters were pining for a massive carbon tax in the midst of economic stagnation?  Democrats didn’t win on these radical proposals and it’s no surprise that many of their more moderate colleagues are balking.

The Contract with America, in 94′, represents a different pathway.  The Republican tent broadened, but it was well-crafted.  They knew what they were about and, as a result, achieved a remarkable string of successes.  Republicans need to remember this lesson as they seek to dismiss this Congress and dismantle this President’s agenda.  Ideological diversity is acceptable, even necessary, but there must be an enduring, mutually agreed upon, core agenda.  Without one a party can win a majority only to find that they’ve lost the country.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com