Senate election thread

Polls closed. Who won? We'll, I am watching a couple of things online right now. One of them is the #masen twitter stream, which updates about 40-80 posts per minute right now. Wow. I'll update this with links to the results and here with maps.


* Among those who decided how they would vote in the past few days, Coakley has a slight edge, 47% to 41%.

* Coakley also has a big advantage among those who made up their mind more than a month ago.

* 22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.


  • 4% Reporting- Scott Brown 52%, Martha Coakley 47%, Joe Kennedy 1%.
  • 5% Reporting - Brown 53,663 - 52%; Coakley 48381 - 47%; Kennedy 914 - 1%
  • 8%  116/2168 Precincts reporting- Brown 52% Coakley 47% Kennedy 1%
  • 179 of 2168 Precincts Brown 103,633 52% Coakley 93,019 47%

Looks like, with about 10% in, that we are are at about a 5% difference. I'm mostly keeping an eye on Worcester, which right now shows Coakley winning by a 75-23 margin.... but only 1 precinct reporting.

  • 293 of 2168 precincts reporting, Brown 53% Coakley 46%
  • 17% in Brown 52% 200,793 Coakley 47%182,488 Kennedy-3681 1%
  • 21% reporting: Brown (R) 249,106 votes, 53%; Coakley (D) 216,117, 46%

According to Dave Wasserman, a high turnout is happening, which I thought would help Brown, and that's turning into Brown out-performing expectations by 3-4% across the state.

  • 36% reporting, Coakley 47% Brown 52% 639 of 2168 precincts counted.

Worcester is going for Coakley at a 57-41 margin, which isn't enough, with 20/50 reporting. She needs to be in the 60's to win statewide. Brown is going to win.

  • 40% in and Brown leads Coakley by a 52.6- 46.4 percent margin... so I'm off by a combined 1 percent so far (shoulda went decimal).
  • 52% reporting - Brown 587,389 - 52%; Coakley 520,311 - 47%; Kennedy - 11,146 - 1%

Yea, the networks are now calling it for Brown.

  • 64% reporting - Brown 53% Coakley 46% Kennedy 1%

Sorry, MyDD went down and out there for about 30 minutes or so. New platform and all (BreakingBlue got snagged up).

  • 79% reporting - Brown 52.3% Coakley 46.7% Kennedy 1%
  • 94% reporting - Brown 52.2% Coakley 46.8% Kennedy 1%

Here's my two-bits. I'm not shocked by tonights result at all. I guess Democrats really didn't realize that they would be held accountable if they got the reigns of complete power and were not transparent. Crap like buying off Ben Nelson's vote by bribing him with our money is insulting. The internet is just a tool of transparency, and no one, least of all the online progressives, has been fooled by the last year. The Republicans have come into our hometown and kicked our butt tonight. The Democrats have less than 10 months to start governing as a people-powered party, or they will lose both the House and the Senate.

UPDATE: LMAO. Am listening to the Democrats in Coakley's party, and after she spoke, they broke out with "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" by Fleetwood Mac. Yea, this was a 90's campaign for the Democrats.... then it ended, and they just re-played it again.

FINAL UPDATE: With 96% reporting, Brown is leading Coakley and Kennedy by a 52-47-1 margin.

I predicted a 53-46-1 margin in favor of Brown. MyDD user esconded one-upped me by predicting Brown 51.5 to Coakley 46.5 margin. But wait a sec, that was opposite esconded's 2010 predictions ;)


Tags: 2010, MA Senate, Brown, Coakley (all tags)




If 22% of democrats voted for Brown , thats about a 10 point race

by lori 2010-01-19 08:20PM | 0 recs

It looks like its a 6% race that could tighten if Boston comes in stronger for Coakley at the end.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-01-19 09:15PM | 0 recs
and you know about the only place Dems even won in November

was Boston.

Obama is going to be the death of our Party

(at least the Gary Hart, Bill Bradley Barrack Obama faction of it - thank God).


by 2010-01-19 09:41PM | 2 recs
RE: and you know about the only place Dems even won in November

Death of Party? 

Honest question, I don't know what people's expectations on the blogosphere have been in the past few months, but we had to expect an eventual Republican rebound.  The sheer numbers suggested that things would eventually go their way, in a country that is still far closer to 50/50 than progressives would like to admit.  I'm hoping we can get by one more cycle and hope for a bad Republican ticket in 2012, but the numbers have always suggested a Republican comeback of some sort, and no matter which Democrat was in office (I supported Hillary in the primaries), if the economy wasn't turned around, no matter the fact that the Republicans caused this with 8 disastrous years of Bush, then Democrats would eventually feel the pain at the polls.

by toonsterwu 2010-01-19 09:46PM | 0 recs
The Clintons would never have given

HCR and the stimulus bill over to Pelosi and the Commiittee chairs to write (and sell to their cronies and contributors) thats the kernel of our problem.

Hillary wouldnt have given HCR over to big pharm and big insurance and paid for it by taxing Union families!

There are two Democratic Parties and there have been two for at least 40 years. 

The other side of the Party, the Hart. Bradley, Obama side -the non Clinton one lost tonight.

Big time.

by 2010-01-19 09:55PM | 2 recs
RE: The Clintons would never have given

fair enough.  I was troubled by Obama not dictating the message on health care, so I think that's a fair question to ask.  There was a chance last year, with the momentum of 08 to perhaps push things rapidly forward from a progressive perspective, although I think it's fair to question what the result of that would have been in 2010 (and 2012).  Give the Republicans credit - after floating around for the first half of 09, they seemed to gather some momentum in the fall, organize their message a bit better, and focus on the economic aspect (even though I think their approach is significantly flawed - not that the Dems have been better).

That said, I just don't see this as the death of the Democratic Party.  We lost, big time, but sometimes losing can be the impetus to development.  I believe the House needs to accept the Senate bill on HCR (reconciliation would lead to disaster down the line, IMO, and rushing it would perhaps destroy 2010 more than it should).  They need to focus on winning the spring/summer discussion to lead to as successful a fall as possible.  To be honest, as a relative outside observer these days (so I don't know if they do this), but I'd like to see a semi-expansion of the 50-state strategy in an effort to focus on getting the message out to the small towns, blue collar areas that we've been losing in.  A jobs package in of itself is a nice, but small step - you've got to sell that message.  Even if the platform isn't there, you make it appear.

by toonsterwu 2010-01-19 10:05PM | 0 recs
RE: The Clintons would never have given

no president has ever gone up 1 point in the polls from this date leading up to the mid term. None.

We will get killed in November.  I expect we mat lose the Senate as well as the House. (ex. Boxer)

The fight will go on, but there will be a parralel battle over who and how to lead our party.

I think its clearm it was a mistake to follow the media and the children into believing that inexperience and good graphics was a good way to build towards lasting majorities.

The Telegraph newspapers last week predicted a strong Democratic challenge to obama for 2012.  I hope theyre right and that he pulls a LBJ and withdraws from a reelection race.

He os not coming back, when people find out what he has already done regarding the banks and wall street, the truth behind the giveaways....and now that he is beginning to play the populist on that issue....oh my...expect torches and pitch forks everywhere.

by 2010-01-19 10:21PM | 2 recs
RE: The Clintons would never have given

The fact is Obama claimed and ran that he woudl change politics as usual....instead he is practicing it. Your right, he needs to clean house and realize that his political cronies just arent interested in change. Dump Emanuel.....dump Geitner and Bernanke.....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-19 10:38PM | 1 recs
MyDD went underwater

there for a good while.

Problem was that it was with the Breaking Blue app and not MyDD (they are sepearate apps).

Time to drink.

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-19 09:15PM | 0 recs
I wasn't able to log into Breaking Blue today

Don't know why.

by desmoinesdem 2010-01-19 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown is going to win

Oh well. Stand to for a hard turn to starboard.

by vecky 2010-01-19 09:18PM | 0 recs
admittedly haven't followed things all that closely

looking at the map at, it's almost jarring to see how badly she was trounced.  I followed enough in the final stages to know she was going to lose, but dang it's weird to see a Mass statewide map that has so much red and darker shade of red.

I'm sure there's probably plenty of blame to go around, but Coakley reminds me of Democrats of yesteryear (that is, 4-5 years ago) in her inability to sell.  With better programs and better policies for blue collar workers, our inability to go into small towns, to exurbs and get those votes has been something that's been troubling me for many years. 

I guess the shift "right" is coming, although I thought that Obama was more, well, Clintonian to begin with (I say this as an unabashed Clinton fan) and I actually haven't had the issues other progressives have had with him.  Nevertheless, this is disappointing to me.  Has nothing to do with party, and only to do with my belief that the policies that the Democratic Party offers is far superior to the alternative.  My only hope is that maybe this election gets the party searching for "sellers".  No, not everyone is Obama or Clinton, but we have to make the significant policy differences clear, th significant  and clear advantages that people would have following the Democratic Party and not the GOP.

by toonsterwu 2010-01-19 09:35PM | 0 recs
even though we need sellers

we also need a place to promote...and since the media doesn't insist on doing it.

by ND22 2010-01-19 09:39PM | 0 recs
RE: Senate election thread

good lord, what a mess


by jeopardy 2010-01-19 09:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Senate election thread
22% of Democrats voted for Brown. I wish I could have been there and made it 22% plus 1. Coakley lost the election when she stopped being herself and started campaining with Obama and Friends. Stupid.
by Shazone 2010-01-19 09:47PM | 1 recs
RE: Senate election thread

22% of democrats are fucking morons.  22% +1 if you are to be believed.


Party on, dude.

by lojasmo 2010-01-19 10:13PM | 0 recs
RE: Senate election thread

or perhaps they didn;t want to vote for yet another Democrat who raised her campaign money from Pharma and Insurance companies at a time when the Democratic Party seems to have been bought off by those interests.


Not that a stinking GOPer will be better or anything (of course not)...

but I think this was a big "F-you!" to what's been going on in D.C.


And I don't usually think that you can say that about a single election. for instance see my past diary: 

Evidence that NJ was not a referendum on Obama/Dems

by jeopardy, Wed Nov 04, 2009




by jeopardy 2010-01-19 10:28PM | 0 recs


by 2010-01-19 10:50PM | 2 recs
What this means?

Only time will tell for sure. However it is a very loud statment made in a democratic stronghold. Its says that voters are not just unhappy with President Obama and his lack of leadership, but also there disdain for what is happening in Washington. Voters know that electing Brown could kill the Health bill and he easily won this election tonight. Unless the party gets its act together and presents a bill that is actually effective at providing choice and cost control and they do so in a very open forum, voters will oppose  it. Further its a referendum on the President's and the party's handling of the economy. If things dont turn, November is going to be ugly.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-19 09:52PM | 1 recs
RE: What this means?
buckeyblogger: Short of a republican vote, who the hell is going to vote for them (Snowe and Coleman)...
by Check077 2010-01-19 10:20PM | 0 recs

As a baseline, it's worth noting that 13% of Massachusetts Democrats voted for McCain over Obama, which helps put the 22% number into perspective.

Other than noting the obvious fact that Coakley ran a terrible campaign, which everyone but the Coakley campaign seems to agree on, it seems like everyone's takeaway from this election is that voters are angry the Democrats have failed to do X, where X just happens to be exactly what the speaker wants the Democrats to do.  I'm not wise enough to read the mind of the electorate so I'll refrain from drawing an overall lesson, other than noting that it wouldn't be the worst thing if the economy got better.

by Steve M 2010-01-19 10:09PM | 0 recs
RE: Unfortunate

What should be troubking is that not only did Democrats vote for Brown but Mass independents did so as well. Anyoner who says this was about people being upset that the Democrats in Washington didnt pass healthcare are ignoring the obvious fact. If that were so, you wouldnt elect a republican. Fact is, voters overwhelming in polls just released today are not pleased with the healthcare plan as currently proposed, nor are they pleased with the stimulus plan nor the direction that the President or the party is taking them. The mistake was taking on healthcare during this severe recession instead of focusing on the urgent matter at hand. Fixing the economy and getting americans back to work. Healthcare reform does none of that in the short run......

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-19 10:13PM | 1 recs
RE: Unfortunate

In other words, the election results tell us that voters are upset about exactly the same things that you are personally upset about.  Thank you for illustrating my point so aptly.

by Steve M 2010-01-19 10:19PM | 0 recs
Leadership and identity crisis

Obama comes to power promising to change Washington and immediately surrounds himself with the worst of the Democratic Washington establishment. Then he proceeds to replace the Democratic partisans in DNC and DSCC with people who would follow his kumbaya politics. Down the road instead of picking a fight with the big industries he villified during the campaign he cozies up to them and in crunch time resurrects a populist message that appears so fake that it's cringe-worthy. The lesson of this election should be to do some house cleaning, pick some partisan fighters who are clean, not Rahm or Axelrod who has bought into the who kumbaya stuff too much. Finally now that 60 votes is no more it's time to have an actual reform bill and let the chips fall in place and use the simple majority effectively like the Republicans did (yeah he did squat with 60 votes). But the lesson that will be learned in the Beltway is to be more cautious and more cagey and finally more conservative. Kumbaya politics all the way.

by tarheel74 2010-01-19 10:14PM | 2 recs
I aqree completely

his faker populist bit will lose him 5 more points.

and 5 more Senators.


by 2010-01-19 10:47PM | 2 recs
RE: I aqree completely

I disagree. Many of us will take "faker populist" over "overt corporate stoodge" any day of the week.



by jeopardy 2010-01-19 10:51PM | 1 recs
RE: I aqree completely

There is a reason Obama resonated with so many people  during both the primary and the GE. Unfortunately now that he is in power he is toeing the same corporate Democrat line. This is the time when Obama has to find out who he really is. Is he everything he said he was? Or were they just empty words? In the end if he did pick a fight with corporate interests he would win back his support base. Right now they are disillusioned and disenchanted enough to either sit at home or in some cases vote for the guy with a (fake-)populist message, even if he is a Republican.

by tarheel74 2010-01-19 11:14PM | 0 recs
How the hell would you know

why Obama resonated with people?

by ND22 2010-01-20 12:43PM | 0 recs
RE: How the hell would you know

Who the hell are you to question what I know and what I don't know? How many red states did you campaign in?

by tarheel74 2010-01-20 01:25PM | 0 recs

Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida.


by ND22 2010-01-20 02:15PM | 0 recs
Damn right Jerome

Democrats better starting fighting for the working person or we are going have a blood bath in November.

We need to End the Filibuster, so we can get the following thingies done ASAP:

A Real Jobs Bill Passed

Real Banking Reform Passed

And a Real Health Care Reform Bill passed and not that Senate Insurance and Big Pharma Bailout Bill.

If we fail to get these items done before the end of the summer, we deserve to lose in November.


by srliberalguy 2010-01-19 10:22PM | 0 recs
RE: Damn right Jerome

And the start should be Bernanke and Geitner being fired. Show the voters that their ties to the financial industry as well as their deceit wont fly.

It is unlikely that the bil as currently constituted has any chance of passing....nor does anything more comprehensive. What they should do is pass areform bill that includes some of the measures currently in the health bill. The insurance reforms, tort reform and large tax credits for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance.


by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-19 10:36PM | 0 recs

We voted for change and got more of the same. President Obama better start delivering that promised change before it is too late to save his presidency.

by srliberalguy 2010-01-19 10:49PM | 1 recs
This from the guy

who said we shouldn't tax the banks.

by ND22 2010-01-20 08:11AM | 0 recs
I'm drinking Dogfish Head Fort

Live in Brookline, MA.  18% abv.  This stuff is amazing.

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-19 10:44PM | 0 recs
my 2010 predictions

Yes, that one was made when there was some noise about about a tighter than usual race, but at around 12/31/09, no one expected Coakley to lose.

I think HCR should be put on the back burner for a few months, after jobs and financial reform are tackled, then come with a smaller health care package that includes tax credits, and insurance regulation, not the box of junk the Senate bill was becoming.



by esconded 2010-01-19 10:45PM | 1 recs
RE: my 2010 predictions

esconded deserves major props +1

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-19 10:55PM | 0 recs
RE: my 2010 predictions

That's what I see happening as well. Cut out the medicaid expansion, the insurance susbsidies, focus purely on insurance reform, some sort of tax cuts, and some other minor tinkering.

by vecky 2010-01-19 11:15PM | 0 recs
RE: my 2010 predictions

That woudl be a massive mistake... To spend all their political capital to end up with practically nothing would be stupid.  Pass the Senate bill int he house, make modifications to the 2010 budget for the excise tax and stuff and be done with it!  Dragging this out does no one any good...

by LordMike 2010-01-20 04:54AM | 0 recs
RE: my 2010 predictions

Oh I agree with that. The bill should have been passed months ago. Dems are going to loose anyway, they may as well loose having accomplished something rather than nothing.

by vecky 2010-01-20 11:53AM | 0 recs
The smart play is to do the equivalent of folding.

Pass the Senate bill ASAP and shift to anything else.  I'm not sure the negative taste (rightly or wrongly) from healthcare goes away by either waiting til the lame duck session or having no bill.


It's time to stop digging.  The bill won't survive another trip to the Senate and "back burnering" is a1994 strategy. 

by AZphilosopher 2010-01-20 05:35AM | 0 recs

The MA Senate election is misdiagnosed.  It is a referendum on JOBS (the lack of them).  If unemployment was starting to come down below 10 percent, all the other BS would not matter.  Voters who see all the spending and no JOBS think we are not getting our money's worth.  If we spent twice as much and started creating JOBS, then spending would not be a problem. Voters would start to feel we are getting our money's worth. I don't think our elites understand JOBS.  This is the BIG difference between Obama and Bill Clinton.  Clinton put JOBS first.  Clinton survived impeachment because of low unemployment.

If Obama would come out and say the the results are a demand to do something about unemployment, he could turn up the heat on Congress to pass a better JOBS bill.  IF the Dems go into the November election with unemployment still over 10 percent (our economy is STILL losing JOBS) then it will be an even bigger loss.

by bakho 2010-01-20 08:23AM | 0 recs

Clinton focused on the economy becasue he didn't have much of a choice, the GOP being in control of the house and senate (he did try and do some little things though - like SCHIP).

However it's not true that this admin has not focused on jobs - the stimulus, the jobs bill, unemployment extentions, etc, etc. It's just messaging as HCR sucks all the oxygen out of the room.

by vecky 2010-01-20 11:55AM | 0 recs
From Andrew Sullivan

Mort Zuckerman pronounces:

He didn’t address the main issue.

He means the economy. How anyone who has been sentient this past year can say such a thing merely reveals how effective the propaganda has been.

Let's review:

a stimulus package that has clearly helped turn the economy around and was skilfully structured to ensure that it didn't entirely fade away when the second year came around, a third of which was tax cuts;

a bank bailout that is now being paid back; a lifeline to the car industry;

major investment in infrastructure;

extension of unemployment benefits;

avoidance of a second great depression and a return to fragile but real growth after the financial and economic abyss of a year ago ...

I mean he didn't address the main issue??

What the fuck is he talking about?

But this will be the reality because this is the easy reality and our politics now lives off of created reality, not the data. For Zuckerman, the idea of extending health insurance to the working poor in a period of immense economic insecurity is not addressing the main issue.

He is, of course, a billionaire diner at Michael's whose own access to the best healthcare in the world is automatic. And he wants a Democratic president to share those priorities.

by jeopardy 2010-01-20 02:14PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads