Well the Massachusetts & New Hampshire Primaries are over and I have thoughts about the results

1. I think Martha Coakley has one advantage over Steve Grossman when it comes to facing Charlie Baker, because she has lost a race to a republican she is unlikely to take him lightly. Granted it’s unlikely the prospect of a national GOP wave will make any difference in Massachusetts, if you are a Democrat the last thing you want to do is let your guard down. Coakley has been burned once I doubt she’ll let herself get burned again.

2. Mark Fisher drew 25% of the vote. One must assume that this is the Tea Party ceiling in the state, 39,545. Charlie Baker didn’t need these votes to win the primary but he is definitely going to need them in November.

3. If you want to get an idea of how uphill a fight Baker has. with 98% of the vote in Baker drew 114,461. Don Berwick The Third place finisher in the Democrat primary who you likely never heard of drew 113,296. Think of it. Baker’s 74% of the GOP vote only outpolled an unknown democrat by 1,165 votes.

4. Let’s put it another way, it’s been suggested that a lot of conservatives took Democrat ballots to vote against Coakley. If every single one of those Grossman votes go to Baker and all of Berwick’s votes go to Coakley Baker loses by over 30,000 votes unless he draws those Fisher votes. This is what you call a rock and a hard place.

5. The most interesting result of the night in the state was Seth Moulton unseating Rep John Tierney in the 6th district drawing over 49% of the vote to Tierney’s 41% (three minor candidates drew a combined 9.7%

6. Tierney’s wife’s conviction for tax evasion should have doomed him in 2010 but he won re-election by 13 points that year and 1 point in 2012. The lesson? Voters in Massachusetts 6th district would rather elect a known Democrat Crook than any republican, conservative or liberal.

7. I’ve not seen a Democrat with a more attractive resume than Seth Mouton, businessman, Marine with 4 tours in Iraq however as I look at his issue page all I see a liberal who supports Obamacare, wants more gun laws and thinks Climate Change is the #1 issue facing the world. On the plus side he loves his country enough to fight for it and isn’t a crook.

I’m old enough to remember when those two sentences would have been almost a given for a democrat, now it’s extraordinary.

8. If Richard Tisei couldn’t beat John Tierney he has absolutely no prayer against Mouton. On social issues there is practically no difference between them (Moe Lane is dead wrong here) so Mouton’s 4 tours as a Marine in Iraq will be the deciding factor but that’s not as fatal as his but , particularly given that Tisei’s boycott of the convention was an embarrassment to both the party & Baker. While it was overshadowed by the party’s foolishness vis a vis Fisher there are people in the establishment with long memories who haven’t forgiven him.

7. With the house safely in GOP hands no matter what happens in Ma-6 the national party which might have kicked in a few bucks vs Tierney isn’t going to waste a penny in the impossible task of defeating Mouton.

8. In New Hampshire I was sad to see Andrew Hemingway lose the GOP primary for governor. He is a dynamic young man who would have been a great candidate.

9. The single most important number in Scott Brown’s victory yesterday is 49%. If NH had a runoff system like Mississippi Brown would have to face Jim Rubens head to head. That would have been an interesting race

10. Brown’s ability to get almost 50% in a contested GOP primary suggests that NH is at the tipping point. Within a generation or two NH will not be an acceptable destination for conservatives wanting out of Massachusetts & it wouldn’t surprise me to see them start fleeing NH for red states.

11. On the plus side for the GOP Brown’s large campaign chest is going to force Democrats to devote millions to keep NH from giving the GOP any bit of wiggle room if they take back the senate. (That alone should be enough of an argument for conservatives to unite behind Brown. Every dollar spent in NH by the left is a dollar they can’t spend to defend in NC LA or anywhere else.

12. The most hopeful result was Marilinda Garcia’s victory in the nh-2 congressional race. I’ve been following Garcia for a while and she is the real deal. I suspect the left will go all out to stop her even beyond Brown.

The McCullen v Coakley case that removed the three-point lines in Massachusetts is the potential to have some interesting effects on both the national level and the local level.

Locally of course Coakley is Martha Coakley the current AG of Massachusetts now running for governor. Earlier this month Steve Grossman managed to get the endorsement of the Democrat party for the nomination while Coakley is still leading in the polls.

Coakley will likely be able to parley her name on that case to gain further sympathy from hard core pro-abortion activists, while Grossman can argue that Coakley team did a poor job arguing for the law before the court, so poor that she lost unanimously.

There is also the possibility that outgoing governor Deval Patrick might try to rush a new law through with his large majorities, as both Coakley & Grossman are in state government it’s unclear who that would help.

On the Republican side the issue is a godsend for Mark Fisher. Fisher has already gotten the endorsement of Mass right to life and can engage the base by his celebration of the result.

Not so Charlie Baker

“Charlie hopes the current law is upheld,” a Baker spokesperson told BostInno. Though vague in nature, the statement could be taken in a manner that Baker is, in fact, pro choice, or that he’s simply a proponent of laws enacted at the state level. Either way, his show of support for the cause, however broad in his choice of words, a positive direction for bipartisan collaboration in customarily blue Massachusetts.

Now Fisher is going to need a lot of breaks to beat Baker and this certainly isn’t enough to make the difference but it’s important to note that last thing Baker needs is a reminder to activists that he is squishy on life, particularly if we end up with a 3rd party candidate that’s pro-life on the ballot.

Any believing catholic wanting to avoid mortal sin (you know the type that sends you to hell) would be duty bound given the choice between pro-abortion candidates & a pro life one can only vote one way. As for myself as a Catholic no election is worth my soul.

While this case is likely to make things a little more interesting in Massachusetts it’s going to make things a LOT more interesting in New Hampshire.

Scott Brown ran as a pro-choice candidate last time around, I still remember the ads, they made me sick but as there was not a pro-life choice it was possible to morally vote for him.

In the GOP primary in NH that’s a different story, Senator Brown already has a guns issue that could cost him the 2nd Amendment voters, this case can’t help but highlight that he is a pro-abortion republican which will certainly energize pro-life republicans to turn out in a primary against him.

Nationally the ruling might be a wash simply because the case was 9-0 (take a look at the twitter to see leftist heads explode over the unanimous decision, but Ed Morrissey when reading the decision proper noticed what I did:

There was a considerable amount of disagreement on the idea that the law was content-neutral, and this is the crux of the problem for free-speech advocates. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scalding concurrence in part, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joining, warning that this decision makes proving a violation of content neutrality in speech restrictions all but impossible:

The four conservatives justices sans the chief wrote concurrent opinions bluntly saying this was unconstitutional on its face while the actual decision practically listed the ways Massachusetts could pass a law that the court could support.

That suggests that the decision was written the way it was in order to get the 9-0 result rather than the 5-4 at best result that would have given conservatives the whole 10 yards. It’s not unusual for a Chief to try to get a unanimous court but those who pay attention might read the tea leaves and decide that it’s more important to get the majority in the Senate to keep the president from replacing any of those 4 liberal votes that was against him today.

Either way November certainly won’t be boring.

In my earlier post I touched on Chris Christie’s motivations for his moves on Hurricane Sandy a few weeks ago but I didn’t touch on the argument made in Christopher Bedford’s  piece that Chris Christie is going nowhere in 2016.

I think he’s right.

Let’s note two examples from the recent past.

1. December 21st 2009 Martha Martha Martha

Martha Coakley has just won a 4 way Democrat Primary after pledging to not allow any abortion restriction in the Obamacare almost immediately has an epiphany

In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

As Newsbusters reported at the time even the Globe called them on it

Coakley is such a self-serving hypocritical flip-flopper than not even the Boston Globe could spin this story to make her look good. In almost any other state, Coakley would have very little chance in the general election but, hey, this is Massachusetts we are talking about here. Democrat candidates for senator aren’t so much elected as automatically coronated.

Well a lot of Dem activists remember this and having little fear of the GOP decided not to get to work, but the perfect storm of Obama care and the appeal of Scott Brown turned the coronation into the first shot of the tea party revolution that eventually gave the GOP the House that they have retained ever since. But if Coakley hadn’t upset the base with a month to go before the election they might have energized their people to the point

2. May 24th 2011 Remember where you came from

Scott Brown rode the perfect storm to a senate seat in Massachusetts. The most important part of that was the army of volunteers from the tea party that who worked tirelessly to take him across the finish line in an election with no other race on the ballot by five points.

Once the democrats were forced to use the previously passed senate version of Obamacare to get the bill passed in the house. Senator Brown worried about his re-election prospects in a strongly blue state decided to take a different tack forgetting this golden rule:

No matter how many votes you give them, no matter many words you say or do. LIBERAL NGO’S AND THE MSM ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT YOU IN 2012.

Once you get this through your head, the rest is easy.

Of these lessons the 3rd is the most important for Senator Brown to learn, will he be wise enough to do so. That is the $64,000 question.

Unfortunately Senator Brown answered the question in spades on the Ryan Budget:

In addition to the first lesson that he hadn’t learned there were two new rules that he missed out on:

1. I don’t know what other people’s expectations but I expect my US Senator’s to use a standard other than “Does Newt Gingrich put his foot in his mouth” on what will be supported or not.

2. If anyone in the GOP thinks that the League of Liberal Women voters or any other liberal group is going to go less all out against Scott Brown they are deluding themselves. Brown could vote a straight Harry Reid line and Massachusetts liberals would spend tens of millions to destroy him.

and that’s the nice way of putting it. Legal Insurrection wasn’t nearly as kind:

I don’t blame you for voting against the Ryan bill; I don’t have litmus tests, and while I think the overall framework is the right direction, I can’t argue with the fact that people may have specific alternatives or amendments.

But you don’t have alternatives. In your op-ed you simply repeat the hackneyed and failed notions of waste, fraud and abuse, with tort reform thrown in. That will not cut it. That is a dodge.

You apparently have no solutions to what you admit to be an unsustainable course, but you took the opportunity to imply that Republicans will abandon seniors. You don’t come right out and say it, but you came pretty close.

A “no” vote wasn’t good enough, you had to do it in a way so as to damage fellow Republicans by playing into the false Democratic narrative. You are a hero for your op-ed, but not to the people who supported you.

Go down the list of those praising your op-ed, and you will see the same people who smeared you as a “birther”, who distributed rape mailers against you, who mocked you as a crazy extremist, who accused you of endorsing sexual violence against your opponent, and who will work to defeat you in 2012.

I can’t speak for all your supporters, and maybe not even for many of them. But I’m done defending you against the people who are cheering your op-ed.

So it’s time to say goodbye and good luck.

I will not work against you, but I also will not work for you. There are many more important battles to fight in 2012.

Just remember Morning Joe praised Scott Brown over and Over again but when the chips were down they were in Warren’s corner. Meanwhile on election day there was nobody to take my mother to vote for Scott Brown except me.

Scott Brown is a nice guy. He made time for voters and he was the spark that lit the republican revolution, but his willingness to toss aside the activists, the same mistake that Martha Coakley is a why a candidate as weak as Elizabeth Warren was able to beat him so convincingly.

And his sudden endorsement of the Assault Weapons Ban isn’t going to get the base dialing the phone for him either.

Part of that storm was the work of hundreds of dedicated conservative activists but without the hard work of tea party activists going all out in a state where they had never had any hope at all, Brown’s election would not have been possible.

And to the amazement of many I’m not even going to touch on Mitt Romney’s problems with conservatives.

No Chris Christie is no Mitt Romney, no Scott Brown and certainly no Martha Coakely. He is a strong, determined and dynamic person who will not make the mistake that Romney did in being shy about attacking so one should never say “never” but you must have the foot soldiers to fight and he can’t win without them.

The real question is this: Is Chris Christie’s Ego so large that he thinks the MSM will still love him when he is the GOP standard-bearer? If he’s foolish enough to buy that he doesn’t have any business running for any higher office

Tuesday at the debate I was talking Big Red Wave with an aide to a republican candidate for statewide office, although he was feeling highly confident on his local race when I said to him that the wave would be even bigger.

I started mentioning the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen in district after district he was unimpressed.

When I brought up Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coon’s sudden Volte Face he immediately dismissed me as ignorant and my opinion unworthy.

Well if all he sees are polls like this that’s one thing, but then there is stuff like this:

Yesterday, a poll went around showing Christine O’Donnell just five points behind Commie Coons in Delaware’s Senate race. This SORT OF explains the weird amount of time the White House has been spending in a slam dunk blue state.

But, Democrats are ferociously attacking CoD as hard as they attacked Scott Brown in Massachusetts. If she is so far behind, what is the point in beating up on this woman?

This is anecdotal, but I think I know why they are doing this…just like with Hottie McAwesome there are internals showing O’Donnell ahead.

Today I talked to a friend from Team Hillary who is a big Dem fundraiser. He told me that for the last week or so the DNC has been at DEFCON 1 leaning HARD on the rainmakers because they are terrified of a CoD win in Delaware.

and this:

We have seen reliable polling that shows O’Donnell is within single digits, and Coons can’t break 50%. What is more, these polls rely on a turn-out model that is relatively conservative and, contrary to what pundits think, a much higher than normal turn-out could mean the polls are off by as much as 5-6 or more points. In the primary, most polls showed O’Donnell down by a few or tied, however she won by 6 points, a figure higher than most of the pre-vote polls and outside of their margin of error.

Why is this happening, and why might the pundits, once again, have egg on their face on election day?

Voters in Delaware are learning from reliable internet sources, despite a near blackout by the elite political press, more and more about Coons and his record.

One is right and one is wrong, but I can’t forget the Globe polls that showed Martha Coakley up 15 points:

Coakley’s lead grows to 17 points – 53 percent to 36 percent – when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally. The results indicate that Brown has a steep hill to climb to pull off an upset in the Jan. 19 election. Indeed, the poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win.

and of course my favorite of all newspaper quotes:

The Mainstream media knows all

Somebody is right here and somebody is wrong here, by this time next week we will find out.

Update: Of course liberals always use these tactics when up 15 pts don’t they?

If I didn’t have to run to the airport right now I’d have a longer comment and post on this but for now all I have to say is BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAH

Coakley agreed to accept a campaign spending cap in return for a maximum of $75,000 in public campaign funds. She can spend no more than $625,000.

That might have been fine if her assumption about ballot opposition had been correct. It wasn’t. Two Republicans ran write-in campaigns for their party’s nomination for attorney general. The primary election winner was James McKenna, a former prosecutor now in private practice. Because McKenna got more than 10,000 votes, his name will be on the ballot for the general election, right there with Coakley’s. Not only will McKenna be on equal footing with Coakley, he won’t be subject to the campaign spending limit.

Jim got 27k plus votes, if you want to support him his site is here. My latest interview with him is here.

who were so dying to get rid of Martha Coakley that they wrote in either GUY A. CARBONE ( * ) 9,505 or JAMES P. MCKENNA ( * ) 27,711.

This race reminded me of the Auditor race in that I liked both candidates very much and it’s a shame one had to lose, I would love to see Carbone and Jain both involved in government or as candidates in the future.

This afternoon I interviewed Jim McKenna (R) who ran an successful write-in/sticker campaign to get on the ballot to face Martha Coakley in the fall elections:

DTG: A write in campaign is tough, in a primary doubly so and would be considered impossible for a Massachusetts republican before this year. What happened?

JM: Experienced political people told us we couldn’t do it but the people got involved, there seemed to be more homemade signs and individuals pushing the candidacy than we ever expected. Between myself and Guy Carbone another fine write-in candidate we know at least 20k went to the polls motivated for this race. I’ve never seen people so involved.

I think this is the most significant event from election day INCLUDING the O’Donnell victory in Delaware.

I’ll explain in some detail later today on WCRN 830 AM between 4-6 p.m.

My latest examiner piece talks about the most significant race of yesterday, it was NOT in Delaware:

Even so the state Republican party didn’t manage to run a candidate to oppose Martha Coakley for Attorney General this year, but a man named James McKenna decided to get involved, he visited tea party after tea party all over the state and launched a sticker campaign to get on the ballot for November.

Sticker campaigns are notoriously tough, A republican campaign in Massachusetts even doubly so.

Today less than an hour ago I was awakened by an excited call from a friend involved in the tea party. The first words out of the phone:

“Guess who is going to be on the ballot against Martha Coakley in November?”

Christine O’Donnell’s win is big, don’t get me wrong, but it was a symptom of the type of thing that put Jim McKenna on the November ballot in Massachusetts. Tea Party activists in small groups in city after city working hard to make a difference. Multiply this by the cities and towns throughout the state and country and you have what is coming down the pike.

This is the story that the media refuses to believe. They will believe it Nov 3rd.

Update: C’Mon Smitty you tweeted the AP story on it and not mine? Mea culpa on that, it was a different retweet, I take it back.

The actual sticker
…it is that a Write-in / Sticker campaign for Jim McKenna to get on the ballot so Martha Coakley would not be unopposed succeeded and he will be on the ballot this fall.

The state republican party did not run a candidate to oppose her, in a year like this it is in excusable.

James did this through tea party after tea party and managed to win the day.

Run this though your head. Sticker campaigns are notoriously difficult, a Republican one even doubly so.

Yet the headline on James campaign site is WE DID IT!

Those on the left and in the media who are trying to convince themselves that last night was a good sign for them in November…

..be afraid, be VERY afraid!

He was a last minute addition because we had extra time, it’s a good thing too because he had a lot to say

He is one of two Sticker candidates for AG on the republican side

He took questions from the crowd.

And seems to be a best defense is a good offense type of guy.

You don’t get much more Italian than this man, he could be a fellow in my parish.