"Brown has to beat Coakley by 4.8 percent plus, or he loses outright. " @ AMERICAN DIGEST

January 19, 2010

"Brown has to beat Coakley by 4.8 percent plus, or he loses outright. "

American Digest's Master of 'Massachusettes' Seamus O'Hammer will do your arithmetic for you:

Secretary of State William F. Galvin projects between 1.6 million and 2.2 million voters, out of a total of 4 million**, will show up at the polls today despite weather predictions of a mix of rain and snow. More than 105,000 voters have applied for absentee ballots.

"Important information is always in the paper, but you have to mine it, it's not front and center. There's your margin of fraud right there. Not one of those ballots will be cast for Brown, one way or the other. They are comatose people in Nursing Homes, recently dead, you name it. Their names are farmed as sure as any field, all by the Democrats. Ballot boxes will be stuffed in places like Springfield and Lowell, no doubt, but there's a limit to how many people you can count that way. A place that votes 100% Dem is not a target-rich environment for Democrats in a statewide election. The absentee ballots are 4.7 percent of the total. Brown has to beat Coakley by 4.8 percent plus, or he loses outright. And as a practical matter, if it's not quite a bit more than that, he loses in the folderol after.

"The thumbnail sketch of this election is the Democrats thought no Republican would even challenge the Dem, so they chose their candidate on strictly local machine political considerations, never thinking of any general election competition. The fool that they have as Republican Chairman declined to support any candidate in Mass; why would the Democrats think about a challenger? Brown did it himself in a state where Democrats run for office unopposed as often as not. There's nothing in place to help a Republican candidate in any way here. That's why he's such a formidable candidate, especially for the future.

"Martha Coakley is Hillary, expecting to be awarded the prize without trying. She's Bob Dole and McCain, people who are just the next in line for the top of the ticket with no clue as to how to even approach the general election."

[** We note that if turnout goes higher than the 50% mark as some predict, the 105,000 become less significant.]

Howdy InstaPunditeers! For more on Brown by Seamus O'Hammer the Carpenter Sage of Cape Cod see; "Bring. It. On." @ AMERICAN DIGEST

Posted by Vanderleun at January 19, 2010 7:50 AM

keep in mind that the great bulk of absentee ballot requests came before anybody thought Brown had a serious chance (and therefore there was little perceived need to cheat), and many were returned well in advance of the election itself. Absentee requests trended heavily toward the suburbs where Brown has a great deal of strength - and requests were lower in Dem strongholds. Turnout in Boston and other core cities right now is light while ouside Boston/Cambridge etc it's a mob scene.

Posted by: bill at January 19, 2010 10:35 AM

i wouldn't be shocked by the absentee ballots request...

snowbirds.

if they are all frauds, they still have to be plausible. on a 66-33 split, coakley nets 33k.

she is down by at least 200k, as a hunch, and would still need 160k vote margin. even providing for massive fruad, which would still need to follow the 66-33 split, she would still need 500k fraud votes.

I put turnout at less than 2.3 million, which is still quite good.

brown will clear a million, coakley won't.

Posted by: mark l. at January 19, 2010 10:56 AM

Comments:

HOME
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

While I agree that a win by a margin of 4.8% of 2.2 million votes would assure a Brown victory (or 6.6% of 1.6 million votes), to denote that as the "margin of theft" is dramatics. You might be able to convince me of 50,000 votes if you were extra convincing, but not 150,000. No way. I don't buy it at all.

BTW, I'm firmly believe Brown will handily surpass even the (IMHO) ridiculous 4.8%/6.6% margin of theft.

Posted by: Jazz at January 19, 2010 10:51 AM

The Democrats' motto is "If at first you don't succeed, count, count again." It was true of Al Gore, it was true of Christine Gregoire, and it was true of Al Franken. If they try it this time, there should be hell to pay.

Posted by: VancouverConservative at January 19, 2010 11:24 AM

My good friend, who lives in Barney Franks district, went to vote absentee last week as she would be in Denver for a few days. There were a lot of people there to vote, and they were voting for Brown. What number the dead and the fraudulent will amount to I do not know.

Posted by: james wilson at January 19, 2010 11:27 AM

If, when the dust settles, the Democrats are widely believed to have stolen this election, it will be dangerous for American democracy. People will start to rebel against a system they perceive as being rigged. I have no doubt the Democrats will try, but let us hope they fail.

Posted by: KenB at January 19, 2010 2:00 PM

The Democrats don't have to steal the election, they just have to delay the results. If they make blatant attempts at fraud and Brown eventually wins a challenge, it can still delay his taking office long enough to pass obamacare.

Posted by: lknt2rf9hv2 at January 19, 2010 2:25 PM

You are mistaken. The Democrats are widely believed to have stolen both Christine Gregoire's and Al Franken's election, but no rebellion is in sight.

Posted by: Bob Smith at January 19, 2010 5:55 PM