******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Nothing to See On Jan. 19, Move Along

Democrats of Massachusetts, listen up. The special election is all but over. Martha Coakley has won.

No need to show up to vote, since DownWithTyranny has pronounced that all polls showing the race tightening are worthless:
Many of the pollsters and pundits predicting a Republican win in Massachusetts special election to replace Ted Kennedy have proven themselves absolutely worthless-- unless you use them as contrary indicators. Conservative operations like Rasmussen, GOP pollsters masquerading as non-partisan, and clueless old Charlie Cook are among of the most reliable contrary indicators in the profitable Inside the Beltway scam they're always working. One laughable poll-- by always-wrong-about-everything PPP-- even showed Scott Brown ahead of Coakley 48-47%.
Nothing to see on January 19, just move along.

Go to work, and do not leave your desk, not even for lunch. Go straight home, eat a hearty dinner and drink plenty of wine, take a hot shower, then tuck yourself in for the night.

And do not read any of the other posts on this blog. All is well. Trust me on this one.

Related Posts:
Globe Poll An Outlier
Brown HQ Report #2
Snot-Noses for Coakley

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share


  1. That's right, Martha has it in the bag. Besides, I hear that the cerebral left is also launching a telepathic voting process this year. It's coooooold out there, too, much better to stay in the warmth of your home or office than go cast a vote that isn't even needed.

  2. Just wish your votes in. It worked in minnesota.

  3. Did you see this?

    Worcester Telegram: Endorsed Kerry, Obama, and now Brown

    I found it scrolling along your left column.

    A Massachusetts paper. The Republican candidate. Woo!

  4. Apparently Coakley has stumbled on the perfect campaign. No speeches, no debates, no campaigning. Just declare victory from the start knowing that it's not how many voters vote nor who they vote for. The people doing the counting are on your side.

  5. Oh my... DWT sez

    progressives have faced that kind of bullshit from conservatives before and still managed to declare independence from England, win the Revolutionary War, enact universal suffrage, free the slaves, go forward with public education,

    Oh, heck, the only reason the common cold hasn't been cured is because a conservative conspiracy has stood in a progressive's way!

    what IS he smoking?

  6. I'm not about to read his ravings, but I'm willing to bet Mr. DownWithTyranny means "I'm down wit' tyranny" not that he's against it. I'm reasonably sure he's on board with all those Progressive measures designed to force people to do that which Progressives think they should be doing. (That is to force the bitter gun- and Bible-clingers, not force the Progressives.) And to have the government take control of just about everything so the "sheeple" won't hurt themselves.

  7. Well, yes, Rasmussen never gets any polling correct. They weren't referred to by 528 or anyone as the second most accurate pollsters of the last election cycle.

  8. "Progressives" are the real revolutionaries of American freedom? I thought our revolutionary forebearers wanted smaller, limited government.

    Just imagine if the founding fathers and the American revolutionary patriots of yore were confronted with a liberal moonbat from today, they probably would have been summarily shot or at minimum locked up in an insane asylum.

    Can you imagine our ancestor's responses just a hundred short years ago if some "liberal" began venting about gay marriage, murdering unborn babies in the name of "choice", and creating a welfare state?

  9. That progressive has no sense of history.

    Here I am, an Australian, and I know that the founding fathers were not "progressives". They were not communists. They did not endorse tyrannical rule.

    One has to understand that in those days slavery was the substitute for the convicts who were sent from England to work the plantations, and that these slaves were for the most part treated very well.... (I am anti-slave trade)... and that during that point in time it was not offensive - plus most people would not know about how the slaves were captured... they just wanted the labour which they paid for and owned.

    Most of the changes that have been so wrenching have happened in the past 50 years with the birth of the 60s revolution, that led to the feminists and then the gay rights... but this push for gay marriage is over the top and would never have been endorsed by your founding fathers. Also the founding fathers would never have endorsed abortion on demand, and they would not endorse late term abortion, or voluntary euthanasia.

    The founding fathers understood that govt cannot provide that which is provided by private charity. The provision of single mother welfare has led to a massive increase in unwed mothers as young girls try to cash in on the handouts.

  10. You know he's right: Croakley will win.

    The Dems will keep counting votes, finding extra ones here and there just like they did in Washington state, Minnesota and in any given Illinois election.

  11. Don't the Democrats vote on the 20th? ;P

  12. What Pasadenaphil said. As they have already said they probably won't certify him if he is elected I wouldn't be surprised to see a reprise of the Minnesota debacle where the Franken ballots were like mushrooms: turn out the light, close the door, and in the morning the closet is full of them.

  13. Do the dead vote like in Chicago? They could ask the mediums to read the living for their votes and save everyone a lot of trouble. Besides, the weather outside is frightful...

  14. At first I misread the "tuck yourself" line... wishful thinking I suppose. I'm just hoping that the average democrat will mindlessly vote for the “Kennedy” who appears on the ballot just like they’ve been doing for years.