NEWS FLASH: COAKLEY WINS IN MA

I’m sure you’re aware that tomorrow there will be an election in Massachusetts for the Late Teddy Kennedy’s old senate seat.  Martha Coakley (D) will be taking on Scott Brown (R) during a special election.

At the moment, Brown holds a narrow lead over Coakley, however, that’s not enough to win an election against a Democrat.  Being ahead in the polls means nothing in such situations.

Now, you probably think that having more votes at the end of the day will put you into office.  But didn't you learn anything from the elections in WA and MN?  There's no way Scott Brown can win.

Why, you ask?  He's a Republican, and will follow the rules.  Coakley doesn't have the same restraint as Brown, nor does any of the Democrat party.  And they have one single rule . . . "Keep counting until the Democrat wins!"

I predict that if the race is as close as it's shaping up to be, Brown may well come out ahead in the polls on the 19th.  But by the 29th, he will be behind by at least 200 to 300 votes.

How, you ask?  There will be precincts that just happen to show up in the trunks of cars, the absentee ballots will start flooding in from all sorts of out-of-state locations, and who knows, there may even be a few chads, "hanging" around.
While we all hope that we would see a clean election, when it comes to the deciding seat in the health care debate, one can’t believe for a moment the left will play fair.  There's just too much at stake.

As late as Friday, some news outlets reported that the busses were already leaving for Massachusetts.  Of course, they surely were filled with registered legitimate voters, right?  There’s no reason to expect that this election will be any different than any of the others of late.  Wisconsin proves that being more than 200 votes ahead can easily leave you more than 200 votes behind in a matter of weeks.

And Democrats can't count well anyway.  Look how many of them still decry Gore's loss . . . even after nine counts where Gore lost in every one of them.
And what if Brown were to pull out a victory?  Senator Reid has already put out the concept that it may take them some time in getting around to certifying the election and seating him as a US Senator.

I wonder how that works, when the Democrats found it possible to certify and seat Al Franken (D-MN) even before the courts had decided that Norm Coleman lost.  Suddenly now, Sen Reid sees it necessary to delay Brown’s confirmation for as long as possible, if he should pull off a victory.

And this is the “open” and “ethical” government that the Democrats have promised us since 2006?

So, we may as well resign ourselves to a Coakley win, regardless of the vote count.  Heck, we could even send Carter up there to monitor the proceedings.  He's good at overseeing rigged elections.

2014 UPDATE:  Well, not only didn't Coakly win, but Brown didn't matter.  We got Obamacare by Biden's tiebreaker.  And as for election fraud, a study came out this last summer whereby when they removed all of the obvious election fraud from the last presidential skirmish ... Romney actually won.  But you know how well those Democrats count, and how little the honest electorate matters ... !