Friday, January 8, 2010

What we're seeing in Massachusetts

Because of the heavy interest we'll try to get our Massachusetts numbers out over the weekend. But because we've already conducted most of the interviews for it here are some of the major storylines we're seeing:

-At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they're going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy's legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.

-Scott Brown's favorables are up around 60%, a product of his having had the airwaves to himself for the last week. By comparison Bob McDonnell's were at 55% right before his election and Chris Christie's were only at 43%. Coakley's campaign or outside groups need to tie Brown's image to national Republicans and knock him down a notch over the final week of the campaign.

This has become a losable race for Democrats- but it could also be easily winnable if Coakley gets her act together for the last week of the campaign. Complacency is the Democrats' biggest enemy at this point and something that needs to be overcome to avoid a potential disaster.

56 comments:

groberts1776 said...

Clearly of the two national parties, Democrats have more baggage. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are millstones.

Michael said...

It would just KILL the Dems were Brown to pull off a win. Good Lord.

Geoff said...

Well, I guess Nate Silver will have a lot of explaining to do regarding his lame, koolaid-driven attacks on the Rasmussen poll that showed a 9 point race, correct?

And the entire MSM for ignoring the race?

Historian said...

I hope the Coakley folks read this post--I'm no political professional but it's hard to imagine a worse run campaign. Someone from outside needs to come in and take over. Giving Brown uncontested airspace for weeks was inexplicable.

turfmann said...

"This has become a losable race for Democrats- but it could also be easily winnable if Coakley gets her act together for the last week of the campaign"

That is assuming that Martha wants the Massachusetts electorate to see what's going on behind the curtain.

She has many, many dreadful things in her closet from involvement in the Fells Acre Day Care witch hunt to refusing to prosecute pedophile priest John Geoghan when she had him on a silver platter. This woman was a very poor choice as a candidate, especially in light of the goings on in Washington.

It would seem as though the best campaign strategy for Martha was to lay low and allow the (D) next to her name and her gender to allow her to slide into office by acclimation.

Brown, on the other hand, has plenty of experience winning campaigns for the Massachusetts House and Senate as a Republican in a heavily Democrat district. He knows what needs to be done and quite obviously he is doing it successfully right now. His campa

In calling for Brown, I was shocked by how enthusiastically people are supporting him. I have a great deal of experience as a telemarketer in my past - I am all too familiar with the sound of a handset being slammed down - and I have to tell you that I wish that I was selling a product as well received as Scott. I'd be rich!

Steve M. said...

Aren't you the guys who said Doug Hoffman was going to win by 16 or 17 points?

Historian said...

Some competent professionals who have run successful campaigns need to stage an immediate intervention to put someone who knows what she/he is doing in charge of the campaign operation now. I hope that the rest of the Massachusetts delegation will get on the phone with Martha Coakley now.

Historian said...

Missing from the previous comments is any lack of sense of just who feeble the Coakley campaign has been. They basically ceded the airwaves and the contest for two weeks to Brown to let him puff up his favorables with uncontested adds and puff-piece interviews. The Coakley campaign has not even given the impression that it is trying or that it wants to win.

Brown has a very thin record in terms of accomplishment, and yet he is being allowed to define the campaign as sending your friendly8 neighbor to Washington, irregardless of his experience, achievement, record, or stance on major issues.

AuntPittypat said...

Add another horrible thing she now has going for her. She is using push polling insinuating that Brown is backed by "hate groups", etc.

See Professor William Jacobson's blog from today on this:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/01/its-on-push-polling-hate-group-support.html

When you have to stoop to push polls, you surely are desperate.

Steven said...

All I can say is goodness gracious! President Obama Addresses The 25-DEC-2009 Terrorist Attack

Walt - Boston said...

As a dyed in the wool Democrat who did not vote for Coakley in the primary and has never voted for a Republican for a US Senate seat, I am having a difficult time thinking about pulling the lever for her. I always vote, and will continue my tradition of not supporting the GOP for this Senate seat. However, I am leaning toward writing in the name of "Gerald Amirault", one of the people caught up in the Fells Acres witch hunt years ago. Coakley did not do the right thing when she had the opportunity with regard to this case. I realize a write in vote is a vote for the Republicans and Mitch McConnell, but if Brown somehow gets elected, I'm hoping a respectable Dem will challenge him in two years and get the seat back. Otherwise I have to see Coakley on TV for the next 30 years representing me in the Senate. And yes, I do realize this is the 60th vote in the Senate. I've never been so pained by an upcoming vote, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Coakley.

Anonymous said...

Steve M.: Yup, he was: funny how you're concentrating on that, and not the way that he accurately called NJ-GOV when everybody else except Rasmussen wasn't.

Anonymous said...

Not even Massachussetts can produce enough dead people to vote often enough to get this carpet-bagger Coakley elected.

EIGBOOKS said...

A plurality opposes the reform?

May be, but this means a majority does not oppose it. Also, among those who oppose it, those who want more are certainly not going to vote for Scott Brown.

Clearly, you are missing some local perspective.

I also assume from your comments that Coakley is ahead, or you would not be making these points.

Timothy said...

Entitlement syndrome is always a bad thing in politics. Just ask Hillary Clinton.

David Weigel said...

"Not even Massachussetts can produce enough dead people to vote often enough to get this carpet-bagger Coakley elected."

Err... Coakley was born in Pittsfield, went to Williams College, and got her law degree at BU. She's not a carpet-bagger.

I guess this comment of how a sleepy campaign allows the other side to fill the gap with attacks...

Elizabeth Mitchell Hunt said...

I'm and independent volunteering for the Brown campaign. I too have gotten such positive energy from people on the phone. Just finished driving around our town delivering signs, same thing, people are excited - Independents, Republicans and Democrats.

One thing no one has said is that there is very independent nature to people in MA no matter what party they are affiliated with.

I spoke to four 60+ women today, lifetime registered Democrats, living in very liberal Barney Frank district who told me "Scott has my vote." These are women who lived and loved Camelot, who summered on the Cape. They all say the Kennedy mystique is long gone. And, are actually turned off by Democrats playing that tune.

Democrats are not happy with their party. Many are looking for a breath of fresh air after decades of Ted Kennedy. Martha Coakley is stale.

Anonymous said...

You obviously don't know the difference from plurality/majority.
Plurality means majority in the political sense.

Jaded said...

Why should Coakley win? This is the problem with politics EVERYWHERE in that someone thinks because they have an R or a D behind their name in a "safe" district they can just do nothing and the sheep with just pull the lever? Good gracious that is how WE are in this disgraceful mess for over 20 years of spending and spending and taking and taking and for what? We The People have nothing except dark circles under our eyes from working hard to ensure that Wall Street FATCATS get their bonuses and people who NEVER should have had a 500K house gets to keep while WE struggle to keep paying our mortgages.

If Coakley wins after taking the whole electorate of MA for granted it just proves that WE are sheep and WE all are getting what WE deserve.

BTW the same can be said of McCain or any other long standing politician....I dream of 535 NEW FACES!

Anonymous said...

Martha Coakley has never done anything not in her own self-interest. She kept an innocent man in jail (Amirault) and then didn't prosecute another to the full extent of the law after raping a 23 month old because he was in a union that supported her. Scott on the other hand has successfully served his district by governing in a bipartisan fashion in a very blue state and has spent 30 years in the National Guard. That anyone would consider voting for Coakley given her horrendous record as AG defies common sense and good morals. Please vote Scott Brown!

JMS said...

This is a disaster! Haven't we paid off enough people and scurried up enough of the dead to get Coakley in office? For God's sake, get the SEIU out to break some Republican knee caps, if that's what it takes! We can't let the US slip back into capitalism and freedom, now that we've got into the death-throws of socialism!

Timjames said...

Use of the phrase "easily win" reveals this is just another article based on "common knowledge" that Massachusetts is a blue state. What shoddy commentary. The press has been playing catch up with the Brown campaign from the very beginning, and will continue to do so until he wins.

Journalism, like the Democratic party, just isn't what it was when JFK was president. Back then the press sniffed out their own stories and candidates reached out to their own constituents.

But today, Massachusetts has a press that waits for news to come to it, and Democratic candidates that expect voters to toe the line.

At the very least both these institutions should be schooled on their errors. It's time to learn a lesson on how true democracy works.

After TK this will never again be an easy state for Democrats to win.

Anonymous said...

"...a very thin record in terms of accomplishment, and yet he is being allowed to define the campaign as sending your friendly neighbor to Washington, irregardless of his experience, achievement, record, or stance on major issues."

Why are you bringing Obama into this?

As a stereotypical progressive liberal bottomfeeder who would make Ded Ted proud, Ms. Coakley distinguishes herself by having the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) use state computers and state e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for her campaign. She also found her way around the state’s campaign finance laws to get a head start on padding her coffers, as well as made a point to hand out community grants to the tune of some $1.5 million at the end of December.

Why anyone with even a lick of common sense would vote for someone like this is beyond imagination.

My money's on Scott Brown.

Paul said...

Prediction: With undecideds eliminated, Brown 50, Coakley 45, Kennedy 5.

Anonymous said...

What's funny is the huge disconnect between Scott Brown and his supporters. This is Scott Brown from the debate on 1/8/10: "We can go back to the drawing board on the healthcare bill. As the 41st Senator I can tell them to do better and try again and get something like we have in Massachusetts."

Anonymous said...

Now the Republicans just need a "Wellstone Memorial" type event honoring Kennedy ("Do it for Ted! Do it for Ted!") to close the gap and surge ahead.

TomPaine said...

"Brown has a very thin record in terms of accomplishment"

But still remarkably less thin than the Peter Principle exemplar now sullying the Oval Office . . . .

Scott is NOT a machine politician, not a "me, too" knee jerk bloviator. Rather, he is a real person whose accomplishments, while perhaps not grandiose, are at least ACTUAL and POSITIVE, a statement his opponent cannot assert without crossing all her fingers and then her eyes to distract voters from her career of transparently disingenuous self-promotion.

Anonymous said...

Christ, you Repugs are desperate, aren't you? Massachusetts is and has been true blue a long time - you really think there are enough ignorant people in the state to give the Senate seat over to a confirmed lunatic like Brown? Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

Being from Massachusetts I can say Scott Brown has the motivation on the ground. Brown's people are without a doubt going out a voting, Coakley's really could care less. I can see Brown pulling off a win but I'm be very cautious...

Anonymous said...

Coakley is very late to the game. She blew off Brown and thought she had the election in the bag. She hasn't done any work in the state related to the election. She has been an arrogant public servant and is an even more arrogant candidate. It is too late.

Mass residents are angry at her attitude. We are angry at the attitude of Barney Frank and the other dem. We are fired up to get Scott in to office.

I have talked to many Mass dems. They are voting for Scott. And that is Martha's problem.

Anonymous said...

Steve-

In NY23, the Acorn/SEIU excelsior was not factored in.

Something said...

I don't consider myself an overt Christian, but in this case, I think we need some Divine intervention in the upcoming Massachusetts senate seat race. I've been praying for an upset to the Dem supermajority. We desperately need to force more deliberation in one or both houses of congress when it comes to the Obama agenda. I for one am not buying the 'hurry up and vote, it's a crisis' message the Dems are spewing. And don't even get me started on 'spending our way out of the recession' - what a crock.

Tina Hemond said...

What we have, here in the Bay State is a general distrust of the status quo, and Coakley, as it was so aptly stated by a local newscaster last night after the debate (almost fell off my chair) - came across as "arrogant" -then the news broke to Scott Browns fundraising and Coakley's gain of 100K after being endorsed by the Kennedy's - those working the phones for Brown - Democrats, card carrying SEIU members, Libertarian's, Green Party members, Republican's, Independents - in 45 years I have not seen this much push for one candidate - period. Health care is driving the numbers, but it is more than that - there's real fear on the ground re: jobs, economy and who do the voters trust to turn it around - this is going to be a close race - and just an fyi - from overseas (military)republicans have not received their absentee ballots on this race - from the breakdown of the electorate (minus the dead and the normal trolling nursing homes for votes, busing in from nearby states, etc.) the chance of this race looking a lot like the 2006 gubernatorial race is a good bet - only I think Kennedy will bite into some of Coakley's base, so the normal 6% or so may be a little higher - check Rasmussen marginal’s - when the absolutely voting’s are considered, Brown is down by 2 - that's extremely close and that was a week ago. Not for nothing, but the Dem's are already fielding candidates for Browns State Senate Seat - thoughts on that?

ellid said...

Brown supports torture, opposes abortion rights, and opposes everything Ted Kennedy stood for. I will NEVER vote for the opportunistic little shit.

Frank80 said...

I've been a registered Massachusetts Democrat for sixty years and I'm voting for Scott Brown and so is my wife and my six siblings and their spouses and probably most of my 50 plus family members of voting age in the next two generations of my family.

Don't dismiss me as one of those Reagan Democrats - I was enough of a long time New Deal, New Frontier and Great Society Democrat not to have voted for Ronald Reagan),

What's more I've contributed to Brown's campaign and to two organizations endorsing him - the Coalition for Marriage and the Family and the Massachusetts Citizens for Life Federal Political Action Committee.

I've had more than enough of those members of my party who march in lockstep with Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and those people who want to profit from the laboratory production and ultimate destruction of human beings to be used to obtain stem cells as raw material for production and research.

The Boston Globe reports that Scott Brown is pro-choice and he says he supports Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, at the level of practical politics Brown has supported those reasonable restrictions on abortion access that are compatible with the jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade. That is something, I'm sad to say the bulk of elected Massachusetts Democrats have been unwilling to do.

I'm also badly disappointed with the way in which the bulk of the Massachusetts Legislature and Governor rolled over in support of the Goodrich decision in which the SJCourt majority took over the legislative function of government and redefined marriage (which from time immemorial described a relationship based essentially on the sexual complementarity of male and female) as a relationship with no essential connection to sexual complementarity and the procreation of children. I fear the substantive long term effects of decisions like Goodrich will be negative from the perspectives of both religious liberty and the well being of natural family life, and children. One immediately negative effect was the forcing out of the adoption business of Catholic Charities in Boston, an agency which pioneered in placement for adoption of hard to place children.

These are the reasons why this Democrat supports Scott Brown. Perhaps by relating them I will persuade other Massachusetts voters to follow me. Perhaps a Brown victory will serve as a wake-up call to Massachusetts Democrats, and the Democratic party nationally to return to its roots (which it dramatically demonstrated it rejected when Governor Casey of Pennsylvania was denied a speaking role at the 1992 convention because he was not acceptable to NARAL) and truly support the most vulnerable of human beings and strong natural families.

Anonymous said...

Why is PPP giving campaign advice to Coakley. I thought you were independent?

rr said...

I can only hope that they Coakley-ites don't wake up. Actually, even if they do, we won't notice. This is a pathetic campaign being run for a pathetic candidate.
rr

Anonymous said...

HOW TO TELL A LIBERAL FROM A CONSERVATIVE & MISC.

In speaking. liberals interrupt more often, talk faster, AND speak more loudly. The next time you watch a debate, observe.

In writing, liberals more frequently than conservatives, hurl personal epithets that have nothing to do with the issues. E.g. "Christ, you Repugs are desperate, aren't you?"

To "historian": The word "irregardless" is non-standard English. Otherwise you write as though you are well-educated.

Therefore, I do not understand why you do not think for yourself. Have your read the Constitution, the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al?

Some of my friends are liberals. We allow each other free speech.

Let us see how the people of Massachusetts feel about the "status quo". I'll be interested in observing the election results.

The majority is to rule as long as they do not trample upon the rights of the minority.

I live in WV and have contributed $30 out of my disability retirement to Scott Brown as this is a CRITICAL pivotal election.

Scott Brown has supporters in many states who are sending him donations. "We the People" are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore.

The Brown Brigade reminds me of the McCarthy volunteers of 1968 who changed the course of that Presidential election.

My name is Jane Kimble and I am 60 years old. I am not too young to be swayed by emotion. I am not too old to be asleep.

Felix Oskelbaumer said...

If you don't like Coakley, don't vote for her. If you don't like Brown, don't for for him. If you don't like Kennedy don't vote for him. But if you're registered in Massachusetts to vote - use the write-in line and let the Democrats know that they're pro-corporate, anti-middle class agenda will cost them severely at the polls.

The Democrats in MA chose the wrong candidate in the primary.

Coakley announced first and kept her lead but she's a far cry from the liberal lion whose seat she seeks to fill. Martha is a "special class" liberal for children and elderly but not particularly an advocate for civil rights, restrained government power, limiting the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests or campaign finance reform. She's a beginner, never having served as a legislator at any level. Adter making a big statement about voting 'no' on the house bill becuase of Stupak, she has declared her support for the Senate Health Bill without reservation in spite of the lack of Public Option and restrictions on abortion access both of which she advocated for. She did not even make her support conditional on addressing those issues she feels strongly about.

She does not speak about civil rights on the campaign trail. Since she the primary on Dec. 8 she's barely campaigned at all.

Martha Coakley has been running a boxturtle campaign.

Why is anyone surprised by the poll numbers?

Anonymous said...

ELECT BROWN ELECT BROWN ELECT BROWN ELECT BROWN ELECT BROWN

to save our country!!!! We MUST elect BROWN, people. This is our last chance to stop the Dems and stop the Health disaster bill.

Anonymous said...

We Must Elect Brown......

Anonymous said...

Mass is filled with independent thinkers. They do not want a puppet figure like Coakley whose first allegience will be to party not people, to special interests like SEIU, and Planned Parenthood who have endorced her, and not to the will of We the People.

Anonymous said...

C'mon man! Lets see the results Its Saturday afternoon and we need action!!

Anonymous said...

I'm a resident of New York State, and have just donated $35.00to Scott's campaign.

I can only urge all those who are deeply concerned about this healthcare bill the Dems are pushing through to support any candidate outside your voting district and contribute to thier campaign. (They need money to offset the contributions of the SEIU).

Anonymous said...

"ellid" said: "Brown < . . . > opposes everything Ted Kennedy stood for.

Philandering, murder, alcoholism, treason, corruption, dishonesty . . . these were the hallmarks of teddy Chappaquiddick. Yeah, I'm real sorry Mr. Brown doesn't represent the same "values." This is a bad thing, how?

Fred Dobbs said...

There aren't that many Republican voters in MA. Lots of independents, though. Can't really fathom why MA would want to send
a Republican down to Washington.

dim sum said...

I have re-entered the arena of politics for the first time after 38 years, after several years of working actively in and for the Democratic party. I am now working for Scott Brown, he is the only candidate that I have trusted to put in time and ask people to vote for, I feel he will do a good job. I fear for our country, and almost don't recognize the country that it has become, it saddens me the direction it is going in and I hope that, MA voters will be once again the people who will fire the 2nd shot that will be heard round the world and restore our country to where it should be one nation under God. Ruled by the people and not by the thugs in D.C, and the unions, which no longer represent the people, but represent themselves and collect dues from the people, just like the thugs in D.C. who claim to represent us, collect taxes, but turn a deaf ear to all our demands. Vote Scott Brown if you love your country.

Anonymous said...

I'm also badly disappointed with the way in which the bulk of the Massachusetts Legislature and Governor rolled over in support of the Goodrich decision in which the SJCourt majority "took over the legislative function"

Just like many of the courts did during the Civil Rights movement?

of government and redefined marriage (which from time immemorial described a relationship based essentially on the sexual complementarity of male and female) as a relationship with no essential connection to sexual complementarity and the procreation of children.

In no way, shape or form do people need to be married to have children, and not being married has no impact on that child's wellbeing or mental health.

And if marriage is tied to procreation, should the right of people unable to have children (by birth, by war injury, etc.) to marry be removed.

"So, should peopI fear the substantive long term effects of decisions like Goodrich will be negative from the perspectives of both religious liberty and the well being of natural family life, and children.

There is no scientific evidence, at all, that being raised by a homosexual couple has any negative impact on children. And there will be no effect at all on any heterosexual's liberties simply because two homosexuals are able to marry.

One immediately negative effect was the forcing out of the adoption business of Catholic Charities in Boston, an agency which pioneered in placement for adoption of hard to place children.

That has less to do with the failures of the state or homosexuals as much as it is the failure of the organization to be willing to work with differing groups of people.

KMACdonald said...

Born and bred in MA, but now in FL: I am very proud that my fellow Bostonians are stepping-up for the good of our entire nation by backing Scott Brown.
Thanks to every one of you who have donated your precious time, energy and money to save our country!

Frank80 said...

Reply to Anonymous:

1. The term marriage had always been used to describe a relationship between men and women, not between men and men or women and women. See marriage in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. All types described are between males and females. The monogamous male-female relationship is what the Massachusetts law regulated prior to Goodrich. In Goodridge the SJC redefined marriage as unrelated to sexual complementarity In so doing it acted as a legislature in violation of the Constitution.

2. The SJC’s action was not identical to the Supreme Court's action in concluding that separate schools for black and white children violated the equal protection language of the 14th Amendment. The Constitutional basis for this decision is quite clear. The same is true in the Virginia miscegenation case. The Court did not redefine marriage. It simply based its decision on the clear language of the 14th amendment

3. Nothing I wrote indicates that I believe marriage is necessary before sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can lead to conception. However, one party to the act of sexual intercourse must be female and the other male for conception to take place.

4. The statement that whether or not the two parents of a child are married to each other has no impact on the child’s well being flies in the face of overwhelming sociological and economic data to the contrary.

5. You do not adequately distingusih sterility due to the absence of male female sexual complementarity (as with a sexual relationship between two men) and the sterility of sexually complementary people due to age, injury, illness etc.

6. Your comment that Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because of its failure to be willing to work with differing groups of people misses the point of my comment. Catholic Charities was unwilling to place children for adoption with same sex couples, because of the Church’s religious teaching. Following Goodridge this action was judged unconstitutional. Thus there is a constitutional conflict between sexual liberty and religious liberty. If discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation comes to be treated like racial discrimination, sexual liberty may come to trump religious liberty under the law, with civil power used increasingly to limit religious liberty. This is the point I was getting at. You may be comfortable with such an outcome. I think it would be deplorable.

Gary said...

Brown is the change that Obama was referring to. We need the change that Obama was referring to and we still dont know what it is. On the 19th of January, I claim that change is Scott Brown. America can not be put under the subjection of a radical leftist with muslim heritage who is ruining our nation.
I cannot believe we voted in this person to the Oval Office.

Anonymous said...

The Dems have already come out and said that even if Scott Brown wins, the Dem Sec of State will not certify the election until after the Obamacare vote.

After all, every vote must be counted!

John Howard said...

Procreation should remain a right of marriage, in that all married couples should be allowed to attempt to join their genes to procreate children together from their own genes. Same-sex couples however should not be allowed to attempt to join their genes to procreate children together.

Same-sex marriage means either allowing same-sex couples to attempt to create children (probably using stem cell derived artificial gametes with modified genetic imprinting), or, if same-sex procreation is not allowed, it means that marriage doesn't protect the right of the couple to use their own genes to have children together.

Karen said...

Once Brown shocks the Dem leadership by winning, they will rush everybody behind closed doors (on Tuesday night) to push the health care bill because they know without the 60th vote it won't pass. They will use the excuse that we have to do it for "Ted". The Ted Kennedy who was my Senator wouldn't approve of doing this bill in the dark behind closed doors. He would want a bill that dems could be proud of..a bi-partisan bill. So those who are "doing it for Ted" need to look at his record and not at his families wishes.

Anonymous said...

Brown WILL win :)

Anonymous said...

On 12/16/09 President Obama made an executive order giving Interpol the same immunity from law that an ambassador has. Wake up voters! this gives foreign law enforcers authority over our laws. Check it out on the white house web page under executive orders and on the internet. If this is not stopped we are in big trouble.

 
Web Statistics