Well, here we go.
The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate is looking like a toss up, with Republican Scott Brown up 48-47 on Martha Coakley.
Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state….
PPP [Public Policy Polling] surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of error is +/-3.6%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
OK, look. There is no way that Scott Brown’s values and principles represent those of a majority, or even a plurality, of the Massachusetts electorate. This result, if it’s valid, is a function of two things: (1) that the Brownies are a lot more motivated (and are therefore more “likely” to vote in the “likely voter” model), and (2) that the Coakley campaign has been trying to stealth its way through this thing, hoping that the model that worked in the primary (relying on an existing statewide organization and not making waves) will work in the general. That is unlikely to be a successful strategy, because right now, even in Massachusetts, the teabagger factor cannot be discounted.
There’s not much any of us can do about #2, though one hopes that this poll plus the Rasmussen result will be enough incentive for the campaign to kick itself into overdrive. But there is something we can do about #1. We can get motivated. We can give money. We can volunteer. And yes, we need to do this even if Martha Coakley wasn’t your candidate in the primary. Do I really need to spell out how big a disaster Senator Scott Brown would be, even for a couple of years? If he becomes GOoPer #41, he can (and will) single-handedly kill any chance of getting anything worth doing through the Senate at least until 2012. And by then, of course, we’ll have suffered through what look to be rather unpleasant midterm elections in 2010. No health care reform. No financial regulation reform. No climate change bill. None of that can happen if Brown wins.
So suck it up, y’all. Get out your credit cards (I got mine out this afternoon). Warm up your telephone-dialing fingers. (Irrelevant footnote: isn’t it interesting how often we still talk about “dialing” a telephone?) Coakley can of course still win this — but right now, she needs your help. And so do the people of Massachusetts.
lightiris says
We need this kind of press like Scott Brown needs more hair care products.
<
p>That we even have to have a conversation that locates Scott Brown in the same political galaxy as Martha Coakley in a race to fill Ted Kennedy’s senate seat is prima facie evidence that something is rotten in the heart of the Commonwealth, both in terms of the Democratic Party and the voting citizenry.
<
p>If Martha Coakley and her moribund campaign don’t kick it into gear soon, she deserves to lose. Invisible candidates don’t win elections–and neither do vacationing ones. That said, WE don’t deserve to lose. Foot soldiers, however, no matter how hard they work, can’t manufacture a compelling candidate out of thin air.
<
p>We deserve much better in all aspects of this race, but if the ill-informed masses combined with reasonably intelligent people think Scott Brown is a good thing for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the citizenry of the United States, then all I can say is it might be time to pack it in because we Democrats got nuthin’, nada to offer. (And I personally believe that’s a conversation we need but are loath to have even if we win.) This experience should tip the Democratic Party in Massachusetts that some serious soul-searching is indicated.
david says
And yet, as you say,
<
p>
<
p>But if Brown is elected, lose we will. All of us, and in fact, given the situation in the Senate, the loss extends to the entire country. We just can’t let that happen. If the candidate is lousy (and I’m not saying she is, but just hypothetically), we have to be better than the candidate.
billxi says
Go back to sleep. She was wonderful yesterday. Get the special logs ready for her annointment white smoke. Anything otherwise would be interpreted as panic. and we can’t have that in the bluest of the blue states. We have an example to set. So sorry I woke you.
lightiris says
And this situation, I think, speaks to what I communicated earlier in the evening. Coakley would not be in danger if people had a clearer idea of who she is, what she truly believes, why she believes it, and what she hopes to accomplish. The “why” of her candidacy is MIA, political ambition aside. She has not engaged the voters on any meaningful level and she has not made a convincing case for herself that people understand and relate to. She may simply be a lousy candidate that cannot be rehabilitated at this point. But how much do I hate having to save a candidate from him/herself so that the values I hold can remain represented? Grrrr…..
ryepower12 says
let’s just hope the nail isn’t going to hammer the coffin.
<
p>I think the state party and democratic voters really need to do some soul searching after this one. We’ve now fudged two races within just a few short years, nearly causing national embarrassments in the process (and we still could, at this point). The big name candidate who’s running simply to reach the next logical stepping stone isn’t who we should be picking in our primaries. We’ve got to pick people with real ideas, or people who’ve proven they can be immensely effective in office. I hate to say it to the Martha Coakley fans, but she just hasn’t shown any of that as a candidate for office, whether or not she has those things to begin with.
metrowest-dem says
OK… my credit card is coming out, but I don’t get Coakley’s media strategy. This poll makes me angry in part because it reflects the fact that this campaign has been asleep at the media switch, or believing that the seat would get handed to them on a silver platter, or both. Please, someone, explain to me why Coakley didn’t get on the air within 36 hours of Brown’s first ad. Let’s face it — she’s been out-hustled.
<
p>She conserved her cash during the primary — OK, well, why didn’t she start spending it the moment the Brown ads went up? His ad people are doing their best to make him look like a nice suburban dad — let’s face it, the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with.
<
p>We know that Coakley’s the attorney general — and her ad campaign would be effective if that’s the office she was running for. If she was running for reelection after establishing her Senatorial bona fides, the low-key thing might be OK. But she’s not. There’s been nothing which has told us who she is or that communicates that she understands that there’s a difference between being a senator and a lawyer. Where’s the ad showing her husband, siblings, nices and nephews, dogs? Showing her shmoozing elderly ladies at the Council on Aging?
david says
is that I thought some of her primary ads were quite good. Why not just run them again, instead of this kind of lame new one? They’re equally applicable to the general — maybe you have to change the date that pops up on the screen, but that’s easy enough.
liveandletlive says
She firmly believes if she just waits it out she will win. It’s called arrogance, and she exudes it.
<
p>This is just ridiculous. Where is Emily’s List and NOW? Why aren’t they out there pushing her like they were in the primary? THEY played a big part in deciding who was going to be our candidate. The least they can do is carry it forward to the general.
billxi says
Martha has it all wpapped up. That is all I’ve heard on this space. Go back to sleep.
billxi says
WRapped
david says
rondofan79 says
(Full disclosure: I volunteer for the Coakley campaign.)
<
p>Lightiris, it’s extremely infuriating, you are absolutely right. But instead of lamenting that we have to have this conversation, I hope that you and every other Democrat on BMG will take David’s call to action seriously and donate and/or volunteer. I would also add getting on Facebook http://facebook.com/marthacoakley and Twitter http://twitter.com/marthacoakley and supporting/following the campaign there. Even if you’re ambivalent about the party right now, or if Martha was not your candidate of choice in the primary, there’s a whole lot of Scott Brown crazy that needs combatting out there.
<
p>And I agree with you completely about the larger problems with the party, but let’s have that conversation after we win this thing. There’s so much more at stake.
billxi says
How hard you’ve worked. Get some sleep. You’ve earned it!
david says
billxi says
Are you disputing how hard Martha and her volunteers have worked to elect her? How shameful!
sabutai says
..of all the courageous stands Scott Brown has taken on behalf of the disabled? Because I know how much that means to you, given your periodic screeds against Democrats on that subject…
billxi says
We were at a Republican picnic in Dartmouth. He noticed my aide struggling with two plates, hers and mine. SCOTT BROWN grabbed my plate out of her hands and said “I think I know where this is going”. Democrats would call for a taxpayer funded study. SCOTT BROWN just does the right thing. And this was BEFORE he was running for Senator. He saw me having difficulty climbing a stair two months later at a campaign event in Sutton. He immediately offered me his arm. Then we renewed accquaintance from Dartmouth.
Wonderful man. I’d vote for him if he were a Democrat.
liveandletlive says
Mingling with Main St America carries great weight, especially during a time where people are feeling squeezed by the powerful and well-connected (corporations and government). A candidate can easily lose voters by not
being out and shaking hands.
<
p>Mike Capuano polled at 7% when his campaign began. His campaign was all over the state holding “Open Mikes”, and meet and greets. He won with 28% of the vote. That’s a huge jump in support in such a little amount of time.
<
p>Martha needs to get out and get connected. She could pull 10 points ahead just by doing so. But she has very little time left.
liveandletlive says
I am certain he would have continued his strong campaign if he had won the primary.
smalltownguy says
The PPP meme, that this race is somehow similar to Virgina, leaves me puzzled. Virginia is a historically red state incrementally turning blue as its northern counties become part of the D.C. urban area. Massachusetts is a historically blue state that has shown no tendencies to turn red. It has elected Republican governors but only because they espoused policies and ideologies that are currently anathema to the Republican base nationally.
<
p>Low-turnout elections are notoriously hard to poll accurately. This is one. I suspect that the outcome is not anywhere near as close as Rasumssen and PPP show. I’ll go out on a limb and predict Coakley by 12 points.
metrowest-dem says
But this has GOT to be taken as a wake-up call. You need to wake up your supporters in low-turnout elections — particularly where there is a generally sour mood in the air. Brown’s campaign recognized that people needed to get to know HIM. As David said — Coakley had a decent get-to-know me ad left over from the primary. In a short race, it’s campaign malpractice not to get something up on the air that you already have in the can as soon as the other guy is going to work.
<
p>I can’t help but think that if Capuano had won the primary and saw these numbers, he’d be personally taking names and kicking butts.
ryepower12 says
the polls were pretty solid in predicting the primary.
<
p>It is tough to predict primaries, especially one like this (since we’ve never had one like this before), but if there’s a low turnout for this election, based on what we know from the polls, that seems to help Scott Brown. That just means Martha Coakley — even if we have to drag her along — is going to have to get more than these polls seem to be predicting as the most likely to turn out, because that’s just way too damn close to call.
af says
were these pollsters and these design parameters the same as during the primary?
throbbingpatriot says
I advocated for an outsider progressive candidate in the primary and ended up voting for Alan Khazei. I posted on BMG that Martha Coakley was my next-to-last choice, above only Pagliuca.
<
p>But make no mistake: without hesitation, I will between now and election day make calls, send a donation, knock on doors, and volunteer in any capacity to ensure a Martha Coakley victory.
<
p>Not just a modest victory, either.
<
p>Scott “The Clown” Brown, the anti-American teabaggers, talk radio racists, Republican Right wackos, and every other bigoted fundamentalist freak that infects our sacred Democracy like an anal-rectal cancer is trying to propagandize a close race for Sen. Kennedy’s seat in order to stampede the corporate media sheep.
<
p>For this, we must –all of us progressives– not just defeat them, but humiliate them.
<
p>On January 20 we will drag them back by the scalp to their political feces, with which they sought to soil the legacy of America’s greatest US Senator, and we will rub their noses in it.
<
p>That’s right, all up in it…
<
p>Let’s use this utterly bogus PPP poll to rally a good old-fashioned Cod-eatin’, PT-109-lovin’ red-white-and-blue, cradle-of-democracy, patriotic, election day ass-kicking on these Palinite dead-enders and unrepentant Bush-holes so they feel the hurt right through 2012…
peter-porcupine says
We had the same thought yesterday at the JF Kennedy library in Hyannis…
justice4all says
Too bad the Coakley folks didn’t think of it.
peter-porcupine says
cannoneo says
National Review political reporter (trustworthy? maybe) says tomorrow Globe will have Coakley up 15, Herald will have her up 7 (but only 1 among likely voters).
<
p>If true, that spread still adds up to the wake-up call folks have been describing.
<
p>Herald also reporting that Brown’s swearing-in would be held off and HCR rushed through to get Kirk’s vote.
<
p>On issues beyond HCR, it’s unlikely the Dems will have 60 for very long, even when Coakley wins. And getting the current 60 votes, we’ve seen, requires almost as much compromise as getting the nearest GOP votes.
<
p>That said, Brown would not even be a buy-able vote for sane policy. His win would be a major, major GOP victory, even if for only 2 years, and a major, major morale crusher for Dems here and everywhere.
liveandletlive says
hurt in so many ways.
ryepower12 says
that you only need 50% + 1 to pass a bill, at least if you’re willing to use all the tools available to us to pass the damn things.
<
p>More than anything, Harry Reid’s unwillingness to do what was necessary all along has saddled us and will be the ultimate downfall of our 06/08 waves. People want real change and results and instead got something worse than the status quo. Even Ben Nelson is going to pay for what he did, quite possibly losing reelection, because his own state is disgusted with the special ‘deal’ he negotiated for his state, it smelled so rank.
<
p>When Nelson, Reid and Lincoln go down, I won’t shed a freaking tear. They all deserve to go. I only hope they’re replaced by democrats in primaries or from early retirements.
kirth says
We couldn’t do much worse than Scott Brown for a Senator.
<
p>Two years from now, unless she has really outdone herself as a progressive Senator, I won’t vote for her. I hope Coakley sees a primary challenger. Otherwise, I will do what I normally do when an incumbent runs unopposed, and skip that vote.
stephgm says
We just got out the credit card.
petr says
There is no mention, anywhere, about who funded this poll or why PPP (a Raleigh NC, firm) decided to do a Massachusetts poll now.
<
p>Neither did they publish a poll of anybody in Massachusetts either during the primary, or at anytime since… until now.
<
p>There is no mention of non-response rate.
<
p>In the poll they ask for favorable/unfavorable ratings on Obama and on HCR. But not about Deval Patrick or about other members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation. Such numbers would provide better correlatives.
<
p>I also find it difficult to believe that 47% of Massachusetts residents, residents who already have similar health care regulation in situ express a strongly negative position on the pending national health care…
<
p>My guess: these North Carolina polling dilettantes somehow came across the notion that Massachusetts has only two area codes (There are actually nine (9)…) and called a number of people in both and proceeded to get so adrenalized by the results that some cub reporter saw them floating out of the building…
<
p>
petr says
much different numbers… Discussed here
alexswill says
They have been in getting into the national scene for the past few years. They definitely are not a bad polling firm. They have, however, had a few big misses.
<
p>Hopefully another.
manny-happy-returns says
<
p>2. How much help or harm does today’s Globe headline – “up by 15” – do Coakley?
<
p>3. In terms of the sudden tightness of this race, how much signifcance can/should be placed on Coakley’s reluctance/resistance to one-on-one debates?
<
p>4. Does the Globe poll lose or gain validity when it finds the 3rd party candidate at 5%?
<
p>5. What can Martha do to change the perception of trends, specifically that she is falling and Brown is rising?
mark-bail says
Please press 1 if you feel like answering.
<
p>Please press 2 if you know how valid such polls are.
stomv says
It turns out that robo polls are every bit as accurate when corrected for other variables like sample size and the skew of the question.
<
p>538.com has written quite a bit about it.
kathy says
I’m worried, but not that worried.
christopher says
I absolutely believe in not taking anything for granted. However, I seem to recall discussing polls during the primary suggesting just maybe Capuano would pull it off. In the end the candidate who was always the front runner proved to be the victor by a comfortable margin. Especially if weather is decent on the 19th the low information voters will vote for the name they recognize, Martha Coakley. By all means let’s generate enthusiasm, but I don’t think that enthusiasm has to morph into panic.
hoyapaul says
The PPP poll broke down in this way:
<
p>Dem — 44%
GOP — 17%
Unenrolled — 39%
<
p>This is actually a pretty reasonable assumption of turnout.
<
p>However, the problem I see with this poll, as compared to the Globe poll, is that it is WAY too restrictive of what they consider a “likely” unenrolled voter (which is simply a reflection of their likely voter screen, nothing nefarious). There is little chance, for example, that Brown’s favorability among independents is anything like the 70%-16% numbers here, with only 13% (!) unsure. Indeed, I find it unlikely that Brown will win independents at all, never mind by the 63%-31% number in PPP’s poll.
<
p>Also, the poll contains some other pretty funky numbers suggesting that PPP’s likely voter screen is too restrictive. Most prominently, Obama only has a 44%-43% approval in this sample, including 19% Democratic disapproval. Obama’s also down among independents 30%-54%.
<
p>The electorate will look more like the Globe sample than the PPP sample, though the Globe may have gone a bit in the other direction (too many independents). I think the Globe’s assumptions are a lot closer to reality, though even by that measure the race is a bit closer than it should be.
discernente says
<
p>And Martha’s does?
<
p>Face it–By far, Scott is the the lesser of the two evils.
david says
And I’ll just leave it at that.
billxi says
“Abortion for all or health care for none”. Even though Martha Chokeley has flipped on that flop, she said it. Please, tell me again about absurdity. Censor THIS one!
discernente says
to elicit a denigrating response. Really now, can’t you do better than that?
<
p>Does anyone really believe that either Martha or Scott’s values and principles represent those of a majority/plurality of the electorate? What are we left with?–The choice among the lesser of evils.
<
p>To me anyway, Martha has two overriding negatives which are far more serious than any of Scott’s:
1) I get queasy about former Police/DAs/AGs/Judges who aspire to higher office–it rarely makes for a satisfactory result. Her record as DA/AG seems to veer pretty radically authoritarian, reeks of arrogance, and demonstrates little empathy save for favored special interests.
2) She has no legislative experience. None. Zero. Nada. I see no evidence that she is qualified, exhibits any sort of temperament for the legislative process, or would be responsive to her entire constituency. To the contrary, her exercise of power as DA/AG has been particularly troubling.
sabutai says
Is a situation where the activists, the party members, and the electorate are going to have to bail a candidate out of her own mistakes.
billxi says
Too cold out.
kirth says
once. The second time, and all the other times you’ve spent bandwidth on it, it has not been funny, just boring. Using a joke to (and past) the point that it bores people is stupid.