We've all heard jokes about this being "Christmas for patriots" or "the vote heard round the world" but understand that, for many of us here in Massachusetts, this is the first time our vote has really mattered. Unless you've made the trip up here to volunteer like so many great patriots have, we thought we try to bring you the next best thing.
(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha.")He did this repeatedly? Sort of like this .....
-Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote.The momentum is clearly with Brown but this will all come down to turnout. Will update with additional findings after reviewing the crosstabs. Some initial impressions though, Brown's lead among unafilliated voters has remained consistently high across other polls. Coakley doesn't seem to have made any inroad with those voters. Coakley's favorability drop is 6 points yet it doesn't appear she has laid a glove on Brown. Interesting stuff, but the only poll that matters is the one on Tuesday.
-Brown's voters continue to be much more enthusiastic than Coakley's. 80% of his say they're 'very excited' about voting Tuesday while only 60% of hers express that sentiment. But the likely electorate now reports having voted for Barack Obama by 19 points, up from 16 a week ago, and a much smaller drop from his 26 point victory in the state than was seen in Virginia.
-Those planning to turn out continue to be skeptical of the Democratic health care plan, saying they oppose it by a 48/40 margin.
-Coakley's favorability dropped from 50% to 44% after a week filled with perceived missteps. Brown's negatives went up a lot but his positives only actually went from 57% to 56%, an indication that attacks against him may have been most effective with voters already planning to support Coakley but ambivalent toward Brown.
-56% of voters in the state think Brown has made a strong case for why he should be elected while just 41% say the same of Coakley. Even among Coakley's supporters only 73% think she's made the argument for herself, while 94% of Brown's supporters think he has.
"This past Thursday, Jan. 14, The Cook Political Report moved the open Massachusetts Senate seat rating from lean Democrat to toss-up, having moved it from solid Democrat to lean Democratic on Jan. 7," Cook wrote. "We continue to see this race as very much of a toss-up, with Republican state Sen. Scott Brown holding onto a very narrow, single-digit lead over Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley.Ed Morrissey notes the polls have settled yet runs the numbers based on several different turnout models. Under the best case scenario for Dems, Brown still leads by 4.5 points.
"Given the vagaries of voter turnout, particularly in lower participation level special elections, this race could still go either way, but we put a finger on the scale for Brown. Last-minute Democratic attacks on Brown have driven his negatives up some and slightly diminished the incredible intensity of support that Brown enjoyed, but it looks more likely than not to hold."
Update II: Reader S averaged the exit-polling data from the 2006 and 2008 races — in which Dems were highly motivated and independents tilted against the GOP — and came up with a 41-18-41 split. In that best-case turnout model, Brown leads by 4.5 points using the ARG survey responses:
2006-8 Average Model
Brown
Coakley
Dems
246
49.2
174.66
GOP
108
101.52
1.08
Indys
246
142.68
91.02
293.4
266.76
48.90%
44.46%
That’s high-end best-case for Coakley, and she’s still losing.
Brown: Barack's mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old?MSNBC covered Michelle Obama speaking on July 10,2008 at an event in Kansas City MO. This is MSNBC's coverage mind you, who wrote:
Guest: And married!
Brown: Well, I don't know about that.
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him." And, Obama added, he has observed his wife's attempts to reconcile motherhood with her career aspirations.Perhaps Michelle Obama is misinformed or otherwise unclear about the marital status of her husbands parents when Stanley Anne "had him," I don't know. Let's look at what Barack wrote in Dreams from my Father
Complicating matters for Brown is the fact that, around the time the video was taped, the fringier elements of the conservative movement were advancing this theory--that Obama's mother wasn't married when he was born--as a related matter to the more important "Obama was born in Kenya" theory.The New Republic runs with it:
For example at the Bill Clinton event in Worcester at the end while I waited for my son to attempt to get the president autograph (in vain) I stood quietly next to some much better dressed men from the Coakley Campaign who were apparently talking to Union guys from out of state. The gist was that the “Cavalry was coming” and they talked with the quiet confidence of gamblers who know which boxer is going to take a dive.Michelle Malkin warns the purple army "marches on Massachusetts." I hope the GOP has learned a lesson from the Coleman/Franken race, get some lawyers to Masssachusetts and challenge everything.
Here is the language in section 1302(a)(3) of the bill (at page 125) passed by the Senate on December 24 (emphasis mine), which Coakley says she supports:If elected, will Coakley demand this section be removed before she votes for the bill or can we all pretty much rest assured Martha doesn't give two hoots about conscientious objections to health care unless it might get her a vote? This woman is really unprepared and hasn't bothered to research the issue she is raising against Brown. I would guess she wouldn't be able to answer any specific questions about portions of the health care bill. Moreover, this is a truly desperate candidate who can't find a charge to level against her opponent. Instead she chooses to throw anything hoping something sticks.
PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.Here are a few of the highlights from the poll:
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”…
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided…
Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.
“There is something big going on in Massachusetts,” says political analyst CharlieCook in a conversation with National Review Online. He tells us that he’s “convinced” that Republican Scott Brown “really might win” the upcoming special election for U.S. Senate in the Bay State. Brown, he says, has run a “flawless, very smart campaign” while his opponent, Democrat Martha Coakley, has been “overly cautious” and run an “awful campaign.”
I was coming out of an event, I talked with press, I went to a gaggle not unlike this, although it was outside and in the dark. I went to go because I had to get back to the airport."Gee anyone think the choice of the word stalking was deliberate? When you are running for a seat in the US Senate in a hot special election you'd think it might be expected that members of the press would be looking for a quote or a comment. Add the fact that Coakley was emerging from a fundraiser hosted by a slew of health care lobbyists it is reasonable to expect intense interest in any news from the event. Still Martha chooses to characterize the interest as "stalking" and ties the reporter to a "very right leaning publication."
I know there were people following, including people from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking. I'm not sure what happened. I know something occurred. I'm not privy to the facts. I'm sure it will come out, but I'm not aware of that."
"I do know the Scott Brown stalkers who have followed me around, and the people at that press conference who were for very right-leaning publications, were incredible aggressive about trying to get in my face. I didn't see what happened so I can't say."
In the Dec. 8 primary election, Massachusetts Democrats chose as their Senate nominee a woman who kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.
Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s top lawyer, acknowledged yesterday that she improperly filled out a federal financial disclosure she submitted to the US Senate as part of her candidacy in the special election.Failed to disclose $250,000 in financial assets, according to Boston.com. She ought to fit in well with the Obama administration:
The Globe reported yesterday that Coakley was the only candidate, in disclosures due to the Senate by this week, to report that neither she nor her spouse had any reportable financial asset worth more than $1,000.
But her campaign said Coakley failed to list $200,000 to $250,000 in financial assets that are held by her husband, Thomas F. O’Connor Jr. The campaign said Coakley also failed to note a retirement account she holds that is worth $12,000.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley attracting 49% of the vote while her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, picks up 47%.Also, even better news from NRO who has a report from a spy:
Three percent (3%) say they’ll vote for independent candidate Joe Kennedy, and two percent (2%) are undecided. The independent is no relation to the late Edward M. Kennedy, whose Senate seat the candidates are battling to fill in next Tuesday’s election.
Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%. To be clear, this lead is among unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the special election.
My spy passes along word that Coakley herself fired up the crowd with this inspiring line: "If I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . EveryDemocrat will have a competitive race."
Her defeat was also described as "Waterloo for health care."Oh nostalgia, a post from the very first day of my blog when the news of the day was health care would be Obama's Waterloo.
Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.Brown merely proposed an amendment that would give religious hospitals or personnel the right to act according to their conscience. The amendment clearly provides the patient a referral to a provider or facility that will administer contraception at no cost to the patient. This is a long way away from denying them treatment altogether as Coakley implied. It says a good deal that this is what she deems her best attack against him though.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is at right (click here for a better view).Here is a picture of the invite:
Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients.
“we’ll have [healthcare reform] negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”Does C-SPAN get to cover the fundraiser to insure the election of the 60th vote? Even in the bluest of blue states, whose health care system is said to be the model for the legislation in Congress, there isn't majority support for the health care overhaul:
You need to know this: Polls are tightening in Massachusetts, and America's future hangs on getting Martha Coakley elected to Ted Kennedy's seat on Jan. 19. Winning this special election means passing health care reform and the rest of President Obama's agenda.Yet the plaintive cry that health care won't happen without Coakley's election seems to be what is driving the all important Independent vote towards Brown according to the latest PPP poll:
We need your help today. The special election is only 10 days away. Funds are needed NOW to fight back against swiftboat attacks. Click here to make an immediate donation of $5 or more to the DSCC.
American Future Fund, the guys who brought you the Swift Boat attacks against decorated war veteran John Kerry, are up with a $400,000 buy, smearing Coakley.She's being outspent, and a new poll shows that the right wing money is doing the trick. Republican Scott Brown is within striking distance.
Keeping this seat blue is critical. Coakley is the 60th vote needed to pass health care and the rest of President Obama's agenda. As Massachusetts' first woman senator, she will help advance Kennedy's legacy - fighting for equal rights, a strong economy, and our families and communities. Without her vote, health care won't happen.
Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama's plan with 59% opposed.Also helping Brown is the relative disinterest among Democrats who don't appear all that motivated to turn out for this special election:
Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic about turning out to vote than Democrats are. 66% of GOP voters say they are 'very excited' about casting their votes, while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment- and that's among the Democrats who areplanning to vote in contrast to the many who are apparently not planning to do so at this point.Support for Brown has less to do with approval of Republicans in general. In fact, only 21% of Massachusetts voters signal their approval of Congressional Republicans. A large block of voters, however, those who disapprove of both parties appear to be poised to support the party out of power. Toss in high personal approval of Brown and you have all the makings for a repeat of Virginia and to a lesser degree New Jersey because Christie's approval was not nearly as high as Brown's.
Here's the reality: the Republicans and GOP leaning independents are going to come out and vote for Scott Brown. There's no doubt about that. But there's also a much larger pool of potential Democratic voters in the state. If Coakley can get them out, she wins. But this race is well past the stage where Democrats can take it for granted that will happen. It will be fascinating to see what happens the final ten days and we'll do a second poll on the race next weekend.Coakley may have some difficulty following PPP's advice, however, based on some of the information found in the crosstabs of the poll:
Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative.Brown's favorability at +32 vs +8 for Coakley along with his support among the Democratic vote outstrips Coakley's considerably making this race a toss up. This will come down to turnout as do most special elections. Still, the mere fact we are discussing the possibility of a Republican winning Ted Kennedy's seat is nothing short of miraculous. The next ten days are shaping up to be really exciting.
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.Word of caution: the post goes on to say it is also winnable if Coakley gets her act together. Fivethirtyeight gives PPP a decent rating as a pollster but we have no polling info here just the headlines from the polling they have mostly completed but not yet released. They appear to be sending a message to light a fire under Coakley but in doing so they are also lighting a fire under those who might not turn out for Brown for fear a Republican can never really win in Massachusetts.
-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
Yet it’s still possible Brown could pull off a stunning upset. Since Reid managed to get the health bill through the Senate, we’ve heard the plaint of so many conservatives, “Is this really happening? Is there any way we can still stop it?” Anyone who has asked those questions in recent weeks should go to Scott Brown’s website and contribute, eroding at least one of Coakley’s key advantages. We don’t ordinarily make fundraising pitches for candidates, but these are special circumstances. The way the health-care debate is projecting right now, the Democrats will get their bill and Republicans will exact their retribution in the fall. It’d be even better if retribution arrived early this year.Early retribution would be a very good thing. We have a good health care system in this country and letting Democrats tinker with it scares me senseless. Scott Brown's election is about the best hope of stopping that garbage legislation from becoming law, I am praying for David win over Goliath here.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.Another strong point for Brown is found in his 44 point lead among Independent voters. Professor Jacobson, who has been covering this race extensively, has been sensing some problems for Coakley:
For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.
Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.
In 2006, Massachusetts implemented its own statewide version of health care reform which has been cited as a model for the national plan. But just 32% of the state’s voters consider that reform a success. Thirty-six percent (36%) consider the plan a failure, and another 32% are not sure.
Despite the creation of a statewide health plan in part to address rising costs, most Massachusetts voters (54%) say cost is still the biggest problem with health care. Twenty-four percent (24%) cite a lack of universal coverage, while 11% say it’s the quality of care. Just three percent (3%) complain of the inconvenience of scheduling.
This is better than I expected for Brown. Coakley has been a statewide figure for years, and has much better name recognition, SEIU and other union support, and the Massachusetts Democratic machine behind her. Obama won the state by over 20%, and Coakley should have had at least a mid-teens lead at this point.This is still going to be tough, but electing a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy would send such shockwaves to Democrats in Congress that the battle is well worth the effort. Consider the Karmic justice after Democrats turned Benedict Arlen, counted their way to seating Al Franken and then changed the rules in Massachusetts just so they could ram ObamaCare through without negotiating with Republicans.
But as I have noted, Coakley's tactic of acting like the election already is over may be backfiring. While Brown was hitting the pavement the past three weeks, Coakley took a six day vacation. Wrong message. Coakley is ducking a one-on-one debate with Brown. Wrong message.
I sensed Coakley was in trouble when her campaign recently overstated the strength of her fundraising, making it seem as if she had far outraised Brown post-primary. It appears that most of Coakley's fundraising strength was pre-primary, when she used the abortion issue to rally the liberal base to contribute. Coakley then went back on her promise not to vote for the Senate health bill if it contained abortion restrictions.
