On February 6, 2010 Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection fame declared his new project would be ensuring Patrick Kennedy must go:
Patrick Kennedy is my new Martha Coakley, with the difference that Martha Coakley had some accomplishments in her life prior to running for the Senate, and generally was a nice person (although some of her campaign tactics were not so nice). Patrick Kennedy, by contrast, has accomplished almost nothing in his life, is an embarrassment, and is not a nice person. (snip)
We cannot let the First Congressional District in Rhode Island turn into "the Kennedy seat." Not with this Kennedy.
Patrick Kennedy must go, and I'll do whatever is within the power of the pixels which inhabit this blog to make it so.
Well, word must have reached Patrick Kennedy that the good professor who had made it his mission to put Scott Brown in the "Kennedy seat," decided to turn his powerful pixels on Kennedy. Lo and behold, it appears Kennedy has thought better of his decision to seek a 9th term in the House.
Perhaps Professor Jacobson could turn those pixels loose on another Patrick, as in Murphy (PA-8), Pelosi lap dog extraordinaire, who is suddenly a "Born Again Blue Dog". It is time for these shameless Democrats to be shown the door.
UPDATE: Here we go, already there is an announcement Kennedy won't be seeking reelection:
To Scott Brown, not so much. Did he walk back the offensive Dred Scott comparison, no. Looks like Olbermann is just a bit embarrassed for having had one of the cool "truth tellers" make a monkey of him on his show. Still, at least he admits he has been over the top lately which is something I guess.
This clip was quite the buzz on twitter late last night. Olbermann is going to need medication if another thing breaks against the Democrats this week. Scratch that, we already knew he needed medication. Still, his ranting this week is a step beyond the usual insanity we see from Olbermann and it is getting progressively worse as the week wears on. I posted Olbermann's Dred Scott diatribe with Alan Grayson where the two let loose on the Citizen's United ruling handed down from the Supreme Court. His rantings on Scott Brown are the subject of Jon Stewart's skewering in this case, however.
Stewart does an amazing job with his fisking of Olbermann. Conservatives will love the part where he turns the tables on Olbermann's attack on Brown when he apologizes for failing to include the charge of sexism to his list of insane "name calling." Stewart uses the bit when Olbermann attacks Michelle Malkin calling her a "big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick," against him with aplomb. Michelle noted the hypocrisy of Olbermann's sexism charge as well. Update: found a clip to post so enjoy!
Here is a picture of the stage set up for live entertainment from Shane Hayes on facebook. There must be so much excitement there. I wonder if we'll see The Other McCain who also has live stream coverage on his blog.
Fleming and Hayes want to spread the excitement they feel in Massachusetts. I have been reading their comments and updates on Facebook for some time but today there is a real joyous feeling about their posts. Here is a sample:
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.
They have a very positive feeling but overall they have poured their hearts and souls into this election working impossible hours yet pushing themselves just a bit more. They have done a marvelous job and hopefully see the fruits of that today. Be sure to click the link and see the many pictures and videos they want to share with those of us who can't be there in Massachusetts but are completely with them in spirit.
I will certainly be here clicking my ruby slippers for a win in Massachusetts.
For more excitement, Pundette has the best Scott Brown story of the day.
Is the tingle gone? Chris Matthews appeared on Morning Joe to discuss the hot news story that is the Senate race in Massachusetts. Matthews is focused on the bellwethers or "mini Massachusettses" as he describes them. Matthews has recent info from Suffolk University whose most recent poll showed a 4 point Brown lead. Suffolk was polling as late as last night and found double digit leads for Brown causing Matthews to conclude the election is going to go to Brown. Matthews spends some time discussing some of the unbelievable Coakley gaffes including her statement Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms.
Matthews, clearly hasn't lost the tingle. He goes on to promote his two hour special tonight "Obama's America: 2010 and beyond. He will look at the promise of the Obama presidency and Chris, of course, still sees plenty of tingle in Obama's future. Perhaps he can use those two hours to play the religion card as he does in this clip as well. You'll find this at the 4:30 marker.
This is a long clip so for those interested in the poll information you'll find that early in the discussion. Matthews has always said that the trend in the polls from the Thursday before the election predicts the outcome. In this election the trend is clearly on Brown's side.
Ed Morrissey covers more of poll analysis and adds Stuart Rothenberg sees Brown headed for a "comfortable win." Reaganite Republican has a terrific round up of coverage of polls, the latest from Intrade and more on the election that is shaping up to be the perfect present for Obama on the eve of his one year anniversary as President.
Wow Of course as a left leaning pollster PPP suggests Coakley could still pull this out as Democrats have started to take more interest in the race. I think they might be able to stop by the nearest cemetary and dig up the rest of the votes, but I digress. Here are the key findings of the PPP poll:
-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.
-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.
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.
Scott Brown just ended his fantastic rally with this song. It's been a long time since I posted a health care inspired video of the day. It's time to change that:
UPDATE: The Daley Gator has the video of the young girl heckling during the Obama speech. They lost control of the rally and later had the girl removed.
Politico reports Charlie Cook thinks the Massachusetts Senate race slightly favors Brown though it still could go either way:
"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.
"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."
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.
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.
The POTUS is about to speak in Massachusetts, can he reverse the tide? It's all about turnout but an interesting note Fox reported the hall for the POTUS/Coakley event is not full. Still way too early for champagne though.
Blue Mass Group is all but rubbing their hands with glee thinking the answer to the pesky Republican who could win Uncle Teddy's seat is contained in this video:
A few sites are opting just to run with a shortened version highlighting the damning moment when Brown questions whether Obama was born out of wedlock.
This is the highlight according to the left:
Brown: Barack's mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old?
Guest: And married!
Brown: Well, I don't know about that.
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:
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
The lefty blogs know better than Barack, however, and are busy making some wacky connections to paint Brown as a "Birther:"
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.
Dude, seriously get a grip. If Brown was mistaken, Michelle and Barack Obama seem to be mistaken as well. The left caught us off guard when they went on the "Sarah Palin is a book burning bitch from hell" extravaganza. We've witnessed the psychotic obsessions with her virtual uterus. We've already seen the game book, perhaps the left needs to try something new or at least step up their game.
Within a few minutes of witnessing the left wing bloggers working themselves up into a smeargasm, there were links with statements from the Obama's dug from the archives to counter the attack. If this is what the left has had hidden up its sleeve for the last minute surprise, Coakley is in big trouble.
Fleming and Hayes have a stunning video of a report by a handicapped SEIU worker who was denied access to the Clinton/Coakley event. Was it the handicap or was the handicap the fact he actually supported Brown?
Read the rest at Fleming and Hayes who have plenty of photos of some brave SEIU workers who support Brown and are angry at their union for selling them out. They also have video of Clinton leaving the event to chants of , "Thanks for stopping by, Bill, how about you go help Haiti now?" Also, be sure to see the video of a foreign Coakley supporter being taken into custody. What's up with that?
Among the Brown supporters were - believe it or not - rank-and-file members of the Service Employees International Union.
"We're Americans - we have our free choice," said one of the SEIU members, who identified herself only as Michelle and said she drove more than 60 miles from Western Massachusetts - "The stepchild of this state" - to show her support for Brown in Worcester.
Legal Insurrection is posting photos from the ground in Massachusetts today. He has a couple of those strange Purple for Brown sightings as well. Perhaps there is a bit of mutiny among the Cavalry?
Still, the SEIU is all about power and will drop a shower of purple rain in the form of cash on the Coakley campaign. The GOP is paying attention, a fact which seems to irk the SEIU:
"Here's more proof the Republican attack machine has no answers on the issues Massachusetts voters care about -- jobs, healthcare and fixing the mess left by the previous administration," shot back Jon Youngdahl, SEIU's national political director. "Their biggest concern? That people who work hard for a living might turn out and vote."
Linked by Stacy McCain at The American Spectator. Thank You and welcome Spectator readers!
H/T: Hot Air Headlines American Research Group has a poll of 600 likely voters in Massachusetts conducted between January 12-14 showing Scott Brown with a 3 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. Here is a breakdown of the results"
The poll has a margin of error of 4 points which points to the likelihood the race this Tuesday will be a nailbiter. I think we expected that already. Here are a few highlights from the results:
Brown leads 58 to 37% among Independent voters
Brown leads 54 to 39% among men while Coakley has a narrower lead among women 50 to 44%.
9% of likely voters have already voted by absenteee. Among those voters Brown leads 58 to 42, wow.
Brown holds a sizable lead among younger voters 52 to 42 while Coakley has a 1 point lead among voters 50 and older.
The smaller sample size leads to a higher margin of error. Brown has substantial leads over Coakley among Independents and among younger voters. Brown is taking 20% of registered Democrats while Coakley gets only 1% of the registered Republicans. This all bodes well for Brown.
One concerning point is Coakley's slim lead among older voters. I would suggest there is a significant difference between the 50-64 age group and the over 65 group. Those over 65 could be greatly impacted by the cuts to Medicare whereas the 50-64 age group might see those cuts as preserving Medicare as they approach the age for enrollment. I would be interested in seeing if the over 65 group was inclined to support Brown over Coakley.
Clearly Democrats must be nervous, but Democrats don't nailbite they call in the Cavalry. The Other McCain who is reporting from the ground in Massachusetts linked a disturbing anecdote reported at DaTechGuy's Blog:
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.
Fleming and Hayes have a direct mail piece sent by Martha Coakley. Here is a sample of Martha's latest efforts to take the final days of the campaign down lower than a reporter from a right leaning publication. This is just a sample of the creative ingenuity at work over at team Coakley:
Be sure to see the rest of this mailer as well as some insight from the ground in Massachusetts at the link for Fleming and Hayes.
PS: Brown up by 15?
Linked by Reaganite Republican
Via Twitter
Martha Coakley was interviewed on the Ken Pitman radio show earlier today. As usual, Coakley proves when she opens her mouth she is sure to put a foot in it. Here is the transcript, audio portion below as well:
Ken Pittman: Would you pass a conscientious objection to certain procedures including abortion?
Martha Coakley: Uh I don't believe that would be included in the health care bill. I don't understand exactly what the question is (cross talk) I would not pass a bill as Scott Brown filed the amendment to say that people believed that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe vs Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law, the answer to that question is no.
Ken Pittman: Ok
Martha Coakley: and let's be clear because Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in and had been raped.
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, let’s be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
Here's the rub though, as Professor Jacobson pointed out this provision for conscientious objection is in the bill Coakley says she supports:
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:
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.
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.
No wonder the most committed liberals are finding it difficult to vote for her. Case in point, from the liberal group Blue Mass Yes it Sucks, Yes You Have to Vote for Coakley. Wow, I won't blame Democrats for blaming a portion of this loss on this terrible, terrible candidate.
The Boston Herald reports the shocking findings of a Suffolk University/7News poll showing Scott Brown with a four, count em 4, point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. It's a Brown out:
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.
“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.
Here are a few of the highlights from the poll:
Brown wins among men and is only trailing by 5 to Coakley among women
Brown has 91% of registered Republicans plus an additional 17% of Democrats
Most perilous for Coakley who needs voters motivated to come to the polls 64% believe she will win. This is likely to suppress her vote while Brown's support is highly motivated to show up at the polls.
Brown has a solid 57% favorability but only 19% unfavorable while Coakley's unfavorables are 41%. Coakley's favorables are at 49%.
Brown's name recognition problem has all but been erased; 95% recognize his name statewide.
When asked whether Coakley would represent an independent voice 64% believed she would tow the party line.
51% opposed the health care plan and 61% believed the government cannot afford to pay for the plan if enacted.
“There is something big going on in Massachusetts,” says political analyst Charlie Cook 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.”
Earlier today both Cook and Rothenberg moved the race to the toss up category. Oh and the poll showed 99% have made up their mind on their vote. Too early for popping the champagne corks but not too early to consider putting a bottle on ice just in case.
Michelle Malkin describes Martha Coakley's tone-deaf sneering at Brown's meet-and-greets with the common folk outside Fenway Park as her Marie Antoinette moment. That allusion was just screaming for some photoshopping, hence the Martha Antoinette portrait was conceived.
As Malkin notes:
"Yes, you see, because jetting down to D.C. for a soiree in the warm glow of Big Pharma fatcats and lobbyists puts her so much more in touch with the folks in Massachusetts!
What’s French for: Let them watch baseball."
Perhaps while she is frolicking with the fatcats she can condemn a journalist or two to the guillotine and walk on as if nothing has happened. Nothing should stand in the way of Martha's succession to the throne after all.
Actually something, or rather someone, might just stand in the way of Martha's succession. Shaking hands with the people out in the cold does seem to have its advantages:
I watched most of the debate earlier between Martha Coakley, Scott Brown and Joseph Kennedy. Brown was formidable and this was definitely one of his finer moments:
Coakley repeatedly resorted to cheap shots trying to cast Brown as supportive of a measure that would allow emergency rooms to deny treatment to rape victims. Brown shot back that her caricature of his position was abhorrent. Abhorrent is an understatement, here is the amendment Brown proposed:
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.
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.
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.
David Gergen, as you saw in the video, was biased in his questioning of Brown. I think they must have injected him with Democratic Kool Aid when he went to work for the Clinton administration. Brown's response the seat was not Ted Kennedy's but the people's seat was pitch perfect. Why should anyone vote for a bad health care bill merely because another bad one might not come along for 15 years, the logic astounds me.
Coakley appears to have taken the advice offered in the PPP poll and offers an attack ad tying Brown to Bush and Cheney: H/T: Hot Air
Which party has all the sweetheart deals with Wall Street? Last I checked Wall Street funded the Obama campaign. The rest of the ad is a lame effort to taint Brown with weak associations. In short, the ad is pretty pathetic and screams desperation. Are Massachusetts voters foolish enough to buy this nonsense? Fortunately, Brown should have plenty of money to counter with his own ad; he raised over a million dollars today, which is double his original goal of $500,000 during today's moneybomb. The grassroots dug deep in their pockets today to support a candidate who would speak for them instead of the health care lobby.
Alarm bells must be ringing signalling the all-important 60th vote for the health care debacle are on the line. Who will come running to save the damsel in distress at the last minute, a team of PhRMA and insurance lobbyists naturally:
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).
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.
Here is a picture of the invite:
The list of hosts is positively a who's who in health care lobbyists. Here are just a few of the drug companies and insurance companies that will be represented by the hosts of Coakley's little fundraiser: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health. I wonder if Martha Coakley would be making arguments on behalf of the people or the drug companies and insurers if she is elected?
Remember the Obama transparency pledge:
“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:
Yet, Martha Coakley will be fed a feast of lobbyist dollars to insure she is elected to ram the overhaul through whether the people in Massachusetts or America want it or not. Donate to elect Scott Brown, we can't afford to sit on the sidelines for this election.
I noticed a conservative friend on facebook joined the group Martha Coakley for Senator. I did a bit of a double take then quickly clicked onto the page to see why she might join such a group. I immediately had my answer. Here is a screenshot of a typical post on the group wall:
Naturally I clicked to watch the video mentioned in the post that inspired so many jokes about Coakley's foreign policy credentials. As you will see in the clip, Martha's answer to a question about her credentials automatically generates the question, "what if Sarah Palin had said that?"
Coakley's facebook group appears to be an abandoned or forgotten page created to support Coakley in the Democratic primary. The administrators have joined a multitude of liberal groups on facebook and the discussion page for the group seems to have been started back in September. The topics clearly signal an intention to support Coakley. Conservatives seem to have taken over the page and use it to post the many reasons voters should vote for Brown. Some are really quite humorous but also very informative.
Coakley's bona fide facebook page has attracted a number of conservative members who have joined so they can argue against voting for Coakley as well. This exchange in particular is positively screaming for a rebuttal. Perhaps I will send it to one of the conservatives already in the group rather than actually joining the group myself (cringe).
Coakley has fewer supporters than Brown and many more there just to make the point voting for her would be a disaster for Massachusetts and the country. If her page is representative, there are a scarce few who seem highly motivated to elect her. Clearly she has advantages in a state like Massachusetts, motivated voters don't appear to be among her assets.
Marc Ambinder ponders the possibility, "Dems to Croak in Massachusetts?" Ambinder reprints an email sent from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee he suggests would not have been sent unless there were real fears Coakley could choke:
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.
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.
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:
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.
PPP as a left leaning pollster appears to have a clear message for Coakley believing she can still turn this around:
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.
For More: Professor Jacobson spent the day at Brown's headquarters, be sure to read his report.
Lots more at Memeorandum too.
