TPMDC
Could Joe Kennedy Win The Race For Coakley?
MA Senate candidate Joe Kennedy (I)
Share
Send to a friend!
Not much attention has been paid to Libertarian Joe Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate race. But might he be the deciding factor in who wins the seat?
As Campaign Diaries points out, polls which include Kennedy (no relation to the late Ted Kennedy) make things look better for Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. Polls that only include Coakley and her Republican rival, Scott Brown, look better for Brown.
According to TPMDC's Poll Tracker, polls that include Kennedy average out to show the Libertarian with just 3.6% of the vote -- and Coakley in the lead with 47.8%. Brown averages 44.2% of the vote.
The poll that has Kennedy with the highest portion, with 5%, shows Coakley with her biggest recent lead, at 8 points full points.
But when you look at the polls with only the two major candidates, Brown, on average, leads 52% to 42.5%.
Brown supporters seem to be concerned that Kennedy is Republicans' Ralph Nader. As TPMDC reported this morning, a Massachusetts tea party group is urging Kennedy to drop out of the race and endorse Brown. (But a Kennedy spokesman says," Joe feels it is important to finish what he has started.")
There are, of course, a lot of factors in this race (including turnout) and as many ways to look at the numbers. But it's one interesting take on what could happen tomorrow.
Comments (23) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Walter Mitty
January 18, 2010 11:46 AM
He's also been getting death threats from the teabaggers. I don't think he'll want to do them any favors. Also Coakley fought to allow him into the debates, even if it was for her self-serving reasons.
I can't see him really playing any sort of spoiler now because folks who would vote for him given the publicity and closeness of this race probably just wouldn't vote if he withdrew. If he is the protest vote, it means people voting for him like neither candidate. If his supporters wanted to vote Brown, they'd vote Brown.
I still think he'll get some old timer votes based on his name - which would be peeling off votes from Coakley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 18, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
Walter, if you were a politician you would be in so much trouble for that old timer comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
January 18, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Maybe, but it's true - I doubt it's a coincidence that the races where Kennedy does best are those where the leading prospective candidate was someone else named Joe Kennedy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 18, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to midnight rambler
You guys do realize that your conjecture (Kennedy will pull votes from Coakley instead of Brown) is in direct contradiction to the polling cited in this story, right? Do you have some other evidence, or is this just a "feels right" suggestion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
January 18, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to hunter
I suspect the people of Massachusetts (especially the 'old timers') know their Kennedy's. How many fricking Kennedy's do you think there are in the Boston phonebook? It would be like meeting somone named Joe Smith and asking if he was related to your in-law eight states away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Collin
January 18, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I'm voting for Kennedy, not because of his name, but because Coakley's record on civil liberties is odious. I've voted straight ticket Democrat since I turned 18, but I can't simply hold my nose and vote for her this election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 18, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to Collin
If she were running for Governor or a court seat or Chief of the Secret Police or something, that might make sense. She's not. She's running for the Senate, where the fate of the entire Democratic agenda is at stake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davewtf
January 18, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Which is why I am holding my nose and voting for her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 18, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Actually, the whole Democratic agenda has never been at stake. The Democratic agenda has never had 60 votes. The only thing at stake is President Lieberman's agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Masel
January 18, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Collin
Does she do more damage to civil liberties in the Senate, or as Attorney General?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
January 18, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Collin
Collin, if in fact you support a Democratic agenda and if in fact you vote the way you say you will, you are acting the fool. This is not meant as a personal affront, but only a comment on your political awareness. In 1992 it is very possible that Clinton would have lost to Bush but for the votes siphoned off by Perot. More significantly, it is undeniable that even with all the other problems in the 2000 elections, but for the votes to Nader in Florida, Gore would have been president. Think about what happened between 2000-2008: Bush, guided by Cheney and Rumsfeld, attacked Iraq under false pretenses and pulled military attention away from Afghanistan, allowing Bin Laden to escape, Al Qaeada to flourish and the Taliban re-grow. Gore would not have done that. Gore also would have put more effort into building and developing energy technology, breaking our dependence on foreign oil. I can't say for certain that Gore would have strengthened the regulations weakened under Reagan, Bush Sr.and Clinton, but I am confident that when faced with the economic meltdown, he would not have been as quick as Bush to just dump money on the banks without any conditions.
Politics is the art of the possible. Elections have consequences. A vote for Coakley helps to keep the possibility of 60 votes in the Senate to support a Democratic agenda. A vote for anybody else or a failure to vote at all hands the Republicans a filibuster on every vote, which current history shows they will attempt to use.
Is your vote on principle really so important that you would forsake improvement in health reform, economic advancement, civil rights, energy policy and everything else the current administration is trying to achieve?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 18, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Mr.E.
Democrats have the option to reform the filibuster. If they were serious about accomplishing anything, they would. They prefer not to.
The reason for that is that Democrats only want to appear to be trying to accomplish something but being held back by Republicans. With this strategy, they can still get the big money contributions from Wall Street, the health care industry and the military industrial complex and at the same time get the small contributions from the rubes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
January 18, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to expatjourno2
Even if you are 100% right and your cynicism is 100% warranted, it is still not deniable that Republicans and Democrats vote differently in the Senate, that the current Republicans are uniformly voting against everything. Even if the Dems are completely corrupt and self-serving, they are still pushing an agenda that is more beneficial to the common good, and are still the only party that supports the idea of a working government, rather than promoting the idea that all government is bad, so the best thing to do is to put cronies in power and try to destroy everything for the sake of their rich supporters. Less bad is still better than more bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 18, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to Mr.E.
Again, given what the Democrats have achieved with 60 votes, it clearly doesn't make that much difference whether they have 59 or 60. Those 60 votes include Lieberman, Baucus, the Nelson twins, Landrieu, etc.
This election certainly isn't going to make the difference between getting a progressive agenda passed and getting a batshit crazy agenda passed.
If Democrats really wanted to accomplish things, they'd reform the filibuster. If they did that, they'd get a lot more done with 50 votes than they have been getting with 60.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weitberg
January 18, 2010 12:13 PM
You have to love a Democratic strategy that requires a different candidate to win the race for them.
TheWeekinRebuke.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Other Ed
January 18, 2010 12:17 PM
After 35 years involved in Bay State elections, I am quite sure that the Libertarians will get 3-5% of the overall vote and with the "pox on both their houses" mood among independents, I'd expect that it will be closer to 5.
My on-the-ground gut feeling is that Brown and the tea-baggers overplayed their hand and ended up waking up unenthused Democrats. A week ago I'd have said Brown could steal this one because of low voter turnout but since then, when we start seeing ads about "...stopping the radical Obama agenda...", people got involved and every local Dem I know has pitched in to the GOTV effort. I think it will be enough to plant a late Christmas lump of coal in all the rabid wingnutters stockings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 18, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to The Other Ed
I totally agree. In fact, my gut feeling tells me this race isn't as close as the MSM is trying to make it seem, and Coakley will win over Brown by around ten points. In a race for an open senate seat, I would call that a major defeat for the tea party "movement." Local Dems are fired up and ready to go to voting booth tomorrow. They're not gonna let this one get away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
al Fubar
January 18, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to mophan
From your keyboard top God's ear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 18, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to al Fubar
I didn't mean to come off as overconfident, in fact, the opposite is true. It just seems a little fishy to have such a close race between a tea-bagger and a "somewhat" (for lack of a voting record) liberal candidate in Massachusetts. It just won't surprise me if Coakley pulls out a convincing victory tomorrow, that's all.
With that said, every Democratic voter in Massachusetts needs to make sure to vote tomorrow. The right-wing is salivating a victory already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darleneslee
January 18, 2010 12:30 PM
God, I hope so. I thought MA was more liberal than to allow the teabaggers their great state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shortbus
January 18, 2010 12:39 PM
I think Brad Friedman has a good point in his article
"Easily Hacked Diebold Systems to Decide 'Toss-Up' U.S. Senate Special Election in MA on Tuesday"
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7650
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Other Ed
January 18, 2010 2:22 PM
Brown's hope was for a low turnout but I just got through calling 30 Democrats in my precinct here in Watertown MA and I do think that the enthusiasm level for Coakley has soared. Every single one of the people I reached was up, aware of the stakes and will turnout tomorrow.
I'm much more optimistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RIConservative
January 18, 2010 6:46 PM
Joe "No Relation" Kennedy will be a funny footnote after this election is over, no matter who wins. Almost no one has any idea what this guy believes, yet every single news article mentions that he is running and he is not related to the famous Kennedy family...sorry, it just strikes me as funny.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?