Dems Worry In MA-Sen: Martha Coakley, They Just Aren't That Into You

I don't get the lack of ads, at all.

Coakely is in trouble in Massachusetts because the national Dems -- dominated by DLC centrists -- are in trouble. Why? They stand for nothing except not being Republicans (allegedly). Capuano would have been a far better candidate but he was deemed too progressive, especially since Obama was in the process of selling out the public option when the primary ran. So the DLC got its candidate: a lifelong prosecutor who would be just as happy -- and even more comfortable -- attacking progressive positions as advocating for them.

You shall reap just what you sow; when you stand for nothing you harvest wind.

Massachusetts will get the Senator they deserve.

It's a pretty sad statement on the abuse of the filibuster when a reduction of the Democrats' caucus from 60 votes to 59 could have the same consequences as the Republicans taking over the Senate in 1994.

If not for the filibuster, having 59 Democrats in the Senate would be absolutely awesome.

One Massachusetts Poll That Democrats Shouldn't Panic About
by Nate Silver @ 11:24 AM

Worry about Suffolk. Worry about what PPP and Rasmussen are going to have to say over the weekend. But for the love of God, don't worry about the Pajamas Media poll which reports a 15 point lead for Scott Brown, which I'm not going to do the favor of posting a link to.

The poll was conducted by a firm connected with the Black Rock Group, which bills itself as a "strategic communications and public affairs firm" and whose chief spokesman/strategist, Carl Forti, just so happens to be the spokesman for this polling firm that nobody has ever heard of and just so happens (as David Dayen dutifully reports) to be the spokesman for a big pharma lobbying group that's pushed the death panels meme and just so happens to be the lead PR flak for Pajamas Media.

I live in Massachusetts and Scott Brown is a one trick pony/phoney. He is opposed to anything that would be good for the people of Massachusetts, yet, anything for big business is ok with. I think Martha will pull this off because the idea of this clown winning is repugnant to most. Say what you want about Coakley, but she has been a good AG and has gotten some terrific convictions as such.....especially where abuses have taken place against the citizenry of Mass.

Kerry would be destroying Brown in this race though. Enough people like him. No one like Martha Coakley.

I gotta agree with the poster before - Capuano or Markey would be destroying Brown.

The first sentence of this article is spot-on. I won't pretend Coakley ran a perfect campaign, but it wasn't her job to promote Brown, so she was quiet. Everyone wants to seem smart and criticize her; It's irrational panic and it's feeding the idea that he an win this election. If you live in MA like I do, you need to encourage people to vote. There is no way a majority of MA voters would support this guy knowing his record. More voters=Coakley win.

I have a feeling that those of you who are feeding into this are the same people who mocked the "kill the bill" progressives.

Martha Coakley is dull and boring, just what you would expect from a DA. Dems in Mass had a chance to support Rep. Capuano, a far more exciting and left of center figure, but they went for Coakley instead. Women were her strongest suit. Hopefully they will come out en masse for her.

Of course, Obama and his so-called health reform bill has been a disaster. Enough people are unhappy with it. He should have stayed with a jobs program. After all, if you had to choose one, what would you prefer--a job or health care?

Coakley was late on the air for two reasons, both of which were/are very credible:

1. Here in MA, the general election is usually a mere formality. The real contest is for the Democratic nomination. The day after the primary local media was all about Coakley's victory and kinds of mentioned in passing that, oh yeah, there was a Republican primary too and that some guy names "Brown" had won it. Until recent polls suggested a tightening race, the elections was generally thought to be all over, except for the coronation.

2. Coakley is a statewide elective office holder who had just come off a brief, dynamic primary race in which millions of money were spent on media buys. She and her policies were already known to the public. Running ads between Thanksgiving and Christmas would have been a colossal waste of funds. Better to save her ad buys for after the holidays. Brown didn't have the same luxury, he had to introduce himself to the public before he could be framed by the Dems.

In the end, I still think this is all much ado about next to nothing. It’s my sense that the pollsters are struggling to model a very low turnout election, consequently, their results are all over the map as they struggle to find the right mix of likely voters. Scott Brown is a non-entity whose only strong support is from the small, but local tea-bagging idiots in the Commonwealth. Forget about independents - they don't vote in special elections - as long as the Dems don't stay home, this one is in the bag.

Dude
You may be an independent in terms of your voter registration but you are actually a left-liberal. Nothing wrong with that but don't confuse your beliefs with those of the independent voters in VA and NJ who voted for Obama in 2008 and then voted for McDonnell and Christie last month. If MA elects Scott Brown next Tuesday and thus kill health care reform(Barney Frank) it won't be because voters in Wellesley and Concord have moved to the left.

If Scott Brown wins this senate race, i assume that he will be only be there for one term because he would be up for re-election in 2012. If he gets elected he will be doing a flip flop on some issues because he would be representing ultra liberal Massachusetts whom has had Republican Governors, which it will still be a blue state, because in my opinion Martha Coakley is running a very negative campaign which backfired in the 2008 Presidental Election, for example; going to a Washington fundraiser with the health care industry lobbyists, who voters do not like because it is Washington as usual, and not staying in Massachusetts. I predict that if Scott Brown gets elected, be will disapoint his far right base and be a centrist, like other Republicans in New England, whom are willing to work with Democrats and I believe that he would vote more with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine than the Tea Parties favorites like Jim DeMint and Marco Rubio, and would probably be more to the left on issues of Abortion, maybe Civil Rights Issues, Environmental issues, Environmental Protection, vote for Democrats judicial nominees unless if the nominee is too liberal,some social issues like a typical New England Repubican, and be a advocate for the poor. he would be definately be on the right on the Economy, Health Care, National Security, and Social Security. If he does what I have listed here think he could have a chance to win a full term by a large margin even in Liberal Massachusetts whom a Republican named William Weld had with 70% of the vote, great examples of Democratic Politicans has achieved this like Kent Conrad and Bryon Dorgan of North Dakota, Ben Nelson who is in a very conservative state of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas,who had no opposition in 2008, and all I listed won by double digits in their very conservative states.

One thing Dems are doing smart right now, is to generate and play up these polls putting Coakley behind. This is all they can do at the moment to rally the diehard Mass Dems.

My all-time favorite metric from the past year is that 38% of voters want government to keep its hands off of Medicare. It made a lot of things easier to understand. What it means is that at least 38% of the electorate is both as dumb as rocks and mistrustful of government. The latter quality engenders a natural affinity for the Republican Party, and I think, confers an automatic advantage. Thus, Democrats are always in a struggle to win a supermajority of thinking people. It's the same in Massachuetts.

Massachusetts does have it's share of idiots, but I will be shocked if it turns out there are enough to elect the likes of Scott Brown.

So, I know I'm a lurker, but I noticed quite a bit of hatred up-thread... it reminded me of an inquisition of sorts.

A bit of background on me, so you can know where I'm coming from:
* I'm an independent (I hate partisan politics 0although I think I understand why it is the way it is)
* I'm caucasian, have a BS degree, but I'm not yet 30.
* I've lived in MA for most of my life.
* My top 3 political turn-ons are education, universal healthcare and scientific research (which I'll through 'green'/'renewable' energy/climate stuff under)
* My biggest political turn-off are claims of lowering taxes (it's a claim with no substance) and demonizing people who are on welfare as being lazy parasites; sure, these people exist, but there are a lot of people, especially in this economy, who don't. It's a cheap shot and disgusting; also, trickle-down economics - or, feudalism, to call it by its original name.
* Having studied project management/implementation, the idea of either big or small government/spending is anathema. What's more important is creating success criteria, and judging a project by that criteria, not just opposing something because it 'costs too much.'

Okay, wow, that was a lot (and I even cut some!), so I'm sorry. Back on track: Going on some sort of angst-ridden partisan inquisition seems counterproductive. Whether someone is a democrat, republican or independent does not automatically make them a terrible person, unworthy of respect: Their actions determine that.

On this topic, as a longtime Massachusetts resident, I think Coakley will win. She won the primary handedly, and I think people are discounting what I'lll call the Hillary Clinton effect. A lot of women would really like to see a woman in the seat, especially the older women. Personally, I don't think this is a good reason to vote for someone, but it will be a factor. That said, I did tell people that the primary was the real election, so this 'closeness' has caught me by surprise... but, I agree with people that this media push will probably just confirm Coakley's win. "Liberals" who aren't as committed to voting as myself, despite disliking Coakley because her ideals seem to be motivated purely by political aspirations (see: Fells Acre), are probably going to make sure they vote, now.

By the same token, a majority of the 'tea partiers' who support Brown are just as likely to not show up to vote as 'Obama's disenfranchised youth.' I don't think they are more or less likely to vote as they have been in the past; especially if it seems like their candidate is in the lead. A lot of them just went to the tea parties because they could take the day off from work and get free beer, according to the few that I knew. :)

I preferred Capuano's stances and have friends who have met him, who corroborated his story. He possibly could've done a better job of motivating the youth to vote; he does have a strong connection to Somerville. That said, I think Coakley just had way more money, coupled with the Hillary Clinton effect in the primary. To be fair, superficially, all of the democratic candidates seemed to be exactly the same.

Meanwhile, as someone said above, many people don't really look into the issues; after all, they're already busy with their lives. So when this guy says, "Hey, I'm just like the dems in terms of social liberties, but I'm going to lower taxes, too! Oh, and that healthcare bill? Even the house democrats say it sucks - so why would I vote for it? I'm going to take us back to the drawing board," while, under the table, spreading the idea that Coakley wants to raise taxes on people to "give more money to the welfare parasites who can't be bothered to find a job"... it's going to pique interest. Especially if people don't take the time to dig deeper. He's done a good job of differentiating himself from the intransigence of the Republican party, even if he can't explain why he voted for a similar bill in MA, and how by not pushing this current bill through, MA will likely be screwed out state budget relief because our medical legislation will continue to require purely state funding or some such. (To be fair, I don't know the specifics here, but it seems fairly logical. That said, legislation is rarely logical.)

So, yeah. I think Coakley is going to win; probably by a slim margin. Poor woman is probably freaking out right now, though - I can't even imagine what she must be going through. Well, I guess I can, but only microcosm-ly. I'm going to do my part and volunteer some time at a local phone bank tomorrow.

But this idea that primaries and elections are fairly won, or that members of the DNC are paragons of morality and to suspect them of foul play is treason, and demonstrative of how worthless your opinion is... check out Plouffe's book.

So Coakley is more like Kerry than Kennedy? So does this mean that Coakley hasn't driven drunk off a bridge and left someone to die? Because that would be the only gaffe she hasn't made, yet.

OK my 2 cents. Massachusetts is in a perpetual election cycle. immediately after the 08 election we started speculating about Palin in 2012 and the 2010 midterms. Teddy dies and we have Martha, the only one brave enough to say she'll seek the seat before seeing if any of the Kennedy clan think they have it buy right of birth. She then goes through a primary with 3 bland white guys (why we didn't have a black or latino is beyond me) and as I see it we'd like to provide another women to the Senate. Now Martha has campaigned her ass off, provided guidance for prosecutions (some I would disagree with) and stepped to the plate for the national Democrats.

I do not believe Mass. would send a Republican to DC. It would take the majority of Independent and un-enrolled voters along with Republican to do this and I may be naive enough to believe that MA voters aren't that stupid. We may put a Republican in as Gov. to put a check on our state house, but on a national level we're not called "The People Republic" for nothing. Also we are "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" not the "State of Massachusetts"

If the Red Sox were playing the Yankees in the World Series and they lost the first game, would they say, "I wanted to sweep the Series in four games; we didn't get the sweep, let's go home and give the Yankees the Series"? No, they would be out there fighting twice as hard in the second game. If their second best pitcher was on the mound, would they say, "Sorry, I only play hard when our best pitcher is out there."? No, they would play even harder knowing they may have to score more runs to win. What's with Democrats, one disappointment and they are ready to quit? Republicans suffered massive losses in 2008. Did they pout and go sit on the sidelines? No, they are out their fighting like their life depends on it. So does ours. A vote for Martha Coakley is a vote for progress. It's not about her, it's about us.

The CNN article below reports that White House advisors think Martha Coakley will lose. The advisors are not named, but it may be some combination of Rahm Emmauel, Patrick Gaspard, and Jim Messina, the top political staff in the White House. They are likely the ones who leaked to the Washington Post that Obama's advisors faulted Creigh Deeds for a bad campaign in the Virginia governor's race. That race did not matter so much to Obama, but this one does. The President is being very ill-served by leaks like this because this is a close race that Obama NEEDS Ms. Coakley to win, and stories like this one will only depress Democratic turnout. What's worse is there is a reasonable chance Ms. Coakley can win if the White House advisors will work to help her rather than whine to the press.

Sources: Obama advisers believe Coakley will lose
Posted: January 17th, 2010 04:22 PM ET

From CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry

Washington (CNN) - Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday’s special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday.

The sources added that the advisers are still hopeful that Obama's visit to Massachusetts on Sunday - coupled with a late push by Democratic activists - could help Coakley pull out a narrow victory in an increasingly tight race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.

However, the presidential advisers have grown increasingly pessimistic in the last three days about Coakley's chances after a series of missteps by the candidate, sources said.

But White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN: "The President is in Massachusetts today because he believes Martha Coakley is the right person for the job