OT, but Are we going to lose Teddy's seat to Brown??

[Blaukraut]

PPP is going to release a poll this weekend and from their preview, it's not looking like such a sure thing anymore that Coakley will win this.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-were-seeing-in-massachusetts.html

Note:

-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.

I'm not liking this one bit. We need to keep Teddy's seat in Democratic hands. If we lose this, healthcare is done.

[politicasista]

1. If no one here minds this;

Voter turnout, especially among minorities (mainly African-Americans) looks like it is going to be crucial to a Democratic victory.

Don't know if this helps (cause I live in a red state), but I read The Bay State Banner online, an independent newspaper geared towards Boston's AA community. In every issue, they have a "Roving Camera" section that interviews people on the street.

In that issue, they posed a question on why voter turnout was so low in the MA Senate Primary. One felt that it was December and people were focused on other things. Another thought that people are not "civically engaged or actually vote." Two others felt like there is no "replacement" for Uncle Ted and/ no one is going to "fight for us like he did."

http://www.baystatebanner.com/Roving-Camera60-2009-12-17


Another reason why turnout is so important is because when voters turnout, Democrats win, if we stay home or sit it out, vice versa. Roland Martin (from CNN) was talking about this on Tom Joyner (and both were semi-dissing Obama for not going to other places besides VA and NJ) to campaign (Go figure!) and noted that abysmal AA voter turnout in those states and others led to GOP victories.

Complacency was also noted (now that we have Obama as president, that's all).

And with this being an election year, people are going to need to stay involved in the issues. It's slowly happening, but how to keep them engaged in the issues/process another story.




Back to lurk/read mode. Peace. :hide:

[wisteria]

2. We need all Democrats out to vote-the Repubs are hoping we get lazy

and figure we are going to win.
Nothing is ever a sure thing. I would just dread to wake up on January 20th and find the Repubs are jubilant because they won Ted Kennedy's seat. That would a nightmare.

[Blaukraut]

6. That's the key. The Dems aren't fired up, the repubs are

So hopefully these reports put a little fire under our Dem electorate to get out the vote.

[MBS]

3. I've been really worried about this

I heard the tail end of their radio debate last night, and started stewing all over again. Coakley is clearly, by far, the most competent-- in fact, the only competent-- person among the 3 candidates. Hopefully, most voters would see that.


On the one hand, Brown is a loon (there was that outrageous quote about his comparing himself to JFK senior, and the bizarre statement comparing himself to JFK junior and Princess Di -- something about their both being young and rich, but they died. ..(you can't make this stuff up. .)). And the third candidate, Kennedy (no, no relation) is an out-there libertarian (no taxes, no laws, no government).

But, gosh, not only do I feel a lot of interest out there: I haven't seen much everyday evidence of Coakley campaigning, other than a big sign by the IBEW headquarters near the freeway, a crop of lawn signs (not overwhelmingly outnumbering the Brown signs where I live) and the (important) recent endorsement event by the Kennedys and Kirk. OK., it's a short campaign, and nothing much could happen over the holidays, and all of us here certainly know how the media don't always (ever?) report what's really happening out there, but STILL: it feels like (this is hopefully not true, but it's what it FEELS like), she's assumed she's going to win, she doesn't feel she has to do much, and she's just kind of waiting out the election. This is certainly not a money issue, as, by all accounts, she's got plenty for the campaign.
But whatever the real situation, this feeling really makes me nervous, since, as I keep pointing out, MA isn't as blue as you'd think. (I ran into my "pro-life" anti-Obama nextdoor neighbor yesterday, returning Palin's book to the library. . .sigh). And among those blue voters, indifference and ignorance (even about the date of the election!) are, I think, a genuine problem. (I've been worried enough that I took the Kennedy-endorsement event as even a kind of worrisome sign, as a statement that maybe the Kennedys are worried enough that they felt they had to make a public statement)

Then , when I do read or hear speeches and statements in the media (like her wrap-up speech last night), I often have to try hard to figure out what exactly what she said:she has a compelling voice, but , to me, she's not articulate in terms of her message. I have to struggle to figure out the point of her remarks, what they say about her priorities, outlook, etc (what sticks with me from last night's 2-minute concluding statement is that she was born in western MA, her dad was in the insurance business and therefore her family knew about taking responsibility, and she's been a DA and attorney general). I know she's competent and conscientious, and would take those qualities to the Senate, and God knows it's been obvious for at least the last 5 or 6 years that she WANTS to be in the Senate, but I still am a little fuzzy as to WHY she wants so badly to be there, and what she cares most about, other than women's issues.

I don't mean any of the above to suggest that she's not clearly the best of the 3 candidates (she's got my firm vote) but my worry is: if I, as an obsessive newspaper reader, ultra-conscientious voter, staunch Democrat, and even a former member of her former DA district (and I voted for her as both DA and attorney general), am still so vague about her campaign, what she stands for, and what she wants to do in the Senate, how about the average MA voter?

On the one hand, I can't imagine Brown winning, and hopefully Kennedy (again, no relation) will siphon off some of the conservative vote. But still, I am nervous.

[MBS]

4. "Martha, it's time to show more fire and passion" Globe oped on Coakley

This piece (opposite JK's intelligence piece in today's paper), by Globe columnist Joanna Weiss, gets at some of the things that have been on my mind:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/09/martha_its_time_to_show_more_fire_and_passion/

IT’S HARD not to feel for Martha Coakley. She never posed nude, gave a thumbs-up sign in military fatigues, or rode through Massachusetts in a beat-up pickup truck. Scott Brown has done all of those things, and he’s getting political mileage, in this surprisingly close Senate race, for being a natural and affable guy who lets it all hang out.

He makes it look easy; a man who won Cosmopolitan’s “Sexiest Man in America’’ contest as a law student in 1982 now effortlessly checks off all the boxes for All-American dude. He’s a family man, a citizen-soldier, the dad of an overachiever. Even his old Cosmo photo spread somehow manages to look clean-cut.

Which is where the sympathy comes in: Coakley, 56, makes politics look unpleasant and hard, because it often is. She came of age at a time when posing nude, and living to tell about it politically, wasn’t an option for women.Like other female politicians of her generation, she probably sensed that she couldn’t reveal too much of herself. And on some level, it’s hard to argue; being a guarded, serious, competent steward of public order, a woman who has always followed the rulebook, has put her on the verge of election to the US Senate.

Maybe I’m just wishing for a different set of rules. Maybe I’m wishing for a different candidate entirely. But while Coakley doesn’t need a secret past life as a centerfold, there’s a part of me that wants her to lay it all out there the way Brown has done, whether it’s his chest hair or his views on why waterboarding isn’t torture. To stop answering questions with some permutation of “I’ll study it, and we’ll see.’’

I’ve seen Coakley in a room answering questions that way, deliberate and cautious as usual. And I’ve seen her in that same room, suddenly impassioned. Challenge her on some past case, some question about justice, and her posture changes, her voice shifts, and she morphs into someone I’d want advocating for my interests in the Senate. If only she felt free to show more of that anger on the public stage, or direct it toward people who are blocking progress on issues she cares about. Coakley has seen a lot in her years as a prosecutor - ugly examples of murders and fraud and unspeakable child abuse. It seems odd that she doesn’t seem more publicly outraged about them all. But then, she’s still playing by the old political blueprint. Coakley, the career lawyer, radiates awareness that TV courtrooms are filled with dramatic closing statements, but real-life trials are won by coolly marshaling the evidence.

She has marshaled the evidence in this election, too: She’s the front-runner with the built-in female base, so her coolness probably won’t jeopardize the race.But it doesn’t make her the ideal senator, either; she’s running to be a leader, not a lawyer. She tells us she can solve problems. We want her to define them. . ..

[Mass]

9. More of the same crap from the Globe. Brown posed nude. Now he is Mr family values and all she can

think is that it is somewhat glamorous? A citizen-soldier? Well, of course, if the media falls for the narrative, no surprise he is doing well, but dont blame Coakley for that.

Jeez. May be we will have a GOP senator after all, but dont blame her. Blame stupid people who can write crap like that. BTW, I listen to Brown, he is neither passionate nor articulate. He is a pure zombie.

I resent deeply democrats in MA who fall for it each time. Menino is the worst campaigner and speaker I have ever seen. Finenan and co are corrupted, but MA continues to think women are bad candidates, just for being women.

BTW, can you imagine more of a double standard: imagine she had posed nude at 22. Do you think the media would be swooning about this, or considering it as scandalous and a potential problem?

[MBS]

14. The columnist wasn't recommending that she pose nude

In fact,she seemed to me quite sympathetic to unfairness of the difficulties (including double standard) faced by women running for public office. I didn't mean to imply that I'd "fallen" for the Republican narrative, but I am worried that other (more conservative, more disengaged, less well-informed) voters might. . My worry is about the effectiveness of Coakley's campaign, whether she's getting her message across to voters.

[Mass]

16. This is the typical crap of the Boston Globe. She seems sympathetic, but she is swooning over Brown.

She is writing one of these papers that bring nothing to anybody, except in this case to Brown (poor Martha Coakley, see how she is beaten by Brown, who is such a great guy). No substance at all.

The debate in Springfield yesterday made waves. It would be a good way to show REAL differences between the two candidates. Do you seriously think any of these reporters will tell us what are the differences between Coakley and RW DeMint like Scott Brown? If not, why is it? (we're talking about Brown, remember, not about Weld, or Tisei).

Sorry, this is a column that is distressing not because of Coakley (Brown is not doing a better job than she is). but because it tells us a lot about Massachusetts and sexism. (and I am very far from being a fan of Coakley).

The narrative of the RW is that Coakley is ineffective and that Republican voters should show up because of that. They seem to have done a pretty good job convincing the Democrats of that. What I worry is that these attacks on Coakley's inefficient campaign will lead to exactly the opposite of what we need: getting to GOPers out by telling them they have a shot (where I have seen no reason to believe that). Why are the Democrats reminding people that Coakley is 9 points ahead and that, yes, we cannot be complacent, but she will win if we show up?

[MonteLukast]

22. "It tells us a lot about Massachusetts and sexism..."

Isn't it a bit sexist in itself for her to be stuck writing this E!-like piece, instead of something more substantive?

Oooh, Brown took his clothes off? Can we say "Romney wannabe" or what?

Not Coakley herself, but some of us should be pushing the "Scott Brown is another Mitt The Shit" meme.
... Then again, if Brown's been a fixture in Mass for years, that may not work...

[karynnj]

28. Not sure it is just sexism

I read the Brown/National Guard story and it was more flattering than their coverage of a real war hero's service was. There was not a hint of having to "balance" Brown's NG service suggesting he did it for political reasons. The entire article was beyond fawning.

[sandnsea]

15. marshalling the evidence - building a case

I've said this for a while, Democrats build cases. Voters don't want a pile of logical evidence. They want a picture painted. That's why right wing talk radio works, they know how to paint a picture with words. We marshall the evidence and that's just not what it takes to win an election. Just by reading this article, I can see where Brown could be taking off, kind of like Ahnold in Caleeforneea.

[Blaukraut]

7. Martha's TV only TV ad I've seen so far leaves me cold

She addresses what she will do as Senator by basically listing her accomplishments as AG. Crime fighting, sex predators, etc. While I appreciate her work as AG, these issues simply are not on the forefront of Mass voters' concerns right now.
Granted, Brown's cheesy 'miles on the pickup' ad is even worse, but the republican (and otherwise dumb) electorate here buys that sort of thing hook line and sinker.

I want to see an ad by Martha talking about healthcare, jobs, and yes, even national security. And please make it more exciting.

Finally, up here in Amesbury there are zero yardsigns or any other noticeable activity going on for Coakley. Nothing. I have, however, seen a few Brown yardsigns and even one or two Kennedy ones. I know, yardsigns aren't the be all end all of elections, but at least they serve to remind residents that there's an election going on!

Count me among the nervous, too.

[Mass]

5. I read this piece, but it seems more like a puff piece by Jensen than anything else.

A plurality by definition means nothing. 25% oppose the health bill, 20 % want to reinforce the Democratic majority, 20 % want to support gay marriage fit the bill, and, while I know that this is probably not the questions asked, this comment in itself is meaningless.

I may have to eat my words later, but I think this article tells us more by what it does not say that by what it says. Note Jensen does not say "closer", a "close" race, or anything of the sort. SO, I will wait to see actual numbers before I start panicking. I remember these comments on TV on how Democrats may be getting weaker in MA (in 2008) because Kerry was only(!) 20 points ahead. We also had the same articles during the primary, after Rasmussen had a poll showing her somewhat closer from Capuano than expected. (I wished it had been meaningful, but we all know what happened).

Obviously, nobody should be complacent, but this seems the usual hyperventilation of GOPers in MA. We all know Congressman (or Senator) Ogonowsky, Beatty, and even Chase. Remember that all that started by a poll showing her 9 points ahead. This hyperventilation by the right drives me crazy, but it may do some good by reminding Democrats that she is only winning if they show up.

[Blaukraut]

8. I don't believe the Democrats have gotten weaker in MA either

The problem is that it's a special election, the repubs are riled up and ready to vote, the Dems are apathetic again, and Martha is sitting on a lead instead of expanding it. She reminds me of the Patriots this year. They/Martha dominates the first half of the game, but play defense/get boring and predictable in the second half and allow the opposition to catch up and even go on to win.

[Mass]

10. I disagree. She is doing well and is 9 points ahead. She had the decency not to spew politics during

the holidays. She should be complimented for that, not blamed. I was not a supporter during the primary, but she will be doing well and we should not fall for the usual crap from the media trying to go for sensational.

I agree that a special election has its special risks, but there is no reason to reach the level of hyperventilation that the media have reached (See Joanne Weiss swooning on Scott Brown image in the Globe today. What a stupid article a woman should be ashamed of writing). They are just trying to spice what is a very boring campaign (ON BOTH SIDES. Brown is not that great a campaigner either). It bothers me particularly because these types of complaints seem to be directed regularly toward women in our state - Kerry excepted, of course :smile:-). I forgot who said that, but somebody during the primary said that she was the Kerry of the race (of course, not as a compliment). If she succeeds winning without all the bells ans whistles, all the better for her. F*ck Brown and the MA media.

I think she committed the ultimate crime: ignoring the media. So, they are busy writing the same crap they do when somebody does that.

[wisteria]

11. Pres. Clinton and Sen. Kerry are suppose to campaign for Coakley.

Kerry's campaigning for Coakley is almost a given, but maybe Clinton's appearance will wake up some Dem's and make them realize that nothing is a sure thing and they will go out and vote.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=254838169920

[Mass]

12. Clinton's appearance is a given, He is paying his wife's debts for the 08 campaign.

They need to get the vote out, I agree. I am just opposed to all the whining the media and Democrats do. You don't get people out to vote by stating your candidate will lose and is a bad candidate (and ignoring the obvious problems with her opponents). I think it will discourage people even more and encourage the right, get people to vote who usually do not vote because the GOP does not stand a chance.

I understand the GOP doing that, this is good politics. But it makes no sense whatsoever for Democrats to do that. Just remind what this whacko stands for.

[wisteria]

13. I agree with the whining and going negative on your own party's candidate.

That plays right into the other party's hands.

[MonteLukast]

17. Joan Vennochi said Coakley was "a candidate with no heart"...

Bleah. :puke:

I HATE these self-proclaimed "experts" on emotions and the human heart. I hated what they did to Al Gore AND to John Kerry.

Those who believe themselves to be more emotionally intelligent than other people, I have found, exhibit a special and nauseous kind of arrogance. For one thing, it leads a person to give themselves free reign to do all kinds of nasty and UNcompassionate things to other people... because, after all, they have the best psychological health, so they know what's better for them than they know for themselves. But it's only because they CARE about them, after all.

Effin' concern trolls. :mad:

[MBS]

19. oh, Vennochi is an idiot

I've given up reading her -- she's bad for my health. But I do think that at least part of Weiss's column was worth listening to, if nothing else, to help focus Coakley strategy in next 10 days (only 10 days!) of this campaign, including the important TV debate next week.

[karynnj]

29. I hat that do - especially as to me it seems the one they say have "no heart" have truer hearts

than their favorites. All I know is that John Kerry has often shown himself to be a good friend, at a point that someone was down or could never be expected to help him in the future. I have seen the "feel your pain" Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and even Obama turn their backs rather than lend a hand - especially if it could have a political cost.

I suspect that the latter group create a facade - caring, passionate - appealing, but not their real soul. The facade though is more intense than anything real. Politicians, like Gore or Kerry, who are more genuine and honest are then compared to this false standard. Seriously, if you were a DC politician in a bad situation, who would you rather have as a friend, Kerry or Clinton?

[politicasista]

36. Speaking of which

and in a way OT (and maybe for another time and thread), but the Senator may be called upon to defend Reid related to then candidate Obama as he faces re-election in Nevada.

He probably didn't mean no harm (though it makes him sound ignorant) he was trying to complement Obama (just like Biden was with the "clean and articulate" remark), but the words came out wrong.

But that's for another discussion. :)










edit for clarity

[Mass]

18. This seems a lot more realistic than the jeremiads that I have been reading in the media

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/145037/mass_senate:_get_ready_for_another_round_of_gop_failure_%3D_success/

Mass Senate: Get Ready for Another Round of GOP Failure = Success

Oh, Christ -- in the Massachusetts Senate race, are we about to play another round of GOP Failure = Success?

... A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state's attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.

But a tighter-than-expected margin in the closely watched race would still prompt soul-searching among Democrats nationally, since the outcome will be the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party will play out in tangible ways at the polls later this year.

"If I had to bet a week's salary," said Dennis Hale, a political science professor at Boston College, "I'd still bet it on Coakley. But this is going to be like in the military, where the bullet misses you but it still scares you to death."

Yup -- Bush becomes president in 2000 despite losing the popular vote by half a million votes and winning Florida only through mismarked ballots, voter caging, election-worker intimidation, and a partisan Supreme Court ... and he waltzes into the Oval Office as if he just won 49 states. And the Beltway accepts this as perfectly normal and appropriate. Whereas if Coakley wins this race by anything less than double digits, are we going to have idiot "soul-searching" Democrats babbling to reporters that it was a failure? And even if hack Democrats somehow refrain from shooting themselves in the foot this way, I guess it's clear now that the press and pundits are probably going to proclaim a single-digit win a loss. Sigh.

So, please, Massachusetts voters, turn out for Coakley -- just to get these clowns to shut up.

Oh, and by the way, single-digit Senate wins are not unheard of for Massachusetts Democrats -- John Kerry beat William Weld in 1996 by a 52%-45% margin.

[MBS]

20. this is sensible, but for me, the worry isn't a win that's a "loss"

I just want a win, by whatever margin. My worry is that the passion (negative, destructive, wrong-headed that it is) seems to be on the right at the moment. In that light, this is the most important part of the piece IMHO

So, please, Massachusetts voters, turn out for Coakley

She'll win if the Democrats come out to vote.

[Mass]

21. But she is not going to lose. There is no poll, no stats saying that.

The only risk for her to lose is that this handwringing and articles like the one you posted and others tell the GOPers who never vote to come and vote while not reminding the people in the middle that Scott Brown is not Weld.

The problem is that, at this point, the narrative is baseless. There is no poll showing Scott Brown remotely close. There is very little activity among the GOP in state that we can see. The only thing is that the RW teabaggers are showing up and the Democrats are helping them by their usual handwrining.

So, I wonder? Of course, we need to remind Democrats that Coakley will only be elected if they show up. But I do not see the passion in the state from Republicans. I spent the holidays in Longmeadow, which is fairly Republican, and I saw exactly ONE Brown sign. What I see, though, is that this last few days have awoken the idiots out of state, and Democrats, accepting the meme that 9 points ahead is bad, have contributed to that. So, yes, right now, it may be worrisome, but I wished the Democrats in general would avoid criticizing the candidate for something THEY created.

[MonteLukast]

23. I was hoping for Capuano myself. But he didn't win.

How does Massachusetts feel about teabaggers? Because if they're unpopular statewide, that might be an effective tack to use... paint Brown as the tea party candidate.

[Mass]

24. Not that good. Scott Brown condemned the ad an outside group has financed attacking Coakley

(while he is saying the same thing in his own campaign). This is a fairly good sign that he does not want to be assimilated to them.

Scott Brown is just a local senator who has been gaining traction with the anti-gay lobby. He is to the right of the local Republican party.

This said, it is true that special elections are always a problem everywhere, but there is a difference between being cautious and becoming hysterical as some media and political analysts have become. This can only hurt us. Just remind people who this idiot is.

[politicasista]

25. Is her campaign doing or targeting

ideas to reach the AA community or just minorities in general? Was reading in The Bay State Banner about the low primary turnout among AA voters in AA precincts.

Given the election was in December, which is a very busy month, but the people that were interviewed on the street sounded like they didn't care for Coakley and/or voted for Capuano or didn't vote at all.

Hope she will pull it off, but it sounds like the voters are looking for a dynamic person to rally around; someone who will stand up and fight for them like Uncle Ted did.

http://www.baystatebanner.com/Roving-Camera60-2009-12-17

[MBS]

26. I think you're right, that many Dems want that

But people need to be reminded (preferably by Coakley herself) that Scott Brown is for sure not going to be that person!!!!
. . .and that Scott Brown, who opposes the HCR bill, would be a disaster in very concrete terms.

[politicasista]

27. Bingo

She needs to get out there and remind them that. Give them a reason why they should support you. And remind them about complacency.

Coming after voting for Candidate Obama (he still has strong support in this voting block), they may feel somewhat spoiled, but yep, that Brown dude looks.. :scared:

[karynnj]

30. Thanks for the Banner article

I would assume that both Kerry and Clinton will be able to spark some enthusiasm in the black community. I wonder if Obama will be able to campaign there.

(It is worth noting that Kerry got a higher percent of the vote than Obama did in their respective campaigns.)

[politicasista]

31. No problem

Haven't posted here in ages, so a belated Happy New Year to everyone.

As far as the vote, you mean higher percentage of the black vote, or higher percentage overall? Thought Obama the first, Kerry had the second. (Confused)

It's possible that all three can spark some interest, cause they weren't feeling it in the primaries. They sound like they were deeply appreciative to Uncle Ted, and the Kennedy family for good reason.

[karynnj]

32. I never heard what % of the MA black vote either got

just the total vote. Of the black vote, the difference was likely not substantial because they vote Democrat so highly.

[politicasista]

33. Makes sense n/t

[Mass]

35. In fact, the PPP poll shows them very positive on Coakley and the most excited part of the

population for the vote, and in % going to vote.

[politicasista]

37. That's good.

The article was back in December, again, a busy time for everyone. So, people's opinions and minds can change.


P.S. Check you pm. :hi:

[Mass]

34. Here is the poll by PPP, winner Brown by 1, but I have to say that the internals make no sense.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_45398436.pdf

What amazes me is the % of independents voting for Brown, which makes no sense whatsoever, and also the fact that 60 % of people are against the Republican Senate caucus, but they would send a GOP to the Senate. It also shows a very old electorate, which in itself is weird. Did they poll during day time? Also 9 % of African Americans? Really? This is much higher than normal. They vote for Coakley, but she loses. Honestly, this poll makes little sense to me.

Also, 22% of liberals in MA have a positive opinion of Brown? Really? Scott Brown?

I guess we will hear a lot about this poll, but it would seem that the Globe and the Herald polls are out and the rumors have it with Coakley ahead.

Still, given who is Scott Brown, may be it would be nice to remind people in MA a few basic facts, and not just his old photos in Cosmo.

Let's wait tomorrow to see polls that are used to poll Massachusetts. Also, I am not sure whether this result is not linked to the Rasmussen poll, to a point.

What is clear is that an effort must be made to inform.

[Blaukraut]

38. You're right. The internals make no sense, but they may be

weighted according to who PPP estimates will vote in a special election. Young voter turnout is low in mid term and special elections, as opposed to the reliable older voter.

But checking the crosstabs, I noticed some add up to more than 100%. How is that even possible?

Either way, I do hope this poll will server as a wake up call to Mass. Dems to get off their butts and head to the polls unless they want Teddy's seat usurped by a wingnut.

[Mass]

39. Some of these differences are rounding errors. However, the absence of geographical data is

more problematic. Who knows where they polled and at what time?

Anyway, I do not put too much stock in these polls and the other polls coming are apparently different. This said, if this can wake up Democrats from being complacent, good. It seems AFL-CIO has already announced they would get the vote out. I hope the GLBT groups and pro choice groups will too.

[Mass]

40. Globe has her by 15

http://www.wbz.com/Two-Senate-polls--two-different-results/6078814

What makes me mad, though, are the Western Mass papers describing him as not a hardliner (Worcester Telegram endorsed him)? My guess is that this is exactly what makes his favorable ratings. Scott Brown, not a hardliner? Really?

[wisteria]

41. Distortions like this are frustrating as it is obvious this media source is playing favorites

and they figure people are to lazy to find out the truth.

[TayTay]

42. No, Coakley will win

The Rasmussen and PPP polls are deeply, deeply flawed and misreading the electorate. The PPP poll had Obama a near win in the 2008 Dem Prez primary when Obama lost by double digits to Clinton. Rasmussen's numbers are deeply flawed as well. The Boston Globe poll today is much more stable and accurate and should reflect, within a margin of error of +/- 4% what the final results will be. (Personally, I think Martha gets 54-55% of the vote and beats Brown by 15-17 points.)

There is reason to fear complacency in any election. Also, there is deep unrest in the electorate in MA right now. Many, many progressives are upset with Deval Patrick and there is little enthusiasm at the present time for his re-election. However, I don't think that is going to depress the voter turnout for Martha. Female voters control the MA election process, as they have for 20+ years. (Who put John Kerry back into office in 1996? Overwhelmingly, it was women.) Martha will win and she will win by more than 10 points. That is a lock.

There are currents in MA that strongly indicate some power shifts this year. However, sending a right wing loon to the Senate who is a "pretty boy" is not going to happen. If this election puts the fear of God into the local Democrats, then that is good. But, the fear of God is already there because of really weak numbers for other Dems. Martha is fine, many others are not.

Flawed polling in Ma from 2008 Prez primary: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/mapres/

One more snapshot of the MA electorate: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/massachusetts_results/
The towns where Brown is "generating excitement" in the press are Repub towns. Dem strongholds are still Dem strongholds and will put Martha into the US Senate. Period.

[wisteria]

43. This coming from you Tay, I feel a bit relieved. n/t

[MBS]

44. the national Dems seem to be rallying troops

email from barackobama.com this morning, asking for phone bank volunteers

Excerpt, with link to url for phone bank RSVP:

Each voter we reach could be the one who tips the balance.

Please RSVP to make calls at a phone bank near you.


Calling voters about how to participate is a great service. It's fun, and no prior experience is necessary.

Making these calls could be the single most important thing you can do right now to ensure the passage of health reform.

And the impact of this election goes well beyond health reform. Martha Coakley will be a vital ally to President Obama in helping our families get back to work, launching a clean-energy economy, and reining in the Wall Street abuses that still put so many Americans at risk.

But this week, it all comes down to Massachusetts -- and it all comes down to you. We need you to help get the word out, so please RSVP for a phone bank near you today:

http://my.barackobama.com/CoakleyPB

Thank you for your help,

Jeremy

Jeremy Bird
Deputy Director
Organizing for America

Also, for local folks, reminder that the televised debate (U Mass Boston) is tonight at 7 pm,broadcast on channel 5. Hope she really comes through on this one. . .among other unfavorable press, Brian McGrory (one of the more thoughtful local columnists) took her to task this week for eschewing one-on-one debates with Brown, and for the general sense of entitlement that's permeated her campaign. (Same column praised JK and Teddy for taking their main challengers on head-on, as an example of how things should be done . . especially noted the "smart series of debates" between Kerry and Weld in 1996). She's arguably in less danger than Kerry and Kennedy were in their 1996 and 1994,so maybe a low-key campaign is good political strategy, but still, IMHO, McGrory nails what's been bugging me, and why I'm happy to see any signs of life in the campaign, even if it seems mostly to be coming from national figures http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/brian_mcgrory_w.html.

[Mass]

45. She will have done at least 3 Debates. How does she feel a sense of entitlement? Kennedy is a

legitimate candidate and should be there. There were no head to head debates between Deval Patrick and Kerry Healey. This column is totally disingenuous, as neither Kerry nor Kennedy had legitimate third party candidates against them. (I guess he is thoughtfull compared to Howie Carr, but this is not saying much).

McGrory may be praising Kennedy and Kerry NOW, but I remember him writing columns against Kerry when he tried to dodge debates against Beatty in 2008, using the same meme exactly. I doubt he has ever seen a Republican he did not like.

Forgive my mood when I read things like that, but I cannot forget how much the media are dysfunctional, particularly after having heard the morning shows explain how Harry Reid's politically incorrect but so true comments were equivalent to Trent Lott celebrating a segregationist candidate for president. Thanks to Gwen Yfill for stating the obvious on that, that it was not.

In passing, it seems the debate in Springfield was lively. But our Boston media could not be bothered reporting on it, or on any other debate. They as usual like promiting their moderate MA Republican storyline, even when it does not apply, like here.

I expect them to go into full swooning mood as soon as the 2010 campaign starts.

[TayTay]

47. They should be rallying troops

It's basic politics 101.

There are going to be two "hot" Senate races later this year in neighboring states. Both Connecticut and New Hampshire have Dems running in open seats. The New England states are very close together and we often have people from one state going to another to organize and help out. This run for the Senate in MA leads directly into those races later on in neighboring states. It is imperative that we "rev up the base" so that those committed troops are known and available later. Plus, Gov Patrick will be the Dem nominee for MA Gov and he needs all the help he can get.

Never, never, never take a race for granted. Never. That leads to complacency. There is an excellent article in the latest edition of the Boston Phoenix about the turnover possible in elections and districts all over Ma in the coming year. Troops will be needed, preferably ones familiar with the actual places they are being asked to campaign in. Rev those troops up! They are needed.

[MonteLukast]

48. I got some virtual phone banking!

Coloradan me called the number on this website and asked the staff to send me a virtual phone bank list. A staffer named Kate e-mailed me a username and instructions for logging in.

I did the same thing for Jim Martin for Senate a year and a half ago, and I think it's an awesome way to chip in!

[MBS]

50. bravo!!

Here's a letter from JK (the bold is my emphasis:

We're down to the wire in Massachusetts, and as it always does in politics it'll come down to a question of intensity - and I know how intensely you are committed to keeping Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Democratic hands.

The national Republican Party and the big interests they represent - those who say no to the help average people are depending on - have drawn a bead on this race. I don't think you or anyone in Massachusetts wants to see one of our Senate seats used by the Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party to block the reforms we need.

It's this simple: if we want to create jobs, finish the job of fixing health care, and have a shot at real reform of our energy economy to meet the dire threat of climate change, we need Martha Coakley in the Senate.

Martha's campaign needs every volunteer they can find, so please follow this link to let them know you can help.

http://www.marthacoakley.com/volunteer

They need help getting people to the polls because in a mid-winter special election, every vote counts even more.

So let Martha know what you can do to help, and we can keep our country moving forward and keep rebuilding from years of Republican disastrous policies.

Thank you,
John Kerry

[wisteria]

49. I am pleased to see this. I don't believe in overkill when trying to get out the vote.

Good for Obama.

[Blaukraut]

51. Got that email, JK's email, and a phone call from the DNC

on behalf of Martha Coakley asking to volunteer. I'm glad to see that there is finally a sense of urgency involved.

[Mass]

46. We agree.

[Blaukraut]

52. MA State Police and the Herald endorse Brown

just reported on local CBS News. (WBZ). I'll try to find a link.

I get the BoHerd, but the MA State Police?? They cited that they believe Brown would
keep us safer' in these 'dangerous times'. Terra Terra

[Mass]

53. And the Herald lies in saying that

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1224899&pos=breaking

Brown is a social moderate in the Weld/Cellucci tradition, who considers Roe vs. Wade “settled law.”

[MBS]

54. Brown is a total sleazebag

Last night's debate performance was ridiculous. Everytime he equates himself with JFK (as kindred "tax-cutters"), I just want to scream. If MA voters fall for his shtick, I'll be very disappointed (and, actually, surprised).

[Blaukraut]

55. Ok, I tried to not be worried, but the latest polls got me there

Rasmussen has Coakley leading Brown by only 1 point in their latest poll. (1/11), and DSCC internal polling has Coakley's lead of 14 points dropped to 5.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/18337/more-polls-suggest-a-close-race-bmgs-exclusive-poll-coming-soon

[Mass]

57. I am not surprised. I did not understand the strategy that made the Dems say we would lose.

rather than reminding who Brown was and why we needed to vote for her. Happy to see that they remembered the basics today.

I have to love the questions though. People want to finish the stimulus, but do not want more spending. How does that make sense? (and of course, still no geographical information).

[ProSense]

56. I been a little worried about this. Check out the headline at TPM

Bringing In The Big Guns In Tight MA-Sen Race, Kerry And Clinton Helping Dem Coakley

There is so much spin it's hard to know where thing actually stand.

[Mass]

58. This has been announced a week ago, and was never in doubt. Clinton came

during the primary, where she was 20+ points ahead. Kerry is the senior senator of MA. That he headlines a rally for her is not exactly a surprise either. I note that they did not call Deval Patrick (interesting).

Other things show that they take the race seriously, but this rally is not a surprise. This said, the Rasmussen poll today will give us another round of "Brown is gaining" that we did not need, and I am more worried by the state of the party and the netroots/grassroots who get in a state of panic than I am by the race (though I would prefer better polls, no question about that).

[ProSense]

59. I know it was announced.

I just like the headline. Everyone knew the Dems were going to fight for this seat.

[Mass]

60. Did I miss something or has the Globe not endorsed anybody yet?\nt

[Blaukraut]

61. Now that you mention it - I haven't seen a Globe endorsement

if there was one.

[wisteria]

62. Vennochi is not to pleased with Brown's performance in the debate calling him an excitable boy.

I know, she is not well liked here, but I do like what she has to say here. And, I have to wonder if she picked up the term excitable boy from an old Warren Zevon song called, "Excitable Boy".

"Now do the people of Massachusetts really want that seat to go to a conservative state senator who comes across as an excitable boy?"



"He has been endorsed by an antiabortion advocacy group that calls him a “prolife vote in Washington.’’"

"He loses on substance and the issues."



http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/12/brown_comes_across_as_just_an_excitable_boy/

[karynnj]

64. That might be a good sign - buyer's regret before the election

I don't know what she has written about Coakley or Brown before this, but that is a pretty damning column. What is amazing is that she is really calling him dishonest, at least on abortion, as his current platform is more moderate. (One side comment as it affects both - wouldn't a candidate be better speaking a spouse he/she loves than of a spouse who loves them?)

Given the title of the op-ed which says "just and excitable boy" it has to be a reference to Warren Zevon's song. Adding "just a" makes it more condescending as well - and even the word "boy" is pretty condescending. Excitable boy does not convey a sense of gravitas. In addition, it is paired with Coakley being called "serious", but implying (through her downhill skiing, there is a more exciting part of her.)

Being old, the only part of the song I knew was the chorus - and that alone really is not the image people want in their Senator. (Here's a link to a video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUsSXXc8wU Now, the chorus is catchy enough it sticks in your head, which might be good for disinterested people who even scan the title. Remember her nasty potshots at JK were that some tiny comment or incident taken out of context "embarrassed Massachusetts", but at least 90% of JK's coverage was as a serious, thoughtful legislator and statesman. Tay Tay told us many times that Massachusetts had standards and that they were very high in what they wanted as Senators. I suspect that the voting booth conversions - when faced with actually casting a vote will not favor an "excitable boy".

For the MA people, I know Vennocci clearly dislikes Kerry, but is she usually pro-Democrat or pro-Republican?

[Mass]

65. She likes moderate Republicans. May be it is a sign that the image of Scott Brown as a moderate

Republican is started to break down.

There was an editorial today by Scott Lehigh, which, while reproaching Coakley to agree with him on death penalty (dont ask, please, this is the Globe typical BS), had a paragraph reminding people who Scott Brown was. Add to that negative ads starting to air throughout the state. May be this will help.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/13/coakleys_death_penalty_chameleon_act_unimpressive/

I should note that I’m even less impressed with Brown. He strikes me not as a moderate Republican in the Bill Weld mold, but rather as a crypto-conservative trying to distance himself from his right-wing stands. Witness his blatant debate attempt at obfuscation about his 2005 amendment, which would have allowed hospital workers to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims. Or his dissembling about his previous statements on global warming. More importantly, his opposition to federal healthcare reform puts him on the wrong side of historic legislation.

Sadly, once again, the media have not done their informative job. In a period where people are anguished and mad at not seeing things done, Republicans have some attraction when it comes to people who think taxes are too high. Many of these people in MA however are pro-choice and moderate when it comes to foreign policy. This is how people like Weld, Celluci, and even Romney got elected. Scott Brown is not like that, and anybody who paid attention knows that. But his ads show him like a fiscal conservative and nothing else, and the media have not done their vetting job. If anything, people like Vennochi and Lehigh have done their usual song and dance about the attractiveness of moderate Republicans.

So, hopefully, these editorials are a sign that the lies are being uncovered.

[wisteria]

71. I hope you are right. n/t

[wisteria]

70. Thanks for the link, I miss Zevon's music. It was good hearing some of it again. n/t

[Noisy Democrat]

63. I've applied for an absentee ballot

Thanks to people here in this thread ringing the alarm bells, which got me worried enough to wish I could afford to hurry back to Massachusetts -- I'm stuck here in California in my brother's guest room, taking care of family medical problems, but I'm still a Mass resident --, and then Luftmensch prodding me to doublecheck the deadline to get an absentee ballot, and thank God she did: I thought the deadline had passed weeks ago, but it's this Friday. I overnighted a request for a ballot and enclosed a prepaid overnight envelope back to me; hope that works. I'll do whatever else I can to help, but anyway, I'm taking the situation seriously enough to do everything I can to get my own vote in.

p.s. If this message actually posts, I want to say thank you to Luftmensch for buying me a star. I've been quiet so long because I misplaced my password and also thought I didn't have a star. Now I have no excuses. :)

[Mass]

66. My son voted yesterday by absentee ballot. He is going back to college on Sunday.\nt

[karynnj]

67. Your comment reminds me - COLLEGE voters

The polling in the last few weeks likely missed most college kids, who are registered where they go to school. If we have a disproportionate number of the students - and certainly Obama is still a hero to the ones I know, an email appeasl from Obama on the need for her to win to help him with his agenda could move kids to vote.

[rox63]

68. I don't think we'll lose this, but I hate that it's even close

Unfortunately, people seem to like showy tactics over competence. Coakley is extremely competent, and is a solid Dem. But she has a hard time coming across as passionate about her positions and her beliefs. Brown is the photogenic wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, and MA voters have fallen for that before. (Mittens) Therefore, if you know a Mass Dem, push, pull or drag them to the polls on Tuesday. Low voter turnout favors Brown, higher turnout favors Coakley.

[Blaukraut]

69. I won't say this outside of our forum, but

We might not be in this situation if our candidate had not taken her impending victory for granted. I'd say she ran a terrible campaign, but that would mean she even bothered to run one, which she did not. I know some people disagree with me, but she was virtually invisible since the primary election!
If we lose this, the blame rests squarely with Coakley and the Dem leadership. They were asleep at the switch. Never, ever, take a seat for granted!

EJ Dionne's WP piece says it all.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/01/in_massachusetts_scott_brown_w.html

Here's the paradox of the Massachusetts Senate race that everyone is now watching: Republican Scott Brown was doing an excellent job without the national attention. The fact that the race has been nationalized may be the best thing that happened to Democrat Martha Coakley -- even if all the news has suggested that she is weaker than expected.

This sloppiness has me beyond furious. All the warning signs of a possible upset were there. All they needed to do was look beyond MA at other special elections, at at the mood of the electorate.

[wisteria]

73. I agree with you.

I am not from Mass., but I would just hate to see Ted Kennedy's seat go to that obnoxious Brown. And, I have been wonder for a while why Coakley seemed so low keyed and unconcerned about her getting the Dem. nomination and ultimately the seat. I shrugged my shoulders thinking, I guess they know she is definately going to win this.
And, as you say, no party should ever take the electorate for granted and not work to earn every vote.

[MBS]

76. ditto n/t

[wisteria]

72. "Wolf in sheep's clothing" now that is a great description of Brown. n/t

[MBS]

77. exactly what I though when I watched the debate n/t

[beachmom]

74. This is disturbing and it's from someone who is phonebanking:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/out_of_site_out_of_mind.php#more?ref=fpblg

I'm a Mass. resident and a Coakley volunteer. I too think she's at risk of losing---and, in fact, that she stands a greater chance of losing than wining. I've been phone banking for the past ten or so week nights, and many reliable D voters are undecided or leaning the other way. I'm referring to 70-year-old Democratic voters.And to be clear, those are NOT the people RD is talking about. Coakley is struggling in this race not because she's an establishment candidate. She's struggling because she was invisible from the day of the primary to the middle of last week. Meanwhile, Brown was up and visible---on TV, and with plenty of signs in yards accross the Commonwealth. He's campaigned hard, in visible way; she has not. (see today's Boston Globe coverage for specifics).

Brown is an empty suit---look at his record, he's has literally zero accomplishments as a state senator. When asked why he differs from Bush and Cheney he says its because he drives a truck. You'll rarely find a jaw made of thinner glass, but Coakley didn't throw a punch for a month.

Now she's fighting. And it looks like bitter nervousness. It's been a case study in how not to run a campaign; and Romney's guys are running Brown's and doing a damn good job at it. They simply waited too long. Massachusetts is a state of establishment Dems---you needn't look farther than Hillary crushing Obama in the primary and Mayor Menino's five terms as proof of that. Coakley hadn't even reached out to them. No she is at the last minute. And if it's too late---and it looks like it might be---her failure could spell the end of any progressive policy successes for this White House.

I take the above far more seriously than an armchair pundit who is out of state. Has anyone else phonebanked locally, and can say otherwise?

[Mass]

75. As they say,Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan

I certainly would not take too seriously any post that tries to explain why Coakley is hurt. There are agendas here, including for some people who want to say that Coakley's winning is not because of her, but because of other people.

It is clear the situation is closer that it needs. She is not an ideal candidate (though she will be a great senator). She has also committed the capital crime in MA politics (as you can see in this post), she has not called on the establisment to her help and these people control the political machine (unfortunately). This seems to be the main complaint in this post.

Now, I dont know where this person lives, but I have seen very few yard signs anywhere (and those I see are Coakley's signs). I spent the holidays in Western Mass and Brown was basically invisible. It may be that this person is not used to phone banking and is frustrated. There is no way to know.

[wisteria]

78. I will say this from my experience of phone banking. Most of the time those who answer the phone are

older people. So it is no surprise that this phone banker uses a 70 year old to make a point. What I am saying is she may not actually be getting a good cross section of Democratic voters when she makes her calls. And, many seniors have been railroaded by the Repubs into thinking health care reform is bad for them.
But, I just do not believe that people in Massachusetts are so fed up with Obama and the Democrats they actually would think this guy would be a good way to send a message to the establishment. They elect him and nothing gets accomplished.