President Obama relased a video for Martha Coakley today. As Jerome urged earlier today, it does indeed focus on the importance of 60 votes and Coakley as a change agent. Chuck Todd asks a good question, though: "Does this Obama video for Coakley mean he's NOT going to Boston on Sunday or Monday?" And if not, does that mean the White House thinks Obama being blamed for a Coakley loss is more likely than Obama boosting Coakley to a win? Or are they just more focused on Haiti and other such issues? Either way, the video won't hurt. Once you've donated to Haiti, if there's anything left over, donate to keeping 60 votes.
Seeking to build on the money bomb that has already brought in more than half a million dollars to her campaign, Massachusetts Democratic Senate nominee Martha Coakley has redirected the contribution link on her website to a new "Do It For Ted" Act Blue page hosted by Vicki Kennedy, the widow the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
More than $5,300 in new online contributions have been processed through the page in the roughly 15 minutes since it went live at about 7:50 PM Eastern according to tallies publicly available on Act Blue.
[UPDATE by Jonathan]: More than $10,000 came through in the first half hour of the page according to public numbers on Act Blue, though it is unclear how rapidly the numbers are being refreshed or the extent to which they approach real time.
[UPDATE 2 by Jonathan]: Martha Coakley has now raised $457,000 online since earlier this afternoon, according to a Democratic strategist with direct knowledge of the campaign's fundraising.
[UPDATE 3 by Jonathan]: Martha Coakley's fundraising today has surpassed half a million dollars. As of 10:45 PM Eastern, Coakley's campaign brought in $526,000 in online contributions -- and counting -- a Democratic strategist tells MyDD.
So much for the notion that progressives and Democratic voters around the country aren't engaging with the Massachusetts special Senate election.
On a day when Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (whose death prompted this special election), penned a fundraising appeal on behalf of Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee in the race, more than $351,000 in online contributions have streamed into Coakley's campaign. While this figure is less than the $1.3 million raised in a single day earlier this week by Scott Brown, the GOP nominee in the race, the day is still young and money appears to be continuing to pour in.
[UPDATE by Jonathan]: That number is now, as of the 9:00 hour on the East coast, $457,000 and counting.
Interested in a friendly wager? I eat a little crow on [The Next Right] if Brown wins, you do it on MyDD if Coakley wins?
Shortly thereafter I asked Ruffini, "Or would you expect a point spread in a friendly wager over the outcome of the Brown/Coakley race?" Ruffini's response a few hours later:
If I come on MyDD, I'll be happy to repost this: http://is.gd/6ameZ [a link to a post on how Paul Hackett's loss in the 2005 Ohio special congressional election was a win for the Democrats -- clearly not a crow-eating post]
I took this as a rejection of my friendly wager, replying to Ruffini, "If you were confident in a Brown win, why wouldn't you agree to a wager that could have me eating crow on your site?" Matt Ortega similarly asked, "Brown consultant @PatrickRuffini refuses to wager Brown would win?"
Ruffini tried to flip things around, stating that the fact that I was assigning even odds to the race -- which I wasn't, as evidenced by my tweet asking if Ruffini expected a point-spread in such a wager -- was the story. "[A] Brown win would be a real miracle," tweeted Ruffini.
I don't know what the outcome of Tuesday's election in Massachusetts is going to be. Nobody does. But I was willing to put myself on the line under the belief that Coakley, the Democratic nominee, would pull out a victory. Ruffini, a leading GOP blogger, wasn't willing to do the same for the candidate he supports (and indeed is doing work for). And I think that speaks volumes.
by Kyle Shank, Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:43:01 PM EST
Brown doesn't respond to any of the points made in the Coakley ad and instead plays the role of the High Road guy.
The ad ironically talks Coakley not talking about healthcare and jobs: two things that Brown doesn't have any solutions for. In fact, the only real argument Brown makes in either case is that Coakley is going to go spend, spend, spend with democrats in Washington.
The one thing that I find interesting about both campaigns is the lack of party association in any of their ads. I can only assume this is clearly a fight for the independent vote.