Scott Brown is a Republican!

Here's a funny ad about this race:

For Jonathan Singer here, and Nate Silver of 538, its mystifying as to how this is a toss-up. How anyone can consider this not a toss-up seems more obvious. I cannot take the outlier done by the Globe last week, or the Mellman headfake, serious.

The two polls done this week by PPP and Rasmussen combined show a 48-48 tie. The poll done by R2K shows a 49-41 lead by Coakley, with a 8% lead, meaning a tie within the 4% MoE. In both the VA and NJ race, undecideds broke heavily for the Republicans. If anything, that sour landscape has gotten worse since November for Democrats.

Still, I think its barely Coakley right now. I doubt she gets more than 1, maybe 2 percent above her final polling number, but right now, across all the polls, she's at 49% which is enough to push her over the top.

But Brown may win it by staying positive. He's making the right gamble here given his position. Actually, so the onslaught of ads by the partisan Democrats, and Obama's ads as well, the internet ones that I've seen, also have the right message, to mobilize Democrats.

Tough race to call. Definitely a toss-up going into the closing days. Here's a post over on BMG for ya that is a hell-raiser insider whack job against Coakley's campaign job to date. It does appear that the Democrats in MA there have a lingering primary hangover...

[UPDATE] Scott Brown is ahead. The negative ads are back-firing. Coakley is going to lose.... Actually, its a toss-up.

So says the latest Suffolk poll, which shows Brown ahead now 50-46 percent. Hmm, Coakley at 46 now, that's not good. I'll recant my prediction that Coakley is going to win upthread. Brown's taking the highroad with momentum and the lead (in one poll), while Democrats go with a negative onslaught-- it is probably not the best scenario in the closing days for Coakley to win.

[UPDATE] The fat lady may be singing at Fenway already. CrossTarget, which is a GOP firm in Alexandria (may be an IVR spin-off of Target Point?), polled the race at Brown 54-36 for Coakley.

[UPDATE] Ahead of the last couple of polls to come out, my formula comes up with Brown 49, Coakley 49, Kennedy 2.

Obama Records Video For Coakley

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.

MA-Senate, 5 days to go

This is a very difficult race for which to read the tea leaves. I see that the Boston Globe today came out and endorsed Coakley, and that's a good sign. To date, from the TV ads that I've seen, a sticking attack on Brown has not been made. The DC-led script is to stick Palin to Brown?  Seriously?  That's says two things: politics is trival bloodsport and partisanship is all that matters. What a message (and being that its led by the DNC that it has more to do with Obama's '12 agenda than it has any relevance at all to the '10 special election in MA).

And attack ads that Brown is "anti-abortion" (when he's actually pro-choice), just reminds me that most of the Democratic media consultants are still stuck in the '90's social issues. WTF does abortion have to do with this MA Senate election? Nothing at all; and how did that attack work out for us in VA? When Deeds went  after McDonnell on abortion in the summer of '09 (and McDonnell is rabidly anti-choice), the bottom fell out of the Deeds campaign. The target is Independent pro-choice women, but the collateral was for a bigger bulk of 20's and 30's voters (who turned out for Obama) to opt out from stale political attacks.

The Globe endorsement comes up with an angle that's actually resonates with some practical opinion. A vote for Brown is "a vote for gridlock" in DC. This cuts right at his strength-- that he is different and will bring a balance to DC. Coakley seems a bit out of touch with the anger (probably an understatement), and more like a career politician; Brown has tapped into the protest against the ways of Washington:

It's a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That's what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate. Those are the real stakes in this campaign.

I have some family ties to Worcester, MA. I was there during the early 90's, between stints in the Peace Corps, where my wife grew up. Back then, it swung from having a Republican come into office in '94 as the area's representative, to McGovern winning it back for the Democrats in '96. This mid-state area is one of the swing parts of the electorate. About a week ago, the local paper there endorsed Brown, with a message of "Massachusetts needs balance in Washington" which is exactly the sort of bipartisanship bs that needs to be dismantled.

Instead, Coakley is attacking Brown for advocating "a bipartisan commission to recommend changes in Medicare and Social Security" ah, "the senior card" tactic. It's all tactical, with no forceful momentum of being a change-agent. Coakley, and the Democrats in general, ought to be campaigning as her candidacy being the 60th vote to bring about the progressive changes of immigration reform, employee free choice for unions, and a sweeping climate bill. But then, we remember, those progressive things are already DOA for 2010.

It's getting narrow. In '94, it was a mere 22% of electorate voters that participated in the election. That Democrats are scrambling up the base, while the Republican is making in-roads, in a MA statewide special election is woeful news in the big picture. I think we'll manage, given the amount of money and national focus thrown to stick at Brown, to get by with a narrow win, say 50-46-4 for Coakley-Brown-Kennedy, but its hardly a strategy that can be replicated for every competitive race in 2010. And if Republicans are going to be in play in places like state-wide MA, there's going to be a lot more races on the table than you can imagine right now.

The Republicans Are Coming! The Republicans Are Coming!

I would presume that even the most inside of the inside beltway strategists and Democratic leaders can read the tea leaves on this one, but then again.

In Massachusetts, it's not the British that are threatening our communal well being, it's the Republican Party of Massachusetts that is showing DC Democrats that when people work extremely hard and give time and money to get you elected to do a job and when you don't do a damm thing, they have a tendency to get pissed.

There's more...

Brown responds to Coakley ad

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.


Advertise Blogads