Scott Brown in Virtual Tie in Massachusetts Race as Dems Deploy

January 13, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (45)

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

In the first contest of 2010, the question shouldn't be whether Democrats will win but by how much. On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters will select the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's successor. Martha Coakley, the Bay State's attorney general and the Democratic nominee, was until very recently the prohibitive favorite over GOP nominee Scott Brown, a state senator. Not only had Coakley raised $5.2 million to Brown's $1.2 million (his fundraising has increased dramatically with the new national attention), but Massachusetts is about as reliably Democratic as they come.

The race was supposed to be a yawner but has become the focus of the political world as recent polls have shown it to be a nail-biter: Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, reported over the weekend that Brown had a 48-47 lead, while a Rasmussen poll released today had Coakley ahead by a mere two points, 49-47--a virtual tie, as it is within the 3 percent margin of error. As recently as last month, political guru Stuart Rothenberg wrote that, "If Brown can crack the 40 percent mark against Coakley, it would be noteworthy," political guru Stu Rothenberg wrote last month. Tuesday Rothenberg moved the Massachusetts senate into the "narrow advantage" for Democrats column on his report.

As I reported last week, the liberal group MoveOn.org started fundraising for Coakley, warning its members that "progressive hero Ted Kennedy's senate seat--and with it any hope for passing majori progressive legislation this year" were in danger. I wrote then that , "a telling sign of serious tightening would be either of the national parties moving late money into the race." Well this week the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee bought more than $500,000 in television ads in a race that under normal circumstances would not require a national Democratic dime. In addition, the Service Employees International Union is pouring $685,000 into the race.

As the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza observes today, the race has become a good preview of the campaign themes the two parties may trot out in other races this fall, with Democrats trying to use the specter of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin to tar their GOP opponents and Republicans harping on change. Cillizza writes:

If Brown manages to win, expect Democrats to quickly dismiss the loss as an outlier due to Coakley's substandard campaign. But, privately, something close to panic may well set in if the alleged ace in the hole--linking Republicans to the Bush administration and/or Palin--doesn't come through in a state as strongly favorable to their party as Massachusetts and in a political environment that is tilting away from them on the issues of the day.

Republicans believe that Brown's candidacy is already a blueprint for how they can be competitive almost anywhere in the country in November and so, regardless of whether Brown wins or loses next Tuesday, you can expect a heavy dose of the sort of independent/status quo shakeup messages that Brown has ridden to something close to a dead heat in Massachusetts. 

Given that even a narrow Coakley win will be decried as a loss for Democrats, it's hard to see much good news coming to them next Tuesday.

Tags:
politics,
Massachusetts,
Democratic Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (45)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

There is a bell shaped curve for voters you know. So it’s not surprising that Democrats, Republicans and Independents share similar space under the curve when the bell is rung and the issues resonate. What I’m hearing from Massachusetts is a collective outcry that the buck stops and starts again with the People and then it is passed to our leadership, even as a baton is passed in any great race. The exchange that occurred last November has hopefully taught us a great lesson: The People cannot loosen their grip before handing over. It must be firmly given and firmly taken.

David of CO 12:01PM January 18, 2010

This is a Brown vs. Obama race!

The President is furious that he has to divert time and resources to save the shoddy campaign of a poor candidate!

Martha Coakley will not have the benefit of President Obama to save her on tough issues if she manages to squeek by and get elected.

Asian Al Sharpton of DC 1:09AM January 18, 2010

I am concerned when leaders say it may take ten days to secure all the absentee votes. If Mass, does not have better election laws, they should immediately change. I would recommend free volunteers, half from each party, to check at least 30% of all absentee votes received. In Michigan our absentee ballot envelopes has lines for anyone assisting the voters showing name, address, and date assisted. WE have to have them in the

precinct office before election day, but counted after normal voting is closed which be done the following day,not ten days later. The reason for verifying is to be certain people like Acorn have not paid or otherwise told people who to vote for. The thirty % being checked should include contacting voters to confrim if they knew who they had voted for. I have seen too many cases where absentee votes have been done at group meetings where voters have no idea who or what they voted for.

John Kaiser (precint worker several years of MI 11:30PM January 14, 2010

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement