Massachusetts Democrats on Vacation - The Kennedy Endorsement of Coakley – and Coakleys First Ad - Too Little Too Late.

Although Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts has been racking up endorsements from a variety of sources including Senator John McCain, former Boston Sportsman, Curt Shilling and most lately, former Senator and Radio Host (NY 23rd) Fred Thompson, Martha Coakley appeared to have the endorsement of Bill Clinton alone. Granted, the Clinton’s are popular with Massachusetts Democrats, Hillary specifically. The latest batch of Caokely endorsements are coming from the Kennedy family – according to the Boston Globe. Ted Kennedy’s second wife, and widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, will endorse Coakley. It was Victoria Kennedy who pushed for the interim appointment of Kennedy family friend, Paul Kirk, to keep the “seat warm” for the next Democrat to come down the pike. A move that was applauded by the Commonwealth Political hierarchy (and appalled those on who vote.)

Not for nothing, but the last time the Kennedy’s got behind a candidate in Massachusetts, it was not the candidate their constituents chose. The candidate, Barack Obama, did not win the popular vote in the primary in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton did; it was Kennedy and Kerry who were the first to endorse Obama, over the tide of support for Senator Clinton.

With 12 days to go until the election – an endorsement by Ms. Kennedy, may rally the “troops” that Coakley already has in her corner – those that are committed to voting for her – but, as the past Kennedy endorsement have left many feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse, this latest endorsement may prove to be no more than ‘eyewash’.

Coakley’s first television ad,(shown below) on the heels of Brown’s second, is the same theme (right down to the scenes) she used during the primary – in a nutshell, how her position as attorney general will somehow improve the economy. Martha speaks to the base, once again, evoking corporate greed, and her work to put predators behind bars (which, Massachusetts does not have a strong record of doing so).

Coakley continues to use keywords and pulls endorsements that speak to some of the 35% of those who consider themselves Democrats in Massachusetts. She has failed to move to the middle, which leaves Brown with the majority of the unenrolleds, as well most Republican voters. In addition, Martha’s vacation from the campaign, other than a few hand-picked debates (which Brown handily won) has not endeared her to her own base. Coakley, who has name recognition to a point, is doing too little, too late, to pull out a stunner. One evokes name recondition because, ask the man (or woman) on the street who the Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth is, they have no idea – the same goes for Attorney General.

This will be a very close race, one in which Scott Brown has the momentum, and the last minute endorsements (on both sides) will do little to motivate. The lines have been drawn in the proverbial sand. As Brown continues his tours of the Commonwealth, as his grassroots organization continues to call and go door to door, (indeed!), the momentum continues to grow. Browns lead among independents as well as Hispanics (marginal’s from Rasmussen) will take this race down to the finish line – again, having no crystal ball – prediction that the race will be called with matter of points, in Browns favor – may be conservative.

Chris Dodd (D-CT) & Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Retire – Kitchen Getting A Bit Hot in Court of Public Opinion – DSCC’s Menendez in Hot Seat over Mass.

DSCC's Chair, NJ's Menendez, Next to Retire? photo NJ.com

Chris Dodd, the 5 term Democrat Senator from the Nutmeg State has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2010. Dodd, who has watch his political stock decline following several scandals dealing with the nation’s mortgage and subsequent financial scandal, has been polling behind Republican challenger Rob Simmons by up to 14 points. According to the Hartford Courant National Democrats did everything possible to improve Dodd’s numbers, but began to get “antsy” when the numbers failed to improve. The Democrats are most likely going to run Richard Blumenthal, the State’s Attorney General – the premise: Blumenthal is one of the most popular politician’s in the state. Democrats remain confident that Connecticut will remain firmly in Democrat control that said they were also confident that Dodd would recover and continue his “work” in the Senate.

Over in North Dakota, Bryon Dorgan, claimed he would prefer to pursue other interests than the Senate. Again, Democrats were confident Dorgan would recover from low polling against a hypothetical challenge from Republican John Hoeven.
The one factor in all media reports regarding Democrats who are retiring, switching parties, and or facing a special election (see Martha Coakley D. versus Scott Brown Republican in the Mass. Special Election to fill the vacant Senate Seat in the Commonwealth), is that “Obama carried the state”. Apparently, that data is no longer valid in terms of saving one’s own political hide in any given state. That was 2008, this is 2010, and polling on the President’s job performance and programs match that of the embattled senators, congressional members and governors who are getting out, rather than face costly campaigns the results of which are far from certain.

The Chair of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee apparently has his hands full between retirements and specifically the contest in Massachusetts. Recently, CQ Politics blog declared the State of Massachusetts “Safe Democrat”, that was prior to a poll released by Rasmussen showing that Democrat Martha Coakley, who had appeared to take the seat for granted, might have to cut short her vacation and campaign. It may be a little too late, and in the normal finger-pointing that appears so frequently in party politics, the victim, according to the same CQ blog, will be the Senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez. According to CQ, (who incidentally gave Coakley an extra point based on the Rasmussen Poll) should the State of Massachusetts fall to Scott Brown, then Menendez would take the blame. Apparently, the Title says it all: “A Mess in Massachusetts for Menendez”. The writer lists everything possible that Menendez can do to get Coakley elected (short of voter fraud) and the result is the same, good news for Republican Scott Brown.

Of special interest, this is the first time an article on this race or any other “blue state “race, has not finished with “Safe Democrat”. Once again, all articles regarding the race in Massachusetts focus on the popularity of Obama, rather than the unfavorable of the Democrat who is actually running for office.

With Dodd, it was clearly a question of why throw good money after bad, and a sense that there was no way he could retain his seat. Dorn was most likely doing the same math, and factoring in a battle that, given both men’s age, could possibly upset retirement plans post government jobs.

Reid, over in Nevada is the next one to watch. Although Democrats are sticking to their guns, confident that Reid will win out over a 7 to 10 point disadvantage regardless of which Republican is polled against him, are clearly smoking something. There is a groundswell of conservative activism coming out of Nevada, and spreading across the states, these activists are looking at races in places as far flung as Massachusetts, including the U.S. Senate Race between Coakley and Brown, and the Massachusetts 4th District Race, where incumbent Barney Frank is facing Republican Earl Sholley.

One factor to consider in the Massachusetts races, they are being largely ignored by the national parties – given the fact that Obama carried the state handily, Massachusetts by 62% (Connecticut by 61%, and Nevada by 53%). in 2008 That, and the fact that Massachusetts and Connecticut have both been held by Democrats (for the most part) since the 1970’s. What they are not factoring is the substantial increase in “unenrolleds” or “unaffiliated” voters in both states. In the case of Massachusetts the “unenrolled” are the majority party, eclipsing the Democrats by 20 points – that cannot be ignored. Additionally, when viewing Obama’s poll numbers – from Rasmussen to Marist to Quinnipiac the news is not good - a November poll suggested that Obama had lost the independent vote “who went from 3 points negative to 14”.

It is now January and those numbers have not improved. Add more woes to Menendez and the DNC in general: a new study by Rasmussen suggests that the number of American’s identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to the lowest point in seven years.
What’s in a poll? Polling, for the most part, is a scientific estimate, pollsters can skew polls and results by asking questions in a certain manner or, for example, eliminating factors from a poll to improve results. See Rasmussen Poll on Massachusetts – they did not include Joe Kennedy, the Libertarian Candidate by name – although it is doubtful that Kennedy would acquire more than 6% of the vote in any case (based on historical patterns – Democrats who are not inclined to vote for Coakley may choose Kennedy – giving Brown a better position. Of course, all pundits keep pointing to the Obama popularity factor in all states and treat it as a given that regardless of the candidate and or the office, it should follow that the Democrats will ultimately win. One is getting the impression however, that those retiring, or switching parties, are doing so because they are mindful of 2006 – and the George Bush brand gone bad through the constant pulse of the media. Today it is not the media that is pushing the brand of the Democrats; rather it is their constituents, who apparently object to the policies of the current administration and the overall job performance of the Congress and the President.

The next question, how many more “retirements” will take place in the coming months (prior to filing deadlines) and which of the remaining high-profile Democrats will decide not to seek re-election 2010 and 2012?

Rasmussen MA Senate Poll Results: Coakley has 9 Point Lead over Brown Margin of Error: 4.5 – Key: Brown Leads Independents 65-21%

Rasmussen Reportsreleased the first polling for the Massachusetts Special Election to fill the U.S. Vacant Senate Seat today. Democrat, Martha Coakley shows a 9 point lead over Brown, with a margin of error of 4.5 and 7% undecided. Rasmussen did not include Libertarian Candidate Kennedy in the polling, rather listed: other candidates, which may have skewed results in Coakley's favor. The biggest factor in this particular poll is the lead Brown has among Independent Voters - based on Rasmussen: Brown leads 65 to 21%.

Contrary to popular MSN opinion – Massachusetts in this instance is not “Safe Democrat” – The Bay State has a horserace on its hands. Due to the fact that in special elections in Massachusetts the Republican normally has the advantage, plus the high percentage of unenrolled voters turning to Brown (the majority of the electorate in MA) and the money is on Scott Brown to win.

Rasmussen Reports Polling Mass Special Election Race – Citizens Poll Shows Brown in Lead over Coakley – Science and Grass Roots Polling

The Washington Independentreleased a short article last night noting that independent pollster Rasmussen, was polling the Bay State for the January 19th, Special Senate Election. Rasmussen had confirmed to this blog that there would be a poll, but did not give a date. It should be noted that there are very few polls conducted by national pollsters in Massachusetts races – races in the Commonwealth are normally considered “safe Democrat” – as in “why bother wasting resources” (See CQ Politics article here regarding Scott Brown’s newest television ad which began running yesterday. (Ad below) The logic used by CQ Politics is that Coakley is heavily favored in the race, yet there has been no known data to back this up, with the exception of Coakley’s FEC report being slightly higher than Browns.

Money can’t buy votes.

Brown has been highly visible, crisscrossing the state, and doing one bang up job on the ground, while Coakley has been – non-existent. Other than one web ad, rebutting Brown’s first televised ad little has come from the alleged CQ Politics frontrunner.

The next debate is set for February 8th in Springfield, MA on WGBY Television. WGBY is a public television station, which has the smallest market share in the DMA, that said, there has been a growing interest in the race, on the “ground” so to speak in MA, therefore, one might expect an increase in their rankings for the 8th .

To date, there has been one unscientific poll, a citizens poll taken by a husband and wife team blogging out of Buzzards Bay. the poll was conducted using a phone book, calling all corners of the Bay State, over what appears to be several days (or weeks) – the results available here have Brown up by 11 plus points. Although of interest, the poll was conducted based on one question, regarding who one would support in the special election – Brown or Coakley. Understanding that these individuals were motivated by a lack of polling, and had no prior polling experience, one has to give them credit for putting in those hours, and at least presenting results – results that can be used to compare with other polling data released by Rasmussen. That said, they did not include the third party candidate: Joe Kennedy, and did not ask party affiliation.

In Monday morning quarterbacking (guilty), had they asked both, they may have found that putting Kennedy in the “mix” would yield a different picture. The reasoning: most Massachusetts voters are just beginning to be aware of the race, via Browns advertising. Asking a Democrat to choose between Republican, Brown, Democrat Coakley, or Libertarian Kennedy, may see those Democrats who would not vote for Coakley under any circumstances, voting for Kennedy based on name recognition alone. Additionally, asking party affiliation, would have given insight into which the Unenrolleds are choosing, as well as who the Democrats will ultimately choose. That’s the information that is gleaned during internal polling, which may be why Martha has been so silent as of late. Knowing you’re within the margin of error in Massachusetts and a Democrat means that the race might be tight, but the chances of victory slim.

Trolling for votes

Another reason that Coakley may feel she has an edge – corruption in the State Party’s get out the vote. The Blog SISU on the Brown/Coakley race, suggests that Coakley’s will be aided by an inordinate amount of “dead people” in order to get her over the top. Although one would think that might not be necessary in the Bluest State, it is not uncommon for activists to troll nursing homes in order to get a vote for the Democrat candidate. (Personal experience, mother with dementia, in a nursing home in Western Mass, was about to “vote” for Al Gore, although she had no idea of who Gore was, or who I was – resulting: volunteer was summarily shown the door – letter to Secretary of State – result ignored.)

Therefore, based on the theory of corruption put forth by the SISU blog, and the alleged corruption that may be employed – one would have to assume that ACORN, the SEIU, (who cannot control their membership when it comes to the voting booth), and a plethora of nursing homes and mortuaries (or cemeteries) in the state, are polled and vote for Coakley, will it be enough to get her over the top? One also has to ask would the State’s Attorney General knowingly stoop to such a crime?

The most likely scenario at this point: should the poll come within the margin of error, or be within 10 points (either way), the race is going to be tight. Brown, who has the edge on Coakley in experience (MA Senate) as well, getting his message out to every nook and cranny in the State (which is resonating with voters). In addition, it is which candidate can actually inspire to get out the vote – Brown’s grassroots organization is tight, Coakley does not have a grassroots organization, and will have to rely on the same old “machine”. Turnout is critical and the grassroots is motivated. Should the above-mentioned hold – Scott Brown will be going to Washington.

Note: Rasmussen polling, although an independent pollsters, has come under fire from DNC activist as being in the RNC’s pocket (so to speak), due to the fact that polls taken show a rejection of both programs and candidates. That said, the methodology used in the polling, random phone calls in a given area, (much the same as the non-scientific poll mentioned above) and automated polling (key in an answer), make that claim fallacious to say the least.) What to watch for in the Rasmussen Poll: the marginal – voters’ polled, political affiliation, and the inclusion of the third party candidate.

The result of the Rasmussen poll will be published once available.

New Scott Brown Television Ad

Mass. Senate Race Update: Scott Brown Endorsed by John McCain, Martha Coakley Endorsed by NARAL (Pro-Abortion) Brown’s stock Rising

The special election in Massachusetts on the 19th of January to fill the seat left vacant by Ted Kennedy’s demise, has seen something unusual take place in the Bay State – the rise of Republican Scott Brown to within, as some are quick to point out, striking distance of the Democrats.

Brown, a State Senator from Wrentham has the experience, as well as record as a moderate in the MA Senate. His primary objectives, over the years he has spent in the legislature (while also serving in the National Guard), have been the protection of women and children. In addition he has kept his constituents informed about what is taking place on Beacon Hill through a series of monthly newsletters. (said newsletters are still being published while he is on the campaign trail – copies can be found here at www.scottbrown.com. He is a fiscal conservative, and dead set against adding another nickel to the growing deficit, yet will cross the aisle when it helps his constituents. Brown, in other words, is the real deal, offering his constituents the transparency that has so often been touted but so often non-existent.

Martha Coakley, the State’s Attorney General, hailed from the western part of the Bay State, the Berkshires, and her performance as the State’s DA has been questioned, especially by an article in Boston Magazine where she had co-mingled funds from two different campaigns – this gives a preview of an individual who may be willing to bed the law a bit in order to get from point A to point B. The article, by Paul Kix, is entitled “ Running Scared : Martha Coakley
Martha Coakley has many wonderful qualities. So why doesn't her Senate campaign 
feature any of them?” is worth the read, as it highlights some key points in Ms. Coakley’s career that are at odds with her campaign rhetoric.

One must realize that no matter which candidate, and for what position in government, it is impossible for any candidate to be perfect. Therefore, one must choose the candidate who they feel will best represent their political ideology, regardless of party. This is in evidence at Brown campaign offices across the state where volunteers are proud to call themselves Democrats, Libertarian, Green, Unenrolled or Independent, and, yes, even Republican. The reasoning: Health Care and a general distrust of Politics as usual. (In the interest of full disclosure this blog has not visited one of Martha Coakley’ four offices.)

As the clock winds down, endorsements can be expected, and those endorsements are decidedly (for the most part) partisan. From the Brown Campaign, an endorsement came via Senator John McCain who stressed Scotts military service as well as his fiscal record in the State Senate.

On the flip side, Martha Coakley, has been endorsed by Emily’s List as well as N.A.R.A.L., for her pro-active support of abortion, beginning prior to her political career – she is not in favor of parental consent, she was adamant that private medical facilities tow the public line regardless of religious or moral issues, when it came to dispensing birth control and abortion in Massachusetts, etc. The article from the Boston Globe outliens the differences between Brown and Coakley, as regards “reproductive rights” (i.e. Abortion).
Martha has also picked up the endorsements of several local politicians, right in Scott Browns District, those include selectmen and school committee members. Those members are easily identified as Democrats, therefore, Martha can be seen to be picking up the endorsement of local Democrats, in the final hours of the campaign, while Brown is picking up the endorsement of one of the most moderate Republican’s who has a national platform.

It really comes down to political ideology and which candidate one feels would best serve the interest of the people, rather than the interests of a given political party. That has been evidenced through the debates, given Browns records as an independent thinker, (to paraphrase his words in the WBZ debate), while Coakley is ready to go to Washington to support the President and his agenda.

Just a note: in the Boston Globe article there is a reference regarding some of Coakely’s advisers telling her to tone down the pro-abortion language (soften) it a bit. This is most likely in response to Shannon O’Brian’s strong abortion language which cost her the Governor’s office (that went to Mitt Romney). In all, Massachusetts can be seen as a liberal state, up to a point, and a social issue, such as unlimited abortion access at any age, any procedure, can put off voters in a hurry – specifically those 51% and counting of those who consider themselves unenrolled. Should Coakley attempt to soften her stance in the coming two weeks, it would go directly to character, or lack thereof.

HR 4173 – Barney Frank Continues to Bail Out Banks – Files It Under Consumer Protection - Frank is up for Reelection in 2010

Hr 4173, a bill devised by Barney Frank, and introduced on December 2nd, 2009 referred to the Financial Services Committee (along with several other Committees by Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is, in essence, yet another bail out of the Big banks.
Suggested reading: An article by David Reilly of Bloomberg entitled: “Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank”

Reilly pointed out several concerns, chief amongst them:

Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.

In addition, the bailout of Frank’s pet projects, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resulted in yet another loss for taxpayers – an estimated $400 Billion. Article Here also at Bloomberg

Although Frank’s seat is considered “safe” (the norm for Massachusetts entrenched politicians), internal polling from one opposition campaign, showed a 30% approval rate for Frank in the 4th district. That said, even though logic dictates that Frank would not be returning to Congress in 2011, that is not always the case with Massachusetts politicians. Frank is facing opposition from Earl Sholley (website here) who ran against Frank in 2008, garnering approximately 30% of the vote. Sholley had entered the race late in 08 and has a solid campaign together going into 2010. Sholley, a conservative, is running as a Republican. Keith Messina (website here) is also running as a Republican. Messinna has never run for elected office. Frank also faces Democrat Rachel Brownwebsite here. It is evident that Frank is inspiring people in Massachusetts and his district - to run for his seat.

However, should sister Pelosi, lose her majority (looking more probable by the day), (and/or John Dennis wins in San Francisco, where Nancy does not enjoy great popularity (John Dennis for Congress) Frank would be downgraded to less lofty position (or one from which he can no longer destroy the economy). That said, retirement would be preferable, as he would no longer be eligible to get his hands on the taxpayers pocketbooks.