In 2008, Chambliss was +3 over Martin in the general election, and it made it to a runoff. Chambliss ended up +15 in that special election.
Democrats typically win MA by around +18. That leads to Coakley’s baseline being +6 in the special election. Since she’s a mediocre candidate and Brown’s a half-decent one, her losing is a very definite possibility. I’d still say she has an edge, but really only a 70% chance of winning, I’d guess.
Futures markets have her at… 62%. Sounds about right.
I won’t argue the point, but there are worse ways to be undemocratic.
Being Republican, f’rinstance.
I had always thought that a man posing nude for a women’s magazine would be pretty much precluded from a political career. I might have reason to reconsider my reluctance to enter the public arena, if such restictions no longer apply.
A year and a half old, but I think it’s been reasonably consistent: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html
Bottom line:
That’s what I’m thinking (Massachusetts resident here ((heh, I just accidentally typed “Massachusettes”))). But I wouldn’t bet too much on it.
As for Coakley riding Kennedy’s coattails, she hasn’t played it up too much. She did get an endorsement from Vicki Kennedy the other day but really Brown is trying to make it into more than it is. In fact Coakley took some heat for jumping into the race too quickly before Kennedy’s seat was cold enough. She didn’t wait to see if any other Kennedys wanted it first.
Even in that clip from the debate that keeps playing the moderator doesn’t call it “The Kennedy Seat” he says it was “Teddy Kennedy’s Seat” which it was. Brown was trying to spin it into a soundbite.
As for the healthcare/insurance program in Massachusetts most polls seem to show it is fairly popular. Anecdotally most people I know either already had insurance and weren’t affected or didn’t have insurance and are able to get it now. I am sure there are some people who caught the short end of the law but really there hasn’t been much negative reaction that I have seen.
I have seen some local Republicans/Teabaggers claiming that the program has been handled poorly and is responsible for insurance rates and healthcare costs increasing but I haven’t seem them provide any actual evidence. A woman on NPR today was trying to spin it as Romney’s great plan that has been mishandled by the Democrats.
Coakley has her faults but I’ll take her over Brown.
How did that work in NJ?
You have to remember elections are often decided by the economy. In bad times the party or office holder will be voted out of office.
It’s a horrible economy and it ain’t getting any better. The Democrats held that seat and they are the “party in power,” so to speak even though Kennedy is dead.
I don’t think Brown will win. I think the democratic party dropped the ball here. They took a democratic seat in MA for granted and didn’t throw in the support it deserved. I feel they should have given it a strong show of support and made it the landslide it should have been. Coakley’s campaign has been scraping by for a position that should have been well funded.
I’ve been in love with Coakley for a long time. She has done a great job in every position she’s held.
Yeah, but I don’t think this is a character-based campaign. This is pretty much a Democrat vs. Republican, who gets the controlling Senate seat type of race. So unless one of the candidates has an * actual * skeleton in their closet, I think it’s going to go straight down party lines. So I really think that the closeness (or perceived closeness) of the race is going to galvanize voters to got out to vote, and that’s going to benefit Coakley more than Brown given the party demographics of the state.
I’m thinking it might not hurt Ms. Coakley to go starkers in, say, Maxim, just to even the playing field.
“What is it, Obi-Wan?”
“I just felt a terrible disturbance in the Force, as if one hundred thousand fashion-conscious young men had simultaneously gouged out their eyes…!”
Obama’s decision to campaign for Coakley this weekend must have been a bitter pill. The very fact that it’s being viewed as necessary is an indication of weakness that I’m sure the Democrats find disturbing, gaveyard whistling notwithstanding.
The risk comes from Obama going…and Coakley still losing. Then he’s dealt a loss of political face. His supporters will try to put a brave face on it, of course…but if a Republican can win in Massachusetts even when the great one himself campaigns? Oh my. 2010 may require the democrats to purchase a family size jar of vaseline.
If Obama does A(refuses to support the candidate), it shows that the candidate is weak and not worthy of support. If Obama does B(supports the candidate) it shows that the candidate is weak because support was needed.
I like to call this type of post the “Auto-Wrong” post-first declare that the decision is wrong, and figure out why later.
What is politically significant is that it is necessary for a Democrat president to have to come to a very blue state to stump for a Democrat candidate. Coakley should be up by 15 points. The fact that she is not says that voters not only have trouble with her, but with the Democrat brand in general.
If you are blinded by ideology, the easiest way to understand the situation is this. Imagine the race is taking place in Utah in 2002 and a Democrat is threatening to win. President Bush is dropping everything to go campaign on the final weekend before the election. Go.
It also calls into question the current state of the weak candidates party. Are voters rejecting the candidate or the party they stand for?
I’m blinded by ideology? It wouldn’t have mattered which decision Obama made-you would have made yet another “Auto-Wrong” response.
It’s not auto-wrong, because the right answer would have been for Coakley to have run a campaign from the start that didn’t assume it was a shoe-in. Either Coakley’s weak or the campaign is weak or both. Obama’s no-win situation here is the MA Dem’s fault.
I voted for Obama but I hope Brown wins. That 60 Senate veto proof majority has been worthless and having just a 59 seat majority won’t make any real difference. Losing in Massachusetts will hammer home to Obama and the Democrats how damn hard they need to work to keep the voters they had in '06 and '08.
But have you actually looked at his views on the issues? He keeps saying he wants to be the vote to kill the current healthcare reform bill but I haven’t seen anything on what he plans to put in its place.
His big idea to help the economy is…tax cuts! I’m not kidding.
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
I’d kind of like to vote someone in based on their ideas, not just trying to make the numbers line up a certain way.
I don’t live in Massachusetts, so I don’t get to vote anyway. He sounds like a typical Republican. If the Democrats can’t pass their piss poor version of health insurance reform with 59 seat majority in the Senate then the party is pretty much useless.