The Facts:

The T (just Blue, Red, Orange, and Green Lines) serves 12 of 40 State Senate districts, with the Red Line serving 8, the Orange Line serving 5, the Green Line serving 5, and the Blue Line only serving one (First Middlesex and Suffolk, in case you were wondering).  One State Senate district is served by all 4 lines: the First Middlesex and Suffolk (Robert Travalgini’s old district).

It serves 32 0f 160 State House Districts, with the Red Line serving 16, the Orange Line serving 11, the Green Line serving 12, and the Blue Line serving 3.  There is one House district that has all four lines: the Third Suffolk, Sal DiMasi’s old district.  Somehow, it has worked out that these districts with all four lines produced leaders in the House and Senate at the same time.  This probably has little correlation; the lines center at downtown Boston, and both districts have the North End, a center of Italian political activity.

While the MBTA commuter rail serves only 7 of the Comonwealth’s 14 counties, it manages to serve all 10 Congressional Districts.  I have not counted how many legislative districts in either chamber it falls in, but will update this when I do.

Many people have been talking about the possibility of Congressman Delahunt losing to a Republican in 2010 (I won’t go into too many details; for a good primer on the Republican field, see MassBeacon’s post on the subject).  The best challenger, Senator Hedlund, has yet to announce, and may not run.  However, Delahunt is clearly scared.  The Globe ran a story today that he was considering retiring.  He claimed that this was about whether or not he could make change better outside of elected office, but I think this is out of fear.  However, I don’t think it is that likely he is retiring.  The Globe story ended with this quote: “Even as he considers retirement, he still sounded like a candidate: ‘They don’t have to bring it up, because I will. [about his ties to Hugo Chavez]‘”  This doesn’t sound like someone who will retire.  He still has $600 K in the bank.  I think he can be convinced to run.

So, assuming he doesn’t retire, what chance does he have? (I won’t analyze the possibilities if he does retire; MassBeacon.com has a good post on that already)  Well, there are several Republican’s running.  One of them is former Treasurer Joe Malone; he is a corrupt hack, and will probably not win.  Another is Ray Kasperowicz, a CPA from Cohasset.  He is another long shot, and no one knows who he is.  Another long shot is Donald Hussey, of Hingham; I have absolutely no clue who he is.  However, State Representative Jeff Perry, of the 5th Barnstable District, is running.  He presents an actual challenge.  And, if State Senator Hedlund announces, he will be a big challenger.

I think it’s pretty clear Delahunt would defeat Malone, Kasperowicz, and Hussey.  However, it is less clear whether he could defeat Perry or Hedlund.  I still think he will.  Here’s why.  Perry, who is the only one of the challengers with a shot who has announced, is from the Cape.  Delahunt, although from Quincy, has a good presence on the Cape; I don’t think he will meet his downfall at the hands of a Cape Cod candidate.  His opposition to Cape Wind scores him points on Cape Cod, too.  Hedlund poses an interesting challenge; his district is entirely within the 10th CD, and he has good name recognition elsewhere, being a high ranking Republican in the State Senate.  And, on top of that, his district constitutes the often forgotten towns of the South Shore, which are breeding grounds for wealthy Republican activism.

Both of these look like strong candidates.  However, I still put Delahunt as the winner.  Here’s why.  The 10th Congressional District is very ungovernable.  People from Quincy have different interests from people on the Cape, who have different interests from people on the Islands, who have different interests from people on the South Shore.  Delahunt has gotten really good at pleasing these different constituencies, and it will be hard for someone else to run in the 10th District.  His skill at keeping everyone happy will lead him on to victory in 2010, should he run

So, Martha Coakley’s miserable loss is a setback for the Democratic agenda on healthcare, and many ideas have been proposed to move healthcare forward.  Basically, Democrats have a clusterfuck of strategies for healthcare right now, and can’t figure out which one is best.  There’s the easy way of passing the Senate bill, which is anathema to many, as it lacks a public option and has the horrific subsidies for Nebraska.  Then, there’s the possibility of adding more to it with a “sidecar” to be passed with reconciliation.  Then, there’s the possibility of passing everything with reconciliation, and just ignoring the Senate bill.  All of these are quite bad options, with the best of them probably being the combined “sidecar” approach.

However, there is another way forward.  This way will upset many, since it will not result in a public option, but it will still lead to meaningful reform that can pass and last.  This option is simple: do whatever Olympia Snowe wants.  This may seem ridiculous to many on the left, who do not want to trust their healthcare plan to a Republican, but it is a very reasonable plan.  Unlike many Republicans, Olympia Snowe wants healthcare reform.  She has actually proposed alternatives to the Democrats’ plan that will be actual reform, as opposed to the so-called “Republican Alternatives” that are mostly just joke plans to make the Republicans look less like obstructionists.  Her alternatives are worth another look, as she could be the 60th vote for meaningful reform.

Olympia Snowe has proposed a plan with a trigger, which activates the public option in states where certain conditions are not met, a health insurance exchange, and various other things that are parts of real reform.  Yes, it isn’t the public option.  However, it is time to stop looking at the ends, and not the means.  Does it get real results?  Yes.  It influences insurers to improve their practices, or else they end up getting forced to compete with a public option.  In the presence of the trigger, market based reform will happen faster, as the sword of Damocles will be hanging over the insurers’ heads.   They must either improve their practices, or they must compete with the inherently better public option.  under such circumstances, we will either get reform from the insurers, or we will get a public option.

This plan has most of the necessary components of reform, and is probably one of the best possible bills we can get.  Snowe is crucial to a Democratic agenda right now, so it is absolutely necessary that we start anew and pass a bill that has her support.  This not only will get us health reform; it also will make us look more bipartisan, and will help us do better in the midterms, as the effects of supporting healthcare reform will hurt those up for reelection even more if we don’t pass a bill than if we do.  We still have a road to 60, if we work at it, and compromise in the way that Washington has forgotten how to.

A couple thoughts:

1) this poll does not mean that Democrats are hurting.  It is more a factor of Martha Coakley’s huge lack of favorability.  Obama is still polling at 55% in MA in that poll, so most of the votes against her aren’t anti-Obama or anti-Democrat.  She is a bad candidate, has never run in a competitive race before, won the primary by running the clock down, and is not a likeable person.  These factors result in her terrible poll numbers.

2) Scott Brown is bad news for Democrats regardless.  He has been able to raise $1,000,000 a day.  This shows the fighting spirit of conservative activists.  His campaign will be used as a model against us even if he loses.  Also, this race has proven that the “teabagger” smear isn’t as effective as Democrats had hoped.

3) Coakley’s political career is over.  If she loses, Democrats will never forgive her, and she will never run again.  If she wins, she will be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2012, and may even choose to pull a Dodd, if public opinion of her doesn’t improve.

1) he doesn’t represent MA interests at all.  He is a party line Republican in the bluest state.  If elected, he would represent Wyoming better than Massachusetts.  He opposes every major thing the Democrats support, including health care, cap and trade, and the repeal of DOMA.  His truck ad is another example of this.  Message for Scott Brown: if you want to look like an average Massachusetts voter, and you don’t want to drive a hybrid, at least get a Toyota Camry or something.  Perhaps the gas guzzling pick up truck (17 MPG, if it is, as I believe, a GMC Canyon) is the reason his per diems are so high…

2) He doesn’t take well to criticism.  First, there was the King Philip High School incident, in which he got up at a high school assembly, and abused his position to read inappropriate comments some students wrote about him online.  This shows he is incredibly petty, and can’t handle being criticized.  It further shows his willingness to abuse his position of power to get revenge.

Second, Blue Mass Group had a “Mock the Logo” Contest to make fun of Scott Brown’s logo, in which they said of Brown’s logo: “whatever that image is meant to be, when you slap it next to the word ‘BROWN,’ all I see is comic strip-style stink-lines emanating from a turd.”  After this Scott Brown first removed, then changed his logo, to look less like a turd.  (before and after posted below)

Before BMG criticism (the so-called "turd" logo)

After BMG criticism (the current logo)

Third, Scott Brown recently launched his first attack ad.  About what, you may ask?  Fells River Day care? No.  Coakley’s handling of the Big Dig lawsuits? No.  Coakley’s flip-flopping on abortion provisions in the healthcare bill?  No.  Instead, he attacks her for running an attack ad against him.  Well, I hate to tell you this, Scott, but attack ads are a part of politics.  Either stop complaining, or suspend your campaign to go cry in a corner.

Handling criticism is an important part of being a politician.  Many politicians have tons of vile things said about them online.  Many people question our President’s citizenship and make him look like Hitler online.  Tons of downright libelous stuff is out there.  However, most politicians just brush it off because of how absurd it is, then go on with their lives.  Unfortunately, Scott Brown doesn’t.  If he becomes our next Senator, things will get even worse.  Instead of a few bloggers at Blue Mass Group, or a group of high schoolers on Facebook, he will take tons of criticism from Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and other such cable news hosts.  If he can’t put up with it, he is doomed to failure.  Public figures can’t have feelings like the rest of us do.  They have to learn how to deal with the criticism, since it will be all around them.

3) He is a total hypocrite.  He rails against government spending, but rakes in the per diems, despite being from Wrentham, which isn’t too far, and is relatively close to commuter rail stations (under 3 miles from the Franklin stop).  He is the ninth-highest collector of per diems in the State Senate, despite his relative proximity, and his income from his private law practice, legislative salary, and party leadership position.  He made $3,536 in 2009 off per diems, according to the Boston Herald. This indicates someone who is willing to criticize government waste when someone else does it, but is perfectly willing to accept it when he does it.  Scott Brown is a Pharisee who enjoys the holier-than-thou criticism of wasteful spending, which makes him look good in front of the people.  But Massachusetts voters are smarter than that.  Let’s elect someone who represents us.  This Tuesday, let’s elect Martha Coakley

1) complete the South Coast Rail Link.  This will bring in more tourism, and allow people from that area to commute to Boston easier.  It will improve the situation of residents of this region greatly, giving them much better access to Boston.  This will also build business in Boston itself.

2) Create a Cape, South Coast, and Islands Congressional district.  In the next redistricting, it is possible that there could be a district carved out of this region.  This would be better for its inhabitants, giving them more access to their Congressman, who would be a local (although Delahunt does have excellent constituent services in Hyannis and Barney Frank in Dartmouth)

“The Globe poll explicitly mentions the name of the third-party candidate, the libertarian Joe Kennedy, and gives him 5 percent of the vote. The Rasmussen poll does not mention him by name, but provides a choice for “some other candidate”, who gets 1 percent. And PPP does not provide for a third party option at all. You can make a case either way here; although Kennedy is participating in the debates and getting a bit more attention than usual, there’s also some history of polls overstating the margins that third-party candidates receive on Election Day.”

This Globe poll, by the way, is the one showing Coakley up by 15%.  I believe that it is the most accurate; as Joe Kennedy appears in this poll.  While many want to write him off, the fact is that his name is on the ballot.  And, it just so happens that his name is Kennedy.  And, he’s a tea party candidate.  These factors will combine to get him a small, but significant percentage of the anti-Coakley vote.  Scott Brown has a huge problem in that, while most Coakley voters are voting for her because of who she is, or because she’s a Democrat, etc., most of his voters are voting for him because he isn’t Martha Coakley.  Joe Kennedy stands to gain from this anti-Coakley sentiment at the polls; this is why he will take votes more from Brown than Coakley.  As such, the numbers will resemble those in the Globe poll.

Furthermore, the Rasmussen poll shows far too few Independents in its numbers, and the PPP poll shows Obama’s approval rating as below the national average.  These hint at a sample that does not represent the electorate.  The Globe poll appears to avoid these problems.

Just a quick guess on the final result: Coakley 52, Brown 41, Kennedy 7

I do not doubt their polling numbers for Coakley.  Unfortunately, Coakley is a polarizing figure, and a lot of Democrats don’t like her.  Everyone else despises her.  She’s not a very good candidate, was only an OK AG, and only won the primary by running out the clock in a 4-way race against 3 others who hadn’t run statewide before.  That strategy won’t work in the general.  There is also the enthusiasm gap, as we saw in VA and NJ, which will hurt her more.

Then, why do I still think that she is almost guaranteed victory?  Simple.  While the lessons of VA and NJ are somewhat applicable  here, the race which this can best be compared to is NY-23.  This race is a 3-way race between a Democrat (Coakley), a Republican (Brown), and a tea party candidate (Joe Kennedy).  Current polling does not include Joe Kennedy, which is a major mistake, as he will be crucial to this race.  Many tea party members and other far right wing voters think that Scott Brown is too soft.  They prefer the hardline anti-government candidate Joe Kennedy.  While this is not a significant portion of MA voters, it is a significant enough amount of Brown’s base that Martha Coakley will still win.  The pollsters may be right.  She might just get 50% or less.  However, she will still win, in the same manner Bill Owens beat Doug Hoffman.  If it can be done in upstate New York, we can definitely do it in MA

The main reason Brown has support is not because people support him.  It is because people don’t like Coakley.  Many disillusioned Democrats and Independents will choose to vote for Joe Kennedy, who is on the ballot as an independent.  He also stands to gain from the fact that he shares his name with an incredibly popular former Congressman, who was a member of the actual Kennedy family.  These factors will cause a good portion of the protest vote to shift over to his side.  He will also get the vote of uninformed people who go in to vote, see that his name is Kennedy, and vote for him because of it.

Coakley will also pull in the big guns.  Bill Clinton will campaign for her, so will John Kerry.  More endorsements will trickle in, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw Obama or Biden out here.  These will fire up the Democratic base, and get them to rally behind a mediocre candidate like Coakley.  However, despite these endorsements, there is one person alone who is the biggest threat to Scott Brown.  That person is Joe Kennedy.

2) Tim Cahill is not a viable alternative.  He is corrupt, engaging in indirect pay-to-play in a DiMasi-esque manner.

3) Both Republican candidates are not your average Republican.  Neither of them support across the board spending cuts, preferring mere streamlining.  They both have various issues they are liberal on.  Christy Mihos supports expanding the MBTA massively, with a Blue Line Expansion to Lynn, the creation of a light rail service to replace the Silver Line in Roxbury, and the South Coast Rail Link.  Charlie Baker supports gay rights (his running mate, Senate Minority Leader. Richard Tisei, is openly gay), pension reform, education reform (and I will argue here that supporting charter schools is a progressive reform, despite what the teachers’ unions say [c.f. Alan Khazei's position on education]), and some form of healthcare reform, however watered down (although a part of that is switching MassHealth to a managed care model, which I feel would be disastrous).

And, the most important reason:

4)  Regardless of who wins the gubernatorial election, the General Court is still in charge.  And Democrats have a supermajority in both houses of the General Court