351 Communities

There is no spin that makes the Suffolk poll good for Democrats.  Suffolk doesn’t suffer from major house effects, they have been a pretty good pollster in the past, and they include Joe Kennedy in their polling.  Their approval ratings for Obama (55% approve) and Palin (60% disapprove) are fairly accurate, although somewhat conservative leaning, but that is probably because of the enthusiasm gap.  This is very bad news for Coakley and for Democrats.  Unfortunately, nominating Coakley has cost us much.  We now have a competitive race in MASSACHUSETTS of all places, the DSCC is wasting money there that it should be spending in Missouri, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Nevada, and Republicans have a new campaign model for 2010.  It is a lose-lose for Democrats in Massachusetts now: either we lose Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, or we win just barely, wasting DSCC funds, and setting ourselves up for many 2010 losses.  2010 will be a terrible year for Democrats unless something dramatically changes.

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.

Here’s why:

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

While other people who are much smarter than I am (e.g. Nate Silver) have done posts on this, I figure I’ll throw my own commentary out there, too.  As I’ve said before, the main thing between Scott Brown and the Senate seat is that Joe Kennedy is in the race.  They both have tea-party appeal, and Joe Kennedy steals from the furthest right elements of the base.  Nate Silver references the Joe Kennedy effect in his post, saying

“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

As you may know, a person named Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family) is running as an independent libertarian in the upcoming Senate election.  I disagree with this immensely, as he is just trying to confuse people by making them think he’s THAT Joe Kennedy, which is incredibly disingenuous.  He is nothing like the other Kennedy, and is a far-right teabagger.  I sincerely hope that Coakley does get him included in the debates, as it will expose him for who he really is, and will hurt Scott Brown in the process.  Well, he has come out with a new lie recently.  According to the Boston Globe, “Kennedy says he voted in the last three presidential elections: for Al Gore in 2000, because he preferred his stance on the environment, for George W. Bush in 2004, because he did not want to oust a president in wartime, and for Bob Barr in 2008, because he is a Libertarian.”  However, this is a lie.  As his voting record will show, Kennedy did not vote in 2004 (see picture below).  I am not sure what he is doing here.  It seems like his best bet would be to make it seem that he didn’t vote for Bush, especially given that he is running to be John Kerry’s colleague in a state where Bush is despised.  Apparently, he thinks it will fire up the tea party base or something.  All I know is that this guy is loopier than Jack E. Robinson-a feat I never thought possible.

Joe Kennedy's Voting Record