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

Well, PPP released a poll showing Scott Brown ahead of Martha Coakley 48-47.  This is terrible news for Democrats.  This cannot be attributed to house effects, and it looks like Rasmussen was right.  Mea culpa.  However, this poll still has some issues, and Coakley will almost certainly still win

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.

Massachusetts is pushing hard to get its immigrant population counted.  As such a high percentage of Massachusetts residents are immigrants (14%), this will be critical.  They are unfamiliar with the process, meaning that reaching out to them will be key in saving the 10th Congressional District and billions in federal funding.  Additionally, a private group, the Massachusetts Census Equity Fund, is raising and distributing funds to community groups to raise awareness of the census and increase the response rate, the Boston Globe reports.  Promoting the census through community groups will be key for getting the immigrants to respond, as

“Immigrants, now 14 percent of the state, are among the hardest-to-count groups for a number of reasons. Some are unfamiliar with the census, others are from countries with repressive regimes that left them reluctant to divulge personal information to the government, and a minority are here illegally and fear deportation.” (Boston Globe)

However, I think Secretary Galvin can pull things together and save our Congressional District, especially since we saw an influx of immigrants (foreign and domestic) last year.  Plus, there is much room for improvement, as

“In 2000, only 69 percent of Massachusetts households returned the form by mail, close to the national average, and it was lower in many cities where a high proportion of residents are immigrants or poor.” (Boston Globe)

Will Galvin’s strategies work?  We shall see.

I read this good news in the Globe yesterday.  There is a possibility that Massachusetts will not lose a Congressional District, after all.  For the first time in years, more people are moving to Massachusetts than leaving.  Between July 2008 and July 2009, the Massachusetts population increased by 50,000.  While this increase alone will not save a district, it is still very good news.  If this trend continues, we will have a good chance to keep the 10th CD, especially since, as reported by the Globe, Galvin’s office “will be awarding small grants to neighborhood groups, religious groups, and civic groups to persuade immigrants to participate [in the census].”  This will help us make sure everyone is counted, and will give us an advantage over other states.  Strategies like this have helped before, with eight MA cities and towns challenging their census estimates, adding 22,000 to the Massachusetts population. Galvin has the experience as Secretary of the Commonwealth, and can steer us through this census process so as to avoid losing a CD

After Tim Cahill’s appearance on On The Record this weekend, Deval is doing some preemption to try to save his hide.  That show saw Cahill using the first Marian Walsh attack of the election, and also a spending cut attack (Cahill says Deval hasn’t cut enough spending).  Knowing that Walsh, Aloisi, Grabauskas, and other mistakes will be a defining issue of this campaign, Deval said this yesterday: “Fear is going to be used as a tool in this campaign.  You watch it. I will.’’  By saying this, he is attempting to preempt his opponents from going negative on him.  It is an interesting strategy, but I don’t think it will work.  Unfortunately, there is too much to be used against him.  My prediction one year out is that the Walsh hiring will be brought up by all 3 opponents, as it is a major example of Deval’s cronyism.  I predict that the Democrats will hold steady in both houses of the General Court, but that we’ll lose the corner office.

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

As I have said earlier, I expect the last situation to happen.  However, this would mean no Representative would live in Boston, and also could irritate Lynch’s union base (he himself was a former ironworker).  As such, another scenario arises.  Currently, the Pioneer Valley has two Congressmen, Richard Neal (of Springfield) and John Olver (of Amherst).  This region has a population of about 670,000, or roughly 35,000 more than a Congressional district and less than a Congressional District after the redistricting.  Even when the Berkshires are added, the population is just over 800,000.  Furthermore, Olver is getting on in years, and would appear the closest of all MA Congressmen to age-related retirement (Barney Frank’s case is special, if the rumors about him seeking a job in the Obama administration are true; plus, his district is virtually unable to be districted out).  As such, it would make sense to create a district of Western MA, and have Olver and Neal compete in a primary (or just have Olver retire in 2012).  In such a case, McGovern would get a more reasonable district, as he would be mostly representing Worcester County with the eastern parts of Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Counties thrown in.  Here are what the districts would look like in such a scenario:

Olver's/Neal's District

McGovern's District

Tsongas' District

Frank's District

Tierney's District

Markey's District

Capuano's District

Lynch's District

Delahunt's District

So, I have tested several redistricting scenarios* with Dave’s Redistricting App, and this scenario appears to be the most likely (and pleasing to progressives).  Most of the districts will have minor shifts and expansions, and Capuano’s 8th district will get most of the city of Boston.  As such, Stephen Lynch and Mike Capuano will live in the same district, and, since Cambridge and Somerville would still be in the district, the district will still roughly be around a D+32 PVI (the neighborhoods of South Boston and Dorchester, currently in Lynch’s district, will lower this somewhat, but I predict it would still be above D+25).  Because of this redistricting, Capuano and Lynch will battle it out in a primary.  Since Lynch is a more conservative dem (I still remember the Labor Day Healthcare Rally, in which he was drowned out when speaking by chants of “Public Option”), and Capuano is a very vocal liberal, Capuano will win in this primary.  This would be a fairly equitable way to eliminate a district, as it would eliminate one of the Representatives who live within 10 miles of the State House, which, as I’ve mentioned before, is overrepresented.  This is also a good situation for progressives, as Lynch is the least progressive member of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation.  There is only one issue, and that is the strong union support for Lynch, which will make this district hard to create in the State House, as legislators with strong union backing will fight against this.  Furthermore, this scenario would eliminate the only Representative who lives in the city of Boston, which seems somewhat unequitable (although Capuano does live in nearby Somerville)

*NB: I am acting under the assumption that MA will lose a Congressional District in the 2010 redistricting.  This seems to be the general consensus among wonks

Here are what the districts look like in my model (after the jump):

Read the rest of this entry »

This blog is meant to cover everything Massachusetts, especially the politics.  I had hoped to do this on Blue Mass Group, but unfortunately, couldn’t get an account because of some technical problem (hint to BMG: fix this glitch).  I was inspired to write this blog when I looked up the residences of each MA Congressman, and realized several issues with redistricting.  These are: 1) 5 of our 10 Congressmen live within 10 miles of the State House.  2) SE Mass. has no representative that lives in it.  All of it is represented by 3 Congressmen: Bill Delahunt, of Quincy; Barney Frank, of Newton (both within 10 miles of the State House; Delahunt is within 5); and Jim McGovern, of Worcester.

5 Reps live within the first circle; 6 within the second

This makes redistricting hard, since Southeastern MA pretty much gets screwed no matter what, and inside 128 gets disproportionately represented (in the interest of full disclosure, I live within 128).  This, combined with the “slice of the pie” districts makes redistricting incredibly difficult.  I intend to be your #1 source for MA redistricting news, both speculative and actual news.  I will also cover other random things about Massachusetts politics and geography

Here is a map I’ve created of the residences of every Congressman in MA:
<a href=”
View Larger Map“>