Please donate via ActBlue to Martha Coakley's campaign.
Massachusetts isn't the likeliest backdrop for Republicans to begin their long climb back to a Senate majority. Democrats control both of the state's U.S. Senate seats, the governorship, all 10 House seats and wide majorities in the state legislature.Special elections are always tough. There's usually low voter turnout, so whichever side is motivated wins. And, the Republicans are motivated.
And yet, the buzz in political circles over the past week is that state Sen. Scott Brown is rapidly making up ground on state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Jan. 19 special election to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy -- movement that has Democrats scrambling to ensure they keep what should be a sure thing in their column.
The GOP candidate, Scott Brown, would fit right in with the likes of Jim DeMint, David Vitter, Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell. He's not a moderate. He trashed gay couples who want children, saying it was "not normal" and got into a public fight with a bunch of teenagers over gay marriage.
Because special elections are low turnout -- and this one is happening in the middle of January, the Democrats need to do everything possible to increase Democratic turnout. Cillizza reports that Bill Clinton will be heading to Massachusetts this week. But what about President Obama?
According to the Public Policy Polling poll (they're pollsters we actually trust), Obama's approval rating in Massachusetts is 44% (43% disapproval). That's quite stunning in a state that Obama won by a margin of 62% to 36%. It means Democratic voters are not motivated, and certainly not as motivated as they were a year ago. (We're witnessing, first hand, what happens when Democrats tick off their base.)
PPP's Tom Jensen writes that Coakley can still win:
There are a lot more potential Coakley voters than Brown ones out there in Massachusetts, but she needs to get them more energized. For instance young voters were a crucial part of the Obama coalition but they're only accounting for 11% of likely voters right now and among those planning to turn out she has just a three point advantage.In other words, in order for Coakley to win, we need Obama voters to be motivated to get out and vote. And there's only one man who can do that: Barack Obama. But Obama has yet to visit Massachusetts to stump for Coakley. This week he needs to do just that.
This is a race the Democrats should not lose, and can not afford to lose. For the next eight days, the national Democratic party, led by Barack Obama, needs to do everything possible to make sure Coakley wins. Obama needs to rally Democrats to make sure they vote. If that means going to Boston and Springfield, then that's what he needs to do. And, the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America better be in full campaign mode, too, sending regular email blasts to everyone in Massachusetts, and the surrounding states (they can still volunteer, even if they can't vote). And at least one of those email blasts has to come from the President himself.
Now, I'm sure some in the White House won't want to touch this race. After all, they'll argue, what if Obama helps Coakley and she loses? Then the media will say that Obama himself lost. News flash: If we lose Ted Kennedy's seat in liberal Massachusetts to a conservative Republican, and thus lose our quasi- 60 vote majority in the Senate, and thus endanger health care reform and the entire Democratic agenda, then you can bet the media, and the public, is going to take this as a sign that Obama lost, regardless of whether he helps or not. Isn't it better to do all he can to avoid this outcome?
Now a word on health care reform. If we lose our 60-vote majority in the Senate, then we also lose one vote for health care reform. We still have one more Senate vote on health care reform, on the conference report, in a few weeks. If Coakley loses, we'll only have 59 votes and won't be able to block a GOP filibuster. So we'll have one of two choices. Either we cave to a Republican and gut the bill even further, or the House has to pass the Senate bill, verbatim (i.e., no improvements), in order to avoid another Senate vote. (If the conference committee adopts the Senate bill, with no changes, then the Senate wouldn't have to vote again.) So much for all those promises to improve the bill in conference.
It's been bad enough watching the Democrats cave on issue after issue, and watching the White House not quite give its all for its own agenda, even with a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Just imagine how bad they're all going to be if we only have 59 votes. They're going to use the loss of Kennedy's seat as a justification for breaking promise after promise. We need to win this election next week, and the White House needs to get involved and lead.
Please donate via ActBlue to Martha Coakley's campaign.
