More Signs of Coakley Trouble
I previously posted that Martha Coakley’s campaign appeared to be overstating its financial strength by hyping its primary fundraising numbers, almost all of which was spent during the primary. Coakley has not released her post-primary fundraising numbers.
Coakley has been surprisingly quiet for someone who supposedly had tons of money. She has only recently rolled out television advertising, and in a smaller ad buy than she did during the primary.
Now news that Coakley, who has been criticized for taking vacation in the middle of the special election and creating a “diva” image, is heading to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday for a fundraiser:
The whole Massachusetts delegation, including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and the state’s 10 Democratic House members, are headlining the Jan. 12 fundraiser at Sonoma Wine Bar on Capitol Hill, hosted by Kerry 2004 presidential campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and deputy campaign manager Steve Elmendorf, lobbyists Heather and Tony Podesta and others.
Hosts are asked to raise $10,000, co-hosts $5,000 and guests are asked for a $1,000 check.
While Coakley likely will raise substantial dollars, taking yet another day off the campaign trail just a week before the election is another sign that Coakley may not have as much in the bank as she claims.
And note to Brown campaign, hammer Coakley for attending a fundraiser with lobbyists!
Another sign that Brown may be running strong is that pro-Brown outside groups have started running ads (below) on television in Massachusetts. As Red Mass Group reports, the fact that outside conservative groups are spending hundreds of thousand of dollars most likely is a reflection that their own polling at least confirms Rasmussen.
I’m not sure this type of politics-as-usual negative advertising actually helps Brown, but once the race went national, it was inevitable. Expect the Unions to run negative ads against Brown. [Added] Brown has criticized intervention in the campaign by outside forces, perhaps because he knows what is coming from the other side if polling this weekend confirms that the race is tight.
The fact that this is a dog-fight is not what Coakley expected. While she has run statewide, it was largely unopposed.
Coakley’s blundering has Democrats in dismay, and all signs point to a campaign which should be taking a walk in the park but is stuck in the mud.
Update: Perhaps the best sign is that the NY Times has started spinning really hard for Coakley. Nothing to see in Massachusetts, move along.
And this Tweet last night from Public Policy Polling indicates that things may get interesting:
Update No. 2: It’s On – Push Polling “Hate Group” Support for Brown
Coakley $25 Tweet A Sign of Trouble
What’s Martha Afraid Of? Part 2
Scott Brown Has Won The Online Race / Update – AstroTweeting
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I read that negative ads back and forth can depress turnout. Could it help Brown in that way?
Why did she try to stop a firefighter's lawsuit for disability? She tried to have it thrown out of court but was over ruled by the judge who wanted to hear it. A firefighter was first injured in 2000 and returned to work. He was injured a few years later and also returned to work. He was injured again and was not allowed to return to work by orders of his doctor. He applied for disability – and she wanted to count his pay only up to 2000 and ignore the work he did do until 2007. (I may be off by one year but the situation is accurate.) Nasty woman. Also, the fiasco she caused with the child care "satinists" is another reason she is not qualified to lead the people of MA. Go, Brown!
It's difficult to judge what a person will be like as a Senator (or any other job, really) before they have it.
Judging by her record, though, all I can say is this: a Sen. Martha Coakley might actually make Ted Kennedy look good.
I'm a Massachusetts voter, and I'm voting for Scott Brown on the 19th.
Daniel in Brookline
I don't know if this scales, but I think if I were a right-leaning voter in a blue state, negative attack ads on "my" candidate would only make me more determined to vote.
Then again, just having a "my" candidate would probably accomplish the same thing.
"The fact that this is a dog-fight is not what Coakley expected."
You can say that again!
This has (or should have) forced her to throw her entire campaign strategy out the window — not to just shift tactics.
That is one of the most unsettling and difficult things for a campaign to recover from, for several reasons.
First, the whispering and finger-pointing starts within the campaign about whose fault it is — who was the idiot who failed to connect the dots? People lose faith and start to panic.
Secondly, that is when those running the campaign — or the candidate herself — are most likely to sucumb to the frustration and actually blunder by making a very noticable mistake. If her response is to just "fire up" the Democrat base, she loses!
Brown is successfully exploiting a huge pool of potential voters — independent voters — that her campaign had calculated would never be a factor. Fully 50% of Massachusetts voters self-identify as independents! And they are seemingly energized for him right now.
Notice how, in the NYT story, both the writer of the story and Democrat strategist, Mary Anne Marsh, try to "spin" that away by attacking the premise of the Rasmussen poll:
The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said.
"The only people who come out in an election like this," Ms. Marsh said, "are the diehards."
As noted in the Sun Chronicle story, the Rasmussen poll itself answered that point:
Furthermore, the Rasmussen poll said Republicans supporting Brown were much more motivated to vote in a special election Jan. 19 than Democrats because of their dislike of health care reform.
"Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote, and it is clear from the data that Brown's supporters are more enthusiastic," the poll said.
The only somewhat puzzling comment in the Rasmussen poll, is the blanket statement that a low turnout would be good for him. At this point, that is only true if it is a low turnout of Democrat voters. An unexpectedly high turnout of independents gives him his best shot.
If he wins this race, I can't wait to read the New York Times editorial sniffing about how the election does not meet their standards.
Thank you for your 'Blog of the Day' recoginition.
The VotingFemale Speaks! blog is work inspired by a dedicated group of blog members who's constant inspiration keeps me charged and charging… they are selfless servers of the best interests of the Majority of Americans who will see this government takeover to the unavoidable conclusion of a voter reset.
Your work to publicize Scott Brown's campaign has obviously gotten the attention of many conservatives, and the GOP, along with the Rasmussen survey… Scott Rasmussen is, I am sure, aware of your efforts and your Scott Brown blogposts and likely was motivated to perform and publish his survey on this Senate race as a result.
I read where the GOP is now coming to the aid of the Scott Brown Campaign.
Thank you for your work to this end… resetting Martha Coakley in Massachusetts would be a serious coup and a blow to the DEM Party.
As for the comment in the New York Times article you posted the link to, above, sniffing about the Rasmussen poll which they said "does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times," here is an example of a poll taken in mid-October of last fall, and touted by the NYT in the NYT article by David M. Halbfinger and Megan Thee-Brenan, for the very obvious reason that it was the NYT poll!
I would draw your attention to the following two statements from that story, reporting their own poll:
"These [pro-Obama] findings, in the latest New York Times poll, could bolster the Democratic incumbent, Jon S. Corzine, who has latched onto Mr. Obama and persuaded many voters that his Republican opponent, Christopher J. Christie, favors policies that would help the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
. . .
Among all registered voters, Mr. Corzine had the support of 40 percent, Mr. Christie 30 percent and Mr. Daggett 13 percent. When narrowed to those determined to be likely voters, Mr. Corzine is still at 40 percent, while Mr. Christie receives 37 percent — a gap that is within the margin of sampling error — and Mr. Daggett draws 14 percent."
Oooooops! The only number that came anywhere near close to the results a little over two weeks later, was the number for Corzine.
Everything else was fantasy.
But, it met the NYT standards!
it's a good add; not negative (personally). The GOP should consistently call it something more explicatory: e.g., The Democratic Kickback Bill … or the Democratic Slush Fund Bill.
The interesting thing is that there are conservative Democrats, such as the guys at Hillbuzz who are helping Scott Brown. These are the people who will man the telephone banks to help the candidate, even when they come from another state (they are from Chicago).
They have real incentive on the issue – they do not want another "yes" person in the Senate. They want to see the the Deathcare bill scuttled.