Coakley vs. Brown
 

This is fascinating.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...7468963846.pdf

If this holds it would be one of the biggest upsets ever. Think App. State over Michigan or Boise State over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

I was waiting for someone to post about this - it's HUGE news, and would be completely shocking if Brown came all the way back and won. I've been a Brown fan for quite some time, since he originally ran for state senate back in 03/04. My wife worked with some people who are now on the campaign, so I'd be happy for them as well.

Coakley has run one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. She had a lot of momentum going into the election, having been a successful District Attorney and being the current AG. Boston-area lawyers are heavily Democrat, and Coakley was getting a lot of money thrown her way. She sat back at the beginning of the campaign and was a little lazy in her campaign strategy, and for some reason allowed Brown to get out in front on issues. By the time she adopted an active campaign strategy, she's ended up leaning towards attack ads, and it hasn't really helped.

Plus, she's made some unfortunate statements (including referring to Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan), which haven't helped.

If Coakley loses this race, she has no one to blame but herself - she ran a horrible campaign (on the level of the Dukakis Presidential campaign and Tom Reilly's campaign for MA Governor).

Go Brown! :)

I agree completely!

And Coakley's claim that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan probably didn't help her cause, either.

One of the things I think is entertaining about this campaign is watching the right-y bloggers that I read try to find the right amount of enthusiasm.

First, they don't know how realistic chances for the win are and then they have to constantly keep themselves from overheating by reminding themselves that he's likely to be a liberal Republican, but they'll definitely take what they can get in Massachusetts.

He's not that liberal though...he's conservative on economics, gun rights, the death penalty, and on marriage laws (i.e. he thinks marriage should be limited to a man and a woman).

He's not on the far right, but he's definitely not a liberal Republican.

I wasn't thinking so much that he was actually liberal in comparison to the whole electorate, just in comparison conservative bloggers.

ETA: I haven't looked at his record at all really before today. The bloggers weren't anti-Brown at all, but were just noting kind of where things stood that the right was this fired up over a fairly moderate guy and was it wise to be.

Oh, I definitely understand what you're saying. Brown is probably more moderate than the most vocal conservatives (which is another topic that I can get fired up about). But, it's not like MA would be electing a RINO if Brown were to win.

I think people tend to make the same mistake with MA that they do with NY. They put a lot of emphasis on the most liberal areas (around NYC and around Boston) and forget that both states have areas that are heavily conservative (upstate NY and western MA).

It's true that the conservative areas have less population, but they're still large enough to make a difference when properly mobilized. This election has been a interesting combination of circumstances: Brown has run an excellent campaign, and Coakley has run a terrible campaign. Unlike the Kennedy/Romney race in 1994 (where Kennedy mounted a great charge near the end), Coakley may have waited too long to actively work for the job.

People do that with Michigan as well. They forget that most of the geographic state is red, but the part that is blue has the highest population. We had a Republican for 8 years before our current Democratic Governor. We went Reagan. Our state congress is Republican. Yet, people think we're totally blue.

Absolutely. I know some professional politicos who are absolutely beside themselves with her self destruction. This was a race that was hers to lose, and it shouldn't even have been this close.

The rest I'll save for when the votes are counted.

The media story I saw about it yesterday morning implied that this is essentially an election about national health care and that, since Massachusetts already has their own health plan, many are against national health care. What do those closer to this state think of this analysis?

A couple of issues with this (I think the healthcare issue is overblown as it relates to MA):

1) While the MA legislature is heavily Democrat, most of the Governors over the past 10-15 years have been Republicans (and not just RINOs). The voters aren't afraid of voting in a Republican if they think he/she is the best person for the job.

2) It can't be overstated that Coakley has run a TERRIBLE campaign, as in historically terrible. She assumed that her party affiliation, when combined with name recognition, would float her into office. She completely underestimated the fact that Brown would seriously campaign for the seat, and that he'd have a lot of support in doing so. Everyone talks about how this election is "too important," and I understand that sentiment. However, Coakley didn't seem to put a lot of effort into the thing until the last week or two.

On this: I have a ton of respect for what Kennedy did as a Senator, and I think he worked tremendously hard for Massachusetts. Massachusetts residents felt the same way, and I think they're really turned off by the fact that Coakley has done so little in pursuing the seat.

3) The economy issue is huge, especially in the poorer areas of the Commonwealth. Brown has at least tried to answer those concerns, and again, Coakley waited too long to do so.

I'm not naive enough to think that the healthcare debate is completely absent from people's minds. I think it's an issue, and there are probably a lot of people who are voting based on that issue (on both sides). However, I think there are a lot of other issues at play.

ETA: I'm not saying that any one of these reasons is a good reason to vote for one candidate or the other. These are just things I've heard from people who live in MA or who work in politics in MA.

4) Scott Brown is a GOOD GUY. Everyone who meets him says that he truly listens to the citizens of the state, and he's someone they can trust. Being from this state originally, I still know a lot of people from there. Interestingly enough, I have had both Republicans and Democrats of MA tell me that a reason they're voting for Brown is because he reminds them of Senator Kennedy. Many people, even if they didn't agree with his policies, could agree that Kennedy was someone that was passionate about what he believed in, and was a "man of the people". They also see that in Scott Brown.

Definitely, likeability is a big factor. On the other side, Coakley has not played up the likeability factor (or really any other factor) in her campaigning.

I think it comes from Detroit. When I see Michigan on TV regarding politics or the economy the focus is always on Detroit. Detroit is a part of Michigan...not all of Michigan.