Massachusetts Senate: PPP says race "losable" for Democrats

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 14:59


Looks like the Rasmussen poll on the January 19th special election for Massachusetts Senate was not a fluke.  From Public Policy Polling:

Because of the heavy interest we'll try to get our Massachusetts numbers out over the weekend. But because we've already conducted most of the interviews for it here are some of the major storylines we're seeing:

At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they're going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy's legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.

Scott Brown's favorables are up around 60%, a product of his having had the airwaves to himself for the last week.

It will be necessary to wait for the actual numbers to determine just how winnable this campaign is for Republicans.

As we wait, I think there are some other lessons we can learn about the 2010 Senate picture from this development.  Specifically, due to ongoing or emerging polling woese, Democratic chances of winning the Senate races in North Dakota (if Hoeven runs), Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas and Kentucky are virtually nil (see my latest Senate forecast and recent Rasmussen polls from Kentucky and Arkansas for more on this).  One caveat is that Democratic chances in Arkansas and Nevada would be improved if incumbents Reid and Lincoln decided not to run for re-election.

This negative scenario puts Demorats in a four seat hole before we even start looking at the relative toss-ups in Delaware (if Biden runs), Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Even if Dems sweep those five seats, that still gives Republicans a two-seat net gain.  So, even in the realistic base-case scenario, Democrats will need two Republican votes to pass pretty much anything as long as the 60-vote culture remains in place.

In other words, a year from now, Democrats won't be able to much much of anything through Congress, even compared to current levels. Hell, if Scott Brown pulls off the upset in Massachusetts, they won't even be able to pass the health care bill.  

Chris Bowers :: Massachusetts Senate: PPP says race "losable" for Democrats

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Massachusetts Senate: PPP says race "losable" for Democrats | 33 comments
Democrats need to bring George Bush out of the closet. (4.00 / 1)
His silence and virtual disappearance from the political scene is the Republican's best weapon right now. Everything wrought upon us economically for the past eight years is all of a sudden Obama's doing. It's Obama's economy, we are told. And the Republicans are getting away with it.
Bad idea (4.00 / 1)
I highly doubt that dragging the previous president would work. Regardless of who's to blame, Obama has already accepted responsibility. He implemented the stimulus. His treasury secretary is linked to bailout scandals. He reappointed Bernanke. It is his economy and trying to pin the blame elsewhere will never work.

I'm sure you heard the saying before that "the buck stops here". Well the buck stops with the president, not the last president.

[ Parent ]
re: economy (4.00 / 2)
Regardless of who's to blame, Obama has already accepted responsibility.

where did he do that?

trying to pin the blame elsewhere will never work.

I don't want to pin the blame elsewhere

I want to pin it where it belongs

Obama is calling the shots now and he certainly deserves to be blamed for some things he's doing, but he's not the one that drove us into the ditch.

[ Parent ]
It's 2010 now! Most people won't accept Bush as a scapegoat anymore. (0.00 / 0)
Sry, but this dog won't hunt anymore. Obama had more than enough time to correct the course. But he didn't try hard enough. His bailout centered stimulus is too little, too lame. And he didn't try any big changes, like reducing defense spending in favor of more job creating infrastructure programs. No big Keynesian spending that reliable economists demand. Reaqlly, Obama can't successful put the blame on Bush when it's evident that he himself acts to halfheartedly to fight the recession.

No, it's his economy now, and he should better come up with solutions instead of fingerpointing!

[ Parent ]
Why not pin the blame on the Congressional Republicans (4.00 / 1)
who are actually the people we're running against, many of whom were there supporting Bush when he drove the economy into the ground, and would do so again if given the majority and the opportunity?

That seems a lot more relevant than Bush.  This fixation with Bush has to stop when the problem isn't Bush, it's the whole damn conservative movement.

[ Parent ]
It's a bit difficult regarding the Dem majority in Congress. (4.00 / 1)
Dems have a solid majority in the House, and apparently (not real) a supermajority in Senate. How do you want to convince people under these circumstances that the rethuglicans are still the problem? That's quite difficult. Honestly, I am not convinced, too. Right now, the Dems are the problem, not the GOP.  
[ Parent ]
The point is, the Republicans running want to reimplement the policies (0.00 / 0)
that led to economic disaster.  So, as bad as things might seem now, they'll get even worse if Republicans come back to power, because we all know exactly what they would do.

Besides which, there have been some economic gains, and there will be more if Democrats pass a jobs bill this year.

[ Parent ]
Sure. But as long as the GOP doesn't have a majoirty again... (0.00 / 0)
...responsibility lies on the Dems' side. The conomic gains so fair are insuffcient, the US can't afford a slow, jobless recovery. Another jobs bill this year is indispensable, and we can only hope that the Dems don't screw this up like they did with HCR.
[ Parent ]
Obama twisted arms to pass the bailout (0.00 / 0)
remember when J.S. McCain "suspended" his campaign?

He owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

[ Parent ]
Uh, not "all off a sudden"! (0.00 / 0)
We had a discussionhere about this about two months or so ago. Then, polls showed that the voters still put the blame for th recession on Bush, but that their patience with Obama to correct the course ran out. That trend still continues. It's then months that Obama is in office now, and we don't have 2009, but 2010 now. And, face it, the WH programs for creating jobs hav been less than convincing, because too much money went into bailouts instead of job creating measures.

No, sry, but the public isn't changing "all of a sudden" its mind, but is slowly but surely becoming severely disappointed about this lame "change". And the people are right! It's becoming Obama's economy now, and he doesn't seem to be able to give it any impulses.

[ Parent ]
Coakley's been silent? (4.00 / 1)
Wtf... The election is just a few days away, why is she silent now?  I'm sorry, even in MA you can't just sit back and hope that the Dem advantage is going to carry you through, especially this year.

If we lose this seat we are absolutely screwed come November.

I always thought Coakley was kinda tepid (4.00 / 1)
which is one of the reasons why I supported Capuano.

And by "tepid" I don't mean personal temperament.  If anything, Coakley's laid-back demeanor is a lot more agreeable than Capuano's irritatingly blustery manner.  I mean the kind of positions one takes and how outspoken one is about them.  Coakley seems to have been running on a play-it-safe, just-get-by kind of message.

[ Parent ]
its all Obama's fault (0.00 / 0)
right?
no surprise if MA voters are opposed to fed HCR. (4.00 / 1)
At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill.

why shouldn't we?

both the house and senate bills look to be worse than the romneycare we have. the only possible benefit would be extra fed $$$, but undermining our state insurance regulators would be a horrible development.

um because Coakley wants a more progressive bill (0.00 / 0)
and Brown would essentially kill any HCR for years. Coakley would at least give a fighting shot to revisiting the issue.

[ Parent ]
If he somehow manages to win - and she better hope for good weather (4.00 / 1)
because the Republicans I know would crawl, get frostbite, shovel themselves out~ for the first time ever probably cause someone 'else' usually shovels for them~ to vote for this guy during a raging blizzard if one occurs.

She needs Unenrolled ( MA speak for Independents)women and the base of the Democratic Party in MA to turn out.

Her campaign has been AWFUL and she was called on it by a columnist for The Globe just a few days ago.

Back to what I started to say - if he manages to win this special election he'll be in DC for a term  which will last 2 years - the rest of Kennedy's term ONLY.

He will not be re-elected, that much I am willing to state with confidence and I live in MA.

This race is as close as they are saying, that's the sense I'm getting from talking to people( I know it's anecdotal); people initiate political discussions with me because they know I am involved locally with politics.

Martha better get to work CAMPAINGING cause so far she's been MIA.

[ Parent ]
Still (0.00 / 0)
that means revisiting HCR is dead until 2013 at the earliest.

[ Parent ]
Not if we eliminate or modify the filibuster... (0.00 / 0)
Eliminating the filibuster is probably out of the question, but modifying it in some way (e.g. the Harkin-Lieberman proposal of lowering the threshold with each vote) might be within reach.
[ Parent ]
Which won't happen if Coakley loses (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Which MAY happen if Coakley loses! (0.00 / 0)
What else are the Dems gonna do then? It's the nuclear option or total freeze! With 41 Senators, rethuglicans would block everything, and we've seen not even Snowe will break the ranks. Hell, maybe losing that seat is exactly what the Dem Senators need to finally kill the ugly beast filibuster.
[ Parent ]
or lower medicare at 55 via reconciliation (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You know it, I know it, most OpenLefters know it: (4.00 / 2)
but is any of this reaching the Inner Circle?

Do they care?

Probably not! .. (4.00 / 2)
because they seem to have forgotten that it's all about turn out ... and if you don't fire up the base ... then what do you have?  The Democrats seem to love to depress base turn out in non-Presidential years
[ Parent ]
"her election is critical to health care passing" Not a good argument! (4.00 / 1)
Really, I'm wondering about the PPP folks. Did it escape the attention of those pros that healthcare reform is unpopular? How do they want to motivate voters with a message that comes with such negative feelings? I have some friends in advertising, and they are extremely careful to avoid coupling their product with displeaqsing impressions. Afaik that's advertising 101.

No, Coakley vcan't run piggypack on healthcare. No Dem can. Remembering people of Ted Kennedy may be a better idea. But, for heaven's sake, she should also be able to come up with some strong points why she is vastly superior to ther rethuglicaqn counterpart! If she can't, she deserves to lose, like that idiot Deeds did. Simply saying "the other guy is even worse" isn't good enough!

It's not unpopular in MA... (0.00 / 0)
...even Rasmussen says so!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Well, but a considerable share of Dems has negative feelings about it. (0.00 / 0)
It's one thing to support the bill as a slight improvement over the status quo. It's another to see it as a big enough deal that deserves to weigh in. As I see it, emotions trump rational considerations, and the underwhelming enthusiasm about the crap makes it a very bad argument for motivating voters.

But don't rely on me, ask some advertising pros. I'm sure they'll say the negative image of the bill, because of all the corruption, backpedalling, strongarming, and broken promises surrounding it, make it a very bad argument for a campaign.  

[ Parent ]
Don't forget, Deeds tried to run on a rational argument... (0.00 / 0)
...instead of an empotional, too. And look how that played out for him!

"the other guy is even worse" is a rational argument. And "without me halthcare won't pass, too". Regardless if people support healthcare, for the overwhelming majority, evn among registered Dems, it comes with negative feelings after all the horrible brouhaha, that's undeniable! But you need positiv feeling to motivate people into positive action that requires time and efforts.

No, the more I think about  it, the more I' afraid the healthcare argument would seriously backfire. Well, let's see how the pros in Coakley's campaign will try to sell their product.
'

[ Parent ]
Btw, if Obama wants his shitty healthcare passed, he should do something... (4.00 / 1)
..to make it happen. Like sending out his OFA volunteeers to stomp for Coakley (and they better speak about anything but healthcare). Emanuell, Plouffe and cou better shouldn't expect progressive roots to do that job. Many want the crap to fail, even if it means losing a Senate seat. After all, this debacle has shown that the supermajority isn't good for anything anyway.
[ Parent ]
We're not going to lose Colorado. (0.00 / 0)
Jane Norton is a flawed candidate and campaigner who is doing everything wrong.  We could lose Colorado, but I think we have a 70% chance of retaining it.

I know you have a lot invested in your current forecasting method, and that's fine.  Certain types of candidate strengths or weaknesses systematically fail to appear in early polling: good or bad fundraising, good or bad issue positioning, discipline or disaster in the candidate's own speech patterns.  These things all come to a head late in the campaign and incorporate themselves into final polling averages, but they're visible to close observers early on although not apparent in early polls.  It's a weakness of early polling that I'm sure you prefer to accept as the price of rejecting "insider" evaluations.  Presumably you acknowledge it exists though.

Anyway, Jane Norton has been moving right to capture the teabagger crowd and she's been doing so in inarticulate and inartful ways (saying stupid crazy shit).  It remains to be seen if she'll keep it up or get muzzled, but Bennet is a much smoother and more capable candidate than she, and that does count for something.

I am starting to worry about Lexi Giannoulias though.  

Perhaps you're counting on all such factors, taken together across all races, cancelling each other out.  That's not completely true, since one party generally has a much stronger recruiting class than another so these factors tend to favor one side overall.  But at least that would be a roughly reasonable stance to take.

Yeah, I've always been skeptical about the bad polls in CO (0.00 / 0)
because I think a lot of it has to do with low name recognition.  Bennet's been raising a lot of money and seems to be a savvy politician, and Romanoff is supposedly quite popular (or at least a known quantity).

I'm not terribly worried about IL either.  I think it's another name recognition thing and Kirk has very thin leads over Giannoulias.

[ Parent ]
I'm sooooo glad Obama capitalized on his momentum (0.00 / 0)
Nothing like hitting the ground...with a splat.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Coakley's loss would be a good thing... (0.00 / 0)
I do not support the healthcare reform bill as it would force me to buy health insurance that I do not want at a price I do not want to pay.  I am one of the low income people who does not want to be taxed disproportionately by the mandate.

When Chris Bowers first mentioned Coakley losing would kill healthcare reform and therefore those opposed to the bill should support Brown, I had to think about it.  I have not supported a Republican win for a long long time.  

I understand all the reasons that are put forward about the current bill being a good first step, blah, blah, blah.  But I say that the reverse could easily happen.  The subsidies could be made less generous, the allowable medical loss ratio could be allowed to become lower, etc.  

If Brown wins, the fiction that we need a lousy bill to reach 60 would be dead.  The only way to proceed would be to use reconciliation and then we would get something better out of the Senate.  

So I hope Coakley loses.

Unfortunately… (0.00 / 0)
...this looks like the Dem future. When everyone knows the healthcare bill's a dog and it's the thing that's hogging the news cycle, there's no way for a Dem to get any mileage out of it. Personally, I think this healthcare bill spits on Kennedy's grave, but the idea of a GOP-er taking the seat of the Liberal Lion of the Senate is the graver danger. Rock, meet Hard Place...

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
Massachusetts Senate: PPP says race "losable" for Democrats | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox