-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A new Public Policy Polling survey -- the group's final poll before Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts -- gives Scott Brown a 5-point lead over Martha Coakley. While we've had a lot of polls that have been all over the place depending on the assumptions the pollsters make about the composition of the electorate, the new PPP poll is helpful because we can compare it to a poll taken by the same firm a week ago and detect a trend. In the poll taken by PPP last week, Brown was up 1 point. At the time, that was seen as a wake up call to Democrats that was supposed to get them to start taking the race seriously. So in the intervening week, Coakley and Democrats opened up new lines of attack, tying Brown to outside conservative groups, attack him for being in bed with Wall Street, and clumsily suggesting he wants hospitals to deny care to all rape victims. Despite this, Brown's momentum has continued to grow -- he even now receiving 20 percent support from people who voted for Obama. And while his negatives went up during the week, his favorability rating held steady at 56 percent (vs. 57 percent a week ago) while Coakley's favorables dropped from 50 percent to 44 percent after a series of gaffes.
Yet through all of the growing enthusiasm behind Brown, I'm still reminded of the New Hampshire primary in 2008. Barack Obama swept into the state fresh from his victory in Iowa with all of the momentum. He was drawing larger and more energetic crowds. And polls showed that he had erased Hillary Clinton's lead in the state and was poised for a comfortable win -- maybe even in the double digits. I vividly remember showing up at the gym at Southern New Hampshire University outside of Manchester, where Clinton's election night event was being held, and it had the feel of a funeral because even her supporters expected her to lose. And yet Clinton pulled off the victory. In the end, it turned out that Obama had too much of a gap to make up in New Hampshire. The Clinton machine was really good at turning out the vote. And the polls hadn't reflected the late-breaking news of Clinton's tear filled episode at a diner the day before the primary, which helped boost her numbers among women.
Brown isn't as well-positioned in the polls as Obama was in New Hampshire going into primary day, and most pollsters view the Massachusetts Senate race as a toss up. But the momentum for Brown, the enthusiasm of his supporters, the collapse of Coakley, have all contributed to the perception that this is now Brown's race (he's up to 63.9% on Intrade).Yet we haven't seen any polls that have reflected President Obama's visit yesterday, and just like Clinton, Coakley will have the machine behind her (actually, she'll have Clinton's machine). So, Brown still may very well win the race, it honestly could go either way. But however inept Coakley is as a candidate, however much energy Brown's campaign seems to have, I keep reminding myself that as a Republican running in Massachusetts, he needs everything to break right, and I keep thinking back to New Hampshire.
UPDATE: A lot of commenters are noting the many differences between the two races, and none of that escaped me when I wrote this post. But I was making a much narrower argument than what seemed to come across. My point isn't that because Clinton beat Obama in New Hampshire in a Democratic primary two years ago, it means that Coakley will beat Brown in a Massachusetts special Senate election tomorrow. All I'm saying is that in New Hampshire, pollsters and those of us on the ground saw grassroots energy and enthusiasm catapulting Obama to victory, but in the end it turned out that Clinton pulled it off, in no small part due to a powerful established political machine. Over the past week, I've posted a number of polls -- as well as anecdotal evidence -- showing the race moving in Brown's direction, but I've also tried to balance this with what I think is a health skepticism, especially given that we're talking about such a heavily Democratic state.
View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/18/browns-surge-and-remembering-n
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
tazmaz| 1.18.10 @ 10:42AM
Great analysis...I am optimistic but apprehensive. I don't trust the absentee ballot counting system with the reputation Dems have in this state.
Jana| 1.18.10 @ 11:06AM
I'm curious how you would take into account the fact that this is a special election, not a primary. Doesn't that change the dynamic a bit?
Franklin| 1.18.10 @ 11:14PM
Yes, it means it's more serious. I can't get too excited about Scott's chances. I'm from Minnesota. I can't stand to see another stolen election like Franken (stein).
Dj| 1.18.10 @ 11:46AM
We must not forget the weather. I think it will be a factor. I think this will be close, in Brown's favor mind you, but enough to where Marcia, Marcia, Marcia, will cry a river and take this into litigation like the Franken debacle. Either way the health care passes, albeit a Pyrrhic victory for Dems as they too will have dirty hands in order to do it. It literally will take a storming of Washington by people to stop this, are we wiling to do that? March on Washington? It is a win win situation either way for patriots. Dems pass healthcare at the threat of losing their jobs and the party, which they pretty much know, and they know they are committing suicide so they could care less as they will retire in droves this year. Republicans will pick up enough seats to keep Democrats at bay till 2012. Obama loses in 2012 either way this goes. So if Brown loses...we still win.
AM| 1.18.10 @ 1:29PM
Speaking of Hillary voters.....we haven't forgotten 5/31/2008 and the democratic party's theft of 700,000 votes.
Go, Scott Brown!
Bill| 1.18.10 @ 1:31PM
Here's to your poll numbers! Let me give you a number...1100 showed up to see the One! 1,100. What happened to the overflow crowds???? You get more people showing up for the Philly Wings Bowl then the One got in the entire state of Mass on Sunday.
Marvis| 1.18.10 @ 1:32PM
Obama's "record breaking" rally crowds were a mirage. I vividly recall standing in the parking lot at Nashua High school watching the out of state buses unload.
Nostradamus| 1.18.10 @ 1:39PM
I get the sense that many sensible people in Mass that voted for Obama (yes, there ARE sensible democrats - they exist) are disappointed with Obama's 1st year results and will vote for Brown as a "check" to him. And I can't help but noticing how Coakley looks like a Moonbat while Brown actually looks "Kennedyesque." I think that in politics, looks count for at least 5% of the vote. (Yes, there ARE idiots like that - they also exist, and not just in Mass.).
Discerner| 1.18.10 @ 1:43PM
It's simple logic. Brown has the momentum, Coakley the opposite.
Ken Royall| 1.18.10 @ 1:54PM
I don't see the connection. We are in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT political environment now than we were then.
Terry Gain | 1.18.10 @ 1:57PM
" and clumsily suggesting he wants hospitals to deny care to all rape victims. "
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clumsy? You must take us for idiots. It was an out and out lie, and a vicious one at that, you stupid dishonest liberal moron.
SoCon| 1.18.10 @ 3:17PM
Hahaha! Good one. Klein's pretty squishy, I have to admit.
Charles| 1.18.10 @ 1:57PM
Great point. One key difference may be the people widely respected Hillary Clinton's determination, hard work and grit. Clinton had a lot of passionate support. And many Democrats may have felt bad that her dream would end so soon, especially given everything she put up with re: Bill. I am not sure these factors are present for Coakley. But the point is correct, that there is still a fairly decent chance of a Coakley win tomorrow.
cnredd| 1.18.10 @ 2:01PM
I don't understand the reasoning for this article's angle...
The apples and oranges are so far apart that it defies comprehension...
The two biggest lacks of insight?
1) A Republican was president during the NH primary, and Clinton was seen as more to the right than the opponent. In Coakley's case, she's seen as a robot FOR the president and NOT in a primary election to oust the current president...
2) You're talking about the SAME party as opposed to Coakley's case, which is a fight borne out of DIFFERENT parties...That means 100% of the electorate gets to decide and not simply the ones who want to pick a certain person from ONE party (as was in NH)...
This article is about as intriguing and thought-provoking as saying "The Lakers might not beat the Clippers tomorrow because the Washington Generals almost beat the Globetrotters 4 years ago...
cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://politicalwrinkles.com
Mel Z| 1.18.10 @ 2:22PM
Weak argument for why everything has to break right for a Republican to win. I agree with the premise that in a deep blue state a Republican needs some luck, but using the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary in New Hampshire as an example is awful. I don't understand how this special election reminds you of NH 2008 when you're in a special election in MA in 2010. If this is the best optimism you got, Brown will win.
alwyr| 1.18.10 @ 2:24PM
This 'analysis' is so sophomoric (to say nothing about being desperate) it's literally not worth either the paper its printed on, or the bandwidth being used to disseminate it.
However, if there are those who will clutch to this pathetic straw as a means of deluding themselves that somehow there exists a 'reality' which conflicts with the reality presented by the outside world......well, just go right ahead.
Mike| 1.18.10 @ 2:28PM
It all boils down to the cheating.
anon| 1.18.10 @ 2:32PM
How skull shatteringly innocent are you?
Do you not realize that is the Obama himself who is driving Brown's surge? I mean, how hard is it to see the $%$# obvious in front of your face?
Ken Royall| 1.18.10 @ 2:49PM
Good points made here. A primary between 2 Dem rivals that were both popular running against Bush (who was unpopular) is not relevant to this race. Plus Hillary was basically liked by most Democrats and Independents at the time. Coakley is the worst candidate at a time when Obama's agenda is tanking. Brown is likable and is obviously not a hard-right candidate.
Cori| 1.18.10 @ 2:50PM
I'm seeing it as more of a Corzine/Christie race. I know there are differences, like Christie saw his lead dwindle. Dems are bringing in the big guns just like in NJ and it doesn't seem to be helping. They can't fix the public mood and running a bad canidate.
Susan J| 1.18.10 @ 2:55PM
The comparison you make betweeen Hillary/Obama in New Hampshire and this race leaves out the gigantic idealogical differences between Brown and Coakley. Hillary and Obama were both on the same liberal Democrat page with basically unremarkable differences in ideas, the only striking difference between the two being style of delivery. Brown and Coakley are as different as night and day in every political aspect with completely separate ideologies. To overlook this fundamental difference renders your comparative analysis of this race meaningless.
Jane| 1.18.10 @ 3:08PM
I seem to recall there were some special circumstances surrounding the New Hampshire primary. I think for a primary you can declare yourself a resident and register on the same day. I think Hillary bussed a lot of people in from out of state. I don't think you can do that in Mass, but maybe they'll do it anyway.
SoCon| 1.18.10 @ 3:21PM
"...but maybe they'll do it anyway." Great line. Amoral democrats will do ANYTHING to win.
Troy Riser| 1.18.10 @ 3:20PM
I share the apprehension voiced in this article. I consider myself a realist, not a pessimist, but know any time there is a close race in a state more or less controlled by a Democratic Party machine; e.g., Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, the Democratic Party candidate invariably wins. And no, it isn't because the Democrats can generate miraculous, last-minute turnout at the polls. It's because they cheat, plain and simple.
I don't think the voting public is truly aware of the kind and caliber of the people running the Democratic Party at higher state and national levels. The traditional Democratic Party--the party of my lifelong New Dealer grandfather, the party of Harry Truman and JFK, is gone. The Democratic Party has been suborned by its most radical, unscrupulous and ruthless elements.
SoCon| 1.18.10 @ 3:23PM
ACORN and SEIU thugs are the true faces of the democrat party. We know who they are.
New Yorker| 1.18.10 @ 3:42PM
Here's one New Yorker cyber-voting for Scott Brown tomorrow!
Go Scott!
This article stands true, please don't take anything for granted.
Get out and vote Massachesetts!
Vote Scott Brown
Let tone-deaf Washington hear you speak loud and clear!
Possum Dearie| 1.18.10 @ 4:05PM
Massachusetts already has Romneycare. They're voting against that and against the incumbent party tomorrow. It doesn't hurt that Chokely stinks on ice and Brown is handsome and charismatic.