Summary: Fellow political consultants provide critical, but reassuring insight following the Senatorial special election in the Bay State.
Recently, our colleagues at Zata3 - a Democratic consulting firm in Washington, DC - sent us an email titled “Sorting Through the Wreckage Massachusetts.”
The email contained some important lessons from last week’s special election that we thought would be good to share with you today.
From the email:
We’ve talked to several of our friends who were involved in the MA Senate race (we did not work there). We’ve read dozens of news articles, blog exchanges and statistical analyses and listened to more than our share of the talking heads from both sides of the aisle. Here’s our one minute summary of the lessons to be learned.
• Don’t let the other side define you. Coakley was not on the airwaves until after the IE’s had defined her as the establishment candidate.
• Take the pulse of voters frequently, especially in these volatile times. GOP polls had Brown within 3 points of definite voters a month out. By January 9, he was ahead and by all accounts, it was too late to reverse the momentum.
• Expect a pragmatic, nimble, aggressive Hard Right. Brown was not the Tea Party’s ideal candidate but when they smelled opportunity, the zealots poured it on.
• Get your field program in order. Accounts vary about the shape of the MA voter file going into the special election, but all agree that Democrat turnout was anemic in key areas.
• In special elections, retail politics matter. The online Far Right was increasingly energized by Brown’s public appearances during the week around Christmas when Coakley made no public appearances.
• Don’t expect help from the White House. The President is personally popular, but the Bush hangover (two wars, Wall Street excesses, deficit, etc.) and Obama’s own ambitious agenda negate any positive coattails.
The good news is, nearly all of these lessons are from the Politics 101 text book. A solid, hardworking candidate and a capable campaign team who execute the fundamentals will win.
Soon we plan to bring you an analysis from a Democrat on the ground during the Massachusetts race, to learn further lessons as we look forward to the November midterms.
Summary: Dave and Eric at WAYLA ponder the impact of the special election in Massachusetts.
Tuesday’s election in the Bay State sent a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s former seat. Needless to say, it’s been considered a devastating blow to President Obama and the Democratic Party.
To be sure, things would certainly be easier for the Democrats if they had a filibuster-proof Senate, capable of passing critical legislation in spite of an obstructionist minority party. But even with the GOP holding 41 seats, it does not mean the end of the world for Democrats.
In fact, it might prove beneficial for them, and for Obama’s legacy.
Following Scott Brown’s victory, Obama signaled that he would not move on healthcare legislation - a key factor in the Massachusetts race and the primary issue behind the slow pace of Congress - until the senator-elect was seated. The president also said he would meet with Brown to discuss the bill before it reappears in the Senate.
Can such meaningful legislation be passed when Democrats have to work with Republicans?
Skeptics readily say “no” to that question. In a Washington Postop-ed today, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. claims the election demonstrated an inherent contradiction in what he calls “Obamaism”:
"As a candidate, Obama pledged to change the tone in Washington and restore amicable relations between the parties. But he also promised to accomplish large things, including a substantial reform of the health-care system, major action to ease global warming, and a reshaped and more responsible financial system.
At some point, Obama's ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both."
During his campaign, Obama often spoke about skeptics, critics, and nay-sayers as well.
In 1982, President Reagan was confronted with big losses in Congress to the Democratic Party. In 1994, President Clinton saw Republicans take control of the House for the first time in a generation. These presidents regrouped, shook it off, and worked with the opposition.
Under Reagan, the country saw a defense build-up that scared the Soviet Union, all the while not neglecting domestic priorities. Under Clinton the country pulled out of record deficits and created record surpluses, all the while keeping the economy strong. Plus they both got re-elected the very next cycle.
These were their legacies, and it could be Obama’s too.
There is no shortage of study on why Americans prefer divided government. They do not like the idea of one party being drunk on power.
Well, 2008 was one hell of a wild party, and on Tuesday Democrats began to sober up.
This is important if the Democrats want to hold on to power. For six years the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, passing remarkably poor policy with their dominance. The way they saw it, if voters approved of what you said, they’ll automatically approve of what you’ll do. Karl Rove added the fuel to the fire, claiming the Republican Party would have an unmitigated era of electoral dominance.
Democrats need to steer clear of this sort of arrogance.
Now, we’ll never cheer for a Republican to win. Nor can we be certain that Scott Brown’s place in the Senate will make anything better for anyone. But Brown’s victory is not the worst thing that could happen to the Democratic Party. We should be grateful it happened now, giving us time to learn our lessons before November.
Don’t think of his upset as the end, think of it as a new beginning.
Summary: A lesson for Democrats in 2010 - 3 Reasons Coakley lost in Massachusetts.
As promised, we’ll spend today analyzing some key reasons why a Republican won Ted Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Essentially, there are a variety of things to look at despite the lack of exit polls.
Campaigning Matters
There’s been a lot of back-and-forth bickering among Democrats over who is to blame for the Coakley loss. Yesterday the Coakley campaign released a memo blaming the DNC and DSCC for not putting enough resources into the race despite receiving polling information that showed she was at risk. A top Democrat then told Politico that Coakley also shared some of the blame.
It’s probably true. Coakley took off time from campaigning during December, giving Brown an opportunity to swing in and secure votes. Her campaign also failed to meet the necessary goals with voter contact in key areas of the state.
The Swing State Project released this map demonstrating how well the Coakley campaign needed to do on a city-by-city (or town-by-town) basis in order to win on Tuesday. They based their benchmarks on the relatively close Senate race in 1996 and the relatively close gubernatorial race in 2002.
As we saw last night, Coakley severely underperformed in reaching these benchmarks. Here’s how the commonwealth went yesterday.
Take the town of Upton for example. According to the Swing State Project, she essentially needed to match Brown 50-50 there to reach her goal in that municipality. She lost 64% - 35% there yesterday. That was the situation across much of middle Massachusetts.
Brown, on the other hand, met his goals. His campaign vigorously contacted voters in this critical part of the state and never assumed victory - even when the polls had him ahead. Democrats in Washington and Massachusetts alike (including the Coakley campaign) expected her to be a shoe-in before the start of the New Year.
Like Hillary Clinton in 2008, Coakley learned the hard way that there’s no such thing as a shoe-in in politics. If you don’t put in the work you won’t get the prize.
All Politics is Local
This was not a local referendum on Barack Obama, on healthcare, or on any other national issue. This was about Massachusetts, and Brown understood that far more than Coakley. Just listen to the way he described his opposition to the healthcare bill in Congress this morning.
See what he did? He agreed that everyone needs universal healthcare, but said that because Massachusetts practically has it already, a federal bill can only hurt the Bay State residents he now represents.
The majority of voters cast their ballots in their own self-interest - they don’t tend to be altruistic in their electoral decisions. Coakley needed to frame her argument for a national health bill better than she did.
Additionally, many state Democrats in Massachusetts - including Governor Devall Patrick - are not popular at the moment.
Enthusiasm is in the GOP’s Court
Turnout was high yesterday - approximately 55% of the electorate (around 2.2 million voters) is estimated to have cast a ballot. Normally this would be good for a Democrat in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 3-to-1.
It was not. Between the unpopularity of local Democratic officials, the slow-pace of the Democrat-controlled Congress, and a lackluster Coakley campaign, a large part of the Democratic base was not moved enough to go to the polls yesterday.
But Republicans and Independents sure were. A huge number of GOP voters showed up to the polls on Tuesday, and Independents supported Brown by almost a 2-to-1 margin.
Independents have a long and decisive history of voting against the party in power - especially in off-year elections. There seems to be an aggregate psyche among them to create checks and balances in the federal government. So to some extent, this was not a big surprise. Republican turnout shouldn’t have been either, as they are fighting the power, and thus more enthusiastic to vote out Democrats.
The extent of these trends, however, was surprising.
This should be the biggest red flag for Democrats in 2010. There is no getting around the fact that high GOP enthusiasm and low Democratic enthusiasm is going to hinder a lot of Democratic campaigns this year. If there is anything to be concerned about, this is it.
That’s not to say that defeat is inevitable. Strong and smart campaigning can limit the losses Democrats will face this year. Hopefully for Democrats, our candidates can learn the important lessons from last night’s results in Massachusetts.
Welcome back to WAYLA for our coverage of today’s special election in Massachusetts. Polls have closed and our eye is glued to the results as they slowly come.
The Bay State saw huge turnout today - which may be of greater benefit to Republican Scott Brown than Democrat Martha Coakley.
Early returns show Brown ahead 53% to 46%, according to CNN - but that’s only with 13% of the vote in. Obviously many precincts, especially those in central and south Boston (which should be a little more supportive of Coakley) will be coming later in the night.
CNN is also reporting that Democrats are as upset with their party’s slow progress on healthcare as Republicans are upset with how far the bill has come. These are certainly signs that are no surprise to us.
Many pundits across the networks are predicting a Brown win tonight.
One interesting point is how Massachusetts independents have swung for Brown. Public Policy Polling finds that while independents voted 45% - 44% for Obama in 2008, they voted 64% - 32% for Brown today.
They also found that the enthusiasm gap for Brown over Coakley was high.
More to come…
UPDATE 1: It's difficult to say anything for sure at this point, but a notable trend has appeared in the reporting precincts. In the majority of towns and cities that are currently going for Coakley, she leads by less than 3%. Meanwhile, the majority of the towns and cities going for Brown show him ahead by 10% to 20%.
More to come around 8:30pm (CST).
UPDATE 2: It appears to be over, as Coakley conceded to Brown about a half hour ago. With 88% of precincts reporting, Brown holds a steady 52% - 47% lead over Coakley. While she won solid victories in places like Boston, Cambridge, and the surrounding area - as well as western towns like Northhampton and North Adams - she lost by 20 to 30 point margins in about half the state.
Apparently the Coakley campaign is blaming DC Democrats, saying the DNC and DSCC failed to provide sufficient funds (despite the polling information they were provided) until it was too late.
Still, Democrats on the ground in Massachusetts are saying that Coakley had simply expected victory and didn't take her Republican opponent seriously. As a result, she abstained from campaigning during a long period in December and never really tapped in to the populist, anti-incumbent feelings of voters.
Once again, Democratic candidates must remember that campaigning still matters.
With that we'll leave it there and give you our final thoughts tomorrow.
With hours left before polls close in the Bay State, political junkies, insiders, and the press are looking forward to what are expected to be close results.
We’ll be blogging during the returns tonight, but for the meantime, here are some good articles on the race…
• “Five Things to Watch for in Massachusetts” (Politico): To make some sense of the early returns, POLITICO put together a guide of five things to watch as the results come in, after polls close at 8 p.m. (EST).
• “538 Model Posits Brown as 3:1 Favorite” (FiveThirtyEight): The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling…which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley.
• “Martha Choakley?” (FiveThirtyEight): It's still not entirely clear to [author Tom Schaller] that Martha Coakley will lose today… Still…Even though a short, six-week race in February of an off-year cycle is more than the normally disadvantaged, minority Republicans could hope for, that argument could be turned inside out, too: how much damage can a majority-party standard bearer like Coakley do to herself in such a short time? Quite a bit, apparently.
As of right now, I would agree that this race is not over. Coakley still has a reasonable shot of pulling off a victory. But this will be close, and the odds are surprisingly against her.
We’ll see you back here when polls close tonight.
UPDATE: Here are some more stories coming out of Boston...
• In what should be good news for Coakley, the Globe reports that voter turnout has been pretty high so far today. However, it appears that the enthusiasm gap is much higher for Brown, which may be why David Axelrod is saying Brown ran an impressive campaign.
• The Boston Globe also broke with protocol earlier today and briefly posted the results of the exit polls taken so far. The Boston Phoenix made sure to post the results on their website. They have Coakley winning over Brown 50% to 49%. Usually, however, releasing exit polls early is a burden to the one in the lead.
Summary: Will party unity be able to bring another win for the GOP in a traditionally Democratic State, or can Coakley secure Ted Kennedy's seat on Tuesday?
So far this blog has not really given any insight to the unexpectedly close special election for Senator in Massachusetts. It would be irresponsible if we let that continue. So here’s a little breakdown of what to watch for in the race.
First and foremost, this is a toss-up. Polling - both internal and independent - shows that this race has been getting tighter in the past two weeks. Nate Silver, the polling guru of FiveThirtyEight.com, agreed on this in a post last night.
Democratic State Attorney General Martha Coakley should by all means be a safe candidate in a liberal state like Massachusetts. But her approval rating (about 49%) is only about 8 points higher than her disapproval rating. Meanwhile her opponent - Republican State Sentator Scott Brown - has a firm approval rating at 57% with disapproval in the mid 30s.
Already fearing a Republican win, many Democrats are speculating that the Coakley campaign just isn’t doing it’s job well enough.
…some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."
Boy, does that sound familiar.
With the election coming up on Tuesday the campaigns are now heading into GOTV weekend. Polls will now be largely unreliable, and who will win is anyone’s guess. But from what we’ve seen, things aren’t looking much better for Coakley.
They should. With so many Democrats in Massachusetts it should be easy for the campaign to get enough of them to the polls on Election Day. It may mean a lot of stressful hours this weekend for her staff (and I’m sure they will be) but it shouldn’t theoretically be too difficult.
Of course, that’s what we said about the gubernatorial race in New Jersey last year.
And Brown’s GOTV efforts will be a lot easier with significant supplementation from other GOP campaigns across the country. Politico reports today that Republican congressional campaigns from Connecticut to Texas, Pennsylvania to Florida, and just about everywhere else are transferring their time and energy to the Massachusetts race.
Some campaigns are blasting e-mails to supporters, prodding them to cut checks. Others are temporarily turning their headquarters into phone banks. A few are even encouraging volunteers to head to Massachusetts…
Now that’s some party unity. The direct benefit to these other campaigns is not obvious. But apparently there is a morale effect. These other GOP campaigns believe that if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy’s old seat, then anything is possible - and that will really encourage their supporters.
There are definitely some undecided voters at this point - probably 4%-5% of the electorate. Voters who haven’t made up their minds by GOTV weekend typically split about 50-50 when they enter the polls. That might not be what Coakley wants to hear.
Yet, I have to imagine this race could be different. Many of these last minute voters who will make their decision on Election Day (even as late as when they head into the booth) will no doubt be thinking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy. It hasn’t really been a big enough issue in the campaign, but it helps - no doubt - that Kennedy’s widow recently cut this ad for Coakley:
Hopefully for Coakley, this message will resonate with last minute voters.
But hope is not enough. Inevitably, the Coakley campaign will need to get-out-the-vote this weekend like none other if they want to send her to Washington.
Note: because this is a critical 60th seat for Senate Democrats, we hope you can spare some time to make calls on behalf of the Coakley campaign. You can help them out this weekend by signing up to volunteer at www.MarthaCoakley.com, or through OFA.
