Month: January 2010

While we’re talking about lessons to learn from the debacle in Massachusetts, two tough questions that need to be asked, discussed, and reflected on a great deal are:

1. How to get better at picking good candidates in primaries, and

2. What are the danger signs to look out for in a primary that might warn us a candidate that looks good in a primary will bomb in the general election?

More after the fold.

Some of you knew Coakley would be a lousy general election candidate. Did any of you suspect she would be too lazy to campaign effectively and would say a bunch of idiotic things? How did you figure out that she was gonna suck?

And what about VA-Gov? Did the Democratic voters pick the wrong candidate in Deeds? I think we all agree that his campaign strategy was awful, a guaranteed loser, and got even worse when he tried to sound like a Republican and turned off the base. But would Moran, for example, have had a chance of winning?

I don’t have answers, but if we are to benefit from this stinging loss, we will have to figure out how to get smarter in picking candidates who are more likely to win in state-wide contests, as we did in the Presidential primaries in 2008.

I look forward to any insights you can give on these campaigns, and more importantly, for the future.

Like a head coach whose heavily-favored team craters early in the playoffs, DSCC Chair Bob Menendez has to be feeling pretty vulnerable right now. If Menendez were to get pushed aside from his current role, who could take his place? Whom would you want to take his place? The floor’s all yours.

Last night’s victory by Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in the Bay State was certainly one of the biggest political shockers in my lifetime. The fact that in happened on the eve of the first anniversary of the Obama presidency also leaves a sour taste in everyone but Republican’s mouths.

My view is the Democrats got complacent with “safe” seats, and Republicans can get that way also as we’ve seen in the last 4 years when they just kept losing. The Democrats were so used to Ted Kennedy holding onto his seat, they thought it would be a lock for them and they could run just about anybody, no matter how terrible a candidate he or she was. Brown managed to develop what I thought was a great one-liner in response to David Gergen: “It’s not the Kennedy seat, it’s the People’s seat!”

All the telltale signs that this was not a safe Democrat haven since at least 1990 were there. William Weld, Paul Cellucci, and Mitt Romney weren’t accidents. If they could win the governorship with that much success, it was only a matter of time before they managed to ascend to higher office. Hell, Brown even made Coakley look like an elistist with his driving around in his GMC Truck. Can you say “Fred Thompson 1994”?

For a party that emphasized reaching out to Indpendents in 2008, how in the world did they not realize that Independents now outnumber either party affliation is staggering. Either people out there honestly did not approve of HRC, or they didn’t understand it because Democrats on the ground weren’t campaigning hard enough up to this vote to gain ground with Independents. I would argue that the latter point is more accurate. Democrats like Coakley and Obama pretty much failed to actually campaign until the last minute, allowing Brown to capitalize. How else do you explain a 30 point lead for Coakley evaporating virtually overnight?

Where I come from, I know of a party that had been in office for a long time. They thought the other guys could never beat them and they got complacent. Guess what? The Liberal Party of Canada is in opposition today, and the best leader we could come up with was a guy who spent 30 years away from Canada and was recently a professor at, coincidentially, Harvard. While Democrats haven’t been in control in the amount of time Liberals had been, the same situation seems to be present. They need to pick up their game and campaign hard, or else they can start to lose safe seats like they did last night.

Dear Attorney General Richard Blumenthal,

You had better learn and take to heart the lessons provided yesterday by your neighboring colleague.  In particular: (1) a gigantic lead now is VERY MUCH NOT the same as a blowout victory (or even any victory), and (2) neglect is NEVER the right way to run a campaign.

Your supporter,

Glenn Magus Harvey

More beneath the fold.

Dear Democratic Party,

I damn well hope that this costly lesson about the negatives of complacency has been well learned.

If we can win Idaho, they can win Massachusetts.

Your supporter,

Glenn Magus Harvey

~~~~

Dear progressive movement,

Stop whining about how watered-down the health care bill is, stop threatening to vote for all sorts of crazy people (on any side) against sane Democrats who can get elected (and possibly risk losing nasty districts), and start accepting political realities (remember the “living in reality” slogan?).

Stop whining about how the Obama administration isn’t progressive enough, and start asking yourself what realistic steps you can do to inch the country toward a better future.

You want results?  Be prepared to work very hard for them.  Whining and sulking do not produce results.  Do something better with your time–such as learning about on-the-ground political realities, figuring out how to use and to affect them to help your goals, coming up with productive ideas, and putting such ideas into action.

Your friend and ally,

Glenn Magus Harvey

~~~~

Dear Nevada State Democratic Party and other relevant persons and parties,

Figure out a way to deal with Reid.  Both of them.  Preferably, figure out a way to get rid of both of them.

Your fellow Democrat,

Glenn Magus Harvey

~~~~

Dear Senator Joe Lieberman,

You suck.

If Chris Dodd can afford to offend the insurance companies, then so can you.  So shut up.

Your detractor and former supporter,

Glenn Magus Harvey

With all but five precincts reporting, this is what tonight’s election results look like on a town-by-town basis (click image for larger version):

UPDATE: Jeffmd does some quick number crunching to look at performance by congressional district. The preliminary conclusions:

Coakley Wins: 1st, 7th, 8th

Uncertain, but likely Brown wins: 4th, 9th

Brown Wins: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th

UPDATE: Dave Wasserman tweets:

Q: Where are the other potential Dem collapse areas this Nov? A: Almost precisely the places Hillary carried in the 08 prez primary

He’s definitely on to something. Below is a map of the 2008 presidential primary results in Massachusetts between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Red is Clinton, blue is Obama:

The results between tonight’s race and the presidential primary correlate at a rate of 0.56, which is quite high.

Looks like the bowl’s been cashed.

Polls have now closed in Massachusetts, as Martha Coakley and Scott Brown square off to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate. In the primary, we got our first nibble of results fifteen minutes after polls closed, so hopefully we won’t be waiting too long for the first trickle of numbers to come in tonight.

RESULTS: Boston Globe | Associated Press | The Boston Channel | WBZTV

RESOURCES: Town benchmarks (Wasserman’s chart) | Jeff’s projection model

9:33PM: (Crisitunity): Coakley missed most of her baselines:

Agawam 35/64 (should’ve been 41/57 under 2008 model)

Andover 41/58 (should’ve been 44/55)

Braintree 37/62 (should’ve been 38/60)

Fall River 57/41 (should’ve been 61/38)

Needham 52/47 (should’ve been 54/45)

New Bedford 59/39 (should’ve been 62/37)

Springfield 61/37 (should’ve been 65/34)

Wellesley 50/50 (should’ve been 53/46)

Westfield 36/62 (should’ve been 41/57)

Fitchburg was 40/59, almost exactly how Suffolk pegged it. (Should’ve been 48/50, the biggest underperformance I’ve seen.)

But we beat the spread in Belmont:  59/40 (should’ve been 57/41)

and Quincy was right on: 46/53 (should’ve been 46/52)

9:23PM: The Associated Press has called this one for Big Brown. Say hello to your newest Senator from Massachusetts: Republican Scott Brown!

9:23PM: Coakley has conceded, according to Cillizza.

9:20PM: With two-thirds of the vote in, Jeff’s model has nudged up to somewhere between 47.7 and 47.94% for Coakley.

9:13PM: 1405 precincts are now in, and Brown is holding firm at 53-46. I don’t see how Coakley wins this, but look on the bright side, Democrats: at least they’ll be a special election for Scott Brown’s Senate seat! Democrats only have a 34-5 margin of control in that body!

9:04PM: 1298 precincts in, and Brown leads by almost 90,000 votes. (53-46) Coakley’s on pace to end up somewhere between 47.6-47.8%.

9:03PM: Using the Jeff model, Coakley is on pace to 47.5% (’08) or 47.85% (’96). Not looking so hot.

8:58PM: 980 precincts are in, and Brown leads by 52-47.

8:55PM: 875 precincts are now in, and Brown is up 53-46. Wasserman tweeted earlier that he thinks that Scott Brown has won.

8:54PM: Sorry folks — we’re getting utterly slammed with traffic tonight and the site is experiencing some server issues.

8:51PM: 738 precincts are in, and Brown leads 52-47.

8:40PM: We’re up to 445 precincts now, and Brown is holding onto his 53-46 lead (or a 33,000 vote gap).

8:35PM: 283 precincts in, and Brown still leads by 53-46 (or about 18,000 votes).

8:32PM: 243 precincts in, and Brown’s up to 53-46.

8:29PM: Jeff: Under his 2008 model, Coakley is projected to win 49.2% of the vote based on the returns so far. But using the 1996 model, she’s projected to win 52.5%. Still a nailbiter.

8:27PM: 143 precincts in, and Brown leads 51-48.

8:22PM: 116 (of 2168) precincts are now in, and Brown leads by 52-47.

8:20PM: From Jeff: “Coakley’s underperforming the baseline by just a little bit. Model sez 48.7% Coakley by 2008; 49.8% Coakley by 1996.” Of course, we know that the model is not perfect, but this is looking pretty tight so far.

8:18PM: 36 precincts are now in, and Brown has a 10-point lead.

8:14PM: The AP has a few numbers in from 12 precincts, where Scott Brown leads by 54-45.

8:10PM: Rasmussen just released some details on their e-night poll. Among those who decided in the last few days, Coakley has a 47-41 advantage. Among those who made up their mind over a month ago, Coakley has a “big advantage”. I guess this race hinges on just how well Brown is going among those who made up their mind within the past month, but not within the past few days.

Polls close in Massachusetts tonight at 8PM Eastern. As usual, we’ll be liveblogging the race until the bitter end. By the time we’re done, you’ll be left with stems and seeds.

Let’s use this thread to take care of the pre-game chatter.

• Benchmarks: If you haven’t yet seen Crisitunity’s town-by-town benchmarks for the absolute bare minimum that Martha Coakley needs in order to win, get your fine self over to that thread. It’ll definitely be something worth keeping in your pocket as you follow the returns tonight. Blue Mass Group has a list of key benchmarks to watch for, and David Wasserman has an expansive spreadsheet available.
• Jeff’s take: SSP data guru jeffmd offers his projection model for the race.
  

• Turnout: The Boston Globe has a list of poll-watcher reports by town. Greg Sargent (my former boss at Talking Points Memo), has some hard turnout numbers from Boston indicating that the city appears to be juiced-up about the race.
  

• 1994, redux?: A former Ted Kennedy aide sees parallels between the race between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, and the ’94 Senate race between Kennedy and Mitt Romney. The aide’s math suggests that Coakley will win.
• Fingerpointing: However, you know things are tense when Democrats are already getting a head start on the blame game. Oy.
• Polling: Rasmussen will be out with a new poll as soon as the results start to trickle in. And if you’re looking for exit polls, there are none to report. However, the cumbersomely-named Women’s Voices. Women Vote has commissioned an exit poll by Lake Partners Research and American Viewpoint. Those results won’t be available for dissection until tomorrow morning, though.

I’m curious about the effect of the contested primary on Democratic voter attitudes in the Massachusetts 2010 Senate race.  

To investigate this, I would like to compare the performance of each of the candidates in the Democratic 2009 primary for this special election with the voter turnout for the Jan. 19, 2009 Coakley/Brown numbers once they are known.

If anyone has access to such data, it would be nice to use to make this comparison.  For context, I refer to the extremely valuable and timely town benchmarks posted at

http://swingstateproject.com/d…

See what I am getting at?

Believe it or not, the world continues to turn today, even outside Massachusetts…

• Site News: A minor site change: We’ve had to disable HTML on user bio pages (like this one). We apologize if this winds up killing your links or spewing ugly HTML characters in your bio, so you may want to edit yours if so. You can still post links – they just won’t be HTML-ized. The reason we did this is because spammers have been exploiting the bio pages to post links to their own sites. It’s easy for us to catch them when they post comments or diaries, but harder to stop them from creating new accounts. This takes away their incentive. Suck on it, spammer scum! (D)

• NV-Sen: I don’t know what you envision when you see “probe” and “John Ensign” in the same sentence, but this is rich: the FBI is getting involved in the investigation, indicating this may go beyond the Senate Ethics Committee, headed in the direction of a criminal inquiry. The Feds have been contacting former aides about the Hampton affair.

• NY-Sen-B: Ex-Rep. Harold Ford Jr. just seems to be digging his self-inflicted hole deeper, as he runs damage control from the NYT profile that portrayed him as a helicopter-riding, pedicure-getting richie-rich. For his new interview with the Daily News, he insisted that it be limited to his rationale for running, not “issues” (issues, of course, are for the little people). Still, that contrasts with his defense of the pedicure thing, about which he said: “This race isn’t about feet, it’s about issues.” Meanwhile, observers are wondering if Al Sharpton (who has endorsed Kirsten Gillibrand) is telegraphing a potential switch in sides.

• IA-Gov: Ex-Gov. Terry Branstad is out with an internal poll showing him in commanding position in the Republican primary as he seeks to regain his old job, despite the discomfort some social conservatives have with him. Branstad polls at 62%, followed by Bob Vander Plaats lagging at 18%, with Christopher Rants at 4 and Rod Roberts at 2.

• IL-Gov: Next door in Illinois, though, where things don’t seem quite as settled in the Republican primary, three different candidates are citing polls that claim to have them in the lead. State Sen. Kirk Dillard has an internal that has him leading at 22, with state party chair Andy McKenna at 14 and ex-AG Jim Ryan at 10 – which is odd, since the Chicago Tribune’s poll several weeks ago gave Ryan a substantial lead and saw Dillard in fourth place. McKenna also claims to have a poll with him in the lead, although he didn’t even bother giving any details. Dillard seems to be the “moderate” horse in the GOP race, with endorsements from ex-Gov. Jim Edgar, Rep. Judy Biggert, and even the Illinois Education Association (hopefully only as far as the primary goes).

• TX-Gov: Rasmussen is out with fresh polls of the Texas governor’s race, and this time, they’re even doing the general, now that it got competitive, with the entry of Democratic Houston mayor Bill White. As one might expect, both incumbent Rick Perry and GOP primary rival Kay Bailey Hutchison lead White, and KBH overperforms Perry. Hutchison leads White 52-37, while Perry leads 50-40. (In the unlikely event White faces off against Paulist activist Debra Medina, he wins 44-38.) More interestingly, Medina seems to be getting a serious foothold in the GOP primary, which seems like it has the potential to push the Perry/Hutchison battle to a runoff, keeping Perry below 50%. Perry leads Hutchison and Medina 43-33-12.

• MI-Gov, MI-13: The amazingly brief gubernatorial campaign of state Sen. Hansen Clarke ended yesterday, after about one week in existence. It seems like party insiders steered him in a different direction, saying that he’s been offered big financial support if he takes on vulnerable (in a primary) Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick instead, and he says he’s strongly considering that race now. Kilpatrick (mother of embattled former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick) nearly lost a 3-way primary in 2008.

• AZ-03: One aspiring House Republican didn’t wait long to announce her run to fill the recently-vacated seat of Rep. John Shadegg. State Sen. Pamela Gorman announced her campaign.

• MI-07: One more race that hasn’t drawn much scrutiny yet but where it looks like Dems will have to play hard defense is in the 7th. Freshman Rep. Mark Schauer faces a rematch with ex-Rep. Tim Walberg, who is now promoting his own internal poll showing him with 46-37 edge over Schauer. There’s been some establishment skepticism over whether the polarizing Walberg is “electable” enough, which may really be the point of the poll: it also shows attorney Brian Rooney, the supposedly more palatable (but currently less-known) GOPer, trailing Schauer 39-31.

• PA-04: Republicans are banking on former US Attorneys to get them back a few House seats in the Keystone State, and they got one of their desired recruits. Mary Beth Buchanan, one of the chief enforcers among the “loyal Bushies,” has apparently decided that she’ll take on Rep. Jason Altmire in the GOP-leaning 4th in Pittsburgh’s suburbs, and may announce her candidacy later this week.

• WV-01: The NRCC had hoped to put a scare into longtime Democratic incumbent Alan Mollohan, frequently drum-beating his name as a potential retirement. Unfortunately for them, Mollohan has filed his paperwork to seek a 15th term in Congress. (J)

• OH-Lt. Gov: Ted Strickland announced today that he’s tapping ex-Franklin Co. Judge Yvette McGee Brown to be his running mate. Brown is the president of the Center for Child and Family Advocacy, a Columbus organization based at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital. (J)

• Mayors: Another election to keep an eye on is a runoff for Birmingahm’s next mayor. The seat became vacant in October upon the conviction of Larry Langford on corruption charges. Langford and other insiders have endorsed William Bell (who currently holds Langford’s former seat on the county conmission). Naturally, Patrick Cooper is running against Bell on a change platform. The campaign has been full of nasty accusations and innuendo with many glad it’s coming to an end. (T)

• Polltopia: Mark Blumenthal looks at the rapidly reducing cost of polling, and only sees even more of a proliferation of it in the near future as robo-calling gets within the reaches of the masses, even the crazy bloggers. Even Rasmussen is getting into the act, with plans to spin off a new service that will allow anyone to poll on anything for a fee of $600. That leaves Blumenthal wondering how to screen in the future for proper quality and against abuse of time-honored standards.