Tag: Scott Brown

Looks like the bowl’s been cashed.

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 as freaked out over Massachusetts as anyone – and I might be plenty angry/despondent/confused/hungover tomorrow morning.

But in the meantime, I’ve been working on a crude projection model using, in part, the “baseline” idea that Crisitunity and DavidNYC have made a part of SSP Election Night Tradition.

The model, as inputs, takes partial results from towns that have reported, and outputs a whole slew of numbers comparing the current situation to the “baseline” numbers.

Explanations below the flip.

So here’s the front end of the model:

http://spreadsheets.google.com…

You’ll see a few things:

• How Coakley and Brown are currently doing.
  

• How Obama was doing in 2008 with the same towns and parts of towns reporting.
  

• How a 2008 “baseline” Democrat on target to win by 1 vote would be doing.
  

• How Kerry was doing in 1996 against Bill Weld with the same towns and parts of towns reporting.
  

• How a 1996 “baseline” Democrat would be doing.
  

You’ll also see comparisons between Coakley’s performance and those of Obama, Kerry, and the two “baseline” Democrats.

Perhaps most significantly, you’ll see the “2010 Projection using 2008” line.

The model compares relative turnout between 2010 and 2008, and the relative performances of Coakley and Obama to project results from towns that have not yet reported.

The “2010 Projection using 1996” line does the same, except with 1996 data.

I’m not claiming this model is perfect. In fact, it’s pretty damn bad. I can think of a few glaring weaknesses:

• The fundamental problem of the ‘baseline’ idea: it assumes that every town will swing uniformly.
  

• Disparate turnout: this model compares turnout in aggregate, instead of at the town level. This may lead to an overestimation of turnout in areas with relatively low turnout (compared to 2008 and 1996) and the reverse in areas with relatively high turnout. This may potentially bias the projections in Coakley’s favor.
  

• Assumption of town uniformity: the model assumes that each town votes uniformly the same way, but…Jamaica Plain and Southie are not going to vote the same way, very simply. If a relatively Brown-friendly area of a town reports first, this will bias the projection in his favor. The reverse is true if a Coakley-friendly area reports first.
  

Incidentally, here are the blood and guts of the model: http://spreadsheets.google.com…

Update: In columns AS, AT, BB, and BC, you can see baselines for every town for both 2008 and 1996.

I threw in some junk results to test it, and so far I didn’t detect any coding errors. I don’t pretend that I’m better than the Associated Press – but I just want to have an idea of where we are at each point of the results phase.

Hopefully I’ll get a chance to keep this updated as results stream in tonight.

Lastly, if you live in Massachusetts, are reading this, and you haven’t voted (assuming you’re a citizen, not a convicted felon, etc..), what the hell’s wrong with you?!

Here’s hoping Coakley pulls this off.

The county baselines post has become a game day staple at Swing State Project for advanced elections-returns-watchers, and today’s no different. The basic idea here: find the bare minimum percentage in each major county that’s necessary to get the Democratic candidate over the hump at 50%. (That, of course, is predicated on all the counties moving the same direction as the presidential election the benchmarks are based on, which doesn’t actually happen in real life, but it’s a rough estimate.) As election returns come in, compare the benchmarks to the actual returns to see if we’re on track to win.

There’s one small problem here, which most of you are probably already familiar with: Massachusetts, and the other New England states, don’t report election results by county, but rather by town. With hundreds and hundreds of little towns, that’s a lot of ground to cover, so we’ll just look at the biggest, plus some towns in what seem to be the key areas to watch in this race.

In fact, let’s take a look at the state’s town-by-town map, created by our own DavidNYC (you can click on the map to see a full-size version):

This map is based on the relatively close 1996 Senate election between John Kerry and William Weld (a better choice here, because a map of the 2008 Presidential race would be almost entirely blue, and the 2002 gubernatorial race would be almost entirely red, with Romney winning the vast majority of towns). But it gives the general lay of the land in the state: the Democratic votes are heavily concentrated in Boston and its immediately surrounding cities. (There’s also a lot of low-density blue out in the college towns and arty enclaves of the Berkshires and Pioneer Valley in the west.) The red on the map is mostly rural and low-density too, so the real areas that we’re focused on today are the purplish and pinkish suburban turf to the north, west, and south of Boston.

Rather than just one model, I’m using two different models: one based on the high-turnout, high-Democratic-intensity 2008 presidential election (won by Barack Obama, 62-36), and the low-turnout, low-intensity 2002 gubernatorial election (won by Republican Mitt Romney, 50-45) — more generally, a best-case scenario for Dems and a worst-case scenario for Dems. With turnout projections high but not as high as yesterday (SoS William Galvin is predicting 40%), and weather mediocre, we’re probably looking at something somewhere in between, so consider these the bookends. Nevertheless, after making the necessary adjustments, both models, in most towns, point to very similar benchmarks.

Let’s start with the largest cities in Massachusetts (the ones that provide more than 1% of the state’s votes each). These aren’t really the places to watch, as they’re heavily Democratic (with the sort-of exception of Quincy) and the real question with them is whether turnout is keeping pace proportionately with the rest of the state.

Democratic performance in most of the state, as you can see above, stayed fairly consistent with the rise in the tide from 2002 to 2008. Statewide, Democratic performance went from 45% to 62% (a 17% gain), and, for example, Boston followed that closely, going from 61% to 79% (an 18% gain). Many other towns tracked that, too; for instance, the most conservative parts of the state (like Falmouth and Sandwich on Cape Cod, or the suburbs around Lowell) also moved about 16 to 18% in the Dems’ direction.

The interesting areas are the ones where the movement was much greater — these tend to be the wealthier areas in the state, fancy Middlesex Co. suburbs like Wellesley or North Shore towns in Essex Co., consistent with Obama’s overperformance nationwide among high-income voters — and where the movement was much less — mostly in blue-collar towns of the South Shore, as well as other blue-collar outposts in the state’s west. To me, these seem to be the swingy areas, and the ones most worth watching, especially since the trends may (or may not) continue to accelerate today — upper-middle-class voters may be attracted to Coakley’s technocratic image (especially those in Middlesex Co., where she was DA) or they may revert to liking the fiscal conservatism that they saw in Romney, while blue-collar voters seem likely to respond to Brown’s regular-guy shtick but may also be motivated by their ancestral Democratic loyalties and union or local machine GOTVing.

Let’s start with some well-to-do suburbs west of Boston:

And here are North Shore suburbs. (Lawrence is a little out of place here, as it’s working-class with a large Hispanic population, but it had the same large 02 to 08 shift that its wealthier neighbors did.)

Now turning to the more blue-collar locales where the trend seemed less favorable to Democrats, starting with the South Shore towns. (Looking up to the biggest towns list above, you can see that same trend happened not only in Quincy, but especially in Fall River and New Bedford, which are strongly Democratic but barely moved at all from O’Brien to Obama. In their cases, I’m not sure if that’s indifference to Obama, or particularly strong local machines good at keep turnout consistent.)

And finally, a mix of western mill towns and blue-collar suburbs around Springfield:

Now for the bad news… Suffolk polled several bellwether towns over the weekend, and found that Coakley is polling well below the level she needs to meet the benchmarks, in fact slightly below even Shannon O’Brien levels from 2002. They found a 41/55 race in Fitchburg (see the western mill towns chart), and a 40/57 race in Peabody (see the North Shore chart). I have no idea about the sample size or any of the other innards, but this suggests that for Coakley to pull this out — as has been more broadly evident for several days — the only way is for the pollsters to have been missing large swaths of heretofore unactivated voters who just got transformed into Democratic likely voters in the last few days.

Blue Mass Group has an interesting post that lists some other bellwether towns that you might want to keep an eye on. UPDATE: (And Cook’s Dave Wasserman has made available a Google spreadsheet doing more or less the same thing for every single freakin’ town in the state, albeit only for the 2008 model. Check it out.)

InsiderAdvantage for the Politico (1/17, likely voters):

Martha Coakley (D): 43

Scott Brown (R): 52

Joe Kennedy (I) 2

(MoE: ±4%)

You know, we’ve picked these polls apart enough already, so how about we all take a page from trowaman and ask: If Scott Brown takes this race tomorrow, who should Democrats run against him in 2012? Not that we’re predicting that he’ll win, but it’s never too early to think through the hypotheticals. Tell us who you think should run in the comments.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (1/15-17, likely voters, 1/12-13 in parens):

Martha Coakley (D): 48 (49)

Scott Brown (R): 48 (41)

Joe Kennedy (L) 3 (5)

Undecided: 1 (6)

(MoE: ±2.8%)

First the bad news: R2K gives us a trendline pointed steeply down… an R2K poll conducted earlier in the week (paid for by Blue Mass Group rather than Daily Kos, but seeing as how that shouldn’t change the numbers, we’ll accept that as a trend) gave an eight-point lead to Democratic AG Martha Coakley, and this one sees a tie. On the other hand, that’s the best result that rolled in over the last few days: not only are there the Suffolk (-4) and PPP (-5) numbers, but also ARG (which sees a 48-45 Scott Brown lead)… and the Merriman River Group, whoever they are, who found a 51-41 lead for Brown in a poll that was apparently taken over the space of four hours and found no undecideds, so take that for what it’s worth.

So, should we be pleased or not? Does this mean that Coakley’s bungee-jump downward over the last week got arrested right before she hit the bottom of the canyon? There are a few other positive indications; the constantly-leaked Coakley internals, for what they’re worth, seem to have stabilized over the weekend (which saw Barack Obama and Bill Clinton appearances, and maybe some backlash over the “curling iron” incident), to the extent that they reportedly show Coakley up 2, according to the Boston Herald. (Nate Silver has a helpful graph of all poll trendlines that includes leaked Coakley internals, which brings a lot more datapoints to bear.)

One other indication is that state officials are suddenly looking at extremely high turnout, at near-presidential levels, with everyone suddenly focused on the election — with estimates of up to 70% turnout, based on absentee ballot requests. Turnout, as you know, most likely helps the Democrats here — and the pollsters that have been giving pro-Brown results may be basing their likely voter models on now-obsolete projections based on low-turnout, high-intensity-voters-only projections. One other good Nate Silver observation is that Obama’s approval is polling under 50% in most polls, which is lagging his national averages… in Massachusetts, one of the bluest of all states… suggesting their LV models are predicated on conservatives disproportionately showing up. (Of course, he also points out the possibility of what Rasmussen alone seems to be seeing: people approving of Obama, but still voting for Brown.) But if the state’s turnout predictions are to be believed, maybe some of those unlikely-voter Dems who were planning to sit this one out or weren’t aware of it have finally realized there’s a real race here and have gotten converted into LVs over the last few days, and pollsters are still playing catchup.

RaceTracker Wiki: MA-Sen

I recognize that there is an intense level of anger and frustration among we of the Democratic base right now, faced as we are with a scenario most of us could not have conceived in our worst nightmares, however I think the rabid anti-Coakleyism spreading around the internets these days is getting just a wee bit unfair. In this respect I largely agree with Nate Silver – yes, she is a boring candidate, and yes, she did run a dull, almost absentee campaign… but when you’re in Massachusetts, and you’re a high-profile statewide elected official, and you’re running as a Democrat against a fairly obscure state senator to succeed Ted Kennedy, none of those things should be unforgivable offenses. Let’s face it: there is a LOT of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. To be sure, there were plenty of people (myself included) who had reservations about her in the primary, but clearly none of those concerns translated into anything near the blind, existential panic we are now facing as we creep up upon January 19th. If anyone can point to a post he/she left, here or anywhere else, indicating his/her grave uneasiness about the threat posed by Scott Brown in a general election, I’d love to see it – I’m genuinely curious.

This is obviously not to say Coakley’s camp is blameless. Going dark for a month was malpractice of the highest order, and her campaign manager should never be allowed to work in American politics ever again. But the over-the-top vitriol being directed at the candidate herself is starting to become unseemly, and frankly sort of classless. I doubt any of us can imagine what its like to be in her shoes at this very moment, being pegged by pundits and partisan activists nationwide as the pariah who single-handedly flushed the Democratic supermajority – and by extension, Ted Kennedy’s dream of universal healthcare – down the drain. By all accounts, Martha Coakley is a capable public servant, a fairly committed progressive, and by almost any measure a more qualified candidate for the United States Senate than Scott Brown. Yes, her probable defeat on Tuesday will almost certainly mark the end of her political career, and that can be argued as being perfectly appropriate, but I hardly think it cause for open celebration.

Just as determinate as any particular fault of the Coakley campaign is, I think, the basic issue highlighted by PPP in the poll that touched off this horrific week: a profound disparity in enthusiasm between D’s and R’s, the very same one reflected in the outcomes of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The electorate turning out for special/off-year downballot elections is simply a different universe of individuals than those who came to the polls in 2008. Beyond the predictable backlash from the right, who knows how many people voted for Obama having never voted in their lives, and may never vote again? I think we can anticipate the relative drop-off from here out to be comparable to what we have seen thus far, and that alone augurs poorly for our near-term electoral prospects – whether or not we have Coakleys or Capuanos on the ballot.

• MA-Sen: With last night’s Suffolk poll, there really can’t be any doubt any more that the Massachusetts Senate race qualifies as a “Toss Up,” so we’re changing our rating to reflect that. There’s still room for skepticism on whether Scott Brown can in fact pull it out, given not only the difficulty of pinning down a likely voter universe in a rapidly-fluctuating special election, but also the Democrats’ structural advantages on the ground in the Bay State. (The Democrats have the advantage of labor and local machines long-skilled at rousting out voters and getting them to the polls, while it’s questionable whether the Republicans have, given their long neglect of the state, any ground troops to deploy here, or even up-to-date, refined voter databases.) Nevertheless, given what can actually be quantified, right now the polls balance out to more or less a tie, and that’s how we have to treat the race.

The breaking news du jour is that Barack Obama has finally agreed to head up to Massachusetts and stump for Martha Coakley on Sunday. Also, the Coakley campaign is rolling out a second ad for the weekend, to go with their ad showcasing the Vicki Kennedy endorsement; they’re also running a populist-themed ad on Wall Street regulation (specifically, the rather narrow issue of the proposed bonus tax on banks). The ad deluge is being bolstered a League of Conservation Voters ad buy for $350K; on the third-party front, that’s being countered by a pro-Brown ad buy for $500K from Americans for Job Security.

• CA-Sen: Yesterday I was musing about whether ex-Rep. Tom Campbell’s entry into the GOP Senate primary hurt Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore more, and we already seem to have an answer. The Campbell camp is touting an internal poll showing them with a sizable lead over both Fiorina and DeVore in the primary: Campbell is at 31, with Fiorina at 15 and DeVore at 12. The few polls of the primary so far have shown Fiorina and DeVore deadlocked in the 20s, so maybe it’s safe to say that Campbell hurts them each equally.

• FL-Sen: Which of these is not like the other? There’s a new multi-candidate GOP fundraising PAC called the U.S. Senate Victory Committee, which benefits seven different Republicans: Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, Jane Norton, Rob Portman, Rob Simmons, Pat Toomey… and Marco Rubio? Six establishment candidates, and one insurgent. Or is Rubio the new establishment?

• PPP (pdf): PPP looks all the way to 2012 as part of their wide-ranging Nevada survey, and finds that John Ensign may weather his whole giving-a-patronage-job-to-the-cuckolded-husband-of-his-mistress thing, if he runs again. Ensign trails Las Vegas mayor (but probable 2010 gubernatorial candidate) only Oscar Goodman 43-41, but leads Rep. Shelly Berkley 49-40 and SoS Ross Miller 47-36. Of course, Berkley and Miller aren’t that well-known yet and would presumably gain ground in an active 2012 race, but again, more food for thought on the idea that Republicans really don’t get the vapors over sex scandals after all, so long as they’re perpetrated by Republicans.

• MN-Gov: The St. Paul Pioneer Press is out with a poll of Minnesota voters (by a pollster I’ve never heard of, Decision Resources Ltd.). The poll seemed most focused on the question of whether there should be public funding of the new Vikings stadium, but it did throw in (almost as an afterthought) something we haven’t seen before: general election head-to-heads in the Governor’s race. The numbers are pretty encouraging for the Democrats: ex-Sen. Mark Dayton leads ex-Sen. Norm Coleman 41-31, and state Rep. Marty Seifert (who, assuming Coleman doesn’t get in, is the likeliest GOP nominee) 41-25. State House speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher beats Coleman 33-31, and Pat Anderson (who dropped out of the race this week) 33-23. There weren’t any numbers for Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, another strong contender for the Dem nod. And yes, if you’re wondering, this does take into account the potential spoiler role of Minnesota’s Independence Party; IP candidates account for 11 to 13 percent of the vote in each of these trial heats. (H/t alphaaqua.)

• NH-Gov: One other gubernatorial poll has good news for Democrats, and it even comes from Rasmussen. They find incumbent Gov. John Lynch in safe position with 58/38 approvals and, against his no-name opponents, leading social conservative activist Karen Testerman 53-30 and businessman Jack Kimball 51-32.

• OH-Gov: Who knew that John Kasich had the power to transcend the boundaries of space and time? In an effort to court the GOP’s restive base, Kasich said “I think I was in the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.”

• WY-Gov: One more big-name Republican (by Wyoming’s small standards) is getting into the gubernatorial race, banking on the assumption that incumbent Dem Dave Freudenthal won’t jump through the legal hoops necessary to run for a third term. Auditor Rita Meyer is getting into the race, where potential GOP primary rivals include former US Attorney Matt Mead and state House speaker Colin Simpson.

• AL-05: Rep. Parker Griffith is showing his true colors. The party-switcher has been turning away requests for refunds of contributions that don’t meet the requirements buried in the fine print: he says he can’t refund donations for the 2008 cycle, only the 2010 cycle, because the 2008 contributions were spent long ago.

• AR-02: Rep. Vic Snyder is in pretty dire shape, if a new poll from SurveyUSA is to be believed: he trails Republican candidate and former US Attorney Tim Griffin by a 56-39 margin. You may want to take this poll with a grain of salt, as it was paid for by Firedoglake, who seem to have an axe to grind in the health care reform debate, and the Snyder numbers seem to be less the main point than engaging in strangely-right-wing-sounding message-testing. The good news is that, even after a variety of anti-HCR arguments have been offered (and Nate Silver does a fine job of picking apart the survey), Snyder doesn’t fare much worse (at 58-35); the bad news, though, is that the 56-39 topline question was asked before any of the litany of anti-HCR talking points, suggesting that, HCR or no, we have a major problem in Arkansas.

• AZ-03: Despite Jon Hulburd’s surprising cash haul, he may have bigger company in the Democratic primary to replace recently-retired Republican Rep. John Shadegg. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon is the subject of speculation; he had briefly considered a 2008 run against Shadegg before ruling it out, saying his post-mayoral future would be in the private sector, but all eyes are on what he does now. (Gordon lives slightly outside the district’s boundaries.) On the GOP side, there’s no clear frontrunner at all. State Rep. Sam Crump has already said he’s running. Possible other candidates include state Treasurer Dean Martin (who would have to drop down from the gubernatorial bid he just launched this week), state Sens. Pamela Gorman and Jim Waring, Phoenix city councilor Peggy Neely, former ASU football star Andrew Walter, and, in a shocker, the co-founder of Taser International Inc., Tom Smith. Former state House speaker Jim Weiers has taken himself out of the running.

• NC-11: Businessman Jeff Miller has reversed course and will run against Democratic Blue Dog Rep. Heath Shuler in the 11th. Miller had been recruited to run, but decided against it; he’ll have to face a primary against Hendersonville mayor Greg Newman, who got in after Miller initially declined.

• OH-15: The Ohio GOP is still searching for an Auditor candidate after Mary Taylor decided to run for Lt. Governor instead of re-election. Former state Sen. Steve Stivers has been asked to run for Auditor, but made clear he’ll be staying in the race in the 15th (where he might actually have better odds, considering how close he came to Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy last time).

Suffolk University (1/11-13, likely voters, 11/4-8 in parens):

Martha Coakley (D): 46 (58)

Scott Brown (R): 50 (27)

Joseph L. Kennedy (I): 3 (-)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Just to keep you up to speed, this is the second poll we’ve seen of Massachusetts today. Earlier, R2K released a survey showing Coakley up by eight points. We’ve also heard word of a new Dem internal poll showing Coakley up by five.

Amazingly, we may have to stay up way past our bedtimes next Tuesday in order to find out the fate of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Update: A few more tidbits from the poll: Brown enjoys a 57-19 favorable rating, compared to Coakley’s 49-41. A full 17% of Dems abandon ship in favor of Brown, while 64% of voters still thinking that Coakley will win. (Perhaps the reporting of polls like this one may make a dent in that number.) The poll also shows, unlike some other recent surveys, a majority of voters opposed to health care reform, although perhaps the poll’s wording (“the proposed near universal healthcare law”) may have something to do with that.

Later Update: As noted in the comments, Suffolk is determining likely voters as those who “knew the date of Tuesday’s election”. It’s possible that this is producing an unusually tight likely voter screen in Scott Brown’s favor, but I wouldn’t take that as an excuse to breathe easy.

Memo Update: The full polling memo is available here (pdf).

Research 2000 for Blue Mass Group (1/12-13, likely voters, no trendlines):

Martha Coakley (D): 49

Scott Brown (R): 41

Joe Kennedy (L): 5

Undecided: 5

(MoE: ±4%)

Research 2000 checks in with its first poll of the Massachusetts Senate race (although the poll was commissioned by local blog Blue Mass Group, rather than the big orange mothership, not that that should affect the numbers). This is also the first poll taken after Monday’s televised debate. They find an eight-point lead for Coakley, obviously much better than the most recent Rasmussen and PPP polls, though still hardly a slam dunk (rather concerning, for instance, is that the Libertarian candidate, Joe Kennedy [no relation to the dynasty], is polling at 5% — as we saw in New Jersey, third party candidates like that tend to fall off a bit in the final equation, and Libertarian votes seem likelier to gravitate toward Brown).

In the crosstabs, Brown leads 49-36 among independents, which is a much smaller edge than PPP saw. Coakley is leading only 46-45 among whites and is trailing Brown 50-41 in the state’s southeast; her lead seems based primarily on non-whites (including an 86-4 lead among blacks) and the Boston area (where she leads 53-37). (Discussion also underway in conspiracy‘s diary.)

Brown is trying to walk a tightrope here, as he’s trying to attract enough support from nationwide tea-party types to attract their dollars, while still keeping them at arms’ length enough to keep the votes of local moderates. For instance, he’s been avoiding asking the potentially polarizing endorsement of Sarah Palin (and she’s been smart enough to not offer it without having been asked). However, he’s been saying he’s not familiar with the Tea Party movement… a petard on which he’s currently being hoisted, as video and photos of him addressing local Tea Party gathering have surfaced (including from his own Flickr account).

Meanwhile, Coakley received the Boston Globe‘s endorsement (although that shouldn’t be any more of a surprise than Brown getting the Herald’s endorsement). One other story getting play today is the possibility that it may take weeks to certify the winner of the election, especially if it’s close (but even if it’s not, as town clerks need to wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before certifying their town-level results). Naturally, the right is assuming this is a ploy to give the Democrats enough time to wrap up health care reform before Brown arrives on his white horse to kill it.

UPDATE: I know I’ve seen lots of talk in the comments that the deal-sealer should be Vicki Kennedy cutting a TV ad on Martha Coakley’s behalf, and having that be the campaign’s closing argument over the weekend. Via Chuck Todd, it sounds like that’s exactly what they’re doing. Leaving nothing to chance, the DNC is also reportedly sinking another $150K, but more importantly, a lot more manpower on the ground, into the race.

RaceTracker Wiki: MA-Sen