Pres. Barack Obama went to Massachusetts yesterday, for one of the odder and less persuasive appearances at a rally for a Democratic candidate in dire straits. Somewhere, Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds were watching the television and saying, "Man, that woman's in trouble." There were tributes to her independence and questioning of Scott Brown's independence, followed by emphasis of how important she be the 60th vote. In other words, 'don't worry, she won't be independent when it counts.'President Obama began by saying he didn't know much about Scott Brown, then offered his version of a litany of reasons to vote against him. (They brought POTUS to Massachusetts to be the attack dog?) Obama seemed to invoke and deride Scott Brown's truck in every other sentence. (One wonders what the truck-bashing will do to GM and Chrysler sales.) He invoked Martha Coakley's humble roots, which never seemed to be an important criterion during all those decades that the Kennedys treated the seat as a family heirloom.
In a supremely unexpected twist, Scott Brown seems to have drawn a crowd on par with President Obama, at least according to the Boston Globe. Of course, Brown had help, and thanked them: "John Ratzenberger, Lenny Clarke, Doug Flutie, Curt Schilling, Fred Smerlas, Steve DeOssie, and many, many others -- and my favorite singer, Ayla Brown." Meanwhile, afterwards, Patrick Kennedy, member of Congress and son of Ted Kennedy, repeatedly referred to the Democratic candidate as "Marcia Coakley." Some Republicans would say that's a reason for Democratic concern, but I wouldn't find that particular misnomer . . . sobering.
Perhaps most mind-blowing is this Ed Henry report: "Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday's special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday." Almost simultaneously, Strata-sphere notices similar spin on another channel: "Mark Halperin on Meet The Press (MTP) this morning just stated that the White House was quietly admitting to itself that Ted Kennedy's seat is slipping away."
I'm sure the lawyers from each party will hash this out, but the lawyers who talk to Fred Barnes make a pretty compelling case that appointed senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday's election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation.
Ed Morrissey makes an interesting argument: "In this case, we can play a non-corruption game of 'follow the money.' The pay date for a new Senator who wins a special election starts the following day after the polls close. Republican John Tower of Texas and then-Democrat Strom Thurmond are both precedents for this action. In both cases, their terms started on the day after election, even though it took weeks for their certification by the state. It's not clear from [Barnes's] article whether they were allowed to cast votes in the Senate, but what is clear is that they were recognized as occupying the seat -- and that is an exclusive occupation. Their appointed predecessors could not possess the same seat at the same time, and therefore were excluded from Senate business."
Charlie Cook says Scott Brown is now favored to win: "Given the vagaries of voter turnout, particularly in lower participation level special elections, this race could still go either way, but we put a finger on the scale for Brown. Last-minute Democratic attacks on Brown have driven his negatives up some and slightly diminished the incredible intensity of support that Brown enjoyed, but it looks more likely than not to hold."
Late Sunday night, Public Policy Polling put out their last poll: "Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in our final Massachusetts Senate poll, an advantage that is within the margin of error for the poll. Over the last week Brown has continued his dominance with independents and increased his ability to win over Obama voters as Coakley's favorability numbers have declined into negative territory. At the same time Democratic leaning voters have started to take more interest in the election, a trend that if it continues in the final 36 hours of the campaign could put her over the finish line."
Michelle Malkin looks at the wide base of support and calls Brown, "the center-right-indie coalition uniter." Commenters on lefty blogs simply can't believe it. It's rather fascinating; reading liberal commenters, they are absolutely certain that the Democrats are the ones fired up and the Republicans are lethargic and unenthused. The anecdotal evidence says otherwise.
Two other polls from little-known institutions came out since the last Morning Jolt. The first, conducted via telephone for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget, put Brown ahead 51.9 percent to 42.3 percent with 5.7 percent undecided; the second, conducted by the Merriman River Group (MRG) and InsideMedford.com indicates that Brown leads Coakley 50.8 percent to 41.2 percent in the contest to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. It's fabulous if true, but there are those who are a little wary of Interactive Voice Recording instead of live interviewers. American Research Group, which has gotten pretty out there sometimes, has Brown up 3.
You can't take anything for granted in this race. There will be a desperate effort to save Teddy Kennedy's seat and if Brown doesn't win by a decent margin (5 points or more) there's still room for Democrat shenanigans and election stealing. All the trends seem to show a Brown victory, but it will all depend on turnout, and turnout models for special elections are notoriously hard to predict. Certainly the enthusiasm is on Brown's side.
If you want to subscribe to The Morning Jolt you can do so through National Review Online.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment