Coakley/Brown Senate Race: Results Watching Primer, Update 3
Time to tweet stuff as it comes across on the TV stations once the polls close. Link is on the mid right side....
###########
Politics happens to be the biggest spectator sport in the country. We have one of those rare special elections that has garnered national attention.
Well, it may not have garnered national attention. Let me scratch that. It has garnered national media attention, so perhaps it is just inside the beltway echo chamber music.
It has certainly garnered MA attention. People are putting out handmade political signs in droves. My two sons mentioned it driving around where we live, and friends on the south shore near Boston and the more rural areas far west of Boston mention the same things. Handmade signs. That takes effort rather than a pushy operative embarrassing you into submission and showing up and driving it into the ground for you.
I know. I did that for a living for a while.
It is still a toss up. Pundits are unsure based on what is typically low voter turnout. As such, most are putting this one in the "Too Close to Call" category.
If you are one such junkie, then here are a few indicators to watch:
- Coakley needs to have a low double digit lead early to have a shot.
Not unique to Massachusetts, cities report earlier than rural communities using less sophisticated polling data. The urban centers have more heavily concentrated democratic support. At issue here will be center right democrats. Will the more blue collar democrats break for a republican based on fears around jobs and the cost of healthcare reform? In short will "Reagan Democrats" come back over or not.
Coakley needs to be in the healthy double digits. - Turnout Percentage
Low turnouts play to the underdog. This is a dead of winter special election where most of the electorate was asleep assuming the Democrat Primary was the real race and that the general election was simply a formality. To combat that both parties have been dumping tons of money on television ads and automated phone calls from various celebrities.
25% to 35% would be clear advantage to Brown. 45% or more would seem to be a clear advantage to Coakley. - Exit Polling
Exit polling data enables the talking heads to look intelligent based on what they think they know is going to happen. This thing has turned into a referendum on the Democratic agenda at the moment. Massachusetts folks do not support the Obama healthcare plan by a slight majority. Since that data came forth, it is now being spun that this is the result of our having a statewide plan (launched by a Republican Governor, but that is glossed over) and therefore we are content and do not have the same worries. You know? We're selfish?
Check the issues. You see large majorities concerned with the debt or national security issues moreso than the Obama plan, and it's lights out for Coakley. You see overwhelming support for the Obama health care plan, and it is lights out for Brown.
The talking heads cannot tell you who won too soon, but they will tip their hat by what issues they show from the exit polls.
This thing is anybody's guess. But the feeling on the ground around here seems to suggest that there's a populist uprising afoot that has had it with what is going on in Washington and that there's a desire to send a message. Brown just might pull this thing off.
Either way, however, the damage has been done. Folks from around the country have been emailing me wondering what is going on. Massachusetts had the reputation for being ultra liberal, so the idea that a republican could pull this off shocks many.
That hammers democrats, regardless of who wins. Only way they get away from this unscathed would be if Coakley wins by 15 points.
Either way, Coakley will not go unscathed. Democrats will destroy her to shift blame for this loss away from the national party's missteps.
I cannot end without mentioning that Massachusetts used to have Governors appoint seats vacated by death or resignation. Democrats pushed to change this when Republican Mitt Romney was Governor, and they were anticipating having to fill a the seat vacated by John Kerry winning the presidency. Ted Kennedy put out a death bed plea to change it back so Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, whose days might also be numbered, could appoint someone to fill the remainder of his term.
This infuriated many people in the state as being fast and loose with the rules and likely plays into it as well.
At the end of the day, one word sums it up: Schadenfreude.
Update 1
Exit poll information is being released with an ominous sign for Coakley in that half of the Mass voters are unenrolled or independent voters. Those folks are breaking for Brown 69% to 28%.
Secondly there are snow storms that will wash out the less energized voter. All other things equal, those break to Coakley simply based on voter registrations.
Thirdly, from the talking heads, the turnout is heavier in the suburbs than in the city centers. This one is the biggest indicator, frankly, as Coakley has to clean up in the city centers to stand a chance.
Update 2
Chuck Todd happens to be one of the best pundits out there. He came from the poll data analysis side of the shop and was obviously a Tim Russert protegee. His point at this time on MSNBC was to state that if turnout remains high AND it breaks for Brown, then it is flying in the face of conventional wisdom that usually has low turnout playing to the underdog.
He stated that the 06 and 08 elections in MA had about 2.2 million voters. If a special election meet or exceeds that number, and if the high turnout does not break the way it traditionally has, THEN it is a really, really ominous blow for democrats.
Update 3
I have just returned from the pols. I went around 4 as that is a dead time at this community. I have stood outside this polling place numerous times, twice for my own elections. There's a morning burst of folks going to work and dropping kids off at school. Elderly folk drift in during the day. Then it is flat out dead from about 3 to 5:30 when folks start coming home to work. If poll checking your own vote, you leave at 5 and start making calls to your identified voters to remind them to get there before 8.
So I was stunned. Quite literally stunned to find traffic jams at the polls there when showing up at what I KNOW to be a dead period. Particularly given it is spitting snow and is generally inclement.
The Town Clerk whom I have known for 20 years informed me she had originally expected about 30% turnout, then kicked it up to 40% yesterday and is now expecting it to get near 50%. That is presidential election kind of turnout.
The guys holding signs I have also known for years. They claim it is the most fun they have had in years, as people walk by them holding Brown signs and give them a thumbs up and stop to talk.
It is but one community of 12,000 about 50 miles dead west of Boston on the MA border, but it is not at all what I expected, nor what those who have organized for elections in this community for years expected.
Refer to Chuck Todd's summarization included in Update 2. Polls close at 8. Pollsters could be calling this thing by 9.
#########
A post after Obama got elected that got nary a peek.
One after his inauguration.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Deven McKay
Dr. Strangemom
Duane Gundrum
Tea Scrolls
MarkinKentuckiana
David Price
Salon.com
Comments
1) the overall missteps of the Washington Dems in repsonding to the financial crisis, the bailout and the health care bill. "Missteps" being the most polite term I can think of. They've deflated the base.
2) Coakley being a lousy candidate running a crappy campaign.
3) MA voters having short-term memory problems. Brown supports (seemingly) every Republican policy from the last decade that led to the economic mess we're in.
A fine analysis, Gwool. Only the motivated voters show up at special elections. I'm not sure any Dem wants to vote for Coakley.
Thanks for ther informative piece. R
Mamoore: I think I could turn that around and suggest there's more civility in the Midwest than the Northeast, although the NH primary cycle is an incredible, incredible experience. It makes me ache every 4 years given my work experience in it 30 years ago.
Steve: This thing is big.
OE: I have to disagree with you on that one. This should have been a cake walk. There is no way she wins by more than 3 to 4, and the news reports seem to suggest turnout dynamics favoring Brown. This has national repercussions based on the MA image and how it has been a Kennedy seat, blah, blah, blah. Dems will want it to go away, but it simply will not.
Con: Really? Wow.
Shaggy: That is a factor, sure. Democrats do not have to learn how to campaign, frankly, because general elections have been foregone conclusions in the past. But, this is more than that.
Harvey: What has been amazing has been all the handmade Brown Signs being made. Kind of makes me think of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington....
Stim: I do not disagree with the first two points, and, frankly, do not know Brown's record. Could be as you suggest, but the only one defining him has been the DNC in a frantic effort to smear him with Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney etal in dark intonations. I also would NOT discount the populist anger of the Kennedy death bed plea for a rule change. It smelled of royalty and pissed a lot of people off.
John: That is the irony of it all as I wrote a week or so back. This thing is lightning in a bottle with a perfect storm of events leading to this. Lousy candidate, a state against healthcare as now presented, a clean impressive likeable underdog, Dem state leadership tone deaf to their over reaching given the have 80% or more in both the house and senate. Bing, bang, B O O M.
If Brown is running on the pledge to kill the current house bill and is winning there may be truth to this rumor. Or maybe people decided that 46 years with a democrat did not do them any good so maybe it is time to switch teams. I am a firm believer in shake it up and kick them out every 4-8 years. Career politicians are not good for this country.
The most strident of the so-called liberal or progressive element has been savaging Obama and his pragmatic approach to dealing with the political climate in which he is working…doing as much, if not more, to damage Obama, the Democratic Party, and the progressive agenda as anything done by the natural enemies of those things.
A loss of just one senate seat in Massachusetts may finally wake these misguided people up, but probably not! At best it is a long shot that this tiny whiff of what their shortsightedness and silliness will probably reap on a national scale…might do the job. But more likely they will do what the conservatives do whenever they suffer a loss or a setback.
Whenever the conservatives confront a political loss or setback, they always complain it was because their people lacked consistency…that they refused to stand firm and instead, made what were perceived to be capitulations to “the other side”…that they made political concessions. The right always claims they lose because their people are not going far enough to the right…and not being rigid and ideological in staying there.
I think the so-called liberals and progressives who have been excoriating Obama at every opportunity will do the same thing if the Republicans take that Massachusetts senate seat.
They will assert that Obama’s willingness to be pragmatic in the face of a hostile political climate is the reason for the loss; they will assert that the failure was the result of Obama not being willing to go further left…because he was willing to compromise with the right.
Folks, the right was (and is) completely full of shit in thinking that way…and the so-called liberals and conservatives engaging in these constant, unrelenting hatchet jobs are no less full of it. These are the people who helped conservatives make “liberal” a bad word…and they are just as surely the people helping conservatives persuade Independents that Obama…and the means he is using to get things done…are wrong for America.
We Americans are getting what we deserve.
In the first place the percentage of people who are talked to as they exit the polls is low due to the fact that it's illegal to talk to someone exiting the polls within 100 feet of the polling place. What that means is that the person that the press is talking to may or may not have actually voted. In busy areas, such as cities, it's virtually impossible to know if the person the press is speaking to voted *at all*... in more rural areas it's an easier "call" due to the fact that they can usually keep their eyes on the voter from the time that they arrive to vote until the time that they leave the polling place.
Secondly, there's absolutely *nothing* that says that someone talking to the press after voting is telling the truth about who (or what) they voted for (or against).
Deborah: Oh yes it is going to be good. Seems like the dems are doing their level best to distance themselves from the candidate to pin it on her rather than on resentment to the national mood.
Molly: Capuano is not a bad guy. Not sure what it was about him that did not succeed. I seem to recall Coakley also frantically tacking left on a few third rail issues that may have energized the Cambridge/northampton crowd but likely did not set well with the more center right dems who likely bailed on Shannon O'Brien after Russert tossed her a few exploding cigar questions around abortion.
MTodd: That is DC sheet music. Mass has healthcare, so they do not have the same concerns. In short, the former bellweather dem state is now selfish. Hell, just call us DINOs, Obama.
LuLu: This is populist discuss on a par with 94, but it feels so much more visceral to me. I think it is a function with the scope of the economic issues this time compared to 92. By 92 the economy had turned around based on more prudent tax policy from Bush 1 in the brokered deal with Mitchell. This one is deeper and more deepseated.
Frank: I agree 100%. Parties pander to their flanks when they should simply tell them to shut up. For every two on the flank you lose, you only have to convert one over in the center. Nixon and Clinton understood the need for the race to the center. Would it would nto be so forgotten.
MrsRaptor. I have worked polls and stood in front of them, etc, etc etc. The national guys are much more sophisticated with the exit poll information. They have filter criteria for various things and have the statistical modeling to pin prick those providing a representative sampling that fits with past electoral patterns. They also have modeling to offset if the turnouts show differences from past practices. These guys do not want to be wrong with a "Dewey Defeats Truman" kind of headline. I understand the jaundiced eye, but they are rarely wrong about outcome. Maybe about margin of victory, but rarely about outcome. Not to be incendiary, but I find resistance to poll information usually is strongest from those who are not happy with what the results seem to be indicating.
I voted!
That election also finally, thankfully, put an end to the supposed invincibility of Karl Rove, self-declared political genius. Remember his declaration that his own polls showed the R's had nothing to worry about in 2006?
If there is any trend in the political wind, it's that the voters do appear ready to throw the bums out, regardless of their political affiliation -- with the caveat that of course this does not apply in the Deep South, where ignorance remains bliss.
Tom: Wait until about 9 tonight. I do agree wholeheartedly this is way more about throwing the bums out than embracing what passes for republican ideology. Republicans will split on this between wishing to focus on economic and security issues while tea baggers will insist we must hew further rightward. That internal power struggle is akin to Dems now arguing Obama should have been more this and more that. But there is anger at the assumptions MA Dem leadership took. Seeking to switch back to a Governor appointing for vacant seats after having switched to this format because a Rep Governor Romney would have filled Kerry's seat if he had won the presidency likely has something to do with it.
Brown said he was running as the People's candidate. He was not running as a red meat southern republican or whatever you want to call it. He was running a more populist notion. He shot at Coakley that it was not the Kennedy seat but the People's seat that obviously had to be a body blow, because the DNC has wheeled out Kennedy's widow to make an ad saying the exact same thing ... that it is the People's seat, and the Kennedy did the people's business, yadda yadda.
The turnout I mention in update 3 flat out astounds me.
The sad reality is that no matter who wins and who loses in MA today the citizens of the United States have lost and the fact of the matter is that ordinary Americans lost a long time ago.
Jeff: MSNB reports corroborate our anecdotes. They were reporting early on that the city centers were relatively dead while the suburban/rural were jammed. City centers are critical to Coakley. She needs a high teen percentage lead early to have a chance as the rural areas come in late. Furthermore, they will be later than normal, as they apparently underestimated the turnout and most rural areas still hand count paper ballots. Given budget crunches, they likely have fewer folks poll checking as this race and the primary one were not factored into woefully thin municipal budgets, given it was unforeseen.
Others: I have missed a couple, but thanks for stopping by. For a political junkie this is like finding a christmas present shoved behind the tree when taking it down after New Years. It is a huge surprise. Huge surprise. Brown had 27% of the vote after the primary. Conventional wisdom in MA says the dem primary is the real general election followed by the serving up of sacrificial lamb in the general. This truly is man bites dog.
Donahue said that was the game changer for Brown because Coakley "didn't have an effective answer against that.")
I am curious about this election. I do not sympathize with Coakley.
It is not just a matter of "assuming," it is a matter of arrogance.
What do they say? Pride goeth before the fall?
So how does President Obama get health care passed?
Djohn: It will split them as our ax handling split us in 06. One side will yip Obama was not leftward enough. Others will argue he threw the keys to Pelosi and Reid. All will seek to minimize the national implications by blaming it on Martha Coakley. It is not like she plucked from obscurity. She beat out a reasonable Dem congresscritter called Mike Capuano for this. She simply did what conventional wisdom expected in our one party state of assuming the Primary was the general election and the general was a mere formality. Big MA republican names like former Governors Romney and Celluci and lt gov Kerry Healy stayed on the sidelines. Any saying they knew he had a shot is lying, I suspect.
John Knight: This is a game changer. A real game changer. Dems in the house who won single digit victories in 08 will be shaking in their shoes. The senate will push for the house to pass this healthcare bill as is, and those marginal victory congresscritters will want to bolt. It will be interesting.
Okay, I'll ask. If the fed is going to spend billions, they are going to force millions on the states to pay, and you personal health care insurance cost will go up (all according to the CBO) somebody explain who is saving money?
Well Obama just got his smack down. The dems in the House may just decide to pass the Senate Health Care bill as written therefore making this election moot for this particular bill. In fact it will be ery interesting to see if Pelosi and gang will accept the Senate bill
even though they hate some of it as do their constituents.
Of course I hope she does not agree because now the Senate cannot force the compromises. They could kill c this damn thing all together and make congress start over and get something sensible.
This election was ALL about getting that all important one vote in the Senate. Now the dems cant ram shit down the public's throat.
Now on Health Care.
Would someone answer this question for me.
My simple understanding of the bill is that thre is no single payer or public option. So the gov is not covering everyone like Canada or countries in Europe. Employed people will still have insurance available. Retirement age and disabled people will still have Medicare. People without insurance by choice but can obviously afford it will pay a fine or get it. Who does that leave. Best I can tell that leaves the very poor who cannot afford but certainly deserve med care. And possibly some unemployed that COBRA has run out. And of course unemployed people who have a million bucks in the bank can afford to buy there own insurance.
So how many uninsured that cannot afford it are there when all of the above are accounted for?
Well how ever many they are I am happy to put the on Medicare or buy them a policy or whatever. But my question is this.
How is it costing a trillion bucks to cover this small group for about 7 years. I would have expected to cover everyone under single payerfor a trillion bucks for seven years.
Lets assume this trillion is going to cover 10% of the people. That means if we had single payer to cover everyone it would cost 10 trillion for seven years. WTF? 10 TRILLION for seven years.
How the hell is that reform or reducing total health costs.
All of us insured people is listed above are still going to buy insurance, those insurance companies are still going to pay what they pay for our bills whatever they may be. But we will spend a TRILLION more than that over 7 years for about 10% people to be covered. I cannot say I have research on my side. But someone please tell me that we have spent a total of a trillion in the last seven for every medical bill issued to everyone insured or not. I dont believe it is even close. And now we talking about adding a trillion for 10%. I thought this was about covering those who were not in a reasonable financial position to cover themselves AND to reduce costs.
So can someone tell be (regardless of how you feel about the issue) where the trillion is going. I cant possibly cost a trillion for the currently uninsured that cannot afford it.
Hell, I would be happy to take that trillion, negotiate rates similar to other insurers, and put those 10% on a good plan I just negotiated. I am certain I could easily pay all those bills for 7 years and come out with a least a Billion (just 1/1000th of the trillion)
for myself. Hell even 100 million would mean I only need to manage to pay the bills and keep just 1/10000th. 10 million for me
for 1/100000th saved of the trillion.
Do you guys comprehend the math here?
Please give me the trillion and I will give all those 10% the best plan around and get rich too.
So this is reform and saving money. Sending a trillion more for a % for 7 years.
Do you get this is DUMB.
Lets just figure out who qualifies (and I don't mind being pretty liberal about "qualifies") for financial help to buy a policy, and buy them one. I cannot possibly cost a trillion. It just cannot.
1,000,000,000,000. Do you realize how much money that is.
The interest alone should be able to cover a hell of a lot of people without even spending the principal.
The cold hard truth, happens to be the government buys slightly over half the medical services provided today. That's right. Government (state and fed combined) is far and away the largest purchaser.
And government sets its own payment terms. Government also dictates what it will pay for procedures while mandating the health provider deliver those services for those rates. Many of these rates do not cover the true cost of delivery.
So let's say a transaction costs $100 to deliver and government insists on paying $90 for the service. This means the private side pays $110 for said service.
This is a huge factor in why private costs have been increasing way faster than inflation. The government knows the ponzi scheme is cratering and does not want to raise taxes. Given corporations eat m ost premiums, they dictate a below market price, knowing the increase will be picked up more by companies than by individuals in what is, in actuality, a hidden tax on all of us.
So, when Obama touted "Medicaid for all" he was speaking a half truth. We do medicaid for all, and it is going to cost way more, as there will not be the private-side subsidy any longer to offset the reality that is the actuarial disconnect on the medicaid side.
The dialog has been around the service provision side with nary an acknowledgement of the economic distortion caused by 1) companies paying our bills so we have no accountability for the price consequences to our actions and 2) the hidden tax covering the operating losses of the government run purchase actions.
This thing does not lend itself to sound bites. It cannot be fixed merely by looking at who else to cover. It is a huge, huge gordian knot, frankly.