Might As Well Start A Coakley vs. Brown Thread

Filed in National by on January 19, 2010

I have no idea how this is going to turn out.   That said, Greg Sargent finally has hard turnout numbers from the Massachusetts Secretary of State…

… and they confirm anecdotal evidence that turnout is running much higher than expected in Boston — a boon to Martha Coakley, perhaps, though who knows if it’s enough.

As of 3 PM today, 81,882 people had voted in Boston, according to Brian McNiff, the spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office. That’s more than a fifth of the city’s 358,953 registered voters.

For comparison, by the same time on election day 2006, only slightly more — 87,000 — had voted. And that was during elections for Senate, governor, and multiple lower offices. This single special election has generated nearly the same turnout as all those elections did, at least in Boston — and many think Coakley’s only chance to win is if turnout is disproportionately high there.

Make of that what you will.  And I thought I’d share this info, given that all the talking heads on TV have pretty much already called it for Brown.  I’d suggest caution is the best course of action… for both sides.

*Know what would make me happier than Coakley winning?  Watching every one of these pundits forced to eat their words.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (98)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Delaware Dem says:

    I have prepared myself for the Coakley loss, so if she wins it will be a very happy surprise.

  2. pandora says:

    I have no idea what to think. I’m just watching and waiting.

  3. I’m with DD. I would be surprised if Coakley won, since she seemed to be having a collapse at the end. Turnout seems to be pretty high, but is it high enough?

  4. pandora says:

    I’ve been thinking… if Coakley loses, is that really the worst thing? Bear with me for a second. The 60 senate majority has been a political mess, and raised the bar to unrealistic levels. It also lays the blame entirely on Democrats.

    Every time we call Republicans obstructionists, the response has been, “You don’t need Republicans, you have 60 votes.” So then when things get messed up, we end up fighting with, or wooing, Democrats. Republicans get a pass.

    Granted, this is not an ideal situation, and I want Coakley to win, but if she doesn’t… Am I crazy? Probably.

  5. kaveman says:

    The dems start eating their own, again.

    Meanwhile, the Coakley campaign has been laying the blame on the White House for not getting involved soon enough. In a memo leaked to Politico, a Coakley adviser makes that case.

    An excerpt from the memo:

    — Coakley campaign provided national Democrats with all poll results since early December

    — Coakley campaign noted concerns about “apathy” and failure of national Democrats to contribute early in December. Coakley campaign noted fundraising concerns throughout December and requested national Democratic help.

    — DNC and other Dem organizations did not engage until the week before the election, much too late to aid Coakley operation

    Greg Sargent of The Plum Line blog quotes an anonymous senior Democratic Party official who pushes back against the memo. According to Sargent’s source:

    This memo is a pack full of lies and fantasies — The DNC and the DSCC did everything they were asked and have been involved in the race for several weeks, not just the last one. The campaign failed to recognize this threat, failed to keep Coakley on the campaign trail, failed to create a negative narrative about Brown, failed to stay on the air in December while he was running a brilliant campaign. It’s wishful thinking from a pollster, candidate and campaign team that were caught napping and are going to allow one of the worst debacle in American political history to happen on their watch that they are at the 11th hour are going to blame others.”

    Sounds like Coakley has already conceeded the race to me.

  6. June says:

    While you’re waiting around for results, watch Jon Stewart on the Mass. race – MASS BACKWARDS http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards As usual, he’s got it right.

  7. I’m definitely sick of the fingerpointing, k. I think there’s plenty of blame to spread around should she lose (it’s not only her fault, the 60 votes if Lieberman and Nelson say it’s o.k. is a big factor too). I don’t understand why they can’t wait until after the election to start the blame game.

  8. A. price says:

    thank you pan. honestly you see the silver lining. i was getting the proverbial hose hooked up to the proverbial tailpipe and turning the proverbial car in the the proverbial garage on… i’ll turn it off for now.

  9. I’m not sure pandora on 59 vs. 60. I guess 59 would make Dems figure out how to pass legislation – maybe??? People keep asking why Bush could push things through with fewer Senate votes – it’s because Democrats would cooperate with the Republicans.

  10. Kilroy says:

    Unstable Isotope
    “I’m with DD. I would be surprised if Coakley won, since she seemed to be having a collapse at the end. Turnout seems to be pretty high, but is it high enough?”

    I still feel the Kennedy factor might pull her through. Just don’t think they have the heart to allow his seat to go to the other side.

    I watched Obama’s little campaign rally for Coakley on CSPAN and honestly he looked a bit tired and didn’t that old sparkle.

    Coakley’s loss will be a big “personal” blow to Obama and not because of the healthcare bill concerns but seeing Ted Kennedy’s seat fall to the GOP. It will be a knife plunged deep into the core of the democratic party. It’s a bit odd because Obama was brought into the Kennedy circle as if a family torch was passed to him.

  11. pandora says:

    I’m not sure either, UI. Just thinking out loud. 🙂

  12. Kilroy says:

    “I’m not sure either, UI. Just thinking out loud” Pehaps it’s the wine talking, LOL ! How you been, hope all is well!

  13. A. price says:

    can a contributor call an emergency Drinking Liberally at Catherine Rooney’s in Trolley tonight? i think we’re gonna need it.

  14. LOL, A. That reminds me – when is the next Drinking Liberally?

  15. A. price says:

    should be next thursday right?

  16. MJ says:

    Brown wins the vote in Shrewsbury.

  17. 45% Coakley, 55% Brown, 2% reporting. I have no idea where this is from, probably suburbs first. Big cities usually report late I think.

  18. MJ says:

    Dudley MA is going 2-1 for Brown

    5% in (small outlying towns) Brown 32, Coakley 47, Kennedy 1. Boston turnout was higher than expected.

  19. Rasmussen exit poll: 22% of Dems voted for Brown, Coakley won late deciders by 6%. I’m not sure if that’s enough. High turnout in general but not amazingly high and not great in some high minority/progressive districts.

  20. A. price says:

    oy i cant watch. I just was told i might lose my job next month….. now the teabaggers are gonna defeat any chance of stopping the insurance ponsis from keeping health care unaffordable to all us “irresponsible 20 somethings”
    bad day.

  21. Coakley 47%, Brown 52% with 4% reporting.

  22. pandora says:

    I think there will be a drinking liberally next Thursday. I’m out of town until next Tuesday, so I’m shamelessly dumping this on LG.

    Things are going well, Kilroy. No wine tonight, I’ve been sick the last few days. Hope all is well with you!

  23. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    146 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 71,914 51%
    Martha Coakley (D) 67,506 48%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 1,243 1%

    This does not include anything from Boston. Brown carries North Andover 2-1.

  24. kaveman says:

    I was listening to NPR on the way home and while they didn’t have any hard numbers, they reported voter turnout in the suburbs as “very high” and turnout in the cities as “not so high.”

    This favors Brown. The only number they released was approx 30% turnout in Boston, Coakley’s biggest stronghold.

  25. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    238 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 139,806 53%
    Martha Coakley (D) 122,732 46%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 2,434 1%

  26. A. price says:

    c’mon.. beat this slut!
    (I mean the one who has a history of pornography)

  27. 46% Coakley, 53% Brown with 11% reporting. I have no idea what districts these are.

  28. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    280 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 169,808 53%
    Martha Coakley (D) 145,733 46%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 2,922 1%

  29. kaveman says:

    Assuming MJ’s numbers are correct, it appears that Joseph Kennedy’s decision to stay in the race will not be a factor in the final outcome.

    Also assuming that trend holds but that’s over 10% reporting.

  30. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    459 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 254,686 53%
    Martha Coakley (D) 224,421 46%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 4,520 1%

    These are still outlying areas and not Boston

  31. kaveman says:

    Bad link pandora?

    Now 13% reporting.

  32. pandora says:

    Belmont is leaning towards Coakley. I visit Belmont quite often. My dearest friend – a die hard Republican – lives in this very, very expensive Boston suburb with all her (really nice) Republican friends. Not sure what this means, if anything. I was just a bit surprised.

  33. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    504 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 280,138 52%
    Martha Coakley (D) 248,516 47%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 4,944 1%

    Brown is taking about the same vote as McCain did, but Coakley is only taking about 50% of what Obama did.

    Vote totals are from Sec of State posted on WBZ-TV.

    With 48% reporting from Boston, Coakley is taking 60% of the vote.

  34. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    618 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 331,843 53%
    Martha Coakley (D) 294,090 47%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 6,044 1%

  35. 47% C, 52% Brown with 36% reporting. I have to say this is very close to what the late polling was saying.

  36. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    946 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 488,643 52%
    Martha Coakley (D) 442,085 47%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 9,427 1%

    Coakley takes Boston 2-1.

  37. kaveman says:

    “With 48% reporting from Boston, Coakley is taking 60% of the vote.”

    That’s certainly not going to be enough to pull ahead, and Boston truly is her ace in the hole.

    Looks like I’ll be up late tonight watching.

  38. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    1215 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 638,823 53%
    Martha Coakley (D) 563,214 46%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 12,100 1%

  39. John Tobin says:

    From Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post -the HyperFix on Twitter:
    Stat from a pollster friend. In 08 Obama won Boston 79-20.
    Coakley 58, Brown 40. Not enough.

  40. Brown’s 7% margin is holding with 57% in. Unless there’s a hidden cache of Democratic votes I think Brown wins it.

  41. kaveman says:

    The true take away from this race will be the growing influence of those who register as independents.

    Those that blindly vote because of the letter that appears after their name on the boob-tube, are up for a serious wake up call…on both sides.

  42. anonone says:

    Would Bush, Rove, and Cheney have ever allowed a repub senatorial candidate in a red state running against a Cosmo centerfold to even come close to losing?

  43. A. price says:

    congrats Teagabgs. you kept millions of americans form getting health insurance. hope you feel good about yourselves.

  44. kaveman says:

    “Would Bush, Rove, and Cheney have ever allowed a repub senatorial candidate in a red state running against a Cosmo centerfold to even come close to losing?”

    From what I’ve read, I have to say that Coakley’s complacentcy and down-right arrorgance early on when “everybody” thought this was already a done deal, bears the blame all by herself.

    Obama didn’t have a choice. He HAD to go at the last minute because Coakley ran a poor campaign and well, kinda slept walk through it.

  45. MJ says:

    Senate Special Election – Massachusetts
    1419 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
    Scott Brown (R) 750,616 53%
    Martha Coakley (D) 661,351 46%
    Joseph Kennedy (I) 14,323 1%

  46. kaveman says:

    “congrats Teagabgs. you kept millions of americans form getting health insurance. hope you feel good about yourselves.”

    Like I just said, the reason Martha Coakley will lose this race is Martha Coakley.

    Having said that, seeing the Tea Party put on a good showing in, of all places …BOSTON, is kinda poetic.

    Don’t ya think?

  47. xstryker says:

    I blame the Red Sox.

  48. MJ says:

    Coakley was Creigh Deeds in drag. Another badly run campaign.

    Boston Globe reports that Coakley has conceded to Brown, according to a Brown aide.

  49. anonone says:

    Rove and Bush would never have let it even be close. They would have had every national repub “star” they had campaigning and fundraising in the state from the beginning. They would have had tracking polls daily. They would have shredded the Dem candidate for being a Cosmo Centerfold.

    Obama and the Dems? They showed up last Sunday.

    You can’t win the battle if you don’t even fight. Anybody else missing Chairman Howard Dean tonight? Of course, Obama kicked Howard off the team. Loser.

  50. Coakley and MA Dems were complacent and arrogant. Expecting Obama to pull her ass from the fire at the last moment – it was always a Hail Mary. Apparently her campaign didn’t even have a tracking poll until 2 weeks ago. Coakley deserved to lose – and she didn’t wake up until the media narrative against her was negative. The questions were basically “why does your campaign suck so much?” I think that’s why her numbers started tanking in the last few days. People back a winner.

    Now we’ll have to see what Democrats do with their overwhelming 18-vote majority in the Senate. We only have 59 votes is not a good excuse.

  51. kaveman says:

    “I blame the Red Sox.”

    Don’t ya mean the Yankees?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. As someone who has never gotten into watching/following sports, I felt this gaffe was trivial at best. Then I started reading just how rabid some sports fans are and realized how huge it was.

    I still think it’s trivial but when politicians are expected to know their audiences and they say something this stupid, well “Massachusettes” goes to the GOP.

  52. pandora says:

    AP projecting Brown is winner. Via MSNBC

    Coakley has conceded – again just announced on MSNBC

  53. MJ says:

    The AP has declared the race for Brown.

  54. k.,

    I think that was a bad gaffe. Keep your mouth shut if you don’t know the answer. It’s a stupid reason to lose votes but when you’re in a death spiral, every little thing matters.

  55. pandora says:

    Boston and their sports? Obnoxious.

    Very stupid mistake.

  56. anonone says:

    If you’re the President of the United States, you don’t let a campaign of this importance to your agenda go rogue and not even know it is happening.

    He either knew and did nothing or he didn’t know. Either way is damning.

    How the hell do you lose Ted Kenndy’s seat to a Cosmo Wingnut Centerfold? By incompetence, starting at the top.

  57. pandora says:

    Yes, we get it, A1. It’s all Obama’s fault.

  58. A. price says:

    ya know a1, i have to slightly agree with you on this one. I blame Coakley… not Obama. it is not his job to win her race. the DNC could … should have done a better job and not been so arrogant. now the american people will pay the price.

  59. A. price says:

    ok damn. he posted another LefTeabag comment before i refreshed the page. I blame Coakly and the DNC. Obama has more to worry about than every single race.

  60. kaveman says:

    “They would have had every national repub “star” they had campaigning and fundraising in the state from the beginning. ”

    I respectfully disagree. This is “Massachusettes” for Pete’s sake.

    The dem leadership thought this would be a cake-walk for ANY dem running against ANY repub. History added fuel to that stance.

    More importantly, Coakley thought this would be a cake-walk and never engaged the voters on any level other than, “Hey look, I have a D after my name, I’ll check in with ya’ll after I’m seated, bye.”

    It would have been somewhat foolish for the dem leadership to dump resources into a race that was considered little more than a formality.

    It back fired.

    Mass is 12% repub, 38% dem and 50% independent.

    They miscalculated and now they’re paying for it.

  61. pandora says:

    One thing they should have paid attention to is the fact that Massachusetts doesn’t often elect women.

  62. anonone says:

    Bush was an utter failure at governing, but he and Rove and Cheney knew how to get and use raw political power to drive their agenda. Martha Coakley was a freaking state Attorney General – she wasn’t some incompetent fool. So Obama and the National Dems let her essentially be destroyed by the RNC – no help from the fight-less Obama until it was way too late.

    And you keep defending him while the Dem party goes down in flames under his leadership?

  63. anonone says:

    Are you really pulling the “she was a woman” excuse? They elected her as Attorney General, pandora. And she was quite popular.

  64. kaveman says:

    “I think that was a bad gaffe. Keep your mouth shut if you don’t know the answer.”

    Unstable Isotope, I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight by saying what I did, but being someone who didn’t even know who Curt Shilling was before this race heated up, I thought it was trival in my reality, but I now realize that some regions take something like this quite personally, especially Curt Shilling himself.

    I don’t follow sports, never have; but I can appreciate the passion and loyalty of those who do.

    It was a bad gaffe to Red Sox fans, but not to me; I don’t even like soccer.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  65. pandora says:

    I think UI’s comment was directed to Coakley, not you, kaveman.

  66. anonone says:

    I love the excuses here – because she had a gaffe about sports or because she was a woman.
    Anything but the truth.

  67. ray k says:

    A republican senator from the only state that George Mc Govern carried, a dark dark day, the corporations want there boys back and using there propoganda machine they are doing just that. Divide and conquer is an ancient tactic, but a very effective one, health-care insures led a rally on wall steet today, as it became obvious their profits are secure.

  68. kaveman says:

    “One thing they should have paid attention to is the fact that Massachusetts doesn’t often elect women.”


    In a liberal/progressive state????????????????????

    I happen to believe that the ability to represent the American people(50% male 50% female) is independent of whether or not you have a penis or a vagina, but that’s just me.

  69. k.,

    That was directed at Coakley.

    It’s true, MA has not elected many women.

  70. anonone says:

    kaveman, most people here only want to talk about what lovely clothes the emperor is wearing.

  71. anonone says:

    How many states have elected Cosmo Centerfolds?

  72. pandora says:

    I stand by my comment.

    “It took 222 years for Massachusetts to elect its first woman, running in her own right, to statewide office, and that was Shannon O’Brien as treasurer in 1998. Martha Coakley is only the second one. Welcome to liberal Massachusetts,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist based in Boston.


  73. kaveman says:

    “I think UI’s comment was directed to Coakley, not you, kaveman.”

    If that is true, I don’t quite understand why he adressed the response to k.,

    Either way, I was just trying to express the fact that since I don’t follow sports, I didn’t see the gaffe as a big deal but understand others may.

  74. kaveman says:


    That was directed at Coakley.”

    Okie-dokie, I’m fine with getting back on topic.

  75. xstryker says:

    Goldman Sachs secures 51st seat in Senate.

  76. xstryker says:

    Note that I did not say 41st.

  77. A. price says:

    sorry pan, i think that is a cop-out. Hillary won the Mass primary. the dems blew this one. jsut like they have blown their super majority. Obama among other things was burdened with a crappy lot of senators. many of them are paid off, many more are spineless.

  78. kaveman says:

    Is it over?

    Did she really concede?

  79. anonone says:

    So that’s your excuse, pandora? Because she is a woman?

  80. Yes, she conceded already. Obama has already called Brown to congratulate him.

  81. pandora says:

    I didn’t offer it as an excuse, I said they should have paid attention to it.

  82. kaveman says:

    OOOOOH, lookie there…

    “In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy — a win that could grind President Obama’s agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

    Coakley has called Brown to concede.”

    The honeymoon is over.

  83. anonone says:

    “Obama has already called Brown to congratulate him.” And I am sure Brown thanked him for making his election possible.

  84. kaveman says:

    “I didn’t offer it as an excuse,”

    Parse words much?

  85. anonone says:

    Who is the “they” you are referring to, pandora? You mean like *gasp* Obama and the National Party that he leads?

  86. pandora says:

    Sooooo sorry. I thought we were having a discussion as to why this happened and all the factors that contributed to it. If you choose to take my point and make it my only point… knock yourself out.

  87. kaveman says:

    Well, have fun ya’ll.

    Maybe I’ll come back as the midterms heat up.

    Heapum powerful omen, no?

  88. A1,

    You do know that the Democratic voters of MA chose Coakley, right? You think Obama should have taken over her campaign from the start? I read she told them to butt out early on.

  89. pandora says:

    You are such a fool, A1. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

    But I am noticing your testiness. I must have hit a nerve with you earlier. Well, you gained a scalp and get to blame Obama. You must be thrilled tonight.

  90. anonone says:

    “Such a fool” Et tu, pandora? Obama is the leader of the Democratic party. He did *nothing* to help her until it was way too late. The buck stops with him.

  91. pandora says:

    Approximately two weeks ago she didn’t need help. She was ahead in the polls. I’m all for spreading the blame… unlike you.

  92. anonone says:

    UI, you can try to shift the blame from the Obama and the DNC all you want. I am highly suspect of a story that reports that she told the President of the United States to butt out. Besides, he didn’t even need to take over her campaign, there is lots he could have done that would have ensured a victory.

  93. anonone says:

    Two weeks ago, Brown was gaining rapidly on her. The trends were clear. They did nothing until 2 days ago.

  94. ray k says:

    Perhaps the people of this very liberal state just cannot resist a handsome republican man, First Romney and now Brownie, I guess that,s really grasping at straws, we are all doomed!!

  95. Lizard says:

    Webb Urges a Halt to Senate Health Care Votes
    NYtimes ^ | 01/19/10 | DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

    Responding to the victory in Massachusetts by the Republican, Scott Brown, Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, is calling on Senate leaders to suspend any votes on the Democrats’ health care legislation until Mr. Brown is sworn into office.

    In a statement, Mr. Webb, who voted for the health care bill in December, congratulated Mr. Brown on his victory and said he looked forward to working with him. But he also said Democrats must take note of the wider implications of the election results.