This isn't good

You probably already know what I'm talking about.

Martha Coakley is going to lose the Senate Special Election in Massachusetts, not just ending the Democratic Kennedy legacy(Ted Kennedy passed away, for those out of the loop), but allowing Scott Brown to become the first Republican in 30 years to occupy a Massachusetts Senate seat. Brown has promised to vote AGAINST the health care bill, completely undoing all the progress Democrats made in trying to put the votes together.

How could this happen!? Isn't Massachusetts one of if not the most liberal/Democratic state in the union? Well, the fact that Brown can win is what makes this election special.

Let's look at the last 2008 Presidential election to explain how this is possible. John Kerry, a popular incumbent, got 66% of the vote; his Republican opponent acquired 31%. This is a strong Senate victory, but not surprising for an incumbent in a state with Cook PVI of D+12. (The Cook Partisan Voting Index is a rating of how well Democrats and Republicans will do on a general congressional ballot--in other words non-incumbency, two unknown candidates, literally would you vote for the D or the R regardless of personality or credibility, in general).

Here's two realities that need to be figured. 1. Just because a state is blue, or even "the most" blue, it is not ALL blue. There are a lot of Republicans in Massachusetts; almost 1 million voted in the 2008 election, and the Republicans who did vote are the ones who care THE MOST. Keep that in mind. 2. The Cook PVI for Massachusetts is only D+12 in Massachusetts; put another way Democrat gets 56%, Republican gets 44%. This is not an insurmountable margin, especially because neither Coakley nor Brown is an incumbent, and neither has a significantly notable name recognition lead.

The final and most important reality is that this is a Special Election. That means it's an election which will temporarily fill a suddenly vacated seat until the next regular election. Turnout for special elections is very, very low and only the most enthusiastic voters will take the time to vote. No one else is on the ballot, so having a powerful Democratic establishment in Massachusetts does not help as much as it should. All of these factors have conspired to allow Brown to ease on up on Coakley in the polls, but still, why might he WIN?!

Pundits have allotted different levels of blame toward sagging Presidential approval, a poor, gaffe-ridden candidate choice by the Democrats, a personable semi-moderate Republican choice by the opposition... But the key, I think, is one thing: Scott Brown will vote against the increasingly unpopular Democratic health care bill. Or more importantly, he'll filibuster it to prevent it from coming to a vote-- the Dem caucus will only have 59 members instead of 60, which means they can't overcome a filibuster. And, and! Guess what! Republicans have noticed how much of a difference this one tiny election in Massachusetts can make so they've poured all their resources into creating an upset. And they very well might. Now it will be considered an upset if Coakley wins.

Conservatives are quite fired up about the idea of defeating the health care bill and liberals are not very excited about passing it. All of the enthusiasm and energy is coming from the Conservative resurgence and anti-big-government "Tea Party" movements which fueled Republican Governor wins in NJ and VA a few months ago. Many liberals, on the other hand, are ambivalent or even in opposition to the health care bill, and an inability to tap into that base is crippling Democrats in a Special Election where enthusiasm is almost everything.

Could the Democratic establishment still win out? Odds at Intrade and Fivethirtyeight are around 25%, but it's probably more than that. There's a lot to be said for establishment (Convicted of corruption charges -for hiding bribe? money in his freezer- Jefferson, the Democratic candidate in Louisiana's 2nd district still ALMOST WON the election there in 2008. The reason? Heavy Democratic establishment...) and Coakley, despite not generating much enthusiasm might win by default of having the D next to her name. Time will tell. After all, Obama and the Democratic party have pulled out all the stops to try to get her to win, even sending the President to Massachusetts to campaign for her, putting his personal credibility on the line.

Because of this, if Coakley does lose, Republicans will have an absolute field day with the results, claiming that it's a referendum on Obama (which is only a little bit true) and Democratic leadership (which is a little more true) and ignoring the fact that it was a Special Election and that the results were very, very close. It'll be hard for Democrats to spin this any other way than... we messed up, big time.

Despite my bold announcement at the beginning, I don't actually know who's going to win; it looks like Brown has the momentum and odds in recent polling (not to mention that enthusiasm, which again, is everything), but I think it's a lot closer than a 25% chance that she'll win, and that the margin will be + or - 5% one way or another. Still, she's looking at pulling an upset akin to Clinton's win in the NH primary back in 2008


After seeing the results of the election tonight, I'll have another post with analysis on what it will mean for health care (obviously if Coakley wins it'll be shorter), but Democrats have a few (kinda desperate and dirty) cards up their sleeves if Brown steals this seat.

And Republicans really shouldn't get too excited. If Brown wins it really will be a rare steal. I believe his seat will almost certainly go right back to the Dems next real election cycle.



On a side note, according to the Cook PVI, Hawaii and Vermont are the most Democratic states, but being a Democrat in one state might mean something different than in another, so this may have no bearing on how "liberal" a state may be. Vermont's my pick for most liberal state, if only for the presence of Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator, and almost- almost... socialist.