Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Handicapping the Senate Race

By

Just for the heck of it, following is my back-of-the-envelope prediction for the Senate Preliminary.  I’m open to any corrections of my premise:

As things currently stand, I think that Capuano will wall Coakley into the more upscale parts of Norfolk, Essex, and Middlesex Counties.   He will take those counties as a whole, plus the remainder of the commonwealth.

I doubt that Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca will be much more than well-funded vanity candidates competing for a slice of Coakley’s geographic and demographic base.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. OK, but what is that based on? I would be quite surprised indeed if Coakley lost Middlesex County, for example. Also, how will Khazei and Pagliuca be competing for Coakley’s geographic and demographic base? Frankly, I’m not that sure that the demographic base even between Coakley and Capuano is all that different.

    <

    p>(BTW, I’m undecided between the two, so really this is just a question about where your speculation comes from).

  2. I’m all in favor of unbridled speculation, properly labeled. But I need more than this. Throw long.

  3. All polls indicate that Coakley is way ahead.  Granted her support is shallow, but none of the other candidates are doing anything to change the election dynamic.  Without a game-changer, Coakley will win statewide easily.  She’s the only candidate with statewide name recognition and the only one to have proven statewide electoral appeal.  And, don’t forget she has the same Hillary Clinton voter dynamic that won the Massachusetts Presidential Primary overwhelmingly.

    <

    p>With less than 2 months to go, most Massachusetts Democratic primary voters are not even engaged.  And, Capuano, Khazei and Pagliuca have yet to offer any compelling rationale to vote for them instead of her.  If they haven’t by now, what are they waiting for?

    <

    p>The key to Massachusetts state elections are the 128 communities.  The 128 communities are precisely Coakley’s strength.  Her base is Middlesex county which she we win overwhelmingly. Her Middlesex County strength will also help her win the Merrimack valley (Lowell, Chelmsford, Lawrence, Haverhill).  Plus, she has the endorsements that matter for winning Boston and Quincy.  Theresa Murray will help her win Plymouth county. And, she’s already poised to win Western Massachusetts.

    <

    p>Capuano will win his Congressional district handily and maybe those of Frank and McGovern (although I expect Coakley to win Newton and Framingham).  That means Capuano will carry Cambridge, Somerville, Fall River, Lynn, New Bedford and Worcester.  Unfortunately for Capuano, those cities have a very poor track record of voter turnout in primaries — even less so for Special primaries.

    <

    p>I agree that neither Pagliuca or Khazei will be garner a significant portion of special primary votes.

    • Yes, this is gut check more than anything, but I think it will come down to a two-person race between Coakley and Capuano.  The latter got on TV first and has his own reserve of resources and other endorsements.  It may well be Coakley in the end, but I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket just yet.

    • All polls indicate that Coakley is way ahead.

      <

      p>I know of one poll and its old.  

      <

      p>

      The headline blares: “Martha Coakley Holds Sizable Primary Lead in Special Election for U.S. Senate.”

      That headline has an important problematic grammatical issue…

      […]

      The numbers are Coakley 47%, Capuano 12%, Pagliuca 4%, Khazei 1%, which leaves about a third of the electorate undecided. Let’s not quibble with questions about the polls accuracy and reliability (as an internal poll, we cynics are naturally skeptical).

      […]

      But worse, by releasing this poll now, the campaign practically guarantees that there will, before too long, be a campaign narrative about the race narrowing — or put another way, about Coakley’s lead vanishing. It’s inevitable, as Democrats across the state find out who the hell Capuano, Pagliuca, and Khazei are, that their numbers will go up.

      link

      <

      p>What other polls can you cite for us?
       

  4. The indictments against Murtha and Caps before the end of the year knocking out Caps.

  5. My premise is a bit more than speculation. IMHO Coakley’s folks releasing their in-house polling results (with no marginals or crosstabs from the pollster – I checked.) indicates a campaign strategy of inevitability.

    <

    p>It was good in the short term to reinforce the Suffolk/Channel7 numbers, but I have doubts about its long-term effectiveness.

    <

    p>If your opponents don’t scare, this makes for both bad tactics and counterproductive strategy, because your comparative numbers always drop as your opponents organize and develop name recognition. And the drop (irrespective of size) becomes the spin du jour.

    <

    p>My reading of the September 15 Suffolk Poll leads me to consider Coakley’s numbers more a function of name recognition than hard-core support.  

    <

    p>All elections boil down to field, and Coakley’s organization is soft in terms of tangible presence (as opposed to resources for media), as of this writing.

    <

    p>Capuano is arguably the best field politician in Massachusetts, and some of his supporters (e.g. Glodis) are almost as good.

    <

    p>The presence of Barney Frank and Jim McGovern on the supporter list suggests:

    <

    p>      * a professional calculation of electability by Capuano’s colleagues.

    <

    p>      * A broad base of support that crosses socioeconomic, and geographic lines (augmented by Capuano’s current Middlesex County electoral base).

    <

    p>Barney Frank’s support in particular will benefit Capuano in Middlesex. When one considers that Capuano is the only candidate starting with a blue-collar base, the combination (assuming comprehensive field) can marginalize Coakley in Middlesex.

    <

    p>Given the nature of their campaign approaches Khazei and Pagliuca will represent competition for the suburban goo-goo vote, which by its very nature adversely affects Coakley more than Capuano. With all respect to Andrea Cabral, Khazei’s support in black and Latin communities will be zero, none, nada.  Capuano will get, at minimum, 60+ per cent of that vote (which also has interesting implications in the Merrimac Valley…

    <

    p>The class dynamics of the regions involved give Capuano an edge in the Merrimac Valley, he’ll sweep Boston (Menino has never shown coattails, with the exception of Ralph Martin, which was a special case involving union politics.) Quincy for field reasons is Capuano’s to lose.

    <

    p>Middlesex County is definitely in play.

    <

    p>Ditto Plymouth County: Murray’s organization is vastly overrated.

    <

    p>The Obama versus Clinton dynamic came down to Obama’s volunteers Orange-Hatting the electorate (as in New Hampshire) which always repels voters and operates as outreach to the opposition.  I don’t see that happening here.

    <

    p>I have no personal ax to grind in the primary; I do find the current field dynamics interesting, and those lead me to see more of a tangible Capuano presence where the rubber meets the road.

    <

    p>I am, of course, open to correction…

    <

    p>Below are the links from Suffolk to download the Suffolk Poll:

    <

    p>http://www.suffolk.edu/images/…

    <

    p>http://www.suffolk.edu/images/…

    • I just somehow lost a long comment responding to much of this, politely but argumentatively. Maybe later.

      <

      p>Kudos for the detailed answer.

      • I have a tendency to see field dynamics as the alphs and omega of politics, and the responses to the post helped me clarify my assessment of the Senate race.

        <

        p>If you could reconstruct the long comment, I’d appreciate it.

        <

        p>Re: The Kudos

        <

        p>You did ask me to throw long..

        • At work — I’ll give you the highlights. I’m not sure a race this short will come down to field (and not all elections do). Field is very important, though, especially since the most active voters tend to tune out ads.

          <

          p>Capuano’s organization is untested statewide. I agree with the person who said the uncommitted voters are breaking his way — but that’s a somewhat biased opinion, because I’m thinking of activists, as are you I assume.

          <

          p>So I would say: This race is more of a jumpball than it looks right now. However, the window to change that dynamic is short and getting shorter. If Khazei can raise enough to be competitive, all bets are off and it’s really a jumpball.

          <

          p>But that’s a big if, so right now the only questions are, can Martha hold the lead, and can Mike catch her. Yes, and yes. But not both. In a long race, the normal dynamic would favor him, but this is a short race.

          <

          p>

          • I agree with the person who said the uncommitted voters are breaking his way — but that’s a somewhat biased opinion, because I’m thinking of activists, as are you I assume.

            <

            p>Activists and people who while not active usually pay attention and vote in every election.

            <

            p>The tough nut for me in this election is predicting what turnout will be like. There’s some “conventional wisdom” out there that says because it’s a special that turnout will be light, thus emphasizing the effect of the field organizations. However, we do not have anything in recent history to compare this to. Not only is this a US Senate seat (as opposed to the State House), it’s Ted Kennedy’s seat.

            <

            p>I’d like to see a poll not on who people are likely to vote for but, instead, how much are people paying attention and how likely are they to vote in the primary. Obviously one is living under a rock if they don’t know that Kennedy is gone and his seat needs to be filled, so that should increase interest and turnout. But I’m wondering if some folks out there assume that the Kirk appointment is the end of the story and/or do they really care who fills the seat.

    • Both Suffolk and Coakley’s internal poll posted a NEARLY insurmountable lead for Coakley–35 points in a 4 person race, with about 6 weeks to go!  Sure Coakley’s numbers only have one way to go…down, but it is a very long down indeed…as in major scandal.  She can suffer a couple of weak debates (I think she do ok at worst).

      <

      p>Also, in my little world, I’ve been blown away by Coakley’s volunteers.  (BTW, I’ll be voting Khazei, unless Cap can surge and I’ll vote for him).  Both my wife and I got phone calls, plus a phone call to attend last week’s Fairmount event. I only got one tele town hall call from Cap. I’ve seen 2 big Coakley standouts (with many 4 by 8 signs) and only one weak Cap stand out (generally a waste of time).

      <

      p>So far Coakley has raised the money and will continue to do so.  Cap is lagging behind all candidates in Fundraising, which I suspect will change.  Cap may have better field instincts, I just think they don’t have the time to put together a big ID/GOTV effort that is needed to make a difference.  (Remember the saying…put the campaign at 48% the weekend before and a superior GOTV will kick the 3 point field goal to win…so what good is a 3 point field advantage, when your down 35 points?  So even if Cap has a far superior field (and I have not experienced that), it won’t be enough because Coakley’s lead is so big, and so far, she has done everything right and nothing wrong.  I will agree that part of the Coakley strategy is the “inevitability factor” you mention…but until someone discredits that of the candidate fumbles…that strategy wins.  On the trajectory this campaign is going, Coakley wins.  

      <

      p>Sure anything can happen…and does in politics.  But you’ve offered me nothing convincing that indicates cap has made any inroads in Coakley’s big lead.  (For example, his capital punishment wedge attempt was a dud…)

  6. Why did Capuano have to pay $2.50 per nomination signature and still not turn them in yet and Coakley easily passed in 17,000?   Think she  has support you aren’t taking into account- The women of this state have always done the heavy lifting and they will mostly (except for those philanthropists who know Khazei from City Year) work hard for Coakley-  That’s how I’m seeing it-

    <

    p>Where is Capuano’s money?  $300,000 versus $2.1 and even Khazei’s $1.1 (which came mostly-at least in the first week before Sept. 30th deadline-from out of state I’m betting)

    • You really shouldn’t expect anyone to pay much attention to detailed claims like that unless you back it up. Where did all those numbers come from? Clearly you got them from somewhere. How about some links?

      <

      p>In any case, I am definitely not going to base my vote on how much money any particular candidate raised, or spent on signatures, nor on the number of volunteers they have attracted (although I definitely have seen more Coakley volunteers about than those for Capuano).

        • The reason that Coakley was able to put together such a big signature drive so quickly is that her campaign started putting itself together long before the State Democratic Convention. Now, it’s a smart move politically, she was able to put together an organization and had volunteers ready to go as soon as she announced her campaign, and therefore was able to get 17,000 signatures very quickly. But at the same time, I find it distasteful to begin organizing before the current senator is dead.

          <

          p>Capuano did not begin to put together his organization until after the Senator had passed, and given the short window, he may have had to contract some signature gatherers while putting his campaign together. But to suggest that Cap is paying for all of his signatures is ridiculous, he had a slower start, and I’m will to accept that. But I do think that flaunting Coakley’s signature total is essentially the same thing as flaunting the fact that she was running before Teddy was gone, which again, I find distasteful.

          <

          p>I did not mean to be snide in my last remark, I just didn’t have the time to elaborate at the moment.  

          • …that like Hillary Clinton, Coakley was organizing to run for something well before that something was available, perhaps even before it was clear what that something would be.  Perhaps it would be a Senate seat, perhaps something else.  But when the moment came, Coakley was ready.

            <

            p>Frankly, for anyone looking to move up, that’s how you do tit.

            • It makes good logical sense to do what she was doing, but at the same time, there wasn’t ever really any doubt about what office she was going to be running for.

              <

              p>And to me, there is a big difference between doing what Clinton did, which was smart, and what Coakley did, which was callous, IMO.  

  7. The last time I saw a dynamic like this was the Special 9th District Congressional in 2001, when Cheryl Jacques had a similar strategy, and a similar edge in campaign contributions.

    <

    p>Stevie Lynch ate her breakfast.

    <

    p>Not being involved in any of the campaigns, I  can only cite what I see and what I’m told by folks whose expertise I trust.

    <

    p>Having had some experience working in opposition to a Capuano campaign (1998 8th Congressional Primary), I would consider it unwise to underestimate him, particularly in matters of field.

    • I saw a Coakley standout in North Dartmouth last weekend, of all places.

      <

      p>I’ve yet to see a Capuano bumper sticker or campaign sign.

      • My neighbor did put up a large Coakley sign, but then took it down a day later — I have no idea why — but that is the only sign I have seen. I have seen Coakley volunteers on three occasions and Capuano volunteers just once.

        <

        p>But I really don’t think there is enough information yet to make even weak conclusions about the relative strengths of the campaign’s field operations.

        <

        p>

  8. One thing I’ve noticed of the folks I communicate with regularly:

    <

    p>

  9. Of those who committed to a candidate early, most went with Coakley.

    10. <

    p>

  10. Of those who were initially undecided, the bulk seem to be breaking for Capuano.

    11. <

    p>Are others seeing this, or something different? If you respond, please indicate whether or not you are working for a campaign as it probably effects what you are seeing (but doesn’t invalidate it).

    <

    p>Full disclosure: Still undecided but leaning Capuano.

    • Assuming your observation is true of the wider population (a big if), perhaps the undecideds see Capuano as a safer choice because he is already in Congress and already has legislative experience and a legislative record? Serving in the Senate is a lot closer to serving in the House than serving as AG.

    • People know who Coakley is, and know if they’re comfortable with her.  As people “meet” Capuano, they seem to like what they’re seeing.  Coakley started with quite a lead, and Capuano is making up ground.

      <

      p>One thing I’m not seeing is many people switching from Coakley to Capuano, and I imagine that’s driving concern in Camp Cap.

      <

      p>(For disclosure: I started out strongly Coakley, but got fed up with her wishy-washiness on the issues.  I’m undecided but leaning slightly Cap.  Coakley could regain my vote if she were more forthcoming about foreign policy, energy, education, etc….but thus far she seems disinclined to be.)

      • I started the same as you. But have switched to strong Capuano precisely because I think that Mike gets what it means to be a Mass Senator. He understands what it means to be in the neighborhood and doesn’t really have the aspirations to be a John Kerry like national figure (not that I don’t like Kerry, I do, he works on important issues, but he isn’t exactly a Mass Senator, he plays in the national scene more than anything else, and I don’t think that Capuano would ever forget his origins).

        <

        p>I really wanted to be with Coakley, I wanted to help elect the first female Senator from MA. But i think that Capuano has too good of a track record and is too good at doing the nitty gritty constituent work for me to pass on.  

    • That’s exactly the trend I’ve been seeing in my small corner of the state.  Early for Coakley, breaking for Capuano and I have yet to meet anyone supporting Khazei or Pagliuca.

      <

      p>I myself am still undecided.

  11. In July, the state Dept of Public Utilities held hearings on rate hikes proposed by National Grid.  The company stated it needs “the extra $111 million in revenue to upgrade its electrical distribution system and cover a large amount of unpaid customers bills”.

    <

    p>Martha Coakley says the request for rate hikes is neither warranted nor justified but even more fantastic is that she is “asking the Department of Public Utilities to instead reduce National Grid’s rates by $36.4 million.”

    <

    p>I very much appreciate her stand on this. It would be nice if it started a trend of support for the struggling middle class.

    <

    p>

  12. Attorney General Martha Coakley has gained one of the most sought-after union endorsements in the race for US Senate, winning key backing from the Service Employees International Union local council.

    <

    p>The council, which represents five unions and 60,000 workers, voted on the endorsement last night. It is the first time the council decided as a group to back one candidate.

    <

    p>-The Globe, today

  13. Martha was the first candidate in the race, which was a great move because for some time it was Martha alone. Subsequently, it was Martha and the rest. Who would not be proud to help elect the first female US Senator from Massachusetts to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy? That is exactly how her candidacy was and is framed.  

    <

    p>It would be a story of social justice, of breaking the glass ceiling, a victory for far more than half the population of the Commonwealth: Martha’s win is our win.  

    <

    p>The act of electing Martha would put the voter in the position of effecting this milestone in gender equality just as our choice of Barack Obama (some… not everyone in Massachusetts chose Clinton) put us in a position of attaining that milestone in racial equality. We would be the ones to effect it, it is in our hands, so the argument goes.  

    <

    p>From the beginning, Martha’s candidacy was about gender equality – and who is not for gender equality? At the same time, it is said Coakley’s experience qualifies her as a legislator while her relative strength as a candidate is largely assumed.

    <

    p>Coakley is not disinclined to discuss gender differences. In fact, she raises them and characterizes them. For example, what’s different about the motivations of men and women in politics? Martha says, “Men get into politics because they like to get into contests.” Am I the only one who takes exception to that grossly over-generalized characterization of men’s motivations in politics?  VIDEO I’m not smart enough to understand whether this is Martha as she is or Martha as she is playing out a strategy to win but either way, I find it divisive, somewhat belittling and most importantly inaccurate. Divining the motive of men as a class for participating in politics has to breakdown at some point, likely the moment its given a second thought.  

    <

    p>One thing most politicians have learned is not to impugn the motives of the opposition.  It is a sure way to end constructive debate and the possibility of finding common ground and a path forward. Coakley’s training as a litigator and responsibilities as a prosecutor required her to refine her arguments of motive. As a politician, she will need to overcome her inclination to surmise motive and use it against the opposition in debate.  

    <

    p>This short race is Coakley’s to lose. On September 9, Coakley had 35% margin. On September 18 Capuano announced his candidacy.  

    <

    p>The special election schedule is to Coakley’s advantage and it may be the decisive advantage. I do not think Coakley would win the race if this was the regular election schedule and the two leading candidates had the usual amount of time.  We’ll see if Capuano can make it close enough to win.  

    <

    p>Coakley was organized. Coakley was in in first. Coakley continued to gain and consolidate her advantage as Capauno and others waited for Kennedy’s to declare their interest.

    <

    p>Seizing the initiative – this is an important and valuable skill – should be commended. Coakley has framed the election and established her a liberal credentials, although there is some concern about her positions on Constitutional rights. Her campaign is a vindication of gender equality; her victory a referendum on the voters affinity with and commitment to it.  

Archives