…if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
<
p>I do think the turnout will be very big (but the crap from the storm will soften turnout a bit and I think that will help Matha). I’m now predicting 1.9 million voters–a tad less than the 2006 general election.
OK, I admit I’m not sticking to my guns after all, and I’m changing my prediction in light of the direction of the new information over the last week. I still see Coakley outperforming the polls somewhat due to a presumably better GOTV operation:
First & foremost, regardless of tomorrow’s results, how big a win is this for Brown/loss for Coakley in terms of image, future effectiveness, and stature?
<
p>Is there any validity to notion that tomorrow’s election is a referendum on Obama, Obama-care, etc. versus the more obvious referendum on two starkly different campaigns (Coakley & Brown)?
<
p>Is tomorrow’s election a wakeup call for progressives that the center (the unenrolleds) and not the base are the most important element of a statewide campaign in Massachusetts? (I recall this being the lesson of O’Brien’s loss in 2002.)
<
p>Coakley’s obvious gaffes and missteps aside, is she paying a price for tacking too far left in the primary in response to Capuano (and later Khazei)?
<
p>Is Coakley’s failed campaign (my words, win or lose this was a wretched campaign) a wake up call for the party to cultivate progressive women candidates who are ambitious enough to strive for the big seats yet savvy enough to pull it off? (We now have three examples of statewide campaigns where women candidates – Martha, Shannon O’Brien and Evelyn Muyrphy – did not have the right stuff to pull it off. By right stuff, I mean temperment, ‘Q’ factor, and polish. I include Coakley in this question knowing that she might win because IMHO, her victory will really be Obama’s & the party’s after she abdicated her duty and responsibility to campaign responsibly and effectively post-primary.)
<
p>Is there anyway for the party to squelch the dynamic of this race (Brown momentum, anti-Beacon Hill sentiment) in terms of Gov. Patrick’s pending battle?
<
p>Will a Coakley loss tomorrow inspire a new group of progresive candidates for the 2012 cycle to take on Brown or will we see retreads?
<
p>Will Mass. progressives pay for the savage nature of the anti-Brown TV ads that seemed to be copied straight from Lee Atwater’s playbook (with not nearly as much effectiveness if you ask me.)
<
p>Will this flawed campaign process (84 days for primary, 147 days between Senator Kennedy’s passing and the general) be remedied by the legislature in the event of future vacancies?
<
p>Will we as progressives use a Coakley loss as an excuse to throw ever more stones at our conservative counterparts or will we use such an outcome as an excellent opportunity for self-evaluation and strategic intelligence in hopes of improving future campaigns and candidacies?
p>The triple whammy of the D.C. lobbyist event, Curt ‘Yankee’ Schilling affair and the “In the cold? Shaking hands?” remarks will prove to much to bear.
Coakley: 49.5
Brown: 47.5
Kennedy: 3%
<
p>Turnout: 600,000
Brown %51
Coakley %46
Kennedy %3
…if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
<
p>I do think the turnout will be very big (but the crap from the storm will soften turnout a bit and I think that will help Matha). I’m now predicting 1.9 million voters–a tad less than the 2006 general election.
But my gut feeling is that Brown’s going to win. This election is about rage, and that’s on Brown’s side.
<
p>Brown 50 percent
Coakley 49 percent
Kennedy 1 percent.
OK, I admit I’m not sticking to my guns after all, and I’m changing my prediction in light of the direction of the new information over the last week. I still see Coakley outperforming the polls somewhat due to a presumably better GOTV operation:
<
p>Coakley: 51%
Brown: 47.5%
Kennedy: 1.5%
<
p>Turnout: 1,200,000 (~28%)
First & foremost, regardless of tomorrow’s results, how big a win is this for Brown/loss for Coakley in terms of image, future effectiveness, and stature?
<
p>Is there any validity to notion that tomorrow’s election is a referendum on Obama, Obama-care, etc. versus the more obvious referendum on two starkly different campaigns (Coakley & Brown)?
<
p>Is tomorrow’s election a wakeup call for progressives that the center (the unenrolleds) and not the base are the most important element of a statewide campaign in Massachusetts? (I recall this being the lesson of O’Brien’s loss in 2002.)
<
p>Coakley’s obvious gaffes and missteps aside, is she paying a price for tacking too far left in the primary in response to Capuano (and later Khazei)?
<
p>Is Coakley’s failed campaign (my words, win or lose this was a wretched campaign) a wake up call for the party to cultivate progressive women candidates who are ambitious enough to strive for the big seats yet savvy enough to pull it off? (We now have three examples of statewide campaigns where women candidates – Martha, Shannon O’Brien and Evelyn Muyrphy – did not have the right stuff to pull it off. By right stuff, I mean temperment, ‘Q’ factor, and polish. I include Coakley in this question knowing that she might win because IMHO, her victory will really be Obama’s & the party’s after she abdicated her duty and responsibility to campaign responsibly and effectively post-primary.)
<
p>Is there anyway for the party to squelch the dynamic of this race (Brown momentum, anti-Beacon Hill sentiment) in terms of Gov. Patrick’s pending battle?
<
p>Will a Coakley loss tomorrow inspire a new group of progresive candidates for the 2012 cycle to take on Brown or will we see retreads?
<
p>Will Mass. progressives pay for the savage nature of the anti-Brown TV ads that seemed to be copied straight from Lee Atwater’s playbook (with not nearly as much effectiveness if you ask me.)
<
p>Will this flawed campaign process (84 days for primary, 147 days between Senator Kennedy’s passing and the general) be remedied by the legislature in the event of future vacancies?
<
p>Will we as progressives use a Coakley loss as an excuse to throw ever more stones at our conservative counterparts or will we use such an outcome as an excellent opportunity for self-evaluation and strategic intelligence in hopes of improving future campaigns and candidacies?
A most unhappy outcome.
<
p>Brown – 53 %
Coakley – 41 %
Kennedy – 3 %
<
p>The triple whammy of the D.C. lobbyist event, Curt ‘Yankee’ Schilling affair and the “In the cold? Shaking hands?” remarks will prove to much to bear.
Coakley: 49%
Brown: 46%
Kennedy:5%
with Kennedy at 2
Sure
It mostly had nothing to do with the election. But somehow news of “Coakley 43-Brown 37” slipped in there.
<
p>That doesn’t make much sense, but I’ll go with the ratio, through 2% Kennedy’s way, and go:
<
p>Coakley: 52
Brown: 46
Kennedy: 2