Actually, “leads” is the wrong word: PPP, a Democratic polling firm, reports that Republican Scott Brown is favored by 48% of likely Massachusetts voters and Democrat Martha Coakley by 47%--a statistical tie, given the margin of error. Still, this is big, big news. It looks like Brown could actually win the January 19 special election and provide, as he has promised to do, the 41st and decisive vote against the Democrats’ health care bill. Only last week pollster Scott Rasmussen, accused by liberal bloggers of giving Republican-leaning results, showed Coakley leading 50%-41% among likely voters. PPP confirms Rasmussen’s finding that Republicans are much more interested and motivated to vote than Democrats, as was the case in the November 2009 New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races. In addition, likely voters oppose the Obama health care plan by a 47%-41% margin and give Obama a tepid 44%-43% job approval. In a state (technically, a commonwealth) which Obama carried 62%-36% in November 2008.
PPP shows Brown with very high favorables (57%-25%), while Coakley has only lukewarm favorable (50%-42%). I’m not surprised. Brown in his ads and media appearances comes across as likeable, independent and knowledgeable and as a person of convictions. Coakley has been avoiding the campaign trail and two-candidate debates (she insists on a libertarian splinter candidate participating), and she tends to avoid giving firm answers on anything. She’s scheduled to come down to Washington next week for a lobbyist-infested fundraiser—not a good move given the anti-lobbyist feeling that’s so evident this year (and which Obama played on during the 2008 campaign). Coakley reminds me of the old cold fish aunt who purses her lips and disapproves of everything every other family member does. You definitely did not want to sit next to her at Thanksgiving dinner.
PPP makes the valid point that Coakley can still win this race, but the momentum in polls in this race is definitely with Brown. He seems to be a self-starter; Republicans are fortunate to have such a good candidate.
But Democrats have another trick up their sleeve. The Boston Herald reports that if Brown wins Democratic Secretary of State William Galvin will delay certifying the race for 10 days or until February 20. That would let appointed Democratic Senator Paul Kirk cast a 60th vote for the Democrats’ health care bill. Galvin’s excuse seems to be that it would take time to count absentee and military ballots. But that didn’t stop him from certifying the special election victory in 2007 of Democratic Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas within two days, in time for her to cast a vote to override George W. Bush’s veto of a Democratic children’s health care bill.
Reporters should ask Galvin why it was possible to certify a Democratic winner in two days but it will take 10 days to 32 days to certify a Republican winner. What will happen if Democrats pass their health care bill by denying to seat a duly elected Republican? My prediction: Firestorm. National firestorm.
Of course this poll may turn out to be an outlier, and even if it’s not Martha Coakley could still win the special election. But it’s beginning to look like something extraordinary may happen in Massachusetts on January 19.
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
No comments:
Post a Comment