Aficionados of the political process are acutely aware of the battle in Massachusetts over the Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, which will be filled in a special election tomorrow. The Democratic Party's anointed successor, Martha Coakley, began with a large lead in the polls but since Christmas (approximately) has been running neck and neck with the Republican candidate, Scott Brown. No one seems certain who will win.
In November, when Virginia very predictably elected a Republican Governor after two successive Democrats, I argued that the GOP victory had little significance for the broader national picture. The election was off-year, focused on local issues; the Democratic candidate was poorly chosen; and Virginia was, after all, only reverting to type.
Massachusetts is a different matter. A Republican win there would be a serious wake-up call for the Democrats. Not only would Brown's victory prematurely end the Democratic 60-vote majority in the house and endanger the long-gestated health reform bill now undergoing reconciliation between Senate and House, but it would be a deep psychological blow to Democrats because the "Kennedy seat" has been in Kennedy/Democratic hands since 1953, but Massachusetts has a national reputation as the ur-and-über-Democratic state. And wouldn't it be sad if the seat held so long by Kennedy, the ardent champion of universal health care, turned out to be the seat that was key to its defeat?
I am only observing from a distance, and don't have a good sense of what's happening on the ground in the Bay State. However, I suspect the media hullabaloo, which developed only in the past week or so, may be somewhat overdone. Political prognostication in too-close-to-call races is nearly as fraught with uncertainty as weather forecasting in the mid-Atlantic region, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that, mainly for reasons stated in the last paragraph, voters will approve Coakley when all is said and done.
If not, however, the Democrats will be scrambling to rebuild some form of electoral consensus nationally before November, with considerable expenditure of effort and money. Much of it might have been avoided:
- The choice of a Democratic candidate was poor. Not to detract from Brown's qualities, but from what I can see of Coakley, she's a lackluster candidate who doesn't excite the voters one whit. Where is the fiery rhetoric, the engagement, that Teddy himself would have delivered?
- Why would existing Kennedys have turned down the chance to run for this seat? There was once a band called The Dead Kennedys; it's long since dissolved, but the remaining twigs of this multigenerational political dynasty might want to consider re-forming it.
- Democrats at the state level seem to have taken victory for granted, but no one - especially not voters in today's narrowly divided electorate - likes being taken for granted. If Coakley loses, I'd suggest this "show them" factor may have been just as important as any issue.
Finally, whatever the outcome, I'll still be amazed at the fickleness of many voters. Even realizing that journalists look for the attention-grabbing quote, it's hard to fathom the thinking of the woman quoted in this Washington Post story, who says she has been scraping by for seven years and is fed up. Her troubles began during, and continued through, six years of Republican administration, but one year of change didn't repair all the damage, so she's ready to sign on for more of the same? The same source - a 65-year-old who, dollars to doughnuts, is on Medicare, doesn't want "the Medicare to get in." The mind does boggle, at times.
Comments