SATURDAY,  JANUARY 16,  2010

WILL THIS WIN MASSACHUSETTS? – AT 11:37 P.M. ET:  The Politico reports on the enthusiasm gap that Scott Brown is counting on to win on Tuesday:

HYANNIS, Mass. – As the two candidates running in the special Senate election here barnstormed across the state Saturday, the enthusiasm gap between the two parties was on vivid display.

Democrat Martha Coakley, Massachusetts’ attorney general, kicked off a series of stops with a morning speech at a Boston union hall, receiving a response more polite than enthusiastic.

Coakley and Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late senator, both addressed a crowd of about 100 electrical workers but it fell to a state representative from nearby Dorchester to deliver the closing remarks aimed at firing up the Democrats.

“I see there is some excitement in this room but there is not enough excitement in this room,” Martin Walsh said, as the heavily male, Carhartt-and-jeans crowd stood with hands in pockets.

Yeah, Martha and Vicki, the electric duo.

There was no need for such an exhortation on Cape Cod as state Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican nominee, was enveloped by a couple hundred, sign-waving supporters as he attempted to walk into a local pub where another hundred voters waited for an afternoon rally.

“People’s seat, people’s seat!” the Hyannis crowd chanted, aping the retort Brown gave at a debate Monday when asked about “the Kennedy seat.”

With three days until Bay State voters go to the polls to decide whether Democrats will retain their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the momentum plainly is with the GOP.

He’s drawing crowds rarely seen by Republicans in this state and seems to have more organic support than Coakley, an impression underscored by the imperfect measurement of yard signs spotted for the Republican (many) and the Democrat (none) along the South Shore and on the Cape.

COMMENT:  Two more days.

January 16, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 5:50 P.M. ET:  Again the Brit reporters get it right, when observing American politics.  From The Times of London, on the Massachusetts race:

The latest polls show the Republicans ahead in America’s most liberal state. The party has not won a Senate seat here for 37 years. The Democrats are so worried about losing the seat that Obama is flying in tomorrow, despite the crisis in Haiti.

Yeah, let's put first things first.  Who cares about human life?

To lose Kennedy’s seat would be a humiliating end to Obama’s first year in power, particularly as Kennedy was one of the first senior Democrats to endorse him for president. Not only would it be an ominous sign for the mid-term elections later this year but it would lose the Democrats their supermajority in the Senate, robbing them of their ability to sidestep Republican filibusters, and derail healthcare reform.

And...

Bill Clinton, the former president, flew in for a rally last Friday even though, as a United Nations special envoy for Haiti, he had not slept for three days. “I came here to tell the people of Massachusetts that this country’s revolution was born in Massachusetts against those who abused power ... do you now want to put Massachusetts on the side of the power abusers?” Clinton said.

Remarkable.  Martha Coakley, as a prosecutor, worked to keep an innocent man in prison to protect her political allies.  She ignored the case of an obviously guilty rapist, again presumably to protect the people who could help her. 

Abuse of power anyone?

January 16, 2010   Permalink

THE CLASS ACT, AND THE LESS-THAN-CLASS ACT – AT 5:03 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Standing alongside two former presidents, President Barack Obama on Saturday promised that U.S. support for Haitian relief would continue long after the scenes of death and destruction fade from the headlines...

...Obama and former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton met in the Oval Office for about half an hour to discuss the assignment he gave them: to lead private fundraising efforts for Haitian relief, including immediate needs and the long-term rebuilding effort.

Being the class act that he is, President George W. Bush accepted.  I don't know how no-class Obama could look him in the eye, after the filth that Obama has directed at Bush in the last two years.  The contrast between the two, one the man who led America after 9-11, the other a minor Chicago politician with a golden voice, couldn't be greater. 

Of course, most of the mainstream media, in reporting the story, conspicuously ignores Obama's behavior during these last years, and also ignores the fact that Bush has refused to respond. 

Oh, and get this:

Obama sent Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Caribbean country for the first look by a top U.S. official at the devastation. The White House has said Obama had no immediate plans to visit.

Of course not.  Obama will be in Massachusetts, trying to save his political butt.

What a show.  What a revelation.

January 16, 2010   Permalink

SHAMEFUL, DISGRACEFUL – AT 4:52 P.M. ET:  If you want a sickening example of what's being thrown at Scott Brown by the Democrats in Massachusetts, here it is, via The Plum Line:

This is absolutely brutal: Massachusetts Dems have dropped a mail piece accusing GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown of wanting hospitals to turn away “all” rape victims.

The mail piece — sent over by the Brown campaign — shows pictures of women who are supposed to have been raped, one of them in a wheelchair bent over with her head in her hands. It says: “1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.”

The mailer — paid for by the Massachusetts Democratic Party — says the claim is based on “a law to let emergency hospitals turn away rape victims in need of emergency contraception.” That appears to be a reference to a Brown-sponsored 2005 amendment that would have exempted hospital personnel, on religious grounds, to inform victims of the availability of the morning after pill.

As Coakley’s own Web site says, after Brown’s amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms to provide rape victims with emergency contraceptives, and the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests.

The mailer could be related to the fact that internal Dem polling reportedly shows Coakley under-performing with less-affluent women.

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  But remember, things like this sometimes work.  Plum Line is also reporting internal Coakley pulls showing her underperforming among African-Americans, which is certainly one reason why Obama is flying in tomorrow.  Watch the fear tactics escalate.  It is turning into an ugly smear campaign run by masters of the craft.

January 16, 2010   Permalink

UTTERLY INTRIGUING – AT 11:53 A.M. ET:  This is one of those James Bond stories that I just can't resist.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Without Mossad director Meir Dagan, the Iranian nuclear program would have been successfully completed years ago, Egyptian daily Al-Ahram claimed in an op-ed published Saturday.

What?  This is from an Egyptian paper?

"Over the past seven years, he has worked in silence, away from the media," the op-ed read. "He has dealt painful blows to the Iranian nuclear program … he is the Superman of the Jewish state."

Among the steps taken by Dagan against Teheran, Al-Ahram listed diplomatic action to embarrass the Islamic republic, action to fuel opposition protests, assassinations and covert attacks against nuclear facilities.

The idea that an Egyptian paper is saying this is beyond fascinating.  I doubt that it got printed without Egyptian government approval.  Is it a signal to Iran that Egypt stands with Israel on the threat Iran poses to the Mideast?  Is it a signal to the U.S. that Mideast nations can take care of Iran, without the on-again, off-again help of Washington?   

The op-ed stressed that while the Mossad under Dagan's leadership achieved many bold victories against Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it never took responsibility for its operations, but wisely chose to wait for the other side to declare that they had taken place.

COMMENT:  There have been a number of unexplained incidents involving the Iranian nuclear program, including the recent assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.  There have also been reports, unconfirmed, of Israeli commando operations inside Iran. 

With American Iran policy in complete disarray, and Iran off the front pages, it may be up to Israel and even some temporary Arab allies to take care of the problem, if they can.

January 16, 2010    Permalink

ALERT – NEW MASSACHUSETTS POLL – AT 11:27 A.M. ET:  Reader Zach Hafer alerts us to a new American Research Group poll:

Republican Scott Brown leads Democrat Martha Coakley 48% to 45% in the special Massachusetts US Senate race to replace Senator Ted Kennedy in a telephone survey conducted January 12-14 among 600 likely voters in Massachusetts saying they will definitely vote in the special election on January 19.

Brown leads Coakley 94% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 58% to 37% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 71% to 20% among registered Democrats. A total of 8% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans remain undecided.

COMMENT:  A word of caution.  We report this poll because it's news, and because the numbers seem generally to be in line with other polls.  However, there is some dispute in political circles about ARG's transparency and methodology.  We'll check the final election result against ARG's numbers and draw our own conclusions.  Margin of error is four percent.

January 16, 2010   Permalink

TAKE BACK YOUR MINK, TAKE BACK YOUR PEARLS – Well, that's from "Guys and Dolls."  Oh, wait, I apologize.  It's been renamed "Male Oppressors and Unwitting Females Who Haven't Had Their Consciousness Raised." 

But it might as well have been from Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who got a special deal for his state in exchange for his sinful vote in favor of ObamaCare.  The people of Nebraska, honorable folk, did not like what he did, put the full Nelson on him, and now the senator wants to repent:

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is asking Senate leaders to eliminate a controversial Medicaid deal for his state in the health care bill.

The moderate Democrat, who provided the crucial 60th vote for the Senate health care bill, has been criticized because Nebraska was exempted paying any cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid.

All other states would have to pick up a portion of the tab after the first few years.

Nelson's been arguing ever since that he never wanted a special deal for Nebraska and that he wants all states protected from burdensome new costs.

Oh right, oh sure.

That didn't quiet the controversy so Nelson took it one step further on Friday and asked for the deal to be withdrawn and replaced with a provision treating all states equally.

COMMENT:  This sudden purity, this sudden finding of Biblical virtue.  I guess there really is redemption.  Or is it called political salvation?  Nelson isn't up for reelection until 2012, but he's already in trouble.  If Massachusetts goes red on Tuesday, Nelson should reserve the moving van.

January 16, 2010   Permalink

THREE DAYS TO GO – AT 10:08 A.M. ET:  There are no new polls from Massachusetts at this hour.  There were wild rumors late last night about candidates' internal polls, but the rumors were all over the place, with none confirmed.

We expect new poll numbers this weekend, with perhaps some last-minute polls on Monday, or Tuesday morning, reflecting the impact, if any, of Obama's campaign trip to Massachusetts tomorrow to try to save Martha Coakley from herself.

GOP challenger Scott Brown is snapping back at the smear offensive being waged against him, as Dems pull out all stops to keep the "Ted Kennedy seat" in their column.  From Fox News:

GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown and his supporters are firing back at Democratic senators for accusing him of being a "far-right" politician backed by "right-wing radicals" by virtue of his ties to the conservative tea party movement.

Brown, with the support of the tea party groups and others, is posing a stiff challenge to Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy. Polls show him closing in on Coakley, long the frontrunner, with just four days to go until the special election, and the latest survey shows him leading by 4 points.

With the race tightening, national Democratic heavyweights have stepped into the picture and are lobbing harsh accusations at Brown's support network.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., claimed in an e-mail that "swift boaters" were trying to sink Coakley, a reference to the ads that targeted him in the 2004 presidential campaign. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Brown a "far-right tea-bagger" in an e-mail, using a term that also can refer to a sexual act. Then on Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., wrote in a fundraising e-mail that Coakley was "being attacked by tea partiers and right-wing radicals."

COMMENT:  It's all negative.  What is there positive to say about Martha Coakley, Madam Gaffe, whose latest blunder was to describe Boston Red Sox great Curt Schilling as "a Yankee fan."  I mean, really.

January 16,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  JANUARY 15,  2010

SILENCE ON THE LEFT – AT 8:28 P.M. ET:  Reader Dennis Carson alerts us to a curious phenomenon occurring right now – the virtual absence of anything about Massachusetts on the CNN website.

It's true, it's true.  I looked in vain just a minute ago.  You go to their main page and there's nada.  You have to go to their POLITICS tab and there, in a little box, is a list of stories.  Third one from the bottom, through my magnifying glass, is "GOP Eyes Senate Upset in Massachusetts."

CNN – home, as they tell us, of the best political team on television.

Maybe it's lunch hour.

The CNN crowd is apparently very unhappy about Massachusetts.  Who are these little Paul Reveres, who want to vote against our Martha?  What are their College Board scores?

This is the most important special election in memory, and CNN.com hasn't noticed.

Their ratings are in the tank.  Maybe there's a reason.

January 15, 2010   Permalink

GREAT! – AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  Best headline of the Massachusetts Senate campaign, from Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

Obama personally joins Massachusetts quake relief

Wonderful, wonderful, as Mr. Welk used to say.

January 15, 2010    Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE – AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  The incompetence of the Coakley campaign in Massachusetts is now a matter of legend, whether she wins or loses. 

Now that incompetence has spread to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.   Here is a frame from an ad attacking Republican candidate Scott Brown for supposedly favoring Wall Street greed:

The ad plainly shows the World Trade Center on the right, and the destroyed Marriott Hotel.

After an uproar, the Dems have now revised the ad.  But why was the mistake made in the first place?  Theser are the people in charge of national security.

January 15, 2010   Permalink

OVERLOOKED – AT 4:27 P.M. ET:  Apparently overlooked by most of the media, Marc Ambinder, a reporter considered very close to the White House, reports this in a blog for CBS:

Coakley's latest internals have her DOWN four points in the latest daily track.

COMMENT:  The race will be decided this weekend.  Watch carefully to see if Obama can animate minority voters to come out.  Fear is a weapon.

January 15, 2010    Permalink

BULLETIN:  OBAMA TO MASSACHUSETTS – AT 3:34 P.M. ET:  Reversing an earlier decision, President Obama has decided to fly to Massachusetts Sunday to campaign for Martha Coakley.

That isn't good news.  First, the president is effective, and you can be sure the race card will be played, if with some subtlety.  The Dems have run an unbelievable smear campaign against Scott Brown this week.  Bill Clinton will also be coming.

Second, internal polls might show Coakley gaining or holding her own, with a good chance of winning.  I can't imagine Obama humiliating himself (again) by campaigning for a lost cause.

Third, all the press attention by the liberal Massachusetts press will be drawn toward Obama and Coakley together.  Obama still has a 60-percent approval in the state.   From The Washington Post:

As we said earlier, the election is Tuesday, not today.  Brown has been surging, but he's surging in a heavily Democratic state.  This isn't won by any means.  While bringing in all the Dem firepower shows how close the election is in a heavily Democratic state, and shows the trouble the Democratic Party is in, a Coakley win will hold the Dem seat, securing the 60th vote needed to stop GOP filibusters.

January 15, 2010    Permalink

DOROTHY ON COAKLEY – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  When I write "Dorothy," I'm referring to Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal, one of the great investigative journalists of our day.

Dorothy is great because, unlike some "investigative" reporters, she doesn't follow the latest trendy cause, do a day of investigation, and then wait for the awards.  She goes where the truth takes her, even in the face of overwhelming opposition.  In the 1980s, it was Dorothy Rabinowitz (and some other brave reporters) who started to question the crazed "child abuse" convictions sweeping the country, convictions often based on "evidence" that appeared highly questionable, at best.  Dorothy was warned by colleagues not to take on the cause.  It was unpopular.  It might put her on the side of "molesters."  It was a career ender.

Being Dorothy, she would not listen, and she pioneered the probes that led to many, many innocent people being released from prison.  The "evidence" used to convict the wrongly accused "abusers" in the 1980s is not accepted in any American courtroom today, in large measure because of the work of Dorothy Rabinowitz. 

Dorothy was proposed for the Pulitzer Prize five times.  She was rejected on the first four tries, as powerful forces attempted to deny her.  Some were militant feminists, angered because she's a conservative, and furious that she would question "research" methods that were also used at the time to advance radical feminist "scholarship."  The child-abuse industry also weighed in.

Finally, on the fifth try, there was a revolt on the Pulitzer board, its members disgusted by the injustice.  Dorothy finally won the prize. 

One of the outrages that Dorothy covered was the Amirault case in Massachusetts, and one of the prosecutors involved was Martha Coakley, then a district attorney.  Three members of a family operating a day-care center had been sent to prison on child-abuse charges despite a scandalous lack of any credible evidence.  In the face of overwhelming proof of innocence, and judges who eventually saw the truth and expressed their outrage, and a state parole board that joined in the anger, and a host of newspaper editorial boards, Martha Coakley did her best to keep the innocent father of the family in prison, doing her bit to protect other prosecutors and members of the Massachusetts legal establishment.  This is the way one advances to become attorney general of the state.  Her predecessor was also involved in the disgraceful prosecution. 

Dorothy Rabinowitz revisits the Amirault case in this piece for The Wall Street Journal.  Please read it.  If you plan to read only one article today, this should be it.  It is illuminating, and the work of one of the most skilled journalists around.  Dorothy makes this observation about Martha Coakley:

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was "formidable" and that she was entirely convinced "those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants."

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.

Read the whole thing.  Martha Coakley is a fraud.

January 15, 2010   Permalink

MADNESS – AT 9:34 A.M. ET:  It's hard to believe that the fanatics in the Obama administration haven't learned a thing, but fanatics rarely do:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is considering a criminal trial in Washington for the Guantanamo Bay detainee suspected of masterminding the bombing of a Bali nightclub that killed 202 people, a plan that would bring one of the world's most notorious terrorism suspects just steps from the U.S. Capitol, The Associated Press has learned.

Hey, welcome to Washington.  I'm sure they'll give him the 20-dollar tour also, the one that lets you climb the Washington Monument.

Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, was allegedly Osama bin Laden's point man in Indonesia and, until his capture in August 2003, was believed to be the main link between al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah, the terror group blamed for the 2002 bombing on the island of Bali.

Other terrorism trials also may occur in Washington and New York City under a proposal being discussed within the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials briefed on the plan, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private planning meetings.

Authorities already have begun discussing the intense security measures needed to bring Hambali and others before a Washington federal judge, the officials said.

And who do you think will be paying for these "intense" measures?  If the defendants were tried at a military base, a fortune could be saved.

Conducting a trial in the nation's capital would be a symbolic repudiation of the policies of former President George W. Bush, who portrayed Hambali as a success story in the Bush administration's program of interrogating terror suspects in secret CIA prisons overseas.

Of course, that's what it's all about.  Repudiate BUSH (!!), and, especially, CHENEY (!!!!+)

COMMENT:  This is really nuts.  A Washington trial is, by definition, a show trial.  Every crackpot group in the country will be outside that courtroom, and CNN cameras will accommodate them. 

And what if, despite overwhelming evidence, there's an acquittal, or a hung jury, or a crazy decision by a liberal judge that hampers the prosecution?  What would the Obamans do then?  Send Janet Napolitano out to say that the system worked?

And another note:  Washington is overwhelmingly African-American.  That brings up the very awkward question of who will serve on the jury.  In a way, it is unfair to the African-American community. 

But when the only objective is to show a contrast with Bush, who cares about those things?

January 15, 2010   Permalink

FINALLY,  SOME ACTION – AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Apparently, the Army is taking very seriously the negligence that led up to the Fort Hood massacre - at 9:12 A.M. ET:  From Fox News: 

As many as eight Army officers may be punished for failing to heed warning signs and take action against suspected Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S. official said Thursday.

First reported in the Los Angeles Times, an official familiar with a Pentagon review of the case, which will be discussed at a briefing Friday, said the officers who face discipline hold ranks of colonel and below.

Not good enough.  What about general officers who set the tone that made this possible?  What about Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, who said after the terror attack that his greatest concern was that it would hurt diversity in the Army?  What about the civilian leadership, with its obsessive political correctness?

The review reportedly found that superiors allowed Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to advance within the ranks despite his failings to meet physical and professional standards. Hasan avoided physical training, was overweight and frequently late, but was seen by superiors as a rare medical officer and thus avoided corrective action.

"Had those failings been properly adjudicated, he wouldn't have progressed," the official told the Times.

Additionally, the Pentagon review into the deadly rampage that killed 13 found that the Defense Department does not do an adequate job of sharing information about internal personnel, and it focuses more on hunting spies than ferreting out extremists.

COMMENT:  We'll follow this.  There are pervasive problems throughout the United States Government that are hampering the war on terror.  These problems have not been solved, and extend beyond the military into the CIA and the FBI, especially the latter.

January 15, 2010   Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WHAT CAN THE MATTER BE? – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  If ever two politicians deserved each other, it's this dynamic duo, representing two of the most liberal Democratic constituencies in the nation.  Fight on, gentlemen, but wear fashionable boxing gloves.  From The Politico:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is heading for a collision with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) over whose pet issue will get top billing in the Senate later this year.

The heart bleeds immediately.

Schumer is taking a lead role in immigration — and is pushing Democrats to prioritize a potentially toxic issue leading up to the November elections. Kerry is a lead negotiator on climate change and is demanding that a climate bill get pushed to the front of the line.

I can't wait.  Liberal Democratic bills on immigration and climate change.  What winners at the polls!  Well, we know which way Aspen and Beverly Hills will vote.

Kerry and Schumer — who have a history of competitive tensions — are maneuvering behind the scenes to get White House and Senate leadership to promise to give their respective issues time this spring.

But the reality is that there is room for only one more big issue on the 2010 agenda: the so-called third thing, after health care and financial reform. And accomplishing even one will be a serious stretch for lawmakers unwilling to take on another politically explosive fight after the bruising health care battle.

Leave it to the Dems.  They love martyrdom.  They will get what they love.

“If it’s a competition, then it’s a good competition,” said Jim Kessler, a former policy and legislative director for Schumer. “Each one independently has its own challenges.”

Isn't that precious?

Schumer is quietly spreading the word within the immigration community that he has the White House’s support to pass a bill by April. At the same time, Kerry has been mounting his own campaign to pass a climate bill — telling environmentalists, business groups and fellow senators that his bill will pass this spring, ideally by June.

COMMENT:  And the voters will surely be cheering them on.  Well, six voters.

January 15, 2010   Permalink

MASSACHUSETTS – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  The Senate race in Massachusetts, ending with the election this Tuesday, is the hottest special election in memory.  It shouldn't even be close in this bluest of blue states, but it's more than close.

We reported, in our final item last night, that the respected Norfolk University poll now shows GOP fireball Scott Brown four points ahead of Democratic disaster Martha Coakley.  Coakley, who apparently believes that she owns the seat and should not have to stoop to campaigning among the peasantry, has stepped up her efforts and is running a relentless series of attack ads.

Byron York reports for the Washington Examiner:

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Brown's trajectory has been spectacular.  Already the Dem spin machine is operating:

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

Of course not.  Next, they'll be blaming BUSH (!!).  And didn't Dick Cheney once spend a night in Massachusetts?

With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that "something could happen" to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama's decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley.

Coakley has already been assigned her place under the bus.

COMMENT:  A word of caution.  The election is Tuesday, not today.  Elections are not public opinion polls.  There is no margin of error.  This is far from being in the bag, and we don't know the impact of some last-minute smear.  This is not a time for overconfidence, as President Dewey might tell us from the grave. 

In fact, a new poll by a Democratic firm shows Coakley comfortably ahead, but apparently is not being taken that seriously.

We'll await Rasmussen's final word, and, most important, the word of the voters on Tuesday.  The Rothenberg Political Report rates the race a toss-up, and so should we.

January 15,  2010   Permalink