There is only one week left before the Democratic primary in the special election to fill Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat, and we might be getting a competitive race after all.
Since the campaign started, Attorney General Martha Coakley has indisputably been the front-runner; she had the most buzz and an inevitability aura, enjoyed a fundraising edge and a massive lead in polls. But the past few weeks have found her rivals’ gaining steam; Coakley remains the clear favorite, but anything can happen in a 4-way race that has stayed low-profile and should be decided by low turnout: A recent poll found that only 22% of Democrats could even identify that the primary would take place in December, let alone the exact date!
Add this to the fact that primaries can be far more fluid than general elections, since far fewer voters will be committed to a camp, and we could see a lot of movement in the closing days. (The situation is analogous to what happened in June in Virginia: After months in which polls found 3 candidates who were essentially tied, Creigh Deeds caught fire in the final two weeks and ended with an unexpectedly decisive victory.)
In fact, last week’s Boston Globe poll found that only 26% of likely voters were certain of who they would vote for, with 50% describing themselves as undecided. Most Democratic voters have been waiting to make up their mind, which heightens the stake of the closing week: The coverage candidates receive in the days ahead will be very important in determining whether an upset might be brewing.
The latest poll of the race, released last week by Rasmussen, found Coakley ahead, but enjoying her smallest lead yet: She receives 36%, Mike Capuano is at 21%, Steve Pagliuca is at 14%, as is Alan Khazei - the first time the latter candidate breaks single-digits.
Indeed, Khazei has been enjoying a surprising amount of momentum in the past 10 days because his efforts to position himself as the good-government reform appear to be paying off: He is emerging as the candidate for voters looking for the type of “post-partisan” figure Capuano certainly isn’t trying to embody. His latest ad has him making a process-argument to bring “change” to Washington; and after securing the backing of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Khazei just received the somewhat unexpected endorsement of the Boston Globe.
The Globe not only embraced Khazei’s “entrepreneurial model of progressive politics” that distances itself both from Reaganite distrust of government and from liberals’ embrace of government (this reminds me of Barack Obama’s controversial comments on Reagan during in early 2008), but also harshly criticized the other candidates. At the very least, The Globe’s endorsement should guarantee that the many voters who are only now looking to make up their mind take a look at Khazei, whereas otherwise they might have overlooked him.
But Capuano can claim momentum of his own. If the Globe’s endorsement should help Khazei get a share of the spotlight, Capuano is enjoying his own string of high-profile endorsements. First, Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed him; then, it was state First Lady Diane Patrick’s turn; and over this past week-end, former Governor Michael Dukakis endorsed him, citing in particular the “courage” of his 2002 vote against the Iraq war. (While Governor Patrick is unpopular among the electorate at large, polls have found he has kept a strong grounding among the base and there is little reason to think his wife’s backing should hurt Capuano.)
Capuano has also drawn Coakley into a terrain he feels comfortable on: A race to the left, in which he is well-positioned to get the upper-hand due to his flawlessly left-wing congressional record. Coakley announced two weeks ago that she would vote against the health-care bill if it included the Stupak amendment, she just released a statement that sharply criticized Obama’s apparent decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan; Capuano just hit Coakley on issues like her past defense of the Patriot Act.
But that also speaks to the fact that Coakley had the good sense not to simply try to protect her lead (an always risky strategy for a candidate who voters don’t know that well). While her views on most polarizing issues were not known, she chose to clarify them rather than stay above the fray - something front-runners sometimes think they can dispense with. And yet, she does not appear to have committed any unforced error, which could be all she needs to win on December 8th.
As for Steve Pagliuca, the race has remained tight enough that he can hope that his immense fortune will carry him to a plurality victory; he could also be helped by the fact that Coakley and Capuano have devoted most of their attention on attacking each other, which allows him to push under the rug things that should disqualify him in Massachussetts’s Democratic primary - for instance his donations to Mitt Romney’s 1994 senatorial campaign (against Kennedy) and to George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.
It’s impossible to tell whether anything will break through the media coverage and shake up the race in the closing days or whether voters will remain unconvinced but stagnant. The Boston Herald, for instance, suggests Capuano was the clear winner of this morning’s online debate, but how many voters will see any footage? There will be two televised debates this week, but how many viewers will tune in? And next week’s primary will most likely determine the general election winner, and yet how many Democrats will show up?
I find it interesting that liberal Massachusetts has never had a female US Senator, nor has most of the Northeast, the exceptions being Maine (3), New York (2), New Hampshire and Maryland each have one. The West is the other quadrant of the USA that has had few female US Senators, California and Washington now have 2 each, Alaska has one and Oregon had one. The South and the Midwest have had many, although some were placeholders, mostly from the Midwest. I know one’s gender isn’t a qualifying or disqualifying factor for any elected office, but I wonder how many female voters in Massachusetts will feel that they finally will be represented by a women, a highly qualified one at that. After all, there are only 17 women US Senators today even though they are slightly more than half of the population.
Is it really that surprising? When Kerry was elected, only four women had served a full term. (Those four being Caraway, Smith, Neuberger and Kassebaum)
However, gender makes very little difference in party ID in the Northeast, so I doubt it will have any effect on the primary results.
The good part is that the residents who watched to debates are almost assuredly going to the polls (They have to be pretty enthusiastic). So, GO Capuano!
I think that Martha Coakley will be able to profit from the “first woman” thing a little bit, especially given her achievement as the first woman AG in MA, her staunch support of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Dem Primary and the endorsement of Emily’s List. Clinton won the Massachusetts Primary 56-41 even though top 3 politicians in the state (Patrick, Kennedy, Kerry — all men) supported Obama.
It is a notable point that women’s political advancement in the Northeast has been slower than some might expect given the region is politically liberal. Some have suggested that the strong political machines in much of the NE make it difficult for newcomers to make headway. Dues must be paid and many women get started in politics later in life due to family issues.
In Washington state, the political machines are weak. Women candidates have been very successful, both in terms of numbers at the grassroots level and high-profile politicians in the top ranks.