Every Senate election is a big deal, but tomorrow's Massachusetts
special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat matters more than most.
Democrat Martha Coakley, once a shoo-in, is now seen as neck-and-neck
with Republican Scott Brown. We've already explained how a loss by Coakley could sink health care reform
. But now that President Obama is personally involved
in the race, it's becoming clear that it goes far beyond health care.
Here is how the race could impact Democrat legislation and elections
for years to come.
- Dem's 'Canary in a Coalmine' ABC's Jake Tapper writes,
"the fact that President Obama felt the need to fly to the Bay State to
campaign for a Democrat in one of the most Democratic states in the
nation speaks volumes about the ugly climate for Democratic
candidates." Tapper says this is no mystery in the White House. "It's
not that the White House has been unaware of how ugly the 2010
midterms could be for Democrats. But however this race turns out, the
closeness of the Coakley-Brown race is an ominous sign for Democrats."
- Why Obama Needs This The New York Times's Jeff Zeleny reminds us
that the race "will determine whether the party preserves a 60-vote
majority in the
Senate needed to keep alive health care legislation and the rest of the
president's agenda." So it is a top priority for all Democrats,
especially Obama. "The most alarming fact in polls and internal
party advisers said, was that Ms. Coakley was still falling behind Mr.
Brown among voters who had a favorable view of the president." That
could portend a similar trend for Democrats in 2010.
How Coakley Loss Could Change 2010 The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza warns of "a chain reaction that could significantly worsen the
party's outlook this fall. Democratic members of the House and, to a
lesser extent, the Senate, who are already fretting about the
possibility of losing their seats in 2010, would almost certainly take
Coakley's defeat as an indication of the toxicity of the national
environment and head for the hills. Recruitment efforts would also grow
far more complicated as convincing ambitious pols to take the risk of
running in such an atmosphere would be tricky at best, impossible at
worst." It "would set off a panic the likes of which hasn't been
seen in Democratic electoral politics in a decade or more."
- Ugly Legal Battle Politico's Chris Frates and Manu Raju report
that a Scott Brown win could spark a potentially protracted legal
battle over whether Brown would take his seat in time to vote against
health care reform. "Conservative commentator Fred Barnes is arguing that Kirk will lose his
vote in the Senate after Tuesday's special election, no matter who
wins, signaling a possible GOP line of attack against health reform if
it passes with Kirk's vote. GOP elected officials haven't embraced that argument, and two academic
election law experts contacted by POLITICO refuted the notion that Kirk
will no longer be a senator after Tuesday's election. But it's a sign
of the fierce legal and political battles likely to ensue if Brown
upsets Democrat Martha Coakley."
- It's All About Dem Turnout Without Obama's support, says Nate Silver,
Coakley would be doomed. Now that she has it, it will depend on turnout
from Obama supporters. "Obama carried Massachusetts by 26 points in
November 2008. (His approval among registered
voters there also appeared to be about +24 as of November 2009). So, if
Democrats suffered from the same turnout gap in Massachusetts that they
had in Virginia (which was billed as catastrophic at the time), Obama
would be at a +17 or so [among likely voters]. Instead, you have several pollsters showing
him at a +1 or a +5 [among likely voters] -- which would imply a turnout gap of 20 or 25
points, more than twice as bad as the one Democrats suffered from in VA."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
mfisher at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.