Martha Coakley’s (D Cand, SEN-MA) oddly obscure cash-on-hand numbers.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit & Vodkapundit readers. As I mentioned below, William Jacobson’s all over this topic.

Interesting. Here’s the short version: Martha Coakley is reporting that she’s raised over 1 million dollars since November 20th, and 5.2 million overall. So, Scott Brown’s (who raised 700K in the same time period, and who has just over 1.2 million overall) in trouble, yes?

No. At least, not from that.

Coakley, who faced three opponents in the Democratic primary, started the special election campaign with less than $500,000 in her campaign account, compared with about $300,000 for Brown, a Republican of Wrentham.

You see, most of that money Coakley raised got spent fighting for the nomination.  William Jacobson’s all over this topic: while he and I both think that she’s got more money in the bank right now than Brown, it’s not the 5-to-1 advantage she’s hyping.  At best, it’s 3-to-2. She’s also facing the problem that her public retreat on abortion language in the bill is going to depress enthusiasm in the progressive netroots; and that Republican activists at least have noted that flipping Massachusetts could – could! – possibly derail the health care rationing bill, and are contributing accordingly*.

Speaking of which: Jan 11th Scott Brown moneybomb here: main campaign site here.

Moe Lane

*Time for some unsolicited advice to the netroots: I understand that none of you want to hear this, but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to start punishing your would-be representatives when they tell you one thing and do another.  Bluntly? Martha Coakley broke her word when she fell into line with Senate Democrats on abortion language.  You know this.  But you will go nowhere until your legislators fear you and yours more than they fear me and mine.  In fact, I’ll tell you: they don’t fear you at all.

So here’s the Scott Brown moneybomb link again. Revenge is a dish that’s best served cold.

Crossposted to RedState.

11 thoughts on “Martha Coakley’s (D Cand, SEN-MA) oddly obscure cash-on-hand numbers.”

  1. What is the concept for this “money bomb”? Wouldn’t he have wanted as much money as possible before Jan 1 to show strong support? Why is the national party not more publically supporting him?

  2. “You will go nowhere until your legislators fear you and yours more than they fear me and mine. In fact, I’ll tell you: they don’t fear you at all.” Astute observation.

    As far as I can tell, Brown’s numbers, in terms of both cash contributions and numbers/enthusiasm of supporters, are soaring, even as Coakley and the old-boy networks of both parties are — in Glenn Reynolds’s felicitous phrase — “being disintermediated via the Internet.”

    May the best man win!

  3. So glad you give credit and link to William Jacobson’s work, by the way. He’s been the go-to blog for all things Brown and Coakley these last few days in the countdown to the January 19 election!

  4. The NRSCC isn’t actively supporting Brown because a) they didn’t recruit him, b) he hasn’t demonstrated his “independence” from conservative principles enough to convince them he could win, much less be shamelessly manipulated by their leadership structure should he happen to win, and c) the likelihood of winning an open seat in MA (where the last Republican who won a Senate race was the very liberal Edward Brooke in 1972). This is understandable to a point, but also illustrates why conservatives ought never contribute to the NRSCC, but directly to those candidates they truly support.

    The NRSCC view probably reasons that if we even have an outside chance at a MA seat, we’re going to be kicking serious buttocks in November and our money will be better spent on tipping several closer races in states with cheaper media markets.

    They have a point. Scott Brown looks like a serious thinker and a decent man, which probably dooms him from the start in MA anyway. Besides, the NRSCC’s specialty is picking the highest-possible-profile guaranteed losing candidate in any given state contest and throwing large bundles of cash at them, not in supporting conservatives in blue states.

    Ya go with what you know.

  5. If you think this obscurely obtained money in hand is bad, wait until the November elections. There are buckets of “stimulus” slush money that will be laundered back to Democrat campaigns. Think ACORN. It will be done through phoney credit card contributions as we saw with the Obama campaign.

    The Democrats got away with it then. They think they can do it again.

  6. Other than making a splash on a particular date, why wait until the 11th to send money to Brown? That’s only about a week before the special election.

    Brown needs to raise his profile NOW and he needs money NOW to do it. If you support this candidate, get that checkbook out today.

  7. Dems in blue states will start seeing problems from the left now. Boxer in California comes to mind. It is perceived by some of their supporters that they sold out to the insurance companies on the public option. This is a bigger problem for them than they realize.

Comments are closed.