Let me tell you a story about the beginning of Camelot. Back when a young and lanky John Kennedy first ran for Congress, his father Joseph Kennedy effectively served as campaign manager. The Kennedy patriarch was not a man who left matters to chance. His son proved to have formidable charms and the campaign spending was heavy. But old Joe Kennedy was still concerned victory could escape them.

Joseph Kennedy and advisers had a problem in Boston. There was only one Italian American on the ballot, Joseph Russo. The Kennedy circle believed Russo might win all of the district's Italian American votes. So what happened? Another Joseph Russo appeared on the ballot. There were two Russos. It helped John win the plurality in a ten-person primary. That was November 1946 and John Kennedy was only 29-years-old.

Flash forward to next week's tight Senate race to fill Edward Kennedy's seat. Between the Republican and Democratic candidates is, as every political junkie knows, a man named Joe Kennedy. This third party candidate affiliates himself with the conservative Tea Party movement. Conventionally, that means he would siphon off votes from the GOP candidate. But Democrats are worried some voters could mistake the candidate Joe Kennedy, unknown information technology executive, for Camelot's Joseph Kennedy, a namesake heir apparent. Somewhere, perhaps, Joseph Russo is laughing.

President Obama offered the following encouragement yesterday to Congressional Democrats who are wavering over voting for his health care bill:

Well, let me tell you something. If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. (Applause.) … And that's why I'll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain...

Isn't that what he's been doing for most of the last twelve months? How's that worked out?

Vicki Kennedy, widow of the late Massachusetts senator, has cut an ad for the Democrat most thought would waltz into the seat next Tuesday, Martha Coakley.

The fact that the Kennedy brand had to be invoked so late in the race when Coakley had avoided playing that card early on shows just how close the race has gotten. But there's more news than that in the spot.

Kennedy says in the 30-second spot: "It's not the Kennedy seat.  It's the people's seat." What's so striking about that line is that it has been one of the slogans of Republican Scott Brown's insurgent effort. He said it to us last week in an interview, and pointedly brought it up in Monday's debate.

The fact that the phrase now finds its way into a Coakley ad just shows the message problem her campaign has had.

UPDATE: Politico grabs this new Brown spot that highlights Coakley's quick trip to DC for a fundraiser this week. It attempts to use the arrival of the Democratic cavalry on Coakley's behalf against her, reinforcing his campaign's main message.

North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven's bid for the state's open Senate seat is off to a good start, as a new Daily Kos/Research2000 poll finds him leading three potential Democratic opponents -- Ed Schultz, Heidi Heitkamp, Jasper Schneider.

The person many political observers felt could give Hoeven his most difficult race, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), is instead running for re-election and leads two Republican challengers -- Kevin Cramer, Duane Sand. However, Pomeroy is polling below 50% against both, and the Democratic Party has just a 25% favorable rating in the state, while the GOP is at 39%.

Senate
Hoeven 56 - Schultz 32 - Und 12

Hoeven 55 - Heitkamp 34 - Und 11

Hoeven 56 - Schneider 32 - Und 12

House
Pomeroy 46 - Cramer 24 - Und 30

Pomeroy 47 - Sand 22 - Und 31

What to make of the polling in Massachusetts?

A new Suffolk University poll out late Thursday (500 LVs, 1/11-13, MoE +/- 4.4%) puts Republican Scott Brown ahead by 4 points in the special election for U.S. Senate. It's the second poll showing him ahead, but differs greatly from another poll released the same day.

Special Election Matchup
Brown (R) 50
Coakley (D) 46
Kennedy (I) 3
Und 1

Only 20 percent of voters say the endorsement of Coakley by Ted Kennedy's widow makes them more likely to vote for the Democrat, while 27 percent actually say it makes them less likely to back her and 52 percent say it makes no difference. Forty-one percent of those who watched debates thought Brown was the winner, while only one-in-four said Coakley prevailed.

An interesting question on health care: 54 percent of respondents say they support Massachusetts' "near universal healthcare law," but only 36 percent say they support the proposed federal health care legislation. Asked another way, 47 percent say they favor the health care plan proposed by Obama and Congressional Democrats, while 48 percent oppose.

Favorable Ratings
Brown 57 / 19
Coakley 49 / 41
Kennedy 19 / 25

President Obama's approval rating in the Bay State is 48 percent, with 43 percent disapproving. Gov. Deval Patrick has a strong net-negative rating, with 35 percent approving vs. 56 percent disapproving.

At today's White House briefing, Robert Gibbs was asked if the president's proposed "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" was simply a political ploy aimed at painting the Republicans who'd likely vote against the plan as on the side of big banks and not taxpayers.

Q: "If that's the case, isn't this just politics, an opportunity for the President to beat up on Wall Street banks?"

GIBBS: "No. No, it's a proposal by the President to uphold the law to ensure that taxpayers are made whole. If individual senators in either party want to make the decision that they don't think this is a good idea, they're certainly free to do that. And they can explain to you just what I've explained -- as I've explained our viewpoint on this responsibility fee."

Q: "Do you think this does put Republicans in a difficult position, in a box, as a lot of people have been --"

GIBBS: "I don't know why it would. Why would you think it would?"

Q: "Because they believe it's unfair to go after banks that have already paid back the money, so they oppose it."

GIBBS: "Then they can explain that to their constituents and to the American people. If you want to be on the side of big banks then you're certainly -- this is a great country; you're free to do so."

Q: "That's what this sounds like it's about. It's about the politics of trying to define Republicans as being on the side of the big banks and the President on the side of Main Street."

GIBBS: "Chip, I'll leave you to your own devices as to why you believe that all the Republicans are in favor of big banks. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. There will be a vote and we'll get to determine who's on what side. The President has throughout this process laid out that the American taxpayer isn't going to be left holding the tab for the reckless behavior of the banks.

Even in denying that the proposal was put forward simply as a means to paint Republicans, Gibbs at the very least was hinting that they thought there was a potential political upside.

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, is making no doubt about how the party plans to use this proposal to hit Republicans. Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts special election, issued a statement this afternoon in support of it. Her surrogates immediately demanded Republican Scott Brown offer his take, and sure enough, he opposed it.

In the past 20 minutes alone, I've received three press releases from Democratic committees slamming the move. Here's how one DNC release characterizes it:

"Brown Against Bank Responsibility Fee; Takes Side of Wall Street Banks Over Middle Class Families

Walking in lockstep with national Republicans, Brown comes out against bank responsibility fee intended to force bailed out banks to pay back taxpayers"

In 2006 when Republicans knocked then-Senate candidate Harold Ford for his expensive tastes and lavish lifestyle, it was decried as "racist" and "character assassination.

Today, it's just called "news."

The latest poll out of Massachusetts from Research 2000 shows AG Martha Coakley leading state Senator Scott Brown by 8 points. Again, I can't help but note that, once again, a poll is showing Coakley right around 50%. The only real disagreement is what Brown's level of support is.

Still, I do wonder if Brown perhaps peaked a week too soon.  A Massachusetts friend of mine writes in, describing her apartment lobby and television :

"There were Coakley mailings all over the bench where the mailman leaves things too big for our mailboxes. The airwaves are FULL of Coakley ads. It almost seemed like they might preempt primetime programming to just air one right after the other.  It's overwhelming. I honestly expected Coakley to make a surprise appearance on The Big Bang Theory. There is a lot of cash pouring in and it shows."

Part of Brown's strategy was to bank on an energized Republican base flying under the radar and pulling off the upset.  I think that's out of the question now, especially with the SEIU, DSCC and DCCC(!) committing funds to the race.  We'll see if Coakley can pull together a turnout operation in a week's time.

By the way, people are predicting that if Brown wins either (1) the Democrats will pass the Senate bill or (2) the Democrats will get the revised bill through the Senate before Brown is seated.

I guess this is possible, but you have to think that a few more Democrats in R-leaning districts or states will be spooked enough by this to resist voting for the bill.  Does Evan Bayh really think his seat is THAT safe?  If Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, John Hostettler can sure as heck win in Indiana.

The Cook Political Report moved the Massachusetts Senate special election race into the toss-up category -- a move no one would have predicted just a month ago. Here is the reasoning, in part:

This race call is one of the toughest we've had in a long time. The modern electoral history of federal statewide races in Massachusetts argues strongly that while state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, could have a close race, at the end of the day it's unlikely that she ends up losing. After all, no Republican Senate candidate has won in the Bay State since 1972.

But the non-quantitative arguments are quite strong. Republican Scott Brown has been the superior candidate with, by a long shot, the better campaign.
...

To the extent Coakley may still have a tiny advantage, it appears not to meet the normal standard we have for a "lean” rating: a competitive race but one in which one party has a clear advantage. We see no clear advantage.

Republican John Shadegg, representing Arizona's 3rd Congressional district, announced today he will not seek reelection this year, calling his decision "irreversible." Full text of Shadegg's statement below the jump.

(more...)