Forget the polls: new campaign barometer is who's winning the "Tweet race"

Tweet race: comparation of Twitter rankings of Brown and Coakley (click to enlarge)

Over at Legal Insurrection, conservative blogger William A. Jacobson has been keeping close track of the Massachusetts special election on January 19 to fill the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. A big booster of GOP candidate Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley, Jacobson spotlights in a post today an intriguing new way to track how the candidates are doing -- the number of Tweets they're getting on Twitter, followers they're attracting on Facebook and other measures of online popularity.

Of course, after Barack Obama's campaign used the internet to generate excitement among younger voters and rake in zillions in small contributions, there is no question that how a candidate is doing online is potentially a big deal.

So how are they doing? According to Jacobson, Brown is way ahead and surging. Of course, in usually reliably Democratic Massachusetts, Tweets and Facebook friends from outside the commonwealth may not matter much. But then again...?

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Related -- The respected, non-partisan Cook Political Report has changed its categorization of the Massachusetts Senate race from "Solid Democratic" to "Leans Democratic."

Unexpected change from a blue state? GOPer Scott Brown could win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

It's Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

Talk about game changers. Pigs can surely fly, if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts against one of the state's highest-profile Democrats, Attorney General Martha Coakley. It just might happen in the January 9th special election, if the one and only public poll of the race showing Coakley ahead by only 50% to 41% is right:

State Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided

Brown's surprising strength is coming mostly from independent voters:

Both candidates get better than 70% of the vote from members of their respective parties, but Brown leads 65% to 21% among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. In Massachusetts, however, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and it is very difficult for the GOP to compete except in special circumstances. Eight percent (8%) of Democrats remain undecided while just 3% of Republicans are in that category.

Brown is a relative unknown, compared to Coakley, but that may be an advantage in stirring enough enthusiasm to get his voters to the polls:

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

If Brown wins, the Senate Democrats will no longer have the magic 60 votes to block filibusters. Naturally, that has the conservative blogosphere excited about his candidacy. Blogger William Jacobson has long been out in front pushing Brown's campaign. Now, it's gone viral on the right and the left, as you can see here, here, here and here.

Thoughts? Post a comment.

(Welcome Legal Insurrection readers)

"Public option" is dead, dead, dead -- but left-leaning Dems refuse to bury it ( so far)

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) makes the case for the already dead "public option"

After weeks of watching public opposition to health care reform proposals increase and President Obama's approval ratings drop, the Administration apparently reached the conclusion that siding with the more sweeping House leadership version of reform, with its so-called "public option," had zero chance of making it through the Senate. Rather than see the opportunity to get both Houses to agree on something slip away amidst an increasingly negative public debate, the White House "signaled" furiously over the weekend that it was willing to drop the public option and consider coops instead as a counter to private insurers.

Not surprisingly, the left commentariat erupted in a combination of crushing disappointment and flat-out fury that Obama would sell out the One True Reform. And leaders of the House liberal bloc warned the Administration that some 60 members would never, never, ever vote for a bill that did not include a public option, thus making passage of any such bill impossible.

Won't anyone tell these guys that the public option is as dead Julius Caesar and all they can accomplish by opposing Obama on compromising with the Senate moderates and House Blue Dogs is to kill any reform bill? Well, I will.

It's dead because Obama and Health Secretary Sebelius said they could live without it. They may have backtracked a bit today to appease the outcry from the left for the moment and give Administration operatives time to smooth things over with unions and other key allies. But the deed it done. Obama can no longer go to the moderate Democrats -- Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and others -- not to mention the few moderate Republicans -- conspicuously Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe whose votes might be decisive -- and say, we must have a public option. The moderates have been saying for weeks that the public option is a non-starter, and now Obama has said, OK, I can do without it. That genie is, as they say, out of the bottle.

The left-leaning blogosphere won't let go of this easily. Already, they have seized on a comment by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) to the effect that the proposed co-ops are a Trojan Horse for a public plan to complain that compromising with the Republicans on health care gets you nowhere because the GOP will not ultimately support any plan. Maybe so, but the stumbling block is not Kyl and the GOP Congressional leadership. It's the moderate Democrats who simply will not vote for a bill they consider to be too radical for their states and constituents. And it's the moderate Republicans whose votes may be needed to head off a filibuster.

So the self-styled "progressives" in the House are threatening to cripple Obama's Presidency before its first year is by submarining his premier proposal if it doesn't come up to their standards, and Howard Dean is sitting up there in Vermont making vague threats of primaries against Democrats who don't support a public option. I say, hooey. The House members will cave as soon as Rhambo swings into action to squeeze them for their votes. And successful primaries run by liberals against sitting Democratic Senators in less-than-liberal states like Montana and Arkansas? Good luck with that.

Some health care reform bill will pass before the year is out (unless the left goes totally bonkers and screws Obama), but it will be less sweeping -- more moderate -- than what's been prematurely labled "ObamaCare," and that's all to the good. The health care system is huge, complex and not altogether well understood. The potential for bad unintended consequences is enormous. What's more, a great many people like the much-distained status quo, at least where their health insurance is concerned.

As I posted some time ago, it will be better for everyone if reform is done piece meal. If this year's bill encourages greater portability, eliminates the pre-existing conditions dodge, expands eligibity for Medicaid, especially to provide insurance for the unemployed, and sets up a co-op to compete with private companies, that will be a lot to digest for a couple of years.

If people like Rep. Weiner (see the video above) think this is the only chance to pass a more comprehensive set of changes, they must have very little faith in the likelihood that voters will return Democrats to power. Of course, the irony is that if Weiner had his way, they probably wouldn't!

What's your opinion? Post a comment.