Kerry's Senate seat worth scrambling for

17 September 2004

Should John Kerry win in November, the state will witness two mad scrambles: One for tickets to the inauguration, the other for his Senate seat. A good party is just for an evening, however. If the past is any guide, a Senate seat in Massachusetts - if held by a Democrat - is forever (or at least, for as long as the incumbent chooses to stay). Kerry's seat is thus the proverbial once-in-a- lifetime opportunity.

A poll recently obtained by the Herald - conducted within the last few weeks by one of the potential Democratic candidates - sketches out the potential for what looks to be a fascinating race. To a degree, it confirms a Boston Globe poll released earlier this week. But it also provides a more in-depth look at voters' thoughts about the potential candidates and the dynamics that may develop later in the campaign.

The short story is this: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank of Newton holds an early and significant lead. Middlesex County District Attorney Martha Coakley has the potential to emerge as a strong candidate. And if the field remains crowded, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch of Boston, the sole pro-life candidate, could end up the winner, capturing a plurality - but not a majority - of the votes.

The timing of the new election is uncertain - it has to be held within 160 days after Kerry resigns his seat. The field may be crowded. Because it's a special election, it will be a free shot for incumbent pols, who won't have to give up their current jobs in order to seek a new one.

At the same time, it's not an election for novices. With a short window in which to work, only those who are already well known will be able to raise money and put together the organization needed to wage an effective campaign. As a result, most of those mentioned as candidates are familiar faces: Frank, Coakley and Lynch, of course, as well as U.S. Reps. Marty Meehan and Edward Markey and former gubernatorial nominee Shannon O'Brien.

Frank holds a startlingly significant edge, with favorability ratings that are considerably higher than anyone else in the field: 70 percent positive with only 16 percent negative. The other candidates range from 54 percent to 44 percent favorable, with the exception of Lynch, who is only at 26 percent. Moreover, when looking at the horse race, Frank gets 33 percent of the vote; everyone else is 11 percent or less.

Frank's numbers are even more surprising if one remembers back to 1989, when he was embroiled in a sordid scandal involving allegations of a sex-for-hire ring run out of his home. Many then were telling him to resign; the House publicly reprimanded him. Frank's strong numbers today suggest voters have forgiven or, perhaps, forgotten. (If the latter, however, you can be sure other candidates in the Senate race will do their best to remind them.)

Against Frank, both Meehan's and Markey's candidacies seem troubled. Both men have the ability to raise money (Meehan, in fact, has over $2 million). Yet while their favorabilities are good, they are nowhere near as high as Frank's. Distinguishing themselves - climbing past his initial advantages - seems hard.

One person who might rise to that challenge is Martha Coakley. Both she and O'Brien could take advantage of sentiment that it's time for the state to elect a woman as senator. Of the two, Coakley looks the stronger. O'Brien's unfavorability rating of 27 percent is the worst of the field. In addition, while both women have good favorability ratings (O'Brien at 51 percent and Coakley at 44 percent), Coakley's numbers are the more striking because, unlike O'Brien, she has never been a statewide candidate - suggesting she has a lot of room for growth.

Thus, based on the poll, one read on the race puts the front- runners as Frank and Coakley. But there's a wild card: Stephen Lynch.

Lynch, now in his second term, is not well known. Yet he stands out for his position on abortion: While the rest of the field is pro- choice, he is pro-life. And as Lynch proved in his run for Congress in 2001 (also a special election), even in Massachusetts, a pro- life candidate can win, especially when pro-choice votes are split amongst a number of other candidates. On top of that, Lynch has a huge advantage with another critical constituency: Still a union member, labor loves him.

And what happens after the primary? The poll I looked at didn't match up Democrats against Republicans. But curiously enough, the best shot the GOP has of taking the Senate seat exists if Lynch is the nominee. Against him, a socially liberal, Weld-style Republican could well win. If not, though, it's probably a safe bet that the seat remains in Democratic hands.

Of course, all of this speculation is like a political version of fantasy baseball. In the real world, Kerry needs to win. If he doesn't, all we'll have is the Senate race that might have been.