A View From Inside Coakley’s Camp
By MICHAEL COOPER
Martha Coakley’s campaign had originally planned on spending less money in the general election against Scott Brown than it had spent winning the Democratic primary, its chief strategist said in an interview today.
Many people had expected the four-way primary to be tougher than the general election against Mr. Brown, a little-known Republican state senator. So the Coakley campaign, which spent roughly $5 million to win the Democratic nomination, entered the general election with only about $450,000 left and plans to spend only about $1.8 million against Mr. Brown in the final stretch, which was less than two months long.
At first things looked like they were conforming to plan. A poll the campaign conducted just before Christmas showed Martha Coakley, the Democratic attorney general, with a 19-point lead over Mr. Brown, said Dennis Newman, the Coakley campaign’s chief strategist. Ms. Coakley took some time off the trail to celebrate Christmas, prepare for the debate, film ads and try to raise money.
Mr. Brown filled his days full of appearances and put ads on television; the Coakley campaign stayed dark, marshalling its resources for the final two weeks, which had been its plan all along. Just after New Year’s, though, public polls showed the race tightening, setting off alarms. But Mr. Newman said many donors felt tapped out from giving money in the primary, and many did not believe the race could be close.
“We were concerned, we were working hard, Martha was on the phones trying to raise money, which was difficult,’’ Mr. Newman said.
The polls were energizing Republicans, he said. “The one big concern that we had was if national groups came in and gave Scott Brown money or support, it could be problematic,’’ he said. After public polls showed the race tightening he said, “outside groups became involved.’’
Aides to Mr. Brown said that as his poll standings improved, and he appeared on conservative radio shows, his Internet fundraising took off; by the election he even had vastly more Facebook friends then Ms. Coakley.
Mr. Newman also said that the campaign was hurt when Mr. Brown made the race into a referendum on health care, which allowed him to attract campaign donations from across the country and which put Ms. Coakley in the tricky position of defending a health care bill to voters in a state that already has near-universal coverage. “It’s not easy in a sound bite, not easy in a 30-second rebuttal in the debate,’’ he said.
In the end, when Mr. Brown surged and attracted national support, the Coakley campaign was able to raise about $4 million, more than twice what it had planned. But Mr. Newman estimated that based on press reports, they may have been outraised by as much as three to one by the Brown campaign. And although some vigorous finger-pointing has broken out in recent days, Mr. Newman had nothing put praise for the White House and national Democrats, repeating several times that they were “tremendously helpful.”
“One of the things we missed, and I guess you could call it a mistake, was the pent-up anger,’’ he said, likening the mood to 1990, when the state elected a Republican governor in the midst of a regional recession. “There was some very pent-up anger and people took it out at the ballot box, and I think we misjudged that and he tapped into it.’’
