Coakley Running Against The Ghost Of Scott Brown

On Primary Day, Jim McKenna pulled off one of the most surprising feats in Massachusetts politics as he received well over the 10,000 write-in votes needed to win the GOP nomination for attorney general. He’s now challenging Martha Coakley, the Democratic incumbent.

Attorney General Martha Coakley testifies on casino gambling at the State House in Boston on Feb. 23. (AP)

It’s only the second time in Massachusetts history that someone succeeded as a write-in for a statewide office.

And it’s the latest proof that Republicans are enthusiastic about this election. GOP voters were appalled by the prospect of Coakley being unopposed after she lost to Scott Brown in January’s special Senate election.

McKenna is a serious candidate. A former prosecutor, he says he’ll focus mostly on three issues: public trust in the Attorney General’s Office, illegal immigration and public corruption.

McKenna is now busy organizing for this six-week sprint. And he hopes to raise $750,000 so he can match Coakley in advertising.

In a sense, Coakley is running against the ghost of Scott Brown. Her negatives went up dramatically during her race against Brown and, ever since, she has been viewed as a weak, disappointing candidate.

It’s not easy to lose a big race like that. Many Democrats blamed her for everything. They criticized her personality and work ethic, not just her gaffes and poor debate performance. She must have felt like Mike Dukakis after he lost the race for president in 1988. “Time heals all wounds,” they say, but that is often a rationalization. (Actually, time and rationalization heal all wounds.)

Coakley probably feels déjà vu seeing another little-known Republican opponent pull off an upset victory — winning a nomination with write-ins, no less.

While Coakley still has the advantages of a frontrunner, as she enjoyed against Brown (remember her 35-point lead in a poll?), she has a tricky strategy to execute. How can she win both re-election and redemption?

Coakley is in a quandary. Here are some of the questions she faces in contemplating strategy and tactics:

Should she attack her opponent or ignore him? She needs to ratchet up interest in her campaign among Democratic activists. But she doesn’t want to motivate Republicans to go all-out for McKenna. She didn’t do well in ignoring or attacking Brown.

Should she talk publicly about life lessons, and political lessons, she’s learned from her Senate defeat? Would that make her seem more empathetic and appealing? Or would that seem too contrived and simply remind people of what they didn’t like about her — namely, that she was out of touch as a liberal incumbent?

How can she advertise without it seeming like the same old ads people saw in the special Senate race? Different imagery, different issues, different ad style…? It’s not easy to come up with persuasive ads since she doesn’t have all that much new to say or show.

Since she’s agreed to a cap on campaign spending, she can’t afford saturation advertising for the final month. Will she use tax-paid staff and tax-paid public relations to a greater extent? If so, won’t her opponent criticize that in raising the question of public trust?

Unlike her race against Brown, she no longer has the excitement of being able to make history as a woman. Now there are several female candidates for state office: treasurer candidate Karyn Polito, auditor candidates Mary Z. Connaughton and Suzanne Bump. Can Coakley inspire voters in some other way, to change the perception that she’s dull?

How will she appeal to independents when she still has the reputation of being a liberal, Democratic, establishment candidate? For example, many still remember the TV spot showing her going to a Washington, D.C. fundraiser for lobbyists. That is not a positive image in an anti-incumbent year.

How will Coakley speak about Brown when asked her opinion of his performance so far? She doesn’t want to demoralize her liberal Democratic base by sounding too positive, yet she needs to win some of the 52 percent who voted for him.

Coakley still has the conventional advantages of a well-known incumbent. Her problem is that she is too well-known as an incumbent.

She is still favored to win. But this time she won’t take much comfort in hearing that.