The New Republic

There's a real dilemma all campaigns face, and the dilemma is made worse in close races and in off-year and non-November elections. Both of which characterize this race. The dilemma is that you need your supporters to believe in the urgency of their vote, but you also need your donors to believe in the usefulness of their money. So you need your supporters to feel at least a touch of panic that you might lose, but you also need your donors to feel real confidence that you're likely to win. That's a tough balance to maintain in the best of circumstances, and the Coakley campaign's circumstances are very far from best.

- rhubarbs

January 12, 2010 at 5:55pm

You also need people to actually go to the polls to vote. If the sense that she is so far ahead that it doesn't matter if they show up or not than.... And it is winter and it's cold as hell here right now so why would anyone want to stand in line to vote for a "sure winner?"

- jacksondyer

January 12, 2010 at 10:26pm

I'm rather annoyed over this as well. Having received the "desperation" e-mails over the weekend, and not wanting the Dems to lose their 60 votes and health reform to fail, I forked over $250 that I couldn't really afford. I didn't know I was paying to keep Coakley's lead safely in double digits. Didn't JFK's dad say something like "I'm paying for a win, not a landslide"?

- Oberdier

January 13, 2010 at 12:55pm