Campaign finance reports show that the Brown-Coakley Senate contest was influenced heavily in its last days by a “flood of national money” that drove total campaign spending to nearly $23 million.

The explosion of late spending was all the more remarkable because the campaign lacked excitement until the last 10 days, when polls showed it tightening, the national ramifications became clear, and a torrent of money poured into the Bay State as never before. Only a few weeks earlier, both campaigns were running on fumes after winning their respective primaries.

At the beginning of the month Republican Scott Brown was far behind Democrat Martha Coakley with only $1.2 million dollars in his campaign account. Coakley, meanwhile, has said she was late answering Brown’s TV ads because her campaign had yet to pay debts left over from December’s Democratic primary.

The tone and profile of the race started to change 12 days out, on Jan. 7, when the conservative California-based American Future Fund began a $400,000 ad buy that was critical of Coakley, whose campaign five days later aired a harsh negative spot against Brown.

In short order, each new day brought at least one new outside interest group into the fray. On Jan. 12, the US Chamber of Commerce started what would be $1 million worth of positive ads promoting the Republican upstart. The next day, the Service Employees International Union launched the first of $665,000 worth of negative ads aimed at Brown, and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees began $100,000 worth of radio ads promoting Coakley.

In the campaign’s final eight days, 12 different groups aired television spots for or against one of the candidates, spending more than the candidates’ campaigns spent – combined – on TV during that period. During that final sprint, Brown’s campaign spent about $2.2 million and Coakley’s about $1.6 million for ads on broadcast and cable stations in the markets of Boston, Springfield, and Providence, which includes Southeastern Massachusetts, and cable stations in the Albany market, which extends into Berkshire County, according to an analysis by a firm that monitors campaign ad spending.

In the same time period, Coakley’s candidacy was also buttressed by $1.5 million in TV ads down the stretch paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a combined $1.4 million in ads paid for by the SEIU, union-funded Citizens for Strength and Security, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Foundation for Patients Rights, the report shows. Brown’s campaign was supported by about $1.9 million worth of ad time purchased by allied groups. Besides the US Chamber and the American Future Fund, they included the Americans for Job Security, Americans for Responsible Health Care, the Employment Policies Institute, the Tea Party Express, and the National Republican Trust.

See http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/late_spending_surge_fueled_senate_race/?page=full.

In the wake of the Jan. 19 special Senate election, the Washington Post surveys Massachusetts voters and finds more ambivalence than 5-point vote margin suggests.

Nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters say their vote was intended at least in part to express opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington, but few say the senator-elect should simply work to stop it. Three-quarters of those who voted for Brown say they would like him to work with Democrats to get Republican ideas into legislation in general; nearly half say so specifically about health-care legislation.

Even among those who voted for the Republican candidate, the Post found more concern over the legislative process through which Democrats had advanced their health-reform plan, rather than the specifics of the plan itself.

Among Brown’s supporters who say the health-care reform effort in Washington played an important role in their vote, the most frequently cited reasons were concerns about the process, including closed-door dealing and a lack of bipartisanship. Three in 10 highlighted these political maneuverings as the motivating factor; 22 percent expressed general opposition to reform or the current bill.

The poll also showed that 68 percent of voters — and slightly more than half of those who voted for Brown — support Massachusetts’ own three-year-old health-care reform plan, upon which the national proposal was initially modeled.

The paper explained its poll by saying that the suddenly competitive election caught many observers by surprise, leaving news organization too little time to plan an exit poll.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203167.html.

In the wake of Scott Brown’s come-from-behind victory in the special U.S. Senate election yesterday, Massachusetts Republicans predicted a resurgence for a party that currently holds only 21 of a total of 200 seats in the state legislature.

In recent years, the GOP has failed to field candidates for many offices, including major statewide posts.

“I’ve been to the rallies, and what we want to do is take some of that enthusiasm and excitement and participation and harness it for other candidates,” said Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading, the House minority leader.

In particular, Jones said that Republicans might start looking at open seats for state treasurer and state auditor and to the attorney general’s office, even if Martha Coakley decides to run as an incumbent.

Until Brown is sworn in, Massachusetts remains the largest state in the nation where every member of its Congressional delegation is a Democrat.

Jane Swift, the former Republican acting governor, said that Brown, until recently a little known state senator from Wrentham, will fortify Republican prospects by encouraging higher-caliber candidates, who might have otherwise sat on the sidelines without a realistic chance of winning, to run for statewide office and the Legislature.

Even before Brown’s gains, there were signs that this might be a good year for Republicans, Swift said. The signs included plunging favorability ratings for Governor Deval Patrick and prodigious fund-raising by Charles Baker and Richard Tisei, Republican candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Baker raised $1.85 million in the last five months of 2009, one of the most successful political fund-raising drives in recent memory.

“The climate was good for Republicans before the Scott Brown campaign took off, but I didn’t expect it to get this good,” Swift said.

See http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/20/victory_lifts_the_hopes_of_republicans/?page=full.

Massachusetts election officials said that 2.2 million people cast votes in yesterday’s special Senate election, out of 4.1 million registered voters.

The turnout matched that of the the 2007 gubernatorial race, but fell far short of the 3 million who voted in the 2008 presidential contest.

In Boston, election official Geraldine Cuddyer said that 33.5% of all voters cast ballots, with highs of 47% in some city wards.

But a City Hall insider said in communities such as Roxbury, turnout was low. “The minorities just didn’t come out, which was not favorable for Martha Coakley,” the insider said, noting that “turnout in conservative areas of the state was huge.”

The high turnout was driven by anger and uncertainty, the Boston Globe reported.

Across Massachusetts, a surge of angry voters looking to upset the status quo flocked to the polls yesterday, despite rain and snow through much of the day, to cast ballots in an unprecedented mid-January special election…

In scores of interviews at multiple polling places, Republicans, independents, and even some Democrats said frustration over health reform and anger with Congress had motivated them to vote for Brown, a Republican state senator whom few voters had heard of before this campaign.

See http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1226837 and http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/20/frustration_with_status_quo_fuels_emotions_big_turnout/?page=full.

With Sen. John Kerry already warning against forming “a circular firing squad,” disillusioned Democrats today look for explanations in the wake of the defeat of Attorney General Martha Coakley, who only a few weeks earlier led her U.S. Senate race by 31 points.

Most blamed the candidate, and some did not mince words.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank bluntly declared, “Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. She let herself get involved in a personality debate.”

Democratic consultant Larry Rasky, however, told the Boston Globe that the peril that the Democrats had deeper roots.

“This is a perfect storm: bad candidate, bad campaign, bad economy, bad political environment for Democrats in Massachusetts, bad atmosphere in Washington around health care.”

Pollsters said that President Obama’s last-minute visit to Massachusetts had no effect on the outcome of the race.

The White House waved off suggestions that Obama bore responsibility by not putting more effort earlier into the race. Senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters that “had we been asked earlier we would have certainly responded earlier.” Earlier in the day White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president was “surprised and frustrated” — and not pleased — with Coakley’s handling of her campaign.

Representative William Delahunt, Democrat of Quincy, said the Democrats should blame themselves for failing to recognize intense voter discontent and act on it.

“It is much more about the anger, in capital letters. I understand the emotion, but Ted Kennedy would have understood the emotional angst of people as they talk about their economic survival.”

See http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/20/kennedys_absence_tangible_as_democrats_ask_what_went_wrong/?page=full and http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/politics/view/20100119brown_54_-_coakley_45_-_kennedy_1/srvc=home&position=0.

An exultant Scott Brown celebrated his victory in the special U.S. Senate election, telling a packed crowd at his victory rally that he was ready to take his seat in the Senate “without delay.”

“I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or no special interest, answering only to my conscience and to you the people,” Brown said. “I know I have a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am, and I know who I serve. I’m Scott Brown. I’m from Wrentham. And I drive a truck.”

Brown, until recently a little-known Republican state senator, erupted onto the national stage with a nearly 5-point victory over Attorney General Martha Coakley, 51.9% to 47.1%. Joseph L. Kennedy, a Libertarian Party member running as an independent (and no relation to the late senator), garnered 1% of the vote.

Brown becomes the first Republican to represent Massachusetts in the Senate since 1979.

From the podium, Brown warned that Democratic politicians everywhere — whom he called “the machine” — should be watching their backs.

“For them, it’s just the beginning of an election year filled with many, many surprises, I can tell you that,” he said to applause. “They will be challenged again and again across this great land, and when there’s trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured there’s trouble everywhere, and they know it.’”

See http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/20/republican_trounces_coakley_for_senate_imperils_obama_health_plan/?page=full, http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/politics/view/20100119brown_54_-_coakley_45_-_kennedy_1/srvc=home&position=0, and http://www.wbur.org/2010/01/20/brown-wins.

Surprising the nation, Scott Brown, the Wrentham Republican who just days ago was considered a longshot to win the U.S. Senate seat of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, tonight won a convincing victory over his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Brown seized a 5+-point lead soon after the polls closed at 8 p.m., and held onto it as more returns filtered in from the more urban, traditionally Democratic precincts.

On issues, Brown tapped into a wellspring of voter anger over both state tax increases and corruption on Beacon Hill as he cast Coakley as an insider beholden to the Democratic establishment. And while Brown was embraced by right-wing groups – including activists opposed to gay marriage and abortion – he walked a fine line trying to portray himself as a social moderate.

See http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/polls_open_in_s_1.html and http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html.

As the hours tick by till tonight’s 8 p.m. poll closings, the New York Times begins blogging on the day’s developments.

For example, a mid-day post asks how Democratic is Massachusetts, really?

Dalia Sussman, one of our polling editors, offers us this glimpse of the electorate: As voters choose who should fill the seat long held by the late Edward M. Kennedy, an analysis by Gallup points out, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, that the state’s residents are no more likely than all Americans to identify themselves as Democrats.

Gallup combined 350,000 interviews that it conducted across the country in 2009 (including 8,580 in Massachusetts), and found that 35 percent of Massachusetts residents call themselves Democrats, matching the national average.

Compared with all Americans, however, Bay State adults were more apt to label themselves independents and far less likely to call themselves Republicans. About half (49 percent) identified as independents, compared with 35 percent nationally. And just 13 percent said Republican — that’s 14 percentage points below the national average for last year.

At the same time, when independents were asked which party they leaned toward, most said the Democratic Party. That helps explain the edge the party usually has in the state as well as why Mr. Obama’s approval rating in Massachusetts last year was about 10 percentage points higher than Gallup’s national average.

Nevertheless, Gallup’s analysis notes: “This political environment is not necessarily rigidly Democrat, but instead one built on an underlying structure with a substantial independent component.”

Indeed, despite such low Republican identification, Gallup points out that four of the state’s last five governors have been Republican.

See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/blogging-the-mass-senate-race/?hp.

No, it’s not really over.

In a gaffe that its crosstown competitor was quick to crow about, the Boston Globe today briefly posted online a poll purporting to show the town-by-town results of today’s Senate election — five hours before the polls close.

Rival Boston Herald reporter Joe Dwinell was quick to post the erroneous screen on the Herald website. In an update to the original post, it quotes Bob Powers, VP of communications for the Globe, as blaming the mistake on the Associated Press.

“AP was testing an election data feed to its Massachusetts clients. During corresponding tests at our end, the feed of AP’s hypothetical test data was inadvertently posted for a few minutes on a single subsection page within our site. As soon as the error was discovered, it was removed. We regret the mishap.”

See http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/politics/view/20100119globe_jumps_the_gun_in_online_map_goof/.

As Massachusetts goes to the polls in a crucial Senate election, Politico.com lists five key factors to watch for in tonight’s results.

For example, “signs of life from the Democratic machine,” esp. as reflected in urban turnout:

[L]ast month’s Democratic primary results suggest [Democrat Martha Coakley] can’t automatically assume enthusiastic support: Even though Coakley won most municipalities across the state, Rep. Michael Capuano outpolled her in Boston and Cambridge.

“I think turnout in the Boston area is crucial,” said Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Coakley also needs proportionally higher turnout in the Democratic-leaning cities of Springfield and Worcester, where party get-out-the-vote efforts have also been concentrated. In 2008, Obama won 77 percent of the vote in Springfield and 68 percent of the vote in Worcester.

Coakley needs around 35 percent turnout in those core areas, analysts estimate, with about a 50,000-to-60,000-vote margin in Boston and a 15,000-to-20,000-vote margin in Cambridge. One plugged-in Massachusetts Democratic strategist said he’s hoping for 40 percent turnout in the cities to feel good about Coakley’s chances — enough to offset what he expects to be a strong Brown performance in the suburbs.

See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31632.html.