Martha Coakley's debate gambit.

By now you've probably heard about Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley's call for the inclusion of independent candidate Joe Kennedy in any debates between now and January 19.

The move is somewhat unusual.  Oftentimes when there is a third party candidate in a Massachusetts election (think Grace Ross or Christy Mihos in the 2006 Gubernatorial election), the major party candidates (and the TV networks) prefer to exclude them in order to get more one-on-one time against their chief rivals.  The Democratic and Republican parties in general are probably not fond of the idea, or any other that may lend credence to the viability of third party candidates.

But in this particular instance, the move is a stroke of genius for Coakley.

During primary season she was accused (fairly or unfairly) of trying to duck her opponents in debates.  Given that she may well be more heavily favored in the general election than she was in the primary, she would probably rather have Herald reporters over for milk and cookies than debate Scott Brown.

By pushing for the inclusion of Joe Kennedy, she puts Brown in a very tight spot.  If he refuses (So far his campaign looks to be reluctant - and rightfully so), Coakley has a (somewhat) legitimate reason to pass on any head-to-head debates.  Indeed, her campaign already appears to be laying the groundwork for such a move.  In a statement released yesterday, Coakley spokeswoman Alex Zaroulis said:

"During the Republican primary, Scott Brown refused to debate his opponent at the Kennedy Library and waited until the night before the election to participate in a televised debate. During the Democratic primary, all four candidates engaged in five debates on both radio and television. Martha Coakley looks forward to participating in a number of similar debates with both of her opponents prior to the January 19 general election. We do not understand Scott Brown’s hesitation to debate both of his opponents, and urge him to engage in these debates with all the candidates to help voters make an informed, clear choice in January."

However, if Brown agrees to include Kennedy in any debate, the result might be worse.

Right now, he's the Republican nominee, albeit a decided underdog, in a race for U.S. Senate.  No matter the outcome, he will raise his profile significantly, have the chance to challenge the Democratic nominee on political philosophy, and perhaps even help the National Republican Senatorial Committee test-drive campaign messages that could prove to be useful in more competitive states in 2010 (the open Senate seat in New Hampshire figures to draw heavy attention from both national parties).

With Kennedy (a Libertarian running as an independent) included, Brown's chance to star is seriously diminished.  All of a sudden there will be two voices on stage criticizing the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress; there will be two candidates pushing for lower taxes and better fiscal accountability; and there will be two candidates claiming to be the best suited to grow jobs.

Worst of all for Brown (and with all due respect to Joe Kennedy, who has been great to this site), there would be an immediate distinction on stage: a future U.S. Senator and two fringe candidates.

All-in-all a brilliant strategic move by Coakley, and one that could well result in zero debates over the next five weeks.

Let's break it down Fix style:

Winners


Martha Coakley - put Scott Brown in a very difficult position; set herself up to either pass on debates or shine in them.

Joe Kennedy - whether or not there are debates and he gets included, Coakley has extended some legitimacy to his campaign.

Third party candidates in Massachusetts - can now use Coakley's statement to push for their inclusion in future debates.

Voters - if debates happen.

Losers


Scott Brown - Coakley just put him in a really, really tough position.

Voters - if no debates happen.

What do readers think - should Brown agree to have Kennedy in the debates?