- If you haven’t read Bill Scher (“Good News Democrats, You’re Going To Lose”) and Norman Ornstein on the coming GOP crackup in the Congress, they may well have you feeling better about 2016. The next two years will be an absolute $#$%show, no question. And I’m not one for Schadenfreude as an electoral motivator … I’d rather win now, tomorrow, and every day. But we do have a somewhat self-correcting system, and no election is forever. The question is whether we default on the debt in the meantime.
- President Obama is singularly inept at touting his own accomplishments and making Congressional Republicans own their own nutty, misanthropic positions. I don’t see any way around this conclusion. How can you possibly be against “Affordable Care and Patient Protection”? Were he better at drawing sharp distinctions between his own positions and those of his opponents, if he were the one making the best possible case for himself and setting the tone from the top, there would be more cohesion and more willingness from Democratic candidates to campaign with him. If Bill Clinton can do this, why the hell can’t Obama? If there’s a Big Dog formula, then it ought to be copied.
And that would motivate the constituencies (African-Americans, the young) who don’t show up in sufficient numbers in off years. Ed Kilgore says that the enthusiasm of young voters for Obama was “not transferable to other Democrats.” Is that because they wouldn’t be seen with him? Ya think?
- Martha Coakley didn’t run a bad campaign. Not a great one, but not a bad one. Part of her defeat was the same reason as 2010: She ran without a blindingly clear program and a sense that she is the embodiment of a cause beyond herself, a la Elizabeth Warren. She was too cautious. She didn’t endorse Big Progressive Ideas. But she ran hard, shook hands in the snow, did well in debates, and comes out with dignity intact. As has been noted, she was wildly outspent. I can’t say that another candidate would have done better.
And give Charlie Baker credit: He ran as Mr. Moderate Congeniality and jettisoned some stupid and abrasive conservative positions. He was not running for a second Romney term. Good for him. His views on climate (for instance) “evolved” quite a bit, leaving open hope that progress might be made under his administration. (Do read this.) In other words, Did the liberal suburbs move to him, as the formidable Paul McMorrow says … or did he move to them? May it be so! and if not, he’ll be held accountable.
- Hope is a choice. It’s not something dependent on externalities. I’ve heard it in the chillest land, and on the strangest Sea, and -never- in Extremity, it asked a crumb – of Me. We will be back.
Even if he did move to the liberal suburbs (and they aren’t by any means all liberal), will he refrain from moving back to Republicaninity now the election’s over, and who’s going to hold him accountable if he does?
Hi, I’m a lifelong liberal voter.
Who’s getting fired in the Massachusetts Democratic party leadership?
This is incredible failure. The fact that we for the second time this millennium have elected a Republican governor in one of the most progressive states in the country is shameful.
The fact that the Mass Dems have considered Coakely to be an electable candidate shows a clear lack of understanding of the political landscape.
The fact that a Lt Governor who is clearly bigoted, anti-LGBT, got elected in one of the most liberal states in the country is an embarrassment. How was that point not driven home and slammed home in every advertisement, every messaging for Coakley?
Heads must roll or we will never have real change.
Where is the responsibility?
Who is getting fired?
The coordinated campaign was well-planned, aggressively carried out, and far outdistanced Republican GOTV. Look at the incredible numbers in Democratic areas. What could staff have done differently?
As much fun as it is for everyone to play the campaign manager game, the simple fact is that elections are decided when voters select from candidates. You can’t fire the voters who chose Coakley, or the voters who chose Baker, and the candidate never got the job.
Doug did a terrific job with the strategy for Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren. So, I guess he could be fired, except there is one problem with that approach. Win or lose, when the campaign is over, Doug automatically loses his job anyway.
means Coakley was electable.
without him, she may have lost by 8%
Ilove when people act like the MDP can anoint a single candidate like the days of yore. She wasn’t the top choice of convention delegates, but 15% gets you on the primary ballot. Most criticism of that rule is because people think the threshold is too high, not too low. If a single nominee were chosen by backroom deals, people would be screaming bloody murder. So let us stop pretending that “the party” is incompetent for nominating Martha Coakley.
Should have been hung like a millstone around Baker’s neck.
is the leg up she might have as the presumptive successor to Charles Baker when he decides to move on, or leaves before his term is complete and she becomes acting governor. She has to be electorally damaged before that happens, although the Republican party seems to like superstar or celebrity candidates for governor, not pols who have come up through the ranks.
The entire article is well worth reading, particularly since Maryland’s rain tax and fees apparently brought a lot of working people, and even people of color, over to the GOP and is forms a striking parallel to why working folks voted against gas tax indexing and the bottle bill.
Nice summation in this bullet, Charley.
Just reread your Obama bullet. I find myself inclined to defend the President today.
Per the wiki, we gained five seats in the House in 1998. This was, however, three years into the Contract with America, and America was turning on the Class of 94 (the Newt Gingrich era). Impeachment worked against them.
The Senate, in 1998, did not change at all. It remained 55-45 in Republican control (a couple of seats flipped, but the balance remained the same). Further, different seats were up (it was 16 years ago, so a different mix of states had Senate elections).
So the dreaded sixth year in office midterm was rather different.
Finally, the last time I saw Bill Clinton, he was campaigning for Martha Coakley.
All of which is to say … let’s not pile on the President. Sure, he gets some blame, but he wasn’t an overriding factor. Landrieu stuck by him, and did better than some who abandoned him.
First of all, yes, I can say unequivocally that another candidate for Governor would’ve done better. Why? Because there are literally so many people I personally know who usually vote for Democrats but couldn’t stomach voting for Martha Coakley, that I wouldn’t be able to give you a complete list because days later I’d still be remembering more names I’d forgotten. No other high profile Democrat in Massachusetts inspires so much distaste among Democratic voters. Coakley was clearly the weakest candidate, and that was obvious all along – as soon as she announced she was running, I felt the impending doom.
As for 2016: Not only was it always going to be a better year for Democrats, especially with the Senate, but letting the Republicans clearly have all of Congress makes it even better. However, Obama can certainly fumble it yet again, by not fighting for reform in a visible way, and trying too hard to compromise with Republicans who only want to see him fail and don’t care what damage they do in the process.
For the Senate in particular, 2014 is a year in which we had to defend all of the Senators who got elected or who held on in marginal states in 2008, the most pro-Democratic election year in decades. And we had to do it in a midterm, when Democratic turnout is much lower. 2016 is a year in which Republicans have to defend all the Senators they got elected, or who held in on states marginal for them, in 2010 – the most pro-Republican election in decades. And they have to do it in a presidential election year, when Democratic turnout is much higher. So I expect Democrats to have a Senate majority after 2016 unless Obama fumbles quite badly.
A lot of bad trade agreements were halted by Harry Reid that Mitch and Obama have already tweeted about discussing “over Kentucky bourbon”. I don’t want to give any President fast track authority. Second, now he may be able I out Chained CPI back on the table and other “entitlement” reforms. It would be interesting if Mitch wanted to pursue immigration reform, now that he has the power. At this point giving I to the lame duck takes it away as an issue Clinton can run with against them.
…there is a random capital I that I think should be something else – please advise.
Think I meant “at this point he may be willing to give then chained CPI”
And the fourth line “I” is for immigration reform.
Yes, the movement to defend and expand Social Security does need to keep up the work. But they will. And they’re going to keep the upper hand, because they know how to mobilize public support and boy do they have public support! Doesn’t matter who’s in the White House or Congress, they can keep on winning.
lack of open support from the likes of Speaker DeLeo and outgoing Senate President Murray cost Coakley votes. Those people control a lot of the nuts and bolts of votes in their districts. This was not unlike what happened to Scott Harshbarger when he ran against Paul Cellucci, and it cost both their races.
Martha is a mediocre politician on her best days. She’s an absolute fright the rest of the time – she’s never shown that she has any core principle, besides the principle that she should be elected to whatever office she happens to be running for.
Sadly, all the liberals and progressives in my very deep blue community caucused for her from the get-go. I know that a majority of them really agreed with Don, but the Clintonization of electoral “realities” left them thinking that she was the more “electable” candidate.
It’s too bad. I know voters who would have voted for Don in the general but instead voted for Charlie – seemingly for no other reason than they didn’t know what, if anything, Martha stands for.
I knew it was a losing vote when I cast it, but that was my choice. Had he won the primary and become the nominee, he would have been crushed by Baker. That’s why Coakley won the primary. She was seen as having the best chance to defeat Baker. It didn’t work out. Now, we have a Pioneer Institute governor elect and a tea party sympathizer as lt gov elect. Swell.
She probably was seen as having the best chance to defeat Baker by many of the people who voted for her, but I’m confident she had the worst chance of the three. Berwick or Grossman would’ve had a relatively easy time beating Baker. Coakley was the only one who gave him a good shot.
I voted for Coakley in the final, after voting for Berwick in the primary and at the convention. Don almost outpolled Coakley at the convention.
Coakley had a special weakness that Berwick and Grossman didn’t, but even she *could* have beaten Baker – it was just going to be difficult for her. For either of the other two, it would’ve been much more likely. I agree that Berwick would’ve made the best Governor, but in terms of having a good chance of beating Baker in an election, Grossman’s just as good.
doesn’t means his beliefs changed or he’d govern differently. He just ran a different campaign by consultant, and voters believed it.