So, how did a relatively popular left-of-center Catholic AG from Middlesex County lose to a right wing Protestant Republican unknown in the battle for Ted Kennedy’s seat? And, how did it seem that he represented MA more when she seemed the best qualified? It goes back to the Machiavelli quote I included at the top. He may be widely regarded as evil, but there’s a lot to learn there. It’s all about appearances.
Scott Brown made the average Massachusetts voter feel that he represented them, even though he was far to the right of them, and made substantially more money than they did. He seemed like an average working class person, in spite of his salary and the fact that his daughter owns a horse, because he was out there at Fenway meeting people, and talked to average voters. He ran an ad with his old truck in it, which, while not the best choice of vehicle, showed that he wasn’t elitist. In short, he managed to fake it better than Coakley.
Coakley, on the other hand, made horrible gaffes. Calling Curt Schilling a Yankees fan was terrible. It showed one of the largest constituencies in the Commonwealth, Red Sox fans, that she wasn’t like them; she was like the other limousine liberals who don’t give a damn about sports. The fact that she was a female candidate probably didn’t help; it seems most successful female politicians at least fake being interested in sports, or better yet, are actually interested. She also managed to anger Catholics with her remarks that were tantamount to saying that Catholics shouldn’t work in emergency rooms. Doesn’t help you win an election in one of the most Catholic states. Scott Brown, on the other hand, seemed a good alternative to Catholics. Most probably would have guessed he was a Catholic. Once again, it’s all about appearances. As Machiavelli tells us, “to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.”
This election was mostly about Coakley’s failure to create a good image for herself. She came across as arrogant, aloof, elitist, and out of touch. Her campaign was run horribly, while Scott Brown ran an amazing campaign, and barely missed a beat. Martha Coakley lost the election because of this. She probably deserved it. I have no doubt that the other candidates (yes, even Pags) wouldn’t have been in this situation. This election has nothing to do with healthcare and the Democrats. It has everything to do with appearances and Martha Coakley
She had the same favorables as Brown, around 60%, even in polls she was losing. So people didn’t hate her.
<
p>You’re making a valiant effort to save the Democratic agenda, but the truth is the Democratic agenda destroyed her. If she made a serious mistake, it was to listen to her consultants and herself, and to believe that sticking to Obama like glue was all she had to do.
<
p>When will you guys get it through your damned thick heads: Obama won the independents because he opposed the war. A to Z of his victory. Obama did not win the independents because the wanted a Washington takeover of health care, or higher taxes, or cap and trade.
I wouldn’t say this is worthless…your first sentence was actually a helpful data point. She was still well-liked as a person/public figure, as was Scott Brown. I would like it, however, if people would appreciate that the electorate in 2010 and the electorate in 2008 are different groups of people, not the same group of people that changed their minds on stuff.
Yes, yes, I agree with her individual problems, but it seems to me those were surmountable. After all, Ted Kennedy had plenty of individual problems as our less charitable colleagues on the right will hasten to point out.
<
p>Why, for example, isn’t the case for healthcare reform extremely clear? Instead, we hear mostly about compromises and shenanigans and back room deals and no public option. If the Democratic Party is going to win elections, it has to win the issues it’s standing on too and not lazily hope that their imminent wisdom will eventually and magically shine through like the obscured goodness of Jean Valjean.
<
p>Ditto financial reform. Ditto the stimulus. Ditto cap and trade. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.
<
p>It’s the flabby timidity of the Democratic Party that allowed Republicans to play the part of the defender of Medicare. Medicare! A policy Reagan claimed would usher in socialism.
Compromise is the way things work in Washington. Part of Scott Brown’s appeal is that he claimed (however falsely) that he would work with the Democrats to start over on healthcare. Now, you know and I know that that is complete BS, but it caught a lot of people in. If you don’t compromise, nothing gets done. Sometimes you have to take something you don’t like in order to avoid complete inaction on important issues.
If compromise is the way it works, the Democratic Party has to explain why it’s so important to win and what is won by the compromises.
<
p>The problem with all this legislative/compromise talk is that it is confusing and demotivating.
<
p>Let me give you an example: Have you gotten a single mailing from Senator Kerry explaining what’s going on on health care reform? A single one?
<
p>Do these guys want to win on the issues or hope on the issues?
Sure Martha was a terrible candidate. But you seem to be ignoring that we just had a special election on a crappy January day that drew more voters than off-year general elections. We (Dems) flocked to the polls–one million of us–to save our national agenda. Almost 1.2 million people went to the polls–in part–to break the Dems 60 vote hold on the Senate or, at the very least, express disapproval in the direstion of the country (not that I agree with them).
<
p>To dismiss this lose as just having a bad candidate is short-sighted and frankly suggests you’re in denial. I suppose you will blame “bad candidates” for our loses in Virginia and NJ in November> Ya they were weak, but the Republicans (Scott Brown included) were fairly mediocre themselves.
<
p>Polling from all three of these races show a massive erosion of independents, a weakening of Dem support and a unified Republican base. Polling also indicates that there was a back lash on health care–a result of six months of relentless attacks from the right. Other than quoting Machiavelli, are there any facts you want to offer that can put this 100% on the shoulders of Martha Coakley?
I just put a good portion of it on her. Health care surely had an effect. However, she fucked up with a mismanaged campaign. She didn’t consolidate Democrats to support her, which has nothing to do with healthcare. Many Democrats had a bad taste left in their mouth after the primary. She ran arrogantly, and isn’t likable. Scott Brown, while probably actually a jerk, came off as really likable. From what I hear of their actual personalities, it’s actually completely the other way around. However, that didn’t show in this campaign, and Coakley failed to control her public image, instead letting herself be controlled by it. Health care is still fairly popular in Massachusetts. Obama is still fairly popular in Massachusetts. However, because of the enthusiasm gap, Obama and healthcare weren’t as popular among actual voters. Furthermore, she drew many people who chose to vote against her.
<
p>To illustrate my point, look through a lot of the posts leading up to this election on BMG. You’ll find a lot complaining about how bad Coakley is. If she’s just barely getting the support of BMG’ers, what does it say about her as a candidate? And the BMG’ers aren’t doing so because of healthcare…
…why waste your time responding…I’ll tell you what is worthless, pretending that obscure quotes from Machiavelli have anything to do with analyzing this election…you made a post that squarely put the blame 100% on the shoulders of Coakley. I responded that she was a terrible candidate, but other factors played into it bad we had to recognize them, instead of ignore them–as your original post implied.
<
p>Then you rate my comment “worthless”, but agree with my points…that a health care backlash was a factor and there was an enthusiasm gap regarding Obama and health care with actual voters. I could not have said that better, and I didn’t find anything worthless about those comments of yours.
<
p>What I do find worthless is the exercise you suggest I undertake of examining BMG comments about Coakley–hell I was one of the first people to comment in September about her lack of passion–because you should know that BMG posters are not representative of “actual voters” and actual voters are all that count at the end of the day.
<
p>And sorry to be condescending…but show a little maturity and rate comments with a level of objectivity and not whether they agree with you or not…and really, keep in check your desire to regurgitate whatever you learned in your political classics lectures and think it somehow applies to a contemporary issue at hand. You will soon understand what many people learn…you are the smartest you ever will be at your age, because as you get older, you’ll realize how much you don’t know.
You in fact did put this defeat 100% on Coakley, not a “ggod portion”…rereading your original post and your comments, it seems like two different authors…jsut a quick sample…
<
p>original post:
“This election has nothing to do with healthcare”
<
p>Your comment responding to me:
“Health care surely had an effect”
<
p>Original:
“This election is really only about Martha Coakley”
<
p>Your comment headline:
“I don’t put it 100% on the shoulders of Coakley”
<
p>You seem to have an interesting approach in building your points, it seems to rely on the hope that people can not retain things that you wrote beyond thirty seconds.
The value of a forum like Blue Mass Group is that you get to contend with people who disagree with you or have a different perspective.
<
p>If you give low ratings (0, 3s, and 4s) to everyone who disagrees with you, you make the discussion poorer, more personal, and eventually deflect attention to your ratings.
<
p>Just accept that folks will disagree with you. If you’re right, just be confident that no one will be swayed.