Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Was Martha sacrificed for November?

By

David replied “Nonsense”, and he’ll probably say the same thing now, but, what if the Democrats realized what the Republicans were thinking, and sabotaged Coakley’s campaign to diffuse the potential November massacre?  That would explain the “message man” dropped in to the Coakley campaign by Obama pushing the reporter to the ground at the DC lobbyist fundraiser, that was his secret mission.  And it would explain why Martha’s ads, which were done by Obama’s ad people, echo Brown’s ads that “Brown will be the 41st vote to kill healthcare”.  Her team was trying to elect the clueless Republican.

I know that people are saying that Brown’s win is striking fear into Democrats everywhere, changing the game, etc, but will that really last?  Is it possible Brown’s win here could be good for Democrats in November?  If you never see any more posts from me, you’ll know what happened.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. The white house didn’t make Martha stay silent early in the campaign, while Brown defined Martha as a Wall Street Bankster and himself as the populist who would somehow defeat the banks (although not make them pay back the TARP). That was all Martha’s campaign.  

    • It’s so obvious!  You just don’t want to Hey!  Mmmpphhhh!!  MMmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmm!!!  mmmmmmm!!!   mmmmmm mmmm!

    • But it was the nail in the coffin, the coup de grĂ¢ce, the get-out-the-vote call for all the bitter McCain/Palin voters.  What was his most memorable line?  Oh yeah: “anybody can own a truck.”

    • whether he wanted her to win to keep his Dem majority in congress, or had his own reason for wanting her to lose (somebody to blame a defeat of HCR on), he would still have had to pretend to do everything possible to help her.

  5. Who’s this “Bob Neer” fellow?  Is that Bob Bob, or has the Circle of Editors widened?  I don’t deal well with change…

  6. Well, let’s see, a “super-majority” Dem congress that works for most of the past year on HCR, and then they can’t get it passed.  But how to dump it, without completely getting egg on their faces.  And every day brings them closer to the mid-term election.  What excuse can they give the American people for wasting so much time with nothing to show? Oh, wait, if the MA seat goes to the republican candidate who calls himself the 41st vote to stop HCR, they can save face. And they’ll just blame it on the candidate – Martha Coakley wasn’t the establishment candidate in MA – they were all behind Capuano anyway.  Nikki Tsongas was the only one of the delegation that I saw giving it her all. I’m sure a few of them (Capuano? Lynch?) were thinking if Brown won, he’d be easy to defeat in 3 years anyway.

    <

    p>A MA democrat who has never really been involved in a heavily contested race before, who has huge approval ratings running in MA against an up until now insignificant republican senator (1 of 5)during the Christmas season. She would have been elected in any previous election year that I’ve seen in MA. If the DNC or MA Dem party saw a problem, why not step in and help?  And if they didn’t see a problem early enough to react, why expect the campaign to see it early enough? I thought the money we give to the DNC or state committees was supposed to be used to support these candidates. GRRRRRRR.  

    • Consider giving only to individuals and progressive groups such as Progressive Democrats for America, not the DNC.

  7. I was standing next to Mike Steele in the ballroom kitchen at the Park Plaza when someone came up to and admonished him for not being fully involved with the Brown campaign until the last minute.

    <

    p>He shrugged and mumbled something about limited resources.

    <

    p>I think this is a fair explanation.  Given that this special election campaign was so short and Brown such a long shot, is it any wonder why the RNC would have been reluctant to send people and money to MA?  Completely reasonable.  Scott Brown?  Who knew?

    <

    p>The same could be said about the DNC … only until a couple weeks out the DNC was not engaged.  Why?  Because the Conventional Wisdom was Coakley was a shoo-in.

    • It’s the pot calling the kettle black.  The DNC is being critical of Coakley’s campaign for not seeing something that they also didn’t see coming.

      <

      p>Sometimes s*it just happens, Brown was in the right place at the right time, and I don’t think anything could have changed this outcome.  But don’t get too comfortable in DC, Sen. Brown – might I suggest leasing instead of buying that townhose in Georgetown?

        • But the discontent I saw from people this year was pretty high for different reasons.  My husband works in the health care industry, and there was alot of uncertainty/distrust about the HCR.  Even people who would be likely to support it don’t understand it, and I heard more than a few times about the lack of transparency that Obama promised to bring to DC.  And spending so much time working on health care is perceived by some as ignoring the economy and jobs, which are really peoples #1 concern now (no matter how the two are tied together).  I just think that unless the Dem. candidate was a complete outsider who did not hold any office, the results would have been similar.

  8. why do you think we Republicans let Obama win last year… same reason. And the Patriots played poorly this year to lower expectations for next year… and Obama wanted to lose getting the Olympics for Chicago so he personally could train and run the triathlon on the 2040 Olympics in Chicago…

    <

    p>Good grief!

    • so we could also see what happens in November with a Senator Coakley joining Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi on the national stage to force health care through with those 60 votes.  Darn, I wish I had my vote back now.  Sorry, rest of country, this doesn’t usually happen to me.

  9. but I think there is a point here. When a person is angry and yells at someone at the top of their lungs to get their point across and is listened to, they feel better and less angry afterwards.The voters were angry, exerted their anger, and got the result they wanted to get. It stands to reason that there will be less anger in the Nov 2010 elections in Massachusetts. This will be good for the Democratic incumbents, particularly if they can make some changes and say “we heard you”.

    • after the scandals…they passed ethics reform, pension reform, and transportation reform. Let’s hope they continue in that constructive direction and also get credit for it.

  10. David asked “why is the national Republican party ignoring Massachusetts?”

    <

    p>If today’s story in the Times is accurate, they weren’t ignoring us. They just wanted us to think they were.

    <

    p>

    By contrast, the National Republican Senatorial Committee zeroed in on the race – and the possibility to seize a victory – weeks before the Democratic committee realized its candidate was in real trouble. A poll conducted for Republicans on Dec. 16 showed that Mr. Brown was within 13 percentage points of Ms. Coakley and trailing by only 3 percentage points among voters who said they definitely intended to vote.

    …

    As Tea Party activists headed to Massachusetts, the National Republican Senatorial Committee made a deliberate decision to keep a low profile. It baffled and to some extent misled Democrats, who thought that the committee had concluded the race was unwinnable. But Republican officials, after a series of primary challenges from conservative and Tea Party candidates, have learned the dangers of being identified as an establishment candidate. They determined the best way to help Mr. Brown was not to be seen as helping him.

    “We did not want to provoke the D.S.C.C. into a big spending battle too early, which would have allowed them to chip away at his positives in a way that they would have eventually won,” said Mr. Cornyn, often criticized by Tea Party groups as the embodiment of the establishment.

    <

    p>The article claims that Coakley’s campaign wasn’t polling at the same time because they did not have the money to do so.

      • Then why didn’t those “plenty of folks” go above the campaign to the DNC, DSCC, other MA congressional members to try to do something to intervene?  I was somewhat concerned at the lack of support I saw from the congressional delegation, but I had no idea there was a big problem until a few weeks out. I never thought the people of MA would be fooled by this guy.

        <

        p>I got a call from the Dem Party today looking for support for the upcoming elections, and I voiced my concern to her about the lack of support I saw here in MA.  Don’t we give them money directly so they can support the local candidates?  They obviously weren’t aware there was a problem either.

        • There’s only so much you can do to “intervene.” If a candidate’s terrible, there’s almost nothing you can do about it. See Creigh Deeds.

  11. Arianna Huffington has a new column today: How Massachusetts Can Turn Out to Be a Blessing for Democrats.

    If the White House learns the right lessons from this stunning loss, it will turn out to be a blessing. A blessing in a very heavy disguise, I realize, but a blessing nonetheless.

    President Obama can still course-correct in time to avoid the looming iceberg that Democrats are headed for in 2010. In the wake of Massachusetts, he should take a step back, take a metaphorical trip to the mountaintop, and reconnect with the reasons why he ran — and why he got elected.

    Since there is no other job that prepares you to be president, the best presidents are the ones with the ability to learn on the job and the willingness to course-correct. First, the Obama White House has to admit it is heading in the wrong direction. Then it needs to bring all hands on deck, toss overboard a few who currently have their hands on the wheel — and turn hard to change course.

Archives