In strong Democratic areas such as Massachusetts, the Democrats actually did quite well in 2010. On the West Coast, for instance, the Democrats had no net losses in Congress (including Hawaii as “West Coast”). Scott Brown’s victory was an outlier not only because of the difference in candidate quality (something many BMG’ers rightly argued at the time), but because (1) it was a very unusually timed special election, (2) occurring both at the height of the health care debate and when NO other political races were occurring across the country, allowing Brown to funnel in millions of dollars from across the country, and (3) because the campaign was a very short and compressed one, which did not allow for the Democrats’ organizational advantage to gain full steam.
<
p>Sen. Brown will be no push-over, but with the increased polarization of red and blue states on display in 2010, I’d be hard-pressed to call him the favorite, even with the recent PPP poll numbers. It’s a pure tossup, and once the Democrats have a candidate (presumably a good one) and the Presidential race becomes defined, it will start tilting quickly in the Democrats’ direction.
Changing the law to help John Kerry. Changing it back to empower Deval Patrick. The Kirk appointment. And so on. Scott had another ally in this race – the insider corrpution of the Massachusetts Democrats. And that’s a player that will STILL be on his team in 2012~
hoyapaulsays
All that Democratic back-and-forth on the special election ended up backfiring big time on the Democrats.
<
p>However, I’m not sure how much “insider corruption of the Massachusetts Democrats” played into this race. In fact, I’d say it didn’t play at all. The special election was completely nationalized, and became about national issues, the “40th vote,” health care, etc. It wasn’t about local issues.
<
p>If Massachusetts Democratic corruption was a bigger issue in the election, we would have seen it affect the races in November — and other than the handful of pickups for the MA GOP in the state House, MA Dems had a great night on Election Day.
But by that logic, they also lost 20% of their seats in the state Senate đŸ˜‰
christophersays
It’s not corrupt to change the law, though not advisable in my opinion. I said all along there should be no special election to stand alone, but rather wait until the regular cycle this fall, but most people here thought it was horrible to have an unelected Senator in office any longer than absolutely necessary.
jasiusays
once the Democrats have a candidate
<
p>Is the primary for the Senate race contested on the presidential primary ballot or, as I fear, in a separate state primary in September? If the latter, I think that makes it a tougher race for whoever comes out.
hoyapaulsays
As you suspect (and fear), the Senate primary will be on September 11, 2012. So it’s a late primary. That indeed benefits Sen. Brown — although the Democratic machine will be fully revved and ready to go for the presidential election. Still, it would be very helpful if the long lead-up to the primary leads to a clear breakaway candidate that Dems can rally behind in advance of the primary.
christophersays
I’d much rather have a choice. Steve Grossman has experience with this. He was DSC chair when an election was held to replace Silvio Conte in the House. He got all the candidates together and made them pledge to support the eventual nominee and John Olver won. Leave coronations and foregone concusions to the GOP.
also means media coverage all the way through summer – usually a tough time to campaign, except for our late primary making summer fairly active.
<
p>So long as our Dems don’t bloody the crap out of each other (say, if we had a race more like the MA-05 special election rather than our recent district race here in Lowell for MA State Senate…) then it’s pretty easy to rally the supporters of the defeated to the cause in time for November.
jasiusays
although the Democratic machine will be fully revved and ready to go for the presidential election.
<
p>For all of the presidential campaigns I’ve been involved in, Massachusetts was never in play, so all of the volunteer effort has been focused elsewhere. If that plays out this time, the “revving up” before the primary will be pointed toward New Hampshire and other battleground states. The presidential campaign will not be able to be “coordinated” with the senate campaign in the 2010 manner that we just went through. So we have a huge challenge ahead of us trying to do both.
<
p>If Massachusetts ends up in play for the presidential race, we’re in bigger trouble.
I don’t believe so. This is a primary for a federal office, not state, so I expect it be during “Super Tuesday”. The September date is for state offices.
jasiusays
I just took a look at my town’s results for the presidential and the state primaries in 2008.
<
p>In February, the following offices were on the ballot:
<
p>
President
State Committee Members
Town Committee Members
<
p>In September, the following offices were on the ballot:
<
p>
Senator (Kerry vs. O’Reilly)
Representative (Markey)
In-state offices (reps, senators, etc.)
<
p>So… We don’t know our senatorial nominee until September.
Primaries for Congress are always on the state date in September.
bluemoon4554says
It was a once and a lifetime election win for Brown. There were so many things that had to have happened to make this thing work. So many in fact that you even forget some. Here is one for you …. If Norm Coleman hung on and won against Al Franken, Scott Brown would not have campaigned as “41” as he would have been “42” and wouldn’t be deemed the man that was to stop the Health Care legislation. Without the whole “41” mantra, it’s a whole new ball game here. Can you imagine that roughly 500 miscounted votes in MN and possible shady back room games would have such a long lasting ripple effect in the MA special election just a little over a year later?
In strong Democratic areas such as Massachusetts, the Democrats actually did quite well in 2010. On the West Coast, for instance, the Democrats had no net losses in Congress (including Hawaii as “West Coast”). Scott Brown’s victory was an outlier not only because of the difference in candidate quality (something many BMG’ers rightly argued at the time), but because (1) it was a very unusually timed special election, (2) occurring both at the height of the health care debate and when NO other political races were occurring across the country, allowing Brown to funnel in millions of dollars from across the country, and (3) because the campaign was a very short and compressed one, which did not allow for the Democrats’ organizational advantage to gain full steam.
<
p>Sen. Brown will be no push-over, but with the increased polarization of red and blue states on display in 2010, I’d be hard-pressed to call him the favorite, even with the recent PPP poll numbers. It’s a pure tossup, and once the Democrats have a candidate (presumably a good one) and the Presidential race becomes defined, it will start tilting quickly in the Democrats’ direction.
Changing the law to help John Kerry. Changing it back to empower Deval Patrick. The Kirk appointment. And so on. Scott had another ally in this race – the insider corrpution of the Massachusetts Democrats. And that’s a player that will STILL be on his team in 2012~
All that Democratic back-and-forth on the special election ended up backfiring big time on the Democrats.
<
p>However, I’m not sure how much “insider corruption of the Massachusetts Democrats” played into this race. In fact, I’d say it didn’t play at all. The special election was completely nationalized, and became about national issues, the “40th vote,” health care, etc. It wasn’t about local issues.
<
p>If Massachusetts Democratic corruption was a bigger issue in the election, we would have seen it affect the races in November — and other than the handful of pickups for the MA GOP in the state House, MA Dems had a great night on Election Day.
But by that logic, they also lost 20% of their seats in the state Senate đŸ˜‰
It’s not corrupt to change the law, though not advisable in my opinion. I said all along there should be no special election to stand alone, but rather wait until the regular cycle this fall, but most people here thought it was horrible to have an unelected Senator in office any longer than absolutely necessary.
<
p>Is the primary for the Senate race contested on the presidential primary ballot or, as I fear, in a separate state primary in September? If the latter, I think that makes it a tougher race for whoever comes out.
As you suspect (and fear), the Senate primary will be on September 11, 2012. So it’s a late primary. That indeed benefits Sen. Brown — although the Democratic machine will be fully revved and ready to go for the presidential election. Still, it would be very helpful if the long lead-up to the primary leads to a clear breakaway candidate that Dems can rally behind in advance of the primary.
I’d much rather have a choice. Steve Grossman has experience with this. He was DSC chair when an election was held to replace Silvio Conte in the House. He got all the candidates together and made them pledge to support the eventual nominee and John Olver won. Leave coronations and foregone concusions to the GOP.
also means media coverage all the way through summer – usually a tough time to campaign, except for our late primary making summer fairly active.
<
p>So long as our Dems don’t bloody the crap out of each other (say, if we had a race more like the MA-05 special election rather than our recent district race here in Lowell for MA State Senate…) then it’s pretty easy to rally the supporters of the defeated to the cause in time for November.
<
p>For all of the presidential campaigns I’ve been involved in, Massachusetts was never in play, so all of the volunteer effort has been focused elsewhere. If that plays out this time, the “revving up” before the primary will be pointed toward New Hampshire and other battleground states. The presidential campaign will not be able to be “coordinated” with the senate campaign in the 2010 manner that we just went through. So we have a huge challenge ahead of us trying to do both.
<
p>If Massachusetts ends up in play for the presidential race, we’re in bigger trouble.
I don’t believe so. This is a primary for a federal office, not state, so I expect it be during “Super Tuesday”. The September date is for state offices.
I just took a look at my town’s results for the presidential and the state primaries in 2008.
<
p>In February, the following offices were on the ballot:
<
p>
<
p>In September, the following offices were on the ballot:
<
p>
<
p>So… We don’t know our senatorial nominee until September.
Primaries for Congress are always on the state date in September.
It was a once and a lifetime election win for Brown. There were so many things that had to have happened to make this thing work. So many in fact that you even forget some. Here is one for you …. If Norm Coleman hung on and won against Al Franken, Scott Brown would not have campaigned as “41” as he would have been “42” and wouldn’t be deemed the man that was to stop the Health Care legislation. Without the whole “41” mantra, it’s a whole new ball game here. Can you imagine that roughly 500 miscounted votes in MN and possible shady back room games would have such a long lasting ripple effect in the MA special election just a little over a year later?