The polls in the gubernatorial primary consistently show a large lead for Martha Coakley. I expect that this is mostly name recognition, but three weeks out, 24 points (over Grossman) and 35 points (over Berwick) is still pretty formidable.
However, in a year of low attention and low enthusiasm, how can we expect this to translate on primary day? Specifically, what screens, if any, are pollsters using to separate out likely primary voters from registered voters generally? Might Coakley’s lead among likely voters, however defined, be somewhat lower than her lead among D’s or D’s + I’s generally? Reflecting back on 8 years ago, there seemed to be more visible enthusiasm for the then-frontrunner in the polls — Deval Patrick — than there is now for AG Coakley. Her 45% doesn’t feel a bit like his 42% did at a similar juncture.
Disclosure: I am a Berwick supporter looking for a ray of sunshine.
I think pollsters usually just ask as their first question whether the respondent is likely to vote.
Had a likely voter model. They’re not that hard to come up with.
Let’s look at the actual history of votes [1]:
2006 Primary (Gov): Deval Patrick 452,229 49.57% (three way race)
2006 General (AG): Martha Coakley 1,542,319 73.02%
2006 General (Gov): Deval Patrick 1,234,984 55.6%
2010 Special Primary (Senate): Martha Coakley 310,227 47% (four way race)
2010 Special (Senate): Martha Coakley 1,060,861 47.07%
2010 General (AG): Martha Coakley 1,417,538 62.76%
2010 General (Gov): Deval Patrick 1,112,283 48.42%
In Coakley’s first race for AG in 2006, she got more votes than the ‘top’ of the ticket, Deval Patrick. The year for which you specify that “her 45% doesn’t feel like his 42%”… Even if you add all of Christy Mihos’ 2006 votes to Deval Patricks 2006 total, he still doesn’t come close to Martha Coakley in 2006. In the 2010 General Election for Attorney General, Martha Coakley, again in a ‘downballot’ race got more votes than the ‘top’ of the ticket…Also Deval Patrick. That’s also true when you add to Deval Patrick 2010 totals all of Tim Cahills votes. (In fact, even Scott Brown got more votes in the 2010 special than Deval Patrick did in the 2010 General… )
The only primary information available for Deval Patrick is the 2006 primary, a three way race in which he garnered 49.57% of the race. That’s pretty good. By way of context recall that neither Nixon in ’68 or Clinton in ’92 broke more than 44% in their respective three-way races. Deval took 55% against Healey and Mihos in 2006 and 48% against Baker and Cahill in 2010. In the 2010 special election primary, Coakley took 47% in a four way race. That’s actually pretty unbelievable… Capuano, Khazei and Pagliuca all got into double digits… and Coakley trounced them.
Coakley also got more votes, in the 2010 general for AG than she did in the 2010 Senate special… which is odd… In fact, in the AG general election of 2010, she got more votes than Scott Brown did in the Senate special… which is even odder if you think about it…
The only CommonWealth Democrat with a bigger single vote total than Martha Coakleys best is Elizabeth Warren in 2012. But that was also a presidential election year.
[1] all stats via the great blinky electro-informatic-wiki-machine
I forgot 2008. John Kerry at 1,959,843 (or 65.82%) in 2008 looks to be the state-wide vote total champ. Good thing Martha Coakley’s not taking him on…
All of those vote totals make sense and I don’t think imply any sort of outsized enthusiasm for Coakley.
The AG races have not been competitive, and in this state very few people will default to the Repub in a race. She should absolutely be expected to outperform other Dems on the ticket in more competitive races.
I guarantee that Maura Healey (I think she’ll win) or Warren Tolman will receive significantly more votes than Martha Coakley, Charlie Baker, or any other candidate in the general election for governor. I’ll send a check for $50 to your preferred non-profit if I am wrong.
Who was the last legitimate Republican AG candidate? I had to look up who she beat in 2006, and in 2010, Coakley’s Repub challenger won a Republican primary in which both candidates were write-in candidates. (I also had to look up who is running as a Repub for AG this year.)
I don’t think more votes for a downballot winner implies more love for that candidate. I think it implies less interest and more people defaulting to the party they have more affinity for. People are still filling in most of the ballot even if they only care about one or two races.
There’s nothing odd about any of that. It was a special.
I agree with Publius’s sentiment that Deval’s levels seemed stronger in 2006 than Coakley’s do now. Deval went from unknown to 42%, so people were incredibly energized, and a surging, progressive African-American candidate received a huge amount of attention.
Coakley has gone from most well-known candidate and polls in the mid-40s to most well-known candidate and polls in the mid-40s. Her ceiling may also be her floor. Maybe her support is much stronger and more energized than it appears to me (and Publius), but I haven’t seen much evidence for it – such as in the comments and posts on BMG, social media posts, large campaign events, a flurry of endorsements, etc.
… Insert handwaving here…
…And you get the wishful thinking you want! Don’t forget to click your heels!!!
The point was raised in comparison to a “feeling” about Deval Patrick. I posted numbers that were concrete comparisons to Deval Patrick. If you want to wave away the concrete numbers with mad speculation about who cares or doesn’t care about what or what not, with allusions to party affinity and other, thoroughly nebulous, half-formed and ill-defined notions, well then, you’re just willfully ignoring reality.
No sunshine for you, either!!
I just don’t think you’re reading those numbers in a way that actually supports the point you’re making.
If your method is correct, that would mean that William Galvin is the MA pol with the most support and enthusiasm.
2006 – 1,635,714
2010 – 1,420,481
William Galvin >> Martha Coakley >> Deval Patrick
Would you ever make the argument that William Galvin has a ton of enthusiasm? I wouldn’t.
Also, in 2006 Tim Cahill received the most votes of any candidate in any statewide race with 1,641,196. So, he must have been hugely popular and had a ton of enthusiasm. It’s weird that he only received 183,933 votes for Governor in 2010 given these incredibly high levels of support.
…OR, maybe it’s that these downballot races aren’t competitive and don’t receive near the level of enthusiasm as the top of the ballot races. And since we live in a state that is majority D and D-leaning, people just check the name next to the D in these races that they don’t give much of a damn about.
This trope is one of the dumber ones Coakley supporters bandy about. I bet they were shocked Teddy didn’t beat Carter cause he always won around here, bet they were the types like Pauline Kael who said “but all my friends voted for McGovern”. Wrap it up petr. She got the nomination, she will probably beat Baker, but let’s not pretend she is a better candidate than Deval. He was a once in a generation political talent and candidate.
Currently, Martha Coakley’s are pretty favorable per the latest Globe poll.: 53% to 37%. As for people didn’t rate her, 3% didn’t recognize her name and 8% recognized her name but just couldn’t say.
Now, Berwick’s favorables are outstanding, simply outstanding among those who have heard of him. They’e 12% – 5%. 13% recognized his name but can’t rate him. 70% don’t recognize his name at all. Thus, 83% can’t really form an opinion.
Berwick just started his ads on TV. First debate is today.
Are terrible favorable #s to have 21 days out from election day.
…if you want to turn around the point — an initial comparison between Martha Coakley and Deval Patrick (all in service to wishful thinking about Don Berwick) — and make it about “enthusiasm”… another nebulous concept… then we are done.
Besides the fact that most people don’t vote on ‘enthusiasm’, they’re not looking for a new Jesus, myself, I actively distrust ‘enthusiasm’ because I already love the old Jesus enough not to want a new one… and fear the fallible human who pretends to be one and the even more fallible human who’s constantly looking for a new one…
And, for the record, I’d vote for William Galvin for Governor. You have to ask him why he didn’t run. Tim Cahill threw away the vast majority of his support when he ran as an independent and chucked the rest when he chose Loscoco as a running mate. I never said any candidate was a genius, least of all Cahill.
Given the numbers that I (and you) have provided this is nonsensical: there is no way that voters ‘just check the name next to the D’ AND the top of the ticket gets less votes… Especially in the context of comparing ‘enthusiasms’, if people were enthusiastic about Deval (the existence of which enthusiasms are the very impetus for this diary) then parity in the count, rather than a Coakley surplus, would be expected. Under your logic ‘enthusiasm’ for Deval Patrick in 2006 and 2010 counted for less than ‘just check the name next to the D”… invalidating either your point or the logic you took to get there.
The original post was about levels of enthusiasm for Coakley this year compared to Patrick in 2006. That’s why I used that term.
I read the OP’s question to mean that in 2006 it felt like there was more enthusiasm for Patrick, meaning that his 42% in polls was firmer and had more potential upside than Coakley’s current 45%. And that “feeling” (while I agree is tough to measure) was about how it seemed like more people were invested in the race and his candidacy (in terms of money, hours, convincing friends, writing op-eds, social sharing, and even down to bumper stickers and lawn signs) than they are with Coakley.
You then cited numbers that presumably demonstrated how popular Coakley was in comparison to Patrick as proof that this view of enthusiasm was not true.
I pointed out that those vote total numbers can easily be read to imply a different conclusion – one about downballot races and lack of interest/enthusiasm/whatever you want to call it for those candidates and races.
You think that’s illogical.
Not only is it possible, it’s incredibly likely and happens in every single election. Here’s how it works:
Top of the ballot tickets receive significantly more funding and media attention. Voters are more likely to develop an opinion of those candidates than candidates in races that receive less attention. They are also more likely to invest personal resources in those races (check the fundraising totals and volunteer levels compared to down ballot races if you want more proof) because they have more knowledge of the candidates (and, frankly, because the job is more important). Those races for which they are informed and have developed opinions in receive some amount of enthusiasm.
For the other races, those voters vote for the person they have some knowledge of. In the case of AG, Treasurer, Auditor, Secretary of State, and other statewide races, that person is almost always the Democrat.
But, shockingly, these voters vote for the Democrat in these races without any enthusiasm (aka giving a crap) – no donations, no canvassing, no phonebanking, no sign-holding, no nothing (not even visiting the candidate’s website).
So, there can be tons of enthusiastic supporters of the Democrat running for governor and tons of supporters of the Republican running for governor, and then almost all of these enthusiastic supporters don’t give a crap about the downballot races.
Or, what also happens is you get lots of independents who go into the voting booth thinking “I think that Charlie Baker guy is a good guy. [check]” and also thinking “What the hell does the Secretary of Commonwealth do? Oh, I think I’ve heard of Galvin. [check]”
That’s how William Galvin, or Tim Cahill, or Martha Coakley can get more votes than the person running for governor, despite vastly different levels of enthusiasm and support.
It’s not at all a strange thing for this to happen. Frankly, it’s expected (and that’s also why it happens almost every single time).
I will be very surprised if the Democratic nominee for Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, and Secretary of Commonwealth each don’t receive more (likely significantly more) votes than the winner of the Governor’s race.
I know I vote like this every time I vote. A race like Governor’s Council is a perfect example. I have no investment in a race like that and never look up any of the candidates. I just check the boxes next to the names I’ve heard of, which usually means the names on some sparsely sprinkled lawn signs in my neighborhood.
If you think people aren’t voting like this, then I don’t really know how to talk to you.
But, you could be right that these vote totals actually reflect real support from highly engaged and enthused voters. I guess we’ll never know until we get some polling questions like “Do you care at all about the Secretary of Commonwealth race?”
“got more votes” does not equal “Popular”. I said nothing about ‘popularity’. I said nothing about ‘enthusiasm’ I said she got more votes in ‘the only poll(s) that really matters” as the saying goes…
She. Got. More. Votes.
The whole and entire point was to use “the only poll that really matters” to demonstrate that. She. Got. More. Votes.
You can downplay them. You can write them off as somehow not real votes. You can say they were ‘unimmportant’ or ‘unthinking’. You can say they were the result of people “not giving a crap” or some other point of contention to make yourself feel better about ‘enthusiasm’ or popularity or Dr Berwicks Patented Magical Any Mojo Now, or whatever. But the point, the truth and the reality of it is that Martha Coakley, in each of the LAST THREE PRIMARIES she was in got over a million REAL and ACTUAL votes each and there is NOTHING to assume, magical-wishful-fantasist-denial notwithstanding, that she won’t do it again. She got more votes than Deval, the original point of comparison and she got more votes than anybody else running today.
If she were a baseball player she’d be an all-star. If she were a pop singer she’d be double-platinum. If it were a indy car race she’d be in the Indy 500 with odds on her. By any and all understanding of numbers as applied to the electorate she’s done extremely well. But, since she’s not Berwick, you have to find ways to excuse her victories as flukes. Sucks to be you, then.
Upthread I repeatedly admit my man Berwick is stuck at 5% and Jack and the Giant won’t get him a bean to grow his share any further. His candidacy, however noble, is DOA. I haven’t disputed this at all on this thread. I also praised Coakley as winning, as striker pointed out, three competitive primaries. But to call her a better candidate than Deval because she got more votes in 2006 and 2010 is intellectually dishonest, since she had no real competitors. Striker was able to prove the same point as you without twisting those facts. And doubleman’s point about Bill Galvin stands-he does even better than her statewide, and has been doing it for many more elections as well, guess we should run him by Baker too?
Using your logic Tim Cahill should’ve mopped the floor with Patrick, since like Coakley, he won far more votes than Deval in 2006. But he couldn’t even manage double digits in a real race for Governor. Statewide wins have nothing to do with whether she can beat Charlie Baker. Nowhere am I arguing that Berwick’s inexperience makes him another Deval, I don’t expect him to even get Cahill numbers in this primary. He is done, a dead candidate, deader than a Python parrot. But, Coakley’s win in 2006 and 2010 for AG proves nothing about her capability as a gubernatorial candidate, just like it failed to prove that Cahill was a gubernatorial candidate, or Billy Galvin.
Here’s an idea, why don’t we just skip this debate altogether and you can make up things I said and debate that amongst yourselves…
Point the first: Deval Patrick’s and Martha Coakley’s names twice appeared on the same ballot, but each for a different position.
Point the second: when any J. Random Voter went to the polling booth they were presented with one ballot which, as noted above, contained both the names “Deval Patrick” and “Martha Coakley”.
Point the third: During the 5 or 10 minute window when J. Random Voter was perusing said ballot they had the opportunity to expend exactly the same energy on first, filling in an oval next to “Deval Patrick” and, secondly, filling in an exact duplicate of that oval besides the name “Martha Coakley”. The choices were: both, neither, or only one.
Point the fourth: The great majority of the J. Random Citizens chose to fill in both ovals, the oval beside the name “Deval Patrick” and the oval besides the name “Martha Coakley”. Of those citizens who did not choose to fill in both ovals, a significantly larger number of citizens choose to fill in only one oval, specifically the oval that was besides the name “Martha Coakley”.
Given all these points, which are not disputed, you would rather dismiss, discount, deny and otherwise disparage the votes of the large number of citizens who took the time to fill in the oval besides the name “Martha Coakley” while simultaneously, and clearly, not taking the time to fill in the oval besides “Deval Patrick”. To use your new favorite phrasing, “by your logic” since Coakley had not competitors she’s not a legitimate AG since, again “by your logic”, she’s not a legitimate candidate.
But she is a legitimate AG. Because those votes are votes. They count. People cast them. It doesn’t matter the reason they cast them (though I contend it might have something to do with her superior abilities with respect to campaigning) what matters is that they represent a specific decision on the part of a citizen to fill in an oval on a ballot. You contend the decision wasn’t specific enough, or that they weren’t fully formed, due to a ‘lack of opposition’ but that’s just you –transparently– wishing she was not as legitimate as she is.
Tim Cahill gave the Democratic party the middle finger and made a particular habit of burning bridges with his independent run. If he had taken on Deval in the primary in 2010, he might well have translated his 2006 actual votes into far greater support than he ended up with. If Martha Coakley up and declares that she’s going to run as an independent then I can truly expect that she’ll lose the vast majority of her support.
Tim Cahill threw away the only real thing he had going for him. If Martha Coakley makes such an egregiously stupid move then she, likewise, will lose the bulk of her support.
He got more votes than Coakley or Deval, and he has been getting votes since 1994. I guess he is a superior campaigner to them both, using your nonsensical logic.
Oh ok, now you are writing about something different.
Your original citations to vote totals was to counter the OP’s suggestion that the enthusiasm doesn’t seem to be as strong for Coakley as it was for Patrick. That’s what all of this has been about.
I don’t dispute that she is very popular among Dems and has received tons of votes in every election. I do question how strong her support is, though. Does she have room to go up and win over undecided independents, energize progressive activists, inspire conservative labor workers? I’m not sure. Deval did.
I think she’ll walk away with this primary race. I have never said or even implied that she won’t win this primary by a wide margin. I do seriously worry about her chances in the general, though.
The frustrating thing is that I think of the three Dem candidates she will make the worst governor. It’s also frustrating to see so many Dems just brush aside some of her policies and her record, which are pretty bad in many areas (especially compared to the other Dem candidates).
More than anything, though, I’d love to see a positive post from you about how her vision for Massachusetts is the best of the candidates running.
Yeah. And she also lost her one contested general election . . .
AG Coakley won her last contested election – the 2010 general election for Attorney General.
Ignoring facts or just making up stuff doesn’t really make your case strong.
That was not contested. It was in no way a serious challenge.
The guy she ran against won a Republican primary as a write-in candidate.
Your words exactly. You made a statement of fact and you were wrong.
Offer the opinion that Coakley can’t win a competitive final election – while I might disagree with your opinion and offer a response – I won’t say you’re wrong.
Make a statement of fact that is incorrect while attempting to prove a point and yes, I will call you out on it.
I get you dislike Coakley. To each his/her own. The fact is Coakley won a contested final election against a Republican who had qualified for the ballot in his primary.
My opinion is, that at a time when Coakley should have been vulnerable after the US Senate final, no Dem challenged her because she was still a strong and well like incumbent and the Republicans had to scramble to even find an opponent. For me that says volumes about Coakley’s ability as a campaigner and an elected official.
Ignoring facts doesn’t win agruments nor elections.
http://www.google.com/search?q=contested+define&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Putting it in Bold doesn’t change its meaning.
You’re really being ridiculous and petty. And you know it.
I used contested to mean competitive, which is a common use for the term. I apologize for not being more clear and using the specific definition that you prefer.
When a challenger with almost no name recognition, who only made the ballot after a write-in campaign, and who raised about 1/10 the money of the incumbent is in a race, there is simply no contest. (Do you understand that use of the term there?)
Actually, we’re both wrong if we really want to get silly and specific. A “contested election” is one in which the results are challenged by one of the candidates after the election.
I was having a bit of light-hearted banter while being unwilling to allow you to attempt to influence opinion on AG Coakley’s record in general elections with incorrect statements.
BTW, Coakley also defeated a Republican in the 2006 Attorney General’s final (73-26%).
So as finals go her record statewide is 2-1.
It’s interesting to me that handily winning elections is a minus in your opinion.Coakley’s won against the opponents she has faced in final elections for AG. What else was she supposed to do?
I note that in 2006 Deval Patrick drew 56% of the vote in a 4 candidate field. Very impressive in my view. But under your interpretation of election outcomes an easy victory that Governor Patrick should not get credit for. He wasn’t really challenged (or should that be contested?)
It’s not. I never said or implied that. Coakley is highly electable. That’s indisputable. Her record of winning statewide elections is a great indicator of her ability to win other statewide races.
Her record of running against strong, well-funded candidates in high profile general elections raises some questions, though.
All of this goes back to a comparison of Patrick v. Coakley from the OP, though. Does Coakley have similar levels of support (as reflected in things beyond topline poll numbers) that Patrick did? Does she have upward momentum at this point?
I don’t see the indicators that she does.
She may well be the strongest candidate against Charlie Baker, but I think she also has a lot of liabilities. Among the Dems running, who I think are all electable (polls show Baker leading now, but I think it’s clear that those numbers would represent the floor for the other candidates), I think she’d easily be the worst governor. Arguments around her being the best because she is the most electable don’t move me.
By the dictionary definition of contested sure, but perhaps competitive is a better adjective? If you look at that definition you will see that the 2010 AG race met none of the criteria.
As Martha clearly learned when she lost to Scott Brown, her most recent, most notable, and frankly, only strong Republican opponent she has ever faced in her career.
Jill Stein performed better against Galvin than the Republicans that ran against Coakley, and we ain’t electing Billy to the Corner Office any time soon. My point about Cahill stands petr, he ran as an independent because he would’ve lost the primary to Deval Patrick, sort of defeating your point that he was a better candidate since he got more votes than Deval, no?
Not to mention, Mike Capuano regularly won over 90% of the vote in his Congressional District! 90%! Markey got 75-80% of the vote every time he ran for re-election, but only beat Gomez by ten points. Tierney regularly won his district until he won it by a few thousand votes during a good Democratic year because he actually has a viable well funded opponent. So I think you guys (sadly striker has to be included now) are padding the victory.
The Pats impress me when the beat the Branco’s in the playoffs, they aren’t particularly impressive when they beat the Dolphins twice a year in the regular season. That’s the freakin difference folks.
Hmmm. Congressman Capuano won by 90%. 90%! And lost to Coakley in the US Senate primary.
This is all really a fun exercise in debate club. I could point out that Baker lost his only statewide election while Coakley has won 2 generals. Oh my god -Baker stands no chance – he lost. Don’t you remember he lost? He lost in an election year when Republicans were cleaning Dems clocks across the country. He must be the Republicans weakest candidate.
And please . . . John Tierney had a close race after a tough family situation. Congressman Tierney will have a tough final again this November (his first election after that close race). AG Coakley’s had her next election after a tough race and she hit a homer – no comparison. Ed Markey had a closer than it should have been race because it was a special (after special). How’s Ed Markey looking this year?
Whomever the Democratic nominee on September 10th may be, the general election race will be tight. Voters will move around and make last minute decisions. Coakley, Grossman or Berwick will need all hands on deck.
Each would have advantages against Baker and weaknesses. And every election is different, so while this is fun, it has no real preview into the November final.
Coakley’s won more statewide finals than any candidate running for Governor. She’s never lost a primary – ya gotta beat the Dolphins twice a year no matter how bad they are – to face the Broncos in the playoffs. That’s not padding victories nor numbers, its facts (unlike the “she’s lost every final” shovel job)
OMG Tom Brady has lost a Super Bowl (or two or three). Clearly Tom Brady is a poor quarterback who hasn’t earned the right to play in another one. The fans can’t be fired up about him -that’s what I’m hearing.
(this is your fault jconway, you got me started on sports analogies)
My favorite sports toss-off is – “they are the better team on paper but they don’t play the game on paper”. Elections aren’t won on past election results. They are won on GOTV, hard work and a candidate that understands how to run hard. For me that’s Martha Coakley.
I don’t doubt that Treasurer Grossman’s supporters are fired-up about his candidacy. I don’t doubt that Dr. Berwick’s supporters are fired-up about his candidacy. And being one, I know AG Coakley’s supporters are fired-up about her candidacy. We’ve all got jobs to do to win on September 9th. And I’m baffled why anyone thinks Baker will excite an electorate that has already rejected him.
Though admittedly my point about Capuano got cut off somehow. My point was, if I were using Petr’s logic, Capuano won by 90%, 90%! and was thus, unbeatable against Coakley. Except she cleaned his clock. What’s the difference? His opponent was from the Socialist Worker’s party in 2006 and an independent in 2010. None of these opponents were credible, neither were Coakley’s in 2006 and 2010. The statement “she has already won twice statewide” is a bit misleading since her opponents were barely able to register in the double digits. It’s a fallacy to look at those elections and suddenly say she is unbeatable, better than Deval Patrick, and our most electable this year.
My entire point in this, at this point, months long argument with petr, is to stop relying on that fallacy as a talking point. Similarly, it’s also a fallacy for those of us skeptical of Coakley to assume that she will blow every election.
Citing Tierney again, wasn’t to bash him or put his supporters on the defensive, merely to say that past performance does not ensure future success. Same with the sports analogies. Same with discussing Reilly, Cahill, Galvin, etc. I am trying to be as objective as possible, and point out that petr’s rhetoric here is based on a significant fallacy.
My overriding point is, the same fundamentals in the special are at play in November, and without Cahill on the ballot, Baker is in a much stronger position. But if we were petr, we would argue that Baker was undefeated, undefeated! for multiple terms as a Swampscott selectman. Surely he is our next Governor. His arguments are absurd, you’re closing arguments about Baker’s weaknesses and Coakley’s strengths are ones I can agree on. Neither one of these candidates is liked by a majority of the electorate in most polling, so it will be a nasty, drawn out, nail biter of a race. You are prepared for that fight, because you are a rational supporter of your candidate. Petr is not. Neither are those that are assuming the secret Berwick or Grossman surge is right behind the corner, just so we are clear.
Past performance doesn’t ensure future success. He has three rings. He is a good quarterback. Coakley has won election and re-election as an Attorney General. That did not guarantee her election to the Senate, and will not ensure her election to the Corner Office. Every election is unique, and special, much like the phrase any given Sunday applies to the NFL. The giants could win, and Brown could win. And for all our sakes, in the likely event it is Coakley vs. Baker for the championship so to speak, I hope she wins. Because the Giants had Brady’s number that second time too.
First Capuano – yes his Congressional District wins have been impressive. But that was after a very competitive special election where he won over a couple of well-funded first-time candidates, and Ray Flynn and challengers that had won past elections.
My point is that strong candidates don’t often draw strong opponents as incumbents. Congressman Capuano hasn’t been seriously challenged since he won that seat – I believe because he does his job well and no serious candidate wants to take him on. That’s a tribute to his ability as an elected official and a candidate.
Martha Coakley won a tough DA’s primary and went unchallenged for re-election. She won two statewide finals for AG with token opposition for the same reason Congressman Capuano has handily won re-election after re-election. Strong incumbent who serious challengers do not want to face. That’s a strength in my book not the weakness doubleman wants to declare.
(side note – IMO Congressman Capuano lost his US Senate primary for two reason. First it was his first statewide race and he had to build name recognition ns a short time frame. Second a multi-candiidate field most often favors a better known candidate.)
While I won’t pretend to speak for petr, I suspect petr comments reflect something I feel – I’m tired of the Coakley can’t win because she lost to Brown mantra. It’s a false argument that is shown to be flawed by Coakley’s other election victories. I took petr’s comments as a response to the Coakley as a losing candidate claim. I’ve never claimed AG Coakley is unbeatable but beating a 4-year old deadhorse of an election requires a response from those of us who are fired-up by Martha’s candidacy
I didn’t take offense to the Tierney discussion. I do believe it’s an apples and oranges comparison when it comes to this race.
Finally, yes Baker no longer has the Cahill problem of 4 years ago but he does have two independent candidates who register (slightly for now) in the polls. I suspect they will draw more votes from him than Coakley. I’ll take any advantage I can get in a final.
Any candidate can be beaten. Incumbents as well (ask George Bush the Better or Eric Cantor). IMO Martha Coakley knows that and is a different candidate today than four years ago.
I think it’s a stretch to argue that Coakely is a better candidate or politician than Deval based on the vote count for an election her opponents , which is what petr was doing. My whole point is that the partisans, in this case, are both wrong. Coakley won’t walk to the finish line, and she won’t limp there either. 2006 and the special are equally poor predictors since it’s a different race. 2006/10 general is a worse predictor, but the special won’t be repeated unless she, and to a lesser extent, we, let it be repeated.
The votes are the votes. Each vote she got counted as much as each vote the other guy got. She got more of them. He got less. That was the contest.
She’s not half an AG because, by your lights, the election wasn’t ‘contested’. She’s not going to be 2/3 of a primary winner because you don’t see her as fully legit. She’s not going to be partial governor because you don’t like her and can’t imagine a legit reason to vote for her.
As noted previously, in every single statewide race she has been in, she’s gotten over a million votes. Every race. Races that were, by your reckoning ‘contested’ and races that, again by your reckoning, were not ‘contested’. She got more than a million votes each time she won, state wide, and she got more than a million votes when she lost. She has consistently topped the million vote mark under a variety of circumstances so the use of a particular circumstance to undermine her legitimacy only undermines your own: you would like, very much, for us to just say that not all of those votes were ‘real’ or ‘legit’. You’d like us to declaim them, as you do, as afterthoughts or quirks of a party system or having been won for some other reason than the fact that people really and truly voted for her.
You want us, in short, to de-legitimize her past to cast a shadow on her legitimacy overall and, then, use that to burnish Don Berwicks appeal all the more.
Petr, you’re such a troll.
I have never implied that she is not a legitimate AG or anything of the sort.
All of this is about whether Martha Coakley has enough support and enthusiasm to win the Governor’s race this year and whether her levels of support are similar to what Deval Patrick had in 2006.
I’ve never said that any of her votes are fake. The question is whether those previous votes are some kind of guarantee that she will receive those votes again in a race for a different office.
Nope. Just wondering if they can be counted on to show up for her in a race for a different office.
They didn’t when she ran for the Senate.
… When you stated, clearly, (above) “No one cares about AG generals” implying that if they did care, the outcome would be different. That’s what you said. That’s why you implied.
When you call into question the validity of votes… as you do when you make statements like (from above)
Clearly implying that the outcome would be different if they ‘gave a crap’.
You said what you said. You should stand by it or apologize for it. But pretending you didn’t say it, or that I, somehow, mistook your meaning, is dishonest, not least towards yourself.
The votes are real. Full stop.
The votes, however, do not necessarily reflect the same level of enthusiasm, support, love, investment in the race, etc. as a vote might for a different candidate in another race.
These downballot races often don’t create that same level of energized voters as the top of ballot races do.
That’s why I can vote for Galvin for Secretary of Commonwealth because I think he’s pretty ok, but would not vote for him for Governor because I don’t support him enough to want to promote him (or give my time and money).
When I said no one cares or gives a crap about those races, that means that people (usually) don’t make the same level of investment in those races as they do for other races.
All of this comes down to one simple thing – the voters of MA like Martha Coakley as AG, but do they like her enough to make her Governor?
… illegitimacy. Which is it? Do they ‘not give a crap’? Or do they weight imperfections on the most delicate of scales to make minute and the most carefully precise decisions when evaluating AGs vs Gov candidates…
You want to shade her votes the worse, and others the so much better. It’s in your every utterance: you’re so transparently trying to protect yourself from anything that smacks of ‘Martha Coakley is acceptable’ that you pinion yourself to a variety of unwieldy (pretzel) shapes.
First you say they don’t give a crap. Then you say they give enough of a crap to shade their vote for AG in a wholly opposite direction from the shade they put to their vote for Governor.
Which is it?
All I see is “Trollolololololololololololololololololololololooooooooo.”
If you believe that voters cast votes in each race with the same level of enthusiasm, interest, knowledge, and support for the candidates we can just stop everything right there because we clearly have a different view of reality.
Voters have as fully-formed and invested opinions of candidates for Governor’s Council as they do for Governor?
You keep throwing that at petr when there is conflicting opinions. petr has close to 50 posts that have been recommended nearly 375 times. petr has been posting on BMG at least 3 years before your first post.
Engage petr, ignore petr. But the ongoing troll toss is lame. petr has a colorful and often quirky comment style. And I’m not always in petr’s camp but troll? Nope.
The downrates are proof of that. And his argument is really dumb on this one, but I would agree he has made great contributions elsewhere. I will cop up to trolling on Coakley’s 2010 loss and vacation, almost to a Gail Collins trolling Romney on Seamus degree.
if that is your defination. Yet I don’t remember anyone calling you a troll in response after response on the Coakley 2010 / vacation thread.
DFW he’s not.
THIS is trolling.
That’s beyond quirky. It’s “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It’s claiming victimhood where there is no victimhood. It’s absolutely pure trolling.
None of us are perfect, certainly me included. But petr is trolling.
… that I don’t really believe what I see? Is it your contention, therefore, that sexism (and, apparently, wife-beating) don’t ever occur and, therefore, the only possible reason to bring it up would be in service to trollitude?
Do you contend that the history of Massachusetts politics is free, entirely and wholly, from sexism? Do you contend that there are no victims, at all?
Where would THAT kind of thinking come from?
I’m perfectly willing to be wrong about it. But, to date, nobody has countered the argument with anything besides either “that’s preposterous” or “I once voted for a women so there..”
It is your OPINION that there is some sexism that makes people support people other than Coakley. That MAY be true for some voters, but you wield as an insult against people who support other candidates here, with no evidence.
So when people offer evidence that it’s not sexism but other issues, you dismiss it. Fine, you don’t believe us. That’s your right. But stop insulting us.
The only possible reason not to support Coakley is because you hate women.
It couldn’t be her history as DA. It couldn’t be her position on casinos. It couldn’t be her history with campaign violations. It couldn’t be her handling of Fells Acres. It couldn’t be her weak vision for education. It couldn’t be her weak vision for health care. Militarization of police. Missed opportunities with regards to banks. The Partners Deal. Privacy. Guns. Lack of real plans on infrastructure. Or income inequality. Etc. Etc.
Nope. It’s because you hate women.
(Now I’m countertrolling.)
I never stated any such thing.
I stated clearly, repeatedly and openly that the vehemence with which you deny Coakley’s legitimacy, the fervor with which you tout a whodat like Berwick and the sheer ferocity with which you come after me, cannot be explained by a normal, rational, political calculus. You prove it every time you double down on your nonsensical arguments and ratiocination of Coakley’s past. You’ve gone well past rabid in a manner that is not explained by the avuncular nature of the good Dr. Berwick or the tenure of Coakley as AG: she’s a normal politician with pros and cons but you have striven so mightily, so fervently and so aggressively to slight her pros, enlarge her flaws and to elevate the least well known and least experienced candidate to her place in the face of both logic and good taste that there are precious few other conclusions that can be draw.
Dr. Berwick is better, significantly so, on the issues I care most about. That’s why I advocate for him. That’s also why I will point out negatives in other candidates, especially when those negatives go unexplored in the press or swept under the rug by many other Democrats as inconsequential. And that is a deeply frustrating thing because progressives may not (likely will not) be getting the nominee that best reflects their positions and aspirations.
Despite multiple requests, you have yet to provide a positive argument for why Coakley is the best candidate for progressives. I’d still like to see that.
Again, where have I questioned her legitimacy? Please, for the life of me, I cannot understand that. She’s absolutely a popular AG. Whether that translates to her winning the governor’s race remains to be seen. That’s it. Her past victories are great signs that she can win a race for another office, but they are not guarantees.
I’ve only come after you because you have made personal attacks about my motivations and repeatedly questioned my logic while maintaining arguments that misread my points and themselves make little sense (this one included).
… you were about to do something stupid and dangerous… would it be an insult to tell you to stop? If I point out that the mushroom you are about to eat is poisonous would you call me a troll? Would you say that I am insulting you? I guess you might feel pretty stupid if you pride yourself upon your knowledge of mushrooms and mistakenly choose a poison one… but feeling stupid is better than feeling dead, I guess.
If sexism is real and prevalent then I’m the truth teller here and I’m doing it irrespective of your feelings.. If sexism is not at all possible then you’re the truth teller here and I’m an inadvertant troll. Just don’t try to tell me that the former is an utter impossibility and the latter the default, most likely, case…
I assert that your votes, your opinions, and your comments here are being controlled by invisible pink flamingos that surround your head and were surgically installed in your sleep by aliens from a distant galaxy who are establishing a colony here.
What evidence do you have that this isn’t the case?
Pink flamingos exist. Each galaxy is populated by billions of earth-like planets, so the existence of aliens is a statistical certainty.
Just because you aren’t aware of it doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
… The flamingos in question are, actually, a comforting paisley that is only partially pink, but mostly orange and red. They don’t control my opinions as much as they mediate between the voices in my head.
Furthermore, the “aliens” are not from a distant galaxy, but rather are pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent, shades of the color blue who, for some reason I cannot fathom, are fond of gratuitous use of the word ‘belgium’. Tread lightly, they’re still grieving for Douglas Adams, who’s sorta like their version of Gandhi, and are sorta touchy… You really don’t wanna get ‘the blues’. They would appreciate it if you refrain from using the ‘a’ word, also… from their point of view, you and I are the ‘aliens’.
Oh, and they also told me that the reason they can pretty much do as they please is not because of any special power they have but mostly because we humans have a special talent for ignoring reality.
… actually a pretty legitimate question to ask someone like Ike Turner. .. as in, when it actually happens.
For it to be a preposterous, that is to say a ‘trolling’, accusation it would have to be completely, wholly and undeniably not possible. As in it never happens, could never happen and won’t be allowed to happen.
Is that your contention?
On the other hand, “your just trolling” is adequate license for you to forgo examining any attitudes, conscious or unconscious, you might swim in daily… Easier for me to be a troll, allowing you to wave it all away.
The mistake you, and others, make mostly lies in thinking I’m attacking you and, further, that I think of you as bad people because you reflect predominant and sexist attitudes. I do not. I do not think you’ve challenged your own assumptions in this regard… they wouldn’t be assumptions, of course, if you did… but I don’t think that makes you bad, or even unusual, humans.
The tricksy part about cultural assumptions, attitudes and habits is the comfort we feel in them and the discomfort when others challenge them. Answering that discomfort by deliberately accusing some else of trying to cause discomfort for base motives (i.e. ‘trollilng’) is defensive. To go on the offensive you would first have to start by asking yourself why you feel such discomfort at my accusations.
You imply that you’ve risen to this challenge, whereas we have not.
I have “discomfort” at your accusations, because:
1) You don’t know me, beyond what I’ve written here.
2) I don’t write sexist things here (or imply them).
3) But you feel free to make assumptions about my unconscious behavior.
There’s no answer to your charge. Any answer I give confirms your belief about me, because you interpret my answer in whatever way you like. I consider this a delusion on your part. And you know what? I’m not obligated to convince you (nor,in fairness, are you obligated to believe me).
This is exhausting. I came here to talk politics. Want to talk about sexism in politics? I’m game for that. But I’m not going to sit idly while being accused of something.
Bye.
I am, however, supposed to sit idly by while being accused of ‘trolling’? Nice double standard you got there…
QED
Accusations of your trolling are well founded.
Accusations of jimc’s sexism are not.
Also, don’t even try to claim that accusations of trolling are on the same level as accusations of sexism. You’re better than that.
A contested race is any with multiple candidates. A competitive race is one where either has a shot. Those words are generally used VERY differently in a political context. Therefore her 2010 re-election bid was contested, but not competitive.
The Democratic Primary is the first step. Coakley’s record in contested Democratic Primaries is 2-0. She bested two other very competitive candidates for District Attorney. She cleared the field for an OPEN statewide Attorney General’s Democratic Primary. She won a highly competitive Senate Primary against Congressman Capuano and at least two self-funded, well-funded challengers with a high 40s percent voter.
The US Senate special primary was all about GOTV. ID and pull. And Coakley lapped the field.
She came back after the loss to Brown and had no Democratic Challenger for AG in that same year. I somehow doubt there was little interest in the seat – far more likely that potential candidates recognized that Coakley has a strong base of support. CV says she should have been vulnerable to a primary challenge after the Senate “upset”
Name recognition is part of politics. Coakley benefits from that. Treasurer Grossman has run statewide at least twice once for Gov and a successful race for Treasurer) yet with that name recognition he remains 20% behind Coakley after a year of campaigning -so name recognition isn’t everything.
Candidate Deval Patrick did in a Governor’s race what Robert Reich couldn’t and what Dr. Berwick has been unable to do to date. Proving only that there are few candidates like Deval Patrick.
Coakley’s polling numbers have been consistent throughout and this primary feels like the Senate special to me. I always get a chuckle when supporters of candidates who are 20-30% behind tell me there is no enthusiasm for the candidate leading the field.
I’m keeping my head down and doing field everyday for Coakley for Governor. Unlike some on BMG I don’t do that because I dislike the other two candidates – I simply think Martha Coakley is the best choice for Governor.
You consistently keep your support positive , you stick to the facts and data, and you are honest about your candidates shortcomings. I believe I have been very critical of berwick and his team lately, great message, but I am starting to doubt the messenger and his campaign. Grossman isn’t close, so I would still vote my heart rather than my head on this one. And most Coakley supporters are doing the same, it just so happens that their heart will allow them to vote for the winner. We will see if her many liabilities, which you are honest about unlike petr, will be enough to best Baker. At this point, his many liabilities might be enough for him to lose. It’s that kinda race.
… ??
This is insulting strictly because it proves you have not been paying attention: nowhere have I said that Coakley is without liabilities and I’ve never once claimed a sure win over Baker…
Keep up like this, and people are going to start think you’re only earnest when it comes to self-abuse.
Not sure where the self abuse notion comes from, and you have consistently been inflating her electability. As doubleman pointed out, which you have yet to contend, using your flawed logic Bill Galvin is the best politician this state has seen. Striker, is honest about why she lost in 2010 instead of blaming everything but Coakley, he is also honest that she only faced three competitive primaries before this one, one of which she lost (an early run for state rep). To her considerable credit she beat Michael Sullivan for DA in 98′, in spite of his far longer history in the county as a known electoral quantity, she beat Capuano, not someone to sneeze at for primaries as he showed in his 98′ run for the house, and we are all honest by stating that she will likely win this one, which, anticipated results aside, is also competitive.
But you turn the re-election in 2010 against a write in candidate and the election in 2006 against a pro-death penalty activists as big wins when nobody else is. ‘She ran ahead of Deval’-you say, but so did Bill Galvin, and so would a ficus plant against those opponents. That’s misleading and dishonest. As is the consistent charge from you that anyone who doesn’t favor her candidacy must hate women. Anyway you win, she is far more likely to be nominated than either of her opponents. She wouldn’t get my primary vote, but she would get my general election vote. And that’s about where I am with this race at this point.
… I guess I’m showing my age: “self-abuse” is an old euphemism for masturbation: as in you are so intent upon yourself you’re not paying attention to what’s going on around you.
How have I been dishonest in this? Having won several elections kinda demonstrates electability. I’ve never said she’s free from blame in 2010 and, indeed, I’ve been steadfast in my refusal to genuflect to any candidate.
He might well be. But he decided to sit this one out. Do you, somehow, think that if we could magically put Bill Galvin in this position, and take Martha Coakley out, we’d not be having this debate? I would say exactly the same things about Galvin that I have been saying about Coakley if and when you stack him up against Berwick. Galvin, for whatever reasons, decided to sit this one out. Maybe he, too, thinks Martha Coakley would make a better Governor…
You know, you’re not allowed takebacks, right? You can’t say that Martha Coakley is an illegitimate AG because you think people ‘defaulted’ to her, or didn’t ‘consider’ her properly or because her opponent was a ficus. She got the votes. They are all real and actual votes. Whatever the reason for them they are real, true, actual and concrete votes. She got more than a million votes the last three primaries she was in… doesn’t matter if they were ‘contested’ or not… they are real votes.
However, the consistency of the totals, in both ‘contested’ and ‘un-contested’ elections indicates that ‘contested/un-contested’ is a variable in which you place far to much faith.
So, since we’re throwing the term ‘honesty’ around, I’m searching… I really am… I’m searching for ANY OTHER reason so many people go to such great lengths to deny her history, her electability and her legitimacy.
Berwick just isn’t that special. He’s alright and he says a lot of the right things… but the enthusiasm for him simply doesn’t make sense absent a motive to truly dislike Coakley. And, yes, I see misogyny there. Just because you don’t like being called sexist doesn’t mean your not sexist.
Absolute garbage. Stop trolling.
Berwick is the most progressive candidate, has the boldest and most progressive vision for the state, and has the experience to get the job done. That’s why people support him.
For the record, I am supporting Maura Healey for AG.
… some of your best friends are women too…
More on this.
Have you met him? Have you really examined his record? Have you really examined her record?
Most people really like Berwick who have met him. If you have met him, I’d love to know why you don’t like him. And his policies and approach to government make him even more attractive.
Yes, there are real and numerous reasons to really dislike Coakley. If you don’t think there are legitimate reasons to dislike her, I really don’t know what to say.
I never said I “don’t like him”. I like him well enough. If I met him, however, whether I liked him or no wouldn’t sway my vote. I like far too many people who couldn’t be trusted with successfully navigating a bathtub too consider ‘liking’ someone as the basis for giving them the executive office.
I neither ‘like’ nor ‘dislike’ Martha Coakley and I don’t even contend that she’s “likeable”. Such things are absent from the calculus I’m presenting. I look at Berwick and I see a fairly smart guy with limited political experience and a naive (if touching) faith in technocratic fixes. I look at Coakley and see someone, equally smart, who’s been in the arena. She’s won some. She’s lost some. She keeps getting back up. Smart and tough. Certainly smarter and tougher than Robert DeLeo.
Back in the day I ‘liked’ Robert Reich’ and he disappointed me by, after losing, sorta melting away and not making anything of his ideals: I guess it was either the governorship or nothing for him. Berwick, if he wants me to ‘like’ him, should lobby Coakley for a spot in her administration and get in the arena himself.
JConway has bent over backwards to be respectful of Coakley’s candidacy. Sometimes you are suited for one office much better than others. Even right after her failed Senate bid she only attracted token opposition for AG re-election and she liked to point out that during her Senate campaign her record as AG was not called into much question. This cycle I’ve heard multiple people say they would vote to re-elect her AG in a heartbeat, but are less enthused about her being Governor. That is not sexist, just an assessment of her strengths and weakness that every candidate is subjected too.
Let’s take Tom Reilly. He had a penis, so you’re whole “every Coakley opponent hates women argument” is out the window there. He also won more than a million votes for the same office Coakley sought in 1998 and again in 2002. He also won a competitive primary against Lois Pines in 1998. And he got his ass handed to him by Deval in 2006. Why is that? because it was the first competitive race he had to face in nearly eight years, and the first time he faced a strong candidate with the gravitas to beat him. He had been the Governor in waiting since the day O’Brien lost in 2002 and the day Romney announced he wasn’t running again.
I liked Tom Reilly, he would always stop into the Saucony outlet in East Cambridge and chat with all the workers, and we liked his record on the issues. But he was a bland candidate with no ideas, other than ‘next step up the ladder’ and he got creamed. Martha ran a very similar campaign in 2010, and also got creamed. She seems to be running a similar campaign now-enough to get past the primary, but maybe not enough to beat back a well financed and strong challenger like Baker. Reilly’s wins count, but his loss ended his career.
Coakley had the good fortune of being able to bounce right back in a joke of an AG race against a no name opponent and keep her job. Maybe if Dan Winslow or Michael Sullivan threw their hats in the ring, or any credible Republican, she might’ve been defeated. Rob Eno has stated on the record that their failure to target her was one of the bigger mistakes their party made in 2010, particularly when we see how well Connaughton did against Bump and Polito did against Grossman.
The fact that they didn’t speaks well to her abilities to keep her day job as an incumbent with access to the financing needed to scare off challengers, it speaks well to John Walsh and his organization being able to almost beat back the state GOP into oblivion, and he speaks rather poorly about their own efforts to remain competitive in this state. I am not taking anything away from her victory by stating it is like comparing apples to orange versus her challenge in 2010 for the Senate, it’s like comparing a regular season Pats game against the Jags to a playoff run against the Broncos. If she loses-she goes home.
Martha Coakley is the 2007 New England Patriots. Good enough to go 16-0 in the regular season, win some playoffs, and then lose the only game that counts. All her statewide races are regular seasons, her primary win against Capuno is like their playoff run, and her loss to Brown was the big game. I haven’t forgiven Bill for his sartorial (a red hoodie!) or coaching decisions in that game, and I can’t forgive Coakley.
… the 2004 Red Sox: one out away from elimination, down three games to the Yanks in the ALCS and rally to go on to take out the Yanks and then the World Series against the Cards. See, I can use sports metaphors too.
Keep hope alive.
If anything, Coakley was the Yankees in 2004 and Brown was the Red Sox. Like the Yankees, she had won several other big games in the past, like the Yankees, she had a bigger payroll, a more national fan base, and more favorable media coverage, and like the Yankees, she was stunned entirely when she failed to advance to the Senate she surely thought was hers for the taking.
Using your logic, since the Red Sox have won several games this year, they should be on their way to their World Series.
I thought the knock on Martha Coakley in 2010 was that she went on vacation… ? That is to say, that she pointedly DID NOT run a campaign when it was clear (only in hindsight) that she ought to have; that she fell down on the job, not that she did a poor job.
The campaign that Coakley ran in 2010 SWEPT the primary. Again, she got nearly 50% in a four way race. Capuano got half her percentage points. If you’re argument is that she wasted all her ammo in the primary and had nothing left for the general… I might see that argument as valid. But that’s not your argument. Your argument is that when the 2010 special primary was over, she just stopped campaigning altogether. Maybe she did. Maybe it was the wrong move. I never absolved her of any blame, I merely (again) point out that she is absolved from the totality of blame.
In 2006 and again in the General (regular) election of 2010 there is no evidence that she similarly fell down on the job as she is alleged to have done in the 2010 special. In point of fact, a great deal of evidence exists to counter that notion. You are dismissive of this, treating the allegations in 2010 as gospel and discount any and all evidence to the contrary as ‘non competitive’ or somehow illegitimate because her opponent was a ficus.
And I didn’t mean ‘strokes’ as a euphemism for something else with that title.
Considering you are arguing that Galvin is a proven vote winner statewide, and you think that is legitimate, than we just have very different definitions of competitive and what it takes to make a good politician. I would argue, Coakley was untested by lackluster opposition in 2006, in 2010 for AG, and, as much as I love Capuano, in the 2010 primary. She then failed to win a race she was leading by over 30 points not two weeks prior. Some of that is on her, some of that is on the DSCC and DNC for not taking this seriously, and some of that is on the state of the electorate that showed up-older, more GOP leaning, etc.
That is not what I was arguing. I was arguing that her wins for AG in 2006 and 2010 were poor indicators of her potential to win this race. You seem to discount the 2010 special as an outlier in her otherwise stellar record, as you have repeatedly pointed out, but it’s an interesting outlier, since it’s the only general election she has lost to date, and coincidentally, the only general election where she had a well funded opponent who polled competitively against her during a stretch of the race. It was an upset, an upset caused by Coakley’s incompetence in some areas, the President’s and national Democrats unpopularity in others, and the turnout that favored older, whiter, and more Republican leaning voters. There are many factors at play, but I would argue that a strong factor is that she was untested going into a general election. To argue that the 2010 AG race showed that she had ‘bounced back’ and won back the same voters, or that she is somehow a better vote getter than Deval, to me, is dishonest and it doesn’t show the full picture. I think she has been similarly untested in this primary, precisely because I think her opponents are weak candidates running weak campaigns. Nowhere have I argued Berwick should be held to any standard other than the same one I apply to Coakley-ability to win competitive races. And he is going to fall way short of even her previous losses. I am under no illusions of a different outcome at this point.
What worries me is, the same perfect storm, low turnout from traditional Democratic groups (minorities, women, students), high turnout from older voters who are more Republican leaning, coupled with a candidate unready to wage a general election campaign due to a relatively easy primary, and we see the 2010 special play out all over again.
I might add, I know people that voted for her in 2010 for AG, who say she is a good AG, and who are going to vote for Baker. People that voted for her for AG and voted against her for Senate. Downballot races are a poor predictor. Bump has also won every contested statewide election she has campaigned in, even a statewide one, and it is no indicator she could become Governor. Grossman won a competitive contest last time, also statewide, and is trailing badly against Coakley. So this is not an anti-Coakley argument, it’s an argument that her win in 2006 was a poor indicator of her performance in the 2010 special, and her win in 2010 for AG is a poor indicator of her ability to beat Baker.
Her win in the special Dem primary is showing to be a good indicator of her ability to win Democratic primaries for statewide offices. It can safely be said she has a spotless record at getting nominated, barring an upset that no one is seriously predicting.
I will be the first to say I was wrong when I predicted she would lose the nomination. I thought Grossman and Berwick would be far more formidable challengers, and to the extent that they are not, it’s equal parts their fault and Coakley’s ability to lock these contests up. I argued in the past her primary win in 2010 would not be repeated, and it looks like it will be. Her ads are much better, her interactions with voters are better, and her ground game is better. This will be a nail biter, but to argue that her races for AG indicate that she will similarly trounce Baker is a misnomer. And a fatal one frankly, if our shared goal is to beat him in the fall.
If one looks at the polling for the three Democratic rivals, Coakley’s polling has been steady (or “flat” if you want to spin it negatively). Both Grossman and Berwick have gathered a bit more support. However, what the polls seem to say is that neither Berwick nor Grossman are able to sway Coakley voters into their column. They’re simply both taking an ever larger helping of formerly undecided voters.
The Globe also carries a story today indicating that a large plurality of Grossman voters will vote for Baker in a Coakley-Baker contest.
This scares me.
When she wins she will win with a plurality, not the majority, of her party, and she will find a much lower ceiling than Baker has. This is why I suspect we are seeing the kinds of positive general election ads for her now, it’s to get her name and good reputation out, before the hammer really gets dropped on Charlie. We will see how this strategy works-but it seems to be what a lot of the Walsh groups ground game is focused on. Defining Baker before Coakley gets the nod. Worked for Obama against Romney.
Coakley has a lower ceiling than Baker? I don’t recall any Republican beating about 52% in a statewide race here in at least 15 years. And the 52% was a fluke.
When the Baker campaign brings out its big guns after the primary, I think we may see a very different general campaign this year.
Although we’ve had three successive Democratic speakers with criminal indictments or convictions, we’ve never had a criminal conspiracy in government that was as broad as the Probation Department, that involved as many current office holders, or that got as much attention.
We’ve never had a Democratic candidate for governor who was constitutionally charged with preventing or prosecuting that criminal conspiracy. We’ve never had Democratic Party leaders who continue to defend the flagrantly-corrupt process even after the convictions.
Meanwhile, on the other issues that matter to voters, the similarities between Ms. Coakley and Mr. Baker greatly overwhelm the differences. While they may use different language to explain it, neither will increase funding for public transportation. Neither will work aggressively to raise the capital gains tax, the estate/gift tax, or the state income tax (with increased deductions to protect the middle class).
Mr. Baker may likely begin speaking out against the militarization of police and the drastically-increased government surveillance that Ms. Coakley has so enthusiastically promoted as AG — as events in MO continue to spiral downhill, that issue may gain more and more traction with Massachusetts voters.
I see the general election shaping up as very different than any statewide race we’ve had since the turn of the century. I think some of us may find ourselves surprised by just how large Mr. Baker’s margin of victory actually IS when the votes are all counted.
People may think we are crying wolf, but I see the exact same pattern repeating itself. A lot of people outside the bubble feel that the state is broken and nobody is helping them out, and a lot of people are tired of the shenanigans on Beacon Hill. Baker is finally running the campaign that he wants, emphasizing centrist solutions instead of the kind of right wing rhetoric that served him so poorly last time. No Cahill to take his votes, the toe indies don’t have enough name recognition to poll into being a factor. As much as we mock her, Polito is getting good reviews on the stump and could make inroads while holding the base in line. He is getting very favorable media coverage.
I am not going to go so far as to say his victory is assured or will be a big one if it happens, but he is making all the right moves while Coakley is once again coasting to a cost free nomination that didn’t challenge her or force her to improve her candidacy. I think those that are certain she will triumph are setting themselves for a let down. I do think, as striker and Kate suggest, many Coakley supporters are self aware and working incredibly hard for their candidate. I am under no illusions she is DOA or a shoe in , I think this will be one of the closest elections in Massachusetts history.
I’ve said that all year long. I don’t think, barring unforeseen damaging information, he can win by all that much. If you say to me today that the result will be 55-45, I think only Coakley (or rather the Democratic nominee, presumably Coakley) can win by that margin. I think she has a higher ceiling here than a white make insurance executive Republican.
I think this will be a real nail biter, if the two indy candidates continue to lose ground in the polls and the undecides start to break either way, we will have a much better picture. Similarly, the pool of undecides in the Democratic primary is still far too large to say conclusively that Coakley has it in the bag, but she is the undisputed frontrunner and likely nominee. But it will be a 51/49 kind of win for the victor.
n/t
n/t
Well, that’s very comforting jimc and christopher.
What does this tell us when Grossman voters will vote for Baker? Are these the same voters that went for Brown?
That current Grossman supporters will vote for a candidate in the final who stands against most of Grossman’s stated positions and policies?
Better to just read the article that explains it.
If you don’t want to believe it, take to heart a clip from Ryan’s comment below:
The Coakley campaign ignores this poll finding to their own peril.
(And it’s not for me either) would it not already be reflected in polling for a Coakley vs. Baker general? And she’s still up.
However, I’m not confident that Coakley’s current polling advantage will survive the general election campaign.
There are a number things that make Baker a strong candidate (aside from having more money in his warchest.) His campaign is currently very upbeat and aspirational. Coakley has not developed the aspirational style. She may fight for the “little guy” but she’s not going to lead us into the promised land.
Baker’s better at communicating why he should be governor. It boils down a bit to “I’m a great manager who has achieved these results” versus Coakley’s much vaguer “I’m a strong leader.” It’s also easier to believe that Baker’s skills transfer to doing “governor things” than Coakley’s. It would seem right now to be a campaign of Coakley saying “I have the right priorities; see my record” versus Baker’s “I can get stuff done; see my record.” Coakley is supposedly great in small groups or one-on-one, but Baker is pretty good in more public venues. Likely Baker will have an easier time making voters feel comfortable with him — and that could overcome any perceived difference about priorities.
Finally, sixteen years of Republican governors suggest that our electorate has at least a mild preference for divided government. Maybe one of Deval Patrick’s assets here was that he was obviously an outsider: he hadn’t been in state government before; he didn’t sound like a Beacon Hill politician. So having him as governor wouldn’t be like one party rule because he’d act differently from legislators. Coakley does not communicate outsiderism so well. Maybe that’s because she isn’t really an outsider. So she can’t soothe the electorate’s anxiety about having too much of a one party government.
I may be wrong but I think the Republican brand is an absolute anvil in Massachusetts in 2014, and I’m not particularly impressed by the 16 years of Republican governors argument. Democrats nominated the worst candidate in their history in 1990. Weld won. He ran in 1994 as an incumbent, then resigned, leaving Paul Cellucci to run in 1998 as an incumbent. Cellucci was about as inoffensive a Republican as you can imagine. In 2002, a Republican year, Democrats nominated another lousy candidate in a divisive primary and lost a close race to a telegenic billionaire who lied about his positions. This year I’ve seen no indications that anyone will pay enough attention to notice Coakley’s not inspiring them.
Interesting.
First off, 44% of Grossman supporters is not all Grossman supporters.
Second, one might think that your eventual goal is win over Grossman supporters. But no! your goal seems to be to one-up them.
This would be an excellent approach for a world that ends in September.
Martha’s going to trounce, like it or not. That’s just the way it is.
The polls are consistently and overwhelmingly showing that – all of them – and thinking they’re secretly all wrong because you feel there’s low levels of excitement for her (which you’ve done nothing to prove other than provide your own anecdotal feeling on the matter) is right up there with thinking aliens visited Roswell.
If there was another candidate who had huge momentum at the moment – and that was reflected in the polls – then maybe we’d be having a different story here, but Martha’s lead has been as consistent as it’s been dominant – and it’s been very dominant.
I have no doubt that Ms. Coakley will trounce her primary opponents. I think the contest with Mr. Baker will be much closer.
The belated and welcome focus of the mainstream media on the militarization of police, motivated by the continuing downward spiral of events in Ferguson, is likely to hurt Ms. Coakley. Her enthusiasm for just that militarism here in Massachusetts during her long tenure as AG is a central part of her record.
I expect the Baker campaign to patiently wait until the primary is over, and then begin a fusillade of advertising focused on the “Democratic Party corruption”. I will not be surprised if TeaParty-leaning third parties attack Ms. Coakley for her role in bringing Ferguson-style attack platoons to MA.
I agree that Ms. Coakley will be the Democratic Party nominee. I predict that the general election will be close, that Charlie Baker will win, and that he will be gaining momentum as election day approaches.
The problem I see with two Democratic candidates for governor is they are both courting the Scott Brown voters, not the Elizabeth Warren voters. Of the three, only one is going the Warren route and he has a lot of work to do in a short period. Yes, courting the Scott Brown Democrats may win you the primary, but I doubt it will win the election.
If anything I’d reverse it. The base is more likely to turn out in the primary.
He’s the only guy the republicans could find who would make Martha seem exciting and fresh by comparison.
It won’t be a landslide, but I’d put money on a 4-5% victory.
Because, so far, you’re a party of one.
Somervilletom’s politics are certainly not Tea Party.
I took his comment this way: There’s a lot of energy in the Tea Party. Usually they complain about crazy stuff. But right now there are things in the news that the Tea Party could get behind that have some traction. Militarization of law enforcement is certainly one of their issues and it could hurt Coakley if they started kvetching about it and connecting her to it.
Certainly, Ms. Coakley has not been exactly eloquent — never mind audible — on the subject of Ferguson.
I took his comment this way: “I will not be surprised if TeaParty-leaning third parties attack Ms. Coakley for her role in bringing Ferguson-style attack platoons to MA.”
He’s the only one both kvetching about it and connecting her to it.
We have now idea whether tea party types will or won’t become active in the general election. If you think of Cliven McBundy, though, you may remember that militarization is sort of a pet issue of theirs. So such speculations are not outlandish.
My post asked about whether the pollsters were separating out likelies from registereds. I have not seen any reporting of this — perhaps I’ve missed it. I was hoping to get beyond “anecdotal feeling” and discover some better evidence of how this race stood, admitting that the current situation appears bleak for Berwick and Grossman.
Maybe I’m just looking for those Roswell aliens, but there were a lot more signs and bumper stickers for Deval and Warren than we’re seeing now for Coakley, right? In lower enthusiasm races, turnout goes down, and the potential is there for a significant spread between polling predictions and election day results. Ask Eric Cantor to explain this to you.
Martha was going to trounce Scott Brown too.
I travel 495 quite often and I’ve seen one Coakley, two Grossman and one Berwick bumper sticker. (plus the one on my FR-S)
I see many more Ready for Hillary stickers than stickers for all of the Guv candidates combined.
Huge momentum for the person who beat Cantor. Some polls in fact had Cantor losing.
There were pretty unique circumstances that led to Brown, none of which seem repeatable. He was a complete unknown, yet didn’t lack for money and was treated with kid gloves by the media – which relished the underdog story and never pressed him enough for his true colors to be revealed.
Baker is a known commodity, boring, lackluster and prone to making the same aloof gaffes Coakley can. The chances of a baker surge are remote. If he were to win, it would be a slow and steady victory, no surge win from behind. I just think the possibilities of that are remote, since democrats have a far better GOTV machine and much better activists, and who’s Charlie Baker going to excite enough to make calls or knock on doors?
… Baker, pointedly and to his credit, didn’t go negative against Deval Patrick in 2010. My fear is that he won’t hold back — or others on his behalf won’t be held back — from getting nasty. I think that’s the only way he can win.
Certainly, Kerry Healey tried (and failed) in 2006. Brown tried to go negative against Warren in 2012 and that didn’t work… So it’s a gamble for Baker to do it. But I bet, with Coakley’s negatives, there’ll be a lot of pressure from the ratfucking wing of the GOP to dive into the gutter.
I certainly am not, what we a re talking about is general election viability and the fact that a chunk of Democratic voters have states they will vote for Baker if Coakley is nominated, that dispirited activists stay home, and that this snooze fest of a nomination will lead to the same complacency and come from behind win that got Brown a Senate seat. And unlike that scenario, we are looking at a mistake that won’t be rectified for another four years.
I want Martha to light fires in the bellies of the base, not just for our ego, but so that this same base that elected Warren and Obama and Deval can come out for her. I think she took the wrong lesson from the special and moved right, rather than moving more assertively in a progressive direction.
I just don’t know what Coakley will do to light those fires. On issue after issue (except a couple) her positions and vision are usually the least progressive and certainly the least bold of her rivals.
Yes, she’s fantastic and been a great leader on choice and equality. Second to no one. But, Baker likely won’t be that bad on those issues, and among the primary candidates, Coakley only shines because of her record (and having been in a critical role in recent years) not because of her positions.
Many will cite her role in taking on the banks, in which she did some good work, but I think was rather timid given the level of destruction those financial institutions brought.
I still have not heard anyone convincingly argue that she has the best vision for MA. The best argument seems to be “she’ll get the small stuff done.” Maybe that will make her a better governor than anyone else running, but an inspiring pitch? Hardly.
I’d actually be fine for that as a reason to vote for her if she wasn’t so bad and anti-progressive on a number of issues I care deeply about. Related: I hope questions re: Ferguson come up in the debate tonight and that the Grossman and Berwick campaigns have properly prepared their candidates to go after Coakley on those issues.
At this point we are at a crossroads, I made a determination after Striker used concise facts to eviscerate my snark about vacations to start treating Coakley supporters better, it’s something fenway started even earlier with the pledge. I strongly disagree with her on several important issues, I strongly disagree with those that would dismiss Berwick, his stances, or his supporters as inconsequential. I get a sense-particularly from people I’ve talked to back in Cambridge, from talking to canvassers in other areas, that there is on the ground momentum in Berwick’s direction. But I am also enough of a realist to recognize that their passion and hard work are statistically unlikely to make up the deficit to this consistently strong effort from the Coakley side.
This is why it is more important than ever for the next few weeks to go smoothly. This is why the debates are going to be important places, not only for Grossman and Berwick to make a last minute push, but also to make sure Coakley is truly challenged on the problematic aspects of her record and her position on the issues now so that she won’t be deluged by the ads Tom fears later, when Baker gets a one on one shot with Coakley.
So, I think every supporter of any candidate in this reality based community can recognize and agree with the reality that Coakley is our most statistically probable nominee. The question now is, how do we ensure that this primary process brings out the most committed Democrats to campaign for our nominee in November? Is it by waiting out the inevitability and gloating about it or highlighting their issues now and hoping the nominee adopts them? I want our nominee to fight for single payer healthcare, strong public schools, better transit and infrastructure, and protecting our civil liberties so d Ferguson’s don’t happen here. The funny thing is, Berwick doesn’t have to be the nominee for his issues to become our issues. So I welcome Coakley supporters and Grossman supporters, to join me in pushing those issues on our nominee. We know Baker won’t fight for them, but let’s make sure our nominee will.
be much of a candidate in my view, but obviously I’ll vote for her if Berwick doesn’t win. Berwick might also be a good cabinet choice for her. I expect most Berwick people will have no problem supporting the greater cause of a Democratic governor.
I know that women are too smart to vote for a candidate just because she’s a woman, but I wonder if given Republican politics these days Coakley will benefit from motivated women who want to see their rights preserved.
Incidentally, there isn’t one of you on this thread that is less interesting than Pretty Little Liars, which my daughter is currently watching.
I still can’t past the comments by Martha Coakley, repeated by her last evening, that casinos are not her first choice for improvement of local economies and that casinos present dangers that must be tightly regulated by an ever vigilant government to protect the people from fraud and a host of social ills, but she will not support a vote of the people to repeal the decision of the legislature.
shown herself to be much of a candidate. But we’re going to have to vote for someone. And Baker is worse.
If I understand correctly, Ms. Coakley felt that the law compelled her to reject the repeal petition. Any half-responsible AG would be making a ruling of law in this case and not injecting a policy preference.