As the state convention and primary results show, Martha Coakley was not a first choice by a majority when put up against legitimate rivals. Now it is down to two from the major parties plus 3 others, and party activists have to do their thing to get her elected. Given the scarcity of plugs for AG Coakley, and some mild affirmation that Baker may be the next governor, a sort of malaise has settled in putting together a strategy to up our game to help her win.
This works two ways. The strengths of your candidate and their goals need to be touted in an effective way for the public. Secondly, the opposition candidate’s weaknesses have to be displayed as ineffective or worse as a detriment to the well being of Massachusetts citizens.
The second task is not difficult. It is the first that is giving people spilkes. Can her long service to government, and her motivation with the public interest in mind be demonstrated? Mostly yes, but sometimes off the mark. She has demonstrated that for certain issues she is a champion. Unfortunately they are not always what holds the public’s attention.
So what to do? I want to support her, but based mainly on the fact that Charlie Baker is a libertarian who would decrease important services, demean people down on their luck, and revive the economy for his buddies without much help for regular guys. It is the other side of the equation that requires buffing up.
Can some supporters of Martha Coakley bring some heft that may be unknown to others, so we can get “Fired up and ready to go!”? What I have read and heard to date doesn’t fill the bill.
Where are all the people who voted for Martha Coakley? I know only 3 in my hundreds of contacts. She ran a campaign that 1) Did not distinguish her from Charlie Baker, and people who tend that way want a man whose been ini business. 2) Ignored progressive issues as well as the parts of MA outside 495. So what’s to get excited about? Her campaign continues these mistakes.
Martha Coakley won 12 of the 14 Counties in Massachusetts showing her victory was statewide and not geograpically based. Oh yeah she won 8 counties outside 495 – they really must have missed the idea they were being ignored.
http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/massachusetts/#.VC1Oxmt5mSM
Very easy to find these number in response to lame question.
Martha Coakley has been a long time advocate and fighter for reproductive rights, took on the big banks and financial institutions on predatory lending, has led the most effective Fair Labor divsion in AG history delivering for workers who are victims of wage fraud and other crimes, took on the unilities for their failure to respond after power failures been the leader on the legal fights for LBGT rights. . . . . by hey what’s all that compared to Baker showing what a good business guy he is by laying off workers in RI and cutting a backroom deal with Chris Christie for pension money?
I think that’s the problem.
She’s been a politician for 30 years, and the list of where she is great is pretty short (without even mentioning the list of areas where she is weak or downright bad).
She has been great on the issues, but I think Choice and LGBT rights will be tougher sell against Baker.
The Dem nominee should be leagues better than the Repub on almost every front. Tha
As far as jsunshower’s comment, I could be wrong but I don’t think jsunshower was implying that no one voted for her. The issue is about who were the activists voting for Coakley. In my circles of very active and moderately active Camberville and Boston progressives, she had very little support.
meant to add:
The Dem nominee should be leagues better than the Repub on almost every front. That she hasn’t really demonstrated that clearly is a big problem.
The Dem nominee is leagues better than the Repub on many, many fronts. Most of the exceptions are areas where the Republican decided to co-opt a position commonly held among Democrats but rare among national (and even MA) Republicans.
At this point the next governor will be Martha Coakley or it will be Charlie Baker. People need to snap out of it, get over whatever their pet issue is, and get to work. If they really don’t like Coakley, they can tell themselves that their work for the coordinated campaign is helping Ed Markey or their Rep. in Congress or whatever.
For each person who voted for Martha Coakley in the primaries, two others voted for somebody else. What portion of those 224,754 voters were “unenrolled” Republicans? How many of those voters will turn out, again, in the general — and how likely are they to vote for Ms. Coakley over Mr. Baker?
Ms. Coakley, her campaign, and her supporters gave a WHOLE LOT OF US the finger during the entire campaign. Now, waving the supposed-to-be-scary spectacle of “TeaParty Baker”, we’re all supposed to come running back to her side — ignoring the consistent and pervasive list of issues where she either said nothing, did nothing, said the wrong thing, did the wrong thing, or all of the above.
Don’t talk to me about the “backroom deals” of the other side while the Partner’s fiasco is still unraveling.
Ms. Coakley could do a WHOLE LOT more for workers (and the rest of the 99%) by aggressively pursuing — as a starting point — the budget proposals offered by Deval Patrick a year ago spring and immediately shot down by “Democrats” Bob DeLeo and Theresa Murray.
The most effective way to rally liberal support for a gubernatorial race is to nominate a liberal. My party decided not to do that this time around.
There was a primary. Half a million people voted in it. Some of them didn’t want Coakley but decided to help her out by voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning. The voters had their say. But all we hear is “the party” decided to go with Coakley.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party — MY party for FORTY YEARS this summer — nominated Ms. Coakley.
My party sets the rules. We set the process, we set the dates, we run the convention, we run the primary. Sure, I understand that state law covers some of these things. I also know that we have an OVERWHELMING majority of the votes that determine that state law. Over the years since I arrived here in 1974 at the ripe old age of 22, we have changed these laws whenever it suited our convenience.
This process, that we own and control, selected this candidate.
She’s ours. And she is NO liberal.
At the end of the day the party can’t control how primary voters vote, and I can’t imagine a scenario in which she would not make the convention threshold.
And it is us. With a different process we’d just hear about the unseemly backroom deals. Leave it to primary voters and you’re wrong, don’t leave it to voters and you’re wrong. Apparently the only people not to blame here are the political geniuses who wanted nothing to do with Coakley but insisted on wasting their votes on a candidate 20 points back.
You are assuming that Berwick voter’s would greatly have preferred Grossman to Coakley. I don’t think there is any evidence at all to suggest that is the case. Don’t blame Berwick supporters for Grossman’s loss. That is all on him.
With the logic of Berwick supporters. Berwick is awesome, Coakley and Grossman are equally awful. Practically as bad as Charlie Baker. Maybe if they’re in a generous mood they might show up and vote for Coakley but there’s really no way they’re going to work for her election. (Of course, when regular Democratic volunteers fail to volunteer, that hurts the campaign. Then you call the campaign lackluster while ignoring that it’s lackluster because you’re not showing up.)
I believe this antipathy toward Grossman is largely a recent product of Berwick boosterism during the primary itself. Heading into this one there were a large number of people who expressed a strong conviction that they did not like Martha Coakley and did not want her to be the nominee. Some of us told them their decision to support Berwick would all but ensure a Coakley nomination and they would have to live with it. And some of us were right and do not want to hear those people whining now about how much they don’t like Coakley and the awful thing “The Party” has done.
Why is it so hard to accept that some of us ACTUALLY care about the values we profess?
Why is it so hard to accept that, for some of us, NEITHER Martha Coakley nor Steve Grossman meets our minimum threshold for support?
Why is it so hard to accept that some of us view an election as a choice, rather than a contest or a horse race?
Our national party concluded, after the chaos of the 1968 Democratic national convention, that our national process was BROKEN. We made fundamental changes that have made our national party what it is today (for better or worse).
I suggest that we in Massachusetts need to do the same about our state process. The result of our dominance of state government is a DYSFUNCTIONAL broken mess. I see precious little recognition of that in our candidate, platform, or campaign dialog.
… they won’t draw the lesson you want them to draw.
If Coakley loses and Baker wins, the party will move right, not left. “Berwick barely got out of the convention,” they’ll say. “Grossman was left of Coakley, and he lost to her.”
I get really frustrated at times, with results. But it always comes down to one choice at a time.
It’s not like the state party really moved to the right after all the other times a crappy candidate lost to a Republican.
It’s too amorphous to move as one, but if you look at the types of issues being discussed, the allergy to any kind of revenue increase, the embrace of casinos … I don’t think there’s any way to say the party hasn’t nudged right in recent years.
And again … nobody liked it when I brought this up before, but I stick by it. If Coakley loses, there will be a lot of national talk about how “The Democratic Party can’t even hold Massachusetts.” It’s easy to dismiss it now, but there are real consequences to that. Emboldening the opposition.
I don’t think so. I think there will be a lot of talk about Coakley’s inability to run an effective campaign for an office higher than AG. The only times she’s risen to the notice of national talkers are this race and the one she lost to Brown. Those people may wonder why the Dem Party keeps nominating a person who doesn’t seem prepared campaign effectively (if she loses), but I don’t think that will come out as “can’t hold Massachusetts..” except for some on the Right. There’s a lesson in Obama’s efforts to prevent Right-Wing criticism: it’s futile..
I know conservatives are said to draw strength from their willingness to lose, but it doesn’t work that way for us. We care more.
I can’t help it, I’m an engineer.
Politics is a system like any other system. At the end of the day, what matters is whether the system works or not. The best motivations in the world, backed by the smartest and best-educated people in the world, is a meaningless footnote if the resulting behavior fails to meet its acceptance criteria.
In my view, by pretty much any measure, our state government is failing right now. Deval Patrick has truly grown into his role as governor, and peaked when he offered his 2013 budget proposal. That budget was courageous, revolutionary, and offered a blueprint for another twenty years of good governance.
We stiffed him.
It doesn’t matter how much we care, we’re going in the wrong direction. We’re ignoring things we should be paying attention to, and our party loyalists are doing all in their power to silence those of us who object.
We remind me of the cigarette smoker whose cough is so bad that he can’t hold still long enough to light the next stick, and who still angrily dismisses the premise that cigarettes might be harmful to his health.
That some of us care just as much about the issues in the values that we share, but within the very specific and narrow context of an electoral contest attempt to make the best decision possible?
In my opinion the entire concept of a minimum threshold for support is absurd and self-involved. The election is November 4th. The winner becomes the governor in January. What will not happen on November 4th is: “Gee, the votes are in but neither one of these people meet Somerville Tom’s minimum threshold for support. Someone call Don Berwick quick.”
The system is not perfect. Sometimes, actually often, people with skeletons in their closet are elected to high office. Ditto people with whom I do not share every policy position. You make this out as a failing of the party and its system, and in the very next comment remind us that the current system was put into place when people didn’t like the prior system. There is no perfect system. There is rarely if ever anything approaching a perfect candidate.
The issues with the Massachusetts Democratic Party have been discussed at length here. That it is too big a tent. That it that it might move more to the left if it did not control as many seats in the legislature. I don’t like Bob DeLeo’s handling of the House of Representatives any more than you do. That is a difficult problem to solve. Personally I decline to support conservative people calling themselves Democrats in conservative state legislative districts. In a gubernatorial race I vote and work for the best option as I see it based on a range of factors. I don’t see how your telling me that I and every other Democrat in the state have to own Bob DeLeo and trashing Martha Coakley 50 times a day and giving aid and comfort to Charlie Baker is going to help anything.
As I said, there is absolutely no evidence that Berwick supporters would have chosen Grossman over Coakley. Nor is there any evidence that this exact same problem would not have occurred if Grossman were the candidate.
You very clearly are blaming Berwick’s supporters for Grossman’s loss. That is unfair, and unreasonable. Look at the low turnout at the polls. There should have been tens of thousands of voters who would have gone for Grossman if he had found a way to reach them. He did not. That is his fault, not ours.
Unreasonable is people who pay enough attention to politics to post on this site but sit by idly as a conservative Republican gets within sniffing distance of the office of Governor of Massachusetts because pouting.
And, yeah, I blame Berwick voters. They’re great at purity and bad at math.
Let’s keep it voluntary.
I have many weaknesses — math is not among them.
Your assertions betray a set of assumptions you make, and I do not share several of them.
Your bottom line appears to be that ending up with “Governor Baker” is infinitely worse than ending up with “Governor Coakley”. I do not share that assumption, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with “math”.
And, speaking of math, I caution you that saying that the negative impact of a Coakley administration is comparable to that of a Baker administration is NOT asserting that the two are “equal”. I’m quite sure that Governor Baker will do harm. I’m equally certain that Governor Coakley will also do harm. The two harms are surely different, because the two candidates are different. Their magnitude is, however, comparable in my view.
I remind you that since the real political power in this government rests with the current Speaker of the House, neither candidate will accomplish very much that lies outside the envelope of whatever Mr. DeLeo wishes.
In my view, therefore, your estimation of the harm that a conservative Republican governor can do is greatly exaggerated.
You don’t live in his district, so you can’t vote against him directly. You could vote for your GOP House candidate is the idea were to try to deprive Dems of the majority, but I don’t think you would want that and it’s not going to happen. If there were a Dem candidate in the primary who campaigned on not supporting Deleo that person would be attractive, but the primary is over. For the long game it sounds like we need to field a slate of candidates within the primaries who would pledge to remake the House in their image.
I am acutely aware of the reality of how little I can do about Mr. DeLeo. I also agree with your summary of our needed long game.
In my view, the best thing WE can do about Mr. DeLeo at this point is firmly and loudly reject both his cynical and corrupt political calculus AND send a clear message to the candidates who we nominate that we expect and demand that they do the same. In 1968, much of the power of the national Democratic Party was vested in racist southern Democrats. The national party felt the same frustration with them as I feel about Mr. DeLeo today. The national party, in 1968, made it clear that those racist politics had no place in the reformed party. A few of those figures reformed — most left the party and became staunch Republicans (this, in my view, confirmed the correctness of the new policy).
In my view, what we can and must do in Massachusetts today is REJECT the cynical and corrupt politics that Bob DeLeo embodies. We must STOP plundering the poor to fund the wealthy. We must STOP even the appearance of corruption. We must STOP casino gambling and all the crime and corruption it brings. Most of all, we must STOP the accelerating concentration of income and wealth.
Our party should have taken Bob DeLeo to the woodshed in the early 2013 when he publicly humiliated Deval Patrick. By tolerating Mr. DeLeo’s opposition to the Governor’s budget proposal, we betrayed ourselves, our values, and Deval Patrick himself.
We can do more than run negative ads with wine glasses clinking in the background — too many voters believe they are one big score away from such success themselves.
Surely our great communicators can find ways to convey, in stark and accurate terms, the IMMENSE imbalance between our wealthiest and poorest residents. How many of us realize just how much wealth lies buried inside the walls of those gated compounds in Concord or Dover?
The annual transfer of money between generations among our wealthiest residents exceeds TWO BILLION DOLLARS! If we collected even ONE PERCENT of that, we are talking about TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS.
That buys a lot of universal pre-school. It buys a lot of sick time. It could do MUCH more than the current three-year gradual increase in the minimum wage. We can, and should, collect closer to FIFTY percent of that annual wealth transfer. Similarly, our wealthiest individuals should pay SIGNIFICANTLY higher capital gains taxes. If our income tax rate were doubled, and our exemptions raised to protect the first $500K/year (for a family), many of us would see a tax reduction.
What we can do about Bob DeLeo at this point is make our wealth and income concentration the center of the campaign, rather than an afterthought that our nominee will “look at” at some unspecified time in the future.
We can TAX THE WEALTHY, now. When the GOP starts squawking, we ratchet up the ads showing just how wealthy the very wealthy are. We can show our working people that the most immediate way to restore the prosperity that middle-class residents of Massachusetts once enjoyed is to take the wealth from the 1/2 percent who hoard it today (in offshore tax-free accounts) and put it back into the wallets of those who desperately need it.
Bob DeLeo is NEVER going to embrace this kind of Elizabeth Warren populism. We need to demonstrate that these values — and the policies they imply — are the heart and soul of our party.
When we do that, the “DeLeo problem” will solve itself.
…could we or should we have done to Speaker Deleo in early 2013 as rank and file party members? Threaten primaries? Flood legislative offices with correspondence? I’m sympathetic, but I’m seriously asking what you think the most effective means might have been at that time to accomplish the desired ends.
As a student of history, I invite you to look at the rich variety of means used by the great power-players of politics to “throw a bit of stick” at party betrayers like Mr. DeLeo. A good starting point is LBJ. More entertaining, and still instructive, is the BBC “House of Cards” series.
I am not well-versed enough in the arcane lattice of state law and election law to know how Mr. DeLeo could be punished in 2013. I submit that a great many participants DO have that knowledge. The cynic in me suggests that campaign funding is almost certainly a fertile area of investigation.
In any smallish town, the local police can be VERY good at making life miserable for a targeted individual while staying well within existing law. EVERY driver violates laws that are nearly always ignored. A rigorous enforcement of those same laws can be very disruptive to a particular individual.
I suggest that the same is true, in spades, for a public figure like Mr. DeLeo. I know you disagree with my interpretation of what happened to Tim Murray, yet I think he represents a case study in how to bring down a once-powerful political figure. I, frankly, don’t think it will be very hard for “interested” investigators to find a variety of unsavory ties between Mr. DeLeo and the casino gambling industry, the various equally unsavory organizations that support it, and the large sums of legal and illegal money that flow in Mr. DeLeo’s district.
The damage to Mr. Murray was done by public figures and newspapers who relentlessly linked his name to various scandals and alleged misdeeds — even though no indictments were ever issued.
I suggest that Mr. DeLeo remains as powerful as he is because the other power players in this state like it that way.
I don’t at all begrudge Berwick supporters voting for him. After all, if we never voted for someone who was down in the polls then said polls become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I also never really bought that having Berwick was hindering efforts to stop Coakley, not that that may not have been statistically true, but I was never motivated to stop Coakley.
I coordinated my town for Patrick, Obama, Warren and Markey I’m a Town Committee and Democratic State Committee member. Is that activist enough for you?
There are a few people on this site who have slung a lot of crap about Martha dating back to the primary with Capuano. Meanwhile, she’s continued to be the most forward-thinking, progressive and effective AG in the country on LGBT equality, on fighting foreclosures, on fair-pay, on reproductive rights, on school safety – on issue after issue where she could help ordinary people.
I want that concern Martha brings for ordinary people, that attention to the unglamorous and sometimes ideologically impure business of actually making government work, in the Governor’s office.
Martha hasn’t just gone around giving speeches telling activists what they want to hear. My life, and the lives of thousands of people, are better thanks to her work.
We’ll be canvassing Sunday in Arlington on Sunday at noon. Who’s with us?
Thanks for stating your Democratic party credentials. Now, about the progressive stuff…
Please clarify. What crap?
If you don’t think that she has faults and taken some anti-progressive positions, I don’t know that to say.
Her record on choice and LGBT rights is unassailable. No one disputes that. (Frankly, it’s scary that this is the constant drumbeat about her progressive record.) Her record on foreclosures is pretty good (not the best in the country by any stretch), it’s great on fair pay, and on anti-bullying she has been very good. It’s that last clause “on issue after issue where she could help ordinary people” that is the issue.
Are there other issues?
I’m concerned about her positions on drugs (and civil rights-related issues around that), corruption, casinos, privacy, her horrible record on police militarization and generally on her willingness to expand police and prosecutorial power, missed opportunities in the financial crisis, her bad choices and vision on health care, her unclear commitment to truly addressing income inequality, and her very generic positions on many important issues, like education.
I guess we’ll sweep all that under the rug because she challenged DOMA.
In the primaries she has won, she’s gone up against candidates who have staked progressive positions on issue after issue their entire careers. They weren’t just making empty promises to please progressives. Their work mattered too.
She’s been good on some things, mediocre on many, and terrible on others. She had no chance at my primary vote, and now that she’s the nominee, are her positions and promises enough to get excited and put in the work and resources rather than just cast a vote. From what I’ve seen, the answer is no. Her positions are generally mainstream Democratic generalities that on many important things aren’t far from Baker’s. I don’t doubt that she will be better than Baker. I do doubt that she will be much better, and I also doubt that Coakley (or Baker) will really tackle the most pressing issues facing the Commonwealth. Also, her casino position – WTF!?!?!
Please, continue to attack us without addressing our legitimate concerns. It’ll help.
The next governor of Massachusetts takes office in January. That governor will be Martha Coakley or it will be Charlie Baker. I don’t understand how anyone who claims to care about the issues on which Coakley is miles better than Baker, and who has experience in going out and doing campaign work, has to sit around waiting for sufficient inspiration to do some work now. Regular volunteers withholding their services may be worse then so called progressives withholding their vote. At least if you stay home or vote for Baker that’s only one vote being affected. Failing to canvass, failing to help this campaign identify supporters and get out the vote, can have a deeper impact than that.
I did not vote for Martha Coakley in the primary and I said all year I did not want her as a nominee, partially because of her own failings and partially because I predicted, apparently correctly, that all sorts of people would take their ball and go home. If I think about not going out on a particular weekend, I just imagine dozens of state agencies being staffed by Charlie Baker people, and Charlie Baker nominating the judges for the next four years, and Elizabeth Warren running for re-election on the same ballot as incumbent Governor Charlie Baker.
I think about the work that has been done to elect more progressives to the legislature, and to influence the bills that come out of Beacon Hill, and how we can pretty much forget all that with a Governor Baker vetoing anything and everything we might get done. That’s enough for me to go knock on doors for a candidate who is not my favorite.
You write, accurately, “I don’t understand how anyone who claims to care about the issues on which Coakley is miles better than Baker”.
That is the rub, though. I certainly believe that buffer zones and equal pay for women are necessary.
On the issues that, in my view, are crucial to our immediate future, Ms. Coakley is NO DIFFERENT from Mr. Baker. Ms. Coakley is NOT going to do anything to tax the wealthy, and neither will Mr. Baker. At least Mr. Baker is honest about it — Ms. Coakley dances and dodges with promises to “look into” it, or statements that she’s “open to investigating” it.
What do YOU think Ms. Coakley means when she promises to “work closely with the legislature” on tax and economic matters? I think it means that she won’t do anything that Bob DeLeo doesn’t like, and I think THAT means that she won’t do anything at all.
We’re not talking about “not my favorite”.
I’m from the Democratic Wing of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and Ms. Coakley is NOT my candidate.
I don’t expect her to take the lead on it. I do expect to do a lot of work over the next few years trying to move the ball down the field. Not doing anything is a far sight better then agitating on day 1 for another tax cut, which is what we can expect from Baker. Over the next few years we will have to do everything possible to elect some better legislators, to lobby the legislature, to lobby the governor, and to take the case on some of these issues to the people.
I consider it logically flawed to assert that because two candidates each fail to meet a certain baseline threshold that those candidates are equal. I am not aware of any election in history in which the two candidates actually were for all intents and purposes equal. I am aware of many elections in which, on issues I care about, they both were disappointing and I would not be overjoyed no matter who won.
If my job trying to make positive changes next year and beyond is going to be difficult, I have no interest in making it more difficult just because I’m yielding to my disappointment in the primary process.
I agree with Tom. What issues are those? Choice and LGBT rights are not pressing now.
If her campaign was showing that she was truly better on the most pressing issues, my mind might change. They haven’t, and it hasn’t.
This is honestly tough for me. I’m not filled with that same dread. We had lots of Republican governors and many of these actions were not completely unfortunate. In fact, there may be some/many incredibly competent people put in these positions by a Repub, as they have in the past (sometimes much better than Dems have). Filling these positions with people from Coakley’s inner circle is also not at all comforting.
This is not just about “choice and LGBT rights,” though I disagree that they’re “not pressing.” For the people involved they can get pressing in a hurry. This is a guy who demagogued the “bathroom bill” and picked Polito as his running mate.
Baker opposes earned sick leave (and has a bogus replacement plan to try to hide it). Coakley supports the ballot question.
Baker spent three years opposing the minimum wage, only to come around to it only when it was about to pass. Before that he wanted to expand EITC so employers were off the hook and instead the state paid to boost people’s meager incomes. Now he just wants to give employers a “offsetting” tax cut — so employers are off the hook and instead the state pays to boost people’s meager incomes.
But does he plan to raise taxes to cover this budget hit? Oh, no. He plans to cut taxes even more. He’s for Question 1 to repeal the indexing of the gas tax. He wants to eliminate the state’s corporate income tax for any business with up to $500K in net income. He wants to cut or eliminate a host of other taxes.
Baker will spend four years teaming up with Shaunna O’Connell to demonize every EBT recipient in the state, everyone on disability, everyone who might one day get a public pension. He’s full steam ahead on “education reform.” He’d lift the charter cap but he’s against universal pre-K, which Coakley’s strong for. He’s promoting natural gas, a/k/a fracking and pipelines. He wants to deregulate anything and everything he can. He wants an ACA waiver.
And I don’t want him or any of his “incredibly competent” people in the corner office.
How do you expect LGBT issues to become a pressing issue? Do you expect the composition of the legislature to change, or do you expect the legislature as it will likely be constituted to make a sharp right turn on LGBT issues?
OK on the sick leave thing. But I have been hearing for quite some time how, since a particular issue is a ballot question, it has no bearing on the governor’s race. Why is this different?
So you expect the legislature to grant an offsetting tax cut, or any of the tax cuts he is running on?
has been caused not cured by a doctor, apparently.
Most people don’t know/care what a libertarian is. If anything the word has a positive connotation “Decrease services” is too general. Doesn’t the legislature appropriate funds anyway?
Demean people down on their luck? Really.
On the economy A. According to Gov Patrick it’s doing pretty well and doesn’t need reviving. B. If Charlie Baker can influence the economy to some degree, and have his buddies get in on it (without any regular guy getting anything) I’ll be starting up a church because that will be a miracle. Also note when we’re talking about “buddies” there are plenty of well off connected people in this state currently benefiting from their friends in power.
None of these things are going to push anyone away from Baker, and Coakley has nothing that is drawing people to her. This is why her only move is “hey, I’m a woman, did you notice me opponenet is a man.”
And I don’t think she has. I don’t think that many of her supporters do either. And I certainly don’t see Doug Rubin on here asking us for input or firing us up.
This is a big problem that Merrimack Guy pointed out:
It will really backfire with the hardhat crowd that backed Brown last time. It certainly backfired on the other end of the income ladder with the VC crowd as well at the high tech conference. Having passion and knowledge about the issues that voters care about (hint: its not abortion or gay rights), and drawing strong contrasts with Baker on the issues where they do disagree (hint: its not abortion or gay rights, and sadly, not casinos either).
I always get the sense that she is still running for the next office on the ladder since she is bored at her day job, yet her day job seems to be the job she is running for when she pursues higher office. All we got for the Senate run was abortion and gay rights, and its all we are getting for the gubernatorial run. Romney-esque conversion possibilities aside, these are socially moderate Republicans she is losing to, that are far to the right of the Weld-Cellucci administration on bread and butter economics. Be a populist for chrissakes and hit him on his business record, turn it his best asset into a liability like Bush did to Kerry, Obama did to Romney, and Quinn is doing to Rauner out here in IL. At this point I have far more confidence that Quinn will remain Governor out here, than Coakley will become Governor back home. And unlike Coakley, Quinn is far from the ‘most popular politician in the state’.
nt
accusing someone of libertarianism is meaningful.
Obviously that doesn’t make for great campaign messaging.
Because I had no idea:
… BMG’s current attitude towards Martha Coakley. “Sclerotic” and “bilious” come more easily to mind.
This is bullshit. If you’re not fired up then there’s nothing to be told that is going to fire you up without I make something up. I’m not going to do that.
What is known is known. There’s not anything new to learn. Martha Coakley is right there. If you’re waiting for her to rip off the mask and reveal Don Berwick, you’re in for a letdown. If Elizabeth Warrens’ rousing cri de coeur doesn’t do it for you, then I am at a loss to top that. If Deval Patricks endorsement of Martha Coakley isn’t enough, what in the bluest fuck is ever going to be enough?
And besides the willful disregard of all that is known there is so much that some think they know… To take just one example, the BMG hive mind — in a near perfect example of wanting it both ways — has decided that Martha Coakley lets the innocent (Gerald Amirault) rot whilst letting the guilty (Keith Winfield) walk. You could not choose more similar cases with dissimilar, yet apparently unsatisfactory, outcomes. Solely on the basis of the outcomes some have concluded that her jurisprudence is suspect. Rather than saying jurisprudence is hard, everybody and their mum leaps in with opinions and conjecture and decide they know what they would do in Coakleys stead… which is, of course, oh so righteous.
So between the known and the misunderstood there’s little anybody can say so that you can get “fired up”. You’re going to have to sit down and decide if you believe Martha Coakley is good or not. Fire yourself up. Or not. But the magical-miracle-presto-digitalis-abraca-pocus enthusiasm machine is busted.
I also don’t understand the unnecessary crude reply. I supported another candidate, and was addressing those who are working actively for Martha Coakley. Good for you that you think everything is known. Can’t help it if I’m still learning especially when there is still time to do so. Charlie Baker will do this state, on balance, any good. His ideas of reform are punishing those down on their luck, and moving whatever he can into the less efficient and more costly private sector.
Is that it’s really hard to beat a set of bad idea with no ideas.
I was listening on primary night when Martha Coakley re-iterated support for the rights of workers, the eradication of the stigma of mental health, the protection of the working class against predatory financiers, strong public education, continued leadership in LGBTQ and strong and effective action on climate change.
I was listening, jconway. Did you listen? Apparently not, since you repeat this trope in contravention of all the evidence and in contravention of all that Deval Patrick, Maura Healey and Elizabeth Warren have repeatedly and forcefully stated about Martha Coakley. EIther you weren’t listening or you truly don’t, yourself, believe in any of the real and actual ideas she’s put forth…
I’m also against mental illness, for women’s rights and workers rights. The problem is those are vague enough stances that Charlie Baker can and has co opted them.
What hers plan to fix the T?
What’s her education fix?
Her income inequality fix?
Fixing gateway cities?
Keeping young people in Ma?
Affordable housing?
College?
Healthcare?
Her plan seems to be “I will fight for these priorities and, um, I’m a woman and I am AG”
I haven’t heard any specifics. She will lose without them.
I’ve been at least an active observer of hundreds of political campaigns over 20+ years working in politics. And this nonsense (wonky critics of candidates calling for more “specifics” on policy issues) happens every campaign, every time, to every candidate. But – nearly every time – the criticisms are as baseless as your charges here. So, some answers:
Regional investments in public transportation, etc, etc See: http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/777/6f/9/2652/Rising_to_the_Challenge.pdf
More investments in early childhood education, debt relief for college students, etc, etc. See: http://www.marthacoakley.com/issues/education
Education and workforce training investments, earned sick time, and support for unionization. Etc, etc. See:
http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/777/db/0/3506/BuildingAnEconomyOnOurTerms.pdf
Infrastructure investments, workforce triaing, etc. See here Transportation, Education and Jobs plans (all of which talk about GateWay Cities) here: http://www.marthacoakley.com/issues
?
Student debt relief, infrastructure changes, investment in higher education, immigration reform, civil rights, etc.
Support for Chapter 40B, homelessness prevention, etc, etc:
http://www.marthacoakley.com/issues/housing
Addressed above. See also here considerable efforts to fight the for-profit schools industry, e.g: http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2014/2014-06-25-for-profit-regulations.html
Healthcare?
Control costs, increase behavorial health funding, address disparities, etc, etc: http://www.marthacoakley.com/CaringForAll
Great, she wants to buy more buses. NOWHERE does she address how to pay for those “regional investments in public transportation”. Decreasing waste and increasing efficiency no doubt.
Education and workforce training investments, and earned sick time are irrelevant to income and wealth inequality. Of course they are needed. They do NOTHING to address the income and wealth concentration problem. Nothing.
NOWHERE in this long list of slogans does Ms. Coakley address the core issue — we need to raise taxes on the wealthy, and use the resulting increased revenue to fund SOME of our most urgent requirements. We need to clawback a portion of the enormous increase in personal wealth that the top 1% or 1/2% have accumulated, and use that to provide desperately needed disposable income to the rest of the 99%. THAT, in itself, will bring in far more new tax revenue than any handwaving anybody is doing right now.
I’d like SOMEBODY in our party — even Deval Patrick himself — to express the outrage that all of us should feel at the way his “Democratic” legislature cut his political legs off at the knees when he courageously did the right thing with his 2013 budget proposal.
Instead, all we hear is more of this insipid nothingness. It makes me wonder if perhaps Mr. O’Brien’s jobs mill extended to include the Massachusetts Democrat Party’s strategic staff.
By the way, nobody who appreciates the importance of raising new tax revenue should have ANY tolerance for the wave after wave of incompetence, public corruption and scandal that have characterized Massachusetts government for the past few years. I think I’ll retch if I hear another Democrat try to tell me that Probation Department conspiracy was “just patronage”. Jeesh.
Does ANYBODY in this party have any passion for the things we collectively hold dear?
… of the reply. It was out of order and bad form. I’m sorry.
Prior crudity notwithstanding, I remain fed up with this sort of nonsense. You have no excuse for ignorance about Martha Coakley and even if you did, you’d still have a fired up Elizabeth Warren and a barnstorming Deval Patrick to hang your enthusiasm upon. That you take the next few sentences to outline your understanding of Charlie Baker –whose been on the political scene in the CommonWealth for far less time than MC — italicizes the point that you have no excuse for not having an equally vivid outline of Martha Coakley.
In other words, you should stop thinking, stop analyzing, stop looking at actual facts, and instead begin repeating the party dogma helpfully provided by supporters like petr.
With supporters like you, and arguments like that, I too am just completely shocked that the rest of the hive mind hasn’t just sucked up and gone out to the barricades for her.
What a thoughtful question petr. How about a bold, progressive agenda for the state and a campaign that doesn’t resort to gender as a crutch whenever legitimate criticisms are levied against it? If only there was already a woman who had won a major statewide office against a serious Republican challenger on a bold progressive agenda as an example for Coakley to follow…
… with honey than with vinegar.
Unless it’s vinegar pie.
If this is a pep talk to rally the team, we’re in the deep weeds.
If I read oektb correctly, he/she just wants to hear from some of the other local loudmouths why Martha Coakley is worth supporting.
I think this is a fair request. I mean, we could all offer up something, but it would be good to hear from the Lurking Martha Masses.
The water is fine.
Not now. Not this far into the game. This is a fair question to ask of Deval Patrick, circa 2006 or even Barack Obama in 2008. But nobody asked that question about Deval in 2010 or Barack Obama in 2012.
Nobody is asking that of Hillary Clinton. Nobody’s gonna ask that of Joe Biden. And nobody should feel the need to ask to be “fired up” about Martha Coakley when, clearly, Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick are fired up. This is not Martha Coakley’s first go-round. Nor is it yours.
fenway and I wrote pro-Grossman diaries on the literal day before the primary. We were trying to fire people up.
It aint over till it’s over. I ask you again, how’s the voter outreach going?
You have half the party falling in line and the other half, in October, asking what she stands for and what she hopes to accomplish. That means Gov. Baker to me, and I’ve been nothing but gracious since the end of the primary.
Party endorsements of Martha Coakley, to date…
Deval Patrick, incumbent Governor
Elizabeth Warren, Incumbent Senior Senator
Maura Healey, AG Nominee
Steve Grossman, former candidate and Incumbent Treasurer
Don Berwick, former candidate.
Thems some heavy hitters. I don’t care if you don’t believe me. Why don’t you believe them? If these endorsements, and others including unions and EMILY’s list, represents only “half the party” I’m wondering if the other half has gotten lost? Where –no, check that– WHO are they? There are a few very vocal critics here but they are not anywhere near HALF the party.
What’s it going to take? If Deval Patrick, Elizabeth Warren, Maura Healey, Steve Grossman and Don Berwick all endorse her…? What’s it going to take to get you to at least STFU about it?
Telling someone who holds opinions different from yours to “STFU” is really bush-league. It is also not going to persuade anyone at all to adopt your opinions or support your candidate.
Try harder.
… as I did nothing of the kind. Asking someone under what conditions they will finally STFU is a far cry from simply telling them to STFU. Note the presence of the question mark at the end…
In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve not said word one (in this thread) about why, or why not, you or anybody should be persuaded or support my candidate. My argument has been solely and completely in opposition to the paucity of argument (and reading comprehension) posited here. If oetkb wants my permission to get fired up when there’s far more impactful endorsements out there he’s not getting it. If you wanna condemn me for what I wrote you’re going to have to actually read it correctly… By all means, if I’m out of line, go ahead and tell me. But don’t tell me I’m out of line for something you misread. And don’t tell me it’s my responsibility to tell you something new and get you all fired up about a candidate when that candidate has been well known for a long long time.
Vote for Martha Coakley. Or not. But don’t bungee in at the last minute asking for permission or some anecdote or for me to share some enthusiasm that’ll give you the adrenaline to drag yourself to the polls for a candidate you don’t like. suck it up. drag yourself to the polls in whatever mood you can muster. Or not. Choice is yours.
No, it isn’t. It’s the same thing. You’re telling them you want them to shut up. Couching it in a passive-aggressive “what would it take” construction doesn’t change the message.
… I want them to shut up. Because they are spouting nonsense that is as damaging to themselves as it is to the debate. Duh.
Of course, I also want a billion dollars. So I guess my refusal to go to Wall Street and ask ‘what would it take’ to make a billion dollars the easy way is all passive aggressive construction. duh on me, I guess.
What I want and what I will do for what I want are two separate things. That you conflate them to make yourself feel better about your confusion is on you.
I’m pointing out that you are behaving rudely to other members of this site, and suggesting that your rudeness is not persuading anyone to support your candidate.
I don’t think you’d go to your neighborhood bar and say to someone who’s talking, “What would it take to get you to shut the fuck up?” Why do you do it here?
… copped to the rudeness. I have not copped to trying to persuade anybody about anything regarding my candidate. That an argument is bogus and does not stand on its own is not, never has been, and never will be, a reason to accept my endorsement of any candidate and so I have never asked anyone to do that. Shooting down your argument is just shooting down your argument. It is not persuasion. You conflate these as you conflate the other things. As I said above, vote as you want. Just don’t try to bullshit me as you bullshit yourself.
Because I thought we were all adults here. I have been in a bar, and I’ve said that very thing. I’ve said it to my brother. Another brother has said it back to me in another instance when I wouldn’t shut about something he was right about but I wouldn’t admit it… I ask my teenage children “what’s it gonna take to get you to do your homework” all the time.
It’s just a simple question. If you would like me to phrase it differently I’ll make that effort. How’s this: if the overwhelming evidence presented so far isn’t good enough for you, what will be good enough for you to stop talking trash? Whether you believe it or not, it’s a sincere question.
You are explicitly refusing to try and persuade anyone, because you think we should already be persuaded, and if we aren’t, we should just shut up about it. Needless to say, we aren’t your brothers (at least, I’m not), and while your family may address each other in that way, it’s precisely because we are adults that we don’t do that. Just because you can speak rudely now that you’re an adult doesn’t mean everyone has to accept it. Now, instead of it being a reflection on your parents, it’s a reflection on you.
Please do make that effort. Also, please show me where I was “talking trash.”
Let us try a thought experiment: suppose, for the nonce, that somebody came to this blog with the dual claims that Martha Coakley was Deval Patricks second cousin and that Elizabeth Warren was Martha’s aunt. I would neither be 1) persuading anybody anything about Martha Coakley by saying this was pure bunkum and B) would, not, in the least, quail at asking the question “what’s it going to take to get you to STFU?” if this somebody persisted, in the face of press releases by both Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren debunking the purported relations.
I did not mean to imply that you were talking trash. I made a straight translation of the specific phrase to which you took exception… the ‘you’ in this instance was directed at the original person to whom the original phrase was directed. So, I wasn’t specifically accusing you of talking trash… but your scolding will do until some trash talking comes along 😉
By way of comparison, I love Hillary Clinton, but I personally know several activists who are not the least bit excited about the prospect of her candidacy for President and are asking what excites me about her. Maybe Democratic activists should have lots of reasons to be excited about Coakley by now (just as I think people should be excited about HRC after 25+ years of quality leadership) but my response to an HRC skeptic has never been as disdainful as yours to the people here who are clearly engaged but struggling to get excited. I play nice and make the best case I possibly can because you never know what’s going resonate with someone to the point that you really win them over. It can grow tiresome, but it’s the nature of the game.
I voted for Grossman and I was disappointed. After the primary, I immediately signed up to volunteer for Coakley because I think she is more desirable than Baker on pretty much every issue, albeit only marginally in the areas her supporters most frequently cite. Two weeks ago, I was preparing for a canvass in Boston with a few other Coakley volunteers when a woman with an Elizabeth Warren bumper sticker on the back of her Prius pulled over next to us. She introduced herself as a Berwick supporter and said she’ll vote for Coakley because she’s loyal to the Party, but she’s not the least bit excited. She asked us to get her fired up to the point that she might be willing to give up some time or money beyond that which she’ll spend to simply cast her vote in November. Nobody, including the organizer who was standing there, could make a pitch that she found compelling. She, like me, didn’t need to be convinced that Coakley is better than Baker, but there seems to be a prevailing sense among many of my liberal friends that Coakley is merely the best of a very weak field. For a very small minority of voters like myself, that’s enough to get us out phonebanking, knocking on doors, donating, and voting for her. But for most, it takes more than that.
To say that we should be excited because Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick are supporting her is pretty weak. They, too, are loyal to the Party. No matter who won the nomination, I don’t doubt that Patrick and Warren would have appeared alongside the Democratic candidate and showered him/her with praise. Elizabeth Warren is actively supporting all the red-state Senate Democrats, but that’s not enough to get me excited about the prospect of six more years of Senators Mark Pryor or Mary Landrieu; they’re simply the least bad of some pretty terrible options, but the’re Democrats so we support them by default.
Based on your comments here, petr, this discussion is clearly frustrating to you. I might be similarly frustrated if I were in your place. But unlike most of us here, you got your candidate, so rather than make those of us who aren’t as enthusiastic as you feel ignorant or lazy, it would be great if you or another Coakley supporter could suck it up and oblige when someone asks you to get them fired up about the person you’ve supported. I can speak only for myself, but I can’t imagine your comments here thus far have done much to inspire support for Coakley.
THAT IS WHAT IS SO FRUSTRATING!!!!!
If you are not fired up now. I’m not going to do it. Some other Coakley supporter isn’t going to do it. If Deval Patricks endorsement doesn’t fire you up, then mine won’t either. If Elizabeth Warren reasons can’t fire you up WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME? Or anyone?
It sometimes seems like Democratic activists have only two settings: euphoric hero worship and raging enmity… and since Coakley can’t provide with euphoria she defaults to being the object of the rage. Well, Dems might have to go through this election sober: the near-orgasm of having a messiah is absent here, always has been… Coakley is human (so are Grossman and Berwick and Clinton and Obama and… yadda yadda yadaa,…) and if Dems can’t drag themselves to the polls absent am adrenaline kick that comes from hero worship and, yes,
suck it up,
then you may not be mature enough for the franchise.
I know I’m not the only one who has felt insulted by a number of your remarks. Guess what? Insulting people doesn’t actually incline them to agree with you. Really, it doesn’t. Your favorite won the primary. A number of people who weren’t with her are still not with her, and won’t be. Suck it up.
There’s often a bit of vinegar in what petr writes. If you don’t want points clearly etched in acetic acid, you may have to look to someone else.
In this case. I thought petr’s “crude” reply about had a number of well-turned phrases that bring the debate into sharp focus– and I can understand and sympathize with oektb’s original point, too.
Neither Elizabeth Warren nor Deval Patrick get to cast my vote, that is MY privilege and mine alone.
This kind of over-the-top arrogance will defeat Ms. Coakley in November. I hope those who recommend and approve it will pay attention.
… since you’re not spitting mad at either the Democratic Sen Warren nor the Democratic Gov Patrick, and since you’ve long expressed a full throated support of Democratic values, one assumes you voted for both he Democratic Sen Warren and the Democratic Gov Patrick based upon their same support for values you’ve long expressed and for their demonstrated sober-mindedness, perspicacity and wisdom.
Which leaves one to wonder why you’ve, now, abandoned the choices you’ve made previously? If you voted for Warren and/or Patrick to make and enforce laws upon your behalf, why, all of a sudden, do you not trust their judgement when it comes to Martha Coakley? You’ve boxed yourself into a corner and, in response, you keep boxing. That kind of passive-aggression also leaves one to wonder if the things you say you dislike about Coakley are really the things you dislike about Martha Coakley…?
Yes, I did enthusiastically support and vote for Deval Patrick in both of his campaigns and for Elizabeth Warren in hers.
In my view, Martha Coakley does NOT embrace the values that I see clearly evident in Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren. Both Mr. Patrick and Ms. Warren have consistently acted from those values in their conduct of their office. Ms. Coakley has not. I need to add, parenthetically, that I would have a hard time supporting Barack Obama were he able to run again, for the same reasons that I do not support Ms. Coakley — I see a mountain of evidence that Mr. Obama does not, in fact, share the values I hold dear.
In this election, none of Mr. Patrick, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Obama are on the ballot. Similarly, Mr. Patrick and Ms. Warren each get to cast their own vote — my vote is mine. I appreciate their input, and the decision of who I vote for is MINE, not theirs.
I encourage you to redouble your effort to hear me when I say that in my view, Martha Coakley has abandoned my values. That is HER choice, not mine. I get that you are convinced that I am mistaken in that perception, but nevertheless the “corner” that you think I’ve “boxed” myself into is a conundrum of your own perception.
I know you find this hard to imagine, but I really DO have more insight into my feelings and perceptions than you.
You know what they call a bunch of people who get in a circle and just talk to each other. Well, it may feel good, but you don’t meet any new people that way.
Great. Tune us out. I’m sure you have more important things to do.
I hope your plans include a strategy for surviving the incoming Baker administration.
Who won’t even vote for Coakley to a woman working hard to elect her.
So everyone who posts on this is just talking to each other? Okay.
I spent two hours phone banking tonight. What is read here reflects what I heard on the phone. Of the fifty people with whom I spoke — all identified as solid Democrats — several told me they’d vote begrudgingly for her. “Ill vote for her but I won’t like it”.
I would rather listen to these voters than dismiss them. Their vote counts, too.
I’ve been nothing but gracious since the primary, fairly critical of Baker and fair to Coakley as best I can. But this campaign is poorly run and not connecting with anybody-and if dedicated Democrats aren’t motivated to show up for a candidate it’s the fault of the candidate and campaign not the voters. Didn’t you all bash Berwick voters for backing a bad campaign? And yet, 10% more than expected showed up to support him in spite if it being a bad campaign. And we all acknowledged that going into the primary.
Let’s admit where Coakley is failing, use the on the ground data and anecdotes from people like Sabutai to see where the pitch can be corrected, avoid amateur hour like the tech conference, and refocus this campaign.
My point is “suck it up for Coakley” is not only an insulting strategy but a losing one. Let’s focus on ways to make her and her campaign better so that it can defeat Baker. A goal this Berwick supporter at least is still fired up to accomplish.
Tom’s reservations are one thing to respond to with anger, but the shoot the messenger responses to the OP and dedicated activists like John May is not fair or productive to our goals in November.
I appreciate you outlining why a vote for Coakley makes the most sense.
Is is the same song, or is it just a sampled riff?
/
But, if Martha had won that election, we would not have Senator Warren now. Because Senator Warren would not have run against “Senator” Coakley (unless her current recommendation is not truthful)
I only wish it was as obvious as it should be. Meanwhile, Coakley just needs to borrow Warren’s play book, forget the social issues and go populist on Baker. It’s the one approach Baker has no answer for.
But apparently that makes me a bad Democrat, a Baker supporter, or my favorite-a sexist.
Whenever the Democratic party nominates bland centrists we lose.
Having an opinion on the effectiveness of the campaign’s message doesn’t, by itself, make anyone “a bad Democrat.” But misgivings about the messaging can’t justify sitting this one out. When the party has a bland nominee with lousy messaging it needs bodies knocking on doors MORE than usual, not less.
Step 1: Carry Coakley over the finish line. Step 2: Work to push the issues we find important. For anyone who cares about a fraying social fabric, sitting idly by and – potentially – watching Charlie Baker win a winnable election is not a valid option.
You again attempt to assume away the fundamental rub.
The issue that some of us have with the Democratic nominee is more than “a bland nominee with lousy messaging”. I get that a fundamental rule of marketing is that you focus on your product’s weaknesses (if the product truly has outstanding reliability, there is no need to harp on it).
We face more than a “fraying social fabric”, and working hard to elect yet another governor who shows no interest in confronting the major issues that face us strikes me as a waste of time.
I intend to, instead, expend my energy on matters where my contribution is likely to make a positive difference.
He vowed never to vote for her, he won’t and its a lost cause. But the OP, the frustrated Berwick supporters, and the frustrated people sabutai has called are in fact working their asses off for Coakley and voting for Coakley precisely since none of us want Gov. Baker.
Tom worked his ass off for her last cycle against Brown, and vowed not to do so again, precisely because her tone deaf, top-down campaign ignored valid concerns from progressive grassroots activists. Concerns that are being dismissed out of hand from people I respect (you, striker, Fred, and Judy) and from people that clearly have never respected the grassroots in the first place (mainly petr). Saying ‘Do what your told’ and ‘Warren aint good enough for ya’ is condescending, pedantic, and counter productive.
Claiming, as you are, and others are, that it will be our fault if she loses is just as bad. I am saying
Dear Martha:
You wanna be Governor? Wake the fuck up and listen to us. Here is how to win.
It’s the economy stupid, it’s the middle class, quit talking about social issues and trying to nationalize this race. Period. That’s it.
I will take Harmony, Sabutai, and other frustrated canvassers at their word when they say they hear folks saying they will hold their nose, but ain’t that excited about Coakley and ain’t that worried about Baker to really care this cycle. It’s what I heard when I first phonebanked for Quinn a few months ago. Then he was down almost 20 pts in the polls and had the worst approval rating of any incumbent Governor in the country.
Now, his approval rating is still in the toilet, but he has clearly tied corporate raider Rauner to a host of bad deals, outsourcing American jobs, and taking the money and running while being on record opposing raising the minimum wage. So there are a lot more undecideds now, who tend to break the incumbents way when the economy rebounds.
And it yes. Every single positive ad touts Quinns job creating programs that have already worked, once he hopes to pass, and show him in active rolls (driving a car, mowing the lawn, being at a desk) that show a caring guy in charge.
Coakley needs to do ads like that too. Positive ones that show her taking on big business, big banks, and touting job creating plans and her support for paid leave and raising the minimum wage. Ads nailing Baker as just another businessman cutting a check and running away. Make his business record a liability. Bring up the 5,000 state jobs cut. Bring up opposition to paid leave. If she does that she can reset this, and the on the ground optics help her in a way they never could help Quinn. She should be up 20 points, and the fact that she isn’t is due to her campaign, but it can be rebounded with the right kind of focus.
It is up to us, the grassroots who know whats up, to tell her that her current strategy is failing and a new one needs to be implemented. That’s an act of love, not an act of disloyalty.
But if you honestly think planned parenthood, hobby lobby, and emilys list are enough to beat Baker than by all means keep at it.
It’s not at Tom, who’s a lost cause. It’s not at anybody not enamored of Coakley but canvassing nonetheless. It’s directed at people on and off BMG who generally are active volunteers but have not been in this general election. Where I take issue is this idea that it’s OK to validate and even encourage a refusal to volunteer because you don’t consider the campaign’s messaging. You can critique the campaign’s performance without jumping to the defense of folks who say they don’t want to canvass for her because she’s insufficiently inspiring to them.
You say “keep at it” as if I have any input into what ads she runs. I don’t. That’s Doug Rubin’s department. All I know is the next governor will be one of two people and I believe there is a big difference between those two people so I knock on doors regardless of my opinion of the candidate’s commercials. Although I believe I actually have seen ads hitting on big banks and sick leave.
It was true for Gore, true for Kerry, true in 2010 here and could be true now. You and I both argued that no amount of passion, work , or disciplined effort would nominate Berwick since he ran a fundamentally bad campaign. That logic cross applies here.
We are having two different conversations. You are saying liberals, and for some reason you really like to single out Berwick supporters , have to suck it up for the party and if they fail to work it’s their fault Baker is elected. I am saying:
a) we are working (we meaning berwick supporters and lefty Coakleu critics, I’m working for Quinn)
b)our work isn’t making the impact it could since this campaign sucks
So yes I want Doug to take the 15 minutes of his day to read what Sabutai, harmony, johnt may, and other folks on the ground are saying and start tailoring the response. And perhaps we are over cautious and pessimistic, but I felt the same way about Brown and don’t want to say I told you so a second time. It doesn’t make me feel happy or smug, it makes me incredibly sad when good people waste a lot of time on a failed effort that could’ve been successful.
I intend to skip your “Step 1” and proceed directly to your “Step 2”.
The second step is independent from the first.
.. had that occurance came to pass, we might be all enthused now about the prospect of a “Governor Warren” at this moment. And life would still be good.
After all, Robert Reich didn’t turn around and run for senator after he lost his 2002 gubernatorial bid. Plus Warren would have been tagged a loser and then we’d be discussing our “lackluster support of Warren “
On women’s rights, the environment, and the basic philosophy of government there is a huge gap between Coakley and Baker. The shape-shifter Baker would like us all to believe that this year’s ‘nice’ Baker is the real Baker, but until recently he was not smart enough (his own words) to understand if humans were causing climate change. He’s ready to claim that the Hobby Lobby case has little effect-patently false. And even as he is playing nice, he is still demoninv the poor with his comments on welfare, In all these cases, there is a huge difference between Coakley and Baker. Baker’s record in the Celluci administration also indicates that he may be quite willing to embark on extremist libertarian schemes if he gets a chance. As for the comment that Coakley gave other Democrats the finger that is ridiculous. I voted for Berwick, but Coakley got more votes. She’s miles better than Baker.
About the environment or hobby lobby. Not the voters out there in the actual state, the ones who do their civic duty but don’t have the time due to jobs or parenting stress to come on here and debate these issues. I am a strong proponent of womens rights and fighting climate change, but I’ve been a canvasser for enough years in Massachusetts and the Midwest to know that those issues do not decide elections. They may decide primaries, but they don’t decide general elections.
Come November, its always about jobs, paying their bills, having their kids go to good schools, and getting the *bleeping* trains to run on time. And having the state take care of kids instead of killing them by neglect and having the health care websites function, are also part of the basic social contract that is fraying, even in ‘solidly progressive Massachusetts’. Fixing that social contract, making the state fair, and getting the players to pay their fair share should be the cornerstone of any campaign. Baker is upping his social moderation and talking about vocational programs for inner city youth precisely because he gets it. Coakley talking about Hobby Lobby shows she doesn’t get it. Or her handlers don’t.
There’s a huge difference between saying Coakely is not exciting and claiming that she does not espouse Democratic or progressive values. If Baker gets elected and demonIzes those on ‘welfare,’ privatizes essential public services, and guts environmental regulation you will be able to see a real difference in values in action.
Martha Coakley did not get out the vote needed to defeat Scott Brown. Then what happened? We got a watered down Dodd-Frank bill, constant criticism of the President, and lock step votes with Mitch McConnell. Do we want to make the same mistake again by substituting Charlie Baker? She is working hard to get elected, and her game plan is to mobilize identified Democratic voters. To get over the top slightly less than half of independents will have to be won over. And look at the ticket. 4 out of 6 of the contested statewide candidates are competent experienced women. The others are young or have not held a state office before. All have something to contribute to make the state better. It is a proud moment for the Democratic Party to put up a slate, not seen before. Mr. Baker and Ms. Polito don’t come close. I will be out canvassing today for our ticket. Although this is a party line endeavor, everyone who is running on the Democratic side has the welfare of the public firmly in mind.
Very wary of wading in here, but there is an elephant (not a Republican one) that needs to be noted.
What I’m hearing here is a reflection of what I’m hearing elsewhere from non-activists. Activists are just a special case of voter, and the voters are expressing a lot of what I’m reading here.
People may feel free to berate fellow activists, but I’m just trying to imagine petr canvassing and getting door after door slammed in his/her face after telling people to SFFU, be mature, and vote for Martha.
Like it or not, we, the candidate, and the campaign do not get to decide what it is that voters use to make up their mind. Our ability to say why people should get excited about Coakley (and yes, “excited” works best of all) is limited; creating that excitement is the job of the candidate and the campaign. People like Doug Rubin are responsible.
This isn’t at all different than a company that is not selling enough of their product to stay in business. It needs to expand its market. Noting the flaws of the competitor(s) only gets you so far. Berating your potential customers works about as well as it works here. What is needed is something to draw in those potential customers. To do that, one needs to understand these customers and modify the product to create the draw. That’s what the Coakley campaign needs to do.
The rest of us are just salespeople. Even the best sales folks can fail if what they are selling just doesn’t click with the customer.
I’m all on-board with rallying the troops. I’m just saying they need more to work with. In my own experience, I’ve connected best with people when they, I, and the candidate are all on the same page about some particular issue. It’s a tough sell when the best I can give them is “the candidate is open to looking into it.”
I assume you’re kidding, but I’m sure he doesn’t do that.
But doing it here might be almost as damaging. There are a few dozen people who actually read this thing.
Yes, that was my point.
.. that your polite, but inconsistent position, will de facto trump my caustic, but true, position.
I hope it doesn’t shock your conscience that I have a decidedly greater regard for the reading ability of those “few dozen people who actually read this thing.” That would be truly funny.
… my acceptance of other people’s differing positions is “inconsistent.”
I guess that’s one way to look at it.
Sorry, kirth is right on.
The business and marketing world talks about “impressions” when counting the number people who see or hear an advertisement. I’m pretty sure that your rude and bullying commentary has made two or three orders of magnitude (100-1000x) more impressions than the 20-30 houses you might visit in an afternoon of GOTV.
I wrote earlier about the bullying tactics of too many Martha Coakley supporters. Comments like yours exemplify what I mean.
As you can see from my screen name, it’s been awhile since I chimed in on this site. Anyway, a few obvious but overlooked things have dragged this horse back to the pond:
1). Coakley might not be energizing her base the way we’d like to see but neither is Baker on the Republican Side. There’s no shortage of Fisher supporters who are either sitting this out, supporting Scott Lively, or covertly supporting Coakley. Needless to say, I think Coakley is in better shape with her base than Baker is with his. It’s just the Scott Brown dems and unenrolled we need to keep on our side.
2). Baker is trying to keep his real views and positions under wraps. All one needs to do is Google his statements and positions from 2010, such as his vow to fire 5,000 state workers which would only make the unemployment situation worse. These are issues we and the campaign need to call Baker out on. Doing so, would shore up the base and expose Baker the Faker as the flip flopper he truly is.
Sadly, your post describes the “race” for governor. Is that what we’ve become. I’ve posted his quote before so forgive me for posting it once again, but it’s all I have at the moment: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum….” Noam Chomsky
I think Coakley is far better than Baker. However, an ideal match up( one that would fire up the bases) would have been Don Berwick versus Mark Fisher. For once I’d like to see a race, focused on firing up the bases rather than pandering to those low information unenrolleds who treat elections like popularity contests.
A view of polling crosstabs revealed that Mr. Berwick’s support was lopsidedly concentrated among those making over $100,000. That’s some “base”.
*
If you are tired of elections being decided by low information voters, your only relief is likely to be emigration. Even then, I don’t know where that would put you.
I totally agree with this. Coakley isn’t doingn that. She thinks women’s rights , gay rights, climate change, Chris Christie and Big Dig stories that didn’t gain any traction last cycle are they key. They aren’t. It’s the economy solid, and Baker so far looks and sounds like somebody with a plan-it’s not a great one but it sounds better than the hodgepodge of interest group bullet points Coakley has methodically and dispassionately ticked off her list.
Some here just never liked her, I’ve always felt she was a terrible candidate who would run a Republican into the Corner Office. I haven’t seen anything from her campaign to change that significantly, granted, Baker is in some regards a worse candidate. But we shouldn’t be accused of disloyalty for demanding competency from our candidate.
I think she needs to just focus on economic policy differences, particularly the sick leave ballot question which she favors but Baker doesn’t.
I also think the members here need to get over her senate loss because that seems to be the issue her critics here have.
She should be at least 20 points ahead of Baker in the polls and it’s up to folks like you to make it happen…No excuses.
I won’t go through the whole list, but the loss to Brown is a minor issue on the list of reasons people don’t want to vote for her.
disappeared with her Primary victory. Contributors only referred to that loss in the context of whether she could win or not against Mr. Baker. So that point is moot.
****
Gaining twenty points in the polls is not really within the capacity of campaign volunteers. Volunteers can certainly swing elections, but those elections either have to be small or close.
…as first there is is:
… and then there is this:
Setting “methodically and dispassionately” as, somehow, opposite to “competency” reveals something more about your possibly skewed perspectives: I don’t think you really understand ‘competence’ as much as you think you do. Or, at least, I think you mistake passion for competence and further use that as excuse to mistake anyone lacking in passion as insincere: ‘dispassionately’ becomes a form of fakery for you. This is not a trait limited to you, since a lot of ‘activist’ types here both express and require that same sort of passionate intensity and disparage candidates lacking in them. That’s why this very thread both bemoans ‘lackluster’ and asks for reasons to get ‘fired up.’ And it’s why those self-same activists types so virulently dislike Martha Coakley with such –ahem — passionate intensity: she doesn’t give them what they want.
Is there anything wrong with ‘passionate intensity’? Maybe not in and of itself, but it can be faked far more easily than competence can be faked. Even when real, passionate intensity eventually burns itself out: it cannot be sustained for very long; barely the length of a campaign and certainly never the length of a full term. If you use passion as your only barometer, you’re bound — every time — to be disappointed.
And, there is nothing wrong with a direct competence that is both methodical and dispassionate. In a CommonWealth demonstrably tired of election after election, each with a new Jesus, this might be a true blessing after all.
A truly “methodical and dispassionate” analysis of the current situation would lead to a clear conclusion that income and wealth concentration is the central and must pressing issue. It would recognize that a long list of the other issues — universal pre-K, public transportation, infrastructure, public higher education, … — can be solved by the increased in broad-based tax revenue brought about by the increase in consumer spending brought about by transferring currently-concentrated wealth from the offshore tax-free bank accounts of the very wealthy into the wallets of the rest of us.
I join you in being weary of a “new Jesus” in each election cycle. I join you in seeking a more “methodical and dispassionate” campaign/candidate. Where we differ is that, in my view, the purpose of that “methodical and dispassionate” campaign and candidate should be the advancement of our shared values, rather than the advancement of our party (for its own sake) or the candidate.
In my view, we are not discussing campaign styles. We are, instead, discussing the heart and soul of our party — the values, and our commitment to them, that either join us or tear us asunder.
But she’s much more in line with the values most on this site share than she gets credit for being. She’s really not much different from Elizabeth Warren. The only discernable difference is she doesn’t have the same warm and fuzzy personality that Warren has.
For what it’s worth, Coakley wasn’t my first choice either. Grossman but she’s miles better than the alternative(Baker) which is Grossman and Berwick wasted no time uniting behind her.
I don’t experience Ms. Warren as “warm and fuzzy”, perhaps because I know her best from the many video clips of her questioning of various figures (public and private) in the banking and finance industry. I have a hard time picturing Ms. Coakley destroying a pompous and incompetent regulator the way Ms. Warren did several times. This is why I feel that Ms. Warren is FAR more effective as Senator than Ms. Coakley could ever have been.
I am eager to be proved mistaken in this regard, should Ms. Coakley be elected. I agree that Mr. Baker will not do anything about these issues.
I uprated the rest of what you’ve written because it’s sound. But then you get a little hyperbolic here. I agree that we are not discussing campaign styles. I disagree that there is, between “join us” and “tear us asunder”, as large a gap as that between the perfect and the good.
Agreed.
However large the gap is, it is large enough to have caused a fair amount of rancor between you and me, at least in our exchanges here.
My intent is to remind all of us that I think we share the same values, and that these values are important — to each of us.
His base is more energized because there are several juicy ballot questions for it (the base) to vote for (and against). It’s built in GOTV.
While they are in the voting booth they will vote for the R.
Most of the GOP base voted for Mark Fisher and most of them are sitting it out. They despise Baker, more than the Dems do.
Coakley has the built in support of those who vote yes on the sick leave ballot question. Not to mention those who are voting for Maura Healy
Or are you just guessing?
I’m thinking it’s the latter.
And I know that none of the previous ones alienated their party’s base like Baker did.
Even Weld held onto the base against the more socially conservative Silber.
nt
How far back would you go….Back to the Calvin Coolidge Era??
I live in a Red Zone. Our town is purple, I guess, but where I live, it’s red, red, red. Canvassing is tough as the homes are few and far between. Most of my neighbors are red voters. They’re all voting for Charlie. We have a few Tea Party Loons and none of them have a Charlie Baker lawn sign, not one. When Scott Brown ran, they were everywhere. Not sure if that answers your question.
So, those Tea baggers do comprise a large portion of the 13% who are registered republicans. That’s 3.25% of the electorate that is potentially sitting home instead of pulling the lever for the GOP ticket. I’d wager a bet many will vote for Scott Lively as a protest vote.
If Coakley doesn’t excite you, the stark difference between the LT. Gov. Candidates should. Steve Kerigan impresses me as a being a great progressive and he’s fairly young, meaning he’ll be a great candidate for the corner office in four or eight years. Also, keep in mind the stark difference between him and the Sarah Palin wannabe(aka Karyn Polito). Do you really want her being in line for the corner office????
Isn’t that how it goes?
For LG our candidate is a progressive man against a conservative woman. Gender is not the issue; values and principles are.
Party is #1
Gender is #2
So in this instance 1 trumps 2. It’s math.
I just wish Murray was still LG.