Talking Points Memo: Is Martha Coakley About To Blow Another Major Race In Massachusetts?
Coakley’s late drop-off seems eerily reminiscent of the 2010 special election against upstart Republican candidate Scott Brown, when the Democrat blew a huge lead, fell behind in the final stretch, and went on to lose.
Very disturbing statistics in the article, with an appalling trend chart. Nothing irreversible — remember Obama after the first debate — but we now have trouble here in River City.
Please share widely!
Don’t get me wrong – the race is indisputably very close, and Coakley could lose. But comparing this race to Scott Brown in 2010 is just facile. Very few of the factors that really drove the result in 2010 are present in this race, IMHO.
And it’s one we can no longer dismiss. Has she run an entirely different kind of campaign than the one she ran before? I would argue no. She ran a fronteunners campaign, has run like an incumbent in a year when challengers in either party are doing well, and has run in a way that has not inspired her base to turnout in force. These factors could change, and the environment, even in MA-is hostile to the incumbent party and the President’s party so it would’ve been present against a Grossman or Berwick. But her inability to take a natural partisan advantage towards the Democrats in this state, even in a tough cycle like this one, is on her.
Deval, Grossman, Bump, Keating and even Tierney survived tough challengers in a bad electoral environment. Coakley did not in her special, and might not here. The candidate is most definitely a common factor.
Scott Brown has more charisma in a single Cosmo centerfold than Charlie Baker in a lifetime of publicity stills.
But he did beat Coakley, that is for sure. And, again, she hasn’t run an especially strong campaign, as a matter of public perception, although her ground operation seems to be in good order.
Turnout will be crucial for a Coakley victory in this off-year election. I think she will win.
Pretty sure most people here were fairly dismissive of his political abilities, charisma on the stump, or political intelligence. Obviously, he made a serious mistake running in NH, one I expect to come to fruition. But otherwise he ran a good campaign against Coakley, certainly a better one than she ran against him or Baker.
Baker is running a much better campaign this time. He is still gaffe prone, but my own prediction about how bad sweetheart-gate would be has not borne out. It bounced off him fairly easily, and most pundits concluded that he won the first debate. They have biases and copy to sell, but they also have an impression on the double digit levels of undecideds we are seeing. I also suspect most of the independent support will go to the challenger along with the undecideds.
So she really has hit a ceiling in terms of getting new voters, she has to make sure that her precentages hold and to make sure Charlie is at his floor. Exhibiting more fire as JimC pointed out and working hard as Fenway has pointed out are steps in the right direction. But I honestly feel that if the election was tomorrow, she would lose. She and Quinn seem to be going in opposite directions, she should strongly adopt his strategy which hits the bad corporate policies of their opponent hard while extolling bread and butter populism. Get the base out.
Much of the national political media, and some local scribes, had this article written in their minds the night of the primary. We’ve got a close race, which most of us expected going into the year. I, for one, never bought for a second the 20-point leads Coakley had over Baker in polling before the primaries. She can win, she can lose. And it’s our job to do what we can to help her win.
… of the 2010 Gubernatorial where Charlie Baker started September with about 34% and was at… tada… 42% by this time in October.
The only thing to see here is what you want to see…
Baker ran a bad campaign vs Patrick. He lost by 6 points. Brown ran a terrible campaign vs. Warren. He lost by 8 points.
Baker is now running a pretty OK campaign; Coakley about the same — definitely better than 2009-2010, but still missing some inspiration and clarity. I don’t think we should be surprised that it’s very close.
I’m more worried about Shaheen than Martha, but in the end I think both will win.
Coakley’s cool manner does provoke some anxiety. I’m reminded of Obama’s cool manner after the conventions, when McCain seemed to be on the move and Sarah Palin was drawing record crowds.
But, unlike her, he had never lost an election and was drawing his own record crowds. I’m basically calm, and I think she’ll win, but sometimes it would be nice to see her bring some fire. And I don’t mean going negative, but pounding hard for what’s at stake.
He lost the 2000 primary for Illinois’ 1st Congressional District against incumbent Rep Bobby Rush, who said
Rush lost a lot of friends after that nasty race. Not enough to lose his seat though, it’s a live boy/dead girl kind of safe. Jackson in the adjacent district had paid for a hooker with campaign funds and they still voted him in his primary.
I appreciate the correction.
My general point stands — Obama hadn’t lost an election everyone in the country knew about.
If you had been alive and aware in the 60’s you would have known that Bobby Rush was a well known national political figure.
So now you are wrong two times.
This time it’s for the reminder that it’s sometimes pointless to engage with you.
And guess what, if I’m wrong about that? My original point still stands. Obama did not have baggage to shake off. Coakley does.
Obama had no hope of winning and he knew that going in. It was mainly a race to raise his profile, which largely succeeded, and to test run the post-racial politics to which it failed there but won the attention of a white consultant named David Axelrod and power finders like Larry Crown and Penny Pritzker.
Coakley lost a 30 point lead, took a vacation, and blew an election so badly it became a historic event.
There is nothing anywhere that says Obama thought he would lose. Most cite his overconfidence as the issue driving what was later characterized as a “miscalculation”
I don’t want to recap Coakley 2010, but suffice to say there are no parallels to Obama/McCain in 2008.
What happened was that Obama led (not for the first time, nor the last) with his hubris. From a very good recap in the September 9, 2007 New York Times:
That is not “Obama had no hope of winning and he knew that going in”
I remember that race very well. Rush kicked Obama’s ass by running against Hyde Park and Harvard. The slogan on the streets was that Obama was “too bright and too white”.
But you were wrong on the facts and my political leanings don’t change that. You could have google this in 30 seconds. I always do when I use words like “never.”
You should have just admitted that you were wrong or said nothing. But no, you had to come back and add to it.
Now you are toss it out that
I get that you’re probably a young person so you don’t know how to act. I’ll end it with that.
I admitted I was wrong, when I was. When you decided to make it personal, I reacted. I never even mentioned your political leanings.
I’d take back that downrate if I could. Life’s too short.
Sometimes you don’t argue in good faith. That is what’s pointless.
You people just need to put or shut up. She’s the nominee and this site needs to start supporting her more enthusiastically. Unlike Baker, she won her party’s nomination fair and square.
That’s about the only message she and most of her supporters had since April. It’s clearly not working. Maybe try a different tactic other than blaming your base.
Our reasons for not liking Martha Coakley? We’ve done that. What else do we have, besides our votes? I’m going to put up my vote where my conscience tells me to. You telling me to put up or shut up doesn’t make me want to vote for Coakley.
If she is not in trouble then it really doesn’t matter whether or not everyone on the site is all rah-rah for Coakley. It only matters if she *is* in trouble.
not win the nomination “fair and square”? Fisher got on the ballot; Baker walloped him.
After jumping over many hurdles. You forget the convention shenanigans, the million dollar bribe, the extraordinary party primary endorsement that allowed Baker use of party resources, the still unresolved lawsuit. Then there’s debates which Baker basically made himself unavailable for. They had 1 radio debate or something. No Boston Media Consortium debate. It was a joke.
I’m probably even forgetting a bunch of stuff. No way was it fair and square.
Because that’s the problem as illustrated by David’s response. people seem conveniently unaware of Baker’s many flaws most of which are glaring but they’re all too willing to pounce on Coakley for so much as sneazing the wrong way.
If the party would unite behind her, she wins, hands down. If you end up with Baker, it will be the fault of the party.
Stop posting here … or anywhere … and get off your butts and start knocking on doors! The negative attitudes expressed here won’t gain Martha … or us … a single vote. Shame on all of you.
If this were the average Governor’s race thread there would be over 100 comments, we are too busy to run it up that high.