Back in April, I attended the Gubernatorial Forum hosted by Progressive Massachusetts during its Second Annual Policy Conference. During the session with Coakley, the moderator (Jordan Berg-Powers) asked her how, especially in the aftermath of her poorly run special election campaign against Scott Brown, she planned to win the primary and allay concerns that she wouldn’t be able to beat Charlie Baker. To her credit, she didn’t at all shrink from the question. She spoke at length about how, among other things, she and her family thought long and hard about the decision, and how she had a great organization working for her.
And then with that damned-near-patented, nonchalant shrug of hers, she said something that caught my attention (starting roughly at the 2:25-mark): “Aaand, for what’s it’s worth, if you look at the polls, I’m way ahead in the primary. And I’m the only Democratic candidate who can beat Charlie Baker.” And then, OF COURSE, she immediately backtracked somewhat, and then muddied the point altogether: “I don’t rely on those polls, to be honest with you. And I know that they change, but they haven’t change since last Fall. And …”
… And to me, right now, these somewhat off-hand comments speak volumes as to why she lost, and why Massachusetts Democrats lost.
She didn’t lose because of a lack of effort or hustle, as was the case back in 2010. She didn’t lose because she was “icy” or some other personality defect. And she didn’t lose because she’s “a loser” or “Martha Chokely,” or that she resembled anything like that sort of cheap, inane, and mean-spirited analysis. In fact, I suspect in many ways she ran her campaign exactly as she wanted to: she rode the strengths of her name recognition and record of public service, minimized gaffes, and worked very hard.
But she lost because her campaign lacked substance when it came to the issues and policy. She dodged taking difficult stances, and she failed to detail much of an agenda. Think about it from the perspective of the average voter: she clearly expressed support for Pre-K education and earned sick time–both great things, mind you–but what else? She had little to say about the state’s most pressing issues, like the high cost of housing and health care. And she seemed absurdly afraid to say anything about taxation. (Don Berwick, of course, had a lot to say about these issues. Just take a look, for example, at the videos of his session from the same forum. The same goes for Evan Falchuk, too, by the way.) In the general, she, like Baker, moved to the middle to such an extent that, as this great WBUR editorial put it, the two “often seem[ed] to be scrimmaging between the 40 yard lines.” In her case, voters eventually took notice and wondered again if she cared.
While Coakley benefited from a rather obnoxious local media feedback loop (her name recognition drove polls, which in turn drove coverage, which drove her name recognition, etc.) that was difficult for the other primary candidates to cut through, it didn’t have to be this way. Democratic activists could and should have done more to demand that the election and her campaign be more issue-based. And while Baker deserves credit for doing quite a bit to improve his surface appeal, it wasn’t inevitable that Coakley was going to lose to him, nor even that this race was going to be close. And no, this loss isn’t the fault of Evan Falchuk or his supporters–even those would-be Coakley supporters who almost always vote for Democrats. To the extent that Coakley drove away voters with her lack of policy substance, that’s her fault, and she didn’t in any way deserve them.
Who we Democrats in this state deserve, and who we should support going forward, are progressives who are willing to distinguish themselves and clearly define a bold agenda. If we fail to embrace such candidates, we now face the possibility of a serious exodus from the party.
.
If only Coakley had gone all-in against casinos, she would have won… just like the anti-casino question.
If the Progressive Massachusetts agenda couldn’t win the Democratic primary electorate, it certainly wasn’t going to win the electorate in the general this year. Didja notice what happened with the gas tax indexing and the bottle bill questions?
Coakley exited a well-contested primary with no money to Baker’s $9M in the bank and was slaughtered on TV by Baker’s and Republican super pac-funded ads.
We should hold the Democratic primary in June to allow the winner more time to rebuild a war chest and unite the activists for the general.
I agree we need an earlier primary. Who’s organizing to push this? I know I’ve asked before, but I forget. Who are the decision makers and what levers on the machine need to be flipped?
Who on State Committee is leading this charge, could lead this charge?
Legislators are the ones you need to convince.
We could also talk about really, for fucking realz, reforming campaign financing — as in, pass public campaign financing.
“If Dems lose, there’ll be no shortage of well-paid consultants [and blogging pontificators] advising them to move even further to the right”
…those saying she lost because she wasn’t progressive enough. Everybody has their own 20/20 hindsight.
because it’s what some of us have been saying all along. But regardless… Serious questions:
Do you think that we should have fielded a MORE center-right candidate? That the reason we lost is because the candidate was too left on important issues?
…it was their lack of charisma, coupled with a wariness/hangover many voters in the middle had for the last years of Deval.
On my first point, I loved Don Berwick but he was unable to inspire people beyond his cadre of supporters. Martha was the best among a middling group of candidates the Dems fielded. Like Tom Reilly, she would have been swamped by a Deval-like candidate in the primary.
On my second point, Charlie Baker certainly had no charisma advantage over any of the Dem candidates. He was equally lacking (but in the end, may have had a very small edge in that department). But with NONE of the Dem candidates distinguished themselves from the status-quo of the Democratic establishment, Baker capitalized on the fubar’s that plagued the Patrick administration in the last two years.
Lastly, I hang out a lot over at Redmassgroup and frequently run across the sentiment that GOP losses are due to their candidates not being conservative enough. Sure sometimes parties nominate a candidate that does not tap into the idealogical tide of an election. But I see no evidence that the Dems lose was a result of not nominating someone who was more left of center, rather the issue was we had a field of primary candidates who did not have the communication skills to overcome the image that the last couple of years of the Patrick administration created.
n/t
“..She rode the strengths of her name recognition and record of public service, minimized gaffes, and worked very hard.
“But she lost because her campaign lacked substance when it came to the issues and policy. She dodged taking difficult stances, and she failed to detail much an agenda.”
You hit the nail on the head.
at the Progressive Mass. forum in April. When a bunch of people fell in love with a candidate with no chance and pretty much ensured Coakley the nomination in a walk despite believing she was a bad prospective nominee. At least some of them then worked hard for her anyway. The others?
And if Evan Falchuk represents a “serious exodus” from the Democratic Party, I don’t want to be in the same party as those people anyway. Progressives tend to be long on dreams and short on political chops. Evan Falchuk offers nothing except flipping more seats to the Republican Party.
Look, when my candidate lost the primary I sucked it up and went to work for Coakley, and the vast majority of the activists I know did the same.
I know you believe that Berwick would have had no chance in the general; that the Berwick supporters would have gone to Grossman in the primary if either Berwick hadn’t existed or if we’d only been less muddle-headed; and that Grossman would have been a materially stronger candidate than Coakley in the general election. And no doubt my own thinking is influenced by my being out in the Connecticut River valley where my candidate did quite well in the primary, thank you very much; but everything I’ve seen on the ground this year suggests to me that you’re wrong on at least two out of the three foundational pieces of your analysis, and possibly on three of three.
As I said, I’m coming from a Berwick county. That means I spoke to a lot of Berwick voters who were just that: voters, not party activist types. I realize this is anecdotal, but what I saw on the ground was far from an electorate that wanted to stop Martha Coakley and split over the candidate to do that. On the contrary, the substantial preponderance of them started out as soft Coakley votes. They switched late in the game out of an affirmative preference for Berwick, not because they saw him as the marginally preferable of the two not-Coakleys. I saw nothing, anywhere, that would have suggested that those votes would have gone to Steve Grossman if only we softheaded Berwickites hadn’t seduced them away with our honeyed, meretricious words about housing policy and health care.
I also find it hard to share your confidence that Grossman would have won the general election where Coakley didn’t. I respect his good work over the years, but he’s no more a brilliant retail politician, or a powerfully charismatic figure, than she is. Party insiders who knew him and who’d worked with him over the years were wildly enthusiastic about him, yes. But the same is true of a lot of the Coakley people. The enthusiasm of people who know and love you just isn’t a good proxy for the ability to rouse trust or enthusiasm in the general voting public.
I’m sorry Coakley lost. I and many others did what we could for her, despite her not having been our first choice. But I don’t see that Berwick’s absence from the race would have materially changed the outcome, either at the primary stage or, if it had, in the general election. The Falchuk voters would still have gone to Falchuk, and Maura Healey would still have wildly outperformed the gubernatorial candidate. It is not Don Berwick’s fault that neither Martha Coakley nor Steve Grossman turned out to be candidates who inspired non-activist and non-insider voters. His absence wouldn’t have created the missing energy or excitement. It would only have meant that a lot of people who showed up early in the process because there was a candidate they were interested in wouldn’t have participated at all. And if assigning blame is ever productive at all, it’s surely not when the blame is assigned with less than perfect accuracy.
All year long hardly a soul at Berwick Mass Group has agreed with me, so I’m used to it. But I predicted in February that Berwick would make the ballot, get nowhere near enough votes to win but far more than the difference between Coakley and Grossman, and that Coakley would win the nomination without breaking much sweat, and then be a lousy, cautious candidate and lose in November. I was consistent all year in how I viewed it and not wrong on any of the facts.
Your argument misses the key point that, without Berwick, the entire tone of the campaign would have changed and Grossman would have had a much easier time establishing a contrast with Coakley in a two-person race. That’s just the way things go. And Berwick voters, and more particularly Berwick activists, choosing between Coakley and Grossman in a world in which Berwick never ran would have no Grossman resentment blocking them from breaking for him in the end. Berwick’s strength near you hardly matters. Hampshire County, which is a wonderful place, is only 2.3% of the state’s population, and it’s a little unique politically. But it would have gone big for the Democratic nominee in the general regardless.
Given how close Coakley was, I have no doubt that Grossman would have won the general. First, he’s not Coakley. A ton of comments have appeared here, and I’ve experienced myself on the doors and heard from others, that there were a lot of normally Democratic voters who just don’t like Coakley much. Grossman had none of that baggage, none of the 2010 baggage. He would have raised more money and there’s no way he would have been so flat at the debates. He would have offered a competing “business executive” narrative.
But the most important reason I’m sure he would’ve won is the map. Coakley underperformed 2013 Ed Markey and 2010 Deval Patrick (who had a more formidable third-party candidate in the race) by 5 to 10 points in just about every town north and south of Boston. These were the exact places where Grossman did best in the primary. He would not have lost Quincy. He would not have lost, say, Hingham by 24. Coakley barely won Sharon; Grossman would have romped there. Grossman beats Coakley’s 52% in Worcester, a city that didn’t like Coakley in 2010 either.
Hell, Coakley only took 60% in Newton and 66% in Brookline, both of which had lower turnout than in 2010. Grossman, a local guy, would have brought out more votes in these key Democratic towns and would have had a much bigger margin there. I think he’d have done better in Boston too.
I agree with everything you write here.
What your comment does NOT address is “Would candidate-name be a better Governor than Charlie Baker”.
I don’t agree that Steve Grossman would have defeated Ms. Coakley in the primary. I think an already-sparse turnout would have been even lower without Don Berwick.
Martha Coakley didn’t lose because too few Berwick supporters worked for her. She lost because because too few Massachusetts voters concluded that she would be a better governor than Charlie Baker.
The best sales and marketing campaigns in the world don’t gain market dominance for an inferior product.
Everything here rings true for my experience with voters — not activists — in my area.
…but what I’d like to hear is an honest assessment of what Coakley did wrong from her strong supporters (rather than the usual folks who have been free to chime in on the subject). You can blame it on money or insufficient support from activists or the environment or whatever, but the candidate herself does matter, and without an honest evaluation of what it is about her that turns people off, her political career is done (and maybe it just is already).
There seems to be a je ne sais quoi factor that I’ve picked up from a lot of people. This weekend, in response to an email urging people to vote my way, one of my neighbors, a usual reliable Dem, replied “I’m just don’t know about Coakley”. I think she probably represents thousands of other voters just like her.
I’d just like to understand how it is that other Dems beat the two guys she’s lost to. How, in the 6th CD, Seth Moulton racked up huge numbers and Martha did dreadfully on the same ballot (even in Lynn and Marblehead, where she got into the 50s, Moulton was in the 70s).
But it’s just so much fun and a whole lot easier if we just blame one another and who we backed four month ago in the primary, right?
Moulton was something the Dems in this state desperately need, a fresh face. Gubernatorially-speaking, this was a perfect window for a Gen X candidate to sweep in and say, “Here’s how we move forward.” Instead we got Martha Coakley (again), Steve Grossman (again) and a well-meaning career bureaucrat who never had a snowball’s chance in hell.
It’s time for the next wave of party leadership to come in and breathe some life into the beast. Look at the groundswell around Maura Healey. Dems got the message too late for the 2014 corner office election, but we better start identifying the next generation of political leadership in Massachusetts.
Just as an aside, I think this is a major issue at the national level too. Hillary Clinton’s going to be 69 in 2016. It’s going to be very hard for her to sell the notion that she’s got fresh ideas or that she’s the person to lead us forward into something new. It’s no mistake that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton beat decidedly older opponents. Ageist as it may be, part of selling the notion that you have a progressive vision for the future is looking the part.
The Dems aren’t the conservative, establishment party and it sometimes rings hollow when Dems trot out an establishment figurehead for an executive role.
“I’d just like to understand how it is that other Dems beat the two guys she’s lost to.”
When you listen to Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren speak, does it have the same effect on you as when Martha Coakley speaks?
Do any of the candidates give you something to believe in or leave you with the sense that they’ll fight for you? Do any of them seem passionate and inspire you to get involved? Or do they all have the same effect on you?
One thing that was noted about Coakley is in how she and Baker had similar positions and promised to do the same acts (protect the casino industry).
Looking back at the race of Patrick vs. Baker and the race of Brown vs. Warren, do you remember having any difficulty understanding where Patrick or Warren stood on issues or that one of them would protect the same interest groups that the Republican candidates worked for?
I was just thinking along these same lines. While I can already anticipate the reactions from some (about it being a sad statement on the state of politics today, etc.), great oratory skills are what tend to get people really riled up – Candidates who can channeling their inner preacher at times. I can remember multiple times during the Patrick, Obama, and Warren campaigns where people were enthusiastically nodding their heads and having the equivalent of “AMEN!” moments. Of course, the content matters as much as the delivery.
I remember when Bill Clinton came to campaign for Deval in ’06. At one point, he was speaking in his classic raspy whisper and the place was absolutely silent – maybe an ice machine clinking in the background. All I could think (this was the first time seeing him live) was that this guy was a master. He had everyone in the palm of his hand.
It seems that this time around we were back to “look at my ten-point plan” or “read my position paper” answers to why we should get fired up. That just doesn’t work as well.
Why is it that it takes singular political talents like Patrick, Warren, Clinton & Obama to get Democrats to the polls while any old moron who says “I will cut your taxes and stop illegals and homosexuals” can win as a Republican?
I wouldn’t vote for Obama to be my dog catcher at this point, he’d look at the shit on the ground and then ask the advice of the dog who made the mess in the first place how best to clean it up.
No, we need people with spines and a clear voices. To me, Warren is actually an anemic speaker-compared to Deval, Bill and Obama. But, her message resonates the most because she made it clear-in fighting for regular folks and these guys are fighting to line their pockets even more. Coakley spouted a list of programs, she never spouted a true sense of core progressive values or told stories to illustrate her point. I think regular folks can make the best messengers, and finding more out if the box candidates that succeeded elsewhere and have good ideas and a real heart to spread then is the way to go.
This is of a piece with nopolitician’s comment on the other thread:
If this is so, we’ll just get all worked up and elect a Democratic governor next, then flip back because Democrats can’t remember or imagine what Republican governors are like?
Republican-leaning voters almost always come out. Democratic-leaning voters often don’t pay attention to the very fact of a non-Presidential election, and are way too fast to say, “Oh, ho hum, I guess they’re pretty much the same because I’m not sufficiently inspired.” That’s why it takes “singular political talents” to get them to show up.
Why are GOP-leaning voters more consistent and motivated than Dem-leaning ones? Is it that the former plays to the base more consistently?
“than” should be “that” in the title of the above comment.
What is it about the differences between our parties/platforms/whatever that causes this? Why do Democrats need to fall in love while Republicans mostly fall in line? And if you say it’s because Democrats are too far to the right, then explain why the same thing happened to Russ Feingold in 2010?
The Republican base has more people, especially older voters, who believe it’s always important to vote. The Democratic base does not. This electorate was 75% white. 75%! Under 30 was only 12% of the electorate this year, 60+ was 37%. Those numbers go up and down every midterm v. Presidential, but this was worse than even 2010. I know a lot of younger people who share Democratic values but do not have much interest in politics. They’re aware of Presidential elections and a rock star candidate might penetrate their consciousness, but they don’t follow it otherwise. Some people say we need candidates who connect better. I’m all for better outreach but, having been raised to consider voting important, I don’t have much patience with apathy and think, at a certain point, it’s on them.
I think that a major contributor to the national loss by Democrats is also Demographic — the greatly increased exclusion, through voter ID laws, of a far greater share of the Democratic base (in comparison to the Republican base).
What share of the Republican base (older voters who believe it’s always important to vote) lack photo identification or access to a birth certificate? What share of the Democratic base (younger urban voters who have a lifelong experience of being shafted by elected officials) lack the same documentation?
This difference is the primary reason for the GOP’s passion to impose these laws, this was the first election where they were in effect, and they worked as contemplated.
I’m not saying this was the only factor. I am saying that many of the seats that were lost were lost by thin margins, and lost in areas where these factors were crucial.
There are REASONS why the under 30s didn’t show up to vote. Were they good reasons or bad reasons? I don’t know, but we should figure them out, good and bad, and figure out how/if to address them because when they DON’T vote, we lose midterms.
Politics seems like an insiders’ game to most normal people who aren’t political junkies. It’s intimidating to be confronted with a set of issues and candidates and know that you’re supposed to be informed, but know that you’re not really informed. You feel stupid for not knowing, and too embarrassed to reveal yourself as stupid so you don’t ask. You can look in the papers, but you’re not going to find much, you can look at blogs, but you’ll find a lot of bitter infighting and insider language and history.
When you’re in your twenties you might be in a new community, so you might not even have your parents/family to pick up cues from. (And maybe even they don’t know much outside of presidential years for the same reasons as everyone else).
Then there’s the whole cynicism piece — “nothing ever changes”, so you don’t engage/vote (guaranteeing that nothing ever will).
Not to mention all the institutional and process barriers — voter ID, other forms of disenfranchisement, “inactive” voter status, 21-day lead time to register (in MA), jerrymandered districts, one day only to vote, everything.
Let’s be honest about the fact that, writ large, the rule-makers do NOT want to expand the voting pool (hence all the laws and barriers that make it Not Easy to vote) , which works to protect incumbency/consolidated power, but doesn’t work for Democrats, say, in elections like 2014.
Yeah it’s easy to be annoyed with the “#IDidntVote” crowd but to write them off entirely, vs trying to find ways to connect with them and MAKE politics relevant to them, seems like cutting off noses because to spite faces.
I’m all for reaching out. But I’m kind of frustrated since I’ve spent more than 20 years trying to get certain of my friends to vote, to pay any attention, to understand any issues, to care. It does in fact matter who wins these elections. And being informed does take some effort.
Texted my cousin (25) on Tuesday: “Did you get to vote yet?” Response: “Nah got really swamped will try”
His Facebook status at 8:45 pm Tuesday: “Calling it a nite after epic 8 hours of nba 2K14. Lebron won again ha ha. Who wants to come ovr 4 beers? I got loads of Sons of An on dvr.”
His Facebook status yesterday afternoon: “F’ing student loans! So tired of sending all my money to these bastards.”
I will not discuss my 43 year old friend who is not registered to vote and spent Tuesday posting about how much it costs to do Mariah Carey’s hair and how “she’s so 1991 and she should just, like, disappear. Not. Fabulous. Anymore.”
I guess I mean STRUCTURALLY ‘we’ should reach out, not just You and Me nagging our friends/family (though that is part of it too).
I know the Party has “young dems” and so on; that’s good. We (writ large) need to be reaching, somehow, just Citizens who Probably Vote Dem, as well, not just recruiting people into/as part of the machine. (Which is good/important, too)
I dont know.
Structurally. My family and friends have had enough of me.
But how do we do this outreach to the Just Citizens Who Probably Vote Dem? Sporadic voters surely won’t join Young Dems, and it’s so full of College Dem-type insiders-in-training (I don’t mean this in a bad way, there are some really great people and I like political junkies) that I don’t see it as the vehicle for reaching people who are pretty apathetic about politics to begin with.
What do you think would be effective? I can explain issues pretty well to the uninitiated, but in what forum can it be done where anyone not already voting would pay attention?
This is what pancake breakfasts at church, or little league banquets, or virtually anything else that exists out in communities are for.
Democrats are very, very good at that in Worcester. I am not sure if that is something created by the former Mayor/Lt. Governor, or something that he just used effectively.
Before I lived here, it seemed like most of the political activists limited their social circle to people with similar interests.
Making those links between everyday life and “Politics” seems imperative. Student Loans or losing your job or cutbacks at the public school’s Arts Program or asthma spikes in certain communities and so on are not perceived as “political” by “everyday people” (a terrible term but you know what i mean;not political junkies). Or maybe even more elementally, they’re not even perceived as part of any kind of PATTERN or SYSTEM.
What forces narrate, narrativize, make sense of the everyday shit that happens in our world? Those are the power centers. Maybe.
Like, what happened in Ferguson: everyone pointing out how low turnout was in last local election, and how that was related to the police force being all white, and a lightbulb going off: We can vote in better people who make the hiring decisions…
There are potential lightbulbs like that for everyone, but they’re not being switched on. And we wouldn’t want it to take a catastrophic event like a shooting or a bridge collapse or whatever to trigger it. y’know?
How do we [structurally] flip those switches all the time/consistently, not just during election years?
The press? the politicians? community organizations like political parties, senior centers, exercise groups, playdates, ..???
IDFK
(NOt that I read that book, but I think I have the thesis)
I grew up in the privileged white suburbs of MA, and didn’t feel any connection to any political Stuff, and definitely felt like “Politics” was “not something that we talk about” in, say, pancake breakfasts or Sat morning kickball tournaments. You should avoid things that seem controversial or contentious was/seems the general rule.
Even still, as much of a raging activist as I am, when I meet ‘civilians’ thru my kids’ activities or whatever, I am very wary about when/how and IF I should talk about anything political. Mind you, I *WILL* do it someday, but I’m always anxious about whether it is the right/wrong thing to do and if I’m jeopardizing the community norms.
Maybe I’m overly cautious. Do normal people talk about political stuff at pancake breakfasts?! Because if they do then I’m all over that flapjack.
And based on that book nobody would be going to pancake breakfasts at all because they don’t have time and don’t join clubs of any kind anymore. 🙂
I also am cautious about talking politics too openly to “civilians” in non-political settings. Certain churches I could see being political more than others. My sense is that it can be done at these kinds of events more subtly. Democrats build relationships with people in the community in a more general sense. There can be discussion, outside the context of this election or that legislative bill, of common interests affected by politics. Little league banquet – trying to get funding to maintain the fields. Would love to hear from CMD on how this plays out in Worcester.
Maybe this is just something peculiar to my own circumstances. I live in a part of Worcester in which a lot of the local candidates from both parties also live. The neighborhood turns out, and is definitely reliably blue, though not by huge margins. There are probably BMGers who could identify my district and ward from that!
Anyway, our circumstances are such that we see a lot of our neighbors. We attend church. We have kids. We do youth sports– alas, all of the youth sports, year round. We deal with the inevitable problem of squabbling by the parents on the board of the youth sports. There is a lot of parent involvement at our local public school. We do scouts.
Thinking about it, it really is our kids that forces us to socialize with an awful lot of people with whom we would not otherwise socialize, and with whom we may or may not agree. We talk about politics in all of these places, but those discussions are neither intense nor “taken personally” because everyone is already relatively friendly for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, over the years I have realized–duh!– that lots of these people are fairly intensely involved with one or the other political party (mostly the one, obviously), but it was always a light-dawns-over-Marblehead thing because it was subtle. And these things have definitely had an impact on my voting, sometimes in ways that I regret! (Glodis).
Maybe those circumstances are too suburban picket fency to translate on the other side of the city, which is less affluent, and may not have the financial ability or the two-parent family situation necessary to be involved in all of those things.
I’m afraid that isn’t exactly the secret formula.
Because I have been so buttonholed. It can be done well and it can be done poorly, and certainly requires skill. There are folks in Worcester who do it fairly well, or at least there were.
When it doesn’t work, it REALLY doesn’t work. I have been buttonholed by a party activist–happened to be a liberal democrat– who was absolutely loaded for bear with talking points. The result was rather like having someone demand, publicly and conspicuously, that you accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior, right now. That’s the sort of thing that makes religion and politics unfit for polite conversation.
The same thing happened from the other political direction when I was a resident of a red state. That one was worse. Way worse. See my religious analogy above.
I am not sure that it is the sort of thing that is amenable to training sessions and sending people out to implement. Perhaps it used to be something that happened more organically. Perhaps it no longer does, because people seem to self-segregate politically more now than they did in the past.
Thank you harmony and fenway for starting this conversation.
This seems very true in most circles. There is definitely a stigma against discussing anything political under most circumstances. It often feels like there is a time and place for it and they are shrinking to never and nowhere.
For example, there was a spurt of political discussion on Facebook before the last presidential election, but people quickly realized they were mostly alienating each other and it has mostly died off.
There are of course many factors at play (not comprehensive, some overlapping):
* People don’t want to argue, especially with friends
* Conversely, arguing with people who DO want to argue is a waste
* People believe government corruption is insurmountable, and therefore citizens discussing policy is a waste of time and energy
* People believe the election system is fundamentally broken, and therefore citizens discussing policy is a waste of time and energy
* People believe (largely rightfully) that decisions are made by moneyed interests, not voters and therefore citizens discussing policy is a waste of time and energy
* Harmony’s point about the “insider’s game” above
* People believe discussing political issues comes down to discussing politics (definition 6 and 2). This one, I agree, is a waste of time for most people — sorry politics wonks.
* Usual talking points about polarization, extremism, etc here. I think these are largely second order effects of the above or artificially created by some political interests and I’d rather leave this one out.
Some of these things are facts of our political system. The perception problem is caused by big REAL problems. So, STEP ONE: if you are a political insider or political junkie — stop pretending that this is a perception problem. STEP TWO: Start working on the real problems at the root of the cynicism.
Some of these things are social norms — the next stage symptom of how deeply the cynicism has sunk in. Unfortunately this makes it even more difficult to do anything about the real problems. So, my question to everyone here is, how do you start these conversations? What ideas do you have to get around the stigma in your apolitical circles?
(maybe we should start a separate diary/thread)
For the most part the GOP base would do fine personally regardless of who is in power, but ours can easily be helped or hurt by government action.
Our base is dominated by the powerless. The GOP base is dominated by the powerful (and those who earnestly, even if wrongly, believe they will someday BE powerful).
I share your desire for earnestly wanting our base to think that it’s always important to vote. I think it comes perilously close to blaming the victim to conclude that the discouragement (and cynicism) of our base is primarily a failing of that base.
When we excuse wealthy and powerful Democrats who use their power and connections to benefit themselves, their family, and their friends (not to mention their donors), then we have precious little standing to complain about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of would-be Democrats who turn their backs on us.
The notion of empowering the “meek” (ie weak, poor, infirm, outcast, etc) is and has always been revolutionary. I suggest that we Democrats who are among the powerful have a crucial role to play in adhering to our values.
In my view, it is incorrect to fault our base for making the same tradeoffs that we make if allow ourselves to compromise our values.
Let me pose a hypothetical: If the Attorney General for the past decade had been conducting a high-profile, controversial, and headline-grabbing series of investigations and prosecutions of political corruption during her tenure, would that AG have done better or worse against Charlie Baker in this week’s election? If the Massachusetts House and Senate had convened similarly high-profile hearings into the Probation Department scandal the moment it broke, and followed up those hearings with real and substantive changes (including recommended indictments), would the Democratic nominee have done better or worse against Charlie Baker?
We spent the last decade stiffing our base, while plundering them so that we could keep going to Red Sox games at skyrocketing ticket prices.
I think it is a testament to the effectiveness of the Martha Coakley campaign team that the race was as close as it was.
…and all the money in the world notwithstanding we are still exactly equal at the ballot box. Maybe it is blaming the victim a bit, but I have always believed if you don’t vote you can’t complain. In MA at least polling locations are generally very close to home and if you’re work schedule isn’t conducive to getting to the polls you can always claim absence from the town on election day and vote early. Being on your deathbed is pretty much the only excuse I accept to not vote. Otherwise I refer you to a diary I wrote a while back saying it’s your JOB as a citizen to vote – no ifs, ands, or buts.
I agree personally, that there should be no excuse, but evidently there is. The majority of people don’t vote and there are reasons for that beyond they are lazy or dumb or not inspired enough by a particular candidate. Let’s take a hard look at why that is and what we can do about it. It’s a symptom (and a cause, of course, it’s a cycle) of other very serious problems.
As for the money issue specifically (and I realize now you are not talking about campaign money but I’ll post this part anyway) — you have to consider both how it corrupts the minds of voters (e.g. with deceptive ads) and politicians (talking to rich people all day asking for money). It’s not just “equality” at the ballot box. Even that idea is misleading because the ads target millions of people so it’s never about one vote.
Meant to be uprate
I had an eye-opening discussion a few days before the election with someone who works with indigent people. One of her clients, a single mom, when asked about whether or not she was going to vote, said, “I’m embarrassed to say I don’t even know who is running for President.” This isn’t someone being stupid or lazy. Think in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This is someone who spends every waking moment worrying about keeping a shelter over her kids’ heads and where their next meal is coming from. There is no way for her to even consider politics.
Saying “it’s your JOB as a citizen to vote” can only be said when looking through a privileged lens.
I’m not sure what can be done to help someone like this – someone for whom the results really, really matter – but at least I’m thinking about it now.
@ Christopher: You focused on your opinion about personal responsibility. I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in whether or not they complain — I want them to VOTE in the own (and our) self-interest. It doesn’t matter whether its their job or not — when they don’t vote, we all lose.
I asked two questions in my 6th paragraph (“Let me pose …”). I wonder what your answer to those is.
I ask because I think if more disaffected voters saw we Democrats holding ourselves to the values we claim, they would be more inclined to show up and vote.
As to your questions I don’t know, but I wonder if such negative publicity for the political process would have had a negative effect on voter turnout or if such things are too insidery for the average voter.
Yes, it’s a shame that we can’t rely on voters to show up in the same margins in mid-term elections, but rather than lament it, I wish we’d instead consider that all of us (Democrats, Republicans, independents) are more likely to work for those we believe will fight for us than those whose platforms appear to be built on checklists and promising to do what someone in their party is supposed to do.
There’s also this belief that Baker learned from his previous loss and adapted, adopted different policies, that he listened to the people. I’ve never been left with the impression that Coakley went through the same process other than knowing to avoid gaffes from the prior race.
Today, she said “Whatever I do next I’m going to be better at it because of my experiences in this race.” (https://twitter.com/statehousenews/status/530034853895757824) but also when asked what she would do differently if she were to redo the race, said “Not a thing.” (https://twitter.com/statehousenews/status/530033971535814656)
I don’t know how to reconcile those 2 statements if they’re to be taken as anything other than empty phrases.
It’s a question of the Party’s identity and whether or not we can/will win races. I knocked a lot of doors for Martha and coaxed a lot of reluctant volunteers. I have many reactions and insights from people that I can share, but feel like maybe today isn’t the day. Maybe tomorrow is? I don’t know, but that kind of work and self-reflection has to be done. Lest we make similar mistakes or settle into a groove, by default, which we’ll come to regret.
What did Coakley say about Baker? That he’s a Republican? I don’t really remember. I have a hard time saying what Coakley said about Coakley, and what she said about Baker.
Here’s a guy who managed the Big Dig and a health-care corporation. He got where he was through spending too much of my money on paving and his bonus. All I heard is that Baker and millions of other people share a political party with John Boehner. He won an award that basically meant “outsourcer of the year” and the only publicity that got was when Elizabeth Warren mentioned it.
He called women sweetheart, was secretly Pat Robertson, and lied about fisherman. Clearly those were the issues Martha staked her career on, and clearly they resonated with zero independents or suburban voters.