It's a mistake for us to underestimate the Other Senator's chances in '12.

[beachmom]

I just saw a friend of a friend had a pic of her with Brown on a website. It was all because she had won (or a friend?) some essay contest for the 4th of July, and she blogged it on the "Brown Brigade" blog which is some kind of Brown grassroots org in Mass. There were women in the photo all smiling at Brown in an, um, admiring way. The guy is a bit of a rock star, is he not? From what you guys have posted, the above the fold press coverage he is getting is pretty positive, even if he is being lambasted deep inside the paper on the editorial page.

If I was a betting gal, I would say he'll win barring some kind of scandal. He has enthusiastic WOMEN (not unlike us, actually) who will blog and work for him. I think Democrats are really, really complacent. Not just for this election in November but for the next one as well. Maybe Obama will squeak by but it looks bad to me for Congress for several cycles.

[Luftmensch067]

1. I'm worried, too.

I keep feeling like the Mass Dems are more flummoxed than complacent, but I'm really not sure where the Dem to challenge him is coming from. I don't like to write this on the anniversary of Teddy's death, but I miss having him as our senator and I REALLY don't want this guy to have another term.

[MBS]

2. luftmensch nailed it:: "more flummoxed than complacent"

The only complacent person last year, at least after the primary, was Martha Coakley. Other Dem politicians were said to be privately seething about her campaign (or lack thereof). (god knows I'm still furious, and I don't even know the details the way the local pols must know them)
My worry is not party complacency; instead I worry that Dems will be too depressed or too unconfident (or, as luftmensch said, too flummoxed) to do what needs to be done. We need an absolutely first-rate, hard-fighting, super-qualified candidate, supported by a unified party.

Nationwide, also, I'm sure there are NO complacent Dems, except maybe in places like Oregon.

[Mass]

3. I dont think anybody underestimate Brown's chances to be reelected.

This said, things changed and anybody who think they know who will happen in 2 years are just kidding themselves. I remember when in 2008, after Obama's election, people were saying that the GOP was done. I dont think it is any better to go to the opposite direction.

I don't know who will run against him, but it is clear that names will start to come out after the 2010 election. Remember some of the potential runners may be currently running for other races. And the race will be serious and Brown's record will be scanned carefully. Some groups have already started here. I dont know who will win, but I dont think it is necessary to throw the towel right now.

As MBS said, the worst thing for Democrats is this feeling they are defeated before even trying. I am still persuaded that this feeling among democrats during the month of January that they had lost contributed to the defeat. It was obviously not the only thing, but it helped.

[beachmom]

5. I guess the reason why I am willing to go out on a limb,

and make a prognostication is that personality really trumps a lot. For example, Pres. Obama is not doing well as far as approval ratings, but deep in the poll, he still has a big percentage of people who "like" him which bodes well for him in '12, but not the Democratic party. I realize to us, it is absurd, but likeability and personality are pretty big predicters of success/failure. John Kerry probably lost in 2004 more in the way he was shown to be "aloof" "standoffish", etc. than the swiftboating. Meanwhile, everyone wanted to have a beer with Bush. That stuff matters. And beer drinking with Brown is pretty high, I bet you.

As to Dems, well, the right candidate is what matters most. Not to stereotype but give me an ethnic guy who has a bit of a populist slant, a man of the people type. It could be a woman, but not Vikki Kennedy (that just feels wrong). Somebody with a real working class background. Somebody funny who can frame Brown as a Republican gofer for big corporations, too dim to fight for the people. Everybody likes Brown, but if he can be projected in this way, he could lose. In fact, use his strength (sunny personality) against him. Notice, I have bearly discussed substance. Well, the substance is in the background, but not front and center.

[karynnj]

4. I agree - ANY incumbent has an advantage over someone new if they already have a well established

positive public image - which Brown has. The coverage of him has been very positive, given how he actually preforms. His team or the media itself has created an image that he is engaged, independent, bipartisan and a serious legislator.

His team has done a good job in creating the meme that he - unlike other politicians - "actually reads the bills". It is amazing how often this is repeated in the comments - usually contrasting people like Barney Frank and John Kerry. Now, from his comments on all these bills - that he supposedly read, he has great reader comprehension problems. The few times I watched a committee he was on, he was NOT particularly useful.

What I fear is that that image and the fact that 2010 will make it obvious that the Democrats will not permanently have the majority may lead some to think that the state is better off with one Democrat and one Republican. This assumes that Brown would be able to get the Republicans to look after MA's interests if the Republicans are in power. (They would ignore that his "special" position is due to his being on the far left of the party. If they were in control, he would be treated like Specter, Chaffee, Snowe and Collins were. ) They also ignore that Brown's goals may not match those of MA.

In addition, he will be seen as likable and his good looks will help. The media clearly likes him - likely because he does not threaten them in any way. He does not not ask them to look to their better selves or to look beyond superficiality. They support his image and call it authentic - when it was in fact a facade. But, even if Democrats found that he never wore a barn coat before late 2009 and proved that his regular vehicle was a normal car until late 2009, it wouldn't matter - the image now has more credibility than the truth. (I suspect that people look for simple definitions - not authenticity, which in almost all cases is too complex to explain in a simple sentence.)

I also wonder if the media will work to hobble Kerry from helping a Democrat. Even when he first ran, they mentioned the pact between Reid and Ensign not to speak against each other. I suspect that that will be pushed as what should happen for the good of the delegation and working together in the Senate. (As Brown is up first, why do I suspect that they would not have the same concern if it were Kerry running?) Though I do think that other than getting people out to see a Democrat, who they otherwise wouldn't, any surrogate's contribution is limited.

Where he might be very vulnerable is if the Democrats get a very good candidate, who can generate the same excitement and who is more in line with MA on the issues. The facts are that Brown did vote against extending unemployment when it was very needed - and he did vote against aid to the states even when it was paid for. He likely will join the republicans in trying to preserve ALL the Bush tax cuts. Is there a young, articulate Democrat who can make the case based on values? (Someone on Blue Mass once suggested Tim Murray, the lt governor. Others have mentioned various representatives and some mentioned Elizabeth Warren) I think if the Democrats had someone inspiring - especially someone not from any social elite (no Kennedy) - who had the energy and the attractiveness that Brown does have, I think he could be beaten.

[beachmom]

6. The candidate I had in mind wouldn't necessarily compete against

Brown on the looks front. Instead, he/she should be funny and mock Brown in a playful way. The tough hits would be on his corporate record against the little guy.

[karynnj]

7. I quite agree

I should not have used the word "attractiveness" as I didn't mean that he had to have the looks of a former male model. Personable would have been more what I was meaning.

[Blaukraut]

8. You are definitely correct, Beachmom

Brown will likely win reelection in '12 unless the local Dems field an amazing candidate. This particular person has to actually exceed Brown in every way: Intelligence, personality, media savvy. Oh yes, especially media savvy, because our media are going to aid and abett Brown in his reelection bid. That's a given.

I've been worried about this since Brown got elected. The MA Dems have a unique disadvantage. They've always fared well with the old and established, and deeply entrenched in the Dem political machine. I don't think that's going to work this time. Brown has an almost cult-like following that can, and will circumvent and beat that particular machine and our potential machine candidate. We have to be very careful whom we chose to run against Brown. Liberal credentials will matter little this time. This election will be about appearances. Possibly one of the most shallow elections ever.

On edit:

This might get me a few dissenting voices from you guys, but I also believe JK is going to have the reelection fight of his life in '14, because the Reps here are going to take advantage of the changing electorate as mentioned above. Brown will have coat tails.

[beachmom]

9. I think the question is do they have a candidate to field against Kerry.

I mean Bill Weld is sort of the parallel, and I see no Weld on the horizon for the GOP in Mass. Of course, Kerry lucked out (in a way like now) in that he wasn't up for re-election the really bad year, 1994. Instead it was 1996, and the Kerry campaign skillfully said that if Bill Weld got in, that would help Newt Gingrich (which also included a hint of regionalism -- the North vs. the South). Weirdly enough, if Republicans do well this year and even take Congress, that would help John Kerry for '14 because then voters might view things as "balanced" and decide they would keep JK in.

What I will say regarding '12 is that the Dem candidate needs to be as opposite to JK, culturally, as possible. No aristocrat, no policy wonk, no foreign policy guru. Somebody who will take care of the folks at home and not wander too far away from that mandate.

[Luftmensch067]

10. Everything you're describing in your comments here

Seems to me to fit Mike Capuano. I don't know if he's thinking of trying again. Besides the large and confusing field of primary candidates (Capuano with the experience, Khazei with the college, hip vote, Coakley with the Clinton vote, and Pagliuca with hardly any votes, as far as I could tell!) which served to effectively split the vote, there was a perception that he was showing too much anger on the campaign trail. If he could temper this and use his fire and quick wit and political savvy in place of it -- what do you all think about his chances against Brown?

(Sorry, attached this to the comment about Kerry in '14, but meant to refer to '12 race against Brown.)

[karynnj]

11. I can't believe that 2014 could be harder than 1996

If Obama wins in 2012, the fact that Kerry is a top ally does help Massachusetts. Remember Kerry was able to get the reconciliation package to treat MA fairly, but in a way that wasn't an "earmark". He also got a lot of broadband and research grants for MA.

Brown could not have beat Kerry in 2009 or this year (if Brown were not Senator and Kerry was up). Brown's "machine" has yet to be tested in MA. One possible early test is that he was an early backer of Jeff Parry, a pretty flawed candidate, for the open Delahunt seat - in one of the districts Brown did best in. He also has endorsed Baker for Governor against Patrick, who does not have the type of record Kerry does.

As a person, who I think drove Tay Tay nuts because I was worrying Kerry could lose in 2008, I really really doubt that there is an opponent in either party who could defeat him. I know the media is tough on him, but if you watch the joint appearance of Kerry and Brown at the event the night before PanMass - it is Kerry who actually got better crowd reaction to his comments. I don't think that was a Boston centric or a liberal biased audience - it is just people do know him and appreciate him.

I also suspect that he might be running only if Obama loses. I really suspect that he will be the secretary of state. Clinton has said that she won't do it for 8 years and to be kind, she has not exceeded (or met) the high expectations people had as a superstar Secretary of State. She and Holbrooke, who reports to her have been incredibly weak on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I still am stunned that Holbrooke has not gone there since the flooding - given that he is special envoy to just these two countries.

It is telling that the two times when we needed Karzai to not derail our mission, Kerry was sent instead of Clinton. (You might remember that at his second swearing in, Clinton went and there were a slew of articles on their special relationship and how she would get him to deal with corruption. In addition, when it was thought to be in jeopardy, the media was suddenly credited Kerry with the Pakistan policy. Most of the world's problems will still be there, and just as in 2008, no one is better prepared to be Secretary of State than Kerry.

I think Obama will win re-election, but if Obama loses, especially if the Senate is Republican again, I am not sure a 71 year old Kerry would want to run - except he never gives up. If he does, I think it would take a very good candidate to beat him.