In one month Martha Coakely went from having a 25 point lead to

[cali]

trailing by a few points. And that's why I think there's a lot more to this situation than than the common DU wisdom that the reason she's in such a tight race is because progressives are disgusted with Obama and dems. Brown is purportedly winning independents by a 2-1 margin. The bulk of those independents do not identify as progressives.

The theory that the reason Coakley is in trouble is because of the healthcare legislation doesn't hold up terribly well either. MA residents approve of "Romneycare".

[BzaDem]

1. I'm surprised you take that theory seriously at all.

Anyone who is claiming that Coakley is losing because she or Obama or HCR isn't liberal enough is simply taking their own opinions and applying them to every situation. Dennis Kucinich himself could lose and they would say the exact same thing. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to overcome. Coakley is very, very progressive and anyone who follows her knows that.

Coakley is mainly losing because she is a bad campaigner and a gaffe-prone candidate who didn't actively start campaigning until it was too late. That, combined with the rabid enthusiasm of the right at the prospect of filling Ted Kennedy's seat with a Republican and killing HCR, is what is making Brown competitive and unfortunately somewhat likely to win. This was easily avoidable.

[cali]

2. I don';t take it seriously. But it's being posted over and over again.

I agree with you; Coakley is in the position she's in, largely because she ran one of the worst campaigns imaginable- and because there's predictable backlash against the majority party.

[vadawg]

3. i see the deeds bumper book of campaigning at work here

creigh deeds is the only dem that could make my buddy stay home and play on facebook he was that bad a campaigner...

[CTyankee]

55. I wish I could agree that this situation was "easily avoidable." I have seen it played out

before, so it seems we never learn.

Teddy became the MA Senator over 40 years ago and over the years his iconic position was taken for granted: he would win. And he did. But that's a long, long time and things change. If there were a way to have prevented this it could be summed up "Stay connected with what is going on on the ground."

We Dems simply have to be more nimble and think harder "on the ground." Esp. in places where one incumbent is assumed to pass the mantle on to the next one in line in his party. At some point, our party like any other party in power for a long time has to get real, do some hard research and figure out what has changed and is changing.

We don't like doing that. But if we want to win elections going forward in 2010 we had better get started NOW...the future is coming at us quicker than we think it is...

[goclark]

59. I watched the Rally yesterday and I was inspired by her message

Got to start making my calls in a few minutes.


I predict she will win if Diebold doesn't get in the mix.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Maybe She's Losing Because The Economy Sucks And She Belongs To The Incumbent Party

The effects of misplaced anger are still just as tangible. This could be a harbinger of what will unfold in the mid-terms.

[cali]

5. As I mentioned, that's part of it, but it doesn't fully account for

her losing a 25 point lead in under a month.

[Gargoyle22]

7. It's more about local issues than anything

The Governor (our first Dem since Dukakis) is feckless and politically inept and the House Speaker resigned last year because of ethics problems. People are taking their anger at Beacon Hill out on Coakley. Brown just happens to be the empty vessel that they are flocking to - he's managed to keep his extremism hidden.

I could have told you 6 weeks ago this race was going to be close and they should have planned to have Obama come in anyway - not scheduled it at the last minute making them look desperate, which they now are.

[cali]

49. hi. welcome to du

I agree with your assessment, but I also think that Coakley has run a very poor campaign.

[Gargoyle22]

80. Thanks. Yes she has run a very bad campaign. It's really pretty simple...

I'm the liberal progessive - he's the right wing extremist. Instead she's been prattling on about taking on the "big banks." Just a weird campaign.

[Tailormyst]

62. Right on the money

[elocs]

14. Anyone who is honest would have to admit losing a 25 point lead in a month is not impressive. n/t

[cali]

25. yep. it just can't all be blamed on national politics and disenchantment

with Obama and the Congress for not being progressive.

[sendero]

61. Could be?

No, it IS.

Despite the lame protestations of a small cadre of true believers, the sheen has worn off this administration in a very big way, and the polls WILL reflect that.

Obama had a small window of opportunity to actually "change the way things are done in Washington". Unfortunately, he seemed to think that talking about change was enough.

This latest lame assed gambit to try to get political cover for the bankster bailouts is laughable. 90 billion over 10 years? That isn't even a drop in the bucket. And oh, BTW, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, NO MEANINGFUL REFORMS OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM HAVE BEEN ENACTED, and even the proposals are WEAK BEYOND BELIEF.

The economy is still teetering on the edge of the abyss and NOW it is the Democrats who will pay at the polls. You can count on it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. I Don't Blame Obama For This Economy

I don't know who to blame but I would better the very little I have left that folks are going to take their economic woes out on the Democrats in the mid-terms.

[sendero]

78. Obama didn't create this mess..

... but then he's failed to do anything of substance to fix it.

Americans don't care who's fault something is, if you are the incumbent and things are still bad, it is your fault.

Americans have already forgotten that it was mostly Republican policies that led us here, the memory of the voters is very short.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. She's Losing Because People Were Lied To

As a Mass resident, here's what I see:

Pretty much everyone agrees that we were blatently lied to. We were promised change, but got more of the same: more of our money shoveled at bankers, more war. Obama promised he'd fight for a public option for health care, and now spins the bald-faced lie that he never campaigned on the public option. More than $10 trillion of our money risked so that bankers can get astonishing bonuses, yet the entire working class gets less than 10% of that.

Understandably, most of us are mad as hell.

Diehard Democrats won't vote for Brown, but most of us have little stomach to continue these shenanigans by putting another pretend-Democrat in the Senate, particularly after being to told by the White House that we're of no relevance and should &#$% off. We'll mostly vote for Coakley, but we won't work hard on getting others to vote.

Those outside of the Democratic core are lodging their protest by voting for Brown.

Dr. Dean said it best: "We all voted for change we can believe in. If we don't get it, we'll get some more change in 2010." Consider this a preview of 2010.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. I just heard on Morning Joe that 90% of Repubs back Brown, 70% of Dems back Coakley

Yet she did win the Demprimary after all. I know lots of people preferred Capuano. Did he split the vote with another more Progressive type to allow in Coakley? That's how we got the horrific Creigh Deeds in Virginia - Terry MacAuliffe acted as a spoiler against our best candidate Moran.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. She Had Weak Competition in the Primaries, And Things Have Changed

Capuano is good on paper, but he fared poorly in the debates - he came off as perpetually annoyed, and kept lecturing the other candidates about "how things are done in the real world". Khazei lost me when he said he was against public-option or single-payer in health care because it hurts competition.

Also, in the past month we've seen the collapse of any hope of good health care reform, an Executive Order that provides an unlimited bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the highest bonuses ever paid in Wall Street's history, Obama's astonishing lie that he never campaigned on the public option, and Rahm's telling the people who fought hardest to elect Obama to take a hike. I suspect that this put many, many of us over the edge.

[cali]

23. I agree that Capuano didn't do well but

what I'm referring to is that Coakley had a 25 point lead over Brown and lost it in under 3 weeks.

As Tip O'Neill said....

[Ken Burch]

50. Well, the thing is, I don't know that anybody is actually saying

that it's ALL because of Coakley not being progressive enough. You've set that up as something to knock down, when it's not really clear that people here were really making that simplistic of an argument at all.

We can assume, however, that she'd be doing even worse if she was running a MORE conservative campaign. Blurring the difference couldn't possibly have helped in this situation.

[cali]

66. you're missing my point.

it's not about her being progressive/not progressive but about her running a very poor campaign. And there are some indications that shockingly enough, there's some sort of repub resurgence in MA. As someone pointed out, Lynn just elected its first repub mayor. Could have to do with the MA dems having wielded such absolute power in recent years and the corruption that's tainted them. Thinking that indies are breaking 2 to 1 for brown because Coakley isn't progressive enough, doesn't make any sense

[Ken Burch]

75. The observations you've made in that post are all valid.

You could just have said "there's a LOT of reasons Coakley is in trouble in this race".

[Statistical]

37. Well a 90% vs 70% support from your base will win any election.

No need to even ask the indies.

I mean if Coakley can't get base support within striking range of the Republican it is over.

90% vs 90% and take the middle.

[ThomWV]

44. No it won't - that's nonsense. If only 28% of the voters are Republicans 90% means nothing.

[Statistical]

51. Even still 70% vs 90% is a strong headwin.

What is worse is according to PPP the indies are splitting 2:1 to Brown.

The combination of losing ones own base combined with losing the indies is bad 1-2 punch.

Kinda strange is the high level of indies in "self described" political affiliation question:

If you are a Democrat, press 1. If you are a
Republican, press 2. If you are an independent
or identify with another party, press 3.
Democrat ........................................................ 39%
Republican...................................................... 17%
Independent/Other.......................................... 44%

Is there any substantial "bagger" support in MA? Could conservatives be considering themselves "independent/other"?

[zoff]

72. Your math is sound.

[cali]

9. sorry, that's not what the facts support.

that hardly accounts for her losing a 25 point lead in under a month. "pretty much everyone agrees" is simply not something you support with any evidence. And the cold hard fact is that it's the independents breaking over 2 to 1 for Brown that will sink her if she loses. It looks like there will be very heavy turnout so that torpedoes your dems will stay home and not vote supposition.

The facts on the ground don't back up your claims. I'm not saying that there isn't some disenchantment with dems for a myriad of reasons, but the bottom line is the large independent vote going for Brown.

Projection of your personal feelings about things is not the same as analysis with facts and evidence.

[boston bean]

12. The progressives will suck it up cali, you are right it's the indies

but most would vote for a dead corpse with a d at the end of it's name.

If you lived here you would know beyond one shadow of a doubt that this is a referendum on healthcare.

People want to stop that agenda, they feel good about this vote for that reason only, and he seems ok to vote for. Although he is a fuckin evil dangerous politician who will probably run for President in 2012 if he pulls this off.

You are way off base here, all to defend Obama and this disgusting bill. that Bernie Sanders, your all powerful ever knowing senator from Vermont flippity flopped on.

And you in you ever so clever way, pretty much throw Martha to the wolves for doing the same thing.

If Martha was against this healthcare bill, she would be winning 70-30.

[cali]

13. I am not defending the healthcare legislation.

I think it's a rancid stew with a few good bits floating in it.
And I know MA and MA politics pretty damned well having lived there for 10 years and having a brother who's very involved in MA politics in Boxford. So stop with that nonsense.

You offer nothing but nothing to back up your claims.

[boston bean]

17. Martha is running ads against him saying he will prevent healthcare

well GOD DAMNIT the indies DON'T WANT THIS BILL! Never mind the progressives, LIBERALS who are beside themselves but will go to the slaughter once again.

I don't need anything more than living here and living it to know. Why don't you take a listen to our talk radio here on 96.9 and get a fricken clue.

There are way to many dynamics in play here for you to just go and blame it on the candidate, out of personality and how she ran a campaign. That is old school cali, and it is piss poor defense that you admitted to yesterday to deflect blame for this from the healthcare bill and obama.

It's really simple, and if you wait for the post mortems, if she loses, you will soon come to realize it. And it is not up to me to give you the internals of the polling. You can go read them for yourself.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Americans Are Against The Bill, 2:1

Of course they're *for* the bill by the same margin if it includes the public option.

Amazing stuff - if the DLC just stopped trying to screw us, they'd have had a very popular bill and political victory for years.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. The "reform" that we're getting is a test run for Zeke Emanuel's vision of Medicare

He wants vouchers paid to private insurers. So general HCR reform mutates from public option and competition to subsidies (same as vouchers) paid to private insurers. AND they cut Medicare in the bill. The cuts are supposed to be cutting waste and fraud, but we'll see. It's still a cut in funding no matter how you slice it. They could have saved much more by simply negotiating drug prices like the rest of the world.

I am not liking the larger picture that is emerging.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. And Here's The Numbers In MA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x131750

[cali]

27. let me quote tip o'neill to you: "All politics is local"

Had she run a half way decent campaign there is no way she'd be in the trouble she is. and let me repeat: she pissed away a 25+ point lead in under 3 weeks.

[boston bean]

29. NO SHIT AND THE LOCALS DON'T WANT THIS HEALTHCARE BILL

Martha came in favor of it on December 20th or 21st, after saying she would not vote for it.

You come to your own conclusions.

edit for grammar.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Read My Post Again

It's perfectly consistent with your data. I said that core Democrats will turn out and vote for Coakley, but we have little enthusiasm for the thing and will not work hard to persuade others. And they're not being persuaded.

[Rockholm]

65. Every Brown sign I see reminds me of his support to ban marriage equality.

He is a homophobe. This is a vote to send someone to DC who will entertain a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.
I get the part about Obama and the Democratic machine not living up to the ideals he campaigned on. This is not the election to take it out on Obama.
I saw the Coakley rally the other day while driving thru my town. The Brown supporters were weaving themselves thru the crowd. His supporters are all the trash people in town that I cannot stand. Good to know which trades not to use in the future. His supporters lean teabag.

[Craftsman]

16. Yep, even taking in account the poorly run campaign, this warns 2010 will be bad

[NorthCarolina]

40. I think you have detailed precisely what is happening. eom

[90-percent]

53. Dr. Dean also said

"If you are elected with a mandate and don't use it, you'll loose your next election"

or something like that....

-90% jimmy

[jaxx]

60. Is Obama on the ticket?

This seems to be about him and Coakley is being used to kick him around? Have I got this right? This is about the anger some have towards Obama, to hell with the seat in the senate.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. I Don't Think It's Exactly that

More like people feel extremely betrayed by Obama on down, and see no reason to believe that Coakley won't betray them as well. In fact, given her recent soirees with health insurance and pharma lobbyists, it looks pretty scary.

[nashville_brook]

70. spot on.

[H2O Man]

11. There are a number

of important factors involved in this. The unwillingness to go out on the campaign trail and shake hands with those you are hoping will support you is telling. Still, there is good reason to focus on today, and that includes looking at who her campaign is attempting to get support from now. This includes the liberal/progressive left.

I certainly hope that there is a victory for the democratic party in MA. And I hope that the party "leadership" takes a close look at all of the factors involved in this race becoming uncomfortably close.

Recommended, as I appreciate all attempts to promote meaningful discussion. Thanks.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. The unwillingness to mingle with the hoi polloi is kind of like how Caroline Kennedy

acted in New York.

A sense of entitlement or elitism is very off-putting to the electorate. It's like no one notices that there happens to be a big populist resurgence going on.

[dkf]

26. She was acting like she is a Senator already.

I'm beginning to think the problem is these Senators forget they serve us. That is the reason they can create such a crap bill.

[cali]

28. exactly and it's something that people absolutely react to on a gut level.

[H2O Man]

31. In elections, they do.

There are, obviously, significant differences in the way a person should approach an election, versus an appointment. In the MA situation, the candidate appears to have believed she was being appointed, and had no need to run a proper campaign.

[cali]

32. yes. and that's what I believe is the bottom line

of course there are other factors, many of them, but when you look at the campaign run by Coakley, the complacency up until just about a week ago was astounding. particularly in this political environment.

[H2O Man]

33. She took many things

for granted. And that, as you note, suggests a failure to appreciate the dynamics of the political environment.

[Bitwit1234]

20. I don't believe and I will say it over and over

that brown is leading in any poll. Especially the new company that is putting out all these ridiculous leads for him. I don't think the people of Mass would put such a piece of absolute crap in office. They have more sense than that. After eight years of bush who in their right mind would want something like brown in office whose beliefs are even worst.

[cali]

30. PPP is a dem polling concern and their last poll of the election has Brown

ahead by 5 points. All polls show him winning the independent vote by a huge margin. You can choose not to believe that, but to me that's just sticking your head in the sand.

[Statistical]

38. Even if Brown is NOT UP....

what is important is the relative change. Croakley went from +25 to break even.
Now the poll might be calibrated wrong maybe she went from +30 to +5 or +35 to +10.

The point is the line "moved" 25 points in 3 weeks. No matter where the line is drawn that is huge.

It is unlikely the same polling company was "doing everything right" 3 weeks ago and no is making numbers out of plain air today.

Also some Dem polling groups also show a tight race where is was a "sure thing" 3 weeks ago.

[boston bean]

39. Martha came out in favor of healthcare around that time, after saying she would vote against it. nt

[dkf]

22. The three polls I've seen with data on Healthcare directly correlate to who is leading.

Suffolk poll had opposition to HCR at 51% with 50% supporting Brown. Older Rasmussen poll had 53% support with Coakley over Brown 49-47. PPP poll has opposition at 48%-40% with Brown up over Coakley 51% to 46%.

The determining factor looks like Health Care to me.

[Mass]

42. Yes, but they dont ask why. It is not because they oppose the reform. It is because they are afraid

we will once again have to pay higher taxes to help Southern states while nobody helped us implement our campaign.

[dkf]

46. That is why the unions opposed it til they got their exemption.

The two compromises that sank public support are Lieberman's rejection of the public option or expansion of medicare and Nelson's free medicare for Nebraska.

They gave up too much for those votes.

[laughingliberal]

74. That, and jobs/economy. A poll I saw showed MA voters listed #1 concern was jobs, #2 was healthcare

With less than stellar performance on either of these issues by the Democrats in power now it would seem this could influence her race. I know the stimulus contained money for job creation but I think President Obama saying, "we have limited resources for this," when speaking of jobs creation programs was not helpful when everyone is aware the resources for bailing out Wall Street and the banksters has been unlimited.

I'd be willing to bet if a story had come out of the health care negotiations last week that President Obama called in the obstructionist Dems in the Senate and told them he wanted them to find a way to work out a public option in the compromise Coakley would be way up again, now. Instead, we saw his line in the sand was an excise tax on middle class and union workers. Wonder how many Dems in MA are union workers?

[dkf]

76. Agree completely

Also anyone who is worried about jobs is probably upset healthcare came first and is sucking all the air in the legislative room.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

35. I certainly am not violating any du rules with my op.

you can alert on it, but don't hold your breath, it won't be locked as there is no violation of the rules. sorry you don't like it, but you can't tell anyone what to post here.

[TorchTheWitch]

36. It's you violating DU rules

There's rules against personal attacks, and telling someone here to "go pound sand" is a personal attack.

There's no rules violations in the OP, and though I don't happen to agree with Cali's interpretation here she has a right to say what she thinks, and I certainly would never pretend it violates any rules just because I don't happen to agree with it.


Edit: grammar

[pecwae]

45. It's a shame that more DUers

don't think as you. The recent accusations of rules violations when none exists is a convenient response when the responder doesn't want to face the truth.

[cali]

47. I'm not claiming the truth, just my interpretation of facts on the ground

there are a fair number of people here who don't want to hear anything that doesn't jibe with their opinions.

[pecwae]

52. And you, like everyone else,

are entitled to your interpretation, your opinion and to state it how you see it. I just happen to see truth in your interpretation because it lines up with the accounts of relatives living in MA. If posters don't want to read threads that 'demoralize' them they do have the option of hiding them, ignoring them or the author or they can handily quote the rules that don't apply to the situation.

[TorchTheWitch]

57. Exactly

The OP is what we're supposed to be doing here... offering reasoned opinions in a polite manner. Oddly, the reply claiming rule violations is an example of what we AREN'T supposed to be doing here... mud-slinging attack with no debate whatsoever much less a reasonable one.

While I do agree that Coakley ran a terrible campaign, I don't believe it's the only reason the race is close, and I do believe her flip-flop on the healthcare issue has much to do with losing support. I suspect the party and the candidate believed the Dem would be a shoe-in in MA and thus believed they didn't have to actually do any real work to get votes. It really pisses off voters when the candidate gives the impression that their candidacy alone guarantees them the votes and they don't need to be bothered with actually doing anything to get them. My impression is that this has been the attitude of the party and the candidate in pretty epic display.

[cali]

58. I don't think her poor campaign is the only reason she's in trouble

and I'm sure HCR has something to do with it. It's a complex situation with many factors. I should have made that clearer. Anyway, thanks for the support re expressing my opinion.

:hi:

[TorchTheWitch]

68. The support was deserved

and it wouldn't have made any difference if I agreed with the OP or not. As it turns out it appears we're more in agreement on the issue than I'd taken from the OP, but that could have been my interpretation seeing as how it was the only post of yours on the subject I'd seen.

:hi:

[Tailormyst]

63. Jesus H F^&&&ing CHrist- Could you shove your head any further into the sand?

[cali]

69. ack. it's not worth it. some people are engaged in magical thinking re this race

they appear to believe that if we only post bright shiny things about it, Coakley will win.

lame, but there you are.

[Tailormyst]

71. True- sorry, I shouldn't lose my temper

I blame the red hair and freckles :)

[Mass]

41. Job and Taxes. These are the reasons why the independents are supporting Brown.

Democrats have led a campaign that seems led by Washington strategists, campaigning on getting the 60th vote on healthcare. People here do not care, particularly those independents who will vote for Brown. They are also losing because of plenty of local reasons, like political corruption in the state, lack of support by local Democratic leaders (Where is Therese Murray, where is Capuano), lack of popularity of our governor.

The campaign I have seen may work around Harvard, but it does not work in the industrial cities full of unemployment and where factories have been closing. It does not address people's needs.

[cali]

43. good points.

and that reflects on the out of touch complacent campaign she's run.

[Mass]

48. Nope. It reflects that national democrats in general are out of touch.

She is in part to blame, but others are too, and, while I am sure she will get the bashing, these other people will not. She is not responsible of the corruption in the state, for example. She is not responsible of a campaign about the 60th vote. If anything, it is not HER campaign. It is the DSCC campaign. In fact, her own ads are in touch, as are the SEIU. But we have been buried by messages from out of state concerning healthcare. The blame is very widely spread and people do not get that. It is always easier to blame the candidate.

[dkf]

54. Campaigning as the 60th vote for a crappy healthcare bill is crazy.

Who thought that was the winning strategy? Someone needs to be fired.

[cali]

56. but the buck stops here applies. it was her campaign.

[WI_DEM]

64. the reason is she sat on her lead and let Brown define the race.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

79. There are a number of reasons..

1) Polls taken a month out are pretty useless because they really only capture the political junky opinion, not the average voter because the average voter isn't paying attention yet.

2) Coakley has flubbed publicly (particularly offending Red Sox fans.)

3) Coakley's campaign doesn't seem to have been run well in a mechanical sense (field operations, etc.)

4) People are unhappy with the economy and will punish the incumbent's party.

5) People are unhappy with what they perceive as a double cross by the Obama administration on health care (no public option + private mandate is a screwover) and on jobs (bailing out the banksters instead of funding an FDR New Deal style jobs program with that money).

6) People don't like being taken for granted or candidates who assume they are pre-destined to win (see Clinton, Hillary on this one...)

7) Dem base is sick of DLC corporatist candidates and want progressives or they simply won't be energized to vote any more.