Can we really blame the GOP for the loss in MA?

[Go2Peace]

I am seeing a lot of anger directed at the GOP for the loss. I HATE their organization as much as anyone. But how can they be to blame? They put up a somewhat persuasive but overall pretty empty candidate.

I know some don't like to hear this, but MA was *ours* to lose.

We mounted a monumental "on the ground" effort, so that could not have been it.

So if it was the senate candidate, let's look at the process and find better ways to vet candidates to support. If it was the "messaging", let's look at what did not resonate and find better ways to get our message across. And yes, if it is a problem with our image and perceptions that the Democrats are not being seen as agent of change or following through, then let's take a good look at how we need to improve and respond better and get people energized to vote for our candidates.

Why do we have to "blame it" on something outside and act out in denial? We need to take the lump and learn the lessons or we are destined to repeat it.

[elocs]

1. With an election loss it never seems to be the Dems' blame. It's either "we was robbed,

somebody cheated, somebody lied, yada, yada, yada....

There are a lot of reasons for this loss and it is best to deal with them honestly in order to do better in the future because the blame game won't give us much of a future.

[aquart]

7. No, this one was all on us.

But Gore and Kerry were defrauded.

[elocs]

8. With Gore it should never have been remotely close enough to be stolen.

With a good economy and no war, Gore should have won in a landslide.

[aquart]

9. I see. Their theft is our fault. No sale.

[elocs]

12. Why not read what I actually wrote:

it...should...never...have...been...remotely...close...enough...to...be...stolen


Sale.

[rpannier]

2. It's much easier to say it was stolen or blame a phantom boogey-man

than take an objective look at what went wrong

[hansont]

4. You have to wonder with the posts tonight. Maybe after folks calm down they will think more clearly

[FrenchieCat]

3. I think we lost for a multitude of reasons.....

and there is enough blame to go around,
and certainly, the Democrats have to take this bullet,
far as I'm concerned.

and we would all be well served to examine all of those reasons....
not to be able to blame, but to get better.

[rpannier]

5. +1

[Sherman A1]

6. I don't think it a GOP win so much as a Democratic loss,

more one of shooting yourself in the foot. I expect 2010 to be the same with too many lessons unlearned as the message that will be taken from this is move to the right.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. I personally blame the national demo party - they should have

primed a formidable candidate. On the other hand - I spent 4 years in Boston - the state is not that liberal. No where near as liberal as CT

[rwheeler31]

11. yes The GOP and their media cheerleaders are to blame

For all the hate in this country.

[Justice]

13. Agree - we set up a poor candidate and Brown drove his truck over her

It is the side of Democrats that worries me. Democrats allowed a 4 way primary with two first time politicans - one a multimillionare who used to work with Romney but became a Democrat and one a former America Corp guy - both had zero name recognition. Then a sitting US rep and Coakley. The sitting US rep spoke out and was called "angry" (he is a passionate guy). It became don't gang up on Martha. It was ridiculous.

I predicted that this would happen during the primary.

[SanchoPanza]

14. Victory has a thousand fathers...

... and defeat is an orphan.

There are two lessons, by my count, that will likely not be learned from this. People are far more interested in feeling better than embracing reality, so all you're going to see is how ObamaRahma is a corporate shill and SOLD US ALL OUT from places like FDL and OpenLeft, while the DLC will simply blame the left for being too radical. Both are wrong.

1) All politics is still local. Turnout in Boston and the surrounding area was pretty abysmal, and I think this points to the eastern faction of MAs Democratic Party not being happy with how the primary wrapped up in early December, as they had backed Capuano while western MA went for Coakley. Even Menino didn't publicly come out for Coakley. This isn't anyone's fault except the Boston establishment, really, because they and Capuano treated the primary the same way Coakley treated the general: It was his to win. They lost, and should have gotten over it and put their muscle behind Coakley.

The town-by-town map SSP put up clarifies this, I think. The small blue area in the east is Boston:

http://swingstateproject.com/diary/6241/masen-map-of-special-election-results-by-town

And these are the town-by-town results from Nov. 2008:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma_president/

The towns Obama won in 2008 that were within 1-5 percentage points are the areas that Smith was able to flip. In most circumstances this wouldn't be enough, but 40% turnout in the Boston Metro area did the rest. Others have commented on the nature of the impact of Obama and HCR on the race. People who think this was a national referendum on anything, whether they be progressives, moderates, or conservatives, needs to turn off Cable News and get their heads out of their asses.

2) You take nothing for granted. The Clinton campaigned learned this the hard way in 2008, and this lesson was apparently lost on the Coakley campaign (and Capuano before her), as well as the DNC who didn't treat the race with the seriousness it deserved. Special elections don't follow the same rule as those in the Presidential season, which is the only time where national issues have any significance and the rank-and-file of the party can be expected to come out for any candidate on the ticket. Not to mention the fact that Republicans have previously done well in years where the state and national parties have dropped the ball (Weld, Romney, etc).

If this wasn't even enough, that no one bothered to do internal tracking polls until the last minute should be considered a fiasco of the highest order. Smith was allowed to sneak up and no one was the wiser until early January. The Democrats could have used most of December to squash him in his tracks, but apparently they have other uses for fundraising efforts. The DSCC has three times the financial reserves as their Republican counterpart, the NRSC, and that these funds weren't tapped to preserve a crucial seat going up for election shortly before FINAL PASSAGE of a critical policy initiative is sheer incompetence. One person having their eyes off the road is one thing, but this is a collective failure of basic politicking.

[Broke In Jersey]

15. Good point Go2Peace

There are a dozen GOOD reasons for this loss. But the number one was Congress and the ugly way they are doing HCR & Congress seems to be breaking B-Rocks promises.

* She was a bad candidate but a (D) ham sandwich should have won in Mass.
* Obama is VERY popular accross the land.
* The only thing people are pissed at is Washington Politics.

[era veteran]

16. Poor candidate, worse campaign

Too lazy to campaign

[alarimer]

17. Nope. A terrible candidate and an insurance company giveaway health care bill.

If Democrats would act like fucking Democrats and do what the people really want, this won't happen.

Besides Coakley tone-deaf and just an all around lousy person. Centrist corporate to the core.

Nope, this one is the fault of the centrist, corporate pieces of shit that run the country. Including that milqutoast Obama.

People do not want corporate giveaways as insurance "reform".