If Coakley Loses, Expect Massive Dems Losses Later This Year

[Yavin4]

A Coakley loss in Mass. is a sign that the Dem base is demoralized whilst the conservative base is energized. Ever since 2006, the Dems, in particular the Congressional Dems, have done little or nothing about effectuating real change.

It started with "take impeachment of Bush off the table" and it's continued with a corporatist health care plan. Ask yourself, if Obama lied to the American people to get us into a war, would the Republicans take impeachment off the table? Hell no.

I'm not blaming Obama on this. He has to deal with this congress, and he's trying to get the best deals that he can. But, the Dem congressional leadership just does not share the same passion and zeal for progressive politics as their base does. Thus, their base is demoralized. The only way that congressional Dems can get the base energized is when the Republicans are in power.

Mass. is a bellweather and a Coakley loss will embolden the Tea Party crowd and conservatives. They may not get total control of both chambers, but they won't need to. All they would have to do is get gridlock, and their work will be done.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. January is not November

It's a bad sign, but special elections are often funky and Coakley has run an awful campaign and blew a 30-point lead.

Yes, it's not a good sign for November, but the political climate may be very different in November compared to what it is right now. Ben Smith pointed out that at this time in 2006, most observers expected a 5-10 seat pickup for Democrats, and in 2002, generic polls and the VA/NJ gubernatorial races indicated Democratic pickups in Congress.

[Yavin4]

3. Not Every Candidate Has The Charisma of Obama or Clinton

Often, you're going to have run candidates who are dull that's when the election becomes about policy issues, and the Dems are not excited about the policies coming out of Washington.

[timeforpeace]

27. What's the most likely spin going to be if she loses? Who will get the blame or credit?

[quakerboy]

47. Whoever is liked or disliked by whoever is doing the spin, I would assume

[politicasista]

36. No disrepect to

Bill, but Obama wins in charisma hands down. It's genuine and funny, not fake.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Sounds like you are seduced by that "invigorated right wing" horse shit

Who is going to buy into the idea that republicans have any kind of fix for any of this? They sure as hell haven't offered one single god damn idea about what they would do any better.

[Yavin4]

5. Off Year Elections Are About The Base of Both Parties

Off year and special elections turn on the passions of the base. In these types of elections, you don't get the constant media coverage which keeps the election in the minds of voters. Instead, only the base pays close attention. Turn out in Mass will be far lower than it was in 2008.


The Repub base is motivated. The Dem base is not.

[burning rain]

10. They don't have to have a fix.

All congressional Republicans have to do to turn out their base, which hates Democrats in general and Obama in particular, is say No to everything. They've been doing that. Meanwhile, our Senate Democrats have blandly and cravenly accepted that they "need" 60 votes to pass anything, and have been constantly watering down legislation to get to 60, and that naturally disenchants the Democratic base. You do the math. By my calculations, the answer is 1994.

[inthebrain]

4. I wouldn't say that

Living in this state the turnouts for the last few local elections have not been good. There is also the issue with Deval Patrick's governance that has not entirely differentiated it's self from Romney's. Perhaps on social issues but not much else.

Workers have gotten laid off en masse from government institution including but not limited to MassPort, MasDOT, Boston Housing, Department of Mental Retardation, Department of Mental Health as well as a state run Mental Hospital. Also, local businesses (Know those fine folks that creat Rock Band? Yup, those guys too) as we all know about.

There is a lot of anger and folks feeling alienated here. And this is a heavily Democratic Party State.

Coakly loses it will be more due to voter feeling left out in the cold. Not really cause everyone here all of a sudden became a conservative. As a matter of fact, things here are moving MORE radically left.

I doubt Coakly loses though. Brown's too much of a southern social conservative and even the conservatives here are not very comfortable with that.

[treestar]

39. There's gonna get more left out in the cold if there are 41 Rethug Senators

The things you mention will be the very things the Repukes will filibuster against. They will filibuster against everything single thing, all 41 of them.

[Hansel]

61. Yes they do. Wouldn't it be nice if they were feeling the heat for that.

But I guess it makes more sense for the left to get in a circular firing squad then to turn their site on the real culprits.

[pnwmom]

6. Or it might mean she's run a weak campaign and some people liked

his nude Cosmo photos.

[David Zephyr]

7. Win or lose, this race should have been a runaway for the Democrats.

Obama not going there to campaign? Why? He's toxic politically.

Unlike you, I do blame Obama for the Dem losses. You know, the majorities that a certain "irrelevant Howard Dean" spent two election cycles building.

And all pissing away in eleven months.

[quiller4]

31. If you look at polling data Obama is way more popular in Massachusetts

than Coakley. Right now November does not look good for Democrats but pass a jobs bill, hammer the banks and see unemployment numbers improve a bit and things change in a big way.

[katandmoon]

8. Why don't you blame Obama? He's the one who took impeachment off the table. He has no passion or

zeal for progressive politics, either. He's as much if not more culpable than congress. He just sits back and lets them fuck up and fuck us and does nothing until it's too late. He puts more effort into making nice with regugs and making sure they're comfortable than he does in promoting progressive positions on anything. In fact he and his administration are openly dismissive of progressives - i.e. the people who worked so hard to get him elected.

Between Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, we have the most lackluster, lightweight bunch of Democratic leaders imaginable. Despite all their fine words, all the hopes raised, especially by Obama and Pelosi, when push comes to shove they will not fight for anything except the status quo. They will not put the welfare of the average citizen above the welfare of their corporate sponsors.

We're screwed and I for one won't forget this feeling of being screwed when my own party was in power. If that's the best they can do, there's really not much reason to ever get energized for again.

[inthebrain]

14. It's not as simple as blaming one man

It's the system that needs to challenged. It requires an ideological shift and one that is radical where the people then see themselves as a class unto itself. Right now the system works the way it's supposed to work.

There's a difference between I think the way a lot of people think about things.

1)Most posting on this board, the liberal, see Obama and the Democrats doing these things and want to put a human face to it. It's just ugly and we need to make it easier to deny. This serves the elitests.

2)The Progressives see what Obama does and thinks that "We need reforms". If we ask for a set of reforms things will get better. You may get some things, they will by extremely minute but none of it that's really going to challenge the system. In many respects, the results we be anything that prevents any kind of radical changes. The are those that want the FDRs.

3)Then there are the radicals, Marxists, Socialists, Anarchists and the occasional Progressive among us. WE see the world entirely differently. A liberal or the common progressive sees a beggar on the street they say, "The system is broken. It's not working." The Marxists, Socialists, Anarchist and occasional Progressive (I say occasional because their thinking is changing on this lately) sees a beggar on the street and we say, "The system is working the way it is supposed to."

Just like when we also see people getting laid off, lose their homes and politicians get off for committing atrocities. We want the system radically overthrown so that the last is first and first is last.

THere is more outrage and folks starting to shift to what I mention in option three. And it is happening in the state of MA.

[katandmoon]

16. I'm not blaming one man. I'm blaming lots of people. I'm asking the OP why OP doesn't blame Obama

- since OP specifically exempted Obama from blame - as well as congress, when they are all culpable.

[phleshdef]

25. Took impeachment off the table? Who was he going to impeach, himself???

[DevonRex]

29. LOL. And now they think the President controls impeachment, too.

:rofl:

[katandmoon]

49. So, are you laughing because Obama called for ignoring BushCo's lawbreaking?

[IndianaGreen]

56. The President is duty bound to enforce the law. Obama has given a pass to John Yoo

and all the other law breakers.

[DevonRex]

28. You need to read the constitution again. You might have missed

the part that specifies what the President does, what the Senate does and what the House does. It's spelled out VERY clearly. I'd bet that even YOU could understand it if you tried.

[dionysus]

30. obama took impeachment off the-- what the hell.... and what's a "regug"?

can you repost in english please?

[DJ13]

9. This isnt just any old seat, this was Kennedey's for decades

If (big if) she loses this will certainly portend an electorate that is fed up with the way the Democrats have been operating in Congress the last year or two.

You just dont lose a long term Democratic seat in a liberal state under normal circumstances.

Even if she wins, and its only by a few percent, its a bad sign for later this year.

[Bill219]

11. The Teabaggers on Twitter are orgasmic over a new telephone poll

by Pajamas Media where they claimed to have polled only a sampling of 20% repukes and they claim that Brown comes out 15 points up

Here is the link that is being circulated on twitter

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/01/14/wtf-scott-brown-up-by-15-in-pajamas-media-telephone-phone-only-20-sampled-are-republicans/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Blaukraut]

12. Ok, *now* they're hallucinating. Brown up by 15? Sure! n/t

[OHdem10]

13. Only a few wins and the Dems on the Hill, will fold everytime a

Republican says boo. It will really appear the Republicans
are in charge.

[depakid]

15. That this is even being discussed is problematic

Republicans have nothing to lose here- if they even come within 10% they and their media will be crowing.

[burning rain]

17. Even if Coakley wins, the closeness of this race is an ill omen.

Massachusetts is ultrablue, so a narrow Coakley win could still prevene massive Democratic losses in November. Congressional Republicans have kept their Obama-hating base pumped up by saying No to everything, while Senate Democrats have disillusioned the Democratic base by needlessly compromising legislation so as to reach the phony 60-vote threshold.

Given Republicans' unprecedented obstructionism, Senate Democrats have ample justification to deploy the nuclear option left and right--so the difference between Republicans holding 40 or 41 seats would be minimal with only 51 votes needed to pass a bill or amendment.

That said, I very much hope for Martha Coakley to win on Tuesday. GO, MARTHA!

[karynnj]

26. Nuclear option is a double edged sword

I think it scares the Democrats more that the party in power could do things with just 51 votes. It may be that it scarier to Democrats, as we want Government to do things - where the Republicans were more likely to want to kill programs. (Foreign policy and wars are things that President can do. I know Congress funds wars and declares them, but the fact is the President has more control over these.)

What scares me is the far left here that almost wants this as "punishment" for Obama and the Senate. The problem is that this will punish the ones really on our side as well as any they characterize as "corporatist". (I also think they do us no favors by saying that - as some on the right have tried to use that to suggest they (the tea baggers) are really for the people. It is startling to see at least one MA poster, who I always respected, saying he won't vote for her, but would stay home. I am old enough to remember 1972, when the liberals deserted Humphrey, who if through a time warp, were running now, would be a progressive favorite.

[burning rain]

59. True, Republicans would pass *some* more bad measures with 51, than 60.

But I'm as sure as can be that the dangers of that are oft overstated. A lot of people have fearful visions of 51 Republicans voting to privatize Social Security, outlaw all abortions, or abolish civil rights laws. But the fact is, government programs properly called socialistic--like Social Security and Medicare--are wildly popular, and congressional Republicans were so afraid of annihilation at the polls that they wouldn't even bring up George W. Bush's Social Security schemes for a vote when they had the majority. Likewise, Republicans have feared to take broad stabs at abortion via legislation, and as for civil rights, the filibuster was always a hindrance rather than a help--a major reason why no civil rights legislation, not even the modest decency of an anti-lynching law, could pass Congress between Reconstruction and Eisenhower's second term. Setting up supermajority requirements for passing legislation seems to be rooted in a gloomy view of Americans as hidebound reactionaries who must kept from getting the legislation we want. I do of course see a place for restraining illiberal popular whims and upholding basic rights even where a majority are against, but think that's best confined to the independent judiciary, rather than proliferating hindrances to majority rule throughout the legislative branch as well, which necessarily leads to voter apathy and cynicism as their--our--desire for change is thwarted again and again. Cynicism, meanwhile, almost always redounds to the benefit of conservatives. It feeds the conservative line that government can not do anything good. It is not a coincidence that one of the cagier and nastier right-wingers, Paul Weyrich, insisted that he didn't want more Americans to vote. Moving to simple majority rule in the Senate would naturally lead to more involved and engaged citizenry, as people saw that government actually can do (more) things.

I also regret to see some DUers hoping to see Brown nose Coakley. However frustrated we may be, a Brown win would only lessen the potential for progressive change. I wouldn't ask any lefty to be thrilled with the legislation we've been getting, but it does seem reasonable to ask people to vote their own better interests, which are surely better served by elected Coakley rather than Brown. The issue in the Massachusetts Senate race ought to be the public interest and not some desire to kick the president and Senate leadership in the tush at the expense of harming our own interests. But there's a bigger picture. I doubt DUers will swing the Massachusetts Senate election. No doubt there's a much larger chunk of voters without a firm ideological commitment, to whom Democrats can appeal on the basis of basically liberal, public-minded economic policies, but we've been frittering away that advantage with, for instance, the PhRMA deal, by ditching the public option, and with Nelson's smelly Medicaid sweetheart deal for Nebraska.

I'm a big fan of Hubert Humphrey too, but I don't see how he would have been the logical Democratic nominee in 1972, having lost in 1968, with the Democratic Party's peace camp only haven gotten stronger in the interim, to the disadvantage of relatively hawkish Cold War liberals like him and Muskie. I think 1972 was no-win year for us in any case. I have to wonder whether the heartbreakingly close election of 1968 would have turned out differently, had Johnson called for a bombing halt and peace talks earlier than he did--when he did, peace voters largely came back to the Humphrey/Muskie ticket, but not enough.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Sez who? From down here, it looks like the real problem is...

Coakley and crew winging it thinking she can cakewalk into the seat and getting a rude awakening when Brown throws everything into his campaign.

(Moderately charismatic underdog working his ass off to beat boring favorite-- what movie plot is this?)

Sure, if Brown pulls it off the Republicans will get a huge boost and bragging points for a while, but where does it say all is lost if that happens?

[JeffR]

19. Mass. is a bellweather. Mmm. Sure thing.

You're much smarter than this OP would suggest. Ask yourself, why does your OP make you suddenly appear ridiculous?

[One_Life_To_Give]

20. All politics are local

Tip O'neils quote is as applicable today as ever. Don't underestimate the impact of an unpopular Dem governor on this race, etc.

It's reported that Independent's are breaking hard for Brown/Against Coakley. But we need to understand why these same people who voted for Patrick and Obama are thinking of doing such.

[Tesha]

24. That would be because Patrick has been an ineffectual Governor and Obama is shaping up...

to be an ineffectual President.

America can tolerate politicians who are flat-out
wrong, but it hates wimps, and these two guys are
turning out to be world-class wimps.

Tesha

[BklnDem75]

34. Opinions are like armpits...

Everybody has them, most of them stink.

[Tesha]

55. Well argued; highly persuasive. (NT)

[Clio the Leo]

21. The only GOOD thing in a Brown win is that it would be an early wake up call....

.... the fear and question has been would Dem. voters be complacent next November .... losing Ted Kennedy's seat to the Republicans would wake EVERYONE up.

[golfguru]

37. And after the "wake up" call what will happen?

Turn more towards center or turn more left? What do YOU think?

I know what I think....a hard right turn to center.

[Clio the Leo]

Has nothing to do with policy....

.... and everything to do with GOTV. OFA was non-existent in the NJ and VA races and they only got active THIS WEEK in the MA race.

We lose "Teddy's seat" and that wont happen in the fall, trust me.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Or maybe it's a sign that running uninspiring establishment candidates is dumb this year

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Aramchek]

32. Get over yourself.

[Yavin4]

33. The Problem Is That Dem Leadership Still Believes In Corporatism

They still legislate under that philosophy which turns off the base.

[FrenchieCat]

35. from your keyboard to Chris Harball Matthew's mouth......

You speak for the corporate media.

That doesn't make you right,
but it does make you scary.

[treestar]

38. What do other states care who MA elects?

Whenever I vote for a Senator, I vote for whoever my state is running. I don't give a rat's butt about what happened in some other state 10 months ago.

[harkadog]

40. Politics does not happen in isolation.

If the race in Mass. is lost or even close in one of the most liberal states then it is a symptom of what will happen elsewhere. Your individual vote doesn't mean jack shit as far as what the OP was posting about.

[treestar]

42. That is what you are claiming

In fact, that nobody in my state can vote, or that they have to follow Massachusetts, or that they cannot think for themselves or some BS like that.

Each state has its own politics and its own candidates.

[harkadog]

50. Maybe a 100 or 150 years ago

Not any more. But keep on whistling past the graveyard if that helps you get through the day.

[treestar]

54. You have said nothing there that supports the idea we are all

homogenous and all likely to do the same thing.

Each state has its own local politics. it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

[harkadog]

58. I think your exposure to politics has been at a computer

in someone's basement. That is the only reason someone could make such a silly statement. I don't know who the "we" is that you are referring to. If the we is the American voters in general of course they are diverse. My "we" is the liberal left and yes they are likely to do the same throughout the country and be affected in similar ways to various actions and policies. Grow up. You are not worth even this much of a post.

[Yavin4]

41. Coakley's Loss Will Super Energize The Republican Base

They will donate more, volunteer more, etc. It would be a huge morale boost to them after two devastating election cycle losses.

Also, the media will go apeshit as well.

[treestar]

43. Why don't we, say, just for the heck of it, do the same thing ourselves?

Instead of forming the circular firing squad as usual?

These people need nothing to be energized. Even if they lose this Senate seat, they will still be all fired up. That's what we should take from their book. We have too many DUers going on about how it's all the same, both parties are corporatists, blah, blah, blah, lamentation and moaning while the repukes go out and campaign.

That's what is ridiculous. Dems get the biggest advance on a healthcare bill in history and we have some percentage of them whining about how it's not good enough and talk of primaries and third parties. it's the single area in which we have to say the Dems are dumb and the Repukes are not.

[Yavin4]

44. Dem Leaders Need To Inspire The Base

You cannot tell the base to "shut up" and then expect them to come out in droves for the election.

[treestar]

53. No one tells them to shut up

But in their rantings they reveal they are not the "base" as the base is people you can count on even if things don't go well. The claims of "progressives" to be the base are wrong. They'd be out there fighting tooth and nail for this election if they were the "base."

[nightrain]

66. could be that this Senate race is an indicator on both corporate Dems and corporate-protected

financing of healthcare, given Romneycare and its horrendous problems. Perhaps a marker for Dems on how not to proceed. Well, if they get the message...

[brentspeak]

45. You should blame Obama for this -- at least partially

As President, he is the leader of the Democratic party.

[Yavin4]

46. That Is True - A Good Leader Inspires Passion

I've given him a pass on a lot, but at some point, he needs to grab the bull by the horns and lead.

[Ildem09]

48. Historically speaking

We WILL loose seats in the house. we have Dems in seats that have a CPI of R+10 we will most likely loose 20-30.. In the Senate we are certainly going to loose ND, and maybe NV, Illinois is going to be closer than it should I think the machine can pull it out though. so most likely 3 seats in the senate. nothing that major. every incumbent party has lost seats in mid term elections except for 96' and 02' backlash from impeachment and 9/11 effect explain those

[WI_DEM]

51. What if she wins?

[IndianaGreen]

57. Will she join the Blue Dogs and vote for the Great Health Insurance Bail Out, or

will she fight for the people, and a public option.

[nightrain]

65. I reckon she'll join either the Blue Dog caucus or the New Dems. We got into

this financial trouble partly due to their efforts. If she doesn't make it, we might get a different outcome on heath insurance or health care.

[nightrain]

52. If Coakley loses, it will be associated with Dems' disgust with

corporate money and power controlling representative style of governing.

[totodeinhere]

60. This should have been a runaway.

I still doubt that Brown will actually win, but even if he makes it close it's a bad omen for November. Some people want to practice wishful thinking and put their heads in the sand and continue to believe that everything is OK with the Dem majority. Those people do that at their own peril. A few months before the 1994 election it was considered unthinkable that the GOP could take Congress. Even they didn't think they could. But we all know what happened.

The time is now to jettison the DLC types and traitor Joe and the rest and move back toward the progressive ideals that Obama ran on. I don't think it's too late, but if the Dems continue to fuck around it soon might be.

[Hansel]

62. The health care issue will be done and Obama will make adjustments and move on.

I don't think this says anything about November unless the left panics.

[busymom]

63. She isn't going to lose. n/t

[wisteria]

64. Oh, just what we need a downer post, predicting doom and gloom.

It doesn't have to be this way. Things will improve. Try emphasizing the positive this administration has done.