Can everyone PLEASE admit that it was incrementalism that caused last night's loss?

[Ken Burch]

Incrementalism can't hold the powerless. It can't make people with nothing believe change is coming. It can't make people care.

The voters wanted CHANGE. And CHANGE requires a Democratic president to LEAD the progressive crusade.

No Republican has worked with the admin on anything. Thus, none ever will(as none ever did with Clinton, who just signed Republican bills without asking anything from them in return).

Our only hope now is to KICK OUT THE JAMS!

The voters were not demanding that the change be as slow as possible. They were not demanding that corporate profits come first.

They wanted us to take risks and be bold.

And the voters in Blue Dog districts wanted THEIR Dems to stand up to the insurance companies, not to carry their water.

The center failed, now the centrists in our leadership HAVE to get the hell out of the way. If we fight this fall campaign as centrists, last night's result PROVES we're in for another nightmare of '94.

Wake up.

Safe and bland failed and will never work again.

[cali]

1. no, because that was only part of it.

I'm not going to explain the local aspects of the race again. I've done it too many times.

[Ken Burch]

3. Why can't you face reality, Cali?

Yes, Coakley ran a shitty campaign, but any PROGRESSIVE Democrat, six months after Teddy's death, should have been able to COUNT on holding this seat.

It was a repudiation of centrism and timidity. It proved bland, pro-business candidates are worthless everywhere. Why even pretend otherwise?

[cali]

7. you're the one who's clueless and out of touch.

A rejection of centrism, so they voted for the right wing guy? Look, do you even know about the corruption scandals with prominent dem state law makers that Coakley refused to prosecute? Yes, lack of enthusiasm for dems in D.C. played a role, but it's much more complex and LOCAL than that. See Tip O'Neill. You do know who he was, right?

[Ken Burch]

9. I know Massachusetts politics are a rat hole.

But that doesn't mean we should abopt your "don't worry-be happy" strategy. You're asking us to act like this didn't matter and you're calling on us to do the worst possible thing-stay the course-even though last night's result proves that "staying the course" can never be popular for this party again.

I want this party to recover. What the hell do you want? Why are you letting our leaders off the hook? You know we can't benefit from pretending last night was "just local".

[FredStembottom]

50. Cali, your careful explanations of the "local" aspects of this race are helpful.

I do believe I see a "Jesse Ventura" effect like we saw here in Minnesota years ago.
Angry people angry at incumbents sometimes just start slashing at those ballots - aiming for the least familiar person listed.

Anger + low information can = weirdness.

:thumbsup:

[yourguide]

12. Why? She didn't work for it...

She was 20 points up and didn't hustle to hold her lead.

He did 66 campaign events and she did 19.

She took a fucking vacation in the middle of it.

Sorry, you can't count on holding any seat. Teddy always went out, campaigned, and ASKED the voters for their votes. She went on vacation.

[county worker]

19. I heard last night that the turn around happened just after the underpants bomber thing.

That tells me that this was not just local politics.

[Ken Burch]

23. I hope nobody starts arguing that our candidates should stop wearing underpants, though.

n/t.

[Arkana]

34. No it wasn't. This was ENTIRELY on her campaign.

If she'd ran like she fucking WANTED it she'd have won easily. Mass voters agreed with her, not Brown.

But she showed time and time again that she was aloof, disengaged, and remarkably tone-deaf when it came to campaigning. She went on FUCKING VACATION. You do NOT DO THAT in a race with no daily tracking polls. She was arrogant and paid for it--end of story. Fuck you for blaming this on everyone who doesn't think Obama should be Liberal Bush.

[Fire1]

45. Thank you, cali! I will admit no such thing. n/t

[HughMoran]

51. Why oh why can't you face reality Cali!

Why!!!111!!!one!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProSense]

2. Trying to have it both ways

If incrementalism caused last night's loss, what do you suggest happened: progressives stayed home or turned out and voted for Brown?

Which is it?

[Ken Burch]

4. It's been proved over and over again that progressives didn't vote for Brown

No one to Obama's left voted Republican to spite Obama. Stop the lie already.

[ProSense]

6. Did they vote for Coakley? n/t

[Ken Burch]

10. Solidly.

They damn sure didn't vote for Brown, and you slander them when you imply that they did.

[ProSense]

15. This is how you can tell people are determined to spin

Some Obama critics are trying to claim progressives stayed home and others are trying to say they came out in large numbers to vote for Coakley.

[Ken Burch]

20. We lost independents because they thought Obama wasn't a leader

A DLC Dem would obviously have done even worse. John Silber would've lost by 30 points. Nobody YOU would've liked would have had a chance.

[theboss]

5. I've never understood this argument from either side

How does upsetting the wings of their parties cause either side to lose?

Turnout was high last night. Democrats should always win Massachusetts when that is the case.

Independents had to break for Brown in staggering numbers. They did not do this because they were pissed that Obama had not signed healthcare and cap and trade yet.

They did this because they did not want healthcare, cap and trade, etc.

The mistake the Dems made was in trying to cut the baby in half. They had two years at best to get an entire progressive agenda through. Because we are now in the inevtiable backlash.

Newt had two years from 94 through 96 and got a staggering amount done. We have not.

[bigwillq]

27. Very good points

"The mistake the Dems made was in trying to cut the baby in half. They had two years at best to get an entire progressive agenda through. Because we are now in the inevtiable backlash.

Newt had two years from 94 through 96 and got a staggering amount done. We have not."

:thumbsup:

[grytpype]

8. Nope. Coakley had a 30-point lead and she blew it.

If she didn't suck so much as a campaigner, she would have won.

Even with the Corporatist Meanies in the White House, who won't bust up the big mean corporations.

[Ken Burch]

13. And you know a MORE conservaative Dem would've done even worse.

It's not like John Silber would've taken it.

[yourguide]

16. No, a more conservative dem who husled for votes would have still beat the Republican who did. n/t

[Ken Burch]

17. Conservative Dems never DO hustle for votes. Anywhere

Conservative Democratic campaigns are always energy-free zones.

[theboss]

21. Jim Webb would like to challenge you to pistols at dawn

Jim Webb's campaign was arguably the second most energetic campaign of this century.

[Ken Burch]

22. And he moved steadily left during that campaign.

n/t.

[theboss]

25. Only on Iraq

Webb was - in some ways - an anti-war revolution from the right.

[freddie mertz]

11. Yup. Along with a heavy seasoning of political incompetence. nt.

[phleshdef]

14. Nope. It was a lazy compaign that got beat by a very well ran campaign. Period.

[Ken Burch]

18. Why pretend that centrism DIDN'T fail?

Why would ANYONE argue for "staying the course", which is what those who pretend it was just Coakley's personal failings are all doing?

Last night PROVED that "staying the course" dooms us to a repeat of '94. If we lost that seat by staying the course, we can't win ANYWHERE doing so.

Why even pretend otherwise?

[theboss]

24. Why do you think a hard left campaign would have won?

Would the Independents have changed their mind that dramatically?

I just don't understand why people think that Independents voted for a right winger out of disappointment.

I'm sorry, but this is how American politics has always worked. Jimmy Carter begats Reagan. Reagan begats the Dems retaking the Senate in '86. Bush begats Clinton. Clinton begats Newt/Bush. Bush finally begats Obama (and would have begat Kerry if we weren't at two wars in '04).

Voters always "correct" their previous votes. We can argue all day whether this is a center-right or center-left country. The key word is "center."

The problem the Dems have is they never use their power. Reagan put a stamp on the government. So did Bush. Clinton put a surprisingly small stamp for the number of years he had.

[Ken Burch]

28. If the independents thought we were strong leaders...hell yes!

They will always back the party with MORE principle over the party with less.

Also...as progressive campaign will ALWAYS have more energy and harder workers than a centrist one. No one works 36-hour days to elect bland mushburgers.

[theboss]

31. I think we would have needed Huey Long to have more energy than Brown in this one

But I find the "energy" argument weak.

If you watch enough football games - like games with Colts' fan Tom Brady - you always here the losing team say, "We were flat." Strangely enough, they never say "We were flat but still won." Even though it certainly happens.

I was willing to dismiss Virginia and New Jersey as local aberrations. This feels dangerous to me.

[Ken Burch]

32. The Massachusetts Dems needed more of a Mel King type

(Not Mel King himself-the man's 80 by now)but a political street fighter with class consciousness. Somebody who DAMN sure wouldn't take a vacation in the middle of an election campaign.

[theboss]

39. There is probably some truth to that...

But she had a 30-point lead last month in a state Obama won by something like 35 points.

This is more than just a "bad candidate" issue. We should have been able to run a corpse and win.

The easy thing for Parties to do is blame the candidate. It allows you to believe that you are still winning the issues but just need a better spokesperson.

That is very very dangerous.

[Ken Burch]

40. You're right.

I was trying to address the bad candidate issue.

[phleshdef]

30. I don't think it was about left vs right. Coakley barely even tried.

[phleshdef]

29. Centrism??? Far right tea bagger bullshit succeeded over a Democrat.

[Arkana]

35. BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.

LOOK AT MARTHA COAKLEY'S POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES.

I've only seen a few Senators that were further left than she would have been. Pro-gay rights, pro-environment, VERY pro-Wall Street regulation, disapproved of the health care bill because it wasn't liberal enough, staunchly pro-choice...the list goes on. And that does not even BEGIN to talk about the things she did as AG for the people of this ungrateful POS state.

[ibegurpard]

42. and that's where the shitty campaign part comes in

[Little Star]

47. They are in denial and you are wasting your breath.

It's nice that you are trying to break through tho. Good luck.

[Armstead]

26. I disagree -- Incrementalism isn't tyhe prob -- Cross-purposes is the problem

Incremental-ism has to do with the speed and direction in which one moves towards a goal.

Offering an optional Medicare buy in would be an incremental step.

Cross-purposes is working towards different goals. Like those Democrats who want to protect corporate interests versus Democrats who want to reassert government as a vehicle to protect and advance the public interest.

Killing the possibility of public insurance while mandating people to buy private insurance is working at cross purposes.

That IMO is the problem. Different factions of Democrats are working at cross purposes.

[ibegurpard]

41. good point

[glitch]

52. That sums it up. nt

[totodeinhere]

33. You are absolutely correct.

Some people here have been blinded by their support for Obama no matter what happens. We have got to mover back to progressive ideals or we will lose more in November.

[Cha]

36. NO.

[Ken Burch]

37. Er...why?

Simply posting a two letter "all caps" response isn't actually a rebuttal.

We lost because we aren't seen as a fighting party. Incrementalism means not fighting for the people and not giving a damn about them. Incrementalism equals conservatism.

[ibegurpard]

38. Give it up

the only thing that's going to jar these idiots out of their complacency is more losses like yesterday.
Even then, they'll look for any reason other than the one staring back at them in the mirror.
Of course all politics is local and she ran a shitty campaign
Ignoring the anger boiling out there amongst the working class who see the stimulus package that bailed out banks and did nothing tangible for them and the healthcare "reform" that is going to force them to buy from the companies that actually DENY them care, however, is a recipe for EPIC FAIL.

[GOPBasher]

43. Yes, I will admit that. n/t

[frazzled]

44. So instead of incrementalism we get--YAY-- ten steps backward in the wrong direction

from a Republican.

That'll sure teach those people trying to move forward. Thanks, voters of Massachusetts who were so tired (in one year) of supposed incrementalism that they sent us flying back in the opposite direction: cretinism.
God almighty, this place is getting curiouser and curiouser.

[Number23]

48. Well said!

[yurbud]

46. what are jams?

[Orsino]

49. Can everyone please admit that it was MY favorite of the eighty-five possible causes...

...that led to Coakley's defeat? Can everyone please just admit that, so we can move on?

[TexasObserver]

53. A confluence of events created the loss, but that was a big factor.

She was a lousy candidate and she ran a lousy campaign.