The MA election was neither a repudiation of progressivism, nor was it a call for more.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Some people are going to say this election was backlash against Democrats for not acting more progressively. Others (primarily media and Republicans) will say the opposite - that this election was the public's way of saying we went too far, too fast.

I'm here to tell you right now that I don't believe either to be true. And no, I'm not just going to blame Coakley here (though she rather deserves a lot of it).

First of all, it was insane and completely false when Tom DeLay declared that Democrats won in 2006 because Republicans weren't conservative enough. It is equally insane and false to suggest the inverse today. It's nothing more than a politically expedient argument to assert previously held convictions that has absolutely no basis in reality.

The fact of the matter is that most people are moderates. No, check that - most people don't have a fucking clue about politics. They don't care that much, and they're sick to death of Democrats and Republicans screaming at each other across the aisle. In my opinion, this is why Obama still has a positive favorability rating - because he doesn't engage in that childish behavior and people actually do respect him for it (outside of DU, that is).

People want jobs. People want hope. People want today to be better than yesterday. And they want it to happen now. They don't honestly give a shit if it happens because Democrats or Republicans make it happen. Yesterday's Brown voters become tomorrow's Coakley voters if unemployment drops to 8%. Democrats didn't dominate Congress for 40 years or so because this country was any more liberal then than it is now - they dominated because things were going well. And while they absolutely had an ongoing role in that prosperity, anyone with knowledge of the global conditions at the time would tell you that circumstance had as much to do with it as anything we did.

Secondly - to those saying that if we hammered through more liberal policies, like single payer or a larger stimulus than was passed, that we would have won yesterday: Look, long term, perhaps we would reap larger rewards than we will currently if we went bigger with our agenda - I'm not going to argue that. I fully agree that both are better policies, although I also continue to believe that both were utterly unpassable in a country that has more red states than blue ones (meaning that no matter how "liberal" we might be, we're always screwed in the Senate.)

What I am going to argue is that there was no single piece of legislation that we could have passed so far that would have made a tangible impact this quickly. A bigger stimulus might have our unemployment rate at 9.5% right now instead of 10% - and people would still be unhappy. Passing single payer in August would've made no impact whatsoever last night as it wouldn't have kicked in yet, and even if it did, there would be no provable results to point to at this time. You can play the "what if" game if it means you score an additional DU point or two, but don't actually believe that there was a progressive panacea with immediate effects that we simply didn't administer - there wasn't. Similarly, there was no more conservative or moderate piece of legislation that could've yielded better results either. Without instant results, people are going to look at the world around them worry no matter which option you choose.


No, yesterday's election wasn't about any specific policies. I honestly don't believe that, one way or another. I know it's hard to step outside yourself for a moment, but if you did, you'd realize that not everyone cares about Section 4(A) of HR 20393 (not a real bill) the way that you do. They don't even know what the bill is about. They don't care about what Krugman thinks. They don't know who that is. What they care about is their family and their bank account. Until they feel comfortable with both of those things, they're going to keep shuffling the cards until they get a draw that will yield them that comfort.

So pull a Tom DeLay if you like and argue that "if we were just more liberal things would be different." Join in with Rush Limbaugh and declare the liberal ideology dead. Just realize that the points you might try to score in doing so will not translate percentage points at the ballot box.

[Jennicut]

1. I think you are correct in that many of these voters have no clue about things we do. They just want

things to get better and will keep voting in someone who finally does "make it all better". But Obama can also start working on some more populist, popular ideas like actually regulating the banks.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. People on this website are Freaks....

Normal people try to think about politics as little as possible. You want to know who's "out of the mainstream" with voters in this country -- anybody who spends more than a few minutes every few years on a political website.

[Jennicut]

3. It was more abnormal to be so into politics when I was 17. People gave me weird looks all the time.

I think I was the only kid in high school who knew what NAFTA was. Someone has to pay attention though.

[pocoloco]

4. The Dems didn't listen back then either.

The only difference now is that we don't have to
use ink, destroy trees, or buy stamps.

I guess that is at least a little progress.

[Jennicut]

5. Ha! The internet did not really take off until my freshman year of college, 1995

And back then it was just AOL chatrooms that were really, really bad. Now it is so darn easy to converse with admitted political junkies every minute of the day.

[timeforpeace]

6. Disagree totally that the voters are not informed. But agree otherwise with your excellent and well

written analysis.

[Cha]

7. A sheep got in that supports torture

bc of a few reasons.. I think these 5 are a start..

LESSONS LEARNED.... Given that the results in Massachusetts were not quite what the political world was expecting as of, say, two weeks ago, there will be plenty of "what just happened?" questions over the next several days. We're already hearing ample talk about what lessons Democrats should have learned from this painful defeat.

I think it's probably a mistake to overstate the larger significance of a special election 10 months before the midterms, but it'd be foolish to pretend Scott Brown's victory was some random fluke, never to be repeated again.

With that in mind, here are my Top 5 lessons to be learned from the Mess in Massachusetts.

1. Successful candidates hit the campaign trail. Candidates seeking office should probably campaign while voters are making up their minds. It's old-fashioned thinking, I know, but winning a primary and then dropping out of sight -- while your opponent is working hard to reach out to voters -- tends to be a bad idea.

For much of the post-primary period, the campaign calendar on the Coakley website was blank. Dave Weigel noted yesterday, "From the primary through last Sunday, Scott Brown held 66 events of varying size. Coakley held 19." Part of this is because Brown had to introduce himself to voters who had no idea who he was, while Coakley was already well known. But 19 events in 40 days is evidence of a Senate candidate who was taking victory for granted -- and in the process, throwing victory away.

2. Voters like likeable candidates. Some voters care more about policy and substance than which candidate they most want to have a beer with, but these voters tend to be outnumbered. We've all seen races in which the thoughtful, hard-working, experienced candidate who emphasizes substantive issues loses out to the fun, likable opponent (see 2000, presidential election of).

The Massachusetts race fits this model nicely. Chris Good noted this week, "hile Coakley focused on the issues in this race, Brown can credit his lead in multiple polls to his own personality and personal image, which he crafted with a series of successful ads portraying him as an average, likable guy." It's tempting to think voters in a mature democracy, especially in a state like Massachusetts, would prioritize policy over personality, and appreciate the candidate who "focused on the issues." But yesterday was the latest in a series of reminders that personal qualities often trump everything else.

3. Saying dumb things will undermine public support. When the pressure was on, Coakley insulted Red Sox fans -- twice. She kinda sorta said there are "no terrorists in Afghanistan," and that "devout Catholics" may not want to work in emergency rooms. When the Democratic campaign realized it was in deep trouble, and readied an effort to turn things around, it had trouble overcoming the distractions caused by the candidate's public remarks.

Maybe, if the campaign had been in gear throughout the post-primary process, Coakley would have been sharper on the stump, had more message discipline, and been less likely to make these costly, distracting errors.

4. Learn something about your opponent. Because the Democratic campaign assumed it would win, it didn't invest much energy in understanding its opponent (who, incidentally, won). They didn't identify Brown's weak points, and seemed to know practically nothing about his background. When the race grew competitive, nearly all of the damaging stories about the Republican candidate came from well-researched blog posts, not the campaign's opposition research team. "Get to know your opponent" is one of those lessons taught on the first day of Campaign 101, and campaigns that forget it are going to struggle.

5. Enthusiasm matters. No matter how confused and uninformed Brown's supporters seemed, they were also motivated. Dems liked Coakley, but they weren't, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go.

Looking ahead, chances are pretty good that organized right-wing voters will be mobilized and itching to vote in November. They certainly were yesterday. Democrats can't expect to do well with an unmotivated, listless party base.

—Steve Benen 6:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/