Bill Clinton shouldn't have endorsed Coakley in the Primary

[JI7]

in the future Clinton should stay out of endorsing anyone in a Primary.

[FrenchieCat]

1. So why did he?

and why did the Democrats that vote in primaries vote for her?

[shawmut]

3. payback

she endorsed Hillary.

[onehandle]

2. Ah, yes. Always blame a Clinton.

They control the universe.

:eyes:

[jillan]

4. lol!

[SaveOurDemocracy]

6. It was just a matter of time. Unfreakinreal!!

[niceypoo]

26. The old republican ABC rule

rears its ugly head.

[Buzz Clik]

5. So ... it was Clinton's fault, too?

Meh.

Bottom line: things will be rough in the Senate. Massachusetts will have to live with their choise. Assessing blame is a fool's game.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

7. LOLLLLL .... Funniest Post of the Day!!

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



Huh? ... It wasn't??? ... Well, THAT'S even funnier!! :rofl:

[xultar]

8. Apparently madness is contagious.

[frazzled]

9. It is unusual for big politicos to endorse in a primary

Although Nancy Pelosi endorsed Capuano, I believe. THey were very close for a long time in the House.

[quiller4]

19. It used to be the norm. Now not so much. Actually I prefer it when

senior party officials weigh in. It helps me evaluate competing candidates when I know whose support they've earned.

[Captain Hilts]

30. I prefer they not do so. I think the state parties should be allowed to do their own thing. nt

[Forkboy]

10. Clinton is still fairly popular here.

His appearance wasn't a bad thing for most voters, and a plus for many.

[Beacool]

11. Yep, when all else fails blame a Clinton...........

Damn left is as nuts as the right!!!

:crazy:

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Bill Clinton's endorsement record the past few years is atrocious

Not saying anything against Bill (I love the guy), but seriously, it's stunning how little his endorsement seems to mean. It's almost as if you don't want him to endorse you if you plan on winning.

Let's see: Gavin Newsom, Terry McAulliffe, Martha Coakley. Hell, even some STATE SENATE candidates in Virginia he endorsed (Hillary campaign staffers) lost their primaries.

[burning rain]

14. I've noticed that, too.

Bubba's an awesome speaker at general election time, though. Loved his 2004 and 2008 DNC speeches, in particular.

[burning rain]

13. Coakley would have won the primary without Clinton's endorsement.

She was credible, the only candidate who'd held statewide office, and a major one at that, and the only woman in a field of men.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

15. You CAN'T be serious!

"Coakley would have won the primary without Clinton's endorsement."

Time to come in from the rain...

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Yes, she would have

The rest of the field was divided between 3 opponents, it was a quick primary campaign, she had the support of the machine, and she was a (seemingly) popular statewide official who had been elected in a landslide just three years ago. She had high name recognition, most MassDems who bothered turning out felt it was a formality (since Dems were going to win the seat) and basically ratified her as the nominee because she was familiar.

[burning rain]

17. I have no doubt but that she would have.

She already had statewide recognition, unlike any of the other candidates, is smart and able, and an OK speaker, although a poor debater.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

18. OK, I misunderstood. Primary. Need to read more carefully.

Sorry... :blush:

[quiller4]

20. She was way ahead of the others before Clinton gave a late endorsement.

Now if Clinton had endorsed one of her opponents it might have cost here some support but she was so far ahead before the endorsement that you can't claim it gave her the victory.

[dionysus]

21. lol, you think that's why she lost? uh... outside of DU, most democrats love the Big Dawg...

[Captain Hilts]

31. In 2000, my polling firm looked for 'Clinton fatigue' and never found it. Oh well. And we

weren't Democratic pollsters.

[Jamastiene]

22. The Clenis Strikes Again.

This is the second president we've had since Clinton, yet Clinton STILL gets blamed for EVERYTHING.

:eyes:

[Beacool]

23. Funny, isn't it?

Because most people in the country would take the Clinton years in a NY minute. People at least had jobs back then.

:eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

24. Coakley should have campaigned harder, her vacation was probably a big mistake. nt

[Rebubula]

25. And...

...Obama should not have come to town to support her. Or...maybe she should have posed nude. Or...Karl Rove was behind the scenes. Or...whatever..

This is why the Party is in disarray - we eat our own when things go wrong. Thanks for piling on.

Oh....and a healthy Unrec from someone that campaigned for Bill twice and STILL believes in him and the ideals of his administration (well...most of them).

[niceypoo]

27. Dumbest OP Ive read all week

...and Ive read some whoppers this week.

[Mass]

28. It would have changed nothing. She was way ahead before his endorsement.

[Captain Hilts]

29. She had only token opposition. But I agree that I don't want presdients, current or former getting

involved in state primaries of any kind.

[Orsino]

32. It was the Nader and Whig endorsements that sank her otherwise fine campaign. n/t

[SanchoPanza]

33. But Mayor Tom Menino should have

Clinton's endorsement was meaningless. So was Pelosi's, who endorsed Capuano.

What happened in MA is that the primary split between western and eastern Democrats, with Coakley being the only one from the western part of the state. Capuano, Khazei, and Pagluica split the vote in the east, and virtually all of the Boston establishment backed Capuano, with very few of them throwing their support to Coakley once she won the primary. Menino, who's probably the most popular Democrat in the state now that Kennedy is gone, apparently never bothered to publicly or privately endorse her until he made an appearance or two with her days before the election. That's pretty terrible.

Everyone figured that the person who won the primary was going to win the general. The western part of the state was behind her, but not the east, which is dominated by the Boston establishment. This had a big impact on the GOTV effort, leading to suppressed voting in the east compared with the state as a whole. Because no one even bothered to do tracking polls the entire month of December and early January, no one knew that Brown had been gaining momentum in the middle of the state and to the South of Boston. The DSCC gets some of the blame for not keeping an eye on an important election, but the notion that the Coakley campaign had no money to do tracking polls at all is absurd and they ultimately had the responsibility to do it.

Here's the map, just to give you an idea. Note that Boston turnout for Coakley (that blue patch on the right side of the top map) was around 40%, below the state average:



Just to give you an idea of how MA looks when the whole state apparatus gets behind the nominee in a close election year, here's the map of the 1996 contest between Kerry and Weld (Kerry won 52 to 44.7%, with similar total votes as in the 2010 election):



Maps provided by SwingStateProject, who've done excellent post-election analysis. What happened is that the party establishment thought that the general election was in the bag and decided to effectively take December off. They didn't see Brown coming until his internal polls started to become public (he was using them to get out-of-state financing), and by that time it was too late to really do anything about it. We're probably lucky that they did see it late, because if they didn't see it at all it would have probably been a 15 point blowout.

[Blasphemer]

34. That's crazy talk. Clinton had nothing to with the loss... nt