Coakley’s nomination is the result of a perfect storm (for Republicans): A Massachusetts Democratic primary electorate still a bit hungover that its own choice for president in 2008, now Secretary of State Clinton, lost in the rest of the country to Barack Obama, some still a bit bitter over that, and the general mediocrity of Coakley's primary opponents, too. (Say what you will about John Kerry, but each of them were mere political insects compared to him.)
Coakley - originally way ahead in the polls - took much of the month of December off from stumping the state and recently suggested that it would be a waste of her time to engage in retail campaigning by shaking hands outside of Fenway Park. She exudes, at times, that prissy elitism that turns Massachusetts voters away from Democrats so regularly.
Worse news is that her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, is a buffoon who voted 96 percent of the time in the Massachusetts State Senate with GOP dogma. If he arrives in the US Senate – as the traditional political math says he will – he will become the forty-first Senator vote to block so many progressive advances that would still be possible if he doesn’t succeed.
And yet, by traditional Massachusetts political math, I repeat: Brown will win Tuesday’s special election.
Lousy candidate, sounds like not a real strategic bone in her body, appears to lack even the desire for The Common Tough. Andrew Sullivan brainstorms another reason -- Kennedy himself:
This Senate seat was held warm for Ted decades ago, when he was parachuted in and stayed there for ever. Part of the revolt is based on the fact that Coakley seems to be the ultimate Kennedy clan crony, and was also plopped in by a tiny number of primary voters, and seems to imbue the arrogance of the Democratic party elite. Most voters know that she could lord it over them for decades. But they'll almost certainly be rid of Brown in a few years.
Brown has also played class politics more effectively. Obama's swoop in to save Coakley also makes him look like an upper-class elitist rather than a mobilizer for change for the poor. The optics, as they say, are awful.
And E.J. Dionne weighs in with a message Dems has best heed if they want to staunch losses this fall:
Yet the truth that liberals and Obama must grapple with is that they have failed so far to dent the right's narrative, especially among those moderates and independents with no strong commitments to either side in this fight.
The president's supporters comfort themselves that Obama's numbers will improve as the economy gets better. This is a form of intellectual complacency. Ronald Reagan's numbers went down during a slump, too. But even when he was in the doldrums, Reagan was laying the groundwork for a critique of liberalism that held sway in American politics long after he left office.
Progressives will never reach their own Morning in America unless they use the Gipper's method to offer their own critique of the conservatism he helped make dominant. It is still more powerful in our politics, as we are learning in Massachusetts, than it ought to be.
It's time for the Dems to get populist all over again. It's good to see Obama starting to go after Wall Street, but only real financial reform will do the job. Process is necessary, but when it looks like the health insurance companies and big pharma are aboard, it looks like a sell-out.
Not an easy balancing act, I'll admit. But in a time demanding change, nominating an establishment candidate -- especially one with no feel for campaigning -- is a threat to the future of the Republic.
Because she could lose to this:
Good luck on Tuesday, Martha, in spite of your nomination.
1 comment:
Sully takes a big swing & miss here, but Dionne has it exactly right.
BHO needs to remind voters whose policies destroyed the economy & he needs to go after Wall Street hard. If, egged on by his party's always-out-of-touch DLC rump, he lets the Repubs pretend that they're somehow the party of the little guy, Dems will get, and deserve, a pummeling in Nov.
Post a Comment