• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.
ShOcKwAvE said:
If Coakley manages to squeak out a win, who wants to bet that the media will still focus on the GOP narrative that this spells trouble for Dems in Nov?

They will, and they'll be right. If a democrat can barely win in MA, what the hell do you expect to happen in November?

People are not motivated on the left, and why should they be given the compromises and back door dealing that have been going on. A reformer who doesn't reform is not a popular person, and right or wrong that's what people will be (and are) thinking
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
They will, and they'll be right. If a democrat can barely win in MA, what the hell do you expect to happen in November?

People are not motivated on the left, and why should they be given the compromises and back door dealing that have been going on. A reformer who doesn't reform is not a popular person, and right or wrong that's what people will be (and are) thinking


So basically your saying that people are voting more against Obama in Mass today than for or against Coakley and Brown? That sounds pretty weird to me, because you are competely excusing Coakley's horrible campaign run so far. Why?
 
mckmas8808 said:
So basically your saying that people are voting more against Obama in Mass today than for or against Coakley and Brown? That sounds pretty weird to me, because you are competely excusing Coakley's horrible campaign run so far. Why?

I'm not excusing her campaign, merely pointing out she's a democrat in MA, and Brown has many far right positions. The recent polls in MA show Obama's approval numbers in the low 40s. In Massachusetts. If that's not a sign that we're all fucked, I don't know what is
 

gkryhewy

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I'm not excusing her campaign, merely pointing out she's a democrat in MA, and Brown has many far right positions. The recent polls in MA show Obama's approval numbers in the low 40s. In Massachusetts. If that's not a sign that we're all fucked, I don't know what is

I agree with you for once; we are all fucked. This country is practically ungovernable.
 
mckmas8808 said:
http://wbztv.com/local/scott.brown.martha.2.1434536.html

Interesting....

Based on this article I'm going to say Coakley wins by 0.1-0.5 percentage points. I'm nervous as crap.

If weather is bad, then Brown will win. Dems never come to vote when weather is shit.

So basically your saying that people are voting more against Obama in Mass today than for or against Coakley and Brown? That sounds pretty weird to me, because you are competely excusing Coakley's horrible campaign run so far. Why?

Maybe it has to do with health care? Maybe MA voters aren't happy with their state mandate and they don't want a national mandate?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
I'm not excusing her campaign, merely pointing out she's a democrat in MA, and Brown has many far right positions. The recent polls in MA show Obama's approval numbers in the low 40s. In Massachusetts. If that's not a sign that we're all fucked, I don't know what is


Okay but Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40s if you only use "today's" Likely Voter model. If you look at Registered Voters he's in the 50s.

Coakely completely F'ed up and she stopped campaigning after she won the primary race. Hell even the DNC screwed up big time. And I do also blame the white house some for not seeing this coming sooner. But I still think the blame mostly goes to Coakely.

Jason's Ultimatum said:
Maybe it has to do with health care? Maybe MA voters aren't happy with their state mandate and they don't want a national mandate?


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure. It's just funny that when DEMs won 5 special elections within the last few months, nobody seemed to say that this is pointing to people national liking the healthcare bill.

It only seems to go one way for some reason.
 
Door2Dawn said:
Stop making stupid predictions like this. You don't know whats going on in the heads of people, and you shouldn't act like you do.

Emperical evidence backs my post, unless the books from my political emperical analysis classes are wrong. :lol
 

gcubed

Member
gkrykewy said:
I agree with you for once; we are all fucked. This country is practically ungovernable.

agreed...


and boy i did not miss this thread around election time

mckmas8808 said:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure. It's just funny that when DEMs won 5 special elections within the last few months, nobody seemed to say that this is pointing to people national liking the healthcare bill.

It only seems to go one way for some reason.
the underdog is ALWAYS a better story
 

PistolGrip

sex vacation in Guam
We are all doomed!!!...

I think all this bickering about dems being in major trouble is faulty. The major problem is the Economy and people tend to vote out the people in power when the economy is in trouble. Sure people are not happy with the dems because they are idiots and dont see that this country is setup in a way that doesnt allow for fast reform.

Either way this country to going to hell if the republicans gain any more control.
 

Hawkian

The Cryptarch's Bane
Door2Dawn said:
I saw a lot of brown supporters at denney's this morning down here in FL. Coakely has no chance.

Door2Dawn said:
Stop making stupid predictions like this. You don't know whats going on in the heads of people, and you shouldn't act like you do.

what the FUCK

JU said:
Maybe it has to do with health care? Maybe MA voters aren't happy with their state mandate and they don't want a national mandate?

I think it's not that so much as a NIMBY problem- regardless of whether or not they're happy with the current situation of MassHealth, their setup basically guarantees that national health care reform will only affect about 3% of the Massachusetts population.

...like my girlfriend's mom, for example.

Fuck... I hope Coakley pulls this one off :-/
 

Seth C

Member
gkrykewy said:
I agree with you for once; we are all fucked. This country is practically ungovernable.

The founding fathers had a plan to deal with that, but the North wanted nothing to do with it. Oh well.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Coakley has run just about the worst campaign possible. Misspelling Massachusetts in campaign ads, mocking the idea of shaking hands and mingling with supporters in the rain, barely even campaigning at all until very recently, actually, among other things .

This has nothing to do with being a referendum on obama and everything to do with Coakley being the shittiest candidate imaginable but still having a shot by being a democrat in massachusetts.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Emperical evidence backs my post, unless the books from my political emperical analysis classes are wrong. :lol


What about this?

A constant stream of voters slogged through a light snow this morning to cast ballots in the unexpectedly close election to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in the US Senate.

Republican Scott Brown has surged more than 30 points in the polls in his bid to upset the one-time front-runner, Democrat Martha Coakley, for a seat her party has held for generations.


(David L. Ryan/Globe Staff)


"I'm trying to save the nation today," said Robert Cappello, 69, a registered Republican and enthusiastic Brown voter from South Boston who reveled in what he described as an "overwhelming sweep" of momentum for his candidate.

"This election is a lot about sending a message," Cappello said in an excited voice outside a polling place on H Street. "It's telling Washington to slow down."

In West Roxbury at St. George Orthodox Church, Phil DiCarlo cast his ballot for Coakley but noted how quickly the Brown campaign gathered steam.

"It seems like people have short memories," DiCarlo said. "They forgot about the last eight years" under former president George Bush.

Another Coakley backer, Mary Hochman, criticized her candidate's campaign and noted that Republicans nationally seemed to have a better sense of the importance of the vote.

"This is Ted's seat," Hochman said. "Who would have thought it?"

By 9 a.m. in Boston, more than 23,000 ballots had been cast, an early turnout significantly higher than in the primary last month. In Back Bay, the crowd voting at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square far eclipsed the numbers for the primary last month. Poll workers said the difference in turnout was like night and day.

The same held true at Bates Elementary School in Wellesley, where a line of cars at the polling place spilled out onto Elmwood Road. By 9 a.m., some 400 ballots had been cast
.


Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, has vowed to be the crucial 41st Republican vote blocking President Obama’s health care legislation in the Senate. Coakley supports the overhaul and stood with Obama in Boston this weekend at a rally for her campaign.

An independent candidate, Joseph L. Kennedy of Dedham -- no relation to the late senator -- also appears on today’s ballot.

In Natick, the persistent flow of voters included Rex Kidd, 48, the owner of a local masonry and paving company who voted for Brown because of his pro-business, conservative views.

"I respect Martha Coakley and what she's accomplished in her career. But I think she's going to preserve the status quo," Kidd said. "Scott Brown can take us to the next level … [Brown] is going to decrease my taxes and get rid of all the wasteful spending that Deval Patrick has done. Cutting taxes fuels the economy, not charging more taxes and spending it on social programs."

Outside Natick High School, Randy Divinski took a vacation day from his job at a non-profit to clutch a Coakley sign in 30-degree weather.

"I am bothered by stealth Republicans who run as moderate," said Divinski, 46. "Brown has a political record, but that is not what he's running on," said Divinski. "We've just had eight years of screwball economic policies, and he wants to go back to that? One Herbert Hoover is enough."

In Jamaica Plain at Kennedy Elementary school, more than 100 people -- or about 10 percent of voters -- had cast ballots by 11 a.m. That number equaled roughly the entire turnout for the primary last month. Like most of the others interviewed in this left-leaning precinct, Sasha Cantu, 21, said she voted for Martha Coakley.

“I don’t want Brown because he didn’t want to help rape victims,” Cantu said. “She’ll do everything Teddy Kennedy wanted to do.”

In South Boston, Patrick Shaughnessy, 33, cast his vote for Brown because of Coakley's "entitlement attitude."

"She didn't really campaign. She wouldn't debate him one-on-one," said Shaughnessy, an unenrolled voter who supported Republican Senator John McCain in 2008. "She just expected to win."

Another unenrolled voter, Jackie Crowell, 26, also voted for Brown. "I think my views align a lot better with his than Martha Coakley's," Crowell said.

Maureen Downs, 51, came to the opposite conclusion and cast her vote for Coakley.

"I don't agree with Scott Brown's positions on anything," said Downs, citing economic regulations, emergency contraception, and more.

Her husband, Eddie Downs, 50, added: "I just don't think he would be good for the working man and woman of the Commonwealth."

Democrats are hoping a coordinated get-out-the-vote effort for Coakley will hold off the surging Republican. Brown's campaign is hoping the raw energy among his supporters is enough to overpower the state’s Democratic machinery.

The cold, cloudy weather could be a challenge for the candidates. Intermittent light snow showers – and some rain – are expected throughout the day and into the early evening.
Polls remain open until 8 p.m.

To read profiles of the candidates and a rundown of where they stand on the issues, click here for Brown; here for Coakley; and here for Kennedy. To find out where to vote, click here.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/polls_open_in_s_1.html


So does this possibly change anything?
 
Pimpwerx said:
Regarding your post, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you seriously drawing the difference between me an Mr. Stewart as he is paid to be a comedian? So a sarcastic response can only be given by a paid comedian?

All that matters in Stewart's bit is whether it's funny, not really whether it's accurate or politically effective or reasonable.

You, on the other hand, are a citizen talking about your own political response, which means what you say actually does matter on all those fronts. And so far, you've pretty consistently come in here only to push the ludicrous slacker angle -- the Dems did a bad job, so it's better to just stay home, never vote for an imperfect candidate, and certainly not expend any effort finding ways to improve the system that don't involve just handing it back to the Republicans to destroy further.

Branduil said:

You weren't even in!

PhoenixDark said:
The recent polls in MA show Obama's approval numbers in the low 40s. In Massachusetts.


These are with the same Likely Voter screens they're putting the election poll numbers through. Factually speaking the general approval rate in MA is not anywhere close to "low 40s," but the pollsters have been predicting that the crowd that will vote today only has low-40s approval of Obama.

Jason's Ultimatum said:
Maybe it has to do with health care? Maybe MA voters aren't happy with their state mandate and they don't want a national mandate?

I absolutely guarantee you this has nothing to do with anything.

PhoenixDark said:
People are not motivated on the left, and why should they be given the compromises and back door dealing that have been going on.

Because being motivated, taking strong positions, and advocating persuasively for one's beliefs is what actually gets things changed, while staying home and sulking is what diaper babies do?
 

thefro

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Emperical evidence backs my post, unless the books from my political emperical analysis classes are wrong. :lol

It's an inch of snow, that's not bad weather in MA... that's something they laugh at. :lol
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Saying this is a referendum on Obama is like saying Al Franken beating Norm Coleman was a referendum on Tim Pawlenty. It makes no sense. It's retarded.
 
Wait, some dude named Kennedy, unrelated to Ted, is running for his vacant seat?

Holy fuck, this is some Eddie Murphy, A Distinguished Gentleman shit!!!

IN REAL LIFE!!!
 

gkryhewy

Member
charlequin said:
I absolutely guarantee you this has nothing to do with anything.

You're completely right; this has nothing to do with anything. The morning shows had brief clips of a handful of Brown voters, and it was all feel like I'm doing something right, need to take the country back.

I don't believe that all of these people are simply paranoid racists, and so if you account for that factor, my question for the sizable remainder is back to what? We can't make it 1999 again, and keep it there forever.

There isn't going to be another housing bubble, and there isn't going to be another debt-fueled consumption boom. We have to go somewhere from here. Simply turtling in the corner with a flag draped over our shoulders isn't sufficient.

Clearly business isn't entirely the answer; even the teabaggers hate the banks. If government cannot functionally place us on a constructive path, then who will?

Will we have a 10 year period where congress changes majorities every two years? Where does this end?
 
mckmas8808 said:
Okay but Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40s if you only use "today's" Likely Voter model. If you look at Registered Voters he's in the 50s.

But that's a very important point that runs against you. Had Democrats been energized to fight for the passage of a good, progressive bill, today's "likely voter" class would contain a lot more Democrats with favorable views of Obama. This reflects the disenchantment on the left with the Obama administration. It's not that people are voting against Obama. It's that people are staying home because they can't be bothered to fight for a conservative health care bill, i.e., because Obama and the Democrats gave them no reason to be a "likely voter."

Branduil said:
Good point, not wanting to murder babies is exactly the same as not treating a black person.

I agree.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
gkrykewy said:
You're completely right; this has nothing to do with anything. The morning shows had brief clips of a handful of Brown voters, and it was all feel like I'm doing something right, need to take the country back.
And my experience is that these people who are all "WE GOTTA TAKE AMERICA BACK!!!11" are scared and paranoid idiots who think obama is building his own version of the Hitler Youth.

If Brown wins, if this is supposedly a referendum on obama, it's a referendum on the obama that "pals around with terrorists" and the obama that is building a hitler youth program while sleeping with underaged prostitutes employed by ACORN.
 
I placed my Coakley vote, but I am very very scared this is going to be a bad day for Massachusetts. At my voting stations there were what seemed like eight times as many Brown sign holders. My town is probably usually a 50/50 split but I bet Brown wins it handily today. Coakley just ran a horrible campaign and I just hope she squeaks it out, I have a bad feeling though.

Never thought Massachusetts could be so horribly duped, but I guess you can never overestimate the voters.
 

Matt

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
And DNC should have seen it coming, but they didn't until 6 days before Election day. No Ad buys, nothing. DNC also thought they will win because its a Kennedy seat.
Again, that's not the DNC's job. You should be talking about the DSCC, if anyone outside of Mass.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Sirpopopop said:
Can you actually articulate why the HCR bill is bad, and how it's worse than inaction? Because really, that's the argument you need to make, MD. You never get 100% of what you want in politics. You have to decide who will provide you the majority of what you want in politics. You have to decide if 20% is better than 0%.

Actually, let's get straight to the point:

Do you understand what the word "compromise" means, MD?
Is this for me? I know I'm against the bill, but not sure about the MD other than MechanizedDeath is one of the nicks I used to use around here.

In the event it's for me, I'll just answer. I understand the word compromise, but given the policies passed under the previous administration (with or without Democratic control of Congress), I find it almost insulting to toss around that word, unless it's meant to describe the state of the party platform, which has been compromised. Simply put, given the numbers in Congress, the concept of compromise has been exaggerated to the point of capitulation.

What was done to the House bill to get ONE Republican on-board? Is one member of the opposing party what we consider "bipartisan" support? That, like the debate in general makes this entire endeavor seem like nothing more than an attempt to tick a checkbox in Obama's first term, no matter the cost. The argument that it's a moral victory doesn't hold water with me, since moral victories shouldn't hit my wallet. If HCR was this important that we'd welcome wolves into the henhouse, then maybe Obama should have got out in front and laid down his requirements for the bill to be satisfactory, instead of leaving Congress (lobbyists) to their own devices. If he did lay out his requirements, then his vaguery has been met with corresponding bullshit in the bill.

How is inaction better?

1. I don't have coverage now, so I pay $0. $0 >>>>>> $X amount the Dems want to pretend the private insurers will give me. I'm in the healthy group still, so it's not like I'm the burden on the system, either, though I'm sure I'll hear cries of "playing chicken". Then again, I guess everyday I wake up, I'm actually "cheating death". It's all perspective, I guess.

2. Cost controls seem ridiculous and almost haphazard. The main control seems to be the mandate. Boy, that's a winner. Throw us (uninsured) to the wolves we've intentionally avoided all these years, just to fund this watered-down plan. Also, the excise tax seems like the "you can't have these benefits unless you can pay extra" tax. Basically, only the rich can have these plans. So now people who prioritize healthcare high in their budget seem to get hosed on the back end with a tax.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is based on the countless articles Ghal and mckmas post. I facepalm everytime I read one, but it seems the consensus in this thread is that these are good measures. I disagree. I think direct competition with a cheap option is the best and simply smartest way of going about this. That would mean passing a more solid public option. That would require Congress having confidence in their own abilities to pass something that's not loaded down with pork and excess.

3. Jobs won't recover that quickly. When they do, wages won't increase by much, if any. When people start getting back on their feet, an insurance mandate will kick in reducing their after-bill income. This is fine for people currently getting coverage from their employer (which I assume 90% of the people in this thread, that agree with the bill, have right now). Your costs won't change at all per year, and should (conceivably) go down. For me, this will add thousands in bills, even if I don't get sick. That or I can choose to get fined. But the point being, after taking care of this now, income is reduced. This is gonna be an albatross around the Dems' necks for a while, especially once it turns out the insurers didn't keep their word and found other ways to drive up costs to maintain their bottom lines.

I don't think I'm being pessimistic either. The TARP was the same issue. A lot of common sense measures (like restrictions on bonuses and payments) were passed up because the market could control itself. There's already talk of an antitrust exemption that'll allow these insurers to keep their monopolies? It all just reads like bad (sloppy) policy, and the Dems are trying to ram it through on the belief that if it fails, Obama fails. Well, fine. So what if he fails? I'm not paying for his legacy. I'm not subsidizing his memoirs. I want laws that work for me, period. Screw the Democratic party if they lose control. What good is a party that can't get shit done anyway? Passing watered-down (heavily compromised) bills that still don't get opposition report is the definition of idiocy. Until I'm working in Congress, and need to protect my job, I'll continue to stand by principle, because these shmucks are supposed to be serving us, not lobbyists. PEACE.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
PhoenixDark said:
They will, and they'll be right. If a democrat can barely win in MA, what the hell do you expect to happen in November?

People are not motivated on the left, and why should they be given the compromises and back door dealing that have been going on. A reformer who doesn't reform is not a popular person, and right or wrong that's what people will be (and are) thinking


Obviously that is going to be the line people will be saying. But if you stand back and actually assess the situation for what it really is, this really shouldn't be used as a predictor for November. Coakley did fuck all until the last minute, and she had a series of Major gaffs. If you don;t think the Red Sox flub was major, you don't understand Mass. Meanwhile, Brown was campaigning hard from the very beginning, and had the full backing of the RNC.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
I wonder if a Brown win (coupled with this intense exposure) will launch him up as a presidential candidate for 2016? After the Jindal flameout, the Republicans are looking for a young(ish) candidate to prop up.
 
Hello Gaf. I really don't think this is a referendum on Obama. It has more to do with the nature of the special election combined with Dem's complacency and a series of political missteps in an environment that is really feeling the pain from economy. Coakly presumed that she will get endorsements from the DNC machine, Obama and Vicky and simply coast towards victory in an ink-blue state. But there is anger out there, not necessarily towards Obama, and not the tea-party anger which is misdirected and uninformed, and it has sort of directed towards the incumbents and majority. She should have learned from Corzine's fate in NJ, another demcratic stronghold. Obama has been in office for only a year and for half that time, he enjoyed 65-55% approval ratings. This election is not a referendum on his performance.
 
gkrykewy said:
You're completely right; this has nothing to do with anything. The morning shows had brief clips of a handful of Brown voters, and it was all feel like I'm doing something right, need to take the country back.

I don't believe that all of these people are simply paranoid racists

Based at least on my own anecdotal sample size, I'm guessing you're looking at people who are

  • Probably moderately successful in a middle class sense and pay more income tax than payroll tax
  • At very least passive racists (but very often worse)
  • Place an extremely excessive value on "security" (both in the crime and terrorism senses)
  • Just don't care at all about progressive reforms of any kind because they don't believe they have ever benefited from even one of them

empty vessel said:
It's that people are staying home because they can't be bothered to fight for a conservative health care bill, i.e., because Obama and the Democrats gave them no reason to be a "likely voter."

But the Republicans have given anyone who cares about progressive policies (or even avoiding actively regressive ones) plenty of good reasons to be a "likely voter."
 
empty vessel said:
But that's a very important point that runs against you. Had Democrats been energized to fight for the passage of a good, progressive bill, today's "likely voter" class would contain a lot more Democrats with favorable views of Obama. This reflects the disenchantment on the left with the Obama administration. It's not that people are voting against Obama. It's that people are staying home because they can't be bothered to fight for a conservative health care bill, i.e., because Obama and the Democrats gave them no reason to be a "likely voter."

Agreed.

TocixAdam said:
I wonder if a Brown win (coupled with this intense exposure) will launch him up as a presidential candidate for 2016? After the Jindal flameout, the Republicans are looking for a young(ish) candidate to prop up.

If his people are smart, they'll have a barn burner victory speech ready to go. One that speaks to MA issues as well as national issues, while expressing disappointment in Obama and turning "change" around to attack him. Hell, maybe he'll say he voted for Obama or something, just to drive the point down
 

Pimpwerx

Member
charlequin said:
All that matters in Stewart's bit is whether it's funny, not really whether it's accurate or politically effective or reasonable.

You, on the other hand, are a citizen talking about your own political response, which means what you say actually does matter on all those fronts. And so far, you've pretty consistently come in here only to push the ludicrous slacker angle -- the Dems did a bad job, so it's better to just stay home, never vote for an imperfect candidate, and certainly not expend any effort finding ways to improve the system that don't involve just handing it back to the Republicans to destroy further.
Slacker angle? What exactly do you believe in? Do you remember any principles you may have had? Do you still believe in them?

I don't vote Dem, so few of those people would get my vote today, if I voted. I wouldn't vote Rep either, I'd vote Green or some other Ind. party. Change has to start somewhere, and it should be backed up. The culture of DC won't change much until we start voting idiots out. I am far from a slacker, sir, I use the democratic process to make change. Every vote away from ineffective politicians is a step in the right direction.

But, I'm just gonna hand it back to the Reps, right? I'd wager, you and others have already done so, by voting so many moderates in that the party can't even support its own platform. I don't know if I'm repetitive or not, but doesn't that shame you? A party that can't supports its own platform should be dismantled. The tent is too big, and consensus can no longer be reached. This Congress has passed more conservative legislation in the last decade than progressive laws. Who's had control most of the time.

Here's a better question: What exactly has become of the party platform? What exactly does a "Democrat" stand for these days. I most certainly AM NOT a Democrat. PEACE.
 
empty vessel said:
But that's a very important point that runs against you. Had Democrats been energized to fight for the passage of a good, progressive bill, today's "likely voter" class would contain a lot more Democrats with favorable views of Obama. This reflects the disenchantment on the left with the Obama administration. It's not that people are voting against Obama. It's that people are staying home because they can't be bothered to fight for a conservative health care bill, i.e., because Obama and the Democrats gave them no reason to be a "likely voter."
I couldn't agree more.

But unfortunately, I can't imagine that the DNC / White House will translate today's loss in MA in this way.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
empty vessel said:
But that's a very important point that runs against you. Had Democrats been energized to fight for the passage of a good, progressive bill, today's "likely voter" class would contain a lot more Democrats with favorable views of Obama. This reflects the disenchantment on the left with the Obama administration. It's not that people are voting against Obama. It's that people are staying home because they can't be bothered to fight for a conservative health care bill, i.e., because Obama and the Democrats gave them no reason to be a "likely voter."

.


How do you know that the likely voter numbers are bad for the DEMs due to Coakely being a terrible candidate?
 
Mercury Fred said:
I couldn't agree more.

But unfortunately, I can't imagine that the DNC / White House will translate today's loss in MA in this way.

And even if they did it wouldn't matter: Lieberman, Nelson, and Blanche have the power in the senate. It'll be very hard to get progressive stuff done even with 60 votes. The WH/senate leadership compromises out the gate, and all Lieberman/Nelson/etc do is demand further compromises and concessions until the final product is weak(er).
 

JoeBoy101

Member
PhoenixDark said:
If his people are smart, they'll have a barn burner victory speech ready to go. One that speaks to MA issues as well as national issues, while expressing disappointment in Obama and turning "change" around to attack him. Hell, maybe he'll say he voted for Obama or something, just to drive the point down

Over in what most of PoliGAF would consider the fever swamps (i.e., conservative or republican websites) its actually not getting battered around much at all. I think they are so carried away at the though of winning the MA senate seat, that their focus is entirely in the present. And I don't blame them either, as a close race in MA, much less a possible Brown victory, looked like moronspeak not a month ago.

I did read an interesting piece though making the point that its very possible that the republican candidate for 2012 isn't known yet. That their best person is not somebody whose name has recognition. Normally that would not be the case, but politics have gotten so fluid in that somebody can rise in recognition in a relatively short amount of time. Witness the rise of Obama who, though not a nobody in politics entirely, he went from 2004 DNC address to presidential candidate in 4 short years, knocking off much more veteran aspirants to the position.

As for blame in this election, should Brown win. Maybe not the lion's share, but the majority goes with Coakley. If I'm going to vote and one of the candidates whines about having to go down to pressing palms at Fenway, I'm not going to be voting for her majesty.
 

Money

Banned
I really don't see how Democrats cant be worried about this. This can only push dinos and moderates to be much more conservative in their voting over the next year. We are talking about Ted Kennedy's seat, in a state that hasn't elected a Republican Senator since what, 1960s? Maybe I'm wrong but I see this as the canary in the coal mine for Democrats. What are the chances of the House approving the Senate bill? I'm not as familiar with the Senate bill as I should be.

BTW this is my first day on GAF, after a while of lurking!:D
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/martha-choakley.html

It's still not entirely clear to me that Martha Coakley will lose today. As I wrote previously, beyond the poll numbers, which have indisputably trended toward Scott Brown over the past month, almost every intangible--at least the ones the media reported and thus formed the contest's overall narrative--favor Brown, as did the scheduling and timing of the race.

Still, this is Massachusetts, and this is Teddy Kennedy's seat. Even though a short, six-week race in February of an off-year cycle is more than the normally disadvantaged, minority Republicans could hope for, that argument could be turned inside out, too: I mean, how much damage can a majority-party standard bearer like Coakley do to herself in such a short time?

Quite a bit, apparently. If she loses today, this may forever be remembered as the "Martha Choakley" race.

Look, Coakley cannot be blamed for the features of the race that are and were beyond her control: The state of the economy; her party's unified control of state and national goverment; the president's lagging approval numbers; the fact that she suffered all the burdens of being an "incumbent" with few if any of the actual advantages of incumbency.

Nevertheless, and with specific regard to the candidate and/or campaign effects of this race--the things within Coakley's control--so much went afoul:

*She allowed Brown to turn the race into a personality, rather than an issue/policy choice. Aside from healthcare and the implicit notion that Coakley would be a stand-in vote for the deceased icon whose seat she would be filling, what was the Coakley "platform"? Unless you are a particularly dynamic or celebrity-like candidates, when you are the nominee of the favored party in the state you want to avoid allowing the race to devolve into a personality contest. In 2006 in Maryland, where I teach, that's what Michael Steele tried to do against clear statewide favorite Ben Cardin. Cardin won the election, but Steele kept the race to 10 points in a bad Republican year in a state John Kerry won by 14 points just two years earlier in a better Republican cycle.

*She seemed unncertain about how closely to align herself with the Democratic establishment, either in the state and/or nationally. Was using Vicki Kennedy the right choice? Probably, but maybe not; perhaps some voters viewed it as some combination of heavy-handed, maudlin or desperate. Should President Obama (or President Clinton) have been summoned sooner, or maybe not at all because nationalizing the race only going to remind voters that she represented Washington's in-party? My feeling is that, had she done a better job establishing an independent, policy-based identity after winning the nomination, she could have avoided bringing in the big, national guns; but once she started to tank, there was not enough time to recover and she had not choice but to call for help. So it was the right decision, but a decision that could have been obviated.

*Those gaffes. Conservative talk radio, where Curt Schilling already had a built-in following, loves episodes like the Red Sox blunders Coakley made because they meet the three criteria for a good talk radio story: The details are easily accessible to listeners because there's not too much complex or heavy policy content and there is a clear, repeatable fact or quote that encapsulates the story; the story can be personalized to an individual or set of individuals, who can then be mocked or demonized; and, finally, the episode fits neatly into a pre-existing frame, in this case the "out-of-touch" character of Democrats/liberals. This was a slow, fat pitch right down the middle for Schilling, Brown and the GOP to whack. (Yes, I know Schilling is a pitcher--I'm a Sox fan!--so the fat-pitch metaphor is backwards in this case, but you get the point.)

All campaign results are a function of three things: 1. The rules and structure of the election system; 2. The political context of the race, which includes everything from political/electoral environment of the moment and the underlying partisan/ideological disposition of the electorate; and 3. Campaign and candidate effects. Brown had the advantage on #1; despite the bad economy and anti-incumbent and anti-Washington and anti-Democratic sentiment, Coakley had the overall advantage on #2, even if it was a smaller advantage than usual for a Democratic candidate in Massachusetts. But again, the first two factors were largely beyond her control.

What Martha Coakley presumably did have control over was her campaign strategy and message--the third and, for her, potentially fatal factor. In any case, we'll know pretty soon whether she can pull off what will now be regarded, amazingly enough, as a last-minute "upset" win.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I think I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the health care bill (it fails to really motivate me to support it, but if I'm asked to vote on whether or not I think it's a good thing, I'd say it was), but that can't be the sole factor at play here. I think it's really the economy.

I link this directly back to the stimulus. Obama and his team of jackasses got cute with the amount they asked for and now he pays for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom