Scott Brown’s prophecy for the Dems

If the Times’ headline writers are accurate and Scott Brown’s Senate win in arguably the most liberal state in the Union “stunned” Democrats, then all I can say is the party I’ve voted with most of my life has just not been paying attention. And like Brown said last night in his victory speech, if the Dems have trouble in Mass., they’ve got trouble everywhere.


10 thoughts on “Scott Brown’s prophecy for the Dems

  1. If, indeed, as he said, Brown won the election by focusing on terrorism, taxes and health care reform, then the democrats have got trouble.  They are all issues the right wing owns right now.  I guess fear trumps hope.

    1. When it comes to socialism, there is much to be feared if you happen to be any kind of an individualist or entrepreneur.  Socialism,  like substance abuse,  will demotivate and  kill incentive.   And that’s just the beginning of an individual’s problems…

      1. It may be true what you say about socialists killing individualism, but we also send redneck peckerwoods to gulags, so it all comes out in the wash.

  2. They have trouble, but what trouble they have and what lessons to draw from this fiasco remain unclear. All politics is local.

  3. This never would have happened if the Hill & Bill Show would have been nominated instead of Barry.
    You can take that to the bank.
    Yer pal, Ferrari Bubba

  4. Here’s a few tidbits about what happened in MA:
    The biggest problem for the Democrats was that Coakley thought she’d coast easily to election, given the state’s electoral makeup.  The rest of the problems stemmed from there.  She didn’t campaign very hard at all.  Ted Kennedy, even though he’s what you’d have thought of as safe an incumbent as there was, would be out there busting it every single election.
    There’s also the issue of the state infighting among the Dems.  Part of the state party wanted Capuano and the other part wanted Coakley.  When Coakley won out, Capuano supporters didn’t rally behind Coakley.  But hey, It’s Massachusetts.  Not a problem, right?  Wrong.
    There have been a LOT of reports of people who have been active in the Democratic party in the state who were ready to volunteer, many of whom contacted the Coakley campaign, only to never be called back.  These are the foot soldiers that the campaign needed, and they never bothered to contact them.  I guarantee you this would have not happened in a campaign of Kennedy’s, or Obama’s.  Good campaigns know who will work for them and they also know how to keep in contact.  Obama’s campaign was an absolute revolution in the use of the internet and cell networks to keep supporters engaged.
    Meanwhile, the Republicans did some internal polling, and they found that Brown, while still quite a ways behind, was actually gaining ground.  In most cases, campaigns will release information like this to try to show a candidate’s viability.  However, the GOP looked at Coakley’s lackluster campaigning, and decided not to release the polling.  They guessed – correctly – that if the Democrats saw this poll, they’d start getting serious about this campaign.  This was a very smart move by the Republicans.
    Coakley several times made the mistake of sticking her foot in her mouth in grand fashion, which made her look really out of touch to the state’s voters.  There was the Curt Schilling gaffe, among others, that really hurt her credibility.
    As the campaign wound down, Brown kept getting after it.  He made over three times as many campaign stops than Coakley in the closing days of the campaign.  He ran an extremely smart campaign that got smarter as time went along.
    As the campaign was closing out, here’s how I knew Coakley was going to lose: The Democrats attacked, attacked, and attacked Brown, without giving anyone actual reasons to vote for Coakley.  The same thing happened in the McCain – Obama campaign; as time went on, McCain’s supporters went harder and harder after Obama but didn’t really tell anyone why they should vote for McCain. You can get away with selling reasons why you should vote against a candidate for a while, but if you’re up against a dynamic candidate like Obama in ’08 or Brown this time, you’ve gotta energize your voters to come out in support of your guy.  Otherwise, you’ll lose easily.

  5. “Martha Coakley’s resounding defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race is hardly the sort of anniversary gift President Barack Obama could have predicted. Yet there it was, wrapped in a bow and plopped on his doorstep like a flaming bag of dog poo to mark the end of his first year in office.”

    –Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason magazine

Comments are closed.