Well it's been a while again, but life happens sometimes and the political world has been, well, dull lately. Okay, maybe not to some of you who care about things like "Health Care" or "Haiti" but for me, they just aren't the same as a good Energy Policy debate or a really interesting election.
For those of you who don't remember, I wrote a bit back in 2008 about why Democrats lose in Massachusetts. If you don't, well, I gave you a link, go read, I'll wait.
Done? Good. (Spoiler alert, that isn't what happened this time.)
So there was a special election to fill the empty seat of Ted Kennedy in the Senate. You've probably heard about it in the vast amounts of news. I was home a week or so before the election, just when the national news started to pay attention and asked around a bit to see what was going on. There was a general lack of concern. Everyone was generally dismissive of Scott Brown's chances, regardless of what the polls said.
Now that he's won the media is scrambling all over itself to explain why this happened and are grasping at reasons. I haven't heard anyone get it right yet. They call it a "national referendum" and a "judgment on Obama" and other high and mighty things.
The truth is (as I've mentioned briefly in the past) Massachusetts is a contrarian state. It was bad enough when Coakley acted like she was a sure thing and didn't even need to bother convincing anyone. That, probably, could've been forgiven. But when the national media started paying attention because it could change the "critical vote" on Health Care and wrote Brown off as a convincing, but likely unelectable underdog... that was when Coakley lost.
To the rest of the country this was an election about health care reform and partisan politics. In Massachusetts, this was a big ol' middle finger to the rest of the country. It's not that we from the Bay State don't like the rest of you or want you to have health care reform, we just hate being told what to do and REALLY hate being told why to do it.
Massachusetts already has progressive health care. They didn't need to elect someone to the senate for that. The rest of the country decided that was the issue Massachusetts was voting on, but the reality is that it wouldn't have really affected them. Massachusetts was voting on all of the other issues they disagree with Scott Brown on, but mostly they were voting to prove that they don't have to do what everyone else thinks they'll do.
Showing posts with label Massachusetts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Massachusetts. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Monday, February 4, 2008
Why Democrats lose in Massachusetts (a.k.a. Tuesday [I refuse to call it super])
Alright it's time for my official inaugural post on The Cynical Hammer. The "hey, I'm here" and copied from facebook notes posts don't count to me.
Well, seeing as there are roughly 83 primaries tomorrow (I haven't bothered to count so that may be the tiniest overstatement) I figure that should probably be the basis of this rant. That said, let's talk about Massachusetts.
Its my home state so I feel somewhat safe in talking about it and acting like I know a thing or two about the political system. My father was involved in the political realm sometimes and I met a fair number of politicians while I was growing up. My first job was delivering the Sunday paper to Eddie O'Brien (nepotism at its finest). He was the father of Shannon O'Brien the former Massachusetts State Treasurer and 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate. She lost that election to none other than Mitt Romney.
Now I like Shannon, and the whole O'Brien family for that matter, they were always nice to me when I was growing up. But I remember watching the 2002 primary and wondering how the Democratic candidates could be so stupid. The Democratic primary between Shannon and her opponent (who I can't remember and don't care enough to look up) was fairly close and it was brutal. It was like watching a no-holds-barred grudge match. The campaign got dirty and fast.
But the tactics work. They galvanize their supporters so that they couldn't dream of supporting a different candidate. Unfortunately if their candidate loses, they often can't support a candidate who has said so many horrible things about the candidate they loved. This drives a lot of voters to vote for the other party (if its a moderate candidate and Mitt Romney was) or to not vote. That's how Mitt Romney won the governorship in the Democratic bastion of Massachusetts and its how the Republicans can win in a country that has an almost visceral reaction to George W. Bush recently.
Clinton and Obama need to get their acts together. By the end of tomorrow I expect the Republicans will be more or less unified behind one candidate (probably McCain, but Romney could still pull an upset if the stars line up just right) and the Democrats will still be ripping each other apart. That means the Republican front runner can start framing himself as a moderate again, appealing to the independents and moderate Democrats, while the Democrats are still fighting over their liberal base. If the Democrats can't cut the infighting before the convention the Republicans are going to have an almost guaranteed win in November.
Well, seeing as there are roughly 83 primaries tomorrow (I haven't bothered to count so that may be the tiniest overstatement) I figure that should probably be the basis of this rant. That said, let's talk about Massachusetts.
Its my home state so I feel somewhat safe in talking about it and acting like I know a thing or two about the political system. My father was involved in the political realm sometimes and I met a fair number of politicians while I was growing up. My first job was delivering the Sunday paper to Eddie O'Brien (nepotism at its finest). He was the father of Shannon O'Brien the former Massachusetts State Treasurer and 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate. She lost that election to none other than Mitt Romney.
Now I like Shannon, and the whole O'Brien family for that matter, they were always nice to me when I was growing up. But I remember watching the 2002 primary and wondering how the Democratic candidates could be so stupid. The Democratic primary between Shannon and her opponent (who I can't remember and don't care enough to look up) was fairly close and it was brutal. It was like watching a no-holds-barred grudge match. The campaign got dirty and fast.
But the tactics work. They galvanize their supporters so that they couldn't dream of supporting a different candidate. Unfortunately if their candidate loses, they often can't support a candidate who has said so many horrible things about the candidate they loved. This drives a lot of voters to vote for the other party (if its a moderate candidate and Mitt Romney was) or to not vote. That's how Mitt Romney won the governorship in the Democratic bastion of Massachusetts and its how the Republicans can win in a country that has an almost visceral reaction to George W. Bush recently.
Clinton and Obama need to get their acts together. By the end of tomorrow I expect the Republicans will be more or less unified behind one candidate (probably McCain, but Romney could still pull an upset if the stars line up just right) and the Democrats will still be ripping each other apart. That means the Republican front runner can start framing himself as a moderate again, appealing to the independents and moderate Democrats, while the Democrats are still fighting over their liberal base. If the Democrats can't cut the infighting before the convention the Republicans are going to have an almost guaranteed win in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)