Martha Coakley lost in her race for US Senate tonight against Republican Scott Brown.
She ran a terrible campaign, but you can’t blame this loss entirely on that. It’s too early to know for sure whether this loss was because of apathetic or hostile left-wing voters – and it may ultimately end up being impossible to tell whether disappointment with President Obama led to this result – but in a blue state like Massachusetts, I think you can assume the enthusiasm gap between the two parties – because of poor campaigning, a strong challenger, and a Democratic party that doesn’t know how to take advantage of its 60 votes in the Senate – played a role, likely an election-changing role.
Many have argued that Coakley’s loss should be a wake up call to national Democrats, both in Congress and in the White House. I don’t disagree. President Obama has largely failed to live up to the expectations he built during his own campaign. It doesn’t really matter how many wins he gets or how many half-measures he passes. He was swept into office on the expectation of great change, and he hasn’t delivered. As Dr. Drew Westin said, President Obama is proving to have no fight in him, and that apathy or cowardice is hurting Democrats all over the country. It will certainly hurt worse in 2010.
But whether Coakley’s loss should be a wake up call and whether it will are two very different things.
As I’ve argued, I have little doubt that Democrats will learn exactly the wrong message from this loss. Rahm is already pointing fingers at all the wrong people. The White House is renewing its foolish hope of bipartisanship. Joe Lieberman is pushing for "centrism." And the conventional wisdom says the best path for health care reform is for the House to pass the Senate bill unchanged, no fixes in conference.
I’ll be more than happy to eat my words if Democrats do indeed come to realize the way to win elections and legislative battles is to rally the base and convince the middle, not pander to corporations and spit on the base. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t put my money on it.
If we’re going to force Democrats to learn the right lessons, we’re going to have to look for new strategies. Voting for the Republican because the Democrat doesn’t live up to expectations reinforces the two-party system that holds back so much progress in this country. It also gives party leaders a convenient excuse by pointing fingers at the opposite party. I don’t blame the voters of Massachusetts for being disappointing in Obama, and I don’t blame them for taking the readily available alternative by voting for Brown. But I certain this vote won’t have the effect the dispirited liberals want it to have.
So what can we do? I don’t have that answer, but I have some ideas. We can reward our friends better, the allies we have in Congress who really do stand up for us. By rewarding them handsomely, we can show that the base helps their own. We can challenge lackluster Democrats before they become the party’s nominee for elected office. We can build our own infrastructure to push our ideas with the same weight the right has in pushing theirs.
Let’s start that conversations. I’m less interested in arguing whether my premise – that Democrats will move right, not left after this loss – is correct or not. We’ll find out soon enough. I’m more interested in what you think we can do to become stronger. Even if I’m wrong – and I’d be very happy to be wrong – we can make ourselves even better in the process.
So, what say you?



31 Comments




Ya Know, I don’t know about y’all…..but I almost don’t care who wins. I’m more interested in how the whitehouse is gonna interpret the outcome. I mean, of course I want the lesser of two evils to be elected, however, I wanna see how Obama changes his tactics as a result of thiselection. Is he gonna continue digging himself into a bigger hole by being as Liebermans says “more centrist” and try to be more bipartisan, or is he gonna swing to the left, or you know, we are a center right country, maybe he’ll swing more to the right. Who knows!!! But what I do know is that Krugman is right. His advisors who have been reading the tealeaves are definately misjudging what the people want
What say I?
I say that you are probably correct in the White House and DC Dems are taking the exact wrong message from this loss.
Whoever could have anticipated this would happen?
Personally, I think it would have been better for coakley to be elected. Because if that were the case, then the progressives could run a primary candidate against her in 2012. That would send a very clear message to the WH. And make the progressive cause stronger. But now that Brown is elected, which, forgive me, I’m snickering under my breath, it just leaves more misinterpretation open for the WH.
How many votes did Nader get?
Naturally the administration will move further to the right; that’s their pattern, and like addicts, they can’t change until they admit they have a problem. Sadly though, a Coakley win would have had the same effect, as they would have decided that corporate giveaways like the HCR bill were jim-dandy, so why not bring in Big Coal to write the climate bill, and Pat Robertson to talk about DADT? They already had the MIC decide “defense” policy for them, Face it, we were sold a bill of goods, and voting these days is pretty irrelevant, unless you’re a Republican.
The WH doesn’t give a F. Watching the poll numbers on war and PO and bankster bailouts etc… didn’t sway them… why would this?
The same way that Clinton (with Rahm Emanuel advising) handled 1994: By moving even further to the right. If Coakley had won, we wouldn’t be seeing Lieberman smirking on our teevees right now talking about how Dems need to “move to the center” (i.e. become more Republican).
It removes their last excuse not to try reconciliation. Now, if they want a bill, they’re going to have to go for it as they’re running out of chances for a “Win”.
What say I? I just listened to a female commentator and Ari Fleischer on MSNBC about this race and they both made this point which I purloined from the Link you provided about “hope of bi-partisanship’:
“The problem is, it’s no longer just Republicans who are saying no; voters, and in particular independent ones, are now sending that message as well. And it is the fact that Democrats have responded so high-handedly to this message that is driving voters to turn against Democrats like Martha Coakley and the various incumbents (including Obama himself to some degree)”
And Fleischer says that the Repubs ‘noticed the needle moving in December when Reid anounced the special deals to Nelson and Landrieu’.
It was ‘independents’ that led to the Dem victories in 2008, not the party ‘faithful’. And ,for the most part, those same independents feel that what promise Obama held out has been abandoned for ‘more of the same’.
I’ve been trying to get the message across for months now that the largest growing group of voters declare themselves as ‘independents’ and it is THEY who ‘swing’ elections. And they are NOT easily put into a box. And the growth of such voters SHOULD be a wakeup call to the Dems and Repubs. Seems like the Repubs have the ‘tea partiers’ trying to takeover the ‘leadership’(direction) of the Repubs; who/what is doing the same re the Dems?
“BILL MOYERS: Why? So, part of the problem with America is the Democratic Party?
THOMAS FRANK: A huge part of the problem, because look, the conservatives have for decades now made their– the whole point of their party is to attack government, attack the state, encourage cynicism about government. And then wreck it when they’re in charge, right?
Democrats never defend the state. They never come out and say, “No, no. It’s important to have, you know, government. It’s important to have a Department of Labor. These are, you know, having government actually– a good government increases your freedom. It doesn’t ruin it.” They never fight back consistently.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
THOMAS FRANK: I think they’re– some of them do. You’ve got members of Congress here and there that do. But by and large, the prominent leading Democrats in our society don’t do that. Why is that? Because I think that would get them in trouble with their funders. I mean, the power of money is huge in the political system. You know, despite all the efforts that have been made over the years to get money out of politics. It’s still immensely powerful.”
So unless you have someone willing to be a martyr OR the system of funding elections is DRASTICALLY altered, the madness -as MLK called it- will continue. This is a ‘feature’ of our politics that urgently needs to be addressed.
As is “And America is pretty much unique among the nations in that our political system, half of our political system is basically dedicated to the destruction of the government from within. I don’t know any other country where that’s the case.”
quotes from here
Nothing short of one hell of a push or progressives walking away moves anything in the Progressive Direction. As far as the party leadership is concerned, Liberals are nothing more than ATM’s. Take the money and then walk away from us. Then you have the MSM pushing the Lieberman’s of this world as reasonable and I’m sick to death of this dynamic and am not going to continue to support it. Yes, Progressives didn’t get behind Coakley–but let’s look at reality here. Lieberman/Nelson (the Senate Bill) has left me so demoralized, that I see little reason to fight for folks who are nothing but corporate shills. It’s not going to change, as long as Party Leaders think they can get away selling Horse Shit and calling it steak. The party can call the Senate Bill anything they want–but we all know it’s worse than Manure!
And shouldn’t, it get worse for Democrats, if the House rolls over and passes Lieberman/Nelson (just to get a bill done)? I for one, will not donate a dime to another progressive democrat, if House Progressives violate their pledge and roll over to give Obama a win in name only.
I know this is verboten and perhaps “cutting off my nose to spite my face”, but when is it time to consider walking away? When do Corporate Whores become so disgusting that we can’t support them, although we are told they are “ours”? I know you say “you’re inviting a Republican Takeover”, but what has changed since the Democrats took power? Yes, we’ve gotten Lilly Ledbetter, but we’re still in Iraq, the Corporate Pirates are just drinking from the Democratic feed bag, instead of the one marked “Republican” and we still have done nothing for the people in terms of reining in banks or corporate polluters. Yea, that financial reform bill did nothing for me–how about you? The Insurance & Drug Companies are the only one’s who will benefit from Lieberman/Nelson and even if Coakley had won–that wouldn’t change. Even if Coakley had won, we wouldn’t have seen Global Warming seriously addressed and we wouldn’t get Glass-Stegal restored.
We need to ask: When do ineffectual politicians or sell out’s deserve the blame for their policies and/or failure to inspire? When does it stop being about us and more about those who purportedly carry the torch for us, as Kennedy would have said? Yes, we bear some responsibility, for allowing them to think that we will give weak sisters or sell out’s anything but contempt.
Oh Jason, forgot to mention this about the meeting of Obama and House Repubs; from what I’m hearing/reading, the House Dems see Brown’s victory as a ‘message’ and they will NOT just accept the Senate bill; so -my guess- is Obama is going to the Repubs to say that without them voting for the Senate bill, they’ll face legislation via reconcilliation that they’ll really not like.
If Coakley’s loss doesn’t kick the Democrats in the ass and get them to move left, then they’d better enjoy being in the minority party forever. Enough of their baloney. If they won’t represent the left, then let them register as Republicans and be in the party of their choice.
Oh, and this hypocritical little bit?
Considering one of your last entries spat on the base, you have no call to be asking the Obama regime to change its tactics. Try practicing what you preach, child.
Jason keeps on making this mistake that millions of these citizens are avid and disaffected Firedoglake readers aching to show the man they’ve got the power.
Uh, this falls just a little bit short of the reality, to put it politely. The Democratic candidate lost because Team Obama engendered a situation where the average guy who voted for the Democrats just a year or so ago no longer thinks it’s worth his while to even make the trip to the polls to cast a meaningless vote for the status quo.
Exhortations that these people to vote “Democratic or the Republicans win”, or talking down to them – assuming they’re even listening – and explaining that what they are doing is not in their own best interests simply isn’t going to reach a whole lot of people.
Per Rasmussen, 53% of MA electorate today approves of Obama, 38% disapproved.
I agree, I’m sure the dems will try and tack ‘center’. I’m not sure how they’ll do it, but they will. We may see a complete breakdown of the party coming in the next few years. I’m all for it, since I’m tired of how this has all been working. A little peaceful revolution might be a good thing.
I watched this last Friday and I cannot agree more.
to those who get their jollies as bullying enforcers of their social norms, the answer is ‘Never!’
it would be like asking “but when is the right time to ignore the rules and simply take a seat in the white section in the front of the bus?”
to those unable to see reality outside of their rigid mental constructs, and who shore up their own selves by trying to boss others into compliance, the answer is ‘Never!’
but, reality has a way of bypassing rigid, false constructs, and they can fail suddenly and be rendered laughable, quaint, ridiculous as petticoats and bustles.
as ScentOfViolets pointed out, Obama was elected by droves of (I) or nonaligned voters who check ESPN.com everyday, not Firedoglake, DU, or DK.
scolding, guilt-tripping and Nader-baiting simply doesn’t work on regular folks – only a diminishing sliver of co-dependent (D) captured leftists, progressives, liberals have the built in conditioning and over-intellectualizing required.
it is real simple – both parties govern the same way, are lavishly paid by the same corporations and lobbyists, and cover for the other when it is their turn.
Looking forward, not backward, right? Impeachment, off the table, no matter what, right? continue the failed, costly, illegal, immoral, stupid wars, and even expand them, right? Torture and murder of innocent captives, sold into the gulag for a bounty – well that is fine with the Democrats – they are even bringing a Black Site to the Homeland, planting it right in the President’s home state!
it is just obvious – you can work hard in a cubicle all your waking hours, watch ESPN exclusively, and still see what the real situation is.
to discern, amplify, and passionately squabble over the tiny, barely detectable differences between how the two factions of the Republicrat elite govern, while plowing through a blizzard of lies, spin, and propaganda, well, that is not everyone’s cup of tea, unfortunately.
but as the great Dr. King has said – “the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.”
and, bullying defenders of obsolete social norms end up looking stupid, dated, as obsolete as their ridiculous clothes.
and, to the Youth who are Our Future, they can see that, they learn fast, they can see through phony branding quick as a flash, and apparently plenty of them have deemed the 2 party charade unworthy of attention.
lets give ‘em something worthy, a glimpse of no sell out, authentic Hope-n-Change, and see what happens.
Jason, I think you’re right in saying that the WH and the DLCers (basically the same crowd) will say the party will have to move to the right. That’s what they wanted all along and they are really akin to Republicans anyway.
But I think the more interesting question will be this: after the results in Mass., will other leaders in the Democratic party begin to split more from the WH line?
I think that indeed might happen, especially amongst those Democrats who will be up for reelection in 2010. They’re not stupid and they certainly realize that Obama’s not very popular now and that he will be even weaker following the loss of this race. Obama, after all, put himself on the line in 2 gubernatorial elections (Virginia, New Jersey) and now in Mass. in a senate race, and the Dems lost all 3. That’s pretty telling.
My hope is that someone (Russ Feingold, who’s up for reelection this Fall, S. Brown) begins to stand up to the WH and call them out. Feingold would be a natural because he’s never been really close to Obama (he endorsed him only after the votes came in from the Wisconsin primary) and probably saw Obama as something of a media upstart. He’s already crossed swords with Obama over Afghanistan (and correctly predicted that Obama’s approach would further destabilize Pakistan). Feingold knows more about constitutional law than Obama too and I suspect disdains the “look forward not backward” approach, especially since Feingold wanted to censure Bush a few years ago. Feingold is also popular enough that a tiff with Rahm Obama might actually help him in Wisconsin.
So, I think one of the better things to come out of this loss may well be that some Democratic leaders wake up to the fact that they don’t need to march in lockstep with an increasingly unpopular president. Look for some of them to start distancing themselves from Rahm Obama. I’m hoping it’s Russ. If he declared that he was “having reservations” about the health care bill, he’d be an instant national hero.
Be Naderites. I’m serious – they will only move to the left if they need to do so for their self-interest. As long as they can take left votes for granted, they don’t need to move to the left and thus they won’t. The only logical strategy that follows is to be Naderites and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will not win our votes unless they move to the left; that’s the only kind of language they understand and take seriously.
Very good points, Russron, esp. paragraph 3. We really weren’t getting “change we can belive in” with the Dem majority anyway, so what is the loss? I would like to tell myself that it is always better to have a Democrat than a Republican but the differences between the two are insignificant.
And to answer Jason’s question: I think the Progressive movement in this country needs to unite and create some “other” kind of infrastructure, not necessarily a political party, but maybe something parallel to it. It could be a way of organizing voter drives to support candidates, raising money but according to our terms, not the DNC. Then again, there is the money issue; all of those kinds of things take money. Maybe a better starting point is a nationwide push, at the grassroots level, for campaign finance reform with a goal of public financing of all federal campaigns. This has to go hand in hand with lobbying reform if we really want to reduce the undue amount of influence big money has on our political leaders. Until we change the role of big money in DC we will always get more of the same, Democrat or Republican.
Obama and the DLC are corporatists. No matter which way they adjust their rhetoric they will continue to represent the Oligarchy. Its not about red and blue. Its the 95% against the 5% just like always. Find common ground with the Tea Party and steer the populist revolt away from Fascism and toward SOLIDARITY.
I like this. I also think that ultimately, we need to start running our own candidates on a progressive/populist/libertarian platform. The PPL party (I like the abbreviation) might even be able to pick up some of the liberal Democratic Representatives. We don’t have a lot of the big money, but by 2016 I think we can have a good, if small, base of enthusiastic supporters–people willing to work on campaigns.
Pushing for state and local election reform wouldn’t hurt, either. Better registration and improved voting systems (IRV, range voting) will probably work in the public’s favor, even if they aren’t always to our short-term advantage, and it’s a lot easier to pursue long-term goals than short-term advantage.
Ah, still angry and being non-productive. Noted, thanks.
I like it.
Right, until we change local dynamics, I can’t back the third party approach. But we can work on those local dynamics.
There are places right now where a Democrat can’t win where a PPL candidate might. At this point I think a third party approach might work, because the Republicans are a rump, the Dems are so totally split anyway, and the internet has…done something.
And what do you make of this? The districts that went for Brown are almost exactly the districts that went for Hilary Clinton in 2008. Say what?
It means we’ve got to stop reading things in simplistic right vs. left terms. Maybe there’s a racial component to these maps?
Disregard #28 – I was misreading the maps.
for electoral reform to succeed, we need visible third parties. if all the votes are going to two parties people wouldn’t see the need for reform. so it’s like chicken and egg situation, but we need to start pushing for left-of-Democrats third parties now in order to achieve electoral reform.
Krap, yet another angle to play this . . .
1) Will at LEAST 40 progs hold true and stand?
2) Can Obama/Rahm find 40 rethugs in House to balance progs?
Final Q, when will the House turn over the cards and claim their last hand?