Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Coakley Was Hampered By The Failure Of The White House And Congress To Confront Wall Street.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 06:56 PM
Original message
Coakley Was Hampered By The Failure Of The White House And Congress To Confront Wall Street.
According to Coakley's pollster Celinda Lake.

Coakley Pollster Defends Campaign Against White House
Ryan Grim - HuffPo
First Posted: 01-19-10 04:08 PM | Updated: 01-19-10 06:26 PM

<snip>

The blame game is fully underway. A top pollster to Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley told HuffPost on Tuesday that the White House, in attempting to blame the Coakley campaign for a potential defeat today in Massachusetts, underestimates the wave of populist fury among Massachusetts voters.

Pollster Celinda Lake said Coakley was hampered by the failure of the White House and Congress to confront Wall Street. That failure, she said, means that Democrats are being blamed by angry independent voters worried about the state of the economy.

"If Scott Brown wins tonight he'll win because he became the change-oriented candidate. Voters are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, but they want to see it. And right now they think they've got economic policies for Washington that are delivering more for banks than Main Street."

Asked about reported criticism from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Lake said she had seen the stories. "I think it's a circling squad to protect the White House. I don't think it's very useful," she said, mixing a metaphor while getting across a clear message.

Lake said that the problem for Democrats is that voters are blaming them for the nation's poor economic conditions. "2010 is fast turning out to be a blame election and I think that either we are going to characterize who deserves the blame - whether that's banks and lobbyists and people who still want to hold on to national Republican economic strategies - or we're going to get the blame. And that's a very different tone than, often, the administration is comfortable with," she said.

The feeling among voters, said Lake, is that Washington prioritizes Wall Street over Main Street and that, despite Coakley's credentials as a state attorney general who has taken on and beaten Wall Street banks, sending her to Washington would not make a difference. "On the eve of the election, Martha Coakley had a 21-point advantage over Scott Brown on who would fight Wall Street and deliver for Main Street. But it didn't predict to the vote, because voters thought, even if they sent her down here that it wouldn't happen. 'Fine, she had done it in Massachusetts, but no one was doing it in Washington,'" Lake said. "Voters are voting for change and we have to go back to that change message. And we have to deliver on change, especially an economic policy that serves working people."

Lake pointed to polling released by the Economic Policy Institute showing that 65 percent of Americans though the stimulus served banks interests, 56 percent thought it served corporations and only ten percent that it benefited them. "That is a formula for failure for the Democrats. We have to deliver on economic policies that take on Wall Street and we have to do it for five months, not just five days. We really have to deliver on the policies," she said.

The tit-for-tat over tactics, said Lake, risks missing the wave that is headed toward Democrats. "There's a lot of blame to go around, but the point of the matter is there's a wave. And that wave: it hit Virginia; it hit New Jersey; it hit Massachusetts," she said.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/coakley-pollster-defends_n_428600.html

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. The thing is, voting for repukes is going to finish us off once and for all.
They are worse. Sometimes it's hard to believe, but repukes are worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. That's an understatement. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Nothing.....
Edited on Tue Jan-19-10 07:04 PM by sendero
.... could really be worse than the banker bailout, sorry. Even the Republicans could not out-do the moronic giveaway engineered by Geithner, Summers and crew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Right now, all I'm interested in is Coakley fighting ballot tampering like hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, right.
Which explains why all these Massachusettsans think a Republican like Scott Brown will confront Wall Street.

This is the kind of talk that helps explain why Martha Coakley isn't winning. The polls haven't even closed and she's blaming everyone around her? That just isn't politic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iceman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Then why is she (possibly) losing to a candidate who has EMBRACED Wall Street?
All those 'independent' voters in MA must be more stupid than anyone could have imagined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. That works for me
as at least a partial explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
42. CORPORATE MEDIA protected Brown the same way they protected Bush and any GOP who serves the
Edited on Wed Jan-20-10 06:56 PM by blm
same agenda as their fascist owners.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. My 401 K seem to be doing ok under Obama
but I guess saving it was just total failure on Obama's part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. A lot of people don't have 401K's.
I don't think they give a shit how yours is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Fascinating. I heard someone at the yacht club talking about such people.
Do tell us more about these exotic creatures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. LOL !!!
How snarkful, snarkly, snarknificent ???

:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwixVoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. That's because the stock market is up
And why is it up? Because the banks got tons of free cash and lots of companies continue to cut jobs thus making them look better to wall street.

I'm glad you have a job and thus a 401k. The problem is all the people that DON'T.

I suggest you start thinking about people less fortunate that your self if you want to understand what's going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. I do think about them
and FU if you think I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Many people care about their 401 K's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
34. Till the bubble bursts again. It will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bingo.....
I saw it here in NJ as well.

This general climate affected us this past November and it is going to impact us this coming November.

It's very easy for republicans to play populist when they are not in charge, and unfortunately people will believe it. And it's made even more easy for them to believe when they see so little evidence that the party in power is truly standing up to wall street, big banks, and/or special interests.

Yes, most people with a brain know that Republican populism is a bunch of bull and with them in charge even less will get done. But what the fairly tuned out, non political junkie types want is a clear cut difference and clear cut proof. And they just aren't getting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Yep... People Are Angry And Thrashing Around For Somebody To Stand Up For Them...
They want somebody, anybody, to punch the status quo in the mouth.

Break a trust, nationalize a bank, clawback the fucking bonuses...

All of that and more.

Put the fear of god into the people in charge that they have to change their ways.

But since WE played footsie with the big banks, big insurance, big pharma, etc... the people have no other place to go than to OUR opposition.

So... it looks like for the moment, the voters of MA are trying to put the fear of god into the Dems.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gargoyle22 Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is bull. Her ads about "taking on the big banks" were ineffective and passionless
Yeah we all agree on the issue but it's not s/thing that motivates people. It's a pretty simple message - "I'm a liberal like Ted Kennedy. He's a clone of Mitch McConnell" but appraently this was too hard for Celinda Lake to figure out.

A disgraceful camapign with non-stop ads about "taking on the big banks" - what a fucking joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hello.
Welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gargoyle22 Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. hello to you and thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Sounds like the GOP is stealing the populist backlash vis a vis Wall Street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. That's great
The Democrats need to give them a chance to put their votes where their rhetoric is. Let's see some legislation taxing the big bonuses, re-regulating the TBTF banks, calling for a special prosecutor, unleashing the FBI and the Justice Deparmtent to find out where all the money went and how the scam was rigged. Without those steps, no amount of talk from either side is going to convince the voters for long. The problem right now is that on these issues, the Democrats are perceived as being no better than the Republicons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. BINGO !!!
Right fucking spot on!

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
15. Like Corzine. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yep. That's one part of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. Wall Street celebrated a Brown win today....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. It looks like the liberal base is more relevant than Rahm thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying a complex situation, but
I think the MA scenario is just a local manifestation of a national reaction--a tiny piece of a bigger picture.

The reaction, at least on the part of those not among the Democratic Party loyalists, is disappointment. The disappointed are not blaming Democrats for the economy, they're blaming them for not being more confrontational with Wall Street; for taking the Progressive (Left) voters for granted; for not breaking significantly with Bush/Cheney policies on war and civil rights; et cetera.

As a voter who has deliberately withheld my vote in the past, I don't believe a Progressive is going to vote regressive (Republican), but I do believe that a Progressive, upset with being marginalized and invalidated, may choose not to vote for the party marginalizing and invalidating them.

Withholding a vote is not the apathetic failure to act that some claim it is, but a very deliberate action aimed at denying a vote to those who seem to take that vote for granted. In effect, it is the statement, "You are no more worthy of my vote than the other guys." Rather than inaction, it's aggression--deliberate and focused. When viewed as part of a larger game, it's no different than sacrificing a chess piece to achieve a long-term, strategic advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Very Well Put !!!
I still have some hope for 2010, but I'm gonna need to see some major change first.

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Exactly my thoughts
I also have hope for 2010.

Like you, I'm going to be looking for significant change in a democratic and progressive direction.

When I look at the disconnect between the campaign rhetoric and post-election action, I have to believe that Obama is getting bad counsel, or that he's fighting monolithic forces.

If he's facing obstacles, he can take the FDR approach and appeal to the masses for support while he tackles the same demons the FDR faced. I think the progressive and democratic electorate would rally around such an appeal and help to elect representatives to join forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. This would make a great OP when things calm down a little ...
and of course some would say you should not sacrifice a chess piece to achieve a long-term, strategic advantage.

;)







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. I'm not wasting any more OPs on DU
As of today, I've had my fill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Sorry to hear that, but I do understand. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. So Brown will fight Wall Street?
Fascinating logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
31. Interesting that Celinda Lake does not mention the HC bill ...
Why Does Celinda Lake Oppose Single Payer?
http://www.democrats.com/node/18510

"Self-described as "one of the Democratic Party's leading political strategists," Celinda Lake has claimed that single-payer reform lacks meaningful popular support. Lake's research, done for the Herndon Alliance, has consistently supported reform based upon private health insurance. She and the Herndon Alliance are largely responsible for the notion that a single payer Medicare-for-all healthcare system is ‘not politically feasible.’

Lake’s findings are in sharp contradiction to numerous polls showing that single payer is enormously popular..."


Lying Celinda Lake and the Herndon Alliance: Insurance Company shills
http://www.correntewire.com/celinda_lake_liar_liar_pants_fire



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
35. That doesnt explain why a 30 point lead for Coakley evaporated in a couple months.
Not much has changed on the Wall street front in that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
36. K & R agrees No room for a Goldman Sachs admin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
38. No, sorry--there was NO excuse for the Coakley campaign.
She went on fucking VACATION. If I'd known that, even I might have had second thoughts about casting a ballot for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
39. Coakley thought she could coast.. she crashed..
the short timeframe allowed for a hotshot to swoop in and eat her lunch.. That;s how we got ahhhhhnold..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
40. Not campaigning might have had a lot more to do with it nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC