********SHE LITERALLY WENT ON VACATION DURING A SPECIAL ELECTION!!!*****

[uponit7771]

My goodness, the sloppy ass'd M$M and a few people who hate Obama here are leaving this out of the analysis as if it doesn't matter...

Not pointing to her untimely vacation (or minimizing what she did as a foot not) as THE DECIDING factor for her loss does not add credibility to ones prognosis of what happened in MA...

SHE WENT ON VACATION DURING A SPECIAL ELECTION!!!!

Where was the DNC's daily tracking?!?!???!!?

[ShortnFiery]

1. No matter how much you figuratively stomp your feet, you can't blame it all on Coakley.

:eyes:

[treestar]

4. Yes we know, you want credit for it

Congratulations. Enjoy the new Republican senator and the many more you could get in November.

I'm sure they will deliver your deserving ass every single damn thing you want within less than one year.

Just stay home then. And whine and cry your way through the next Repuke Congress.

[ShortnFiery]

11. You're the Purity Expert. Except it has to all go your way. That's the EPIC FAIL. eom

[treestar]

30. No it doesn't

I would like single payer or a public option, but I realize we can't get that with so many republicans in the country. The compromise was fine with me. I never threatened to stay home and will still vote in November.

Enjoy your republican filibusters. Stay home so you can complain about the corporations - they will get more of what they want since the republicans don't give up and stay home so easily.

[PVnRT]

45. You're doing more whining and crying than anyone on the left.

Blame, blame, blame.

[uponit7771]

7. Strawman noted, no one is blaming it all on Coakley just the analysis that leaves this out is stupid

[ShortnFiery]

14. Of course you are. The corporate democrats NEVER take the blame. eom

[uponit7771]

16. Please quote me blaming it all on Coakley......tia

[CreekDog]

40. And why would you argue? You are one of the quickest here to dish out blame

you do it all the time, many times unfairly and now you think blame isn't being assigned fairly in this case?

whatever.

[qazplm]

25. I blame it all on Coakley

who else is to blame? She turned a 20+ lead into a significant loss. That ain't easy.

[euphoria12leo]

36. Maybe they did a bait and switch

on her. Built her up to tear her down. An "operation chaos". She was a terrible candidate and people knew it.

[joeglow3]

62. I place a large chunk on her. However, you cannot ignore the timing of the drop.

The simply fact is she took a HUGE hit right when Ben Nelson struck his deal and there was huge public outcry. Frankly, it feels good to blame it all on her, as we can go on our merry little way. However, I prefer to learn from what happened.

[elocs]

10. The key word here is "all". No, not "all", but the buck must stop somewhere.

She certainly has a share of the blame, especially when a large lead was frittered away.

[uponit7771]

18. Coakley daily tracking should've told her something was wrong, she ignored it

[treestar]

2. I can't believe they didn't come up with someone who wanted the seat more

She must have not really even wanted to win.

[uponit7771]

3. Her campaign manager is quiting the business or should be....what the hell...

[treestar]

8. She should step down from whatever offices she holds

If as a Democrat she could not keep Teddy's seat. her lazy ass shouldn't have any elected office.

Thanks to her we won't get health care. Teddy is spinning in his grave.

[uponit7771]

20. ++++111

[ampad]

38. Oh dear god thank you for this post

Worst candidate ever. Tedd Kennedy's seat is gone. She freaking lost it going in with something like a 20+ point lead. I am in awe.

[ObamaKerryDem]

72. I agree. The complacency of her campaign helped deliver this epic FAIL.

..:( No question about it. Just glad this asshole only gets 3 years!

[TheKentuckian]

67. That's not wise. She's a pretty accomplished prosecutor, just a lousy pol

She went above her ambition and deep desire, imo.

[elocs]

27. There should have been a candidate with fire in their belly who would fight hard to win

and to hold the seat of the late and great Senator Kennedy for the Democrats. What a slap in the face of the legacy of Ted Kennedy that this loss must be.

[AspenRose]

42. It seems like she thought it would be a cakewalk

Because it was "Teddy's seat," she'd somehow be entitled to "inherit" it, and the voters would see it that way too.

She took the voting constituency for granted. Which actually shows poor judgment and lack of leadership. Clearly she wasn't the best democratic candidate and it's a shame she won the primary.

We need stronger dems for primaries.

[elocs]

5. But we have been repeatedly assured here that she ran a good campaign

and is faultless in that respect. I think somebody came to fight hard to win this election, unfortunately it was not her.

[uponit7771]

9. Her daily tracking could've told her she was in trouble, it's like they ignored it on purpose

[DrDan]

6. the impact of her being on vacation was NEVER ignored

perhaps the word "vacation" was not used often enough for you - but there was certainly no ignoring of her apathy toward the election - and its traqic results.

[uponit7771]

12. Oh, when I see post here spouting the SAME DAMN LINE as the M$M and leaving out...

...the fact that she went on vacation during a special election there might not be an ignoring of that but it's sure a minimizing of it.

[DrDan]

31. whether she was on vacation - or at home watching American Idol - was perhaps not

specifically mentioned.

The fact that her campaign sucked was never ignored. Her apathy was noted over and over - "what do you want me to do - get out and shake hands".

That was NEVER a secret. The impact was fully discussed.

[elocs]

17. Again, I have to say that I read many here claim she was running a fine campaign

and that could never be used to explain a loss. I think if Obama had run his campaign like that he would never even have gotten the nomination.

[uponit7771]

19. She had to ignore the daily tracking polls the DNC or her campaign was doing...its beyond stupid

[DrDan]

26. well -anyone who thought she ran a fine campaign needs to be made aware of the outcome

as well as the polls that day-after-day suggested otherwise.

[elocs]

29. It's the Pollyannaish attitude of some and their not being in touch with reality

that they cannot bring themselves to admit that a Democrat might be running a poor campaign that results in an election loss. These same people only accept the validity of polls if they support their point of view, otherwise they are disregarded.

[DrDan]

32. well - those that did not like the polls were out in droves yesterday

amazing the number of comments stating that polls that leaned toward Coakley were valid - but those leaning the other way were total crap.

This sense of entitlement killed us.

[Christa]

13. She thought it was going to be an easy win

:nuke:

[uponit7771]

15. Daily tracking could've told her the opposite, as soon as it went south she shouldve changed course

[stray cat]

21. Any yet according to DUers Howard Dean would have gotten her elected

so the candidate doesn't matter at all....

[Overseas]

44. Of course the candidate matters. But so does the active Dean style.

They mean that Dean's DNC would have pushed Coakley to win every vote. To get out there and shake hands and

be sure her opponent, Republican Scott Brown, was known to be a Republican, from that Republican Party of No that wanted to preserve the George W Bush Status Quo.

[Clovis Sangrail]

22. hard as it is swallow she probably didn't deserve the seat

not that Brown is any better but taking a week long vacation during a 52 day (?) campaign doesn't indicate great judgment.
She may be wonderful but that's less than inspiring.

[RBInMaine]

23. Absolutely ! She and her team SUCKED as campaigners. ALL their fault.

[robcon]

24. It's not ALL her fault, but she contributed.

n/t

[Clio the Leo]

28. It's like 97% her fault....

.... I put part of the blame on the President ... I NEVER DO THAT lol ..... but she handily WON voters who made up their mind at the last minute (and WHO was in town Sunday?)

Ultimately, the blame lies with the candidate.

[uponit7771]

33. The DNC screwed up bad also, no one was keeping track of her daily tracking polls...

...but yeah, the onus has to be put on someone who went on vacation during a special election.

[chieftain]

43. I have seen one report that they did not do tracking polls.

If true,it was political malpractice.

[Kdillard]

34. It is unbelievable how entitled she acted. I am pretty disgusted.

[zulchzulu]

35. I can't believe a campaign could be that fucking inane and stupid...

I hadn't known that before yesterday. If I had been working that campaign, I would have quit if that happened to a campaign I was busting ass for.

I blame the staff, but it obviously had been her who brought up the idea. What a jackass.

[AspenRose]

41. Were you paying attention to the governor's race in Virginia recently?

Heh. *Definition* of inane and stupid.

Why is it dem leadership won't pay attention to lessons learned? :banghead:

[BeyondGeography]

37. She hadn't had a difficult contest in her career

Nothing but low-intensity romps over Republican cannon fodder for AG and other attorneyships. It was a helluva time to find out she has no taste or ability for the real game at all.

[AspenRose]

39. And the moral of the story is: Complacency is not an option

And nothing should ever be taken for granted

[totodeinhere]

55. I even saw that complacency at DU.

Several posters here guaranteed a Coakley win and they even flamed some others who said they thought Brown might win.

[rasputin1952]

46. She earned this defeat...

Even if you are running for Dogcatcher, the basics apply.

Get your message out.

Get out and meet people.

Shake hands.

Kiss babies.

Have at least a basic grasp of local issues/situations.

SMILE! Make people feel like you are actually GLAD to see them!

Above all...Never take a vote for granted.

[cali]

48. absolutely. and you know who brown ran like?

he ran like Bernie. He went all over the state non-stop meeting with and listening to voters.

[rasputin1952]

56. After 2 years, I think he'll get trounced...

if the D's put up a candidate that can grasp the basics. Brown appears to be remarkably stupid, friendly, but stupid. He's not what MA wanted, but then again, neither was Coakley...:(

[uponit7771]

61. The DNC would be smart to ask Sanders how he does it...

[grahamhgreen]

47. This wasn't about her, no matter how many asterisks you put, it was about Obama's far right policies

[cali]

49. bzzzt. wrong as you could be

the voters are saying this was very much about her and also about MA dem corruption.

[uponit7771]

50. She went on vacation with no daily tracking from DNC or her campaign manager...

[KittyWampus]

51. from someone who called Obama a NeoConservative.

[grahamhgreen]

71. Did I say he was a neo-con? I'm sorry, I only meant to say his policies are similar to neo-cons.

War, 'free-trade', corporate welfare, failure to prosecute for possible war crimes, and so forth.

Obama, I still believe is a progressive surrounded by neo-cons.

[CBR]

52. Please stop with that nonsense. nt

[totodeinhere]

54. +1

[rasputin1952]

58. No it's not...

it's because Coakley threw away the race.

She doesn't even have the basics down. It had nothing to do w/PO, HCR or anything else. Coakley didn't have a clue on how a pol should act during a campaign.

Hell...the few times she even smiled, she consciously repressed it. I can't account this loss to anything other than an incredibly horrid "campaign", if it can be called that.

[Lord Helmet]

65. Her campaign was lazy and aloof and voters weren't buying it.

[rasputin1952]

66. Precisely...

With even a little effort, she could have beaned him, even if she was not the ideal candidate.

She did nothing with the basics...:hi:

[grahamhgreen]

70. If you guys don't wake up to what'e really happening, the party will be clobbered in 2010 & 2012.

[rasputin1952]

74. I know exactly what happened...

In a single off year election, two candidates that had no business being on the ballot came to head to head. One was aggressive, the other fell asleep.

That's it, cut and dried and although the truth is often simple as opposed to some complex wild-eyed theories that have come about...the fact of the matter is, two terrible candidates had an election, and in either one, most likely neither will survive the GE in 2012. I'll eat a horse...raw... on Boston Common if Brown wins the GE in 2012.

[totodeinhere]

68. Keep making excuses if you want to.

And what about our losses in gubernatorial races in December in New Jersey and Virginia? Obama carried both of those states. I don't deny that Coakley ran a bad campaign. But this is Massachusetts for Christ's sake, and it's JFK and Teddy's seat. She should have won by 20 points. But as long as Obama steers a centrist course, kisses Lieberman's ass, and shies away from true progressive principles, the Dems will continue to lose IMO. But there's still time. If he were to announce his support for single payer, fire Geithner and jilt his buddies on Wall Street, start an immediate pullout from Afghanistan, and repeal DADT by executive order and ask Congress to immediately repeal DOMA, then the Dems win going away in November.

[rasputin1952]

75. "She should have won by 20 points"...that alone was the killer...

she thought she would w/o lifting a finger...she fell asleep and let the goomer take the reins...:(

[Hippo_Tron]

59. You do realize that the two aren't mutually exclusive

A lot of factors went into Brown's victory and Coakley's incompetence was almost certainly one of them. Dissatisfaction with Obama might have played a role as well, although that would be a much more difficult hypothesis to support.

[uponit7771]

60. exactly, I'm dissatisfied with Obama on some thing but be damned if I stay home or vote reThug

[rasputin1952]

76. It has nothing to do w/PO...

it was a race between 2 incredible lousy candidates...the worse one won, but only because Coakley literally gave up, figuring she was a shoe in.

If God himself campaigned for her in the last 2 days, he couldn't have resurrected a horrid "campaign".

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Doesn't mean it had nothing to do with the President

I think we can pretty conclusively say that Martha Coakley ran a shitty campaign and that running a shitty campaign generally = less voters. It is still possible that part of the reason she lost is dissatisfaction with Obama. It is also possible that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it. The point is that Obama being unpopular and Martha Coakley running a shitty campaign aren't mutually exclusive. It is very possible that both factors played a role.

[rasputin1952]

84. Possible yes, probable no...

Coakley takes the rap on this one.

I have no idea who was running that campaign...but whomever it was, they aren't likely to find a job in the relatively near future...however, I hope some GOP clod picks him/her up to run their campaign...:evilgrin:

[Born_A_Truman]

81. So Obama's policies are "far right" so Mass elected a Republican

I see.

[totodeinhere]

53. I have not seen that point left out.

It was mentioned several times on both CNN and MSNBC last night, and I have read it in several Net articles and I just heard it from you. It's no excuse for that loss.

[uponit7771]

63. Not trryin to excuse the lost just pointing out the deciding factor of the loss

[hedgehog]

57. She studied at the master's feet

[Lord Helmet]

64. she's a Clinton protege, not Kerry's

She snubbed Obama after he won the primary and went on to write in Clinton at the convention. LINK

Kerry had nothing to do what that mess.

[politicasista]

69. Exactly. If she was, she would have mentioned him in her concession speech,

which she didn't, so for some people (haters) the easiest thing to do is link her Kerry. :rofl:

Shame on the poster for the pic, but facts never get in the way of Kerry/Obama bashing.

[ObamaKerryDem]

73. +1

Kerry worked really, really hard on Coakley's behalf during this race...probably harder than the candidate herself, unfortunately. :( So to blame him for this screw-up is unfair, not to mention pretty stupid.


And this is the same John Kerry who last won a 5th term there by like 70%...and who actually CAMPAIGNED all throughout his last tough race there (in '96, against Bill Weld, who was more popular than Brown), which he won by what, like 10 pts? If that had been him running during this race, he would've clobbered Brown.

[politicasista]

78. Bingo n/t

[hedgehog]

77. IIRC, John Kerry spent part of August 2004 on vacation rather

than in campaigning against George Bush.

[politicasista]

79. Not the point, but nice media spin.

Blame ONLY the candidate, but let the rest of the Dems that should have been out there defending Kerry off the hook. The media sure works wonders on us don't they!


Point was that Kerry had nothing to do with Coakley's loss. And she is a Clinton protege, not a Kerry or Kennedy one. To link her to Kerry and/or to blame him for her loss is absurd, if not idioic.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

83. And Bill Clinton endorsed her in the primary

Just in the immediate lead up to the primary, just to give her the maximum advantage going into the contest

[CoffinEd]

80. 66-19

Let me repeat, 66-19. The number of campaign appearances that Brown and Coakley made between their nominations and the election.

Now, guess who made 66 campaign appearances and you'll know who made 19 (when she wasn't on vacation). Coakley thought the seat was hers for the taking partly because she assumed "liberal" Massachusetts never would allow anyone other than a Democrat to replace Kennedy, the fact that she breezed through the primaries, and having a history of never really facing serious competition in any of her previous races for state office beating both Democratic and Republican challengers handily. Not only was her campaign lackluster, it was damn-near invisible. Absolutely no significant presence in many Boston communities; especially communities of color that vote overwhelmingly democratic. And although I was hoping for a victory, I was not blindsided by the outcome.

Plus, Coakley was not a favorite of many influential and powerful Boston Democratic politicians. They quietly supported her after she won the nomination, but you'll be hard-pressed to find photos of Coakley and party heavyweights together. At least I haven't been able to locate any.

Despite her many accomplishments and obvious intelligence, she's not a hardcore politician and she's perceived by many people in MA as aloof and arrogant. Brown was beatable if Coakley had put a little more effort into her campaign. Hell, I don't know how many people know this, but Brown ran for senator in hopes of doing well so he could run for a higher state office. Even he initially didn't think he could beat Coakley.

Oh well, on to finding a real Democratic challenger to unseat Brown in 2012.