Can someone please explain the whole "we want more left, so we elected someone further right" logic?

[phleshdef]

Its not making sense to me and I'm inclined to just call that bullshit. I don't think yesterday's election had anything to do with left vs right at all. Coakley was a terrible candidate and she along with the Democratic party machine ran a very lazy campaign. I really believe thats what it comes down to. If we had ran a candidate with the same exact stances as Coakley, but that candidate along with the party actually put in the same amount of work they would have any other campaign not involving a highly popular incumbent, I think those 3-4 points we would have needed to have a completely different result would have been more than possible.

I'd just like to see a little logic being used here and less, meaningless "I told you so" opportunism.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Thanks for this one!

[timeforpeace]

45. Agreed, but the voters didn't go right because Obama went to the center/right. That doesn't make

sense either.

[ShortnFiery]

2. The guy played "independent" drew in many from that LARGEST sub-set of MA voters. eom

[phleshdef]

4. He was VERY clear on being against left leaning policies. He was not vague about that at ALL.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. What left leaning policies?

If Obama actually had any left-leaning policies, your argument would have merit.

[phleshdef]

16. He was against taxing wall street, against ANY HCR at all, against detainee rights...

...and a billion other things. My post has merit. Try to dispute it with a logical response next time isntead of spouting off mouth foamy anti-Obama bullshit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Let's see now

Obama came up with the idea of taxing Wall Street only after it was clear that the public didn't like the bankers, so it's not as if he felt that way all along.

Since "Health Care Reform" means Romneycare to Massachusetts residents and anyone with half a brain can see that the Senate bill is just Romneycare on steroids, being "against HCR" could easily be a popular stance. If Obama had encouraged the Progressive Caucus's version of Medicare for all and then touted it as, "Never worry about whether you can afford health care. Never fight with an insurance company again," then it would have been harder to fight against.

Against detainee rights? Obama was for them? Not when Gitmo is still open and extraordinary renditions continue and the people responsible for conditions at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib haven't been brought up on charges.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. True, but what part of "protest vote" don't you understand?

By the way, everyone thinks that the Brits are going to throw Labour out in their next election, not because they love the Conservatives, but because Labour has botched its rule so badly that the average voter can't tell the difference.

It's not logical, but it happens. Frequently, and just calling the voters stupid doesn't help.

The Dems need to do some careful research about exactly what went wrong in Massachusetts instead of calling the voters stupid.

[mkultra]

53. actually , the wall street tax was born from the legal requirment in TARP

it really wasn't something he thought up for any reason but that.

[phleshdef]

3. I wish whoever unrec'd had the guts to try and answer my question.

[Turbineguy]

5. This is how the new

voter anger works. If you are unhappy with their performance, you elect an incompetent buffoon to replace them.

[Peacetrain]

6. That one has me stumped too.. and for reasons that could effect Iowa

[quantass]

7. My guess is there were a lot of Disenchanted Demcrats that just stayed home...

I know if i were an MA resident i would not have gone out to vote....or taken a lot of convincing and a little booze to go out and vote for the mess that was Coakley.

[tekisui]

10. They may have even voted, but they certainly didn't feel compelled

to devote time and resources to working for Coakley.

[treestar]

22. Then they deserve Republicans

Maybe they can sit back and get a repuke Congress and President again. Then they can have more wars - at least they won't be "disappointed."

[tekisui]

23. No, Coakley deserved to lose.

She didn't motivate the voters, she got what she deserved.

The people MA deserved better. A better candidate and a better platform.

This blame the voters bit is ridiculous.

[phleshdef]

17. Turnout reports 100% debunk the "stayed at home" theory. Next.

[treestar]

18. That's a nice guess but the polls showed it was independents

concerned for the deficit.

[quiller4]

24. Turnout data doesn't support that conclusion. Turnout in many

areas was far higher than in the December primary and, in some Democratic strongholds, higher than it was in 2006.

[MadBadger]

28. Why was Coakley a mess?

[Clio the Leo]

8. mmm hmmm.NT

[tekisui]

9. I don't think that is the case at all.

What happened is the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidate failed to give the liberal voters a reason to get motivated. It isn't about 'I told you so'. It should be about how we can learn from this and not repeat the mistakes in November. Part of that is getting shit done between now and then.

[glowing]

12. Perhaps people just stayed home? If you aren't getting what you want or need

when you worked your butt off the last time out, does it matter if there is a Dem or a Puke. Smoke and mirrors.

[phleshdef]

14. According to the turnout reports, no people did NOT just stay home.

[treestar]

21. Forget the facts, that won't stop them from repeating it 8 million times

that the solution to policies not being leftward enough is to elect a republican.

[hughee99]

43. Are you sure? Brown got about the same # of votes as McCain,

Coakley got a little more than 1/2 the votes that Obama did.

A good turnout for a special election, but it seems a decent number of Obama voters stayed home.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#MAP00
http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html

[phleshdef]

49. What it really means is what you said. It was an off year, special election.

And turnout was way higher than what one would expect. No, Obama voters didn't just stay home. Coakley failed to seal the deal. Thats all there is to it.

[hughee99]

51. Yes, Coakley failed to seal the deal

as a result many Obama voters who were potential voters Coakley voters didn't come out. I'm not expecting the same turnout as a presidential election, but if Coakley could have gotten 15% more of the Obama voters out to vote, she still could have won. People seemed (inexplicably) excited about voting for Brown, but few seemed excited about Coakley, and that falls squarely on her campaign.

[treestar]

19. Of course it does

:wtf:

Repukes start wars and make tax cuts for the rich, will never even try health care.

The black and white thinking here is frustrating.

If the Dems care so little then they deserve to get nothing. But the polls show they did not do that.

[DURHAM D]

13. A quote from Harry Truman -

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

[phleshdef]

15. Coakley didn't act like a Republican.

[DURHAM D]

25. In the primary she was against the senate HCR bill.

She won the primary because she acted like a real Democrat. She flip-flopped for the general and supported the bill under pressure from the WH/DSCC/DNC.

She aligned herself with the WH on a stupid bill that most real Democrats (and unaffiliated) don't like. Therefore, she was acting Republican lite.

[phleshdef]

29. She was polling 20-30 pts ahead well after supporting the senate bill.

Try again.

[DURHAM D]

31. It took awhile for her flip-flop to be recognized by her base. nt

[phleshdef]

33. No, that doesn't add up. Disregarding.

[DURHAM D]

37. Who cares?

I don't live in MA but donated to her primary campaign. I was preparing to donate again when I saw the change. If she had stayed the course (continued to support reproductive rights) I would have made calls and donated.

Lots of people just sat down. The ground runners - the workers who go to rallies and go door to door and stand on the street corner with signs kind of people. They took a pass in the general.

[DrToast]

20. It's more like this: "We're not happy, so we're going to vote for the party out of power."

[MadBadger]

26. Independents will do that not Democrats. And indies doing that wont do it cuz we arent left enough.

[quiller4]

27. You are right and independents turned out in greater numbers

than usual to accomplish this.

[phleshdef]

34. That explanation at least makes a shred of sense.

[canoeist52]

35. I'm from suburban Mass. and I think you have it right.

I had a hard time convincing my registered democratic kids and their friends why they should make the effort to vote yesterday.
What the hell would fire them up about this candidate? What was she FOR or AGAINST? I went to Coakly's site and found only vagueness. The only reason they grudgingly voted for her was that I told them that Brown was the higher threat.

[TheKentuckian]

32. There is nothing but a binary choice

If you don't like the way things are going regardless of reason, all you can do is "throw the bums out".

It is simple minded to think that in 06 the country was too conservative, 08 still too conservative, and in '10 too liberal. Maybe that's the case but I think it would be prudent to drill down and figure out why we've had three straight anti-incumbent cycles and determine what the commonalities are.

Now, that said I still think that is Coakley had actually busted her ass and didn't make tin eared gaffes like so casually dismissing the concerns about religious objections in such a heavily Catholic state (even if she is right. You just can't frame comments that way.

We've got 57+ Bernie and the traitor because Martha ran one of the worst campaigns in history probably but ignoring that the only outlet voters really have, especially non-partisan voters, when they are unhappy is to switch horses and hope for a better ride.
So, when you ask about the logic you have to keep in mind we don't really have a sensible and logical framework. The light switch has only two settings-off and on. This isn't a Parliament where if people think things are a little to far right that they can vote for a somewhat less conservative candidate or vice versa, all we got is good/bad or same/change, that's it.

[Ozymanithrax]

38. Liberals and progressives in Massachusetts sent a clear message...

"We want conservative government, and we want it now."

It is my theory that it feels better to be able to complain about everything than to fix things one small piece at a time.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Really? You don't see the logic?

I am not from Mass, so I didn't get to vote and reality is I likely would have voted 3rd party or sxtayed home, since I can't vote for a nut job like Brown.

However, the logic here is actually fairly simple depending upon your desiered result...

First, if you continue to reward this current group of corporate democrats, you will wind up with more craptastic legislation like HCR, the credit card bill, banking "reform". In short, vote for the democrat and get more of the same. Keeping the corporate shill democrat out of office, helps send a message to the other democrats.

Second, maybe you actually WANTED To kill this bill, because you realize it may actually do more harm than good and you voted for the republican to put a nail in the coffin of the health insurance recovery act of 2010.

Finally, maybe you are trying to get the democrats to grow a pair and actually make use of their 18 seat MAJORITY to start getting things done and acting like they are the majority party... nothing brings people together like a common threat.

[phleshdef]

40. "Keeping the corporate shill democrat out of office" by electing a corporate shill Republican.

Nope, still doesn't make any sense. I think I'll stick with the "Coakley ran a shitty campaign" explanation. Its still the only explanation that has any real merit behind it thus far.

[Milo_Bloom]

57. Hide behind whatever reason helps you deal.

However, the reality is that must of it was done as a punishment to democrats for failing to chanllenge republicans in any signficant way and was done to be a wake up call.

"A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street."

"In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies."


http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html

[xultar]

41. Thanks for posting logic. Too bad only a few will notice.

[donco6]

42. You're right. Our best strategy is to become Republicans.

Think of the majority we'll have then!

[phleshdef]

44. You apparently need to learn how to read. Hooked on phonics could work for you.

I said in my post that I DON'T want the Democratic party to go further to the right. I said that I don't think it was about left vs right, but about a good campaign vs a lazy campaign. Once you learn how to read and actually pay attention to what you have read, come back to this thread and THEN respond without making a total fool of yourself.

[jgraz]

46. No, it's "We want more left, so we didn't bother to support another weak centrist"

People just aren't falling for the scary Republican bogeyman excuses. We had the House, the White House and a 60-vote Senate and they still let Repukes call the shots. At this point, people are simply giving up.

[phleshdef]

48. Horse shit. The turnout numbers completely turns that theory upside down.

[jgraz]

50. When will you keyboard jockeys learn? It's *activists* who win elections.

When I say *support*, I mean phone bankers and precinct walkers and election-day drivers (look up the terms, I don't have time to explain it to you). Obama and his weak centrism suppressed national support and Coakley herself helped to depress local activism.

[ampad]

52. Care to back that up with facts?

Seriously, do you have some kind of study or poll to back that up. I'm not talking about water cooler talk from DU activist. I'm talking a poll showing that activism was not a major part of this election. Also why you are at it. Maybe you can find a poll stating that the reason activism was down as well. I am interested to see that study and or poll.

[jgraz]

56. I'm talking to actual MA activists who've said they wouldn't be working for Coakley.

Some have posted on this site but, of course, they aren't allowed to talk down a Democratic candidate.

When the postmortem polls come out for this election, I guarantee you that two factors will figure in the loss: independent Obama voters who are disillusioned with his performance and progressive activists and donors who decided to sit this one out.

[jgraz]

59. Sorry, you were asking about evidence?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7522644&mesg_id=7522644

That didn't take long.

[ampad]

54. OP, I'm guessing there were no exit polls?

It would interesting to see exit polls if there are any. There was some talk here on DU about some voters who were concern that the party was going too far to the left. Also, some on DU are saying that Brown basically ran as an Independent; trying hard to hide the fact that he is and actual Republican. I'm not sure if all that is true or just talk. I'm not from that area nor did I closely follow the election.

[pansypoo53219]

55. i hear he ran populist and stealth and gosh

he's got a truk and a known wife and golly gee. he has a TRUCK! psst ignore the FIVE houses.

[grahamhgreen]

58. I have a hard time believing you are serious! In simple terms: THEY ARE VOTING FOR CHANGE! Obama is

Bush III.