Politico has an interesting story on how Democrats are responding to Tuesday’s election results, in which Senator Barbara Boxer is quoted saying that “Every state is now in play.”
Politico has an interesting story on how Democrats are responding to Tuesday’s election results, in which Senator Barbara Boxer is quoted saying that “Every state is now in play.”
J. Aldridge says:
In the mean time Dems will demand more taxes, more immigrants and bigger government to keep their base happy.
Oh, and a higher debt ceiling to pay for it all.
January 21, 2010, 3:37 pmruuffles says:
Well, technically, a third of the states are not in play wrt the Senate.
January 21, 2010, 3:46 pmJoeSixpack says:
As Katrina vanden Heuvel explains in today’s WSJ, the Massachusetts election results are a clear signal to the Democrats that they need to redouble their efforts to press the liberal agenda.
January 21, 2010, 3:58 pmDerHahn says:
Brown peeled away approximately 15% (Obama’s 62% vs Coakley’s 47%) of Obama voters in a state when anyone who can fog a mirror usually wins if they have a D after their name.
It would probably be safe to say an Democrat who didn’t get at least 60% of votes cast in their last election has the potential to be upset.
January 21, 2010, 4:16 pmbadlaw says:
Really? I thought Coakley was just an epically bad candidate who gave Brown the election on a silver platter. What are the Dems so worried about?
January 21, 2010, 4:18 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I think any exceptionally bad liberal candidate would never have any trouble defeating a Republican in Mass. It was more than that.
January 21, 2010, 4:33 pmMLS says:
I am so pleased to note that instead of “Madam Boxer” you used “Senator Boxer”, even though I happen to believe the former is much more apt.
January 21, 2010, 4:34 pmArthurKirkland says:
You’re more a Prejean/Palin/Coulter fan with respect to morality and conduct?
January 21, 2010, 4:53 pmJames N. Gibson says:
And as I am reading these comments I am noting the Google Ad on the right asking people to “Stand With Barbara Bower”.
January 21, 2010, 5:06 pmJames N. Gibson says:
Sorry about the last post and the misspelling of Boxers last name but I heard something that caught my attention. That being that Air America has filed chapter 11 and will officially go off the air tonight.
January 21, 2010, 5:23 pmSoronel Haetir says:
Umm, isn’t that backward? Only 1/3 of the Senate comes up every two years. Or are you thinking of a two cycle period?
Trying to prognosticate about what 2012 will be like seems like an exercise in magic to me.
January 21, 2010, 5:34 pmDan Bennett says:
Each state has two senators, so in every election 2/3 of the states have a senatorial seat in play. In California, it is Boxer this year and Feinstein in 2012.
January 21, 2010, 5:58 pmleo marvin says:
Everyone knew the next president, be it Obama or McCain, would be screwed by the economy he inherited. Well, this is what being screwed looks like.
January 21, 2010, 6:21 pmNickM says:
This year also has some Senate special elections that put States into play that were not regularly scheduled.
Nick
January 21, 2010, 6:47 pmDave N. says:
NickM,
Actually, there is only one additional Senate seat up this November because of a special election: Kirsten Gillibrand’s in NY (Hillary Clinton’s old seat).
All of the other seats with appointed members (Colorado, Florida, Delaware, and Illinois) were last up in 2004, so the election will fill those seats for 6 year terms.
Kay Bailey Hutchison has announced she will resign from the Senate after the March primary (she is running for Governor). If she loses the primary, she may change her mind. Otherwise, Texas will have an election for the remaining 2 years of Hutchison’s term.
January 21, 2010, 6:59 pmwfjag says:
Absolutely! She’d only previously handily won 2 statewide elections for AG, and won the Dem US Senate primary with a double digit lead. That looks like your typical “bad candidate” to me.
January 21, 2010, 7:14 pmleo marvin says:
How many people could even tell you who their state attorney general is? It’s not the highest profile position. Regardless, even if she campaigned for her current job like Lyndon Johnson, it’s irrefutable that she ran a lazy, arrogant, tone-deaf campaign for Senator.
January 21, 2010, 7:55 pmwfjag says:
Leo, while I agree that Coakley ran a lackadaisical campaign, the election was a lot more about Obama and, especially, the current health care (insurance industry takeover) legislation now before Congress.
Did she make gaffs? You bet. And, Brown ran an excellent, polished campaign appealing to the grassroots. Still, in December, Coakley was 10 to 20 points ahead. So, in about a month, she dropped somewhere between 15 and 30 points – in a state that Obama took by a landslide 14 months ago. Accordingly, there’s a lot more to what happened than Coakley being a bad candidate. The drop in her support mirrored the LBJ truism – “The only thing that can beat me is if I’m caught in bed with a live boy or a dead woman.” Insulting a Red Sox legend n Red Sox Heaven isn’t in that league. Also, the turnout (outside of the downtown urban areas) was exceptionally heavy. More people voted than voted in the last general election in which Ted Kennedy had been re-elected. Looking at the numbers, Coakley generally got her base out to vote. But, more people turned out for Brown (in lousy weather), despite his not having the money or organization that Coakley had.
Massachusetts has Romneycare. It is nearly bankrupting the state, and especially its middle and blue collar working classes. The increasing costs are being blamed for significant job losses in the state, especially in tech jobs that are a main pillar of the state’s middle class. Last year, when the California legislature was considering similar legislation, the most effective opponents were Massachusetts residents who testified to how Romneycare was especially hard on the middle-class (those who make too much to qualify for the subsidies, but for whom a couple thousand dollars is a fairly large percentage of their income – people with annual incomes in the $35,000 to $55,000 range). The California legislature, which has a reputation for being one of the most out-of-control in its spending, rejected the legislation as too expensive. Brown campaigned as being the “41st vote” against Obamacare. He campaigned on a theme that Obamacare would be more expensive and provide even less than Romneycare, and so, would be even worse for the middle class and blue collar working class families of Massachusetts. He also campaigned on opposition to other items of Obama’s agenda, including the massive deficits being run up.
Still, Brown didn’t really begin to close the gap till about 10 days to 2 weeks before the election, when his campaign was noted by some conservative radio pundits. Coakley made a big mistake at that time, and tried to link Brown to Limbaugh, who had not said anything about the race at that point. Limbaugh responded to Coakley’s comments – essentially calling her a liar – and that drew a lot of attention to Brown, and framed the race as a referendum on Obama. Obama ratified that idea by showing up to campaign for Coakley on the Sunday before the election.
Obama has now campaigned for Dem. candidates in state-wide elections in three states he carried 14 months ago by large margins – Virginia (Governor), New Jersey (Governor) and Massachusetts (US Senator). In New Jersey and Massachusetts, the Dem. candidate had excellent state-wide name recognition, much better party organization, and several times as much money to spend, as did the Rep. candidate. In all three races, the idea that the election was a referendum on Obama’s agenda was one of the themes of the Rep. campaign, which idea Obama ratified both by his appearing to campaign for the Dem. candidate, and in statements in his speeches. Obama is now 0 for 3 in the big races.
So, while Coakley was a flawed candidate, the outcome in the Massachusetts US Senate special election cannot be explained by that alone. It may be that that is what got her into trouble. And, the same argument can be made as to the Virginia and New Jersey Governors races. However, at a minimum, Obama is unable to help (and apparently hurt) candidates in trouble in close elections. Further, a common theme of the Republican campaigns in which the Dem. candidates have lost leads and gotten into trouble is that the election is a referendum on Obama’s Presidency. Accordingly, unless the Democrats in all of the elections in November can field flawless candidates who run flawless campaigns, they are in for a rough time. National Democrat figures who can be linked to the Obama administration and its agenda, will hurt Democrat Party candidates if they campaign for them. And, accordingly, any Democrats who are elected to Congress or state-wide offices will owe nothing to the Obama administration for their elections.
November 2010 looks to be a double-hit for Obama. First, there will likely be heavy losses in both the House and Senate. Second, Democrats who are elected will owe nothing to Obama (and House Democrats who win probably will have run as anti-Pelosi candidates). So, neither the President nor the Congressional Democrat leadership will be able to count on the support of even members of their own party – even if the Democrats have nominal majorities in either or both Houses of Congress. “Every man for himself” is not the slogan for a national political party wants to show leadership, or for one that came to power promising “change.”
January 22, 2010, 12:34 pmMark Horning says:
In fairness Coakley was an incredibly bad candidate. Every time she opened her mouth she said something incredibly stupid. The big difference was this time the people were actually paying attention.
Brown’s surge coincided with the debate, where he handily ran rings around Coakley. Boxer is in much the same position. Unlike Diane Feinstein, Boxer is not a bright person, and Fiorina is likely to slaughter her in any debate.
At that point it’s a matter of whether the electorate is still paying attention.
January 22, 2010, 1:00 pmNickM says:
Dave – Biden was reelected in 2008 to the Senate while being elected VP. Delaware wasn’t scheduled to be in play.
Nick
January 22, 2010, 3:30 pmleo marvin says:
wfjag, I only mentioned what a poor candidate Coakley was because I read your earlier comment as denying or minimizing it. I agree that general disenchantment with Democrats played a part in the results, along with Coakley’s weak and Brown’s strong performance. What was behind the disenchantment I suspect we’d find some to agree on and much more not to.
January 22, 2010, 4:50 pmwfjag says:
Leo, I think that she got into trouble by being a poor condidate. However, a lot of poor candidates still get elected. Al Gore’s Senate campaigns bore some resemblance to advanced rigor mortis. But, he had excellent name recognition (helped by his father), a great campaign and state party organizations, and was very effective in getting his base out to vote. In 2000, while still having the name recognition, he didn’t have the organization or get out the vote drive in Tenn., and lost the state. So, IMO, dropping a huge lead in such a short time required more than merely being a bad candidate.
Here you have President Obama going 0 for 3 when campaigning for Dem. candidates in state-wide elections in three very different states. He had carried each of those states handily. The swing from the margin by which he carried the state to the margin of the successful Repub. candidate has been from a little over 20% (Virginia) to a little over 30% (Mass.). From that, IMO, you can conclude that not only does President Obama have no coattails, his appearing on behalf of a candidate may be the kiss of death. Today’s Rasmussen Reports reflects this. President Obama’s “Total Approve” among likely voters is 45%, but his “Strongly Disapprove” is 43%, with a margin of error of +/-3%. That means that his support comes with a statistical dead heat of those who look at that as positive (although possibly on a weak positive) versus whose who regard Obama’s support as the Mark of the Beast. Who do you believe is more motivated to vote? This is not a good position to be in, either when pushing a legislative agenda, or when facing elections. And, for the Republicans, this means that they only need to field candidates who are not complete horses’ asses who can run competent campaigns, whereas the Dems will have to field flawless candidates who run flawless campaigns, and so never get into trouble.
IMO it doesn’t matter why there is disenchantment towards the Dems in DC, only that there is strong disenchantment. In politics, perception is all important in the polling booth. With unemployment at 10%+ (and, it would be a lot more if those who have simply stopped looking for work were counted), talking about the bad old days of the Bush administration (when unemployment was 4.9%) isn’t going to change the disenchantment. When you’re elected, you’re in charge, and after a year, you take the blame (especially when you have consistently shut the other party out of all negotiations or drafting of legislation).
To have much impact on the perceptions about himself, President Obama will have to do much more than “pivot.” He’ll have to radically change his entire approach and become truely bipartisan. If, however, he does that, he’ll lose partisan Dems (and probably not convince partisan Repubs). Such a change could help him by 2012, but not by November.
Another factor that Dem candidates have to contend with is support by crude pundits. Obermann is probably the worst on TV. He’s all the worse for believing himself to be witty, when he’s not. If all you knew about the Coakley-Brown matchup was Obermann’s crude tirade, you’d never vote for Coakley, and possibly would have been offended enough to vote for Brown just to vote against her. The DNC would do Dem candidates a big favor if it could get MSNBC to move Obermann’s time slot so that he comes on opposite Redeye.
Still, there is the one wild card, which did not make much of a presence known in any of the 3 campaigns — the RNC. One can never underestimate the drive of the RNC to throw an election to the Dem. candidate. If Michael Steele’s only achievement is to continue to keep the RNC from participating in Repub campaigns, he will have done more for Repub candidates than anyone since Lee Atwater died.
January 22, 2010, 6:33 pmMikee says:
When Senator Boxer explained that “Every state is now in play” she was speaking in Senator-ese, saying, “I don’t have a ghost of a chance at keeping my Senate seat against Fiorina! I’m scared even more witless than normal!”
By the way, in the military it is more polite to say “sir” or “ma’am” than to continually use a superior officer’s rank when replying to their questions. That Senator Boxer does not understand this despite her years of service in the Senate is very, very telling.
January 23, 2010, 12:15 pmleo marvin says:
Where did you get the idea Boxer doesn’t have a ghost of a chance against Fiorina? The current polling says Campbell, while an underdog, has a plausible chance against Boxer. Fiorina doesn’t.
January 24, 2010, 7:06 pm