home

Lessons From Massachusetts: Punching The Hippies Does Not Work

Let me first state what I think this means for 2012 - it means that Barack Obama will win Massachusetts by double digits and Scott Brown will be unceremoniously dumped as senator from Massachusetts. No matter what the Dems do in response. I start with this view because I think it is important understand what the lessons of Massachusetts are about - November 2010.

Now the Massachusetts result provides many lessons for November 2010. Joe Sudbay cites to analysis by Scott Jensen of PPP:

This was a repudiation of Barack Obama. Certainly Martha Coakley was a bad candidate and ran a terrible campaign but that doesn't change the fact that we found Obama's approval rating at only 44% with the electorate for today's contest, a huge drop from the 62% of the vote he won in the state in 2008. Brown won over 20% of the vote from people who cast ballots for Obama in 2008, and we found that most of those Brown/Obama voters were folks who no longer approve of the job the President is doing. And in one of the bluest states in the country barely 40% of voters expressed support for the Democratic health care bill.

[. . .] -Voters hate both parties right now and that's to the GOP's advantage. One of the most remarkable things about Brown's victory is that it comes even though only 22% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans, with 63% viewing them unfavorably. He was able to overcome that because almost 20% of voters held a negative opinion of both Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans. And with those folks Brown had a 72-24 advantage over Coakley, reflecting the reality that in a time when voters are disgusted with all politicians they'll vote for the one that's out of power.

Things could turn around for the Democrats between now and November but it's hard to dispute the notion that this could be 1994 all over again.

(Emphasis supplied.) I've said this forever - election are first and foremost, a referendum on the governing party. A lot of people have spent they year whistling past the graveyard of poor polling by Dems, because the GOP polled even worse. I hope that form of denial is now dead and buried for good.

This referendum manifests itself in 3 ways - the motivation of Republican voters, the motivation of Democratic voters and the motivation of casual voters. In Presidential election years, the casual voters play a very important role in the referendum. In off year elections, much less so. the enthusiasm levels of Republican and Democratic voters is paramount.

Republican voters are extremely motivated. There is little Dems can do to stop this. That is why moving right for 2010 is a fool's errand. But Dems can motivate Dem voters - by fighting for Dem values. Will that be enough to stave off defeat in 2010? I do not know, but I know it is the only viable option that Dems have now.

As I wrote below, the Senate bill is not perceived as fighting for Dem values. Its passage will not increase Dem voter motivation. The Senate bill has been part of the problem. Perhaps it can be part of the solution if it includes other important steps, not the least of which will be fixing the Senate bill now through reconciliation. But those Establishment Dems who think passage of the Senate bill in isolation is a positive step for Dems are whistling past the graveyard. Standing alone, the Senate bill hurts Dems for 2010, it does not help. As part of an overall push for Dem values, it can be a part of the solution.

Speaking for me only

< Why Conservatives Shouldn't Get the Credit For Coakley's Defeat | A Real Plan B - Understanding The Senate Bill Is Part Of The Problem >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:51:31 AM EST
    well I dont think they aer getting the message.

    "Dems can motivate Dem voters" (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    not by compromise. that ship has sailed I would say.
    I agree with you and the above comment.
    they do not seem to be getting the message.

    and why should that surprise us.  that message has been being sent for months and they have not gotten it.

    When Dem values = people's values (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:13:55 AM EST
    "the Senate bill is not perceived as fighting for Dem values."

    In case of health care, I believe that progressive Dem values largely echo what majorities want.  The party has been tone deaf to popular opinion on both health care and financial crisis.

    And when forced to choose between two parties (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    that are just going to take their money and hand it to corporations, be they banks or insurance companies, people will pick the one that promises not to raise their taxes to do it.

    All Dems have done this year is reinforce the Reagan world view - taxes and government are baaad.

    Parent

    Yet, they will not get it (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    Great analysis.  

    I think Ezra (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    actually gets this right today, and first, DOES acknowledge that everyone thought Obama could bring transformational change (unlike as we all remember Kevin Drum).  Ezra:

    Going forward, Obama is going to have to make Washington work without letting the way Washington works drag down his presidency. And that means he'll have to begin speaking to the country more clearly, rather than hoping his accomplishments will speak for themselves. These criticisms are always easy to levy, and communicating to a country of 300 million people that doesn't want to watch long policy speeches is easier said than done. But Obama will have to try, because soon, he will have no other choice.

    To which I say - NO F***ING SH*T!!!!

    I'm punching the inside game/11th dimensional chess folks whose blind faith in Obama enabled him to continuously avoid using the bully pulpit for jack.  The attitude "he won the election for Christ's sakes, he's just so amazing and I'm sure he can handle this" has been apparent among his biggest cheerleaders and worse his administration.    And it is the very essence of an approach that andgarden appropriately labeled technocracy the other day.  Is technocracy transformational?  Anybody want to tell me that?

    everyone did not believe that (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    Obama could bring transformational change.

    Im just sayin.


    Parent

    true (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    I should say I am referring to those people who say "what can you expect, he's doing what he said he would"...Nate Silver, John Cole, Booman, Ezra, Yglesias, Kevin Drum etc.  The big Obama boosters.

    Parent
    fair (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:33 AM EST
    enough

    Parent
    Ezra and others (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    tend to lose me when they use "going forward".   Or, "on the ground", "bend the curve",  or any of their catchy, in the know, unoriginal, voguish staples to tell me something very important.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    Instead of focusing on the fact that Ezra is a little late to the party, let's celebrate the fact that he showed up instead.

    Parent
    Step 1 (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    Step 1 is to come up with a plan that does not include a mandate.  If your plan is so bad that you must use the force of law and the threat of fines and jail to get people to buy it, that's a hint that it is too bad to be a political winner.  

    A mandate is a de facto admission that people have better alternatives that they will not gladly abandon.

    love the name know the song (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bornagaindem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    Thanx (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:57:14 AM EST

    I have recordings by five different artists.

    Parent
    You are right... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    ...but I think the lesson the Dem elites will learn is, we didn't punch the hippies hard enough.

    Another perspective (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    Punching the hippies DOES work - whining about conservatives does not - especially when a large swath of working class Dems stayed home.

    Link

    It was to be the culmination of Ruy Teixeira and John Judis' 2002 book "Emerging Democratic Majority." Judis wrote an essay following Obama's victory headlined, "The Democratic majority: It emerged!" By March 2009, Teixeira authored a 47-page report titled, "New Progressive America."

    But polling painted an American political landscape that had not changed as quickly as its president. Rather, in those months of great hype, it was clear that the "Public Stands Between Reagan and Obama." The enduring American tension with activist government went largely ignored. Obama pressed forward to reverse the Reagan era without the humility of a president who knew that it was not yet his era either.

    Unlike FDR, the first year big government measures were not focused on the economy. The stimulus measure was primarily a big social services bill. The health care bill became the boondoggle of Obama's political capital. The big jobs bill did not come, even as Americans experienced the worst unemployment rate in more than a quarter century.

    Yet Obama won on the economy, above all else. The pretense of realignment always depended on the opposite read. Republicans' implosion, demographic trends and rising progressive values were to have built this new Democratic majority. But we knew from tracking p