In case people want to discuss his victory tonight. I don’t have any unique insights that you can’t find elsewhere, but a quick question. Looking at the pollster.com Coakley vs. Brown polls on the front page right now I get average of 51 for Brown and 44 for Coakley. The final looks like to be a 3 percentage points higher for Coakley and 1 point higher for Brown, so I think it worked out. Last fall I made fun of a rather stupid blogger at Wizbang for his skepticism of the polling (which turned out to be very close in regards to Obama vs. McCain). I haven’t followed political blogging too closely recently, so does anyone know of an equivalent from the Left this time around? They’re usually pretty amusing to read after the fact, though I grant that this race moved fast and the polling was volatile in comparison to last fall’s presidential campaign.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
I know nothing of either candidate. But I like that the Mass. establishment has had a fork stuck in their eye.
@Svendthrift
In a nutshell, Brown is a fiscal and foreign policy conservative in favor of smaller government, lower taxes, and a strong defense. His primary issue was defeating HRC. He’s moderate on social issues. Or, perhaps, astute enough to know that you don’t win elections in Massachusetts by running around the state promising to make ending abortion and gay marriage your top priorities.
Coakley is a typical Massachusetts Democratic Party machine hack. She promised to carry on Ted Kennedy’s legacy and continue to fight against Bush/Cheney, apparently laboring under the misapprehension that they’re still in office.
Brown ran a letter-prefect campaign. Coakley didn’t bother to campaign until the last week or so. And when she did, she was dreadful. She can’t speak off-the-cuff, she can’t debate, and she can’t even give a decent interview to a sympathetic newspaper like the Boston Globe. Which is probably one of the reasons why she didn’t campaign, beyond the fact that she thought she didn’t have to. She also made it clear that she wasn’t interested in going out and actually meeting and greeting voters. Forget the fact that she thought Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan and that she claimed there are no terrorists in Afghanistan. Someone somewhere suggested that she ought to have spent her vacation reading briefing books, such as “A Visitor’s Guide to Massachusetts.”
Brown was upbeat, positive, warm, and accessible. Coakley was negative, cold, distant, and sometimes even churlish.
Razib, I’ve glanced at some of the morning-after left commentary, and it seems to boil down to the claim that Coakley lost because:
1) The Massachusetts electorate is sexist.
2) The left didn’t adequately explain the benefits of HRC.
3) It’s Bush’s fault. Yeah, yeah, I know, but that’s what some have said.
And as a counterpoint to Susan’s comment, the commentary I’ve seen from the left boils down to:
1) Coakley ran a crappy campaign
2) Massachusetts voters already have their public health care, so didn’t care if they damaged the effort to pass Obamacare.
3) The Massachusetts electorate was upset with Obama for not fixing the world in yet.
Hey, here’s a Republican who is for limited government; against the wholesale looting that currently passes for governing; and (drum roll please) he does not believe that the earth is five thousand years old or that Jesus rode to Temple on a dinosaur.
I say, let the man be President. Or King. I could live with King.
I’m more than anything relieved that someone like Coakley didn’t win. She’s less than mediocre and her approach to the election was an insult to the people of Massachusetts and democracy itself. Her campaign was mailing it in until the last week or so and when they started to fight it was pure nastiness and political warfare of the worst sort. I’m glad even in liberal Massachusetts there’s enough people who won’t reward that attitude, you’d think the days of political machines treating certain seats as their fiefdoms were over but I guess Democrats didn’t realize until last night.
With regards to Brown, he strikes me as a reasonable fellow though he needs to vote to the Left of our expectations and probably his personal convictions to be re-elected in Massachusetts. His win does show though that Big Tent conservatism can be a remarkably attractive formula across the country. The RINO complaints were subdued and Dem attempts to paint Brown as a Palinite extremist were mostly fruitless at the same time. Issues of common ground for conservatives and moderates were emphasized in a textbook fashion which allowed Brown to look appealing as a sort of conservative without offending the center. That I believe is the blueprint for electoral success in the future as I think Americans are broadly supportive of a generally center-right approach to government that is not tied down by certain pet crusades of some right-wing constituencies.
As an aside, whilst the MSM has spent a lot of time talking about Beck and Limbaugh cheapening American political discourse, Olbermann’s performance the last few days ought to be an eye-opener about how childish and unhinged those on the Left can be as well. I think Beck is a bit unsettling myself but Olbermann tops him by not just being nuts but being incredibly smug about it as well.
Obama started running for the Presidency almost immediately after winning his senatorial seat. We could do a lot worse than having Brown oppose him in 2012.
More is being made of this election than it probably deserves. The Democrats still have a huge majority. They’ll just have to unbend on a few points. They’ll be able to pressure Brown to go along with them if he wants to remain viable in 2012. Moreover, the GOP base won’t be in the same position to execrate him as they were with Specter, since they’ve given him so much of their blessing.
The biggest challenge for Northeastern Republicans is to build up a competitive alternative to both the Democrats and the Southern and Western GOP. Brown should use his influence and name, where possible, to help them.
A ficsallly conservative republican gets elected senator in the most uber liberal state in the union. One would think that every democrat congressman and senator except for perhaps Pilosi from the most liberal district in the U.S. have got to be shaking in their boots.
I think the “tea party” version of the GOP will win by a land slide in November.
I think most conservatives (and possibly even more liberals, to their chagrin) are reading Brown’s election as a sign of things to come. The received wisdom said that the Democrats had a lock on both senate seats in Massachusetts forever. Clearly that was proven untrue last night. And there may be a great deal of truth to the idea that if someone like Brown can be elected in the bluest (allegedly) state in the union, then someone like him can be elected in other blue states. Hence, the importance of the Brown victory.
@Don Kenner
Actually, there was a last-minute attempt to tar Brown as a creationist. Bob Kerrey said that if Massachusetts elected Brown they’d be electing a guy who didn’t believe in evolution. To which Brown’s spokesman, Eric Ferhnstrom, replied that “Scott Brown believes in evolution, but in the case of Bob Kerrey he’s willing to make an exception.” Comebacks don’t get much snappier or better than that.
Obama started running for the Presidency almost immediately after winning his senatorial seat. We could do a lot worse than having Brown oppose him in 2012.
yeah, i thought of this. the main difference though is that there was no real cost back home if obama ran and lost, illinois is a left-leaning state, and pandering to the left democrat primary electorate wouldn’t come back to hurt him. if scott brown ran he’d have to pull a mitt romney, that would probably deep-six his possibility for 2012 in mass. (i don’t know if he can run simultaneously as joe l. did in 2000).
also, political pundits are myopic bullshitters. blog commenters are basically at the same level (no offense, i’m complementing blog-commenters here). i remember back in 1994 when EVERYONE assumed bill clinton would be a one-termer, even eleanor clift had to work real hard to pretend like he wouldn’t be a one-termer. 10 months is a long time. as are 2 weeks, as martha coakley can tell you….
I was reading the Daily Kos the night before election night, and comments all basically suggested that snow would keep rural voters from going out to the polls, and that Obama’s visit would be helpful to Coakley. It was actually pretty hilarious, lol.
Well, the caterwauling from some of the religious right about Brown being a RINO has begun. And on an even funnier note, Sarah Palin is being disavowed by some of them, for agreeing to campaign for her former running mate. “We thought we new (sic) you!” one of them screeched.
@Chris
that’s funny & retarded. the rural areas of western mass. are actually bluer than the suburbs! people are stupid.
@Susan
can you point where?
Considering how McCain slighted Palin on Leno (deliberately excluding her from a list of his favorite politicians), it is a bit odd for Palin to campaign for the guy.
@David Hume
Well, principally Lucianne.com.
@David Hume
True, true, true. It’s a bit of an exaggeration, I suppose, but in those Berkshire hill towns everyone is either a wealthy transplant from New York/New Jersey wallowing in rural chic, or on welfare.
I can’t say that I would have done any better than Obama did but it should be noted that what’s killed him this year is not that he’s been too far left but that he hasn’t been left enough – particularly on issues that matter to the rank and file leftist (colorful televised images of wars ending promptly and return to a non-war footing) and on issues that matter to the serious leftist opinion-makers whose writings influence the class of writers who are widely read by the rank and file (Scandinavian-style free healthcare).
Again, I can’t say that I would have been more effective than him (I don’t really care about the war thing but I was and am still entirely in favor of completely free excellent healthcare for every citizen – to be paid for by taxing inheritances at 100% beyond the 3/4s of a million mark) but I can definitely say that tens of millions of Americans who were fooled into believing that he would be effective (I hoped that he would be but am not naive and knew that it was very unlikely) and thus were apocolyptically excited by His rise to prominence, now no longer give a damn about him. His hopenchange was shown to be a threadbare thing and they see no reason to care.
I only hope that this gets through to the people who matter in congress and in the Administration and they go all Hitler on passing the world’s best healthcare bill that will cover facelifts and cryonics, regardless of the how they get it done. The “healthcare” bill that seemed likely to pass however looked more like a freebee for the insurance industry and little more. It’s no wonder so few Americans give a damn to see it passed.
Politically the disappointed Left is no real risk to Obama, the results in Mass. and elsewhere have shown that left-liberal elites and college types (and minorities ofc) continue to stick with the Dems. The trouble spot for Obama and the Democrats are suburban and exurban indies who expected post-partisan centrism but got some throwback to 70s liberalism instead.
Healthcare reform is one of those things where it’s very easy to misread public opinion as well. Free healthcare sounds fantastic to a lot of people but then also everyone knows that nothing in life is free and that public healthcare means public expenditure. A lot of socially moderate to left of center people who are also fans of fiscal discipline were angered by Bush’s free-spending ways and likely voted Obama, those people now discover that the Democrats are even worse.
It’s like Obama and Pelosi forgot the main lesson the Dems should have learned in the 80s, welfare state liberalism isn’t a winning formula in America. Reagan and Bush won New Jersey, Illinois and California. The GOP lost them because the suburbs moved to the Dems because of a) culture war issues and b) a Dem move towards fiscal discipline (remember “the era of big government is over”?). To me the results in MA and NJ show that the GOP can still be very competitive there if Democrats spend like drunken sailors on shore leave.
If Obama takes mnuez’s lesson and “gets tough” to push through the “Progressive” agenda the next Scott Brown could be anywhere.
…I was and am still entirely in favor of completely free excellent healthcare for every citizen – to be paid for by taxing inheritances at 100% beyond the 3/4s of a million mark…
Because anyone smart enough to make that kind of smack wouldn’t be intelligent enough to have taken precautions to avoid that very sort of confiscation.
Hell, 90% of your doctors would probably expatriate.
It’s like Obama and Pelosi forgot the main lesson the Dems should have learned in the 80s, welfare state liberalism isn’t a winning formula in America.
They were aware of it, but they figured they could get the big goodies through during these two years when they had a supermajority. Once in place, the thinking goes, the resulting infrastructure would make them a permanent majority. They may still get it. Fifty-nine senators isn’t as good as sixty, but it’s nothing to sneeze at either.
Mike, THIS Scott Brown was anywhere. You can’t get more “anywhere” for a Republican to show up than in Kennedy’s seat in McGovern Massachusetts.
And sure, lots of independents voted for him, did you think hear me say that blacks and lesbobitches voted for him? What I said was that the left, both among the rank and file as well as among the opinion-makers, have no excitement for Obama because he failed on his grand leftist promises. Because of this they allowed Obama – and the Democratic congress – to flounder in a PR vacuum where the only people with any passion are the Republicans.
This leads to many Democrats not voting at all (or voting for some useless third candidate), but far more importantly, leads to many independents to vote for the opposition. After all, on the one side their getting, “our guy is Great! And Important! And Vital to the Future of Democracy! (and to FR-E-E-D-O-M-!-!-!)”, while all they hear from the other side is, “Obama’s sell-out healthcare bill? I don’t give a shit. Makes no difference to me… uh, don;t vote for the Republican though. just because.”
So – being the silly malleable humans that they are – they follow the zeitgeist. Obama in ’08 and the opposition these past few months.
Were Obama to start running the show like a dictator and giving his people what the crave, they’d be fellating him in effigy in the streets 24/7 and singing Hosannas to him all day on every cable news show. Then independents, being the standard-issue human animals that they are would be all hurrahing for the opportunity to go vote for the dictator’s list.
Amen, Selah.
Because anyone smart enough to make that kind of smack wouldn’t be intelligent enough to have taken precautions to avoid that very sort of confiscation.
Well, that’s what laws, courts and prisons are for.
For starters.
Well, that’s what laws, courts and prisons are for.
For starters.
First, that doesn’t account for expatriation.
Second, anyone with a brain will simply cease to accumulate wealth beyond what limit you pick. Your funding would disappear.
Polichinello, if memory serves, you’re a smart guy and thus I’m rather surprised by your two points.
Your first point was preemptively responded to by the two-word sentence that preceeded it. I’m not really sure whether I’m serious about the thing or not but I thought the dark foreboding would at least insulate me from having to deal with the details of something so hypothetical as what I’m proposing.
As for the second point you made, you do yourself a disservice by taking the lazy talking-point route when three second’s worth of contemplation would show that while as a talking-point it would certainly work on the masses, it’s not true in any way shape or form. I really shouldn’t have to say this Poli, but I dare say that perchance a human being here or there might still seek to gain for himself “the good life” through great riches, even if he can’t take it to the grave by building a masouleum for his (her) dog, donating a billion dollars to The Arts or… dare we whisper it? Provide for his beloved kith and kin more than three quarters of a million dollars.
Your first point was preemptively responded to by the two-word sentence that preceeded it.
Great, our own Berlin Wall. That’s the “enders” by logical extension.
I really shouldn’t have to say this Poli, but I dare say that perchance a human being here or there might still seek to gain for himself “the good life” through great riches…
Sure, here or there, but that’ll be about it. Like most utopians you’re wildly underestimating the power and influence of family. Once people know the government is going to take it all in the end, they’ll have two options: shed it before death or don’t bother. I imagine you’ll impose some sort of dictatorial measure to deal with the first, so most won’t bother. Many will destroy whatever solid goods they have before turning it over wholesale to the government. We have numerous examples of this from the 20th century, and the methods to deal with this were less than lovely.
Look, let’s not get into hashing out the particulars of a policy that the US appears less likely to adapt than imposing Catholicism upon the world. I’ll only note that while it would definitely be a shame if all of the Wall St. dudes’ cash couldn’t be put to good use once they were maggot food, their destruction of the excess would still provide the valuable service of stemming the inherited plutocracy.
And the plutocracy is really the least of our worries. See Poli, to reduce the dismal science to its most important solitary element, he who holds the key to the refrigerator is the master of he who does not. When there are are fewer rich people in the world there will be fewer slaves in the world and while I can’t at all say that I mind having slaves, I do mind being had as a slave.
Naturally I’ve left out entire encyclopedias of explanation but, even so egotistical a one as myself has his moments of clarity when he remembers that he’s writing a comment, on a blog, that will be read by twenty people, of whom four could potentially understanding the thing, of whom none would in any case benefit me in any way.
It’s sad, by the way, to open some volume of T. Roosevelt’s letters or of Twains and to realize how very few people will ever read the fascinating exchange contained therein. How much sadder still that no matter what timeless brilliance you or I may happen to elucidate on some binary based blog page, it’s all but certain to go unappreciated by any sentient being after tomorrow.
When there are are fewer rich people in the world there will be fewer slaves in the world…
You have it exactly backwards. When there are more rich people there are fewer slaves. Abolishing the wealthy only leads to abolishing wealth.
The periods of plutocracy you fret about were such because there were only a few wealthy individuals.
Returning to Razib’s original point about the spin/commentary from the left on Brown’s win–the funniest spin/comment has come from Obama himself, who’s said that the voters elected Scott Brown because they were mad at…George Bush.
If I were rich, and the government was going to take all my money away, I’d wait until I was about to die, buy a bunch of Picassos and burn them, just to tick people off.
Incidentally, I might do the same thing. Do you have a point though? something along the lines of galting the economy or some such nonsense? As I mentioned earlier, while yet alive, my preference would be for the money accumulated by the dead guy to be used for local humanitarian purposes but barring that I’d prefer pyro-picassos to allowing a generation of princes to walk upoin the earth.
Anyhow, if you are wealthy and likely to check out soon and by some oddball chance the inheritance tax is reinstated, please do invite me to the cremation. I’m no fan of modern art and would enjoy seeing picasso improved by the roasting.
Susan – yeah, Obama kinda flopped on that one. He didn’t seem like he wanted to finish that sentence the way that he did but once he was half-way through you can see that he realized he had no other way out that wasn’t politically dangerous. He’s far too much of a compromiser. I think he wanted to say what I’ve been saying that people are pissed because he didn’t yet grant them all of the goodies that he promised them (regardless of whether I happen to support some of those promises or not) but he’s far too cautious and successful a politician to head that far into the honesty field. He seems like the kind of fellow who would prefer, all things being the same, to speak his mind freely at every opportunity but who is “mature” enough to be able to follow the standard protocol of political common sense and confine his honesty and sincerity to areas where they’re not likely to cause him much political harm or where they might get hikm out of some political morass that’s already become so sticky that a Hail Sincerity can only help.