Vincent E
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2001
- Posts
- 785
There are going to be plenty of flame fests over the just concluded election here in Massachusetts. That's spelled M-a-s-s-a-c-h-u-s-e-t-t-s, Martha. Let's hope this can remain a sober and thoughtful thread for a few posts before its ultimate degeneration into name calling, finger pointing, and general nastiness.
1. The common knowledge in December was that whatever candidate emerged from the Massachusetts Democratic primary victorious would be the eventual winner. A Democrat winning a Senate race in Massachusetts is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.
What happened: It was not so much that all four Democratic contenders in the primary ran to the hard left, and that there was not much difference among any of them. It was the fact that the Democratic primary did not fully engage disaffected unenrolled (that's Massachusetts-speak for independent) voters. The candidates played to the base. Winning the base in the primary is not the same as carrying the general election. There are fewer options in a primary, and no opportunity to send a message to the powers that be.
2. The common knowledge was that a "little known" state senator could build a base large enough to even be a player in the general election. An obscure Republican running against a high-profile Democrat should be a no-brainer.
What happened: The Jack Kennedy ad was very effective. Brown was able to take advantage of what has to be the biggest gaffe of Massachusetts politics in the 21st Century. Martha Coakley stopped campaigning for a week. No ads, no public appearances, no TV or radio interviews were be offered to the voters while Brown was making a link to policies JFK advanced in the 1960s. The Kennedy name was in fact very effective, but it was not Ted Kennedy, Vicki Kennedy or even libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy (no relation to THE Kennedy family.) Also, Brown's composure and performance in the debates led to a theme: It's not the Kennedy seat, it's not the Democrats' seat; it’s the peoples' seat.
3. Low voter turnout is in the challenger’s best interest. If a bunch of Democrats think that Coakley has the election sown up, they aren't going to turn out to vote, but the few Brown supporters are energized.
What happened: the turnout in the special election rivaled the turnout for Barrack Obama's election in 2008. Over two-million ballots were cast on Election Day; the absentee ballots have not even been counted, but they are expected to lean heavily for Brown. The Brown campaign picked up momentum at just the right time and peaked on the night of the election. It turns out that a lot of people were following this race. A lot of people wanted to vote. Brown used a form of retail politics that engaged the aforementioned disaffected unenrolled voters, and he invited them to the dance; they came. These people wanted to come out and let their voices be heard. As soon as the polls came out showing Brown closing and then eventually taking a lead, his campaign was imbued with a momentum that carried right into Election Day with many people coming out who previously may have thought that Coakley’s ascension was a foregone conclusion . However the closeness of the polls gave them a desire to come out and vote.
4. Negative campaigning works. When all else fails drop the pretentions of civilized debate and tear apart the other guy. People love a fight, especially a dirty fight with lots of biting and hair-pulling, eye gouging and low blows. Whoever launches the more convincing attacks must be smarter.
What happened: Scott Brown refused to wade into the mud with Martha. Even after he was being outspent by Coakley and third-party organizations that support her, Brown decided to stay above the fray by answering her negative ads with humble responses explaining that he was going to continue to talk about the issues in which people were interested. He must have done a lot of talking because each time Coakley came out with a new negative add, Brown jumped about five points in the polls. People may be becoming worn down with the constant flow of negative blabber mouthing that goes on in these heated races. Normally I spend the month of October with the remote in hand nervously clicking channels in the hopes of avoiding the ads and the negative vibes that come along with them. I hope a trend develops from this and we see the death of negative campaigning.
5. Money talks. If you are going to win, you have to get some serious money. It is the logical extension of the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
What happened: A one-day fundraiser online for Brown raised over $1.3 million from over 16,000 people donating an average of $77 each. Coakley, on the other hand, flew down to Washington D.C. to accept $10,000 each from members of the insurance and HMO industry. Then Brown was able to raise about $1 million dollars a day online from donations across the country. The catch is that the national Republican party told Brown early on that he could not count on them for support because they needed to spend money on upcoming races that they could win.
6. Massachusetts is a Democratic state. ‘Nuff said.
What happened: while it is true that there are three times as many Democrats as Republicans, unenrolled voters outnumber both parties combined. The arrogance of the solons on Beacon Hill goes back a long time, but this defeat can be dropped right in the lap of the Democratic machine that for years has schemed and scammed to maintain Democratic control over Massachusetts’ two Senate seats. In 2004, Massachusetts Democrats were fearful that if Senator John Kerry won the presidential race, Republican Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to fill his seat. So they changed the law to require a special election instead, but they also rejected Romney’s appeal to allow the governor to appoint an interim Senator so that Massachusetts would not lose representation in the Senate. The Democrats thought that was a bad idea…in 2004. Fast forward to 2009 where Ted Kennedy appeals to the legislature to allow the governor, now Democrat Deval Patrick, to make an interim appointment so that (are you ready for this) Massachusetts does not lose representation in the event of his inability to continue to serve. The bitter irony is that Kennedy was out in front opposing this interim appointment five years earlier. Had the Beacon Hill Democrats not tinkered with the original law in the forlorn hope that John Kerry would win the Presidency, there would have been no interim appointment or special election. Deval Patrick would have just taken the seat for himself, bailed out on his horrible approval ratings in-state, and maintained the super-majority the Democrats had in the United States Senate. I can use the f-bomb in this venue, so I will. The voters said, “Fuck with us enough, and soon we’ll fuck you.”
Analysis can go on for quite a while, but I think these are the keys issues that took place here in Massachusetts. (See, there is only one “e” in Massachusetts, Martha. And Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox. And yes, you should have been standing outside Fenway Park before the Winter Classic shaking hands in the cold.)
Before Democrats panic and before Republicans get carried away, consider that many of the independents who voted for Obama voted for Brown. Senate Republicans up for re-election this year are in as much danger as Democrats. I do not think that voter anger is directed at any one party or policy. Republicans had control of both houses and fucked that over in 2006 because people saw that the characters who were their mismanaged themselves. Any incumbent is in trouble in 2010.
And as for Scott Brown, enjoy the limelight of being the Golden Boy of the Republican Party today. You are up for re-election in 2012 brother.
Of course if the Mayans were right that isn’t going to matter anyway.
Can we have some civil discussion at least for three posts? Can't we all just get along?
1. The common knowledge in December was that whatever candidate emerged from the Massachusetts Democratic primary victorious would be the eventual winner. A Democrat winning a Senate race in Massachusetts is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.
What happened: It was not so much that all four Democratic contenders in the primary ran to the hard left, and that there was not much difference among any of them. It was the fact that the Democratic primary did not fully engage disaffected unenrolled (that's Massachusetts-speak for independent) voters. The candidates played to the base. Winning the base in the primary is not the same as carrying the general election. There are fewer options in a primary, and no opportunity to send a message to the powers that be.
2. The common knowledge was that a "little known" state senator could build a base large enough to even be a player in the general election. An obscure Republican running against a high-profile Democrat should be a no-brainer.
What happened: The Jack Kennedy ad was very effective. Brown was able to take advantage of what has to be the biggest gaffe of Massachusetts politics in the 21st Century. Martha Coakley stopped campaigning for a week. No ads, no public appearances, no TV or radio interviews were be offered to the voters while Brown was making a link to policies JFK advanced in the 1960s. The Kennedy name was in fact very effective, but it was not Ted Kennedy, Vicki Kennedy or even libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy (no relation to THE Kennedy family.) Also, Brown's composure and performance in the debates led to a theme: It's not the Kennedy seat, it's not the Democrats' seat; it’s the peoples' seat.
3. Low voter turnout is in the challenger’s best interest. If a bunch of Democrats think that Coakley has the election sown up, they aren't going to turn out to vote, but the few Brown supporters are energized.
What happened: the turnout in the special election rivaled the turnout for Barrack Obama's election in 2008. Over two-million ballots were cast on Election Day; the absentee ballots have not even been counted, but they are expected to lean heavily for Brown. The Brown campaign picked up momentum at just the right time and peaked on the night of the election. It turns out that a lot of people were following this race. A lot of people wanted to vote. Brown used a form of retail politics that engaged the aforementioned disaffected unenrolled voters, and he invited them to the dance; they came. These people wanted to come out and let their voices be heard. As soon as the polls came out showing Brown closing and then eventually taking a lead, his campaign was imbued with a momentum that carried right into Election Day with many people coming out who previously may have thought that Coakley’s ascension was a foregone conclusion . However the closeness of the polls gave them a desire to come out and vote.
4. Negative campaigning works. When all else fails drop the pretentions of civilized debate and tear apart the other guy. People love a fight, especially a dirty fight with lots of biting and hair-pulling, eye gouging and low blows. Whoever launches the more convincing attacks must be smarter.
What happened: Scott Brown refused to wade into the mud with Martha. Even after he was being outspent by Coakley and third-party organizations that support her, Brown decided to stay above the fray by answering her negative ads with humble responses explaining that he was going to continue to talk about the issues in which people were interested. He must have done a lot of talking because each time Coakley came out with a new negative add, Brown jumped about five points in the polls. People may be becoming worn down with the constant flow of negative blabber mouthing that goes on in these heated races. Normally I spend the month of October with the remote in hand nervously clicking channels in the hopes of avoiding the ads and the negative vibes that come along with them. I hope a trend develops from this and we see the death of negative campaigning.
5. Money talks. If you are going to win, you have to get some serious money. It is the logical extension of the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
What happened: A one-day fundraiser online for Brown raised over $1.3 million from over 16,000 people donating an average of $77 each. Coakley, on the other hand, flew down to Washington D.C. to accept $10,000 each from members of the insurance and HMO industry. Then Brown was able to raise about $1 million dollars a day online from donations across the country. The catch is that the national Republican party told Brown early on that he could not count on them for support because they needed to spend money on upcoming races that they could win.
6. Massachusetts is a Democratic state. ‘Nuff said.
What happened: while it is true that there are three times as many Democrats as Republicans, unenrolled voters outnumber both parties combined. The arrogance of the solons on Beacon Hill goes back a long time, but this defeat can be dropped right in the lap of the Democratic machine that for years has schemed and scammed to maintain Democratic control over Massachusetts’ two Senate seats. In 2004, Massachusetts Democrats were fearful that if Senator John Kerry won the presidential race, Republican Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to fill his seat. So they changed the law to require a special election instead, but they also rejected Romney’s appeal to allow the governor to appoint an interim Senator so that Massachusetts would not lose representation in the Senate. The Democrats thought that was a bad idea…in 2004. Fast forward to 2009 where Ted Kennedy appeals to the legislature to allow the governor, now Democrat Deval Patrick, to make an interim appointment so that (are you ready for this) Massachusetts does not lose representation in the event of his inability to continue to serve. The bitter irony is that Kennedy was out in front opposing this interim appointment five years earlier. Had the Beacon Hill Democrats not tinkered with the original law in the forlorn hope that John Kerry would win the Presidency, there would have been no interim appointment or special election. Deval Patrick would have just taken the seat for himself, bailed out on his horrible approval ratings in-state, and maintained the super-majority the Democrats had in the United States Senate. I can use the f-bomb in this venue, so I will. The voters said, “Fuck with us enough, and soon we’ll fuck you.”
Analysis can go on for quite a while, but I think these are the keys issues that took place here in Massachusetts. (See, there is only one “e” in Massachusetts, Martha. And Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox. And yes, you should have been standing outside Fenway Park before the Winter Classic shaking hands in the cold.)
Before Democrats panic and before Republicans get carried away, consider that many of the independents who voted for Obama voted for Brown. Senate Republicans up for re-election this year are in as much danger as Democrats. I do not think that voter anger is directed at any one party or policy. Republicans had control of both houses and fucked that over in 2006 because people saw that the characters who were their mismanaged themselves. Any incumbent is in trouble in 2010.
And as for Scott Brown, enjoy the limelight of being the Golden Boy of the Republican Party today. You are up for re-election in 2012 brother.
Of course if the Mayans were right that isn’t going to matter anyway.
Can we have some civil discussion at least for three posts? Can't we all just get along?
