There is a $#*@-storm brewing over Coakley.

Based on my reading of the talking points and comments out today... pardon me if I'm stating the obvious.

On the one side, those who claim that the potential for a Republican to take Ted Kennedy's seat means that voters are dissatisfied with Obama's rightward, post-election move and the inability of elected Democrats in Congress to even fight for meaningful health care reform. They will blame the corporatists and blue dogs.

On the other side, the less-progressive Democrats and perhaps those who are primarily concerned about power and paychecks will criticize Coakley and her campaign, and who knows what else. Anything to avoid taking responsibility for rightward concessions that are disliked by the party base and Americans as a whole. (Ok, maybe there's a more positive way to state their position, but it looks to me like they're in a bind right now.)

I mean, it's not like MA is a red state. Something got badly screwed up somewhere.

The apologists are already out, trying to manage the discussion. I guess it's obvious which side I'm on. It would be interesting to watch and see how this turns out, if there weren't so much at stake.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

THEIR premiums going down? They don't see anything in the HC bills that will benefit THEM! Yes many uninsured people will be covered, but it's the old "What's that mean to ME? is still there!

Then there's the unemployment issue. What's the unemployment % in MA? How many of those people are voters who blame the current powers?

I don't think it's necessarily about Obama as much as it's about the current conditions of the avg. voter and they blame any incumbant!

On obama's watch?

At what point in obama's tenure does the buck stop
with him?

Congress to do or not do some things, but there are a number of Reps & Sens who do what THEY WANT or what they think their constituents want and won't cooperate! I can't blame Obama for that!

When we have the whitehouse and congress (by a LARGE margin) and the perception is that we are doing nothing, then the big tent begins to break apart. The ultra-libs complain abuot centrists, the new additions to the tent see no real progress, conservadems become apathetic... the base quite literally falls apart. Big tents get politicians elected easily - big tents also expect results or destabilize more easily.

This ones on the dem leadership for:
A) not providing competent candidates
B) Letting the illusion of stagnation in washington and medicrity exist.

... it also hurts when OUR landmark legislation is just a handout to corporation in THEIR pockets.

Whenever you post a poll showing a Democrat losing in the polls to a Republican, you are required to also post a link to someplace you can donate or volunteer to help the Democratic candidate win.


What can we DO!?!?!

Make at least five calls from your own home for Martha Coakley, RIGHT NOW: http://www.my.barackobama.com/coakleyn2n

Donate to Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate RIGHT NOW: https://coakley.zissousecure.com/contribute/PFP/iandavidb


See also:

!!!!! NEW RULE !!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7498975

A loss by Coakley will result in the "conventional wisdom" that "Obama's liberal agenda is wildly unpopular even in ultra-blue Massachusetts, and Democrats will have to 'move to the center' to survive." It'll be 1994 all over again. :-(

what too many people think! If he's a Liberal then I MUST be a Communist or something like that! He's much more to the "Right" of me and I laugh out loud when I keep hearing how LIBERAL he is!

I haven't seen it in ANY way!

That is totally irresponsible, but I imagine it's a common thought in MA.

there are many factors at play. but you offer no evidence as to why "your side" is correct. And it boggles the mind to believe that progressives in MA are so disgusted with Obama and Congress because they're not progressive that they're going to go cast a vote for Brown.

When Fundies were upset w/ the Rs they didn't vote Dem. They didn't reliably turn out, which was the impetus for the wedge proposition. Once the R party got them in the booth, they would often hold their noses and vote for Rs anyway. Notice when the turnout problem is likely to be Dems, and the R candidate isn't particularly socially conservative, no one came up w/ a wedge proposition to pop on the ballot.

But amongst the gen'l public, the alienating issue is less likely to be details of the HCR bill, than the bread and butter issues of how the bank crisis and the economy in general were handled as well as the continuation of expensive wars and the absence of a peace dividend. With lower-info folks it's always the economy, and so far WH policies and the stats have not inspired confidence.

candidates sometimes get bland and conduct lazy campaigns. The other party may try harder to come up with an attractive candidate and pull out all the stops. It's not that different from what happened in Maryland when Steele was elected governor over Kennedy.

(be they registered "D"s or "I"s) "they" won't have been voting at all.

I still think Coakley will take it, BTW.

the conservo-corporate-dems are well-organized and are already framing the spin should Coakley lose.

What if they'd spent that effort trying to help her win?

The corpo-dems will have an easier time alibiing failures with "only" 59 votes...