Why would a Republican win in Massachusetts?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Should Scott Brown (R) beat Martha Coakley (D) in today’s special Senate election in Massachusetts as FiveThirtyEight is leaning, it will not be due to a left to right electoral shift. While the right-wing pundits will surely portray it that way, if you ask me, it is far more complicated than that.
My thoughts of why a Republican would win this seat, without any substantial detail and in no particular order:
1) Lazy Democrats – Democrats have horrible turnout in special elections.
2) Short voter memory – one year is enough to say that Republican administration wasn’t so bad after all?
3) Impatient electorate – one year is enough to start blaming Obama/Democrats for our problems and lack of economic turnaround?
4) Disenfranchised Democrats – While these fools hold out hope for the liberal utopian health care plan, they actually believe that no health care bill is better than what is proposed, so they won’t show up at the polls. My sister, with a preexisting condition, who buys her own health care would argue with them on that. (Considering Coakley would likely vote for a public option, if given the chance, this is especially stupid postion to hold.)
5) Crappy candidate – sounds like Coakley was a lazy and poor performing candidate. She did win a primary, so not sure who is to blame for that one.
Well, if this sinks the health care plan, it won’t be the first time the death of a Kennedy created disastrous consequences for the nation.
11 comments:
Honestly, I don't thing #2 and 3 have much to do with it. I think it's 1, 4 and 5 that really get to the issue of why the Dems will fuck up the Democratic bastion of that Senate seat.
This Brown could turn out to be a schmuck, but he will be a schmuck for 6 years before the Dems can grab that seat back. That's a long time to have shit held-up, and the Republican noise machine will absolutely use that big time to make this November's election a barn burner; "see?? We really are too far ledt...re-elect Republicans!"
That's where your #3 comes in to play; not for the Coakley race, but for the November mid-term elections.
Other than that, good analysis, blah blah.
Everyone has shitty turnout in special elections, so I don't think 1 is a major factor. My gut feeling is that it has more to do with 3 and 5. I don't know much about Brown, but I don't hear much good about Coakley.
That being said. I am pretty far removed from Mass. politics.
Smitty, I think the seat goes back on the block in 2012, so he'd only be a schmuck for 3 years.
Well, he might be a schmuck forever... but he'd be up for re-elect in less than 6 years.
"Well, he might be a schmuck forever... but he'd be up for re-elect in less than 6 years."
My bet is, unless he can find a way to act like a Deemocrat in the Republican party, an almost impossible task in this era, he will be replaced by a Democrat in 2012.
Question...
Would Brown be the only pro-choice Republican in the Senate? I forget the composition, and whether either of the Maine Senators, etc. are pro-choice.
I think the two Maine Senators are the only other Republicans who support abortion rights since what's-his-face from Pennslyvania flipped sides.
That will reward Brown with a nice primary in 2012.
The winner of this election fulfills the rest of TK's term (expires Jan 2013) and will have to run for reelection in 2012. This is NOT the start of a new-year term.
I think the mix is 1, and 5, being that 1 helped produce 5.
I think that the lazyness of the party permitted a poor canidate to win the slot.
"I think that the lazyness of the party permitted a poor canidate to win the slot."
If by "party" you mean Democratic voters, I agree. I read today that most of the Democratic groups and elects supported the other candidates.
"This is NOT the start of a new-year term."
Um, SIX-year term.
Post a Comment