Looking back at Coakley and Brown: how did they get here?
Since most of us weren’t paying a whole lot of attention to the Massachusetts Senate race during the build up to the primary, or in the early days of the post-primary campaign, many people might be wondering how it was that someone as profoundly uncharismatic as Martha Coakley came to be the nominee. Another question is what may have motivated Brown to enter the seemingly quixotic race to win a Senate seat as a Republican from Massachusetts.
So let’s take a little trip back in time.
Looking backwards to the vote on December 9, 2009, (see this), the first thing to notice is that the primaries didn’t get a lot of attention. This is generally true in off-year special elections, and even more true this time, partly because there were no high-profile charismatic entries on the Democratic side (the only side that was thought to matter), and partly because there was virtually no difference among the four Democratic candidates in their positions on issues. In DC, each of them would be almost certain to vote the straight liberal party line. And it was to DC that the winner among them was thought to be inevitably headed.
Even the New York Times characterized the primary race as “notably bereft of drama” and “sleepy.” The turnout was so low that the Worchester Examiner called it “pathetic.” Nobody was excited, and hardly anyone cared except the candidates themselves.
So the voting probably came down to the partly faithful and politically attuned. For Democrats that meant voting for Coakley, the person who’d been the first to declare her intention to seek the seat, who had gotten Bill Clinton’s as well as many union endorsements, and was by far the most well-known statewide. Although Coakley’s resume may seem thin compared to other US Senators—she had spent her career mostly as a DA, ascending to the Massachusetts AG’s office only in 2007, and had no legislative experience whatsoever—it was thickish compared to two of her three other opponents, only one of whom had ever held statewide office (Capuano, a member of the US House).
One of the factors in Coakley’s win may have been that “progressive” Massachusetts had never sent a woman to the Senate, a fact Martha didn’t hesitate to mention in her campaign. The voters may have felt it was time to rectify that omission, since any of these Democrats would be as good as any other in terms of their voting propensities in the Senate, and any one of them was going to easily beat the poor sap the Massachusetts Republican Party had managed to persuade to enter the uneven fray in order to be humiliated.
Although Coakley didn’t win a majority in the four-way primary race, she got 48% of the vote, almost 20 points more than her nearest competitor Capuano. She must have breathed a sigh of relief: next stop, Senate! Her job was to keep a low profile and coast to victory.
As for Brown, he won his race by 89%; his opponent was considered to be only a nominal one. The real question was why did he run in the first place, since everyone agreed his chance of victory was slim to none? This article from last September, when Brown announced his candidacy, indicates that there was a very small pool of candidates to choose from: Massachusetts has only five (count ’em, five) Republicans in its state legislature, and there are no Republicans holding any statewide office. What’s more [emphasis mine]:
Jody Dow, the Republican National Committee chairwoman for Massachusetts, said Brown is a strong candidate whom party leaders have long eyed as a prospect for statewide office.
So someone in the nearly-moribund Massachusetts Republican Party noticed they had something special in Brown. Maybe he was even tapped to run, and he probably thought it might be good publicity and a springboard to later statewide office of some sort.
But by far the most interesting part of the article about Brown’s candidacy announcement back in September of 2009 was that Brown seemed to take his own campaign very seriously from the start, plotting out the precise course the would put him in the spot he’s in now, and even using some of the same lines. Perhaps you’ll recognize a few of them here [emphasis mine]:
“I have always thought that being in government service is a privilege, not a right. This Senate seat doesn’t belong to any one person or political party. It belongs to you, the people, and the people deserve a US senator who will always put your interests first…I believe that it is the private sector—small businesses and entrepreneurs—that will get our economy moving again. Government can and will help, but it also needs to know when to step out of the way”…
He pledged he would run a “clean and mean” campaign and promised he would not be beholden to special interests. “My opponents are already pandering to special interests. That’s not the way I operate,” he said.
Well, Brown’s campaign has been clean—although not all that mean—and he’s continued to deliver the same message, one that was carefully chosen back in September to resonate with the feelings of the electorate. Smart man, with good instincts.
After Brown won the primary, local journalist and blogger Jules Crittenden was understandably pessimistic about his chances. But although Crittenden thought a Coakley win was almost inevitable, he also believed there was a tiny chance of a Brown victory if the following unlikely circumstances were to happen to come together: “remarkable gaffes by Coakley, an extraordinary and deft effort by Brown, and probably external events such as a Democratic health-care debacle.”
Crittenden may have scored the trifecta, because all three seem to have occurred in short order in the month since he wrote the post. Blogger Sissy Willis also saw some possibilities, because she titled her immediate post-primary post “Think Scott Brown can’t win? Here’s why he can.”
Brown certainly hasn’t won yet; I’m not counting those chickens. But he’s put the fear into the entire Democratic Party, is leading in many polls right now, and has made himself a national and inspirational figure for Republicans and Independents around the nation.
Not bad for a month’s work.
[ADDENDUM: Jules Crittenden, a witty man, clears up the record some more. And praises yours truly into the bargain.]
Pingback:Jules Crittenden » In The Balance
This is very interesting, and important to track for the sake of history. And truth. I noticed on the Politico blog Arena today that a Harvard professor was claiming that one reason the race had tightened is that: “As a one-off January election, national Republicans could pour everything into it.” Huh? My impression was that Scott Brown was pretty much ignored by the RNC and others. And he didn’t mind.
Here is another reason, as pronounced from the Ivory Tower: “The weather has been brutally cold. Seasonal affective disorder has set in, and people are cranky. Grouches want things to oppose, so they can express their general discontent.”
Oh those silly little cold grouchy voters!
Amy,
But of course! Why ever admit that it may actually have something to do with the substance of what the Dems (and most of academia) promote.
As Dr. Sanity would diagnose, much better to blame SAD, than face the true reality.
Yeah.. SAD (Stupid A** Democrats) could very well be the cause.
Ms. Coakley certainly sounds clueless about the goings on in her own state, as Curt Schilling said. She has an air of entitlement about her that also seemed to envelope Caroline Kennedy when she thought she was owed a Senate seat regardless of her qualifications or abilities. Or lack of knowledge of what the lives of most New Yorkers were like.
I as perusing the Unreality Based Community over at Blue Mass Group when I found this:
“There’s speculation that a national non-profit or organization may be formed to make FCC complaints and possibly pursue court action against WRKO, WTKK, and a few other stations around the state’ FCC licenses. Are they following standards and guide lines laid down by Congress governing FCC licenses under the Equal Time Rule?
The show tapes do not lie and it is hard pressed to listen to them in totality and not come to the conclusion that a decision was made by the FCC license holders and very specific actions and non-actions were taken to insure that the coverage of the campaign was one sided.
If court action, including administrative complaint with the FCC, Scott Brown volunteers and staffers will be called as witnesses testifying as to what they knew and what they did and who told them what to do. This only applies to the radio call-ins. (so don’t worry, you don’t have to tell who is screwing who on the campaign)”
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/18422/hello-god-i-mean-mr-president-its-me-ernie-i-may-i-offer-some-advice-for-your-vist-here
F***in’ Crybabies.
“Reality based community”. The biggest joke of all.
to be honest
prior to this election event i had never paid much attention. that coakly is known only as other than nothing is about it.
given that, that alone should and does explain the absense of commentary from me other than finding a outrageous fact coming cross the net waves…
Amy Says:
“Oh those silly little cold grouchy voters!”
More lefty projection I’m sure. I wonder if that guy has ever talked to a Bush hater (which near the end, seemed to be over 50% of democrats). Because, you know, they’re so happy and pleasant. 😉
Jim Sullivan Says:
“Are they following standards and guide lines laid down by Congress governing FCC licenses under the Equal Time Rule?”
The FCC does not have an equal time rule right now. It went out in the 80s.
The fascinating thing to me is how Dems trot out the hoary chestnuts they always use against Republicans, even though they have zero connection with reality.
For example, I’ve read that Brown lacks the requisite experience for a Senate seat. Pardon me, but he’s been a state senator for 11 years. Coakley’s legislative experience? Bupkis.
Brown has been involved with the military justice system, something rather topical today, and in the National Guard for decades. Coakley? Bupkis.
Other gems include assertions (e.g., by the Globe columnist) that Brown isn’t too bright. Yet he has exactly the same credentials as Coakley – a JD – and he hasn’t been the one putting his foot in his mouth on an hourly basis.
Now the Dems are resorting to their tried and true crap, with allegations that Brown is in bed with business interests. Rich, considering that Coakley just returned from DC, where she met with lobbyists. I understand that they’re also flogging the “out of state right-wing extremists” meme, while busing in SEIU thugs.
Their capacity for projection and/or pure mendacity is truly breathtaking.
It’s almost too much tension to stand. So much might depend on Tuesday! I’m going to say a Rosary. I can’t stand the suspense!
Occam’s Beard,
What does Coakley know about the Boston Red Sox? Bupkis.
Three bukises and yer out!
Pingback:Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian
Occam’s Beard:
The fascinating thing to me is how Dems trot out the hoary chestnuts they always use against Republicans, even though they have zero connection with reality.For example, I’ve read that Brown lacks the requisite experience for a Senate seat. Pardon me, but he’s been a state senator for 11 years.
Considering our recent experience with a state legislator from Chicago who got elected US Senator, the Demos might have a point.
Massachusetts = Boring
Amy Says:
January 16th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Bitter(ly cold) clingers!
I’ve driven down into MA the past two days on family business and have gotten to hear the radio ads. Coakley’s revolve around the “failed Bush agenda” and fighting for the the same things as Teddy. Ever notice how Democrats usually say they’ll “fight” for you, while Republicans say they’ll “work” for you? Says a lot about their world-views. Brown’s ads are very “Bright New Day, and-did-you-notice-how-negative-and-mean-Coakley-is?”
Amy, professors can have whatever fool opinion they want, but we would have thought they’d make some effort to get the facts right. When I was in school, I thought the good grades some profs gave me for obvious blather that I had spun off the top of my head was because I was so smart and so good at it. I am coming to take a dimmer view of both my abilities and theirs.
Pingback:Jules Crittenden » Political Prescience Hurtfully Poo-Poo’d
The fascinating thing to me is how Dems trot out the hoary chestnuts they always use against Republicans, even though they have zero connection with reality.
best if iowahawks ads for coakly (satire)
directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/best-of-iowahawks-proposed-martha.html
MAN
Say, I really like Scott Brown’s pickup truck. It’s wicked pissah!
WOMAN
Sure, Ted. If you like lynchings.
MAN
Whaddaya mean?
WOMAN
Just look at the record, Ted. From James Byrd to Matthew Shepard to the last scene in Easy Rider, pickup trucks are the official vehicles of Southern Republican lynch mobs. So are you still voting for Scott Brown?
MAN
No truckin’ way!
i like this one..
Harry Reid: Scott Brown is a racist.
Tim Geitner: Scott Brown failed to report $300 he earned under the table on his 1982 1040.
Hillary Clinton: Scott Brown doesn’t speak fluent russian.
Kevin Jennings: Our children are not safe with Scott Brown.
Barney Frank: Thcott Bwown doethn’t know the fiwst thing about the mawtgage induthtwy. And he hunts bunny wabbits.
Nancy Pelosi: Scott Brown is wealthy. He associates with wealthy people.He is very partisan and doesn’t work well with others.
Senator Byrd: Scott Brown is a racist.
Joe Biden: Scott Brown says stupid shit all the time!
Charlie Rangel: Scott Brown exploits tax loopholes.
Janet Napolitano: Scott Brown refuses to recognize the threat of terrorism posed by our retired veterans.
Sheila Black: Look! I just found an honest-to-goodness REAL DOCTOR who opposes Scott Brown!(ring ring ring!) hold on! I gotta get this…..
Barack Obama: Let me be perfectly clear! Scott Brown is totally inexperienced and unfit for this important job. He doesn’t have a clue!
lots of em for your enjoyment
Mom : Hey sweetie, why you crying?
10 year old Susie : Mom, I just heard Scott Brown is trying to kill me. Is that right?
Mom : Of course not Susie, Scott Brown is not trying to kill you, he’s trying to kill all children,
Susie : But, but, why?
Mom : Cuz that’s what Republicans do, they kill children, and kittens, but mostly children.
Susie : But…how?
Mom : By killing Uncle Teddy’s health-care bill, that’s how. Their pro-cancer, anti-kitten agenda has finally been exposed. They’re even planning to put cancer in the drinking water.
Susie : Didn’t Uncle Teddy die of brain cancer?
Mom : Infected with brain cancer, Susie. Infected with brain cancer by Republicans.
Susie : I’m scared.
Mom : Don’t be scared Susie. If Scott Brown is elected, your father and I will take care of you, if you know what I mean.
Susie : The Kopechne treatment?
Mom : Of course.
Voice Over : Don’t make parents in Massachusettes kill their children. Don’t make pet owners in Massachusettes kill their kittens. Vote for the pro-child, pro-kitten candidate. Vote for Martha Coakley.
and the winner?
CUE OMINOUS MUSIC, FADE FROM BLACK TO SHOW SCOTT BROWN IN BLACK-AND-WHITE
Narrator: “Did Scott Brown assault an elderly woman in Roxbury last year?”
PAN TO POLICE CARS ON DARKENED STREET WITH LIGHTS FLASHING
Narrator: “Is it true he visited Thailand to engage in illicit activities with underage cheerleaders?”
PAN TO MAP OF THAILAND WITH THONG UNDERWEAR LYING ON IT
Narrator: “Did Scott Brown really murder his first wife in a fit of rage?”
PAN TO KNIFE LAYING IN A POOL OF BLOOD ON A KITCHEN FLOOR
Narrator: “Could you cast a vote for an accused murderer, child sex addict and batterer of the elderly?”
PAN TO SMILING COAKLEY IN COLOR
Narrator: “Say no to alleged criminal behavior: it’s time for Martha Coakley.”
Rapid V/O: This message paid for by ACORN.
Much has been said constructively and destructively about Brown and Coakley! And we are left with no choice but to choose one of them. it is a sad reality but one of them will be one of the nation’s leader.
As the plot thickens, putz-heads unite for Coakley …
Sorry I meant to put “putz-heads” in quotations!
it is a sad reality but one of them will be one of the nation’s leader.
A “sad reality?” If Brown wins? You’re kidding, right? What’s wrong with Brown? Military and legislative experience up the wazoo, ran a shrewd, tight campaign that ate the apple off Coakley’s head.
Hell, I’d rather he were President that the bozo who’s in office right now. Of course, that doesn’t narrow the field much. Geraldo Rivera would be a better choice than Obama.
Here’s a fun video at Pajamas Media about the types of people who go into politics: Wizards, Warriors, Power and Intrigue: Modern Politics According to the Lord of the Rings.
They also have some good stuff on the Brown-Coakley race, like The Battle for 41 and Mass Hysteria.
Is it just me or did Cynthia muff the quote? I had always heard that failure is an orphan…
Wm Lawrence: Yes, she muffed the quote. To be sure, however, there are many variations of it. But none of them are as she wrote it, although her version presents a similar idea.
However, Yockey got my point wrong. I was never talking about who was first to promote Brown. I was talking about Jules Crittenden’s prescience about what might open the way for a Brown victory, even though Jules didn’t think it at all likely at the time he wrote it.
Heh.