Being Frank
Even before the results are in, Barney Frank is furiously spinning the Coakley-Brown race. Coakley was supposed to win in a walk, so close polls need to be explained. Frank's argument is that the election became "a personality contest bereft of the issues.”
A few days ago, I noted this election shouldn't be seen as a referendum on national health care reform since 1) that's not the only issue involved and 2) this is the wrong state for a referendum on anything. But to pretend that Brown is doing well despite the issues is to hide your head in the sand.
Sure, he's run a good campaign and is a personally attractive candidate, while Coakley has stumbled, but if there wasn't a wisespread opposition to many of the Dems big plans, this would normally mean Coakley wins by 15 rather than 25 points. Obama's eleventh hour celebrity appearance in Massachusetts only highlights that they wish this wasn't so much about the issues.
But Frank's not done. There's a silver lining. Coakley, he says, has seen the error of her ways and is now concentrating on issues again. So, just remember, if she wins--issues. If she loses--personality.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:09 AM
3 Comments:
Of course-duh- its a combo of both. I tend to think Martha's problem is she represents so many of the Dems weak points in Massachusetts-insider politico, clearly favors friends (police unions) and the arrogance of expectation. She was a huge winner in the Dem primary over some other well-funded well-known candidates- but remember this is the same party that gave Hillary a big primary victory over Obama.
Brown, in pure personality would win big and could be quite an attractive independent candidate (He does use the word "independent-thinking in nearly all of his ads). While he hits on being the 41st vote, he almost never mentions his party. However identification with the national R's will I think be the piece that holds him back.
The ads are running nonstop- sometimes 7 or 8 in a row (I would not be opposed to funding healthcare on 100% tax on sarcastic snarky ad announcer voices). Something called TeaPartyExpress put out an ad -otherwise indistinguishable from the others-endorsing Scott Brown. This was probably hurt more than helped. Counterads claiming Brown has extremist group backing popped up immediately(Interestingly pairing his picture with Sarah Palin's-She's the new W). Anything could happen but I think the the reaction to to the reaction is setting in Martha probably wins by 4-6%
I find it curious that among Democrat bloggers, Democrat losses are almost always attributed to the poor campaigning skills of their candidates. This was said of Deeds in VA a few months ago, and Kerry and Dukakkis and Gore, along with dozens of other Democrat losers that I can think of. Personally, I though Kerry did a very good job.
I think the reason for this spin is an absolute aversion to admitting any Democrat policy plank might be unpopular. The only exception is opposition to 2nd Amendment rights, which the Democrats have recognized is a big loser for them because it is unpopular. Otherwise, whether its cap & trade, health care reform, opposition to the death penalty or support for abortion rights, Democrats steadfastly insist thatthe only reason they might lose on their issues is failure of their candidates to adequately explain the position to the American Public. Of course, there is an undercurrent of "the American public is too stupid to understand what's in their own best interest," which I think is the Dems achille's heel.
P.S. Republicans are almost the opposite in their spin. McCain has not been criticized from the right for poor campaigning. Sarah Palin is still embraced by the party. Republicans almost revel in the fact that some of their policy planks are unpopular - asking for people to sacrifice public services that many people cherish. For what it is worth, it seems to me that Republicans really start to lose when they forsake their policy fundamentals, even the unpopular ones.
Post a Comment
<< Home