- checking login information
The Politics Cause
293,233 people care about Politics
Loading...Massachusetts Elects Republican Senator – Did Brown Win or Did Coakley Lose?
The voters of Massachusetts have spoken – The Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for 47 years will now be occupied by Republican Scott Brown. Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, conceded the race around 9:21 PM, Eastern.
Here’s some early insights into the MA poll results from Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight.com:
As one would naturally expect from an election in which the Republican won Massachusetts, Brown outperformed typical GOP margins in every corner of the state. But the swing tended to be largest in red-leaning and swing areas in central Massachusetts. Coakley’s numbers were relatively good in Western Massachusetts and a handful of left-leaning suburbs, but underwhelming in Boston itself.
The special election result will be celebrated by conservatives, and deservedly so. Liberals will be embarrassed, as they should be. Then we’ll spend the remainder of the news cycle reading too much into it.
(Now, I must beg your pardon as I will proceed to read too much into it.)
The excerpt from Silver tells the story. Brown’s victory appears to have come from an enthused Republican base. Ordinarily, though, that wouldn’t have been enough.
Some politicians on the left will take the loss as a signal to slow down health care reform or retreat to center on future legislative initiatives. Senate Democrat from Virginia Jim Webb has already suggested as much. But this would be a mistake.
Apt or not, the assumption that Coakley’s loss represents a referendum on the health care reform legislation pending in the Congress has become convention. The media noise on the matter has seen to it, trumpeting the conservative assessment that the bill is “unpopular.”
That much is correct, but what is generally ignored is that it’s relative unpopularity is dependant upon ideological perspectives from more than one constituency. In short, progressives dislike it because the reform bill isn’t strong enough, while those on the right hate its mere existence.
Greg Sargent summed it up well while live-blogging the Massachusetts election results at ThePlumLine.com:
Bottom line: The GOP has been very open about the fact that the longer the clock runs, the better it is for them. Dems, foolishly imagining that they needed to win over one or two Republicans to make David Broder happy, fell for it. The electorate grew more confused. And here are the results.
A victory for cynicism? Not yet, but Democrats are certainly venting optimism.
It’s also a mistake to characterize Brown’s win as solely resultant of the health care debate. There are polls which indicate that Brown’s senate win had little to do with health care reform or Obama’s popularity.
Bob Cesca, blogging before the poll numbers were announced, asked an important question: “Doesn’t anyone anywhere have any solid proof that Scott Brown’s impending victory has anything whatsoever to do with the health care reform bill?” (emphasis added)
Once again, like Virginia, this is all about an incompetent Democratic candidate and an impatient electorate which, like the idiot townspeople of Springfield on The Simpsons, have been easily herded into thinking the Republicans deserve another shot — even though it was the Republicans that royally screwed us in the first place.
Certainly, it was a motivating factor for the conservative voters of Massachusetts. However, the low turnout for Coakley may be ascribed to would-be Democratic voters rejecting a poorly run campaign.
Again, Nate Silver is on point. Silver acknowledges that multiple factors influenced the outcome, presidential and congressional approval numbers among them.
Clearly also, the quality of the candidates and the campaign matters a lot, especially in open seat races. Although it might seem strange to have a Republican Senator from Massachusetts, it is not dramatically more strange than having a Democratic Senator from Alaska or Nebraska, or a Republican Representative from New Orleans, all of which our Congress already had before tonight. Martha Coakley, needless to say, was not a good candidate and did not run a good campaign.
There is a bright side for Democrats, should they choose to view it: They no longer need to appease Joe Lieberman. Thanks to him, they never really held a supermajority, anyway.
See Also:
-
Scott Brown’s Victory Speech
-
Martha Coakley’s Concession Speech
Related on Care2:
Read more: democrat, ma vote, martha coakley, masen, mass, massachusetts, party politics, politics, republican, scott brown, senate, special-election
Image from flickr.com user: Muffet, by way of CreativeCommons.org
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
From an article on cbc.ca: "A lot of times when you go climb these mountains you sign what's called a…
Hideous cruelty is involved in shooting. It should only ever be a last resort if an animal becomes dangerous…
They are so cute,glad they are all safe and happy, and the mummy dog looks like my Angel!
meet our writers
94 comments
+ add your ownthank you
Are you kidding me here with this question? Of course Brown won...look at the numbers from the Independents voters.
No spinning this one Obamabots.
The End.
it was sad that there was no thought to Mass dems decision. they thought the people would vote democrat and it didn't matter. people are starting to list to the candidates and what they actually say. I vote for the person I believe will do the job. I went independent years ago.
Brown won maybe now there's a chance for us to catch our breaths. Hopefully there's a light at the end of this dark tunnel.
Why was Ms. Coakley the Democratic candidate in the first place? Was she really the best they could come up with????
Would Ted Kennedy have wanted her to run???
This all seems like a deliberate set-up for loss to me.
I say this as an outsider...I don't live in Massachusetts.
I'm fed up with all of them at this point, from Obama all the way down to the dogcatcher, so to speak.
I agree w/Max
ty for this post
Roger H - I was curious how Progressives define them. Progressive is a term that gets thrown around, but I've never gotten a definition of exactly what it is and whether progressives philosophically define words the same or have a different interpretation.
As an example, the income tax system is supposedly progressive, meaning the rate increases as income increases. but that isn't progressive in my opinion, it is regressive. If a flat rate were used, the more you make the more you pay. With the "progressive" rate, the more you make the higher percentage you pay, which means something else entirely.
I know you know this, but for anybody who wonders what I'm talking about, under a non-progressive 10% tax rate, someone making $20,000 pays $2,000 and $200,000 pays $20,000. Since our system is so complicated, for illustration let's say that everybody below $50,000 pays 10% and above 20%. So, the $20,000 income earner still pays $2,000 but the $200,000 pays $40,000. In this case, making 10 times more but paying 20 times more. Sounds regressive to me...
if Brown follows the current Republican stance then the American people lost, not Croakley....regardless of her ability. I can envision a victor when 30 million people don't have health insurance.
Paul,
i always thought civil liberties included freedom of government intrusion into our personal lives. Maybe I was wrong.
Jonathan B - I think you nailed it.
Max M - I'm glad we are all laughing today, it is so much better than the alternative. In your definition of "progressive", can you explain to me how you are defining "progress", "reform" and "civil liberties"? What do civil liberties include?
I may be a progressive and not even know it...
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment
20