Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

Massachusetts Meltdown

Tuesday, 19th January 2010

Writing about stuff before it has even had a chance to become news has been a significant media trend this past decade. The internet accelerates this. So, even though voting in the election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts hasn't even started yet, it's important to speculate on the outcome of the contest and its likely consequences. These days even Breaking News is Old News...

Martha Coakley, the hapless Democratic candidate, seems set to lose one of the safest Democratic seats in the country to a Republican challenger no-one had even heard of a couple of months ago. This is ineptitude on such an impressive scale that you could be forgiven for thinking Gordon Brown must be running her campaign. Nate Silver gives Coakley just a 33% chance of winning. (Given her history in this appalling perversion of justice, Coakley deserves to lose too, regardless of her lack of campaign chops. She also prosecuted British nanny, Louise Woodward.)

Brown's victory is going to freak-out an awful lot of people. See this Andrew Sullivan post, for instance, that stops only just short of crying America: She is Dead! (Andrew, to be fair, admits that he may have gone a little over-board). There'll be much more of this sort of thing in the days to come. And, for sure, you can see why Democrats and Obama supporters would be mad with frustration and bitterness. 59 votes in the Senate is a long-way short of 60. Power now shifts from Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Everything, from legislation to nominations, is back up for negotiation. At the very least, any hopes th eliberal-left had are now dashed. The centrists are more powerful than ever. (Ironically, in the longer-run one could sketch a scenario in which this helps Obama, not least since it reigns in the liberals.)

So we can expect an awful lot of commentary declaring that Obama's presidency is now all but over. Even before the mid-terms! Republicans will dismiss Democratic explanations for the catastrophe that blame a) Coakley and b) the economy. For the GOP this will be a referendum on and repudiation of both the President himself and, specifically, his health-care proposals. There'll be some truth in this, but only some. Few people, I think, doubt that a better* candidate - such as Mike Capuano - would have been better able to connect with blue-collar Bostonians. So, Democratic lamentations about how complacency, arrogance and stupidity cost them the seat have some merit.

But neither that nor the economy will have much of an impact on the immediate post-mortem. Nor will the fact that the Democrats weren't going to have 60 Senate seats after the mid-terms anyway. From that perspective - mildly Pollyannaish as it may be - Brown's victory simply changes the calendar.

Nevertheless, it's a disastrous embarrassment for the Democratic party and, inevitably, damages the President too. It leaves him weaker and there's no point anyone trying to deny that.

Still, it only becomes completely calamitous, I hazard, if Democrats lose their heads and run away from the President and the health care bill. It may be that none of them are in love with the bill but the thought of losing it altogether should concentrate even the most dunderheaded left-wing minds in the House of Representatives. Jon Chait and Jon Cohn run through some of the options here and here, but by far the most sensible (it seems to me, as an outside, disinterested observer) is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, if necessary, tinker with it through the reconciliation process. Getting 218 votes in the House won't be easy and perhaps impossible unless labour's muscle is behind the vote too, but it's that or disaster. From a Democratic perspective of course.

Megan McArdle disagrees and makes a good sunk-costs-based case. And she has a point. But, again from a Democratic perspective, if you really think HCR is the Progressive Holy Grail then this is the time for you to screw your courage to the sticking place and pass the damn thing and devil mind the risk. Apart from anything else, it might be the last time you can pass something Really Big. And, contra Megan, Democrats have to take something to the public that they can sell. We tried but we failed so give us another chance isn't a super rallying call.

One of the minor ironies of this election, mind you, is that the national health care bill on the table is, in some respects, a souped-up version of Massachusetts' own health care plan (passed by Mitt Romney when he was still a centrist, can-do technocrat). Indeed, part of Brown's argument is that We Bay Staters don't need this expensive health care reform because we've already got good, comprehensive health care here. And, doubtless, some of the opposition to the bill comes from the rump-Naderite left for whom it doesn't go far enough.

(This reminds me of something I've long thought: finally, at long, long last solving health care - that is, making insurance pretty much comprehensive - could actually diminish Democratic enthusiasm in subsequent elections. That's one of the downsides of victory: you have to abandon the rallying cries that inspired the troops to give their all in the first place. The right is luckier here: the evangelical movement must content themselves with mere rhetorical victories that rarely translate into legislative triumphs (at least at the federal level). If nothing else, this keeps 'em hungry and motivated for future campaigns.)

But, in the end, by far the worst legislative consequence for the Democrats is losing a bill that was all but won. The psychological damage is a different matter: there'll be a few more nervous Democratic members and the conservative movement will believe, with some cause, that they can inflict major damge on the Democrats in November. We can expect enthused, well-funded Republicans tearing into slightly bedraggled, nervous Democrats.

Still, even allowing for the damage losing the bill (or even passing it at this stage) would cause - and there'd be plenty of it to spread around - in the end, Obama's administration will, like most of its predecessors be judged by the state of the economy. That bodes poorly for the mid-terms and perhaps for 2011 too (if it's a jobless recovery). The only referendum on Obama that counts, however, is the one that comes in 2012. So while Brown's victory is a very serious, very hefty blow it doesn't have to be fatal and it's still too soon to say that Obama is done for or a failed President.

Just ask Bill Clinton about that.

*I gather, for instance, that Coakley's complacency was such that she gave her campaign ten days off. Last month. Nice, but daft.

Filed under: Congress (73 more articles) , Democrats (113 more articles) , GOP (332 more articles) , Health (235 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (12)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

January 19th, 2010 3:19am Report this comment

-- Martha Coakley, the hapless Democratic candidate, seems set to lose one of the safest Democratic seats in the country to a Republican challenger no-one had even heard of a couple of months ago.

I don't know about safest. As recently as three years ago Massachussets had a Republican Governor - Mitt Romney.

-- Power now shifts from Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Everything, from legislation to nominations, is back up for negotiation.

I don't know about new negotiations. The posts I've seen (Josh Marhall, etc) suggests the House could pass the Senate bill unamended - with a promise that it will be amended through reconciliation which is not subject to supremajority voting requirements.

-- At the very least, any hopes th eliberal-left had are now dashed. The centrists are more powerful than ever. (Ironically, in the longer-run one could sketch a scenario in which this helps Obama, not least since it reigns in the liberals.)

I also don't know about this. The left wing of the Democratic party came through with the votes for an essentially centrist bill. I could see the Party coming under pressure to punish recalcitrant members of the Senate who caused so much delay to the bill. Some might not see, for example, why Lieberman should have any seniority above teaboy on any Senate committee.

I think the most likely consequence of healthcare reform failing is reform of the filibuster rule bringing it down from 60 votes to perhaps 55 (personally, I like the number 50). Curiously, this change appears to require only 50 votes. Since we know from Arlan Spector that the Republican Party had absolutely no intention of negotiating with the Democrats to altert the healthcare bill in ways more amenable to their philosophy I see no reason why they should be given through the filibuster the power to thwart future legislation. If they want to do that they should get a majority.

Conservative Cabbie

January 19th, 2010 9:47am Report this comment

Alex

Thankyou for your take on events in Massachusetts. Firstly I'd like to comment on this:

"Still, it only becomes completely calamitous, I hazard, if Democrats lose their heads and run away from the President and the health care bill. It may be that none of them are in love with the bill but the thought of losing it altogether should concentrate even the most dunderheaded left-wing minds in the House of Representatives."

I'm not sure you are right here. I don't agree that this election is merely a local snapshot of a disastrous campaign, there is much more at stake for the Democratic Party. In last years elections in Virginia and NJ, Democrats lost independents by 33 and 30% respectively. The polls in Massachusetts have Brown winning independents by about 40%+. At some stage people are going to need to see a pattern to this, especially as it was Obama's strong showing amongst independents that was given as an explanation for his success in 2008.

Two things you didn't cover in your piece which I think are important:

1. Despite all the rhetoric from the left, the more extreme right and the punditry (including yourself), the GOP have very quickly found a formula for success in blue and purple states as McDonnell/Christie and Brown have shown. Play down the Republican party, appeal to "independent-minded people" and stress their intention to follow small-government but pragmatic ideas. The GOP were being written off in 2008. Reports of their demise were greatly exaggerated. I see even James Carville's Democracy Corps now have Republicans outnumbering Democrats nationwide.

2. The Democrats are entirely bereft of anything resembling an argument. All they've been able to do in Mass. is criticise Brown as an "extremist" (Obama's OFA), a "tea-bagger" (Schumer), an "ugly campaign" (Kos) and "dangerous" (John Kerry). That seems to be all the Democrats have got. It put people off when the party criticised the people during the town-halls but they haven't learnt anything. Now driving a truck is a bad thing according to Obama. The Democrats are losing touch with the American people, not just in the heartland, but on the coasts too. They really are the patrician party.

You spent the post-2008 autopsy writing off the GOP in the face of wingnuttery. Fortunately, the reality is very different. Republicans are engaged, are offering up high quality candidates* and are competitive in blue America. How do you think Barbara Boxer is feeling right now? I suggest you rethink your "the GOP is dead" meme.

* Whether or not Scott Brown is a legislative non-entity, he and his staff have ran an almost perfect campaign.

Chris W

January 19th, 2010 10:44am Report this comment

"This is ineptitude on such an impressive scale that you could be forgiven for thinking Gordon Brown must be running her campaign..." He may not be, but does he not like to holiday in Cape Cod? Close enough for the curse of the one-eyed son of the manse to be effective!

Alex Massie

January 19th, 2010 2:17pm Report this comment

ConCabbie: I don't think I've argued that the GOP "is dead". On the contrary. what I have argued is that, in ordinary times, the political landscape has shifted from a situation in which, all things being equal, the GOP has an edge to one in which that is no longer the case. That's a small, yet major, change.

However, "ordinary times" is a significant qualification there. When unemployment is at 10% the times ain't ordinary.

So yes, while it's true that the GOP is making progress, the same could have been said of Democrats in 1982. That didn't herald a Democratic comeback in 1984 or even 1988 however, did it?

But, yes, you can certainly make a credible argument that the Democratic Congress has tried to do too much and done so clumsily to boot. There's something in that. But, in the end, the state of the economy makes this a bad time to be an incumbent. This would have been the case had the GOP won the Presidency in 2008 or found itself controlling Congress.

Still, this is going to be a bloody year for Democrats. (And Coakley certainly deserves to lose). Nevertheless, the predictive value of this race is strong in the short-term but, perhaps, weaker in the longer-term once the economic "noise" is controlled for.

Better for the GOP to win than lose, of course, and winning in MA will be a massive psychological boost. But it doesn't *necessarily* alter the underlying trends or political realities that we might, at this stage, expect to apply once the economy recovers...

Conservative Cabbie

January 19th, 2010 4:44pm Report this comment

Alex

True.

However, I would say two things in reply. Firstly, the economy is far from recovery. According to Paul Krugman, to get back to full employment in five years, America needs to add 300,000 jobs a month. To put that in perspective, they still lost 84,000 last month and that's in an environment where things are supposed to be slowly turning around. Sure for Obama to benefit, he doesn't need to achieve full employment, just drastically improve the picture, but then neither does he have five years. The job situation is not improving dramatically anytime soon.

Secondly, you are right to say that the GOP may not benefit long term, although if Bob McDonnell and campaign staff like Scott Browns is the norm then they will. But people don't have to vote GOP, especially in these special elections. They could choose to stay at home. And yet they are voting GOP and in reasonably large numbers. Sure some of them might be holding their nose as they pull the lever, but pull the lever they are. Mass. is expecting to see similar turnout to a Presidential election. In a special election! The GOP base is motivated, independents are motivated and Democrats aren't. That's a perfect storm in the short run and a cracking starting point for the long run.

Finally you say:

"But it doesn't *necessarily* alter the underlying trends or political realities that we might, at this stage, expect to apply once the economy recovers..."

Really? Massachusetts voters are rejecting healthcare reform. The Democrats are most likely going to ignore that and try to push reform through. You don't think having your vote ignored won't make people think twice about the Democratic Party?

Vulture

January 19th, 2010 5:25pm Report this comment

You made excuses when the GOP gained in NJ and Virginny.

You're making excuses again now. (Even before the votes are counted).

Sometime soon the excusing has got to stop and the reality kick in: America is out of love with Barry Obarmy and his Marxist and Muslim mates.

Ordinary Joes and Josephines have no intention of paying more tax for his loony tune health plans. His foreign policy is in ruins. Guantanamo is still open. Iran will soon have nukes. The Taliban are cruising to victory in Afghanistan. Russia is angry. China is growing stronger and richer.

Obummer is a busted flush. He's a Britain-hating lightweight with the Brown touch: everything he touches turns to shite.

To lose old Mass will make that cowardly jerk Kennedy spin in his grave. Great! Love it!

Its not only next year that's going to be hell for the Democrats : so are the next two years till Barry Hussein gets the boot.
After less than a year he's toast. Yippee!

Tariq

January 19th, 2010 8:46pm Report this comment

I'm sure Obama remembers the endless obituaries that were written for Hillary Clinton when he beat her into third place in the Iowa caucuses, followed by her upset victory in the New Hampshire primary a week later. Let's just wait and see what's about to happen in Massachussetts, shall we?

Frank P

January 20th, 2010 3:19am Report this comment

Tariq

Woot woot! A feckin' landslide happened in MA. Scott Brown IN. Now all we need is Gordon Brown OUT!

Elaine Decoulos

January 20th, 2010 6:25am Report this comment

I am here in Massachusetts and will give you a post-mortem now that Scott Brown has won. I should ad that I wrote a comment last night, but then lost it trying to log in. I then gave up and went to sleep.

First of all, the most striking moment for me after Martha Coakley conceded, was the enormous smile on Mitt Romney's face. He was beaming and looked like a new man. He introduced Scott Brown before he gave his victory speech. You had to be tuned into a local Boston TV station to notice. The national cable stations, such as CNN and MSNBC, were covering it, virtually non-stop, but not everything. Mitt Romney and Scott Brown look like brothers for starters.

Once Scott Brown came out to give his victory speech, the first person he thanked was, surprise, surprise, Mitt Romney! The second politician he thanked was John McCain. He presented himself as an outsider of the Republican Party, while almost looking like a younger George Bush, out and about in his truck looking like the guy next door, but there they were working behind the scenes to get him elected.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were on cruise control, assuming a Republican could never get elected to the seat Ted Kennedy held for 46 years. It was sweet revenge for Mitt Romney, who once ran against Teddy K, and later became governor.

I do not believe this race is actually much of a barometer of national politics or of Barack Obama's agenda, contrary to what is being said and what the Republicans want to believe. Scott Brown campaigned saying he would vote against healthcare. The irony is that no one in Massachusetts needs nationalised healthcare because we already have it. This was empty rhetoric that worked. So was his populist approach, driving his truck and meeting and greeting people in neighborhoods, as shown in his ads.

Whereas Martha was on the opposite end of the charisman spectrum. She refused to meet and greet. This campaingn was all about personality and PR. Sadly, Martha and the Democrats over learnt the lesson of previous effective negative campaigning by the Republicans. She had lots and he had none. What he did have was endless internet ads that appeared on nearly every website I was on. Hers did not appear until late last night when a few more positive TV ads started appearing as well, showing her smiling for once.

I will end with this. While I stood in the voting booth looking at the simplest ballot I had ever seen, I was tempted to add a write in candidate, as is allowed. My choice would have been: Ted Kennedy Jr! I have a feeling he will be running next.

Conservative Cabbie

January 20th, 2010 1:50pm Report this comment

Elaine

Thankyou for the post-mortem. I think the result was a big plus for Mitt Romney's future ambitions.

Tariq

January 20th, 2010 6:05pm Report this comment

I'm not sure what this result ultimately means for Obama or the health care bill, but I don't think it necessarily advances Romney's ambitions. Romney remains anathema to many in the GOP for his late conversion to bedrock conservatism, and for his religion (a big issue to the evangelicals). Moreover, Brown is already being touted as a possible vice-presidential candidate in 2012, and you can't have a presidential and vice-presidential candidate from the same state.

Elaine Decoulos

January 20th, 2010 9:47pm Report this comment

Mitt Romney sold his house in Massachusetts last year and his main residence is now his holiday home in New Hampshire! For the record, he and Ted Kennedy worked together, when he was governor, to get healthcare for all Massachusetts residents.

More post-mortem. This is a classic. One of the local radio programs asked for Democrats who voted for Scott Brown to phone in. One man phoned in and said he campaigned for Martha Coakley initially, but then ended up voting for Scott Brown. He said he voted on the issues, but how could that be?

Scott Brown's charm and campaign were so effective that some Democrats voted for him thinking they agreed on the issues! There is a psychological term for this in advertising, but I can't recall what it is at the moment.

He appears to have modeled Obama's campaign while giving it a populist edge. But he is no Sarah Palin. He is intelligent and went to a very good university here in Massachusetts called Tufts. He is also a lawyer and member of The National Guard, which I believe is similar to Britain's Territorial Army. His wife is a TV journalist. Very good combination for a successful politician who also happens to be extremely good looking. He has previously been considered a light weight.

Post comment