The lefties are trying to figure out what happened. Here is an interesting analysis from a far left site that has gotten much more left wing since Kevin Drum left. Let’s analyze their thinking.
With that in mind, here are my Top 5 lessons to be learned from the Mess in Massachusetts.
1. Successful candidates hit the campaign trail. Candidates seeking office should probably campaign while voters are making up their minds. It’s old-fashioned thinking, I know, but winning a primary and then dropping out of sight — while your opponent is working hard to reach out to voters — tends to be a bad idea.
This is true and Brown was a superb candidate. He is the most skilled retail politician I have seen in a long time, maybe since Reagan. That, however, follows the meme so common on the left this week. The skills of the candidate are only part of a winning formula. One of those skills is to learn what the voters are concerned about. You have to choose your issues.
2. Voters like likeable candidates. Some voters care more about policy and substance than which candidate they most want to have a beer with, but these voters tend to be outnumbered. We’ve all seen races in which the thoughtful, hard-working, experienced candidate who emphasizes substantive issues loses out to the fun, likable opponent (see 2000, presidential election of).
Here we see the left wing arrogance about the stupid voters (What’s the Matter With Kansas ?) who are taken in by the slick candidate. On the other hand, did you see John Kerry the past two days ? What an arrogant ass ! Scott Brown showed the sunny optimism that Reagan was famous for and it helped a lot.
3. Saying dumb things will undermine public support. When the pressure was on, Coakley insulted Red Sox fans — twice. She kinda sorta said there are “no terrorists in Afghanistan,” and that “devout Catholics” may not want to work in emergency rooms. When the Democratic campaign realized it was in deep trouble, and readied an effort to turn things around, it had trouble overcoming the distractions caused by the candidate’s public remarks.
The Coakley gaffes certainly kept her from connecting but, once again, those voters in Massachusetts are mostly Democrats ! A Democrat candidate should know how to connect to Democrats. If the lefties think they were dumb, maybe they should think about how intelligent the average Democrat voter is.
4. Learn something about your opponent. Because the Democratic campaign assumed it would win, it didn’t invest much energy in understanding its opponent (who, incidentally, won). They didn’t identify Brown’s weak points, and seemed to know practically nothing about his background. When the race grew competitive, nearly all of the damaging stories about the Republican candidate came from well-researched blog posts, not the campaign’s opposition research team. “Get to know your opponent” is one of those lessons taught on the first day of Campaign 101, and campaigns that forget it are going to struggle.
The Democrats might have spent some time doing oppo research on their own candidate. They might have learned about her role in the disgusting persecution of the Amirault family. Scott Brown is clean as a whistle. He has a great and photogenic family with a wife who is a TV reporter and a daughter who was a semi-finalist on American Idol.
5. Enthusiasm matters. No matter how confused and uninformed Brown’s supporters seemed, they were also motivated. Dems liked Coakley, but they weren’t, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go.
More left wing arrogance. Brown’s supporters can’t just disagree on the country’s agenda. They have to be “confused and uninformed.” I see no mention of Obama’s uninformed and arrogant theme about Brown’s truck. “Anybody can buy a truck.” Brown, in another example of his quick reflexes, came right back with “Not everybody can afford to buy a truck now, Mr President.”
This guy is a Republican superstar. He is pro-choice but has opposed partial birth abortion and was slammed by Coakley for proposing a conscience exemption for those healthcare workers who are opposed to abortion. That made his bones for the pro-life voter. He is a moderate Republican but is very agile in policy debates.
Doc. I’m thrilled Brown won, but “Republican Superstar…???”
Doc. I’ll be (as always!) perfectly honest; I know basically nothing about Brown aside from “headline” stuff and in line with that his policy preferences (aside from having pledged to be a vote against the present House and Senate versions of “ObamaCare” and his having a “pro-choice” yet “anti-partial birth” stand on the abortion issue) are a mystery to me.
I’m guessing that “presentation” aside he’s closer to a “Crist” Republican than “Rubio” Republican – closer to a “Snowe” Republican or “Collins” Republican than to the sort of Republicans you and I would tend to gravitate towards.
(Hey… if I’m getting anything wrong here let me know!)
BILL
I have been watching him for a while and donated to him around New Years. He is pro-choice and was smarter than Romney about it. He introduced a conscience exemption for health care workers, which got defeated, but it has now immunized him with the pro-life movement because Coakley attacked him as pro-life.
The guy is fast on his feet. The David Gergen takedown in the debate was instantaneous. Gergen admitted he’d been crushed. The guy behind Brown is Romney but Mitt stayed in the background last night and let Brown have his day in the sun. This will be good for Mitt in 2012.
How does the Fed increase the money supply?
edit: Huh, 250th post. Go figure it’d be spent on what basically boils down to the benefits of pride vs. ufc.
And why, Mike, would we applaud a “good for Mitt” effect?
If you haven’t read….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017531242458318.html
…do so.
BILL
Bill, I think Romney has to finally say that his plan was a good effort that hasn’t worked well. I do think he is the likely nominee as competency will be very high on the list of characteristics the voters will value. He also has to deal with the abortion issue and Brown has shown him how to do that.
Again, Mike, your definition of “competency” is apparently far looser than mine.
“Good effort” doesn’t cut it – particularly when “failed” effort is more accurate.
Again, doc… RomneyCare didn’t just “not cut it,” it’s created yet another failed entitlement… another nail in Massachusetts’ fiscal coffin.
Yeah, he may indeed be a “likely nominee,” but that’s nothing we should be cheering about.
BILL
My point about Romney and competency had to do with his private business career plus his rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics. One showed him to be a very competent businessman and the other showed he could work with government and rescue something that had been badly screwed up by government. As Mass governor, he did an OK job. I’m not up to date on his record. The Romneycare program was an attempt to do on a state level what Obama and Pelosi and Reid are trying to do on a national level.
One of the benefits of a federal system is that states can be laboratories to study policy ideas. For example, Texas has shown that basing state funding on sales tax eliminates a lot of the problem with illegals because they have to pay their share. California, while still having a high sales tax, based state spending on income tax and this resulted in boom and bust conditions with the economy.
Romneycare did not control costs because they are still in the “free care” mode. That experience may show us how to get the public to agree to cutting costs by going to high deductible. That is the way to go but Patrick will never do that. The next governor, if he is a Republican, might be able to.
Romney’s biggest problem in 2008 was his used car salesman manner. He has to get past the “too clever by half” personality. He is actually very personable when you meet him.
Bottom line, doc, I don’t trust Romney and though if he is the nominee in ’12 I’ll likely support him, I don’t see him as the candidate the GOP needs in order to win against the Dems and the MSM in ’12.
And NO… I don’t have a perfect candidate.
While obviously Palin is the “type” of Republican I’d like to see get the nomination and win in ’12, Palin as candidate has a lot of baggage and would have to really up her “batting average” over the next couple years in order to win back the confidence of the sort of “Republicans” and Independents who voted for Obama in ’08 as well as the confidence of Republicans and Independents who normally support the likes of McCain and Lindsey Graham.
With all due respect to both Baptists and preachers – as well as Southerners – Americans aren’t going to elect a Baptist preacher from Arkansas president. Not gonna happen. (Nor would I trust Huckabee in any case!)
Pawlenty? Sorry… I don’t trust him either.
Gingrich? I don’t know… I know longer trust him, HOWEVER… that’s not to say that “moderates” can trust he’s truly one of them now even as he has moved towards “establishmentarian Republicanism” over the last few years. (What I’m saying is that if I could simply “appoint” Gingrich president I probably would; I’d take the chance that the last few years have been just about the money and that if given true power he would weld it well.)
Jinhal? Well… against Obama he might have a shot. (I’m guessing he’ll end up the ’12 VP running mate instead though.)
Oh… damn it doc… you’ve got me depressing myself again!
(*RUEFUL GRIN*)
BILL