UPDATE::PTC had emailed me these comments first and I had drafted a post. I’m going to stand as proxy here for PTC, a bit. — Ken

PTC e-mailed me these further comments on Coakley’s loss. I hope that we can focus more on the substance and less on the personalities. — DK UPDATE 2: As proxy, this is my thread for now, and I’m going to set some groundrules. The first groundrule is: no namecalling. Got it?

The thread has turned into a silly debate about a blogger, rather than the issues at hand. Although I do appreciate the fact that the exchanges with HWC have made it one of the most posted threads in ephgblog history… I do wish someone would speak more to the issues that lost Coakley the election.

Yes I know… how many threads has PTC hijacked with some townie wingnuttery? I am no one to talk… I know, I know!

I think anyone who thinks they can call 2012 against Brown at this point is definitely taking shots in the dark. He seems pretty moderate to me, and he is sure to have time and placement to put voters at ease on a number of important issues that will require him to show moderation in his representation of MA.

The income demographic that bloggers are using to refute that Martha lost the working class/ middle income vote is completely bunk. It does not display a breakdown in terms of where working class people fell out in comparison to previous elections of Kennedy. There is not a doubt in my mind that she lost that vote… while winning with the lower income and wealthy elite. She also appears to also have lost the soccer moms. The sense that this may have been a “PUMA” kind of display of anger seems odd to me, since Coakely was such an avid supporter of Clinton. Still, some folks may have stayed home or voted to express anger at Obama through the party because of the Clinton defeat … but I agree with the assertion that his (Obama) appearance for Coakley on the stump helped, rather than hurt Coakley’s bid.

You cannot have a position like she had on a war we are in and not back it up with facts and expect to win Blue Collar and middle income voters (who tend to take the lions share of service to the country). She essentially told the middle income voters “you know that terrorist your son is fighting in Afghanistan, he is a figment of your imagination.” It does not get anymore tone deaf or ignorant than that. It was a huge insult. She had a lot of people showing up just to vote against her with some of her extreme statments… polling be dammed.

She made some huge gaffes, and she was extreme on the issues. She lost on the issues in my opinion. I always felt she was vulnerable, and called that as soon as I saw her bizarre policy positions expressed on Hardball. This also connects to the discourse we have had on the blog about “Afghanistan/ Vietnam connection”… and no one seems to want to enter the fray on the thread regarding that issue. We will not defeat this brutal ideology if we refuse to admit it exists, or blame ourselves for it.

Print  •  Email