Lessons in politics
Feb. 10th, 2010 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurBy now, I am *utterly* sick of the "Scott Brown phenomenon". And yet, I'm slightly fascinated by it, mainly because it demonstrates that the Republicans have learned from Obama. Unfortunately, what they have learned is that substance doesn't matter -- in modern politics, it's all about style.
Don't get me wrong: I like Obama a lot. I voted for him, and still quite approve of the job he's doing. But I approve because I got precisely what I was expecting: a hardworking technocrat who would sincerely attempt to grapple with the many hard problems facing the country today. But from the number of people who profess horrible disappointment, I've concluded that most people who voted for him did so not because of what he actually said of substance (which has always been pretty middle-of-the-road), but because of what he symbolized to them. Obama (somewhat despite himself, although he didn't do much to fight it) wound up symbolizing huge sweeping change -- despite the fact that all of his details were relatively incremental. Similarly, Brown is *also* being used to symbolize change, albeit quite specifically about changing somewhat fictionalized healthcare proposals.
Problem is, symbols don't govern, people do. If you listened to what Obama actually said, it was clear that he is a hardcore centrist by nature. Similarly, if you listen to what Brown has said to date, it's pretty clear that he is a very ordinary Republican Senator, far more interested in obstructionism for tactical reasons than actually getting anything done. (I'd love to be proven wrong here, but so far I've seen nothing to change my opinion.)
Seriously: electing people based on what they symbolize to you is -- well, okay, not *quite* as silly as choosing your leaders based on skill with lawn furniture. But it's pretty close, and the stakes are quite a bit higher...
Don't get me wrong: I like Obama a lot. I voted for him, and still quite approve of the job he's doing. But I approve because I got precisely what I was expecting: a hardworking technocrat who would sincerely attempt to grapple with the many hard problems facing the country today. But from the number of people who profess horrible disappointment, I've concluded that most people who voted for him did so not because of what he actually said of substance (which has always been pretty middle-of-the-road), but because of what he symbolized to them. Obama (somewhat despite himself, although he didn't do much to fight it) wound up symbolizing huge sweeping change -- despite the fact that all of his details were relatively incremental. Similarly, Brown is *also* being used to symbolize change, albeit quite specifically about changing somewhat fictionalized healthcare proposals.
Problem is, symbols don't govern, people do. If you listened to what Obama actually said, it was clear that he is a hardcore centrist by nature. Similarly, if you listen to what Brown has said to date, it's pretty clear that he is a very ordinary Republican Senator, far more interested in obstructionism for tactical reasons than actually getting anything done. (I'd love to be proven wrong here, but so far I've seen nothing to change my opinion.)
Seriously: electing people based on what they symbolize to you is -- well, okay, not *quite* as silly as choosing your leaders based on skill with lawn furniture. But it's pretty close, and the stakes are quite a bit higher...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 06:53 pm (UTC)I'm a big Obama fan, but a lot about his administration is starting to make me .. not disappointed, but not pleased, either. The problem with a lot of Dems is that, by nature, they seek to build consensus. They innately want everyone to feel like they have buy-in, like every voice is being heard. I want them to step up and LEAD, dammit. Harry Reid is beyond useless, and the Obama administration is letting the opposition determine the agenda to a much greater extent than they ever did during the campaign. If the president can't make his own rank-and-file toe the line, then there is no hope of passing any legislation.
There are moments when I wish Obama would read more about LBJ and less about Lincoln. He and Lincoln share a specific outlook about decision making, and as it almost cost Lincoln his second term I suspect Obama will be fighting for his second term for similar reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 07:58 pm (UTC)Presidents regularly don't. For all that we like to crow about Bush's abilities in this area, he didn't get Immigration Reform, nor did he get Social Security privatization, to name two big items on his legislative agenda. The GOP isn't foolproof in this area, and I'm overall disinclined to follow their example of hard-nosed drives.
Esp. since the era of smoky cloakroom dealing that LBJ excelled at is over. LBJ was able to do it because there wasn't a C-SPAN, nor a media ravenous for rumors and hints of any misdeeds. Moreover, he was brought in with the nation in mourning, and a Congress that was made somewhat more pliant than normal by the gravity of his rise to the Presidency. On top of that, there was already a massive campaign by activists for many of his key bills, so he didn't have to work to shift public opinion, and had an active media-pressuring group, in an era where people weren't as injured to such things. In short, and I say this as someone who's life was directly impacted by his work, there's still lot more going on with LBJ's record than just his hard-headed ramming through of bills.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 08:10 pm (UTC)I'm not. I'd like to see a bit more hard-nosed politics from "my" side, actually. My point about LBJ was that he wasn't afraid to say "I'm right and you're wrong, Goddammit" and he wasn't afraid to arm-twist, cajole, and threaten to get the troops in order. I can only imagine what he would have made of Mr. Lieberman. Perhaps the GOP isn't foolproof, but they're certainly willing to do their best to ram their ajenda through whenever they're able. Bi-partisanship is one thing, but this past legislative session has really brought out clearly how unbelievably disorganized the Dems are. I DO look to the President to make a strong case for his own legislation, and to help guide public opinion. So far, what I've seen is the right controlling cycle after cycle, and the administration left chasing the spin like a dog chasing its tail. One reason I supported them so strongly is that they seemed so organized and together. Post-election, not so much.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 08:49 pm (UTC)Good point. Indeed, perhaps the deepest irony of the Bush years for me is that virtually every time I thought he was in the right (or at least, had a decent argument to make), his own party stymied him.
Immigration reform is a particular sore spot in this regard, and was arguably the thin end of the wedge showing the Republicans turning from sincere conservatives into raw populists. (Well, okay -- that had been happening for a long time. But I thought it a particularly blatant example...)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 04:04 am (UTC)The important thing about that Johnson was that he knew the worst of the opposition would come from within his own party, and was willing to give them up to make sure he did the right thing. By reaching across the aisle, he was able to harness the support that already existed there.
(I'm occasionally sad that the Republicans don't get the credit on Civil Rights they deserve, but given the way Nixon pandered to the Dixiecrats in '68, I can understand why they don't.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 06:57 pm (UTC)That being said, my disappointment with Obama is that he is less willing to play hardball than I'd hoped. It's clear that the republicans in congress are going to be spoilers and nothing more; he needs to kick them out of the way to get anything done.
Scott Brown is less my problem than yours; you have to take credit for him. But on the symbolic front, I was amused to note that the first thing he hit the news for was making inappropriate and slightly misogynistic remarks about women (his daughters). He really did run for the Kennedy seat in the senate, didn't he?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 07:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 11:05 pm (UTC)Someone hitting one of those notes well will pull whatever population is currently on that note in. Someone hitting neither will likely not do well. Someone running complacent will be really vulnerable to the second modality.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 08:01 pm (UTC)You are somewhat accurate in that the electorate wasn't necessarily voting for Scott Brown. But saying "they didn't have rational reasons for voting for him" overstates things. If the alternative is Obama's agenda, they'd rather have gridlock.
Also, part of the reason folks are moving away from Obama is that his actions aren't matching his words. Sure, he claimed to be just left of center on the campaign trail, but he's shedding independents because he's not. Some of the reasons why he's losing support have to do with his lack of competence, but a bit more of it has to do with the positions he's taken since the election.
On a related note: it might be time to re-evaluate where you think you are on the political spectrum. If you believe Obama is a "hardcore centrist", then you're farther left of center than you think you are.
Further, the Democratic brand took a big hit during the Healthcare debate. To get 60 votes in the Senate, they had to buy off two of their own Senators (Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu). There's a lot of that going on, and people are actually paying attention now that Bush can't be used as a shield.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 08:46 pm (UTC)Frankly, I don't buy the Obama-referendum argument -- Obama's polling numbers in MA aren't that bad. Calling it a referendum on *Congress* I might buy: they're deservedly unpopular, so that probably has at least some truth to it...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 11:31 pm (UTC)Nice attempt to shift the target of the argument.* If you're claiming he's a centrist representative of the United States, that's the frame of reference. Claiming he's a centrist in, say, North Korea isn't germane.**
Also, I would argue that the Republicans have not pushed the country anywhere. It's the direction the country wants to go, and if the Republicans match the electorate better, they only look like they're pulling.
As for Obama's poll numbers -- if you shift to "likely voters" (in other words, people who are motivated enough by their feelings to vote), then Obama's numbers were that far down in MA. That, and there was a disconnect at the time. All of Obama's policies were polling in the toilet, but the man himself was golden. (The teflon's worn off as people have made the connection, though -- the last poll I saw has him under water.)
*Not that it wouldn't be a fun argument to have. Trying to figure out how to map today's spectrum on Cato the Censor and Scipio Africanus would be an interesting exercise, along with trying to fix the scale in an absolute manner. I suspect we'd be forced to use a "map" rather than a spectrum (and include libertarian versus statist) in order to figure out where to place societies like the Mongols.
**I'm being flip, here. Obama would be considered a dangerous anarchist in North Korea.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 02:30 am (UTC)And as for the "likely voters", now you're the one shifting the argument. As I said, the Coakley campaign was incompetent. Saying that the right wing was energized and the left was dispirited -- well, that's the obvious result of the one having a politically skilled candidate and the other not.
Seriously: this is a useless argument, and not one I'm finding especially interesting at the moment. You want to feel like you've won the argument? Fine: feel free to buzz off and enjoy your feeling of superiority, but do it elsewhere...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 02:42 pm (UTC)Just so we're clear: I don't think I know you (I'm not placing your name, anyway, although Leanne's a friend), so I'm not sure how to calibrate here. I don't mind some reasonable political debate, but I have less than no interest in arguing against Fox News talking points and am pretty intolerant of right-wing extremism in my own journal. I haven't figured out where you fall on the spectrum yet.
You're taking fairly extreme-sounding positions above -- pulling in North Korea doesn't *quite* invoke Godwin's Law, but it's dangerously close. At best, it's a distraction from a serious point, which is that by, say, the standards of the US 25 years ago or Europe today, Obama *is* a centrist. His instincts are liberal, to be sure -- he's the sort of person who believes that government is capable of doing good -- but he's far from the raving socialist that the right-wing noise machine is claiming. (And that the raving socialists on the left wish he was.)
Keep in mind, I pretty much despise both sides of Congress right now. The Democrats are incompetent wimps, and the Republicans are irresponsible monsters. Given the choice, I'll hold my nose and take the wimps, but not happily. All that said, though, I *do* respect Obama a lot, and don't care for potshots. He's far from perfect, but so far he's done at least as well in my book as any other President in my lifetime, in particularly trying circumstances -- some successes, some failures, but more willingness to try hard and offer genuine compromises than most. If you're not willing to acknowledge that, then I suspect we are *not* likely to agree on much of anything, and I'd recommend you move on...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 05:05 pm (UTC)As for where I fall in the spectrum -- if I were still in Texas, I'd be a centrist. Part of that has to do with the political culture -- because Texans are committed to small government, Democrats can't get elected by espousing government growth. As a result, I've seen effective small government liberals. They end up arguing with Republicans about what to cut in order to pay for what they think government should really be doing.
In California, I'm a Republican, but primarily because California Democrats generally can't be liberal without being statist, too. This is true at the national level, as well, so I can sound right-wing -- especially today, when Republicans are making up ground by being small government types.
And, given that I'm talking about libertarianism-vs-statism, let me modify my statement about Obama a little bit: Obama is statist -- he sees government intervention as the preferred solution to problems. In the current environment, that makes him leftist -- but to say that statism is solely leftist is inaccurate, but it is the way we think since Goldwater and Reagan.
Sadly, I think the more important discussion is about the "message" of Scott Brown's election, and given the misunderstanding before, I don't want to add to it by being sloppy. When I'm not having to run off to work, I'll post again (and probably start with a historical parallel with Clinton, as his was the last typical presidency we've had).
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 07:36 pm (UTC)(In that respect, I wind up frequently agreeing with my friend
I will note that I'm anti-centralization by instinct, *not* specifically anti-statist. This has important consequences: in particular, I'm just as cautious about corporatist thinking as statist. That particularly informs my opinion in the health care debate, which I see mainly as a corporatist approach fighting a statist one -- both unpalatable options, but my pragmatic side says that the statist one may well be the lesser evil. (That is, my viewpoint can be summarized as, "The only thing worse than socialized medicine is the system we have now." I can believe that a better approach exists -- but so far, I haven't heard anybody in power seriously propound it.)
I actually disagree with the notion that statism is particularly a characteristic of the left, even today; IMO, that's a successful bit of misdirection by the right. The left tends to be statist on an economic level; the right does so on a cultural and military level. In both cases, they show a faith in the government's wisdom and ability that is somewhere between touching and dangerous. I can understand where both are coming from (most of the time -- the cultural right wing I usually have no patience with at all), but in all cases there is a tendency to go too far, precisely because they overestimate both the wisdom and competence of the government.
The *interesting* case currently before us really isn't the healthcare thing, IMO, since even the Democrats have wound up with proposals so watered-down as to not be too horribly statist; rather, it's the economy in general. The thing there is that I'm honestly not sure there was another alternative -- the right wing is conveniently ignoring the fact that nobody had plausible options on offer that wouldn't cause an economic meltdown. It's quite clear that the current situation is unsustainable, and needs to be unwound as efficiently as possible: the question now is, how to do that without reigniting the firestorm?
(A final note, on that point: this is where I am most disgusted with both sides of the political spectrum. It's quite clear to me that there is a real need in the medium term to both cut entitlements *and* raise taxes, to bring things closer to balance while the unwinding happens. But they've created an economic climate where neither is possible -- indeed, even *talking* responsibly about something like raising middle-class taxes back to Clinton-era levels, or reducing Social Security, is considered political suicide. Horrible state of affairs...)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-15 05:45 am (UTC)I would argue that corporatism is a form of statism* -- the thing that makes it a subset is that the corporations are a part of the state, which isn't something that necessarily flows from big government. I would also argue that the Healthcare bills are corporatist -- part of the solution they currently put forth is to increase insurance companies' profits by forcing healthy Americans into the system. (This is not the only thing the bills do, but it is why insurance companies gave money to Martha Coakley's campaign (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Coakley-in-trouble-Pharma-and-HMO-lobbyists-to-the-rescue-81067542.html).)
Corporatism, in general, drives me up the wall. It's an intractable problem right now, because neither party is remotely anti-corporatist. You can't even say that a party has their own kind of corporation they favor; it's more by individual. For every Dick Cheney and Halliburton, there's a Barney Frank and Fannie Mae.
I actually disagree with the notion that statism is particularly a characteristic of the left, even today [...]
I'm not sure we disagree. I fully agree with the idea that political philosophy is a 2-d "map", and I made a relative comparison of two levels of the Democratic party with the corresponding divisions of the Republican party.
I stand by my assessment of the California branches of the parties.
I may be ahead of events regarding the national Republican party -- I believe that they will not win next year without supporting small government. Whether they accept the idea in their hearts, or simply support it to get elected, is another question. Given the growing number of primary challenges within the GOP on this very issue, I'm hopeful that the answer will be the former.
The left tends to be statist on an economic level; the right does so on a cultural and military level.
I'd also argue that the left is statist on the cultural level, as well -- it's just a different part of the culture. "Piss Christ" would never have been funded if it weren't for leftist cultural statism. (And, really, I tend to look down at them, too. Anyone who wants to force me to think a certain way is annoying**, no matter what they're pushing.)
The *interesting* case currently before us really isn't the healthcare thing [...]
Healthcare is interesting because it's a bellwether. It's providing a lens though which philosophies come into focus -- how people react to these bills gives us insight into how they behave in general. (Who'd have thought that Ben Nelson was a crass log-roller?)
[...] even *talking* responsibly about something like raising middle-class taxes back to Clinton-era levels, or reducing Social Security, is considered political suicide.
Considered suicide, yes. However, I'm not sure it really is. While people don't necessarily know, specifically, that the US external debt is 100% of its GDP; they do know that there's something seriously wrong with our finances.
The real problem is that we haven't truly come out of the other side of the recession -- businesses have no customers, and they won't be hiring until people start buying stuff. I don't see that happening, even with tax cuts, because people are still digging out of personal debt. (If I were feeling vindictive, I'd take a shot at the Senator from MBNA.) Raising taxes right now is the exact wrong thing to do.
Truthfully, the right thing to do is to raise taxes during a Boom, especially if you actually save the money. It'll cool the Boom by reducing liquidity, and provide the reserves to pay for the deficits during the following Bust. The challenge there is remembering to do it during the Boom, because nobody anticipates the Bust.
*If this statement isn't intuitively obvious, I point you to the regulation inflicted by the government upon small businesses as a means of impeding competition with the favored corporations.
**I am fully aware of the irony of a Persuader (http://www.careerpath.com/career-tests/colorcareercounselor.aspx) personality saying such a thing.
Part II
Date: 2010-02-15 03:18 am (UTC)I will speak of Clinton in shorthand because his history is probably familiar: elected in 1992, he pursued "Hillarycare" in '93, lost his Congress in '94, yet was an effective (if challenged) executive in '95, and won re-election in '96. His arc is actually pretty typical of a president: when he won the Presidency, he believed that the electorate voted for him, and everything he stood for. People remember Clinton's tenure as a centrist one, but that's measured by what he accomplished. When he was flush with victory, he attempted to grow government in an attempt to advance a liberal agenda.
But what Bill didn't understand in '93 was that people voted against Bush 41 as much as they voted for Clinton. They'd voted against Bush for "No New Taxes" and for not controlling government expansion. They voted out Clinton's Congress for the same reasons in '94. To Bill's credit, he figured out where the overlap was, and filtered that agenda through his own political philosophy. His reelection proved that it was the right move.
I use Clinton's administration not only because he's recent history, but because his example is the starkest. Most presidents go through this progression. The two-term ones figure out why they were originally elected, and the one-termers don't. (Bush 43 was a special case, because the War was the only thing on which he was really judged.)
Which brings us back to Barack Obama and Scott Brown. Brown is, effectively, the beginning of the electorate's rebuke of Obama. In a sense, Obama is right: Brown was elected for the same reasons Obama was. Obama, however, hasn't successfully articulated what those reasons are. "Change", as you've noted, is just a style thing.
So where's the overlap? I have to guess, because the only election-day data I have are Fox's focus group and a quick-and-dirty Rasmussen poll, neither of which can be considered particularly accurate. But given that limitation, I think it can be found in Obama's promise to be a restrained pragmatist* after the TARP bailout. If my memory is correct, Obama said, "There's a difference between what we want to do, and what we can afford."
As far as I can tell, this position is also one that Brown professed. Given that he did run as a pretty typical Republican**, this is the only thing that I can spot that makes sense.
Which leads to an area of philosophical disagreement: I do not believe that elections are simply popularity contests. While the electorate can be tricked or fooled for a time, they still vote for a reason, and a candidate who wins through subterfuge usually won't last long.
*This is where I think you get the impression of Obama as centrist -- a truly pragmatic President would certainly resemble one, because he would not seriously challenge the electorate's wishes. If you check the record (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm), Obama is fairly liberal in philosophy.
**Though Brown's record suggests that he's actually kinda "squishy", to use a conservative's description.
Re: Part II
Date: 2010-02-15 04:48 pm (UTC)I'll grant that Obama is moderately liberal by instinct (I did say as much in another comment, remember) -- to some extent, I'm reacting to the wildly overblown claims about the *degree* of his liberality.
The thing is, I do think he's broadly pragmatic, and that it's hard for a real pragmatist to wind up *terribly* far either to the left or right. It would probably be more accurate to describe myself as a "technocrat" than anything else, and I like politicians who share those instincts. Those are typically described as "moderates" or "centrists", simply because honest pragmatism winds up forcing you to moderate your more extreme instincts.
And I'm really unconvinced that his actual policy proposals are that far to the left of the country. The thing is, it depends *ridiculously* on how you ask the questions. When you ask people, "Should government be kept small?", they mostly say yes. But if you ask, "Should I be able to depend on Social Security?", or "Should the government ensure that I can get healthcare?", or anything like that, they will *also* say yes. The sad truth is, most people haven't thought the issues through very far, and many hold self-contradictory views. Most of the more-detailed polls I've seen seem to indicate that the average person winds up in the same sort of squishy center that Obama has been drifting to, trying to find compromises among these conflicting instincts.
You're undoubtedly correct that the Brown election is partly about Obama, and that's not surprising. IMO, one of Obama's most basic mistakes was allowing his image to get too puffed up during the election, and it was inevitable that that would lead to a crash once the honeymoon was over.
But my observation from on-the-ground here is that it was *much* more about Congress. There's some disappointment about Obama in MA, but there is seething anger about the sheer level of irresponsible game-playing in Congress. That's pretty inchoate, as illustrated by the election of someone who, despite claiming to be about "change", didn't actually say *anything* that was new and different. But this gets back to my original point: to a lot of people, Brown symbolized a sort of squishy and meaningless "change", in the same way Obama did to many people.
Finally, don't underestimate the degree to which the Democrats created their own doom here. I have no idea how visible it was from the outside, but from in-state the Coakley operation was an *unbelieveable* fuck-up. It was relentlessly nasty and negative, so Brown wound up looking like a good guy by default. It didn't even try to seriously grapple with his views, but instead went for shallow caricature, which turns off the more thoughtful sorts of Democrats. Perhaps worst of all, when the Brown campaign said that Coakley had a powerful Democratic machine behind her, they didn't even bother to deny it -- indeed, even on the eve of the election, Democratic handlers were confidently claiming *in public* that she would win because of that machine! That played right into the worst stereotypes of the Democrats and their flaws.
Really, it was the second-worst campaign I've ever seen in this state. (The worst being the Republican candidate for Governor this last time around.) I'm still pretty sure that, if the Democrats had been even halfway competent, they would have won the election. Don't know by how much, but my strong impression is that the circumstances of the election swung things by more than the actual margin.
But as it was, they wound up offending the Republicans to the point where they came out in overwhelming force, while the Democrats wound up sheepish and embarrassed on the sidelines. Even those of us who thought Coakley would probably make an adequate Senator had to vote for her *despite* her own campaign. That's a good recipe for disaster, no matter who the other guy is and what he stands for. And when matched up against a really disciplined and well-run campaign (which Brown's absolutely was) -- well, honestly, I think elections *are* at least partly about candidates and their personalities, as exemplified by their campaigns. And on that level, this one was exceptionally lop-sided...
Re: Part II
Date: 2010-02-16 05:46 am (UTC)Like I said, the best data points I have aren't as good as I'd want. The questions this leads to are, "How anecdotal is your evidence?" and "How much do people attribute Congress's agenda to Obama?"
I don't think we can answer the first. But we can speculate on the second, and I think that 75% of the people who don't like the agenda think Obama is partially responsible. (This is just a rough guess, based on Obama being around 47%, and the Healthcare bill at around 35%.)
Finally, don't underestimate the degree to which the Democrats created their own doom here.
I have a pretty good idea, as William Jacobson (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/) posted many of the great, gory details. The problem with blaming Coakley, though, is that Democrats have won general elections in Massachusetts with similar negatives, and handily. Heck, even Coakley herself won the 2006 AG election by 20+ points, which is ridiculous given her record as a DA.
Complacency certainly played a factor, but Brown still had to overcome the existing terrain before Coakley's failings came into play. My guess is that Brown probably would have also beaten Mike Capuano, as Capuano probably would've gotten the same "help" from the party operatives. The difference is that Capuano probably wouldn't have embarrassed everyone in the process.
Re: Part II
Date: 2010-02-16 06:43 pm (UTC)The thing is, the AG election was fairly intellectual, and didn't really engage anybody, so it went according to the usual script, with (I suspect) most people voting according to their party habits. This time, though, Brown ran a smart insurgency campaign, getting some attention and then taking advantage of it, to actually get people to watch. At that point, Coakley actually needed a campaign (which I really don't think she was expecting) -- and that campaign was incompetent. So things spiralled downhill, with more and more attention being paid, and the campaign floundering worse and worse the more it was in the spotlight.
I'd *like* to believe that Capuano would have done better, given that our friends his district have so much respect for him. But the fact is that, in the primary, he was a bit tone-deaf politically (sometimes saying the right thing, but playing the chess game poorly), and you're likely correct that he would also have been sabotaged by the establishment machine. He might have won if he'd hired smarter handlers than Coakley did, but it's not clear that the Democratic establishment here currently *has* smart handlers.
(Really, the one silver lining for the Democrats in this whole mess is that it *might* shock them out of their complacency, and get them to understand that the old machine politics just plain don't work any more. We'll see if that actually happens...)
Re: Part II
Date: 2010-02-17 03:32 am (UTC)Re: Part II
Date: 2010-02-17 03:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 10:28 pm (UTC)The sad thing is that there is an opportunity for centrist Rs to extract real concessions, as Olympia Snowe did with the stimulus last year. A block of four or five GOP Senators who indicated they would be willing to negotiate in a real way could accomplish a lot. But the political system does not reward such things, as Senator Rudman pointed out in an op ed recently.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 02:31 am (UTC)Well, no -- that's kind of the point. The so-called "Brown phenomenon" is remarkably vacuous. (I'll be genuinely interested to see what happens when he *does* start voting.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 06:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 02:10 pm (UTC)And really, it's been *quite* clear that his sole purpose in existence is to allow the Republicans to filibuster *everything*, and essentially shut down Congress. His campaign lacked any positive ideas whatsoever -- everything concrete he talked about was what he was going to prevent. So while he may be lying tactically, it's exactly what I expect from him...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-10 10:59 pm (UTC)This is perhaps a slightly weird perspective to come at it from, but.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-11 06:58 am (UTC)