# Can Brown really beat Coakley for the MA Senate seat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114 "2010-01-15T19:49:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/41 "2010-01-16T08:50:25Z")
Tax cuts! Now, there’s some bold, original thinking! We should also consider lifting some of the regulation that is stifling our financial industry’s creativity! ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/42 "2010-01-16T09:18:17Z")
I don’t live in Massachusetts so I’ve only seen stories about the race that have appeared in the national media. Nonetheless, just what are Brown’s qualifications for the office? He was a Playgirl centerfold/pretty boy who somehow found religion and now preaches family values and wants to stop those godless gays from getting married. He seemed to me at first to be a Dan Quayle clone but, since seeing that creepy JFK ad I’m getting a distinct [Bob Roberts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Roberts) vibe from the guy. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/43 "2010-01-16T11:09:12Z")
I think it depends on the deal that Obama made with the unions the other night. Maybe CSPAN will be televising those negotiations this weekend… stay tuned. ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/44 "2010-01-16T13:43:03Z")
Hmmm… a Libertarian in the race that just happens to be named Joe Kennedy. Man, what a “coincidence”. It couldn’t possibly be a “dirty trick”, designed to take crucial votes away from the Democratic candidate, could it? ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/45 "2010-01-16T13:47:00Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I think it depends on the deal that Obama made with the unions the other night. You’re referring to the deal that is an explicit violation of the equal protection clause, that exempts union members from having their health insurance plans taxed, while non-union members will have theirs taxed? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/46 "2010-01-16T13:58:42Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > You’re referring to the deal that is an explicit violation of the equal protection clause, that exempts union members from having their health insurance plans taxed, while non-union members will have theirs taxed? That shenannagins is pretty unfucking believable. It’s disgusting. It’s also surprising that a politician as good as he is doesn’t see the longterm downside to cutting a deal that’s so blatantly a payment. IANAL, butI can’t believe it will withstand constitutional scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/47 "2010-01-16T14:17:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If Obama does A(refuses to support the candidate), it shows that the candidate is weak and not worthy of support. How does that make sense? Weak candidates are the ones that _do_ need support. Seems like a non sequitur, especially since the post didn’t even say he was wrong; it merely pointed out the political risk of the current circumstance. Why would anyone say an absence of support was because she was a weak candidate? (Which, of course, no one did prior to Obama deciding to drop in and lend a helping hand, which also weakens your point.) If he had decided not to support her and she lost, he’d be wrong if he had supposed the support wasn’t needed (assuming he can actually help her), but he’d be wrong only in that judgment. I’m sure if she was up by 30 points right now, he wouldn’t be dropping by. But Obama parachuting in to campaign for a Dem in an election where Dems outnumber Repubs 3 to 1 is an indication that the candidate was not the strongest, or at least her campaign wasn’t, and it’s undeniable that if he campaigns and she loses, he likewise loses at least _some_ political cred. How is that “auto wrong”? A staunch Obama supporter could say the same thing. And how the hell do you know what the response would have been if Obama had decided not to campaign for her, since he did? You just know, for sure? Or were you just itching to accuse someone of that? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/48 "2010-01-16T14:42:49Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > You’re referring to the deal that is an explicit violation of the equal protection clause, that exempts union members from having their health insurance plans taxed, while non-union members will have theirs taxed? Yep that deal. I wouldn’t be surprised if bus tickets to Massachusetts was part of the deal. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/49 "2010-01-16T15:43:56Z")
Mass resident here. This race is absolutely closer than many predicted, but I think the competitiveness seems like a much bigger deal to those outside the state than residents. What I mean is, while Mass is a solidly Democratic state in general, elections for statewide offices such as Governor and Senator are rarely blow-outs when seriously contested by Republicans. [EJ Dionne said on NPR yesterday](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122623097): “I mean, I think there are a lot of myths about Massachusetts. If you think that Massachusetts is Cambridge and Martha’s Vineyard, you’ve never been to Dracut, Millis or Gardner. Republicans in open races typically get at least 45 percent of the vote.” One prominent example is in 1994 when Mitt Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for Senate (which was obviously not an open race), it was at one point a “dead heat,” though Kennedy ended up pulling away, of course. And the state has a habit of electing Republican governors on a regular basis, including Romney himself. So, it is not a huge surprise to me that Brown is doing well, though it is slightly surprising that he is doing so well so close to election day. And I certainly don’t think this is some major harbinger of Democratic weakness. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/50 "2010-01-16T16:34:38Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > How does that make sense? Weak candidates are the ones that _do_ need support. Seems like a non sequitur, especially since the post didn’t even say he was wrong; it merely pointed out the political risk of the current circumstance. Why would anyone say an absence of support was because she was a weak candidate? (Which, of course, no one did prior to Obama deciding to drop in and lend a helping hand, which also weakens your point.) > > If he had decided not to support her and she lost, he’d be wrong if he had supposed the support wasn’t needed (assuming he can actually help her), but he’d be wrong only in that judgment. I’m sure if she was up by 30 points right now, he wouldn’t be dropping by. But Obama parachuting in to campaign for a Dem in an election where Dems outnumber Repubs 3 to 1 is an indication that the candidate was not the strongest, or at least her campaign wasn’t, and it’s undeniable that if he campaigns and she loses, he likewise loses at least _some_ political cred. How is that “auto wrong”? A staunch Obama supporter could say the same thing. > > And how the hell do you know what the response would have been if Obama had decided not to campaign for her, since he did? You just know, for sure? Or were you just itching to accuse someone of that? If he decided _not_ to support her, conservatives would be all over the place declaring that she was a weak candidate because the party was deserting her, and to say otherwise is to ignore decades of politics. It’s all in how you phrase what happens: “The President shows Democratic unity by supporting candidate when needed in close race” “Obama parachutes in at last minute attempting to save struggling campaign” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/51 "2010-01-16T16:56:23Z")
“Support” is a very broad term, here. The issue isn’t "support’. He can “support” her from DC. The issue is that he has decided he needs to physically be in MA to campaign or her. I didn’t see anyone claiming that Obama didn’t “support” Coakley before he announced he’d go to MA. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/52 "2010-01-16T18:29:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If he decided _not_ to support her, conservatives would be all over the place declaring that she was a weak candidate because the party was deserting her, and to say otherwise is to ignore decades of politics. Who was saying that before he decided to drop in and help her out? Anyone? And in that scenario (not the current one, for sure) if he didn’t support her, what exactly would that signify to you? To me, it would indicate the perception of a lost cause. That’s not a value judgment, that’s just acknowledging that it’s not the best use of the president’s time to support a dead effort. But that’s not what we have here. No one is saying this race is over, not even the right-wing radio fanatics, and short of that, the prez will toss his support her way. The only “weak opponent” the president would presumably abandon, given what is at stake, is one who has no hope of winning. Again, even if that were the case, Obama isn’t “wrong” if he doesn’t support her. He’s practical, and the candidate in that hypothetical is, indeed, weak and not worthy of support by definition. Your “auto wrong” assessment is taking an apple and an orange, and speculating that either way, these damn conservatives are going to call it fruit. Well, presumably so would liberals. Which is beside the point, since, again, what you responded to seemed inarguable, frankly, and not at all the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” type situation you apparently take it to be. In fact, I’m not sure what your point was. What, exactly, did you disagree with in that post? > [@](#): > > It’s all in how you phrase what happens: > “The President shows Democratic unity by supporting candidate when needed in close race” > “Obama parachutes in at last minute attempting to save struggling campaign” Both of these statements are absolutely true. There is not much spin to either, as far as I’m concerned. Neither contradicts the other, not even slightly, ISTM. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/53 "2010-01-16T18:41:52Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Which is beside the point, since, again, what you responded to seemed inarguable, frankly, and not at all the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” type situation you apparently take it to be. In fact, I’m not sure what your point was. What, exactly, did you disagree with in that post?Both of these statements are absolutely true. There is not much spin to either, as far as I’m concerned. Neither contradicts the other, not even slightly, ISTM. You honestly can’t see the spin in either sentence? Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/54 "2010-01-16T18:52:27Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Who was saying that before he decided to drop in and help her out? Anyone? I agree. That was a strawman, the way I read it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/55 "2010-01-16T19:24:18Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > I don’t live in Massachusetts so I’ve only seen stories about the race that have appeared in the national media. Nonetheless, just what are Brown’s qualifications for the office? He was a Playgirl centerfold/pretty boy who somehow found religion and now preaches family values and wants to stop those godless gays from getting married. I don’t know about that. Seems like he’s got plenty experience in politics. Just from wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Scott Brown began his political career in 1992, when he was elected to be an assessor in Wrentham, Massachusetts. In 1995, he was elected to the Wrentham Board of Selectmen, and was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives for the 9th Norfolk District in 1998. > > After incumbent Democrat Cheryl Jacques resigned, Brown was elected to the Massachusetts Senate in a special election on March 2, 2004… But I also noticed he’s from Wakefield. I know someone whose last name is Brown and who is from Wakefield. Off to call and see if they are related… ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/56 "2010-01-16T19:25:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You honestly can’t see the spin in either sentence? > Amazing. What’s amazing is (1) that you conveniently ignored the rest of my post, and (2) the phrase “not much spin” translates to you into “zero spin,” and that the act of mistranslating it apparently astounds you. The straw men continue. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/57 "2010-01-16T19:40:45Z")
I repeat…the polticial significance of this development is that a Senate race is Massachusetts is so close that a Democrat president is required to come campaign for a democrat candidate to try and stave off defeat in a very blue state. This indicates a departure from the political norm. The reasons for this departure are being debated behind ideological lines. Given the results of other off-year statewide elections recently, and the polling in the Mass. race, it appears the democrats are in trouble. Those who support Obama and his ideology are pointing to Coakley being the problem instead of the national Democrat message. I disagree, based on national polling and election results. Obama is risking political capital by coming to campaign for Coakley. If she loses, he will be seen as ineffective and tarnished. Except by his fervent supporters of course. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/58 "2010-01-16T19:48:58Z")
Well, of course not! His “fervent supporters” probably cannot see the clear objective truth outlined in your perfectly non-partisan analysis. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/59 "2010-01-16T20:06:36Z")
I think the risk is worth it, though. If Coakley loses, it’s a huge setback for the Obama agenda, and it will probably reverberate into the Nov elections, too. IMO, he really has little choice about going. I have to wonder how much of an effect he can have given how close we are to voting day, the bad weather being forecast and the 3-day weekend where a lot of people are off skiing. But he’s got to try. It would be crazy not to. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114/60 "2010-01-16T20:11:50Z")
[Emily L.] Never mind. [/EL] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-brown-really-beat-coakley-for-the-ma-senate-seat/525114.md?page=4)