A recent poll showed her up by only 3. The latest Boston Globe poll now has her BEHIND by 1. What is it about her that makes her such a weak candidate?
It’s a pretty bruising primary, and a lot of Grossman voters have said they’re going to vote for Baker if Coakley gets the nomination. That might not happen, but that’s what they’re saying now.
I’d guess:
- Sense of entitlement. I.e. Being a Democrat in MA
- Bad at retail politics
Her persecution of Gerald Amirault will be her most lasting political legacy.
*Among the accusations were, as summarized by Rabinowitz from court records, Amirault
*
had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury.
Pretty grim all right, one of those polls has her up by only 1.5%, and another, only 1.3%! Gasp! Oh, wait, decimal point! Always get screwed up with those…
On the other hand, how big a deal is it really for a Republican to be governor of Massachusetts? Historically it hasn’t really mattered, has it? Haven’t there been more Republican governors than Democratic in recent decades?
Well, it depends what you mean by “recent decades”, but probably. Democrats controlled the governorship from 1975-91, and the Republicans from 1991-2007. I don’t know what you mean by “historically it hasn’t really mattered.” There have been more Republicans than Democrats total as governor, but that’s largely due to Republican dominance of Massachusetts from the creation of the Republican party to the Great Depression. There were only something like 6 Democrats, each of which only served a term, in those 80 years.
It means she’s a bad campaigner. It does not mean Baker is going to be the next governor.
It doesn’t mean he won’t be either, though. I think she’ll probably come back…I think that ultimately, Grossman supporters will vote for her, but her election’s far from a sure thing.
Does anybody agree with my 1st guess? Seems like it goes a long way in explaining why she lost to Brown.
I do not live in MA, so I can’t say much about what’s happening now. However, I campaigned for her on election day when she lost to Brown.
I may have mentioned this on the boards before, but I have been active in a lot of campaigns, and I have never seen such a feeling of “meh” among people who should’ve been enthusiastic supporters as I did that day. It seemed as though I had to convince half the people on my list (nearly all of them Democrats) to get down to the polling station two blocks away and vote for her…for many of them it just seemed like “too much trouble,” which is an attitude I have basically never seen in any other election. Even when my candidate loses, and loses badly, there’s enthusiasm among the core supporters–this was different.
(I wondered if I would see this in 2012 when I campaigned several times for Obama in PA–I had read enough articles about the “enthusiasm gap” to worry me. Didn’t happen–the basic supporters were as fired up in '12 as they had been in '08, and I came back home that first day–mid-October–and predicted to my wife that Obama would win fairly easily.)
And getting back to etv78’s comment, I did talk to a voter who though a Democrat was supporting Brown; he shook his head and said, “She thinks she owns that seat.” One data point, but I would not be at all surprised if this was a common belief.
What I meant by it not mattering was that Republicans in Massachusetts don’t really scare Massachusetts voters. They tend to govern just fine, which is probably why the party remains more viable there than in many blue states.
You’re about twenty years behind in your assessment there. The Massachusetts Republican Party practically no longer exists, following Romney’s concerted attempts to discredit the brand. The few token officeholders they have left are on the edge of extinction. They have only 4 seats in the state Senate out of 40, 28 out of 160 in the House, no state-level executives, none of the Congressional delegation. Even to get a nominee for Governor, they had to bring back last time’s loser, the former head of a fucking HMO, as if that were going to get anyone’s respect.
The next Governor may well not be Coakley, but *will *be the Democratic nominee.
She sure looks like she’s going to blow it:
The more important question is with the super majority that the Dems hold in Massachusetts House and Senate, does it matter?
And to add to that - even Martha wouldn’t have all that much pull if she wins, the Assembly pretty much does what it wants.
I said before it really doesn’t matter because Massachusetts has elected Republican governors before and they tend to be a pretty moderate bunch. I’m more interested in the fact that Coakley seems to be the worst candidate I’ve ever seen. How can you blow two statewide elections as a Democrat in Massachusetts?
Wow, you and I agree on something. Coakley is a lousy candidate and lousy campaigner. She’s still probably going to win, though, in a close election.
And BAker takes the lead:
By 0.2% in the aggregate. Crushing.
Considering she should be winning by double digits, like any decent Massachusetts Democrat.
THe thread title isn’t, “Baker crushing Coakley”, it’s “Is Coakley going to blow it again?” As of today, the odds of that just went above 50%.