The Rehabilitation of Martha Coakley

[RogueBeaver]

Long NJ profile of MA's next Govnah.

[NHLiberal]

Unless she loses...

[RogueBeaver]

Unless she loses...

Except she's now MA's most popular pol.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

She ran a poor race against Scott Brown, but Democrats didn't think enough about their apathy toward her until Brown's victory cost them their 60 vote majority.  I believe that a number of MA Democratic voters who either voted for Brown or stayed home came to feel badly after seeing what losing the 60th vote cost the Democratic party nationally.  Elizabeth Warren's popularity, coupled with Scott Brown turning into something of a carpetbagging punk, has caused a number of MA Democratic voters to think that maybe they were unfair to Coakley in the 2010 Special Election.  Coakley learned from that horrible race.  She is also benefitting from running against an old guy who's a boring insider. 

I believe that Coakley will win the primary, and will win the General Election.  This is, after all, Massachusetts; it's not Arkansas or Wyoming. 

[DKrol]

Coakley's victory in the primary is no a sure thing. Steve Grossman is running a very good campaign, won the endorsement of the state DNC, and has the backing of both labor unions and the LGBT movement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't imagine how weak the Democratic field must be in order for Coakley to be the frontrunner. This seems really crazy.

[hcallega]

There's a big difference between a race for governor and a race for the Senate. In 2010, Brown won largely because of controversy over the ACA and Coakley's weak campaign. Alone, neither of these factors would have cost her the election, but combined they did. In that sense, Coakley can run a weak campaign and still win, though it'll be tough. There are no national issues at play in this election, and will probably win based on party affiliation.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I can't imagine how weak the Democratic field must be in order for Coakley to be the frontrunner. This seems really crazy.

Coakley is well-respected, if not beloved, as Attorney General. The Massachusetts understanding of Massachusetts politics views the position of Governor as more closely akin conceptually to that of Attorney General than to that of Senator.

Having said that, if Coakley wins the primary and then chokes in the general again then the Massachusetts Democratic Party will have nobody to blame but themselves for ignoring Kayyem completely.

[Orser67]

I know it's completely irrational, but I don't think I'll ever forgive her for her loss, and I really hope she loses the primary.

[Mechaman]

tl;dr

[Indy Texas]

If I were in MA, I'd vote for Baker or McCormick. Anyone but Martha.

She's a lazy, entitled woman who ruined an innocent man's life by peddling in hysteria and false rumors as a district attorney and as AG.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

There's a big difference between a race for governor and a race for the Senate. In 2010, Brown won largely because of controversy over the ACA and Coakley's weak campaign. Alone, neither of these factors would have cost her the election, but combined they did. In that sense, Coakley can run a weak campaign and still win, though it'll be tough. There are no national issues at play in this election, and will probably win based on party affiliation.

Massachusetts elected four (4) straight Republican Governors, beginning in 1990.  The trick for Republicans is to give the election the look and feel of a non-partisan election.  It began in 1990 when the GOP nominated moderate William Weld (a social liberal) and the Democrats nominated John Silber, who positioned himself somewhat to the right of Weld.  He was kind of a nominal Democrat, having voted for Bush in 1988 as a private citizen, and was a loose cannon, letting loose with "Silber Shockers" in the media, which hurt him.  Most of his "Silber Shockers" were statements reflecting his rather conservative views on family issues, which infuriated Yuppies and feminists that made up the Democratic base.  This formula shook up the race and allowed Weld to narrowly prevail.

This is how Weld won re-election in 1994, and how Paul Cellucci (who succeeded Weld in mid-term) won in 1998. 

One warning to those who would bet on Coakley:  Massachusetts (LIBERAL Massachusetts at that) has a male chauvinist streak.  Mitt Romney was somewhat more conservative than either Weld or Celluci, but he narrowly defeated liberal Democrat Shannon O'Brien in 2002.  O'Brien was the first woman nominated for Governor in Massachusetts and 2002 wasn't THAT Republican a year.  I have always attributed her narrow loss to a streak of male chauvinism in the Massachusetts electorate, and I sensed some of that in Coakley's Senate race.  I think she's a justifiable favorite, and Elizabeth Warren's election seems to debunk this idea somewhat.  I do think that Scott Brown would have had a better chance beating Coakley for Governor in MA this year than he has beating Shaheen for Senate in NH.

[NHLiberal]

  I do think that Scott Brown would have had a better chance beating Coakley for Governor in MA this year than he has beating Shaheen for Senate in NH.

Sort of an understatement. He's got like a 10% chance in NH and he would have had like a 55% chance in MA.