Was Martha Coakley's 2014 loss really her fault?

[RRusso1982]

Was it really all Martha Coakley's fault that she lost in 2014?  That election was different that the 2010 Senate race.  Remember, Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 Republican Gubernatorial elections in Massachusetts, and only once, in 2006, did the Democrat get more than 50% of the vote.  I think Martha Coakley just had the misfortune of running an a good Republican year in a state that likes to elect moderate Republicans as governor.   And Baker fit perfectly the mold of a successful Republican in Massachusetts, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  And also, out of all the unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial nominees in Massachusetts over the last generation- Silber, Roosevelt, Harshbarger, and O'Brien, Coakley actually came the closest to winning.  

[Talleyrand]

No, despite the silly spin from Atlas.

Steve Grossman or any of her other primary opponents would have been defeated by a larger margin.

[Maxwell]

Martha Coakley ran a mediocre campaign, but it was just good if not better than Steve Grossman's or that other guy's. It's just that Charlie Baker ran an incredibly improved campaign from his 2010 one.

[tpfkaw]

Yeah, pretty much. She was leading by 10 or so until her various tax-related gaffes.

[Kingpoleon]

No, despite the silly spin from Atlas.

Steve Grossman or any ONE of her other primary opponents would have been defeated by a larger margin.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes. When a democrat loses in a state as blue as Massachusetts, you can't use the excuse 'it was a good year for Republicans' or 'turnout' or whatever. Coakley lost because she's Coakley. With that in mind though, Baker would've made it close against any Democrat.

[smoltchanov]

More yes then no. Baker was a strong and VERY moderate (by present day Republican standards) candidate, and learned a lot since his first (also not very bad) campaign of 2010, but without Coakley's errors he would be hard pressed to win

[DKrol]

Yes, yes it was.

I worked for Grossman because he could have beat Baker. Berwick was no where close to beating him. Coakley is a shrill, out of touch, harpy who has always been a terrible candidate.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Back during the democratic primary, polls of the GE generally showed Coakley up high single or low double digits, showed Grossman mildly behind Baker, and showed Berwick heavily behind Baker. A non-Coakley nominee would have allowed Baker to lock up the race weeks before the election, allowing the RGA to allocate more resources to Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island - as bad as 2014 was for Democrats, it could have been much worse.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She's got some serious skills to lose twice in Massachusetts. I suggest she see if she can pull it off in DC.

[Free Bird]

A non-Coakley nominee would have allowed Baker to lock up the race weeks before the election, allowing the RGA to allocate more resources to Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island - as bad as 2014 was for Democrats, it could have been much worse.

Oh, don't get me started. The RGA and the NRSC wasting their money in NH in 2014 was the worst decision since Bush decided to contest CA in 2000. Maggie Hassan (aka Climbing Maggie) and Jeanne Shaheen were the safest incumbents running in 2014, no one could have beaten them. NO ONE.

You can't be serious.

[RRusso1982]

Well, I think that when Coakley was up big, that was really before voters started tuning in and it was basically generic Democrat vs. Generic Republican.  I think that it isn't completely Coakley's fault.  She did run a much better campaign than 2010, but Baker was a very attractive candidate, and as liberal as Massachusetts is, the voters seem to like electing moderate Republican governors.  Before Patrick, Massachusetts had 16 straight years of Republican governors.  Also, there was voter fatigue after 8 years of Patrick.   

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A non-Coakley nominee would have allowed Baker to lock up the race weeks before the election, allowing the RGA to allocate more resources to Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island - as bad as 2014 was for Democrats, it could have been much worse.

Oh, don't get me started. The RGA and the NRSC wasting their money in NH in 2014 was the worst decision since Bush decided to contest CA in 2000. Maggie Hassan (aka Climbing Maggie) and Jeanne Shaheen were the safest incumbents running in 2014, no one could have beaten them. NO ONE.

If you honestly think they were safer than Jerry Brown in CA and Bill Haslam in TN.............

[Lief 🗽]

Unfortunately the Democratic establishment in Massachusetts is very sexist. They really railroaded her up there. Eventually they came around, in the final days, but it was too little, too late.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note that everyone who actually followed the race at the time will (no matter their political leanings) answer this with a 'yes'. The best part of this answer is that it applies to both elections.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Was Baker really beating the other Dems in the polls?

Anyway, Coakley seems to have a habit of throwing away winnable elections, much like the Tea Party movement does for the GOP.

CORRECTION: I originally asked whether Baker was beating the other Republicans.  I meant Democrats; my mistake.

[JMT]

Unfortunately the Democratic establishment in Massachusetts is very sexist. They really railroaded her up there. Eventually they came around, in the final days, but it was too little, too late.

I don't think there is any evidence to support this. The establishment was largely behind Coakley's Senate bid in 2010, supported Elizabeth Warren's senate bid in 2012 (other candidates dropped out to clear the primary for her), and even though there was a strong challenge in 2014 from Steve Grossman (who I supported), much of the establishment appeared to be behind Coakley in her 2014 Governor bid and was clear she would be the nominee. So in recent years, I don't see this sexism you're referring to.

[Horsemask]

A non-Coakley nominee would have allowed Baker to lock up the race weeks before the election, allowing the RGA to allocate more resources to Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island - as bad as 2014 was for Democrats, it could have been much worse.

Oh, don't get me started. The RGA and the NRSC wasting their money in NH in 2014 was the worst decision since Bush decided to contest CA in 2000. Maggie Hassan (aka Climbing Maggie) and Jeanne Shaheen were the safest incumbents running in 2014, no one could have beaten them. NO ONE.

lmao

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Maggie Hassan (aka Climbing Maggie) and Jeanne Shaheen were the safest incumbents running in 2014, no one could have beaten them. NO ONE.

Jerry Brown

[Mr. Smith]

Maggie Hassan (aka Climbing Maggie) and Jeanne Shaheen were the safest incumbents running in 2014, no one could have beaten them. NO ONE.

Jerry Brown

Yeah, no campaigning except for pet props and getting 60% in a wave...couldn't ask for safer circumstances than that for an incumbent.

[henster]

Grossman was a lot harder to attack than Coakley and a lot less aloof.

[Ebowed]

I think she blew it, if you ask me.

It was basically her election to lose and she lost it about a week and a half before the election.  I'm mostly basing this on the fact that I gave a Baker win >40% "strong" confidence in my prediction which (badly) overestimated the Democrats.  But Coakley did release an internal poll just before the election showing her down.  Given the nature of the race and that she never could have been down by more than 3 or 4 points at any time in the race, I reckon it was a winnable contest and releasing that internal was just the final straw, to me.  No hope of winning (or even just spin) coming from the campaign = guaranteed election loss.  And let's keep in mind this was a guaranteed election loss that was still within 2 pts.  That's blowing it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Aside from Deval Patrick GOP have dominated the gov mansion. And just like Shannon OBrian who lost in 2002 and Haley loss to Patrick,  females have had a hard time, not winning statewide, but gov mansions.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Maggie Hassan (aka Climbing Maggie) and Jeanne Shaheen were the safest incumbents running in 2014, no one could have beaten them. NO ONE.

Jerry Brown

Yeah, no campaigning except for pet props and getting 60% in a wave...couldn't ask for safer circumstances than that for an incumbent.

I wouldn't really call 2014 a wave, because as well as Republicans did, they did lose a handful of seats.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Just FTR: I think Coakley played a role in her own defeat, but I don't think it was the only factor.  Given the fact that Baker is more of a moderate, socially liberal Republican, and that Massachusetts has a history of electing moderate GOP governors (or even center-right in the case of Mitt Romney), I was not at all surprised to see him win.  Plus, Governor Patrick wasn't especially popular, IIRC.