Was Martha Coakley's 2014 loss really her fault?

[Brittain33]

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.

I would take exception to that. Coakley ran a fine campaign, but it was a Republican year, Massachusetts often chooses Republicans for state office, and Baker ran a much better campaign as a non-ideological technocrat than he did in 2010 and has gone on to maintain high popularity ratings. Social issues were mostly off the table.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Shannon OBrian and Kerry Healey & Martha Coakley all lost gov races too. Mass, except for Elizabeth Warren exceptional Sen run, havent had female statewide officials. And Coakley was a retread as well, just like Scott Brown in NH.

[JMT]

Shannon OBrian and Kerry Healey & Martha Coakley all lost gov races too. Mass, except for Elizabeth Warren exceptional Sen run, havent had female statewide officials. And Coakley was a retread as well, just like Scott Brown in NH.

While it is true we have never had an elected female governor (Jane Swift was Gov for a bit, but she wasn't elected to that position), I think the candidates you mentioned who didn't win failed not because of their gender but rather due to other circumstances. 2006 was a political environment very favorable to democrats, and MA being a deep blue state and Deval Patrick being a very strong candidate / Mitt Romney approval ratings going down, it makes sense that Kerry Healey (Romney's Lieutenant Governor) lost by so much. Coakley's loses can partially be blamed by national political environments as well, as her senate and gubernatorial races occurred in years where republicans performed strongly around the country. Also, Coakley just wasn't a great candidate, it seemed as if she always assumed she'd win in deep blue MA so she didn't put the necessary effort in to win her races. So sure, a female hasn't been elected governor yet, but we've elected a female senator (Elizabeth Warren), and our LT Gov (Karyn Polito), state treasurer (Deb Goldberg), state auditor (Suzanne Bump), and Attorney General (Maura Healey) are all women. So I don't think MA voters are afraid of electing women to office, the stars just haven't aligned yet for Governor races.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Anne Romney trumpted the appeal Shannon OBrian had, but she held a narrow lead as well, over Romney.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

I would take exception to that. Coakley ran a fine campaign, but it was a Republican year, Massachusetts often chooses Republicans for state office, and Baker ran a much better campaign as a non-ideological technocrat than he did in 2010 and has gone on to maintain high popularity ratings. Social issues were mostly off the table.

I'd agree with you, except that I don't think Coakley's campaign was especially good.

[Brittain33]

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.

I would take exception to that. Coakley ran a fine campaign, but it was a Republican year, Massachusetts often chooses Republicans for state office, and Baker ran a much better campaign as a non-ideological technocrat than he did in 2010 and has gone on to maintain high popularity ratings. Social issues were mostly off the table.

I'd agree with you, except that I don't think Coakley's campaign was especially good.

True. I think people were just surprised that she ran a competent (if not especially good) campaign in 2014 after the disaster of 2010.

[JerryArkansas]

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.

I think calling 2014 anything but a wave is wrong.   Yes only 13 seats in the house and 2 Governor seats, remember that Reps were at a high before the election.  They picked up in this election seats that they didn't pickup in 2010, such as IA-1, NY-1, and even AZ-2.  Almost picking off seats like NY-25 and Maryland 6. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Chuck Todd said after 2006-2008 economic meltdown and we saw 3 consecutive waves, we might return to norm of typical neutral election years like 2000-2005. And tight predidential races, which this one is shaping up to be a 272-266 slight Dem year.

2014 maybe sign of that, and 2018, may not be a big GOP year with so many of their govs are open seats & they have weak govs in WI, IL, ME & FL. While Baker is their safe bet.

[Blair]

As someone who didn't follow the 2010 or 2014 races closely why is Coakley regarded as such a bad candidate? What gaffes did she make?

[Zioneer]

As someone who didn't follow the 2010 or 2014 races closely why is Coakley regarded as such a bad candidate? What gaffes did she make?

If I recall correctly, in the 2010 election when asked why she left the state for a fundraiser instead of using the same couple of days for fundraising, she responded with "And standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?" as if she were too good to be campaigning like that.

She also referred to a famous Red Sox baseball player as a "another Yankee fan", and considering the Red Sox, a Massachusetts team has a long and storied rivalry with the New York Yankees, it was a gaffe of not knowing your own state's beloved sports teams.

I don't know about 2014, but I think she ran a noticeably better, if blander campaign, and it was only the strength of Charlie Baker, the force of the Republican wave, and the lingering doubt about her campaign that defeated her.

Overall, she's considered to be a lazy campaigner who says really dumb things that make her look out of touch. Any Massachusetts residents can correct me if I got anything wrong, but as an outsider, that's how I understand it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

I would take exception to that. Coakley ran a fine campaign, but it was a Republican year, Massachusetts often chooses Republicans for state office, and Baker ran a much better campaign as a non-ideological technocrat than he did in 2010 and has gone on to maintain high popularity ratings. Social issues were mostly off the table.

I'd agree with you, except that I don't think Coakley's campaign was especially good.

True. I think people were just surprised that she ran a competent (if not especially good) campaign in 2014 after the disaster of 2010.

The fact that she lost in 2014 despite have a much better campaign than in 2010 says a lot about her ability to win higher office.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In a heavily catholic state like Mass, you will get GOP govs from time to time. But, Dems should of ran someone better in IL, MA & MD.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Republicans have elected so many Governors of MA since 1990, and it's easy to see why.  They promise MA taxpayers some degree of fiscal restraint and tax relief. 

It all started accidentally.  Michael Dukakis took his 15% approval rating into retirement in 1990, and the Democrats nominated John Silber, Boston University President and a kind of nominal Democrat who (reportedly) supported George H. W. Bush for President in 1988.  Silber was not a conservative as was former Gov. Edward King (a Democrat who became a Republican after his 1992 primary defeat), but he was not a liberal, and he let loose with statements that were labelled "Silber Shockers".  Many of these statements reflected Silber's social conservatism; the most memorable of those was a statement bemoaning that too many children were being raised in a "third rate daycare" rather than as "first rate home".  However true these statements may have been, they were poorly received by liberal yuppies who made up a significant percentage of the Democratic vote in MA.  Silber won some conservative votes, but more liberals switched to Repubican William Weld, who was a social liberal/economic moderate.

The Weld model has become the ideal for MA voters in selecting a Governor.  MA has a liberal electorate that, nonetheless, don't like high taxes any more than anyone else.  Why Shannon O'Brien lost in 2002 is beyond me; I attribute this to Mitt Romney being able to convince just enough Democrats that he wasn't all that much of a conservative.  But Scott Harshbarger lost in 1998 because he was an extreme liberal who angered the Democratic establishment and Martha Coakley lost because MA voters just didn't trust her on taxes.  There is no other reason I can think of to explain why liberal MA has elected so many Republican Governors.

[tpfkaw]

She had two main gaffes in 2014, both about taxes. The first, in May, was when, during a radio interview, she said she wanted to raise the gas tax, and the host asked her how much the gas tax currently was. Her response was "uhhhh... 10 cents?" (It was 24 cents).

The second, in late October, was during one of the debates when the candidates were asked what they would do to eliminate the state deficit; she said she wanted to "explore ways to have a [unconstitutional] graduated income tax." Thus confirming all the Republican attacks on that subject (that a Democratic governor would use legal chicanery to create a graduated income tax), and showing her campaign (who had been swearing up and down that she was against a graduated income tax) to be lying.

Her debate performances were also considered fairly poor in general, including in the Democratic primary debates (which most of the analysts thought Grossman won).

[Coolface Sock #42069]

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.

Not sure about that, but beating Hassan in '14 would have made Kelly Ayotte safe this cycle.

Anyway, Coakley's loss was absolutely her fault. She blew a double-digit lead in one of the bluest states in the country and with a popular incumbent Democratic governor. I think there was a significant portion of the race where she didn't even campaign because she thought she had it locked up.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Coakley's loss in 2014 to a maverick Baker was similar to the loss of Shannon OBrien's loss in 2002. The state has been dominated by Dems in legislature, and even Rauner panted Quinn, as an out of control Liberal whose legislature was out of control in spending.

But, 2018, will be a different matter, as voters are urging DC to pass a minimum wage increase. If Dems fail to elect a Speaker in 2016, Dems will pick up ME, FL, NM, NV, WI & IL govs who want to raise it. As Rauner has a 35 % approval, and Gov Walker and Scott have similar approvals.

[Kingpoleon]

She did much better then, but we can all agree that Steven Grossman would have made the DNC send more resources his way. Of course he'd do better. The infrastructure crumbled because Grossman set it up, handed it to Coakley, and she stashed it somewhere she never used it. I really hope Grossman, as a former Dean staffer, tries again at running for something. Maybe when his Rep. or Markey retires?

[JMT]

She did much better then, but we can all agree that Steven Grossman would have made the DNC send more resources his way. Of course he'd do better. The infrastructure crumbled because Grossman set it up, handed it to Coakley, and she stashed it somewhere she never used it. I really hope Grossman, as a former Dean staffer, tries again at running for something. Maybe when his Rep. or Markey retires?

I agree, Grossman would've been a better candidate. I supported him in the primary. But I do think he is probably done with elected office. Markey was just reelected in 2014, and Grossman is 69 years old. However, maybe he could launch a bid against Baker in 2018? Could be his last shot at the governorship / statewide office. I'm doubtful though, I don't think Grossman is running for anything

[smoltchanov]

She did much better then, but we can all agree that Steven Grossman would have made the DNC send more resources his way. Of course he'd do better. The infrastructure crumbled because Grossman set it up, handed it to Coakley, and she stashed it somewhere she never used it. I really hope Grossman, as a former Dean staffer, tries again at running for something. Maybe when his Rep. or Markey retires?

I agree, Grossman would've been a better candidate. I supported him in the primary. But I do think he is probably done with elected office. Markey was just reelected in 2014, and Grossman is 69 years old. However, maybe he could launch a bid against Baker in 2018? Could be his last shot at the governorship / statewide office. I'm doubtful though, I don't think Grossman is running for anything

And if Baker's ratings will be in 2018 even remotely close to present one - the "big names" in Democratic party may simply take a pass until 2022