By: Ernie Tedeschi

Ernie Tedeschi — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:07:00 +0000

- The Democratic machine controls politics in MA, so in that sense it's polarized. I actually think that Coakley's association with this old guard machine explains a great deal of why she lost.- My spelling sucks.- Brown didn't run a single ad against health care. He said he supported the Massachusetts system. Most of his voters support the Massachusetts system. The Massachusetts system is similar to the Senate bill that passed last month, only the Senate bill has better cost controls. So while I'm sure outside Republicans want to make it about health care, it's not about the merits of the policy. It's about the fact that Congress is letting it consume all its time when it ought to be moving on to other economic issues.- The marginal voter has now moved to… Olympia Snowe, whom the Democrats have had to court anyway on some votes because of Joe Lieberman and other conservative Democrats. Had Snowe's vote been on the line last month, I think she would have been persuaded to support health care with minimal changes from what we got anyway. – I'm sure some Democrats will freak out. On the other hand, Coakley was pretty much the opposite of a political heavyweight. Brown better establish himself quickly; otherwise, it'll be a potential Dem pickup in a couple years.- The flip side of course is that this general anti-incumbent sentiment can hurt the GOP just as badly, especially since their angry base is more organized and will probably soon have a political outlet in the Tea Party with some heavy political weight behind it. And the GOP won't have a Democratic super-majority to blame any more for inaction.

By: Zachary Foreman

Zachary Foreman — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:44:00 +0000

Are you using "polarized" in the sense of "all at one pole"? It seems that MA doesn't fit the standard definition of polarized, since registered Republicans are about 12-18 percent and "unenrolled" outnumber Dems. MA is one of the *least* polarized. Perhaps you mean the election itself was polarizing?"Barak" has one r.Do you think supreme arrogance from Dems in MA is unusual? 10 of 10 reps are Dems (no republicans this millenium) and no GOP senator since the 1970s. All six exec positions are Dems. Dems are 90% of the state Senate and state House. They figure that they own the place and had pretty good evidence to back it up. The absence of competition results in Coakleys (and Boxers).Focus groups said that it is about health care. Outside money says that it was about health care. The symbolism of the 41st vote against health-care is unavoidable. 88% of Brown voters say that it is better to do nothing than pass this health care. So, yeah, it was about policy.So, you are saying it won't change the agenda in the senate because they won't do anything anyway and you can't do less than nothing? It will change the dynamic in 3 ways: 1. the marginal voter has been moved one to the right, which is what matters. The key is always to identify the median senator for any given piece of legislation Now that median has shifted. 2. Every senator is the 41st senator to vote against cloture. 100 Ben Nelsons to bribe. Even Reid can't do that. 3. It sends a signal that there is no safe seat and that Obama's coattails are short. If a Dem can't win in MA?… then Reid might lose, and Dodd and Specter and who knows? All conventional wisdom is thrown out the window when a State Attorney General with a 30 point lead and the endorsement of unions and Kennedys loses to a state senator in a state that voted for Obama by 26 points.

Comments on: Four Quick Thoughts on Massachusetts

By: Ernie Tedeschi

By: Zachary Foreman