Brown vs. Coakley Shows Obama Has Become a Political Albatross

January 18, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (187)

By Doug Heye, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Coverage of the Martha Coakley-Scott Brown Senate race brings to mind Yogi Berra’s famous quip, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Not because of Coakley claiming that Boston Red Sox great Curt Schilling was somehow a New York Yankees fan (more on that later) or even the apt comparison with the 1991 Harris Wofford-Dick Thornburgh special election which largely centered on health care (as Politico’s Alex Isenstadt noted).

Seeing President Barack Obama reverse course and make a last minute/last ditch effort to save the Coakley campaign brings back memories of November, when Obama put his prestige and political capital on the line in an unsuccessful attempt to save the gubernatorial campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Virginia’s Creigh Deeds.

Combined, those two elections were a stinging rebuke of the Obama Agenda–higher taxes, government control of health care and out of control spending. Since November, Obama’s poll numbers have only fallen. Coupled with the “perfect storm” that is Martha Coakley’s candidacy–a bad candidate running a bad campaign in a bad year for Democrats–and it may be shocking, but not altogether surprising that Scott Brown is in a position to win.

There are two basic unwritten rules in Massachusetts: don’t insult Catholics and don’t insult the Red Sox. They’re unwritten because it was unconceivable that any candidate would break them. Yet Coakley has managed to do both–suggesting Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, disparaging Fenway Park and picking a fight with Schilling that resulted in the Red Sox hero joining Brown on the campaign trail.

Coakley’s missteps, astonishing though they are, are really a sideshow to the larger issue of the effect Obama’s declining poll numbers have on Democratic candidates. When in a short three-month period Republicans win in New Jersey and are in a position to win in Massachusetts that translates into an environment absolutely poisonous for Democrats.

Reports have talked about a lack of enthusiasm in Coakley supporters compared to Scott Brown’s campaign–so choked with volunteers and money (Brown has raised more than $1 million every day last week) it can’t use them all. Regardless of tomorrow’s results, that this campaign has become a real race depresses Democratic enthusiasm, especially in key races. After Massachusetts, will Organizing for America volunteers be more or less likely to walk precincts and make GOTV phone calls for embattled Democrats? Will potential Democratic donors be more or less likely to open up their checkbooks on a campaign they’re just not sure about? Will Democrats in conservative and swing districts say “thanks, but no thanks” to offers of an Obama campaign stop?

Thus, in a sense, Brown’s campaign has already been successful. He’s campaigned on the Republican platform against an establishment Democrat–elected in 2007 with a whopping 73% of the vote–and is neck and neck in the polls. Win or lose, the Massachusetts Senate race demonstrates the political albatross the Obama agenda has become, especially with independents and disillusioned Obama voters.

For Democrats locked in tough election battles–including Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln, Michael Bennet in Colorado, Maryland freshman Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil, the race for the open Ohio Senate seat–Tuesday’s results are essentially both anti-climatic and unimportant. They’ve seen their 2010 electoral environment–and it ain’t pretty.

Corrected on 01/18/10: An earlier version of this blog post incorrectly spelled Dick Thornburgh’s name.

Tags:
Senate,
Massachusetts,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (187)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

After the abuse we took since 2008 until Brown's win we are ready to boot these leeches and parasites from Congress and Senate.

All of them!! No Democrats ever again!

No Republicans either, they cooperated with the enemy.!

Term limits now!!!

John Frost of FL 9:02PM February 04, 2010

If there hadn't been a McCain, we wouldn't be saddled with an Obama. Nuff said.

Jan Knox of IL 12:59AM January 29, 2010

As someone who worked on the Coakley campaign (but only after she defeated Capuano) I can tell you with authority that her's was one of the worst campaigns in history.

It was so poorly run that she could have lost to a vacuous male model...oh, wait, she did.

So, of course, Obama, like every President, campaigns on behalf of his party. But, you can only polish a turd so much. Regardless of what you think of Obama, it is sheer intellectual dishonesty to say that it was Obama's fault that he could get the unelectable elected. And of course a President's numbers fall a little during hard times...his numbers have fallen about 4 points in the worst economy since the 1930's, not exactly the disaster some would tell you it is.

There's a lot of Obama bashing going on. Personally, I'm rooting for the United States to do well. That means Barack Obama must do well. What can I say, I'm patriotic and I root for whoever the President is. Maybe I should have more of an agenda, but I just care about the U.S.A.

Perhaps Doug Haye is a partisan patriot - there are plenty of others on both sides who should be ashamed - but not me, I care about the country and support the office of the Presidency. I couldn't care less about political parties or about left and right.

Now, let's be honest, the country is in far better shape now than it was a year ago. To say otherwise is laughable. Should we have continued with failed policies and bury our heads in the sand? Or, take risks like Americans always have and stop all of this fearful trembling about spending and debt? Study what happened during the early months and years of the Depression and you'll see that we are doing the opposite. Or, perhaps you'd like to repeat that part of our history?

Or, maybe it's more important to you to see the President fail than to see our country rebound? That would be the partisan approach.

There's always something to whine about if you're so inclined. Act like American's always have, Doug Haye (whoever you are) and those who follow his cowardly line of thought and have a little faith in courage instead...the sky isn't falling yet, Chicken Little!

-Jack Sullivan

Jack Sullivan of MA 12:23AM January 21, 2010

Doug Heye

Doug Heye

A veteran of political campaigns throughout the country since 1990, Doug Heye has served in leading communications positions in the House of Representatives and United States Senate, as well as serving in the George W. Bush administration. Most recently he was the communications director for the Republican National Committee. He is currently a Washington-based GOP communications strategist.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement