Hey, there! Log in / Register
BMG editor urges Democrats to support Martha Coakley
By Anonymous on Tue, 01/05/2010 - 11:51am
Why? Is Democrat support for Martha waning for a reason?
Over at Blue Mass Group in a article called "Poll shows Coakley ahead 50-41 in Senate race", editor David is urging Democrats to support Coakley for US Senate citing poll numbers as a concern and more specifically citing the nominee's positions as not sufficiently progressive to get the progressive vote.
"And this is important: if you voted for another Democrat in the primary, you need to vote for Coakley in the general. I don't care if you're dissatisfied with Coakley's stand on something, or if you don't think she's progressive enough, or whatever."
David is asking, well telling (as in imperative "you need to") Democrats to concede the one major decision they have in our democracy, to cast or withhold their vote depending on their assessment of the candidate.
I see it differently. If you like Coakley, give her your vote. If you don't likely Coakley but you do like Brown, vote for Brown. If you don't like Brown but you do like Kennedy, vote for Kennedy. If you don't like any of the candidates, write in the name of the candidate you like. Most importantly, if you are registered to vote, show up and vote even if only to demonstrate your dissatisfaction with the field.
Here's how close the race is according to Rasmussen:
"Massachusetts Senate Special Election
Coakley: 50%
Brown: 41%
Other: 1%
Not sure: 7%Poll taken Jan. 4, 2010. 500 likely voters. Margin of error= +/- 4.5%"
Should progressives voters dissatisfied with Martha Coakley cast their ballots for Martha Coakley as David argues? Of course that's up to you but keep the following in mind;
- incumbent Senators are extraordinarily difficult to unseat and especially so in a state like Massachusetts where voter registration is tilted strongly to the left
- whoever wins this MA Senate Special Election will be running again in 2012, that's two years away
It's true that Ted Kennedy was the most consistent liberal advocate in the Senate and that's a high bar but is David right that the best way to support liberal values and progressive causes is to elect Martha Coakley?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Not voting, sorry
Good luck to the field. I'd write-in Capuano, but that would be fruitless since he hasn't organized a write-in bid at all.
Honestly, I sorta hope Brown *does* win. It would do quite a few things politically.
One, it would knock the Dems out of their thin supermajority in the Senate. Suddenly, they don't have to kowtow to Lieberman or and "Blue Dogs" because they aren't going to easily expect to put together 60 votes. 51 becomes the only level they need, because it's the only level they can expect to get with the Obstructionist party holding the other 41 seats.
Two, that means the Democrats might actually do something to fix the filibuster. It either needs to be reset to its original usage of actually requiring 24/7 speaking, etc. or be done away with completely, because the current formulation of it is absolutely corrosive to the entire process and it's left the realm of "rarely used and viewed as disgraceful" to "daily used and viewed as appropriate strategy". To even utter "filibuster" before was to brand yourself a heathen with zero intelligence relying on the last refuge of a scoundrel...now it's just another procedural hurdle for the majority to fight with and the minority's go-to hitter because it requires no effort on their part any more to "use" it and has therefore lost its high political hurdle to initiate.
So, maybe for a year or two, the Senate should get a taste of what it's like to completely come apart at the hinges because of losing supermajority. Maybe it'll improve their actual performance by 2012 when I'm sure a good progressive Democrat will obliterate Brown in a normal election. In the meantime, I'm not sure I have any desire at this point to vote for Coakley (she sure hasn't done *anything* to draw me into her camp) and I'll never vote for Brown.
very well
but if you don't show up and vote a write-in then you leave no marker that you're dissatisfied with the three names on the ballot.
I like the point you make about losing 60 Democratic Senators and taking power away from Lieberman and Nelson and everyone else who plans to water down future bills and who have been able to exert singular influence undermining our democracy in the Senate, such as the way Lieberman and Nelson turned to the Senate health bill into an industry bailout, a give-away to for-profit insurance, and another broken campaign promise about the influence of industry lobbyists.
With the current Republican obstructionism and the current 60 Senator minimum on cloture votes, our broken legislative process in the Senate will continue.
Aside: If You Want A More Reliable Poll...
... he might want to have referenced one that actually names all of the candidates on the ballot. I find it surprising that Rassmussen didn't.
I'm not saying that Mr. Kennedy's support will exceed single digits, in all probability, but just asking folks if they support Coakley, Brown, "Other", or if they're undecided, does everybody a disservice. When you actually offer NAMES, rather than an undefined other, I would expect the results to tend more towards true.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a political scientist, and I claim no specific knowledge concerning polling variances. As a matter of fact, if you want me to go so far as to say I sometimes have trouble finding my own ass with both hands and a map, fine. However, I've actually done some phone polling in the past, and some people will answer differently when given specifics rather than generalities.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I know that's wierd
that Rasmussen refers to Ted Kennedy as "Some other candidate". There are three candidates on the ballot and Rasmussen should have polled using his name leaving "some other candidates" category for ones not on the ballot, imo.
Agreed and agreed; does everybody a disservice, and Mr. Kennedy's support will not exceed single digits.
"now you are begging us to hold our noses for Coakley"
David resorts to name-calling "you were being a sexist", insinuations of disloyalty "you give him aid and comfort) if you stay home" and even employs a belittling straw man argument "Coakley's not being pure enough for your gentle soul" in defending his argument about why all Democrats should be "Good Democrats" in the upcoming special election.
Seriously?
Look, a post about a post over there makes sense, that's what this site does as an aggregator...but leave their comment trail on that website. No need to carry a meta-discussion of their entire discussion over here. If you have issues with David, write it up in a response over there. Don't be a passive-aggressive commenter here.