The Democratic Party's candidate for governor in the famously liberal state of Massachusetts weirdly lost a Senate race to a Republican in 2010, and now she's not just losing to her Republican opponent, she's 9 points behind in the new Boston Globe poll. Is this lady poison? Come on! It's just plain mean to be so rejecting of this poor woman. What's going on?
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, 2 new polls came out yesterday, one putting the Democrat Mary Burke a point ahead and the other putting the Republican Scott Walker a point ahead. That's a good way to make everybody feel respected. Good work, Wisconsin. Everybody is a winner. Of course, in the end, one or the other candidate must win. But it's basically a crap shoot, right? It means nothing. Just a tie, out here in the land of peace, love and understanding.
Unlike Massachusetts, where there's some mysterious anti-Coakleyism raging. That poor woman...
October 24, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
79 comments:
Well, like Instapundit points out today, Walker needs to win "beyond the margin of fraud."
Have to imagine that Globe poll is an outlier, but hey, it would be nice.
Walker needs to get voter turn out higher because:
"For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races.”
If you read Instapundit, you know that it's not good enough to win, you have win outside the margin of fraud.
I'll take a crack at it, since I live in Massachusetts and have seen all the commercials and coverage.
Coakley is just not that likable. She's got that weird John Kerry distance, the one that backfired on her monumentally in the first Senate race against Scott Brown when she demurred shaking hands outside Fenway Park.
Her campaign ads are horrendous. Charlie Baker is running red, white and blue + jobs. She is running ads saying her brother suffered from mental illness so she'll increase spending. What? Is this on the top of the voters' agenda? Now she's running ads that simply repeat that Charlie Baker is a Republican. A Republican, people! It's desperate tribalism.
Sometimes it just comes down to "who do you want to have a beer with?" It's not her.
Did Coakley's ancestors offend the Salem coven a centuries ago?
Maybe Coakley shouldn't have put the Amiraults in prison for decades and continued to insist justice was done up until the present day.
"But it's basically a crap shoot, right?"
Another ebola thread?
Do Democrats in Massachusetts use lost and found trunks full of votes to close a gap or do they use dead voters?
Come on! It's just plain mean to be so rejecting of this poor woman. What's going on?
Maybe she's just a jerk? Naw, women are never jerks. Just ask Althouse.
She's also, by the way, the woman who fought to deny clemency to Gerald Amirault in the notorious Fells Acres Day Care Center case, which was and still is a blot on the entire criminal justice system. Coakley deserves censure, not higher political office.
Could she be less likeable than Cuomo who is sure to be the next (continuing) Governor of NY?
As Mrs. Tank says, that guy is indictable.
I'm wondering if many MA voters are just going to vote Against Coakley instead of For Baker.
For me, it's not just because one can hear in her voice her disdain for the people she'd be representing, but her treatment both of Richard Amirault (from the Infamous Fells Acres Day Care case) and of a Somerville cop who actually did end up being convicted of sexual abuse of a child by a subsequent DA.
The way that Republicans assume there will be Democratic voter fraud in any (particularly close) election reminds me of how NJ Public Defenders (at a seminar I attended long ago) assumed that virtually every drug that was in "plain view" in a car - wasn't.
Both true.
I live in Massachusetts and it's hard to say that anyone is running for governor at all. It's an almost entirely invisible race.
Admittedly, I don't watch television, so I may be missing all the TV spots. Maybe I'll see some watching the World Series this weekend.
But as far as I can tell, no one cares about this race.
I can understand her losing. It's Elizabeth Warren's winning that I find incomprehensible.
eric (no relation/not me) pretty much nailed it. And Bob is pretty close too. She's poison as Althouse speculated.
Regarding the fraud conjecture, Massachusetts has a fairly conservative voter registration process.
Yes. In order to vote you must be registered:
* 20 days before all primaries and elections, and/or
* 10 days before a special town meeting.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires those who registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003 to show identification when voting for the first time in a federal election.
Believe it or not, it is a fairly well-run state.
The governorship in Mass is largely ceremonial at this point. The real power in this state continues to be in the legislature which is solidly Democratic. It's a shadow state here, the real movers work behind the scenes. The people occasionally get to see what is happening when minor pols get indicted or investigated.
"Is this lady poison? "
That girl is POISOOOOON
Never trust a big butt and smile
That girl is POISOOOOOOOOOOOOOON...
Yes, it's a "conservative" voter registration process because the Democrats control the state already. No need to "liberalize" voting registration rules. That's only for states where it's a competitive race.
Coakley is kind of like Hillary Clinton but without the charm.
Also, without the invisible walk-assist exoskeleton.
Coakley was heavily into the Fells Acres Day Care Center fake prosecutions, serving to prove she's not to be trusted with anything.
Coakley has a history of some quite vile politically motivated decisions as District Attorney, the biggest of which is her role in the Fells Acre Daycare Scandal. She fought long and hard to keep innocent people in jail long after their innocence had been revealed to protect the reputation of Scott Harshbarger and others. To this day it doesn't sit well with many in law enforcement. So while officially she gets union endorsement, it's a different story in the privacy of the voting booth.
J Scott wrote: Yes, it's a "conservative" voter registration process because the Democrats control the state already. No need to "liberalize" voting registration rules. That's only for states where it's a competitive race.
Could be true. Rhode Island has voter ID, so go figure.
Ask Dorothy Rabinowitz, who for over a decade has cataloged Coakley's outrageous participation in the inexcusable Amirault case.
Even though no opposing candidate dares raise Coakley's conduct because of the toxic political nature of child abuse claims, perhaps some of Coakley's own slime has stuck to her. I hope so.
BTW, here is Rhode Island's voter ID law:
Poll workers will ask you to show a current and valid photo ID when you vote at your polling place. Voter ID strengthens the public’s faith in the integrity of our elections by enabling poll workers to match a voter’s face to the name they give at the polls.
Protecting your vote:
* We will provide a free Voter ID to voters who don't already have a current and valid Photo ID
* No eligible voter will be turned away at the polls. Voters who do not bring an acceptable ID to their polling place can vote using a standard Provisional Ballot. The ballot will be counted if the signature they give at their polling place matches the signature on their voter registration
* Mail ballots do not require ID
Spot the loophole.
My guess is that the Wisconsin race actually is close. Massachusetts is not the only place that witch hunts can succeed.
Maybe, even though we talk about "low information voters" (who reside in both parties by the way), Americans aren't actually stupid, but willing to give a reasonable chance to just about anyone. Eventually, hubris sets in with all but the most diligent, leading to over reach. Maybe voters in MA note that Coakley just isn't governor material. Quite a few of us that aren't, actually. Maybe it's an indicator that the pendulum has swung to far left, and there needs to be a correction.
Spot the loophole.
That's why voter ID is just the first step, and why the Democrat Party keeps pushing for more mail in voting.
I also live in MA and concur with earlier assessments. Yes, the Democrat party is the dominant clique in this state. And they are arrogant enough that when Teddy Kennedy died, and there was a special election for his successor, they were content to run anyone with a D behind their name. In this case, Coakley.
Martha Coakley is a spectacularly bad politician, which became evident when she lost a sinecure seat to an unknown Republican upstart. Irrespective of her politics, she does not connect with anyone with a pulse. Nobody really knows what she stands for. Couple that with the fact that MA does have a semi-long recent history of Republican governors (Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, and the Mittster), and a Charlie Baker victory is not that far-fetched at all.
The reason they don't fear a Republican governor is because the Dems have enough state congressional seats to override any veto. They can push through any law that they want. Who cares if the governor is a Democrat or Republican? It's a position of prestige, maybe, but little power.
Please remember that state-wide universal health coverage wasn't Mitt's idea. The legislature was pushing that through come hook or crook. Mitt tried his best to make it as market-friendly as possible, but he got rough-shodly run over, and now most people think Obamacare was based on Mitt's ideas rather than the Democrat hacks that foisted it upon the polity.
Having a Repub guv is actually a feature for these clowns, because even if they fuck up, they can hang it around the neck of the powerless Republican guv.
Lots of blue collar Dem Reds fans with long memories are her doom...
As a Massachusetts resident, I would be shocked if Baker wins by 9 percent. I will be a little surprised if he wins at all.
I'd have to credit Deval Patrick as well. He's Lucy to Obama's Harpo in the mock looking glass. Absolutely absurd governing priorities and extended trade missions while things collapse at home.
And Marsha (Coakley's widely used nickname since Howie Carr capitalized on Ted Kennedy's misreading her introduction years ago), as the state's chief law enforcement officer, has basically stood strangely silent. Her prosecutions have been focused on all manner of private sector conduct, while she treads water in a stew of one-party corruption and incompetence. She's hard to describe except as the punchline to a joke invoking the most cynical Beantown graveyard humor.
Voters sense the rot and want it to end. Several prominent Democrat opinion leaders have defected publicly. So the public sees Baker as a popular guy and a strong manager, one who can work with yet counterbalance the Democrat establishment.
Then again, maybe it's because she has just lost all credibility.
See her performance in the debate. She accused her opponent of being part of the "war against women". The sudience laughed so long that she had to ask for more time.
Coakley is not a skilled politician. She also has the misfortune of trying to succeed Deval Patrick (aka Mini-Me). The two term governor is the most hated politician in Massachusetts. His gained a second term by the grace of a spiteful third party candidate. The misfortunes of his second term have been mind boggling bad. Also, the Feds have convicted the last three Democratic Massachusetts Speakers (DeLeo, DeMasi and Finneran). As attorney General, she’s been a no-show on the political corruption front. Unfortunately for Coakley, the tenure of Republican governors Mitt and Weld are looking better and better.
The governorship in Mass is largely ceremonial at this point. The real power in this state continues to be in the legislature which is solidly Democratic.
The headwaters of that power lies with Speaker of the House or Mistah Speekah if you speak Masshole.
Unrealted factoid: the last three Massachusetts Speakers are all Democrats, and convicted felons.
Or, actually, Patrick is Harpo to Obama's Lucy.
Let me pile on. Fells Acres is or should be all that's necessary to disqualify this woman from office and explain her loserosity. What I don't understand is why the Democrats put such a loathsome person on the ticket for major office not once but twice!
Is it possible that she's the least objectionable Democratic pol available? In that case, I'd hate to think what the rest are like.
"What I don't understand is why the Democrats put such a loathsome person on the ticket for major office not once but twice!"
Yes, that's the core question. Not: Why is MC such a loser? But: Why does the Democratic Party put her up as their candidate?
Seriously: Why?!
You might think: The Dems are so sure that they've got Massachusetts that it doesn't matter which Dem they put up.
But: They still have to pick somebody. Why her?
If Walker lost, Dems are free to raise taxes. Pat Quinn did in Illinois, raising income tax from 3% to 5%.
Good luck, and enjoy paying your "fair" share.
Why her? Why not. She's at the top of the greasy pole. There aren't many other Dem pols in the state with statewide recognition, though I doubt that would have prevented someone else from running. I bet if you asked her why she was running she couldn't tell you. Ed Markey and Warren are in office for life now, no other position to move up into other then Governor.
"If Walker lost, Dems are free to raise taxes. Pat Quinn did in Illinois, raising income tax from 3% to 5%."
No, they aren't. They won't have either house of the legislature.
It's quite possible that Burke will be relatively neutral politically and try to be a good executive. That's what she is saying she will do. I don't know if we can trust her to do that, but if she wins, I want to hold her to that representation.
Some great, spot-on comments from my fellow bay-staters. Coakley is strangely repellent. I will only add that I have been astonished at the number of my very, very, true blue friends (thick on the ground here) who are going for Baker. I think Charlie wins going away.
In the unlikely event there is a Hell, Coakley should spend eternity there for her role in Fells Acres.
I have brought up the case several times since I've lived in MA and never yet had a single person who was even slightly aware of the case. Dorothy Rabinowitz has had a big influence on readers of The Wall Street Journal but we are thin on the ground even in the solidly middle-class suburb where we live.
I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the poll that shows Coakley so far behind. Win or lose, I think it will be close. The state is very Democratic and a solid majority will reflexively vote according to party affiliation. Scott Brown broke through because of anger, even here, of how the ACA was being ramrodded through Congress. Baker does not have that to work with: What he does have is an obviously superior suite of leadership and management skills compared to Coakley. Hopefully that is enough for him to break through to independent-minded voters.
"Why her?"
A couple reasons why she beat a fairly wide though not strong primary field.
1.) Democrat Hubris. In their minds, Granny Warren proved Scott Brown was a "special election, we-just-let-our-guard-down-and-we'll-never-let-that-happen-again" statewide fluke. Take that, pretty boy Republicans.
2.) Establishment liberal women. It's our time now, they thought. And Coakley would be a sufficient feminine douche after Deval Patrick. But just drive by one of Coakley's traffic intersection "stand-outs" -- to the extent they are still happening at all. Maybe this is mean, the sign holders who are supposed to entice everyone to vote for Coakley look almost entirely populated by like-minded moonbat liberal dried-up scags.
Feel the power, hear them roar.
The Dem party is MA is not dominated by liberals - it's dominated by party hacks. Coakley is not a leader of them she is a puppet. If it were a liberal party don Berwick would have been the nominee. Unfortunately for Ms. Coakley Tom Menino is extremely ill with cancer, Willy Lantiqua is dormant and Marty Walsh is not a player. Without 1105 turnout in Dorchester, Hyde Park, Roxbury, Mattipan, Lowell and Lawrence she's in trouble and since she's nobodies friend I don't see it happening.
"It's quite possible that Burke will be relatively neutral politically and try to be a good executive. That's what she is saying she will do. I don't know if we can trust her to do that, but if she wins, I want to hold her to that representation."
So you expect someone born with a silver spoon up their butt, having no real job experience, with a Havvaaad education to do a decent job?
Just like Obama did right?
Do you people have any self awareness at all? I know you are cocooned safely in a tenured job so the last several years haven't been that bad. But this pattern is ridiculous.
The state of Oregon has ONLY mail-in ballots. No ID required, but we have to sign the outside of the ballot mailing envelope. The state maintains that enables them to validate the voter's signature. I say, there goes any semblance of a secret ballot. Personally, I want to go to a voting place, 'sign in' with a finger print (one person, one vote), and personally put my PAPER ballot into a box.
>> but if she wins, I want to hold her to that representation.
In the same way you held Obama to his post-racial pragmatist representations?
One of the many problems I have with Martha Coakley is her racistly named Labrador retrievers, Jackson and Beauregard. Yep, named after Confederate General Stonewall Jackson and Confederate General P. G. T. Beauregard.
Nonetheless, I did a double take when I saw the 9 digit lead headline in The Boston Globe as I passed the newspaper box outside the Harvard Square Post Office this morning.
Maybe the word is out.
She must be a close, close friend of Debbie Wasserman-test Schultz.
Not being a smart aleck, Althouse, but please tell me how, if she wins, you are "going to hold her to that representation"? I would love to know the secret to doing that. I have never seen it happen with lying Dems and I really want to know how you think it can be done.
Coakley proved herself to the Progressive Dems by the way she stood her ground and railroaded the innocent Amiraults. Win or lose she has that one great value: she is willing to be the Dems female face as executioner of innocent folks when a the next Great Purge is loosed.
"Why her?"
1. She is nowhere near as unlikable as the posters here have convinced themselves.
2. She has statewide name recognition and has been around for a while. For many primary voters, it was her time. See McCain in 2008 or Dole in 1996.
3. She is a woman. Thinking they helped elect the first woman governor in the history of the commonwealth makes a lot of Democratic primary voters feel good. (Coakley could be the first woman governor following the first black governor, the same way Hillary could be the first woman president following the first black president.)
4. Fells Acres was a travesty of justice, but at the time most of the people were fine with it. Then it was forgotten.
Why is Coakley the nominee? She probably has collected a lot of chits and knows where the bodies are buried. That's is often how it is done in one-party states.
"It's quite possible that Burke will be relatively neutral politically and try to be a good executive."
That's pretty optimistic. Kind of like a moderate Barack Obama. The more likely scenario is that she simply placates the key constituents that got her elected, predominately union voters.
Didn't Coakley lose the Kennedy seat to Scott Brown because the voters wanted to defeat Obamacare?
She would have won but the car with the extra ballots in the trunk drove off a bridge into the water. Nobody knew until the next morning.
Gabriel said...
Maybe Coakley shouldn't have put the Amiraults in prison for decades and continued to insist justice was done up until the present day.
10/24/14, 8:59 AM
Thanks for the post Gabriel, I had followed Dorothy Rabinowitz's WSJ articles on the prosecution of this case, and frankly Coakley should be burned at the stake. Talk about prosecutor overreach!
About the Boston Globe poll. it may just be a way of making up for the 13 point lead it gave Coakley the weekend before the special senate election in 2010. Brown didn't win because he was a good candidate he won because of the first Tea Party voters going to the polls
About Coakley: In the political hot stove league that I belong to, here in the Bay State, which meets in a 100 year old package store dripping with history, a few things have been noted. Coakley lawn signs are almost non-existent while Baker signs, in this very democrat city, are up and around. No Coakley intersection standings with supporters waving signs. Lastly, spoken by a retired cop, "She's a drunken slut and all the cops know it. They have no respect for her."
Baker is a terrible candidate who will be a feckless governor, running against an even more terrible candidate, who would be a horrible governor. Baker wins with a slim margin, unless, as someone else pointed out, the cities with high minority populations like Lynn, Lawrence, Lowell, Springfield, Worcester, Salem, Boston, New Bedford, Brockton, the Attleboros, and Fall River turn out the dead and disabled to vote.
"Having a Repub guv is actually a feature for these clowns, because even if they fuck up, they can hang it around the neck of the powerless Republican guv."
Same reason the national dems allow the GOP to keep the House.
"If Walker lost, Dems are free to raise taxes. Pat Quinn did in Illinois, raising income tax from 3% to 5%."
No, they aren't. They won't have either house of the legislature.
It's quite possible that Burke will be relatively neutral politically and try to be a good executive. That's what she is saying she will do. I don't know if we can trust her to do that, but if she wins, I want to hold her to that representation.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahajahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You might think: The Dems are so sure that they've got Massachusetts that it doesn't matter which Dem they put up.
But: They still have to pick somebody. Why her?
Mme Ann: I've lived in MA for all my adult life. I've never been a Dem, nor have I ever been a union member.
Senority?
Folks keep talking about the Amirault business, but no one mentions Keith Winfield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Coakley#District_Attorney
I recently noticed that the only national figure to come for rallies with Walker has been Chris Christie.
Burke had Michelle, Liz Warren, Bill, Obama .... and Walker had Christie.
There's not a lot of people on the right who will excite people and not annoy others, but it's striking how Walker has been left to drown alone if things turn bad.
Did she spell Massachusetts correctly in all of her ads this time? -check
Did manage to retain from taking shots at Red Sox fans this time? - check
Did she manage not to attend any hge fund raisers thrown by the utilities she was supposed to oversee? Oops.
The determining factor in the WI race for governor will be which side reports all likely supporting precincts first.
Dems steal elections. It is what they do.
Walker would have lost his race for governor had the Repubs not accidentally under/misreported the totals from a few Repub precints.
How can Althouse forget this, or not think history will repeat this time, not as tragedy for Dems but as farce, as the Dems hold out their reporting longer and longer and longer to know how many votes they need to produce to win.
Okay, if you haven't seen Conviction, go see it. I'll wait right here. Ah! You're back, always a pleasure to see you.
You know the Attorney General that didn't want to vacate the conviction, even after they proved he couldn't have done it? Yeah, that's Martha Coakley.
Coakley is one of the few people I know of that I consider truly evil. The Amirault case is one of the worst examples of injustice in this country since Dredd Scott. I followed this story and the others in the 80s and consider global warming to be the latest example of public hysteria, which I thank god is harmless except for the waste of money
Amirault aside,
Keith. Winfield.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025405.php
Ann Althouse said...
Why does the Democratic Party put her up as their candidate?
Consider what/who motivated her to act as she did.
Be,
I remember reading that Powerline story in 2010 about Coakley's deplorable and unethical behavior . What a despicable human being. I doubt any Republican politician could get away with running for a major position with similar baggage.
Martha Coakley won the Dem primary with 42%. She was up against the State Treasurer, Steve Grossman, who was more progressive and more appealing to independents. But the party machine arranged for another progressive to run too, which split the vote to give Martha the slot.
Why? Well, Hillary Clinton was in town stumping for Martha today. The third candidate is an old Clinton trick.
Why is she running for any office? Who's backing her? Why? She's a terrible candidate, and if she loses that will be two offices given up to Republicans.
Why?
If Martha Coakley wins, she will not be the first woman to be Governor of Massachusetts. Jane Swift has that distinction. She became Acting Governor when Paul Cellucci resigned to become Ambassador to Canada. Swift was the youngest woman to serve as governor, and the first to give birth while in office. Her performance as governor is probably why she's been the only woman to hold that office. Coakley, if elected, would be the first woman elected to the position.
Episode 509 Act Three of This American Life broadcast this evening is interesting for its content as well as timing.
Is the Walker administration using recall signatures record as an enemies list?
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/509/it-says-so-right-here?act=3
---Is the Walker administration using recall signatures record as an enemies list?---
Its one damn long list so it wouldn’t be an effective “enemies list". But we conservatives certainly check the recall signatures.
That list is like the movie "liar liar". So many politicians at all levels spout conservative principles at election time while planning far lefty moves or conducting John Doe investigations.
Our recall signature records let us know what they really believe. It was fun manually finding the bogus signatures while we were typing them in too.
Eleanor 10/24/14, 7:45 PM is right and I was wrong. Coakley would not be the first woman governor in Massachusetts, only be the first elected woman governor.
Though since Jane Swift was a Republican, a lot of Democratic primary voters may not consider her a real woman :)
Coakley is a fellow Williams alum. However, she's an atypical one in that the overwhelming majority of Williams people are winners, not loooosahs!
" Coakley deserves censure, not higher political office. "
Actually she deserves a long drop with a short rope, or the electric chair, or the needle, or the firing squad... for ruining so many lives for such a long time. But alas, that's not the law of the land.
Post a Comment