|
Alter Ego posted:They do when it's Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I suspect that most people who believe that carpetbagging wasn't an issue in Brown's race don't realize just how much New Hampshire is dominated by the Boston media market.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:If he was up, he could do both. Bentsen was on the ballot for Senate and VP in 1988. He won the Senate race. I know you can run for both Senate and VP, but Senate and non-V P might be a different kettle of fish.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Crist would have won if the national climate hadn't been so wretched - he certainly drew it closer than he had any right to do, considering we lost gov races in states like Mass and Maryland. I can't speak for Maryland, but I don't think you can blame Baker's win in MA to the national climate; it had a lot more to do with the fact that Martha Coakley ran a terrible, terrible campaign. Again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's definitely part of the formula. She lost by less than 2 points, so I'd say in a better climate she would have won. I also think it was more on Baker running a great campaign than Coakley's campaign being terrible, although it wasn't so great either. It would help if MA didn't have such late primaries, which makes it tough for Democrats to shift gears for a general election campaign quickly enough to be effective. Honestly, a better climate probably would have helped her - she lost by only 40k votes! - so I'll give you that, but I can't say that the climate was to blame for her loss. With about two weeks to go before the primary vote it was pretty clear to all and sundry that she was getting the Democratic nomination (disclaimer: I voted for Don Berwick, personally, because I believe that gently caress yes single-payer healthcare is a good idea), and Baker's nomination was even more taken for granted; Coakley wasn't talking about Berwick and Grossman, she was talking about Baker, and vice versa, so even the primary timing wasn't the smoking gun. The issue is that Coakley ran her gubernatorial campaign the same way she'd run her Senate campaign. Step One, win the primary. Step Two, assume Massachusetts voters aren't going to elect a Republican. Step Three, coast for a bit. Step Four, look surprised when the opponent who campaigned his rear end off ends up winning, because they energized their voters while you kicked back and did the opposite. Except this time it wasn't even a shock the way it was when Scott Brown beat her, because Baker's poll numbers had been trending upwards for weeks and Coakley's had been holding steady at best. Believe me, I couldn't watch TV without hearing Charlie Baker's name seventeen times an hour in the week prior to the election, while no one was talking about Coakley - except for the occasional news piece about a national figure coming to MA to stump for her, which only served to reinforce the 'her campaign is failing and she needs help' narrative. I mean, you're right to say that a better climate would have helped her and probably could have pushed her over the top, but near as I could tell she wasn't doing anything to try and make the climate better; there was no fight to her, politically. She wasn't even a particularly good campaigner in the primaries, honestly - it was name recognition, I suspect, more than anything else that paved the way for her. I'm leery of blaming losses like this on "national climate." A bad campaign is a bad campaign no matter what climate it happens in, and if a loss gets excused as the result of a bad climate it means we don't start looking at how to make the campaigns better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Well, Fung didn't run a good campaign at all. He just profited from the disaster that was the very nasty RI primary plus disaffected Democrats voting for a third party. His campaign was basically recycled attacks from the Dem primary against Raimondo, and he got one of the lowest vote shares for a Republican in RI history. The GOP in MA suffered double digit losses in both competitive Congressional districts, but the 2012 one that was close was a moderate Republican running against a widely hated and corrupt Congressman. Gillespie literally stopped running ads in the last two weeks of the election because he ran out of money. But my point is that you can't conflate election results with the quality of the campaign. If the climate had been better for Democrats, no one would be talking about Gillespie's campaign and no one would have complained about the effort Coakley put in. The vast majority of an election result, in most cases, is totally outside the control of a campaign. Between demographics and overall climate, the campaigns are left to try and nudge results across the line of 50+1. For example, a lot of pundits criticized Democratic turnout operations because Democratic turnout was low overall. But randomized studies showed the GOTVs worked as intended - it just can't counteract the larger forces at play. I would have complained about the effort Coakley put in even if she'd won by five points, because after the Scott Brown fiasco she needed to step up her game and singularly failed to do so. But that's just me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Oh, it's that guy? I heard something about that a few years ago but didn't ever know it was him. That makes me sad, I support medicaid being expanded but he's a little insane It is a sad fact that even reasonable policy positions can be held by crazy assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bill "Spaceman" Lee's platform is: free weed, single payer healthcare, seizure of all federal highways, and letting steroid users into the baseball hall of fame. He also wants (wanted?) baseball to return to Montreal, though I have no idea how Vermont is supposed to make that happen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Gee, I wonder what's going on in that special election in Hawaii? ...holy poo poo Hawaiian politics seem awesome
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Clearly Trump running for President opened the 7th Seal for bad political candidates this year or something I don't think it did that; I think it opened the 7th Seal for news organizations to realize that people will read about this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:patrick murphy isn't exactly star human #1 but he won a light red district in 2014 with a D next to his name so he must be pretty good at the horse race. good thing policy and such means nothing and the horse race means everything. go team blue boo team red *burns down hippodrome* This metaphor is excellent, as the Greens faded into irrelevance long ago
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
It amazes me that fishmech appears not to be able to comprehend that "Canova was bad" does not equate to "DWS is good." They can both be bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:EDIT: If Dems in Maine somehow gently caress up picking up that governor's mansion AGAIN for the third time... Governor-For-Life Paul LePage is on to your bad attitude, Smoothy. You too, B-Money and Shifty. (God I hate that man; I hope my Maine-residing family can help boot him)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Lycus posted:I cannot believe Kirk still hasn't tweeted a bullshit apology. He's totally throwing this race. Mark Kirk, it should be noted, has been busted multiple times for claiming military honors that he never received or earned. I'm sure next week he'll be shouting from the rooftops about how he did in fact apologize and Tammy Duckworth thought his apology was so gracious that she said he should win.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 17:36
|
|