What does a good coordinated campaign look like?

Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group.

Tonight, a few members of my Town Democratic Committee got together to discuss the past election -- and most of it revolved around the Coordinated Campaign, what we liked and what we thought could be improved.

We all universally thought the Coordinated Campaign was a good idea and was largely responsible for our State Party's success, but that doesn't mean there weren't some frustrations observed by members that should be resolved going forward.

In that effort, I created a trusty Venn Diagram that attempts to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the groups that comprise the Coordinated Campaign -- the local campaigns, the Statewide Party (including State Campaigns) and local town, city and ward committees.

(Click for Larger)

Obviously, this is an overly simplistic look at the players, their strengths and weaknesses -- and I encourage anyone's thoughts, critiques and improvements in the comments.

Understanding the strength and weaknesses between state and local campaigns, as well as state and local committees, is of paramount importance to correcting any of the mistakes made in the last election, as well as improving the things we did well to maximize our effectiveness.

The lesson that really screams out to me is that the more local control that's given, the more powerful the effort is going to be. The larger the organization or campaign is, the more capable it is at creating powerful tools and having ample resources, but the less able it is at dealing with local problems. Therefore, the State Party should set the basic strategy and goals, and provide the resources local organizations can't provide for themselves (including training in how to run good grassroots campaigns), but the local campaigns and committees have to be the on-the-ground commanders issuing the orders when push comes to shove, because they're the ones who know the conditions in which the battles take place. This includes GOTV -- and being responsible for lists used on Election Day.

I think John Walsh and the State Party realize the importance of empowering local individuals and committees, and certainly the trend in this state has been in giving these groups more power and tools, not less. In a world that's becoming increasingly difficult to reach people at the macro level, where phones are ineffective and mail is thrown away, empowering people at the local level is inevitable -- because it's going to be the only way that works. We're moving in that direction, but not completely there yet -- and we certainly haven't perfected this new way of organizing.

My second recommendation is on improving communication -- something that may be best done in between elections, anyway. It behooves everyone to improve this aspect of the campaign -- local committees and campaigns need to know the State Party is listening to their concerns and answering their questions, and the State Party needs to be responsive to local needs -- all the while the State Party needs to know that the local committees and campaigns are getting the job done, especially when not all local committees and campaigns are created equally.

One thing I am sure of is the fact that our State Party is only going to get better at campaigning. We could only coordinate as much as local campaigns were willing to coordinate -- and it took a lot of courage for so many local campaigns to go as far as they did this time around. Now that they know it works, they'll go much further -- and the holdouts will see that it suddenly makes much more sense.

Lastly, I think it's important to take a second to remember and thank the person who brought us this effort -- John Walsh, Deval Patrick and the rest of our statewide and local leaders who came behind this effort. Running the style of campaign that Walsh did -- and getting everyone to come on board -- is something that's almost unheard of in politics. When, in politics, anything new is seen as risky -- and anything risky is usually crushed by the virus that infects almost all politicians (risk adverseness), it is simply amazing what we did. People may have thought John Walsh would be remembered as a small footnote -- the guy who helped bring us Deval Patrick -- but it's becoming clear that he's just written the metaphorical book on how to run campaigns in the 21st Century.

Must Read for the Progressive Activist

Great blog posted today on Americablog.

The gist: Arkansas's Blanche victory shows us, more than anything else (and there's been a lot of evidence) that Obama and the national democrats represent no change from corporate domination and the continued unraveling of the New Deal.

The advice?

You don't replace the party in power; you take over the party in power.

Lots and lots of primaries, baby. Massachusetts has to do its part locally by electing Mac D'Alessandro. Victory for Mac in his election is critical. There is not that much time to stop the unraveling that continues to go on post-Bush.

Weird Headline for Cahill Story

The Boston Globe printed an article today titled "Cahill getting his message back on track" which seems to be about how Cahill isn't getting his message back on track and how his campaign 'jumped the shark.' These are all things I agreed with, which makes their choice of headlines odd. In any event, it's still a very amusing read... if you, like me, think Cahill's something of a bad, but still amusing, joke. Let's hope his tuned-out supporters don't catch on, either.

The State Auditor Race: A Definitive Look

There's a bunch of people running for State Auditor this year, and I think we should take a look. Full disclosure: I like Suzanne Bump. A lot. I dislike Guy Glodis. A lot.

The Democrats

Guy Glodis: The auditor candidate who has the most experience with the State Auditor office. After all, his Sheriff's office is being audited by the current State Auditor for oodles of wasteful spending and free lunches (literally!). As the hack candidate for office, he's got a long record of bigotry, sexism and homophobia. He's also got bags of money, but given his track record at the state convention, he's not smart enough to spend it wisely. His supporters seem to support him more out of fear of going against the Good 'ol Boy network than the fact that they think he'd do a good job, or even an okay one.

Can he win? The primary? Yes. The General's probably another story, but because Auditor is dooown ballot, he'd have a shot. Then again, voters wouldn't just have the chance to vote against Guy Glodis, they'd be able to vote against Dianne Wilkerson, Sal DiMasi and Big Dig politics, too, because Glodis is cut from the same, exact kind of cloth. To put matters into perspective, even I'd leave that oval blank, should Glodis be the Democratic Nominee.

Suzanne Bump: Sure, as a former Beacon Hill staffer, state rep and Secretary of Labor, she can't lay claim to outsider status, but not all 'insiders' are bad insiders. She's definitely the good, experienced, knows-how-to-get-stuff-done kind. As Labor Secretary, not only did she win a lot of praise, but she did a great job managing an office many times larger than the State Auditor's. She has a wonderful progressive record from her Beacon Hill days and has some great ideas for using the office to make sure the state's many offices and branches are not only managing themselves in a legal manner, but in an efficient one, too. She's already proven herself in being able to get at efficiencies that save money and improve the system, especially the 1991 landmark legislation she drove through that reformed the Worker's Comp system in a way that benefited both workers and businesses.

Can she win? With a distinguished record and a healthy base of support, she's easily the best candidate on paper. Having met her, she's also engaging, open and honest, and not at all bad at 'retail politics.' So I think paper can match reality.

Mike Lake: Worked in the Clinton and Bush White Houses and claims to have "effectively managed" it. Needless to say, that sounds like a Kirkian overstatement to me, but he's welcome to describe what exactly he did, beyond making a computer program, and how that amounts to running its day to day operations. That said, he's clearly a very bright person and a great up-and-coming talent in the state's Democratic Party, showing he has the ability to create around himself a nice cadre of dedicated volunteers, who can often make all the difference in the world.

Can he win? It's within the realm of possibility for him to win the primary, but it would get harder from there. His biggest issue in the race has thus far been the concept of Energy Audits. It's something the Patrick administration got through and is working on already. While there's some question of redundancy in the State Auditor's office picking that up as well, in addition to the notion that energy audits is outside the auditor's scope, it seems a legitimate way to save money and make the state even more efficient, so the idea certainly has some merit. It may just not play that way in a general election.

Given that, he could easily be pinned as naive and inexperienced, running for an office with a platform that's outside the purview of the role and redundant in state government. The fact that he looks even younger than he is wouldn't help him avoid that meme. Needless to say, winning the General could be an uphill climb and would require a lot of time and effort by party activists that may be better spent in the Governor's race and other important, competitive elections for Congress.

The Republicans
Kamal Jain: Kamal's the outsider Republican candidate, with a career inside the private sector. He's first generation Indian-American, which would likely be a Massachusetts-first for a statewide winner. He's also from the Libertarian Party, which would have made him a Massachusetts never. He's pushing transparency as his big issue, promising to make all state finance records easily available online. He's not the first and won't be the last to do so, even if he wins. Judging by this article in the Herald, I have to guess he's going to have a sizable ability to self-fund his campaign, but then again he may be trying to make some obscure point that I just don't get. Or is it just for headlines?

Can he win? He doesn't seem like a particularly strong candidate, but he shouldn't be taken lightly either. It's an anti-incumbent year, which may help him against the establishment Republican pick. Can he pick up teabagger momentum to get past his Republican opponent? Probably not, and if he did, it would only make it even more likely the Democrat could win. In fact, that's probably the easiest way either Lake or Glodis take this thing if they win the primary. Then again, maybe he'll make good on his $27 billion "max spending" threats...

Mary Cannaughton: The Big Dog Republican in the race, she'll probably win the primary with ease. She should also have enough money to compete and get her message across, even if she couldn't outspend a Democrat like Glodis. She's a CPA and says she's been trained as an auditor, so the only candidate with more experience for the position is Bump.

Can she win? Her slogan is "professional not political," which shows she's not running as a Republican, per say, but rather as a nonpartisan -- which would help her in Massachusetts. This is especially dangerous since even some of my progressive friends will say that this is the sort of seat they wouldn't mind a "fiscally conservative" Republican to hold. She could absolutely, positively win this race and shouldn't be taken for granted.

A key for Democratic opponents would be to show she isn't nonpartisan and would use the office to make a Tea Party crusade against government. Against Bump and probably even Glodis, she's a definite underdog, but with Glodis she'd have a clear path of attack ("Hack, Hack, Hack!") and with Lake, the media would be doing much of the attacking for her ("Moonbat!" "Young!" "Idealistic!") and a lot of it could gain traction.

The Green-Rainbow Party

Nat Fortune: Nat's running outside the traditional party circles, hoping to pull off the upsets of all upsets. His experience is as a Whately School Committee member and Physics Professor. His wife is on Whately's Board of Selectmen. He has some good ideas, but appears to be mostly a gadfly.

Can he win? Well, I spoke about that issue pretty strongly on this BMG diary, so I won't go to great lengths here. Like many other Greens, he has some good ideas, but finds the political parties so dirty that he makes himself irrelevant by refusing to participate in it, for all intents and purposes. That may make him feel better as a person, but if he ever wanted his ideas to be the winners, going G-R is not the way to do it. No, he can't win, but he may be able to steal enough progressive votes to keep the Democrat from being the winner. If the Democrat so happens to be Guy Glodis, that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Tres (for) Treasurer

LeftAhead Internet Radio, which I co-host, has now finished interviewing all three (known) candidates for State Treasurer. Click the links to listen in, or use the BlogLeftRadio player on the sidebar.

• Steve Grossman (D)
• Steve Murphy (D)
• Karen Polito (R)

Yes, LeftAhead interviewed a Republican. We were polite and everything. On Polito's show, skip ahead 15 minutes if you just want to hear the interview. All of the shows were interesting -- and I thought all of the candidates made some good points. I do have to say that Murphy's notion of just how the State Treasurer's office could grow jobs is appealing to me, but I don't see how he gets passed the juggernaut that is Steve Grossman (who would be a fantastic State Treasurer, too). No idea who I'll support in the end, but I think Massachusetts benefits tremendously by having this very competitive race, including the Republican.

Smulowitz's Victory: A Shot Across the Bow

The big theme of Dr. Peter Smulowitz's campaign, the one which led him to victory, was the question of independence in the State House -- where backroom deals by the Speaker doesn't control the legislature's votes and behavior. From Smulowitz's campaign manager:

“They’re looking for individual leadership,” Wheeler said. “It’s what we campaigned on the entire time, showed voters the entire time and will continue to show voters the entire time.”

Lida Harkins, his opponent, was the Majority Whip leader under both Finneran and DiMasi and continues to be among the House's leadership. As such, she's gone along to get along and people just didn't like that. She lost.

Will state legislators learn the lesson?

Ellen Story, a Rep out of Amherst, clearly hasn't. From today's SHNS (sorry, can't link to it):

APRIL 14, 2010 -- As the House moved Tuesday toward passing legislation sanctioning two casinos and four racetrack slot machine facilities, likely with a veto-proof majority, one member of Speaker Robert DeLeo’s leadership team said the prospect of losing influence in the House prompted her to give up her longstanding opposition to expanded gambling and predicted “consequences” for opponents of the bill.

“After 17 years of being on the outside, I finally have a seat at the table,” said Rep. Ellen Story, one of DeLeo’s four division leaders. “I’m part of the group of eight people that meets with him two hours every week, and this bill was going to pass. And for me to vote a symbolic and meaningless ‘no’ seemed like a foolish thing to do on my part. I think I bring something to the table in these small meetings, and there are other issues besides gambling that I care very much about.”

Story said, “Since the speaker has been here, there have been no consequences for anybody who did not vote with the speaker. My sense is that this is the bill he has cared about more than any other bill. My sense is that there may well be consequences for people voting against this bill, particularly people in his inner circle.”

Not exactly a profile in courage in that moment. Lida Harkins did exactly the same thing. I don't think Smulowitz won the election because of the casino issue -- but he won it because he stood up and told people he wouldn't be the kind of legislator who votes a particular way because that's what he was told to do, or because that's what the special interests were offering millions for.

People in America right now are desperately thirsty for change. They're pissed. And it's across the board -- not at all ideological. That was what fueled Obama's campaign and it's what's fueling the Tea Party movement. It's also what's fueling Peter Smulowitz. You'd think that the legislature would have learned its lessons after all the ethical lapses, but they didn't. People want a government that works for them, not the one who wields the gavel and not the special interests who are spending millions for their causes.

Electing Strong Progressives

After having the chance to interview both Representative Harkins and Dr. Smulowitz in the campaign to replace Senator Scott Brown's old state senate seat on LeftAhead.com, I've come to find the race has one candidate who I think is the clear better of the two. While Representative Harkins would surely make a good and serviceable state senator, Dr. Smulowitz would absolutely make a great one.

He's been all over the district and raised more money than either of the other candidates, having run for the seat for a year or more now, long before Senator Brown took residence in DC. Smulowitz is poised for the big upset and we need more like him. That's why I've decided to go volunteer for him for at least two days between now and April 13th, including the day of the primary. I hope to see some other readers and progressive activists at his campaign HQ.

I'm On Board the Draft Harmony Wu Bandwagon

Congressman Steven Lynch has done many things in his past to make him very unlikeable, but his vote against health care reform -- the signature issue of the entire Democratic Party -- was certainly the last straw. One simply can't be against health care reform and be a Democrat, as far as this blogger's concerned. There are a number of reasons to support Wu, and a number of reasons why Lynch needs to get gone, so let's look at the pros and pros of both propositions.

Wu's good, because

• She's proven to be an effective organizer and would be a fantastic campaigner;
• She's been an active member of her community and would be out there fighting for her constituents' best interests;
• As a college professor with her PhD, she has a great background for a Congresswoman and wouldn't be the typical politician;
• Finally, her students love her -- even if they think she's a tough cookie.

Lynch needs to go, because

• He has a history of being against the values of the Democratic Party, be it health care or civil rights;
• He's thrown a shiv in our back for what should be the last time;
• He's completely beatable in a Democratic Primary;
• Whoever beats him in that primary will hold that seat.
• If we don't hold our politicians accountable, what incentive will they ever have to listen to their average citizens?
  

Knowing that we're more likely to lose seats in 2010 than many of us would care to admit, it's important to send as many strong progressives to D.C. as possible. We need people who will fight for us, not look the other way while people suffer under inefficient and broken systems. Here's the Draft Harmony Wu website -- and here's the Draft Harmony Wu Facebook page. Please consider joining in the call to hold Representative Lynch accountable and putting someone who will really look after the rank and file citizen in that congressional district.

Update: I posted a 2.0 version of this on DailyKos, please consider giving it a rec. Thanks.

Peter Smulowitz for State Senate on Tuesday

Senator Brown may have won a seat in the US Senate, but that meant he had to give up his old position in the State Senate. The door may have been shut, but we can safely call this an open window.

Peter Smulowitz, a medical doctor living in the district, in Needham, was campaigning to replace Brown since even before Brown defeated Martha Coakley, and now he finds himself an established candidate in an open seat. With an impeccable resume -- from Cornell for a degree in Biology, to the University of California for Med School and then Harvard for a grad degree in health care policy, Smulowitz has been in Massachusetts since 2003, when he started at Beth Israel Deaconess for his residency, where he still works as an emergency physician. As Co-Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians, he's worked closely with both state regulatory agencies and state legislators, including his work with State Senator James Timilty to file "An Act to Improve Access to Emergency Care," which has nudged the Department of Public Health towards taking action on reducing overcrowding at ERs across the state. He's also had close ties with his home community in Needham, working on environmental causes and affordable housing.

Undoubtedly, health-care related questions will pop up, as well as questions about his record, stances on the issues and the campaign in general. People can listen live, Tuesday at 2:30, or catch it later at the same site, at LeftAhead.com or on itunes.

Where will the 5,000 jobs come from, Charlie Baker?

Perhaps Baker's biggest "issue" of his campaign thus far is his claim that we need to cut state jobs -- 5,000 to be exact. Not only can Massachusetts do this, he says, but he actually has the gall to say this will make Mass government work better. Chutzpa, you got to give him that. His only appeal thus far has been to people who want to drown government in their bathwater.

Well, it's easy to throw out a nice, round number like 5,000, with no meaning whatsoever, but much harder to sit down and say where those 5,000 people are going to come from. Where are they going to come from, Charlie? Which state workers are you going to give the pink slip?

It's much harder to discuss how cutting 5,000 jobs will improve the Massachusetts economy, so it'll probably be even more difficult to ask him where those 5,000 hard-working employees are supposed to find new work, or what 5,000 newly unemployed state workers with nifty resumes will do for the other thousands of people who have already been unemployed for months. Ready to answer that question, Charlie?

Baker also talks about how people in the private sector are taking gigantic paycuts, throwing out the number "20%" for the private sector, that he claims are way more than state government, without citing any sort of legitimate comparison numbers. Another question for Charley Baker: How many of those private-sector employees taking 10-20% paycuts worked for Harvard Pilgram? In times like these in which health care is what people (and towns) are struggling to afford most of all. Did Charley Baker take a 20% pay cut? He could have passed that kind of savings along to a city or town struggling so they could avoid laying off 2-3 teachers, just by his lonesome.

Well, I have to say this joke of a candidate keeps getting funnier. Declaring on the radio this morning that no one in state government's taken a pay cut, he asks Erica, a state employee, if she knows anyone in state government who's had a pay cut. "Absolutely," she says, "I took a pay cut." Not only pay cut, but furloughs, she says. "Well, you're the exception to the rule," he says.

And you know what? She's right. Governor Patrick cut 750 state jobs just last year -- and ordered 5,000 executive branch employees to take furloughs of up to 5 days each, many employees actually working through it (for the math impaired, a week's pay is 2% of a state employee's entire salary). Watch the whole radio clip below, in which Baker clearly shows he either can't remember or didn't bother to read about what was gigantic, above-the-fold news on the economic disaster that struck our state less than a year ago. Baker's title of "Smartest Man in Government" is quickly becoming the biggest gag in politics.

Murray should stay in State Senate

Representative Delahunt is talking about retiring -- and there's been some BMG discussion about Senator Therese Murray running, leader of the State Senate. Let's all hope she doesn't -- because that decision could be disastrous. She'd almost certainly win the primary if she ran (her very presence would scare away many competitors), but that's where her advantages run out.

Because of Murray's position as one of the two most powerful legislators (and figures) in this state, any Republican challenger could run against everything that's wrong with Beacon Hill. It wouldn't matter whether she should be held accountable for those problems or not, she could easily be scapegoated and blamed. After all, she's the boss.

Furthermore, this would undoubtedly be the first challenging race she's had in a very, very long time. It's difficult for powerful politicians who have held safe seats for a very long time to suddenly mount strong campaigns. Campaigning is ugly, tough work. Coakley's loss would almost certainly make Murray realize just how important it would be to really get out there and stay sharp, but there's a big difference between knowing you should do something and actually doing it. At the very least, Murray would need a strong primary challenge.

Democrats should plead with Delahunt to stay on. Not only is he a widely-respected politician with lots of seniority, but he's the best bet to hold the seat and would keep the Democrats from having to spread themselves that much thinner in this difficult election year. If he absolutely doesn't want to serve another term, primary voters should go for a sharp, active outsider candidate, who can't be pinned for Beacon Hill's problems, like Andrea Silbert.

Grace Ross is a Democrat

When Grace Ross posted on BMG a few weeks back about contemplating a run for Governor, many people (including me) implored her to either run in the Democratic Primary or not run at all. We don't need to give Tim Cahill, Christy Mihos or Charley Baker any help in nudging Patrick from the Corner Office. So, that she decided to challenge Governor Patrick in the primary does not bother me. In fact, it's not only a good thing for Democracy, but ultimately a good thing for Governor Patrick.

All that said, she has a very, very steep hill to climb to even get on the ballot. With just days (literally) to convince longtime party members to mount a caucus effort (an almost impossible task given that she just became a Democrat and couldn't have a Democratic grassroots effort yet), she's going to need at least 15% of State Democratic Convention voters to endorse her candidacy at the convention to get her on the ballot. Caucuses take place in your local community between February 10-24 and any Democrat can run for it (check with your local paper, or contact your local ward/town/city chair, for specific times and locations).

Of course, Chris Gabrieli pulled off getting on the ballot way after that year's caucus meetings, but there was lots of backdoor dealings that few people without the pockets and clout of Chris Gabrieli could pull off -- and Patrick, despite having a masterful caucus strategy that won him a majority of supporters for the convention, was still a political newcomer that did not control the party apparatus at the time. So while Ross starts out a little sooner, she's actually much further behind than Gabrieli was to the 15% promised land.

I supported Governor Patrick in 2006 and will almost certainly do so again, enthusiastically. Given the economic realities of the past three years, he's done a remarkable job. From ending bad corporate loopholes, to passing the transportation bond bill in the nick of time (our state's own second stimulus), we've weathered the economic storm better than most and are poised to come out of it much stronger than most -- which runs counter to our history with economic recessions.

I could talk about a dozen other things -- marriage equality, environmental bills, pension and ethics reform -- but it's not going to change my mind: Grace Ross in the primary can't possibly hurt Governor Patrick's reelection efforts. In fact, it could help him. She was a breath of fresh air in 2006, very sharp in the debates, and will force Patrick to work that much harder for votes, that much sooner. Competitive primaries, more often than not, help candidates sharpen their message, grab lots of free media and build their ground efforts -- so when they get past the primary, they're best poised to win in the general. So, despite the fact that this blog will almost certainly oppose Grace Ross's candidacy, it certainly welcomes her heartily to the race.

Deval Patrick Podcast

LeftAhead Internet Radio, a podcast I'm a co-host of, had Governor Patrick on yesterday. Lots of interesting and frank talk occurred -- including some new themes that, I hope, will be appearing frequently on the campaign trail. We focused on budgetary issues and the (sometimes heated) dynamics of Beacon Hill between the Governor and legislative bodies, as well as what the Governor plans to do should he be reelected for a second term. Patrick was on for the first half hour of the show, then the co-hosts discussed the upcoming race.

Readers can listen in on this site's sidebar, at the LeftAhead link up above, on iTunes (searching for LeftAhead) or at www.blogtalkradio.com/lefties.

What happened tonight

There were a few things made clear in this election -- and no doubt, the blame game will begin (it already did before the polls closed, really) -- and I wanted to hit on a few of them, briefly, while they're fresh in the mind.

First, hats off to Scott Brown. While I find little to admire about his politics, there's a lot to admire about him when it comes to his ability to campaign. He maximized every advantage he had, which is not easy to do. He ran a serious race, when most Republicans in his position would assume defeat. He got on the air early, not only defining himself, but also his opponent -- the two most important things to do when developing an effective campaign message. Finally, he got out and reached enough voters to win, brewing excitement that became a tidal wave.

But we have to be honest, he didn't win this election alone. Martha Coakley stayed silent early in the election, giving opportunity to Scott Brown. It allowed herself to be defined by unpopular Washington policies that she's stood against as Attorney General for years, while Brown, one of the Bay State's most conservative politicians, defined himself as a populist (!) "Independent Republican." If you don't give voters a reason to vote for you, then give your opponent the stage to control the message and momentum, prepare to lose.

Additionally, one can't forget the environment this election took place in. Barack Obama and national democrats, after gaining massive majorities and a mandate for real change, refused to act on that mandate, creating those changes. Big mistake. Reform was watered. Lame attempts were made to bargain with the Party of No, which lead to bad concessions, making for even more unpopular bills, and we usually didn't get the votes anyway. Meanwhile, Democratic refusal to put the Party of No down, giving them opportunity after opportunity to stonewall and win, got their base excited and left our base despondent. We felt as though we worked for nothing -- and many of the people who worked so hard just months ago, were not willing to work again.

So, where do Massachusetts democrats and progressives go from here? Well, we take Republicans seriously, because Scott Brown will not be the last. No Democrat in Massachusetts should think they can walk to victory; even powerful incumbents and favorites shouldn't just try to win, they should try to win by 40. Furthermore, we cannot allow national democrats to flee to the right -- we need to get quick victories and get government moving, even if that means twisting arms. That reform must be good reform, not just policies that are acceptable to Wall Street and HMO lobbyists. We need tough leadership from Obama and Congress that's willing to tell the Blue Dogs of the world that they'll receive no DSCC, DCCC or DNC cash if they don't vote for our popular reform efforts. In effect, they have to do what the voters put them there to do in the first place -- and if they don't, they'll end up like Martha Coakley, too.

You Shall Not Pass!

I think this scene from Fellowship of the Rings is a perfect metaphor for today's election.



The part of Gandalf is played by the collective Massachusetts Democratic activist base. Coakley is Frodo the Ring Bearer. I think people can guess who I think the Balrog is...

As a bonus, here's the damned funniest video ever.

Politico's Political BS

Politico reports that Martha Coakley only made 19 campaign stops to Scott Brown's 66 in this story, but they don't give a single, solitary source. Where the hell is that source -- because that statistic is just absurd. It's unfathomable that they'd even report something like that without using a single, solitary source. Don't get me wrong, Coakley's led a very quiet campaign up until the last week or so, but she has certainly made more than 19 campaign stops. As John Walsh said on MSNBC Live, responding to that wacky story, she probably made 19 stops yesterday, for heaven's sake. Unless Politico backs up their source, I'm calling political BS.

Scott Brown's Campaign: Lying Scumbags

Any campaign that brings along Eric Fehrnstrom, you know is a bunch of lying scumbags. It's amazing more people who were alive and breathing during the Romney era don't remember him. It doesn't shock me at all that a guy with as little class as Scott Brown -- the same guy who went to an auditorium of school kids and swore at them all, repeatedly -- would not only refuse to apologize for his past comments, but then blame it on Coakley.

Here's what Brown said live, on television, not so very long ago -- questioning if Obama was born out of wedlock, like the teabagger that he is -- and then, when questioned about it, refusing to apologize for those comments, he said Martha Coakley made it all up through his spokesperson, Mr. Fehrnstrom.

BROWN: Barack’s mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old?

GUEST: And married!

BROWN: Well, I don’t know about that.

The record shows, of course, that Obama’s parents were married when he was born. Asked directly whether Brown believes it’s possible Obama was born out of wedlock, Brown spokesman Eric Fehrnstom emailed:

He doesn’t believe that. This is more desperate campaigning from Martha Coakley. When she isn’t calling for higher taxes, she’s making things up about Scott Brown.

Scott Brown... dude... you said it on National Television. Why have your lackeys try to deny it? It'll only make you look like the lying scumbag that you are. In the age of Youtube, do you really think you could get away with this? LOL.


Why not just apologize for that little gaffe, made over a year ago, when he probably didn't know much about Obama? Yeah, he shouldn't have said it, but I think people could easily forgive him for doing it with a simple little "oops, I'm sorry, that was rude and insensitive of me - my apologies go out to Obama for saying it." Would that have been so hard? Do we really want to elect a guy who would say these kind of things, then refuse to apologize -- and, on top of it, blame someone else for "making things up" about it? Scott Brown is a rat -- let's hope citizens of this state realize that before Tuesday.

The Local MSM's Prejudice

This blog used to cover the local MSM quite a bit. I enjoyed writing the stories and got a lot of readers and links from it. However, at a certain point I became too cynical to read the local MSM every day, so this site has focused much less on being a local media critic. Stories like this are why.

Two polls were released on the Senate race at pretty much the same time. They both had the same sample size. They were both done by well-established firms. However, they both showed widely different results. The Suffolk poll showed Scott Brown up by around 4, while the BMG/Research 2000 poll showed Coakley up by 8. Either of the polls could be right -- in fact, they both were probably right in polling who they thought would show up, it's just that they both disagreed on the specific demographics of their likely voters. Guess which poll the local MSM covered?

If anyone picked "not BMG," they win a gold star. There are probably two reasons why the local media would cover Suffolk's poll, but not BMG's. The first is the Suffolk poll is certainly more politically sexy -- it was the first to really show Scott Brown up above the margin of error. The second reason is because BMG is a blog - and, I suppose, viewed by the media as competition. All that said, if the media is to be taken seriously, it should have covered both of the polls. They were done at the same time, using live questioners and the same sample sizes; they were each at least as worthy as the other. Even if the papers wanted to lead with the Suffolk poll, the BMG poll should have featured prominently, too. Otherwise, any notion of fair play or journalistic integrity can be thrown out of the window.

Does the local media really want to be that obvious? Are they really willing to lose the tens of thousands of their readers, who also read sites like BMG? At a certain point, papers like the Globe are going to have to learn that many of the readers they've lost have come at the hands of their increasing willingness to throw their credibility out the window, when it suits their purpose.

Brown's Bad for Boston

Freshman Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley - and former Kerry staffer - makes an excellent point for all the residents living in and near Boston -- a point that could be extended for anyone living in Springfield, Worcester, New Bedford, Lowell or pretty much any city across Massachusetts. From Ayanna's email:

Electing Scott Brown would be bad news for Boston. He will work against the very programs that serve as the lifelines for those struggling to survive these challenging times. He will work to slash federal funding to UMass Boston and other public colleges and universities around the state. He will oppose health care reform that would ensure better coverage for our seniors and families. He will fight against what you and I care about, those issues and ideals I actively championed during my campaign. He would make things tougher for my constituents and shatter the dream that was the great cause of Senator Kennedy's life.

The Problem with Scott Brown

I just did 2 hours of phone banking for Martha Coakley tonight. A lot of people may wonder why I'd be willing to invest that kind of time to her campaign when I've been fairly critical of her on this blog, but I think the answer is pretty clear. While I think she'll be an okay Senator (and potentially a very good one with a few years' seasoning), Brown would be an absolutely horrible one.

My biggest problem with him, though, is the fact that he's not even a moderate Republican -- this guy is no Governor Weld, or the type of socially liberal, fiscally moderate kind of Republican Massachusetts voters have proven willing to vote for in the past. Brown was anti-marriage equality. He's boasted that he wouldn't support the Senate health care bill, even though it's very much like the Massachusetts bill he voted for not so long ago.

He's very much more like national Republicans than he is the standard variety Massachusetts Republicans -- and he's even running to the right of where he's been in the past. He's doing that for two reasons: it's getting him national support, with the Tea Bagger brigade readily on board. Furthermore, there really is some angst around the country directed at Democrats -- not because they've been too liberal, but because they haven't gotten stuff done (no thanks to Republican obstructionists, but it's difficult for the average voter to understand all that Washington nuance -- so it's not very helpful to even try to make that point).

Activists need to focus on reminding voters why we need Martha Coakley over Scott Brown. The critical policies that effect children, seniors and working families are all at stake. Even if the Democratic brand has been tarnished, those are all still programs that the rank and file citizen still widely supports -- and those are the reasons why they'll support Democrats, if they're reminded to do so. Brown would obstruct and attack all of those priorities, which would do very tangible damage to this country. Coakley will expand and save them. That's what's at stake here -- and that's why people need to vote for Martha Coakley.