Political Theory and Reality TV

Politicians and News Op-ed people keep asking:
Why have decades of sensible voters from Massachusetts suddenly switched sides?

Despite having an immunity token, the Democrats were voted off the island on Tuesday. How could this happen? Were there countless families in Texas using cell phones to dial in votes a'la Fantasia of American Idol? Do we just not know about the Republican version of Acorn? What moved the voters to do this?

It couldn't be the issues like an out of control Congress, the deficit, the sausage that is health care, no, there has to be an angle. Obviously, the voters of Boston and Hyannisport and all points in between were Sarah Palin style fooled by his truck, and memorized by the 20 year old Cosmo spread.

Some speculated on more sinister motives. Those pesky threatened sexist Yankees....I mean Red Sox Chowderheads. There just had to be a bigger reason for Brown's election. Maybe the big Republican machine....except the Republicans are practically endangered species in MA and I might add, what big Republican machine? Republicans have been on the ropes and in shambles for the past four years. The GOP barely has token party offices in Boston.

Apparently, the victory of Scott Brown in the bluest of blue states isn't a referendum on the President. It isn't a commentary on the bad bill for health care. It may reveal anger, but it's anger at the Republicans AND Democrats if it's anger. It's just a local fluke, the outlier from the standard deviation bell curve of voting that one just throws out when considering data.

Still, when something this big happens, people search for meaning, for reason.

Theory One: Scott Brown ran a flawless campaign akin to the President's own historic bid for the office, and his grass roots are just like Barrack's. Coakley made a horrible run and didn't hire the right people. (They didn't wait until after the election to tell all about her gaffes behind the scenes). The Electorate fell for the slick campaign. Right. This is Massachusetts. They vote Democrat in their sleep, reflexively. Poorness of campaign did not stop them from voting for Dukakis in 1988.

This one should be considered a stone thrown by a glass house owner. I wouldn't throw to many of them. Believe it if you want, but I wouldn't.

Theory Two: Coakley lost because she's a woman and Scott won because he's a white man. That theory doesn't mesh with Massachussett's long standing liberal policies and Democrat tradition. How did the state that houses Harvard suddenly become the mental, social and emotional equivalent of the middle ages? Answer: the unbiased media likes a horse race and allowed it to happen by making things seem closer than they actually appeared. Got that? The News manufactured Brown's victory by giving such fair and balanced coverage. Yeah. That's it.

Theory Three: Maybe the voters were upset and wanted a more liberal version of the health care bill. So...so...soooooo...to send a message to Washington and the President not to be so conciliatory to the Republicans, the voters decided to elect the Republican candidate. Leaving aside the laughable idea that the Democrats in the House, Senate or Executive branch have been TOO accommodating to anyone with an "R" next to their name, I still don't see how a Democratic state would teach the administration not to play nice with the Republicans by electing one. I don't know how you even get to think this theory but it's being put forth as why.

Alternatively, maybe it was something petty and simple like all those people who voted in the election felt they got ripped when Brown's daughter got booted from American Idol and Taylor Swift made it big.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but look for Democrats to be signing up their kids for "So You Think You Can Dance" and "America's Got Talent" before 2012.

Brown Wins Massachusetts

Even the President going to MASS couldn't turn the tide. A stream of stories have already begun saturating the Internet about why Coakley blew a 30 point lead in all of three months. I've read several. Some argue that this was not a referendum on anything other than local politics which in MA, has been Kennedy Kennedy and more Kennedy for several decades.

Some have argued that Martha was a dreadful campaigner and her series of last minute gaffes cumulatively did too much damage. There is some truth to this second arguement. To recap:

This past week she scoffed at shaking hands at Fenway, allowed a supporter to rough up a reporter while she watched, suggested that Catholics not work in the ER in an interview, stated that the Taliban were not in Afghanistan on the day of a vicious attack by said not there terrorists during the debate, misspelled Massachusetts on a last minute ad, put the World Trade Center in a second ad as a symbol of greed, wildly distorted her opponents record such that even Time magazine said it was vile, and called Curt Schilling of the 2004 Red Soxs, a Yankees fan on sports radio.

In fairness to all who supported her, who stumped for her, there aren't many candidates who could have survived this sort of self sabotage. Coakley's political imitation of Bill Buckner alone would have made anyone else come across as normal.

I rather think Brown is indicative of multiple factors, the high handed approach of the House and the Senate galvinized the sluggish and demoralized GOP. Spending without ceasing with the health care bill poised for passage roused those who might otherwise have sat this one out; making it a national race helped Brown.
Also, I think 40 years of voting for someone who owned the seat probably made the people of Massachusetts desirous of anything but the same old same old and Brown was willing to stick his neck out. Americans like courage, even more than they like anything else. We are the nation that created superheroes, we love underdogs and victories that are improbable at best.

There are already memos from the DNC, the White House, the Coakely campaign, the local Democratic machine and staffers and emails pointing fingers at who is to blame for Brown's election. They should stop, because at least publically, such behavior smacks of poor sportsmanship. It insults the voters by presuming that people decided to vote for Brown not because they wanted Brown, but because the party apparatus didn't properly manipulate the public into wanting Coakely.

Besides, it wasn't any of the above entities that caused Brown to win. There's only one group to blame. The Voters. They voted for this guy, even though he drives a truck. Even though, he's just a state senator and that hardly qualifies him to become the State's senator or anything higher than that...hey wait.

As satisfying and truthful as it might be, blaming the voters won't help.
There will be people who blame Bush, Beck, Limbaugh and Palin for Massachussetts; but I wouldn't if you don't want another day like January 19, 2010 in any of the other 49 states.