The blame game: who lost Massachusetts?

Even before the polls close, political insiders are debating the outcome.

If Democratic Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley loses the Senate seat held by the liberal icon Ted Kennedy for 48 years, look for the blame game to get even louder. Many are blaming Coakley.

In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a wide margin, Coakley assumed her victory in the Democratic primary was a coronation. So she took a little break during the holidays, dismissing Republican state legislator Scott Brown as an irrelevant irritant.

“Going dark was not a great idea,” said Massachusetts Democrat Richard Neal.

As his campaign against ObamaCare gained traction with independents and Tea Party activists -- Boston, after all, was the site of the original tea party 235 years ago -- Coakley was forced to debate Brown. By all accounts, he won. Take a look on this video.

Others blame the White House for not spotting Brown's surge in time to stop it. And White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly blames the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake for failing to raise red flags about Brown's Big Mo.

“With the legislative and political stakes so high, it’s unbelievable that the Senate committee and White House let this race get so out of hand,” one senior Washington Democrat told Politico. “There’s a lot of blame to go around. Martha Coakley is only one of the problems here.”

Others sharing the blame include Gov. Deval Patrick, whose approval rating with state voters has slipped to 41%, and President Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress for running up big deficits while job losses continue.

Coakley made a lot of mistakes. She said the Taliban were gone from Afghanistan. She said Curt Schilling, a hero to the Red Sox Nation, was a Yankee fan.

But the defining moment of the campaign may have come when Coakley was asked why she was not spending more time with voters. Noting that Brown stood outside Fenway Park greeting hockey fans who attended a special outdoor game between the Boston Bruins and the Philadelphia Flyers, Coakley said, “ As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?”

In politics they call that tone deaf.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo Credit: Associated Press

Click here to receive Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. You can also go to our new Facebook fan page here.

Comments

[Steve]

Certainly Coakley has been tone deaf, but this is a general description of the Democrats since last summer when it was becoming evident that people did not like their healthcare, energy, stimulus, amnd climate change ideas.

[MJ Napier]

Whatever the outcome; this particular chowder is not a national recipe nor is it likely to make the journey too far out of Bean town (before spoiling).
There's obviously blame and praise to be handed out over the handling but I'm most concerned that this election will entrench battleplans for November; and lead both parties in the wrong (polarizing) directions?

[Doug Pilgrim]

This was not a national referendum. If she looses here it is because of Coakley's hubris, condescending attitude and taking the voters for granted.

Politicians have to be reminded you they work for.

[David]

Brown isn't winning because of who he is (he is after all another big government moderate/neocon) he is winning because he can stop our mad dash to a socialist distopian nightmare.

[Armchair Firebrand]

If the people of Massachusetts ignore history by electing Scott Brown to the Senate, I anticipate a serious case of buyer’s remorse setting in shortly thereafter. It won’t take long for citizens of that notoriously blue state to realize that they’re stuck with an obstructionist, GOP hack eager to repeat the tragic follies of the Bush-era.

Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/

[Ann]

Sorry, but, the lady simply wasn't a great candidate to run, and Brown was the more interesting of the two. People tend to vote on whom they like, and he was far more appealing. I don't feel it really had all that much to do with political bias. Obama is being viewed by many of the Democratic voters as too compromising with the republicans, although, considering the situation he took on, I do think Democrats are aware that the lobbiest pretty much run government on both sides. Hince, its a case of the people vs the lobbiest, and a win for them, but, not a loss of the democratic party in general, unless the public is dumber than I think. Surely putting Neocons who created this havoc back in control, would be a fatal mistake.

Problem for Democrats is also due to the leadership of house and senate.
Reid isn't a bad man, but, not a good speaker of the house. Simply too dull, and we need someone more fiery, like Tom Dashle was. Pelosi possesses good principles in general, but she needs to back up talk with action. She often fails.