My theory why Obama lost in Massachusetts

[usrbs]

It's pretty simple, actually, and can be said in 2 words - Deval Patrick.

The parallels between the 2 are notable - 2 charismatic, very accomplished African Americans running "a new type of campaign" with stirring, inspiring speeches full of phrases like "Yes, we can", "hope", "reaching out to the other side", and "change". Deval was full of great ideas, and was also great in Town Hall meetings taking questions from the crowd. (I don't know if Obama is as good.) Another similarity - the GOP in Massachusetts was done for, after 16 years of being governed by ineffective and disinterested GOP governors.

Deval won overwhelmingly in Massachusetts. He got many Republicans and Independents to vote for him. It was incredibly exciting.

It's now a year later. After a few disastrous months where many stupid, rookie mistakes were made by his administration, the bleeding has stopped, but very little of his agenda is passing. One of his main problems is that Deval can't push his agenda through a stubborn and recalcitrant DEMOCRATIC legislature. It didn't take long for the formerly adoring supporters to turn against him. Within a month I was hearing Democrats say how disappointed they were. That saddened me but I was not surprised - the adoration had led to unrealistic expectations.

The result has not been good for the Democratic brand. My Republican co-workers are gleefully pointing out the small list of accomplishments, and the press is poisonous. I'm not worried about this, because 4 years is a long time, and I have trust in Deval - I've been a supporter since the moment he wowed me with the "Yes we can" in the first speech I heard him give. Besides, he's already twice as good as Romney ever was, and he's trying and will improve with time. But I have to say, he would have succeeded a lot more if he hadn't been such an outsider, if he had known the ropes with the legislature, and if he had tried toughness as well as communication and consensus building.

But I think this did inoculate me and perhaps others from succumbing to the Obama fever.

I simply wasn't ready to risk an untried, inexperienced leader with the country in the shape it's in, the opposing party and the media as ruthless and fascist-leaning as they are,
and wait for him to learn on the job.

[bigwillq]

1. He lost because more people voted for Clinton.

[Blue-Jay]

2. That's "crazy talk"!

:rofl:

[Yossariant]

4. Hey! That was my answer.

:toast:

[sniffa]

3. Don't get distracted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4468754&mesg_id=4468754

[griffi94]

5. the same fate awaits obama

he won't get much of his agenda thru congress
he won't be able to end the war without support from the same people who keep giving dubya a check to fund it
he'll wind up looking more inept than carter did...and in 2012 the repubs will hang it around his neck like a bell
setting the stage for jeb in 2012....jeez i feel kinda sick

[thoughtcrime1984]

6. Hillary would be up against the same amount of resistance

or more.

[griffi94]

9. yes she would

but the clintons do in fact have a long record of getting things done....i think the hardest part of the job for hillary will be getting elected.
hillary is perfectly capable of playing hardball....i don't know if obama is or not
i really like that he's exciting his supporters...i like that a lot of his supporters are idealistic...and i'm always for change and hope.....but i'm not interested in another sloganeering administration
whoever wins even if it's mccain is going to have one hell of a mess to clean up....and they'll have exactly 3 years to show real progress or they'll be wiped out in 2012.....it's not like when dim son took over and things were more or less going pretty well
the next prez has to hit the ground running

[bicentennial_baby]

7. We'd be soooo much better off with Kerry Healey

:sarcasm:

[usrbs]

8. Your point being?

I made it very clear in the post that I'm a big supporter of Deval Patrick.

[bicentennial_baby]

12. But Patrick's problem isn't Patrick, it's f'n DiMasi

His problems aren't due to his relative inexperience. It's the fact that he's up against the very entrenched and stubborn MA legislature and their Speaker, DiMasi, aka the new Finneran.

[usrbs]

20. I agree. But do you think there won't be similar obstacles in Congress?

And think that we can't help Deval overcome these obstacles.

[bicentennial_baby]

21. If we can get DiMasi out of the Speaker's chair it would be a start, and

I think that Obama has the potential for huge coattails into Congress, and we could end up with a Dem supermajority.

[usrbs]

23. I'd like a Dem super majority but as I pointed out, that may not be enough.

God knows I think very little of almost all of our Dems that are already there. And whenever you call them on how little they're doing (Markey, I'm talking about you), they always bring up their small majority, when the GOP does more as a minority.

[juajen]

10. So true. What a parallel.

This is exactly why I'm against Obama. We know nothing about how this man might govern. At this dangerous time in our country, we need as much experience as possible. Why can't people see that and stop looking at personalities. I've called him Glitterbama and, unfortunately, I feel that is what he will be. This is not necessarily his fault. People appear to be pushing him to a place he is just not competent to go. Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle?

[griffi94]

18. well he seems to have the big mo

i agree with you it's not his fault, but he could have tried a run in 2012
when he had more experience.....i'm not into bashing his supporters but it's a bit like highschool mock elections
they love him he's so new and fresh and look at all the celebs who endorsed him he's so cool
if we wish hard enough we can change the world and we really truly believe....and that could get him elected...
and the reality kicks in and he moves into the white house as cic instead of the junior senator from il......and nobody in congress
thinks he's cool or new or fresh....he just looks like rookie meat....and they don't give a fuck about his supporters...and the press
will turn on him like rabid fuckin dogs...well because that's what they do....the moderate/conservative dems will dissent first followed by the independents who now profess to love him....and i wouldn't be surprised to see the repubs jump on the pile lol

[sandnsea]

11. The country isn't Massachusetts

who would turn on Ted Kennedy himself if he were the Governor. Barney Frank is also Ann Lewis' brother which had a huge impact on that election. Basing your Presidential election decision on Massachusetts politics is a bit like choosing a principal of an elementary school by polling the kids in the sandbox.

[rox63]

14. You are right on the money

Using Massachusetts politics as a model for the country is just plain nuts. :crazy:

Politics is a blood sport here - A lot of politicians have ended up regretting the day they ever ran for office in this state. Deval Patrick's learning curve has been steep. But I think he's doing ok, considering the entrenched interests in the legislature. He got a lot of votes from citizens (including me) who were just plain sick and tired of business as usual. But the others who have been wielding power here for so long will not give in easily.

[bicentennial_baby]

16. Bingo! You said it much better than I did upthread.

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

25. I love you Mass peeps

but YIKES. And you know, I wouldn't necessarily want to base an election on Oregon and our "DU LIVE" brand of politics either. lol.

[laurita]

13. I think Obama wins the nomination though

i think Obama has the upper edge in the remaining states.

[Onlooker]

15. Obama lost because feminism is very strong in Massachusetts

Massachusetts is a progressive state and a very large number of people (men and women) have at a partial feminist consciousness. It's far easier for a progressive community to develop a feminist consciousness here than a racial consciousness because women are among us while minorities are quite segregated (to a surprising degree in this liberal state). I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Clinton was the most liberal state, Vermont, for similar reasons.

[rox63]

19. How long have you lived here?

I've lived here my whole life (nearly 45 years), and I don't think feminism had anything to do with it.

[Onlooker]

22. Since 1982

I think it's strong relative to racial consciousness. I think relative to other states, Democrats in Massachusetts are generally liberal enough to have some sensitivity to both groups. Earlier on when I posted a thread saying that Obama and Clinton were my first two choices because after 230 years it was about time we had a black or woman president, I got criticized by a lot of people. I think in many parts of the country, there's very little consciousness of the struggles that minorities go through. (Thus, I might add we see here the way many Obamatons actually defend his inclusion of reparative therapy advocates -- who believe gays can be cured -- in his campaign.)

[rox63]

26. Yes, overall we're more liberal than most states

But the population is fairly diverse, depending on where you live in the state. The area I live in (Northern Middlesex County) is one of the more conservative areas of the state. Massachusetts is also heavily Catholic, and there are a lot of immigrants from parts of the world where feminism isn't highly valued. So yes, if you live in Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Concord, Amherst, Northhampton, and other places like that, feminism does play a prominent role. But if you live in places like Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield or New Bedford, it's not as much of an influence. Those are much more blue-collar, working class cities. And I suspect the same things that attracted the blue-collar, working class votes to Clinton in other states also happened here.

[blm]

17. Hillary was ahead by 40 POINTS. Obama closed that gap considerably with Kennedy and Kerry

and Hillary LOST that considerable advantage with HER spokesperson.

[hfojvt]

24. interesting there, but I am not sure I would blame Duval

His supporters need to put pressure on their Representatives. Doesn't it seem likely that Obama will have allies like Kennedy, Daschle, Conyers, etc. to help him deal with the Congress? Not to mention his own four years of experience there.

[Beaver_Run]

27. Obama presidency may bring the fall of the US empire

I am a Chinese. Following is a good post from Chinese Immigration Forum. I totally agree his points.

"After 8 years’ extremely right movement by Bush, the US empire starts to show weakness. Politically it is the losing war in Iraq and economically it is the falling US dollar with the credit crunch and the recession it is bringing with. These two are strongly correlated. US dollar was at its peak strength when the Iraq war just started. However, the huge deficit caused by this war not only just brings down the dollar strength, but also takes it to all-time low. It is this sharp movement in the dollar, which raises the creditability of US government and reduces the trust on US. This is the origin of the credit crunch. As long as the dollar cannot stop falling, the foreign investors, who invest trillions of dollars to US, will continue to flee. No matter how low the housing price is compared to international level, the potential gain is almost comparable to the downside risk of the dollar. Same for the stock market. If you calculate the stock prices based on Euro, there was no bull market at all from 2003-2007. Every percent of index gain is comprised by a percent of dollar fall.

McCain will insist the war and try to reduce the deficit by cutting education and benefits. This will buy US the time. Hillary will give up the war, but she will try to reduce the deficit by turning around the economy. This may have a chance to turn the US around. However, Obama will also give up the war, but he will continue to expand the deficit aggressively to return the support for his followers. He will make the current situation significantly worse, both for the war and for the economy.

Why do Clintons get so much hatred? For conservatives, without Clinton presidency, they could rule the country for 28 years continuously, which means that they could rule the supreme court easily. They cannot get the majority just because of the judges Clinton appointed. Clinton presidency ruined their dream. They dislike McCain, because McCain may not realize their dream, which is just one step away. For liberals, Clinton’s middle road to control the deficit in late 90s also ruined their dream. More humiliatingly, without Clinton, they cannot win a single presidency. They strongly rally around Obama just because they see a hope that their left wing thought still has a chance to win presidency.

Obama now only talks about change without unfolding any of his policy. But based on his power bases: inexperienced young students who have no idea of the meaning of the word job, unemployed people who rely on government benefits, liberals who favor bigger governments, he will not only surrender in Iraq, but also expand the deficit. The combination of both will be a disaster to US, both domestically and internationally. The recession will turn into the great depression with the dollar continuing its fall. People like Asian and Hispanics who not only are hard-working, but also have to spend abroad, will get hurt most. They may even have to be forced to immigrate back to their homeland country for better chances. But the power bases of Obama, may even get stronger under such a condition. In the situation of great depression, bigger government with heavy benefits will show its strength. Obama may have a chance to become another Rutherford. One sentence, Obama welcomes the great depression economically for his own politics.

But he will sacrifice the whole US empire just for his politics. If the US withdraws the troops from Iraq, it will be treated as a win by Bin Laden. If the US economy continues to fall, it will be an even bigger win by Bin Laden, because it was his 911 attack, which forced US to spend billions of dollars every year on homeland security and the war. It was the deficit that destroyed the US economy. Laden will gain the status as the messenger of Allah, because he achieved what Soviet Union couldn’t achieve. His follower in the mideast will get significantly stronger. Without economical and military support from US, US allies in the mid-east will fall one by one. The lost control of oil and the crack of US dominance will make everything much worse.

The chance for Obama to win is very slim. Clinton campaign runs into trouble because of the betrayal of the blacks and the lose of Michigan and Florida. When Obama faces McCain, he will not have such a luck. His black face and his muslim background will be a big trouble for him. However, Laden has driven the US into insane state by reelecting Bush. The crazy young folks may really drive him into white house. If that really happens, be prepared to pack and go back to China. After cultural revolution and 6.4, both government and people in China are getting reasonable, which is opposite to US. The rise of China and the fall of U.S may come much sooner than we thought."