MA-Sen: 66 to 19

By
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 9:53 am

BOSTON — That, via Alex Isenstadt and Josh Kraushaar, is the number that defined the Massachusetts Senate race more than anything else. From the primary through last Sunday, Scott Brown held 66 events of varying size. Coakley held 19.

Typically, a front-running campaign might hold fewer events to minimize the snafus that might occur and affect the race. The incredible thing about Coakley’s verbal and visual stumbles is that none occurred while stumping in Massachusetts. Her (perhaps unfairly mangled) “no terrorists in Afghanistan” malapropism happened during the final debate. Her gaffe about preferring to meet local politicians than to “stand outside of Fenway, shaking hands, in the cold” was made in a Boston Globe interview. When she left the trail last week for a Washington, D.C., fundraiser — one of the most baffling campaign decisions I’ve ever seen — she got negative storylines about lobbyist ties and the accidental knock-down of a conservative reporter. And her stumbles about whether “devout Catholics” could work in emergency rooms and who Curt Schilling was both happened in radio interviews.

In retrospect, Coakley had plenty to gain by working the campaign trail. By avoiding it for weeks, she created a massive opening for Scott Brown.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

5 Comments

bluestatedon
Comment posted January 19, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

There's no doubt that Coakley and her campaign advisors deserve a lot of the blame, but the alleged political pros at the DSCC or in the White House also bear a great deal of responsibility. This is massive political incompetence and malpractice of almost criminal dimensions.

The passive, arrogant, and dismissive nature of Coakley's campaign and the aggressive nature of Brown's were evident from the very beginning of the contest. The political geniuses in the White House and in the Senate Democratic cloakroom should have been on top of what was going on, and should have kicked open the doors to the Coakley campaign's war room to ask them just what in the flying f*ck they were doing. This is as much Rahm Emmanuel's failure as it it Coakley's.


bluestatedon
Comment posted January 19, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

There's no doubt that Coakley and her campaign advisors deserve a lot of the blame, but the alleged political pros at the DSCC or in the White House also bear a great deal of responsibility. This is massive political incompetence and malpractice of almost criminal dimensions.

The passive, arrogant, and dismissive nature of Coakley's campaign and the aggressive nature of Brown's were evident from the very beginning of the contest. The political geniuses in the White House and in the Senate Democratic cloakroom should have been on top of what was going on, and should have kicked open the doors to the Coakley campaign's war room to ask them just what in the flying f*ck they were doing. This is as much Rahm Emmanuel's failure as it it Coakley's.


Massachusetts On Our Mind « Around The Sphere
Pingback posted January 19, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

[...] David Weigel at Washington Independent: Typically, a front-running campaign might hold fewer events to minimize the snafus that might occur and affect the race. The incredible thing about Coakley’s verbal and visual stumbles is that none occurred while stumping in Massachusetts. Her (perhaps unfairly mangled) “no terrorists in Afghanistan” malapropism happened during the final debate. Her gaffe about preferring to meet local politicians than to “stand outside of Fenway, shaking hands, in the cold” was made in a Boston Globe interview. When she left the trail last week for a Washington, D.C., fundraiser — one of the most baffling campaign decisions I’ve ever seen — she got negative storylines about lobbyist ties and the accidental knock-down of a conservative reporter. And her stumbles about whether “devout Catholics” could work in emergency rooms and who Curt Schilling was both happened in radio interviews. [...]


louis vuitton handbags
Comment posted July 26, 2010 @ 6:40 am

The passive, arrogant, and dismissive nature of Coakley's campaign and the aggressive nature of Brown's were evident from the very beginning of the contest. The political geniuses in the White House and in the Senate Democratic cloakroom should have been on top of what was going on, and should have kicked open the doors to the Coakley campaign's war room to ask them just what in the flying f*ck they were doing. This is as much Rahm Emmanuel's failure as it it Coakley's.


louis vuitton
Comment posted July 26, 2010 @ 6:40 am

There's no doubt that Coakley and her campaign advisors deserve a lot of the blame, but the alleged political pros at the DSCC or in the White House also bear a great deal of responsibility. This is massive political incompetence and malpractice of almost criminal dimensions.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.