Lib Dems Movin About

I've been way tied up with campaign work today to even notice till late that Gordon Brown is out!

It's been a remarkable day. Hearing a prime minister announce that he's going to resign is always a big story. But Gordon Brown's statement today was only one piece of the jigsaw, and perhaps not even the most important. What matters most is that this morning it looked as if the Tories and the Lib Dems were on the verge of forming a "confidence and supply" pact. Now it seems almost inevitable that the next government will be a coalition. But whether it will be a Tory/Lib Dem coalition or a Labour/Lib Dem coalition is anyone's guess.

So far, Nick Clegg has shown himself to be in total command of the situation in the UK. He was widely viewed at having lost clout due to the poor Lib Dem FTP showing (though overall LD's gained 1% more of the vote), and by this morning, the consensus seemed that he was about to buckle to the Conservatives. David Cameron has about thrown everything on the table, but by the evening, its pretty clear that the momentum had shifted to a progressive coalition:

For reference, here are the numbers.

There are 650 seats in the Commons. But there are five Sinn Féin MPs who do not take their seats, leaving 645 MPs. So to get a working majority you would need 323 votes.

There are 258 Labour MPs and 57 Lib Dem MPs. That makes 315. The SDLP (a sister party of Labour's) has three MPs and there is one MP who represents the Alliance (which is allied to the Lib Dems). If you add them, you get to 319. Plaid Cymru is in coalition with Labour in Wales. They've got three MPs, and if they join the total rises to 322. The SNP has also signalled its willingness to join a progressive pact of some kind, and its six MPs would take that total to 328. If the Greens' Caroline Lucas were to vote with this bloc, that would take you to 329.

The Tories have 306 seats. (One is the Speaker, but two Labour MPs – and another Tory – are likely to become deputy Speakers, and so they cancel each other out.) When the contest in Thirsk takes place, that is likely to rise to 307. If the Democratic Unionists (eight MPs) were to vote with the Tories (as they normally do), the Tory-DUP total would rise to 315.

Gordon Brown is right to say that the "progressives" could form a majority. But they would be dependent on several small parties and they would not have much of a cushion for when people started to rebel.

Tomorrow is D-day. Clegg is either going to have the rights of Cameron and the wingers first-born with a wacky Con-Lib schizo gov't or he's going to blaze a new trail with a progressive coalition alongside a new Labour leader. The choice seems easy.

[UPDATE] Labour has pulled out of talks with the Lib Dems, and now it looks like a Con-Lib coalition is going to happen?

The Evening Standard reports that Gordon Brown is set to resign tonight and allow David Cameron to become prime minister. The paper quotes a friend of Brown as saying: "The deal with Clegg was just not doable."

...The Labour leader's final desperate attempt to cling on to power with a Lib-Lab deal crumbled amid a rebellion on his own side and policy disagreements with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

I expect that quite a few Lib Dems are going to revolt if the Con-Lib coalition happens. It could prove a boon for Labour if they are able to re-group and come out as the non-3rd Way voice of opposition. For Clegg, its going to divide his party ultimately, but with the Tories at 306-7 seats, it only needs less than 20 to stand by them to keep ahold the majority.

I'm hoping for another twist of events, but it looks like this is the direction.

[UPDATE] Seeing what's being reported-- that Lib Dems get a referendum on reforming the voting (which would greating improve their MP standing), Nick Clegg is Deputy PM, and 6 Cabinet posts-- looks great on paper. As for the issues, that remains to be seen. I think eventually we'll see a real strong divide happen with this Government, with the Lib Dems stopping some of the neo-Thatherism from happening (or one could hope).

Tags: Nick Clegg (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

Also

David Miliband is the clear favourite if it goes that route.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-10 09:28PM | 0 recs
either way

Clegg must insist on electoral reform--not lame promises to appoint a new commission to study the matter.

by desmoinesdem 2010-05-11 07:56AM | 0 recs
Lib Dems aren't Stupid!

If they join a Tory coalition all that will happen is that in about 6 months to a year the Tories will feel strong enough to stage another election in which they get an outright majority and tell the LD's to sodd off.

And then at that point you wonder if they will have peaked. They'd be firmly cemented into 3rd place and out of power. Their one chance relies on sharing power with Labor for as long as possible and getting electoral reform, plus hoping the minds of voters changes.

by Cugel 2010-05-11 08:17AM | 0 recs
RE: Lib Dems aren't Stupid!

That's what I thought too. Labour seems to not want to deal.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-11 11:49AM | 0 recs
The Tories offered the LibDems

a referendum on AV, a stunning move.   There simply aren't enough votes to make a coalition with Labour viable, so it looks like a LDP/Conservative coalition with elections in the next year.

by fladem 2010-05-11 11:50AM | 0 recs
For what it's worth

The Telegraph

George Pascoe-Watson, the respected former political editor of the Sun, reports that the Lib Dems have six cabinet posts and Nick Clegg will become deputy prime minister. If so, the outsiders have won far more ground than anyone imagined possible and the landscape of British politics has changed - perhaps forever.

by jsfox 2010-05-11 12:07PM | 0 recs
RE: For what it's worth

or changed for a few months until Cameron calls a new election and wins an outright majority.

by desmoinesdem 2010-05-11 04:05PM | 1 recs
RE: For what it's worth

Doubtful that people are going to be happy with the direction.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-11 10:07PM | 0 recs
Another piss poor Analysis

Jerome again gets it wrong so often it is like a dog chasing his tail - with each update torpedoing his previous assertions. His habit of viewing Camerons "wingers" as similar to the GOP when in fact they are more progressive than anything in the USA - well it is truely disgusting misinformation. He really should not comment on UK politics - his track record in the US field is questionable enough.

In  a prior post I pretty much proved that on all key issues Cameron is to the left of the Democrats - but this gets ignored by people who are not actually particuarly interested in UK politics - but just want to use the UK election to burnish progressive credentials in a cheap manner realising that most readers are not equipped or motivated to actually call him on it.

I have tried to enlighten Jerome on this in a constructive manner, but his retorts have been about as childish as one would get when debating someone on the Redstate blog and their ilk. I think he called me "you Tories" as if that was like being called some type of US Neocon - inspite of the fact that I was not really rooting for any individual - but I did not really want a hung Parliament leading to proportional representation, which I believe would be a long term disaster. The UK in the present ongoing economic crisis clearly needs a strong Government - and if the Libs can work with the Cons, that that is clearly potentially a stronger and simpler Government than the Libs, Lab, SNP, Clyde etc...

 

by dbeall 2010-05-11 11:24PM | 0 recs
piss poor faking

You are not calling anything, all this is about to you is trying to fake that the conservatives in the UK are some sort of progressive left of center political party.

Your abstract relation to reality needs to be clarified. Lets look at a few of your fellow Tories:

The Conservative Parliamentary candidate for the Sutton & Cheam constituency, Philippa Stroud, has been accused by today's Observer newspaper of founding a church that tried to 'cure' homosexuals by 'driving out their demons'.

In a statement, Philippa Stroud said:"I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However it is catagorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that the Observer has suggested otherwise.

Another:

There do seem to be some people in some communities who don't respect women's rights at all, and who... without necessarily saying that this is the case on this occasion, who have imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women

David Davies MP, Monmouth
Backwards, racist, basically everything stupid in the UK votes for either the UKIP or the Conservative Party.
This is one of your leaders, William Hague:
We have a Government that has contempt for the views of the people it governs.

There is nothing that the British people can talk about, that this Labour Government doesn't deride.

Talk about Europe and they call you extreme. Talk about tax and they call you greedy. Talk about crime and they call you reactionary. Talk about asylum and they call you racist; talk about your nation and they call you Little Englanders ... This government thinks Britain would be alright if we had a different people. I think Britain would be alright, if only we had a different Government.

A Conservative Government that speaks with the voice of the British people.

A Conservative Government never embarrassed or ashamed of the British people.

A Conservative Government that trusts the people [...] This country must always offer sanctuary to those fleeing from injustice. Conservative Governments always have, and always will. But it's precisely those genuine refugees who are finding themselves elbowed aside.[9]

Again, rampant xenophobia and racism. Now, the question of whether the Conservatives under Cameron lets these repressive and backwards viewpoints have a say in the governing is open to the future to unfold. But quit trying to fake that the corollaries to the wingers in our country don't exist in the Conservative Party in the UK.

You also clearly do not understand the Democratic Party. Assuming its some sort of monolithic party and that "on all key issues Cameron is to the left of the Democrats" really doesn't deserve a response.

My track record out there with understanding how politics works here well enough, you can read the book or go and look at my predictions of 2006 and 2008... (or Obama's multi-positioning on drilling offshore, haha). I also got to work over in the UK, and seem to have a more objective perspective than your prejudices allow. Am not sure why you need to resort to petty name-calling and personal attacks; but again, that's usually a result of being in a position of weakness.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-12 07:22AM | 0 recs
Analysis redux

As an American living in London for the past 12 years, I've been following this Jerome/debeall dispute with some interest. And I have  to say that on most (if not all) points, debeall is right. Cameron has already moved the Tories to the left of where they were even five years ago--and he'll move them further now that he's in a coalition where he can safely ignore the party platform, which was still hostage to some of the far right elements of the party. Of course there are wingnuts still in the party (Stroud being a case in point)--but may have departed for the more forgiving shores of the BNP or UKIP. (It is appropriate to bring up Blue Dog Democrats here?) Davies's comment is on the real problem of forced marriages within sectors of the immigrant community, where a number of women have been killed by family members for resisiting such marriages. Davies is spot on there. And that last quote sounds like a valid criticsm of the previous US administration, and hardly seems to warrant the racist and xenophobe label Jerome wants to give it.

The fact of the matter is that many--if not most--conservatives fully support the NHS; are leery of the kind of military interventions that Bush, Blair, and Democrats like Lieberman seem so fond of; are in favor of progressive taxation, and wouldn't dream of trying to impose the level of tax rates the US currently applies (in fact, we may even see tax increases this next year--hey, Republicans, pay attention); fully support the state subsidizing of public transportation; and I could easily extend this. Conservatives are not Republicans in most respects--if the Republicans have an analogue over here, it's the outright racist BNP.

Don’t misunderstand—there’s quite a lot about the Tory platform that I object to. But this is not a normal scenario. Labour borrowing (including all the off-the-books stuff) really has created a problem, and while it doesn’t approach the scale of the disaster that is Greece, it’s sufficient to prevent the UK government from undertaking a lot of initiatives it might otherwise take. This is why I don’t worry about the differences between the Lib Dems and the Tories over things like upgrading the Trident missle defence system—the Tories want to upgrade it (just as "progressive" Labour does), the Lib Dems want to scrap it. The Lib Dems get this one by default, in all likelihood—the UK just can’t afford it. This will be true for lots of things over the next several years, and this simple fact will eliminate a lot of the policy differences between the two parties. Some of the proposed Tory tax cuts will face a similar fate—we can’t afford tax cuts right now, and most of the Tory leadership understands this (compare this to the Republicans, and you start to get the picture). This is not Margaret Thatcher’s party any more, although her ghost still lingers. Although if anyone was the successor to Thatcher, it was Blair.

And it’s probably worth pondering what the “progressive” Labour party has achieved in the past 13 years. An illegal war in Iraq, and continued wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as America’s major enabler. The deliverance of prisoners to the US for purposes of torture. The near-collapse of the public pension funds from Gordon Brown’s annual £5 billion raid on them. Blather about global warming, but no consideration of carbon taxes. A relentless courtship of investment bankers and bond traders, such that the UK now depends on the City for 22% of its economy. Continued stealth taxes on incomes, but not on unearned income, clearly benefiting the rich and penalizing wage-earners. It was "progressive" Labour that wanted to raise the National Insurance tax on the poor (which the Lib Dems opposed), and it was "progressive" Labour that opposed the Lib Dem proposal to exempt the first £10,000 of income fram any tax whatsoever (which the Tories look like they will now go along with, btw).

Let's see, what else? More than 3,500 new laws with criminal penalties, and an explosion of the prison population—and, of course, that popular American export, privately-owned prisons. How about priviatized state schools being run by religious organizations? We got that too, including some that are trying to refuse the teaching of evolution. Intrusions into civil liberties that would make Bush and Cheney proud, with surveillance cameras on practically every urban street in the country. A vast privatization of government services, including within the NHS and education, that would make Halliburton blush, and the lies of the public-private partnerships and PFI’s that Brown loves so dearly, with the result that literally billions of pounds that should have gone directly into education or health services has been squandered. The attempt to require ID cards for every British citizen, which Labour is still pushing for (and which both the Lib Dems and the Tories oppose). The odious Digital Economy Bill of 2010, yet another of a long list of Labour capitulations to industry demands. The fiasco of the hoof-and-mouth crisis, where Blair for months disregarded the advice of his scientific advisors. The ongoing war on rural England. The list of mendacity, duplicity and incompetence is staggering.

Jerome, I enjoy your commentary on US politics. But in this case, you're simply wrong.

by wufnik1 2010-05-12 10:46AM | 2 recs
RE: Analysis redux

Well done! A level clear and spot on analysis without name calling or flaming. Call me impressed. Thanks.

by jsfox 2010-05-12 11:52AM | 1 recs
RE: Analysis redux

Heh, if I'm put in the place of defending Labour, I'll cry uncle before it even begins; if you mistook my position for defending Labour, then you took it wrong.

"Of course there are wingnuts still in the party" which will make it quite interesting to see if the Lib Dems can continue to detoxify the Conservatives in the coalition, or it leads to a Torie meltdown.

For my take, I think that putting Hague in charge of foreign affairs and his being a hawk on Iran and Afghanistan is going to be the undoing of this coalition. Is Hague a neocon with regards to a nuclear Iran?  He's sounding like it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-12 05:39PM | 0 recs
Analysis redux redux

well, it was easy to misunderstand your position, frankly. Which doesn't matter. The point I was trying to make, and I can't tell if it was successful, was that your perceptions of all three parties seems a bit dated. Not a firm foundation for commentary about the politics of another country.

Hague is hard to figure, but he's definitely worrisome, more so than any of the others surrounding Cameron. He does serve the purpose of giving Cameron cover with the party right wing. He may be a neocon, but it's hard to tell, because he's also made statements about having a foreign policy more independent from the US. But he's probably the most pro-American adviser around Cameron, along with Ian Duncan-Smith, who has been given a sop cabinet post. But that's a good thing, in a way--it means that most of those around Cameron are actually more sensible than one might expect.

It's not clear, though, that anyone has any appetite for further mid-east follies--especially as long as British troops remain bogged down in an apparently interminable war in Afghanistan. Something which everyone seems to be getting more and more frustrated with.

Tory, not Torie.

by wufnik1 2010-05-12 06:41PM | 0 recs
torie-light

I'm not sure how you could have mistook my position in regards to Labour, given the bulk of my postings on the elections over the past few weeks.  If it was just in reading the past few days and the use of the "progressive" coalition, then you must have missed that that was the term placed on the potential coalition proposed by SNP-Plaid Cymru, that would have involved Labour.

I still think that, as a short-term government for the purpose of election reform, was the best way to go.

As for the second best alternative, I think it would have been to let the Conservatives form a minority government.

I would only rank the Con-Dem alone alliance ahead of the Lab-Lib alone alliance.

Look, here's my sense of Cameron, and you can call it "out-dated" but I'll just reply for now that he's a slick campaigner, willing to say whatever he needs to be elected, and there's a lot of backbencher Tories who are itchin to get back to Thatcher politics that cut social spending and expand class differences.

Basically, those who are engaged in thinking that Cameron and the Conservatives are now different, are pretty naieve and sound alot like the believers that we had here thinking Obama was going to be a strong partisan progressive Democrat, or that Bush was going to be a compassionate conservative.

As for the neocon Hague, I don't consider it a good think at all that he is aligned as "pro-American" in regards the the military boondoggles we are engaged in.

Obama has carried over the bulk of both the people and the practice of Bush's foriegn policy in the ME. All that means is that Hague is likely right at home with the continued war going on without end. I was hoping that the Lib Dems would be able to drive a difference over that policy, especially in regards to Afghanistan, as clearly, even moreso in the UK than the US, the occupation is unpopular.

My guess is that you'll be amazed, and so will I, at how quick Labour rebounds within the opposition, and has the popular support solidly behind them a year out from now. Clegg was to quick to the draw to want real power ahead of waiting for election reform, and is going to find it very difficult as the Tories start to push their agenda. He could well end up with a shell of the former and nothing of the latter.

This sounds like where I am at:

The anti-Tory alliance is now dead and buried but there are some crumbs of comfort for Labour as its 13-year spell in power ends. It will now position itself as the only progressive party aspiring to government at the next election. If it avoids a civil war and a divisive leadership election – easier to do after a less severe defeat last week than many expected – it could potentially win over many of the 6.8 million people who voted for Mr Clegg's party.

For now, some of these people will be perplexed or angry that he has thrown in his lot with the Tories, although how they vote next time will obviously depend on how the Con-Lib government performs.

For the Liberal Democrats, the new coalition government offers both a huge opportunity and a huge risk. One of the ironies of being the third party is that it wanted and yet feared a hung parliament at the same time. It is the biggest double-edged sword in British politics. As one Liberal Democrat put it, the party could now be in a "lose, lose" position.

Whatever has been said during their talks with the Tories, the Liberal Democrats know Mr Cameron's party will oppose it at the next election, the fear of which will cast a shadow over their joint working. There are some in his party who already worry that Mr Clegg may end up with half as many MPs after the next election, instead of twice as many – his target when he became party leader in 2007.

The new government offers a very different alliance to the one Mr Brown had in mind during the campaign. Instead, after an agonising wait, it is Mr Cameron who has an opportunity to create a "new politics" and to prove what he has always claimed – that he is a liberal, progressive Conservative.

You, along with debeall, believe Cameron. I think he's a good liar. We'll see how it goes.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-12 10:25PM | 0 recs
torie-lite redux

Ah, Andrew Grice, whose track record is about as brilliant as everyone else around here. And whose notion of "progressive" seems to be as muddled as everyone else's. Yes, I do tend to believe Cameron, who, as I've said, appears considerably to the left of his party, has been spending the past four years trying to move it in that direction, and who is now in a position to benefit from the constraints of being in this alliance. I certainly don't expect him to become Labour or Lib Dem--that's not my benchmark. But I do expect lots of convergence. Will there be areas where we won't see that? Of course. Does that justify outright denial that this will work? Pah.

I will say that this isn't the only American blog I've come across (I read LOTS of them) were there seems to be some significant misunderstandings of what this election result means, or how it came about, or how this new coalition might work. Or straight media source, for that matter. It's like all that commentary on the Massachusetts senate election breathlessly shouting what a repudiation of Obama it was without once mentioning that Coakley ran what is probably the worst campaign in modern history, including not campaigning at all for nearly a month. I just don't like to see nuance ignored when it's drectly relevant to what's going on. What I objected to here (and I see it far too many places to try to correct them all) is the assumption that somehow the "natural" alliance was between Labour and the Lib Dems, and that any other combination somehow violated the laws of the universe in some way.

We disagree on much of this, and I'll base that on (1) my own belief that Labour has long given up the right to call themselves "progressive" (which you do seem to share some of), (2) your apparent belief that once a Tory, always a Thatcherite, and (3) your apparent belief that the Lib Dems are going to end up as helpless partners in this government, with the Tories tromping all over them. I may be misreading you, but I don't think so--although I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

A point about Hague, whatever our shared misgivings about him: he's now in an alliance--for a full term, no less--with the only party that vociferously opposed the illegal Iraq invasion, and the only party that opposes mindless inceases to the defence budget, including the major (and hugely expensive) upgrade to the current missle defence system. I'm not sure why you think Hague will be immune to concerns about Afghanistan, or your apparent certainty that he will follow America blindlessly. It's certainly possible that those are his own instincts--likely, even. But he's now in a coalition, under a Prime Minister who has been more openly doubtful about that alliance, and in a country where the resentment over Iraq is quite high, and unhappiness over the continued British presence in Afghanistan is increasing robustly--particularly among the military. Your certainty here sort of baffles me, but I'm not going to spend more time over hypotheticals.

Frankly, of all the possible coalition arrangements, I think this one has the best chance of actually working. I'd prefer it if the Libs were in charge, of course, and I'm not going to be happy with everything that comes out of this, but it is what it is, and I think will be vastly superior to more Labour incompetence in whatever form. Labour certainly wouldn't have been as generous in cabinet appointments, or in compromising over policy differences, as the Tories have been--that became very clear in the negotiations between Labour and the Lib Dems. Which is why the negotiations were over quickly. And which should tell you something. And any Cabinet with Chris Huhne, who may as well be in the Green Party, in charge of energy and climate change policy, and Teresa May, who a couple of years ago referred to her own party as "the nasty party," as the Home Secretary, will at least be highly entertaining.

And as far as your prediction that Labour will rebound in a year, this is the statement that most indicates you don't actually live here now. I would happily put money on this bet. The sad part is I'm a natural Labour Party supporter. But they lost me with Iraq, the power-madness, the corruption, the mindless slavishness to anything American, the purge of reasonable people like Robin Cook and Tam Dalyell, the fawning adulation of the rich (especially in the City), and their lack of understanding of basic arithmetic, let alone basic economics. The lack of any real depth of commitment, in other words, to anything other than relentless self-advancement. They turned into the Tories of 1997. They constantly babbled about "fairness" during this election. They don't know the meaning of the word any more. My hope is that a spell in the wilderness will result in enough soul-searching to let them get back to a place where they can start developing just those types of policies again. Given that the front runners for the leadership are now David Miliband and Ed Balls, I don't have a lot of confidence that this will happen any time soon.

I do think you're correct, btw, in your comment (on some other post somewhere) that the main problem here was a shortage of very strong Lib Dem candidates. That's a problem that Clegg needs to fix--how he'll do it will be fun to watch.

by wufnik1 2010-05-13 07:03AM | 0 recs
RE: torie-lite redux

Lets just leave it at you believing Cameron & Hague, myself not, and see where it goes. If you're right, I'll be glad, but I'm too skeptical to grant the hope. You might be right on Labour being too corrupt to turnaround in a year, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened-- they need a real housecleaning.

For putting the MA loss on Coakley alone though, that is pure spin. Straight in line with the WH crap of blaming her pollster, when no benchmark could have expected the actual turnout. Quite shallow. We elect plenty of Coakley clones all the time in blue places like MA; as do the Republicans in red places. It'd also be as lacking to place the blame totally on Obama. There were many nuances involved, Brown was able to run a message campaign against paying for HCR since MA already had it, for one. But the real substantive takeaway was that as voter numbers increased, so did Brown's chances of winning. In MA it was the case, but its national; that of having less to do with the candidates-- a great candidate might overcome it, but there's a big Independent problem for Dems that was/is a trend, carrying over from 2009, and is not an isolated case due to any candidate.

As for what we agree on (the LD's lacking of candidates), this actually relates to my consulting experience while working the Mayoral race there in London in 2008, and advising then on national growth strategy for the Lib Dems using the internet. Its quite obvious that they are the strongest party online; even while showing poorly in the Mayoral, the LD's did much better online. If I was able to stay over there, I would have liked to see something like a program we'ved used called Step Up that allows for others to 'nominate' a potential candidate and have others in the community also back that potential online. The LD's, along with using the internet for for candidate recruitment, should be doing training, along the lines of what we've done through DFA and other means here. Its a bright spot of Clegg being in power that he'll hopefully capitalize on, via traditional recruitment (and hopefully this fixes some of the funding problems), and in conjunction with online methods.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-13 10:19AM | 0 recs
redux redux

And actually, I worry about Osborne, who isn't all that smart, a lot more than I worry about Hague, who is smart and will be able to stay out of trouble.

by wufnik1 2010-05-13 08:35AM | 0 recs
Coakley

We'll just leave Tory/Lib Dems as an emprical issue to be confirmend or disconfirmed by events.

On Coakley, my daughter, who is active in Democratic politics there, was active in that campaign, and she was furious--as was much of the party. This was a candidate who avoided the public as much as possible, pissing away the first three or four weeks of her campaign (including a holiday in the Caribbean) who then managed to alienate both Red Sox and Bruins fans when she did bother to campaign (and managing to accuse Curt Schilling of being a Yankee fan). The bottom line, as I recall, is that Brown got about the same number of votes that McCain got in 2008 (about 1 million); Coakely got 800,000 fewer votes than Obama did. Turnout was lower, in other words. Those 800,000 people just stayed home. If she had bothered to start early Brown never would have gotten an advantage. Michael Capuano would have clobbered Brown, but the Hilary voters put Coakley in on the strength of her blatant "I'm the woman candidate" campaign. Sorry, this was one of those cases where the failings of the candidate in question, and pretty much just those, were responsible for the defeat. yes, there was all sorts of other stuff going on, which probably boosted turnout for Brown--but there's a reason that people didn't vote for Coakley.

I admit to a deep loathing of Coakley as a result of her role in the Louise Woodward case back in the late 1990s. So I'm not unbiased.  It was a complete stitch-up on Coakley's part, solely to advance her career. She's a loathsome person. Actually, she'd fit right into the New Labour, as I think about it--she and Jack Straw would have lots to talk about, I bet.

by wufnik1 2010-05-13 11:35AM | 0 recs
Capuano

Agreed that he should have been the nominee; he was certainly the netroots choice in MA.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-13 12:15PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads