The candidate gets 50% of the blame.

But after that, you got it nailed.

What a myopic post.

Truly.

Lest you forget, Coakley was chosen in a State-wide Primary. By voters.

An open primary.

By voters.

Sorry, Obama has nothing to do with that.

But if you are looking for blame, let's pin this one on Ted Kennedy.

Two reasons:

a) He was instrumental in a rule change whereby the Governor would appoint Senate seats open. Why? Because "everyone" in 2004 thought Kerry would win and then-Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican. Had this stupid bit of stuff not been rammed through the State, Patrick could have chosen whomever he wanted. (PS: Anyone calling for an end to the filibuster, should well remember this lesson about screwing around with rules when you are in the majority, because someday you will be the minority.)

b) Like so many, Ted put himself above his goals. He should have retired immediately after seeing Obama inaugurated. Had he done that, he would have been able to *campaign* for the Dem running for office before he died.

At very least he would have been a presence in the election. Having old Ted endorsing the Dem candidate on the trail, and *then* calling it the "cause of [his] life" may well have prevented a GOP candidate from gaining momentum (especially since everyone knew Kennedy's time was nigh and that would provide even larger rallies).

Instead, Kennedy was absent for essentially all the discussion for "the cause of [his] life." He contributed little to nothing. That meant additional deal making capabilities were lost by a more vital successor.

Hubris, my friends, hubris. Kennedy put himself above the goal... and the goal suffered.

And to top it off, the Senate let the whole process roll on longer and longer when you needed to push for a blitzkrieg - because the longer the process went on, the more HRC was going to be whittled away.

So did Brown win *because* of Kennedy? No. But Kennedy's actions had a far greater effect on Brown winning in MA than anyone outside the state.

Either way, how is Brown's winning Obama's fault? For picking Rahm?

Did it ever occur to you that Rahm's ability to deal with the Hill has gotten other benefits elsewhere?

People tend to get so very one-dimensional in their thinking forgetting that every policy decision in DC is a set of interlocking issues from at least 536 agendas.

Now, if you want to complain about the WH making deals with the drug companies, fine. At least Obama had something to do with that.

But that's not why we are where we are today.

Unless you are from MA and actually watched this election come down me thinks you haven't a clue.

I live across the boarder in NH and got to watch up close Coakley v. Brown.

This isn't all that tough to figure out.

You run a poor candidate ( there were better, but the Progressive Dems did not come out during the primary). Who thinks she has already won it (sound familiar). Then you let her take a vacation at the beginning of the campaign. And when she comes back only does 16 campaign events across the state. And finally goes all negative all the time in her ads in fact even when she was not negative her ads sucked big time.

Now put her up against a very appealing candidate who does 66 campaign events across the state. Like him or not he worked his ass off. He runs a very populist campaign all dressed up in plaid flannel and Carhartt while driving his pick-up truck. Who basically mines a anti-incumbent nerve (read DEM). And when Coakley went all negative he responds all positive.

Result Coakley loses. And frankly, any candidate who pisses away a 20 point lead deserves to lose.

As to Obama. all the reports I have read Obama's ad and appearance in MA saved Coakley from loosing by ten plus points.

nisi

Revision: At one point Coakley had a 30 point lead.

pissed away, like the opportunities for real change.

Yes, Coakley ran a terrible campaign and Brown ran a terrific one. But even terrible candidates can be saved if some adult notices in time and acts. No-one did, even though this 60th vote was crucial to passing the health care bill.
Tossing Coakely a million dollars and an Obama ad a week before the election was just the party brass trying to cover their asses.
Thankfully, Obama realizes lack of leadership at the DNC level was a key factor in the loss; he's dragging Plouffe back into the fray to stave off an even worse outcome across the board in November.
Even if we set aside the question of who's to blame, can anyone seriously argue that the Democrats as an organization have not been rudderless for the past year? The DNC is the most obvious example, but where was the party's senatorial campaign committee as Coakley tanked?
I think the whole Rahm-Dean scenario is important in understanding what's gone wrong with the Democrats. Rahm may have sharp elbows, but he's a congressional insider who works the existing system. Dean rubs legislators the wrong way because he thinks individual congressmen should serve the interests of the party as a whole (grass roots on up).
Obama's instinct is to try for the best results he can get without confronting a system that he knows is flawed. I'd argue that last week was the direct result of that choice -- a choice he made at the very start of his presidency.
Finally, I'm no knee-jerk Obama-basher. I think he's the best guy Americans could have picked for the job, at the most crucial time. He has three years to save his presidency, and he's smart enough to do it. Unfortunately, as he now probably realizes, he also has to save the Democratic Party singlehandedly.
Thanks for all the comments; I'll try to be less myopic in future.

It can happen. A goal keeper error for example.

Many here at TPM do... which is why they can't enact their agenda.

This is why you have a chair of the DNC -- to provide early warnings of situations like this and to start fixing them if possible.

Primary voters do not always vote for the person most electable in the general.

So if Obama in the last weekend saved her some 4 points how much could he have changed the vote if he had campaigned earlier?

I've worked on a House Rep campaign which was a long shot and the Dems sent people to see that the campaign got run better: this was much more important.

As to the better candidates -- they couldn't even defeat Coakley and they seem to have sat on their hands after the primary.

I suggest everyone read this article from the Boston Globe written before the election.

The pattern was quite clear to everyone.

This is how the process works - she won the primary, the people spoke.

She lost the election, the people spoke again.

Stop trying to claim that the Federal level has a mission to "fix" things at the State (pun intended). That's not how our government works.

I take it you are unaware of the existence of the DSCC, and it's purpose? The NRSC sure did swing into action.

LOL!

Dude has clearly never seen my beloved Tottenham Hotspurs in full flight.

Head. Hurts.

The two things are different sides to the same coin.

By invigorating the electorate, Congress will tend to follow.

See Ronald Reagan, etc.

Don't you think it would be more honest to admit that you're thrilled at this bad karma Kennedy brought on himself?

It's okay if you're thrilled. Just don't straddle the fence to make it seem you might possibly think it's a shame.

By the way, Coakley was a Clinton favorite.

Kaine is useless and the sacrifice of Dean to Emanuel is a pitiful shame.

If a campaign is not facing reality an outside tracking poll could serve as a wake up call.

Like telling the nation that HCR will be done this year and expect Congress to figure the rest out?

Those existed and showed that about 22% of Dems would vote for Brown.

Of course, people can argue like that argue here: when you don't like the results of a poll, you degrade the polling organization.

Rassmusen has had some terrible results in the Presidential election (with scrutiny on methodologies), but they were on track here.

Again, the state has to wake up to the fact that there's an issue and call for the national organization. The national party can't come in with strong armed tactics or it won't have the state's support and ground coverage in the national election.

Anything can happen, a carom, off a loose beach ball on the pitch, into goal cost Liverpool points this season. The authors words are a false equivalence.

There was a European movie a couple of years ago which follows a guy whose own goal costs his team an important match.

I don't recommend it. I do recommend the early 1960s movie about Rugby: This Sporting Life.