First, I want to send my kudos to all those who are working diligently for the election of Coakley. It's a good cause that I understand why people believe fervently in. There are good reasons to elect her, and good reasons to spend you effort and work. But as I read through blogs, I'm puzzled by the almost Buffy-the-Apocolypse-is-here level of panic that seems to swim around people "we can't let this happen". I will take a counter point: a loss by Coakley is not the worst thing that could happen.
A loss is a loss, the old adage goes. And we've heard the ruminations about getting to 60.. (a feat made possible in part through the defection of Specter).
Coakley is running in a state where traditionally democratic candidates win at the federal level by nearly a 3:1 margin. So, why is she suffering such a tight race? What went wrong?
Despite all of the pros and cons, the biggest thing that went wrong in this race is that so much time is spent debating minutia and non-issues that Coakley hasn't made an effective case FOR her candidacy. Part of what powered Obama to a win was to say "this is why you should vote FOR me" and less about "why you SHOULDN'T vote for the other guy".
Whether Coakley wins or loses, a tight race should impress on democrats and progressives exactly what went wrong this year.. too much time playing defense and not a lot of time making an affirmative case of why something is "right" or "good".
Part of what is powering Scott Brown is that many Democrats believe that he'll serve his two years and that's it, they will oust him next time for someone who they really want. That's not a joke, that's a common theme I've seen here and elsewhere, though everything from status updates, to polling (PPP, even Kos and others) as well as opinion pieces, from almost all major sources.
This fall is a significant midterm election for the party. Forget worrying about 60, Democrats are better about worrying about how many seats may be lost in the fall. And why is that? This race tells everyone exactly why that is... a complete failure of communication to take control of an issue and have it be the common thread.. and I'm sorry, but that's a real national party problem. The national party took this race for granted because of demographics and again, went to sleep at the wheel. Now, instead of spending small money up front, they are burning significant money at the end, to the detriment of real races that may need the help in the fall.
David Sirota addresses this very issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Again, I'm not rooting for Coakley to lose - but if her losing inadvertently creates the political dynamic that makes critical provisions like a public option a reality, then that's a huge silver lining to an otherwise bad situation.
But even outside of healthcare, a loss could be the key to a real change that has been needed for a while.. a real house cleaning at the national party level.
2008 was highlighted by candidates who ran because of their strong beliefs and convictions on issues. They ran in districts where, win or lose, they talked about things they believed in from a standpoint of raw conviction where like it or not, the audience "bought what they were selling". Coakley may win - again, I am not rooting for her to lose - but she has been terrible about connecting with audiences on a "this is what I really believe in". She lacks that conviction and spark. And for those who will flame me on this: yes, I've seen the rallies, heard the speeches.. and I'm sorry, even I'm not buying.
I've seen numerous diaries on this from both sides, so what I'm saying is not necessarily new. And I appreciate the ideas of a diarist who opposes the idea that this would make democrats more progressive:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
And I want to say: I also do not believe in any way this would make democrats more progressive. Not at all. I don't necessarily think this would make them crazily conservative either. What I do think is that this would give democrats a major chance to rethink the party leadership that has, time and time again, managed to completely misread the tea leaves, squander talent, support the establishment over the outsider, and not pay attention to the fact that their base skews younger.. and guess what, those kids who were born in 1990? Who's first experience with the presidency was Clinton? They vote in 2012. (yes, I figure 2 year olds were not aware of G HW Bush).
Does this make the party more progressive or less, does it cause debate or rancor? Probably about the same as say the switch of Specter or the a chance to grab seats.
Whether she wins or loses, what this should do is cause every single democrat to say: why was this ever this close? How did the national party fall so badly asleep at the wheel?
And provide a big wakeup call for the party to think seriously about how to win in the fall.
Even North Carolina gets beaten by a small college now and again. The trick is figuring out that you can't sleep on the "easy ones" or take anything for granted. And if you win in a close game, you still have to look back and say: we didn't work hard enough. This should have been easy and it wasn't. What did we do wrong?
The worst thing that can happen out of this race isn't Coakley losing. The worst thing that can happen is her winning big or small, and everyone giving the national party a pass for what could only be called in sports terms a "major choke job".