Following this post I had this IM discussion which I’m copying here because I think it provides some additional clarity and context. They asked to be anonymous.
Them: disagree
not with the general idea, but i think it misses a really big point
…for now i’ll say this: the argument about respecting the will of the massachusetts voters is a MASSIVE red herring
because their will is respected
scott brown will be a senator
but the link from that to any political action is about like the underpants gnome from south park
1. scott brown is elected
2. ???????
3. legislation can’t be passed
me: yeah, I agree
I suppose when I say ‘respect the voters’ what I really mean to point out
is how little I think Coakley respected the voters
Not
that ‘respecting the voters’ somehow means that what happened in MA should prevent healthcare from passing
Them: ok but respecting the voters in that way is not a good end goal either
it’s not an absolute good
me: well, it’s kind of like the free speech argument isn’t it?
I mean, I may disagree vehmently with the will of the voters, but I have absolute faith that the best way to govern is democratically via the will of the people
/voters
no?
Them: OK…except i’m not sure what the point you’re making then is
what if martha coakley had been contemptuous of the voters and own
*won
you’re arguing something different than what people mean when they say we should respect the MA voters
me: I think you’re right to alert me to that
The talk of respecting the voters is all bound up with healthcare
Them: right
it’s not actually that anyone is saying that scott brown won’t be seated
they’re trying to argue that this was a national referendum election
me: What I’m really trying to say is that Coakley lost because she fundamentaly failed to understand the chnaged dynamic if this century
*changed*of
and that changed dynamic is actually quite exciting
and in keeping with Obama’s philosophy I think
he just needs to start extending it to its logical conclusion
(which I should write in a next blog post)
which is almost a permanent campaign
Them: maybe…
me: *the need for a permanent campaign
Them: but i think she lost because of (a) a terrible economy (b) voters impatience and general incoherence (c) the special circumstances of a special election that leads to lower turnout, particularly among core D voters
me: yes, BUT
I believe she could have won
ok, maybe not her
but Democratic ideas
which is really what we were upset about losing
not her as a senator
So, how should she have approached the campaign in order to win it?
She should have started as if every voter was out there waiting to be convinced
Them: at a micro scale yes
fair enough
me: Hey, can I anonymize this discussion and put it on my blog?
Them: sure, as long as it stay anonymized
Jacob Kestner's blog. 
Who is it? Hillary?
Ha ha, I wish!