latte drinking cont’d


Actually this isn’t anything like how it happened. Kind of odd picture given that!

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


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



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


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


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


2 thoughts on “latte drinking cont’d”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s