Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Because of my jobs, I've spent most of my adult life living in some pretty blue states -- California, Illinois and Massachusetts.  This has made the Official Blog Wife very happy; it's made me, on occasion, wistful to live in a place where political campaigns were a more contested affair.  During presidential campaigns, sometimes I would watch the news coverage of Ohio and think, "oh, to live in a battleground state, where a politician needs to sweat just a bit to get your vote." 

The special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is tomorrow, and polls have show a very tight race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown for the past week or so.  If Brown upsets Coakley, the Democrats would lose their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so the race has significant national implications.  According to the New York Times, it's suburbs like the one I live in that will prove to be the battleground areas in this campaign.  President Obama was in the state yesterday, and Republican heavyweights have been touring around as well. 

So, as it turns out, I've recenty gotten a taste of what this must be like -- and Ohio, you can keep your swing state status all to yourself.  I no longer want any part of it. 

For those readers who have never had the privilege of living in a battleground state, let me explain what the experience is like.  Every other television commercial is about the campaign.  Day after day, the race dominates the front page of the newspaper.  Your mailbox is stuffed with fliers for or against one of the candidates.  Your friends and neighbors talk about the campaign -- and who you support can affect your friendships.  You can't escape either the race. 

All of this would be tolerable if it were not for two things.  First, the phone calls.  Over this weekend, by my count, we have received ten phone calls asking us to vote for or against someone, and then a few phone calls on top of that polling us about our voting intentions (weirdest call, hands down, was a recorded message from Pat Boone.  The Official Blog Wife got that call, and the end of it had no idea who Boone wanted her to vote for).  Since these inquiries can't be put on the Do Not Call list, the phone will not stop ringing. 

Second, the candidates are God awful.  Seriously, they stink.  Just to review our choices:  Democrat Martha Coakley has a prosecutor's complex that would make Javert seeem like a bleeding-heart liberal.  She is a God-awful politician so out of touch with  reality that she accused Red Sox hero extraordinaire Curt Schilling of being a Yankee fan (Schilling's blog response is here).  Based on the ads I've seen, her campaign has also been, by far, the nastier of the two.

This leaves Republican Scott Brown, who based on his vacuous Boston Globe op-ed, is an empty shirt with no actual policy content whatsoever.  He was in favor of health care reform before he was against it.  He can't stand the run-up in government debt, and wants to cut taxes across the board to take care of the problem -- cause that makes perfect economic sense.   The one thing he is unequivocally for is waterboarding suspected terrorists

Seriously, these are my mainstream choices?  These people are the recipients of all the political firepower both parties can muster?  I'm inundated with 24/7 political blather so I can choose between Nurse Ratched and Bob Roberts?  And I'm a professor of political science -- if I'm fed up with the state of this campaign, just imagine how other Massachusetts voters feel. 

Let me assure the rest of the country -- whoever wins tomorrow night, it's not going to be about sending a message to anyone.  The only message that I can detect is, "will every professional politico please get the hell out of this state." 

Ohio, you can keep your swinger status -- I want no part of it anymore. 

EXPLORE:POLITICS
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BLUE13326

3:25 PM ET

January 18, 2010

Get serious--when was the

Get serious--when was the last time you voted for a Republican? I'd guess it's been a decade or so? Maybe W.'s 1st term (and thanks for that, by the way...)

 

STATSGURU

3:50 PM ET

January 18, 2010

Election

Dan,

You missed your opportunity to run and win an election. :-)

I'm enjoying the whole thing, but then again, I don't have very high expectations for politicians anymore. Mostly, I'm wondering if Scott Brown is elected, will Barbara Walters try to sleep with him?

 

INSIDERORION

9:12 PM ET

January 23, 2010

Senate Election

Nerdy poli sci profs with econ backgrounds don't win Senate seats...

 

CAROL

4:44 PM ET

January 18, 2010

election in Massachusetts

I find Professor Drezner's critique of the Massachusetts Senate candidates trite and superficial. He dismisses Martha Coakley's significant achievements as attorney general - she brought in more than $1 billion dollars from Massachusetts residents in her suits against Wall Street securitizers, subprime mortgage lenders and brokers and contractors who overcharged us on the Big Dig - with a facile backhand about Curt Shilling. Maybe the ivy tower poli sci professor should get out more. This election is about a woman with a stellar track record of getting things done for the people of Massachusetts. It is not about a Republican candidate who fails to offer any meaningful solutions. It is also not about a professor who sits on the sidelines and snipes.

 

BRETT

1:52 AM ET

January 19, 2010

This election is about a

This election is about a woman with a stellar track record of getting things done for the people of Massachusetts.

She has also run an incompetent campaign, and let us not forget the meat of what Dan Drezner said - her prosecutor complex. Remember her pointless, no doubt politically motivated vendetta against the poor victim in the Amirault fiasco?

 

FREETRADER

1:56 PM ET

January 19, 2010

Brown for Senator!

Brown should win, for the simple reason he is not Martha Coakley. That the Democrats of Massachusetts would pick Coakley as their candidate speaks volumes about how out of touch they are.

 

GRANT

2:07 PM ET

January 19, 2010

I would suggest that you

I would suggest that you review the sentence "she brought in more than $1 billion dollars". The job of a prosecutor isn't to get the state money. If they manage it then that is fortunate, but a prosecutor's job is to prosecute the guilty, not look for opportunities to get money.

 

LORD

10:26 PM ET

January 18, 2010

The two party system is overrated

The most reasoned races are primary races because they remove the platform issues from discussion allowing debate to focus on more important issues. It i is a surprise the Republican candidate would not feel freed from party constraints in such a dominate Democratic area, but then the Republicans aren't what they once were and the party is still trying to purge independent thought,

 

J

2:02 AM ET

January 19, 2010

I agree the op-ed was a

I agree the op-ed was a little weak, but you have a couple of equally weak points here:

1. Brown does not appear to oppose health care reform, at least based on your links. Opposing the health care bill congress is currently trying to pass is not the same as opposing health care reform.

2. Whatever your reservations about it, you cannot seriously be implying that favoring the waterboarding of terrorists, a policy with significant (probably majority) public support, falls outside the "mainstream".

I can believe things have been tense at work. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, we all know where most professors do, and I'm sure your colleagues are horrified at the very idea a Republican might win the Kennedy seat.

"with a facile backhand about Curt Shilling"

Well, that and an article about Coakley's history of working to keep people in prison that she could not plausibly believe to be guilty. That sort of thing used to bother the left.

 

ZATHRAS

3:32 AM ET

January 19, 2010

An LCD Candidate

Realistically, a Republican can only win statewide in Massachusetts during a period of discontent with Democrats, the kind that can keep Democratic voters home while enthused Republican voters go to the polls.

Since what enthuses many of the most dedicated Republican voters is disdain for Democrats, a candidate like Scott Brown has a chance. Only a candidate like Scott Brown has a chance, because a figure with a record in public life or a history of dissent from the GOP's positions of the moment would turn off much of the party's base.

In Presidential races, the lowest common denominator for Republican voters is twofold: appealing to them requires that a Republican candidate appear as a strong leader who will stand up to liberals and the media. The bar for the first condition is set pretty low in national races -- George W. Bush cleared it with room to spare -- and in races for legislative seats the condition barely registers. The second condition is what is left. Any candidate who opposition, and ideally contempt, for liberals, Democrats and the media is loudly and frequently expressed will appeal strongly enough to the most reliable GOP voters to be sure of their support in any contested race. From what I understand, Scott Brown fills this bill admirably.

 

TERRY OTT

5:10 AM ET

January 19, 2010

You are just NOW discovering ....

.... that we are often (usually, almost always, always --- choose your word) given lousy choices to vote for when push comes to shove? I invariably pick someone in a primary that seems to be a breath of fresh air, but have no enthusiasm for ANYONE in a general election by the time it comes around.

I have a Senator (Feingold) I respect, mostly for his being forthright and speaking his mind, but beyond that .... well, nada, and he is never really seriously challenged.

In my opinion the 2-party system has now officially left a LOT of us feeling high and dry. If Common Cause or some populist 3rd party running on "principled, pragmatic government" (how quaint) would come up with a slate, I'd feel a whole lot better.

 

FREETRADER

1:59 PM ET

January 19, 2010

It's called Democracy...

What a pathetic article. So, Drezner doesn't like the agitation and noise associated with a close political campaign? It's called Democracy, Daniel. I think most people in this country are in favor of it, actually.

Drezner is annoyed at having two lousy candidates for Senator. He would prefer to go back to a state where there would be only one lousy candidate. Well, why not take that thought to its logical conclusion -- you won't be annoyed by sub-par candidates in, say, North Korea.

 

GRANT

2:05 PM ET

January 19, 2010

The point is that this is

The point is that this is vital to national politics. The one who wins will, in a very real sense, determine national legislation and the political balance of power. Therefore, much like a presidential race, the only thing that matters is victory. The candidates and interested groups will spend as much as they can, use every strategy they know of, and spin as much as they can because the winner is worth everything and the loser is worth nothing. Obviously this is nothing new, but when the stakes are this high you see it elevated even higher.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More