By now, you’ve probably seen the negative ads launched by Scott Brown and his supporters. Instead of discussing issues like health care and jobs, they decided the best way to stop me is to tear me down. But the old way of doing things won’t work anymore. Their attack ads are wrong, and go too far.
The above words could easily have been spoken by Elizabeth Warren in response to Scott Brown’s latest ad, a classic negative attack ad about Warren’s heritage featuring a series of months-old distorted video images. In fact, however, those words were spoken by Brown himself (with different names, obviously), in his famously successful response to an attack ad that Martha Coakley launched at him when the race looked to be slipping away from her in 2010.
Brown was right back in 2010: Coakley’s ad was a failure, and all it did was signal that she was losing. And I think that exactly the same dynamic is at work here. Brown is panicking in light of four polls (despite the weird outlier from the Herald) showing Warren with a clear lead, in light of his widely-panned performance in the first debate, and perhaps also in light of Boston Mayor Tom Menino’s unabashedly enthusiastic endorsement of Warren, which must have come as a bitter disappointment to Brown. (Interestingly, Menino was very critical of the focus on Warren’s heritage back in May. One wonders whether Brown was holding off re-upping the heritage attacks in hopes that Menino would at least stay on the sidelines in this race, but now that he’s made clear that he’s all-in for Warren, Brown is like, screw it, what have I got to lose.)
Hence, Brown apparently has decided that it’s worth sacrificing his nice-guy image in a desperate effort to bring up Warren’s negatives. But what that does is generate national stories with titles like “Scott Brown: No more Mr. Nice Guy” and observations like “polls showing the liberal consumer advocate inching ahead of the Republican incumbent,” that the new, negative, issue-free strategy “would pose considerable risk for Brown, who has built his candidacy around a conciliatory, good-guy persona and regularly posts favorability ratings above 50 percent,” and that “the ad bears some risk because Brown has built his popularity as a politician who is above destructive politics.”
That is not how a campaign behaves when it thinks it’s winning.
UPDATE: Team Warren hits back. Money quote, at the end: “I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. Scott Brown can continue attacking my family, but I’m going to keep fighting for yours.”
It’s what you do when you’re falling behind and you can’t run on details of your actual record. “I’m so bipartisan-y” is not a campaign strategy. “I can work with both sides of the aisle and here’s proof of what I accomplished” would be a campaign strategy, but unfortunately for Scott Brown, his major achievement in that regard appears to be saving the financial industry billions.
but this (and his debate performance) is wholesale throwing it out, even though I think his campaign is too dumb to realize it.
If he wanted to be the nice-guy, he should have done it, but then he should have gone out on TV and acted pleasant and Senatorial, and he should have kept up with his bipartisany nice-guy ads from the summer, which were actually pretty effective.
In the end, he still may not have won, but he would have had a better shot at it than going into a new phase of his campaign called “flailing.”
Or maybe he really thinks Massachusetts voters are so dumb as to believe someone can be at the same time the nicest, most bipartisany guy in Washington… and be a real creep and an asshat to his opponent at the same time. If so, he insults the intelligence of the citizens of the Commonwealth at his risk, and I doubt he’ll be rewarded for it at the ballot box.
Another theme not difficult to pick up from Brown’s fundraising appeals and statements is a sense of him being so completely pure of heart and focused on being the people’s Senator that only someone extreme or machine would attack him. His thin skin envelopes a high self-regard.
Given that, his natural disposition in a debate — with an opponent, someone actually trying to unseat wonderful, innocent him — must be some kind of difficult to manage rage. I suspect that such emotions are getting the better of the GOP Senate campaign.
There is no evidence that Brown is panicking. I listened to the UMass Lowell professor and I think his Brown +5% makes more sense (if ask party affliation first and they idenitfy “D”, voting for Warren goes up. they ask it last) than the other four (and they all are close or within the margin of error).
I don’t think his debate performance was “widely panned.” It was more like an assortment of slight wins, slight lose, and draws in the (unbiased) media.
The Menino endorsement would only matter if it went for Brown. Maybe instead of winning Boston 75:25, Warren will win it 76:24. (and by the way, the mayor of Lowell is a city councilor who is chosen to be mayor by the council. It’s barely above ceremonial).
Brown’s polling does show a gender gap that needs addressing and this is one way to do it. So this is smart, not dumb. I don’t think it detracts from his persona at all.
😉
I was wondering if he was referring to the original post, or to his own work! Thanks for clearing that up…
this post presents a lot of opinions as facts.
Better?
I’d agree that there’s a fair bit of speculation involved. David’s thesis seems plausible to me, but I don’t think anyone, David included, thinks this post represents certain truth.
And yes, it’s difficult to quantify “widely panned” in such a way as to make it objective.
you are wrong about that. Menino sat out Cellucci/Harshbarger, and look what happened.
And as for the polls, well, neither you nor I is a pro at that. But Suffolk has an awfully impressive track record over the last two cycles, so between that and the fact that Suffolk agrees with three other polls that were taken during the same time frame, I’m pretty happy discounting the Herald/UMass-Lowell effort.
and I spent considerable time with Harshbarger in 1982.
The guy’s has a very unpleasant personality. He’s not far off his weird Fox25 persona (probably no one here watches that), but now imagine not goofing around on-air, but instead angry. You can see why he didn’t get elected, and it wasn’t Menino.
I’m an expert and everything I say about that person is right, and you are wrong. And blue. Or something.
NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA.
Up close and personal. Same car.
And that’s not just me. I think Luther (his real name) Harshabrger’s personality shortcomings are well documented.
I cannot believe the grade school mindset on this blog.
to identify personality “shortcomings.”
…
A “slanted” post from an editor of an unabashedly DEMOCRATIC blog? Good. David is doing what at least some of us expect him to do.
The reliance of the Brown campaign on lies (as in its attacks regarding Ms. Warren’s role in the Traveler’s case) and silly, baseless and demeaning personal insults (such as the “heritage” non-issue) betrays its fundamental weakness. If Scott Brown was secure and confident in his role of Senator, his campaign would be emphasizing that role.
Scott Brown is running the greasy, redolent, and juvenile campaign of a frightened and cowardly bully terrified of the reality of a re-election campaign focused on his performance in the office he seeks to retain.
Brown must not think very highly of people…
at least determined by all the generalizations about people and groups of people as well as all the name calling that goes on.
I’m trying to set a record here.
I think some negative votes here are a bit unfair, but your tone is a more than a little cranky too. So it’s hard for me to read you and say, “Hooray! An alternative point of view!”
I’m trying but you’re not making it particularly easy for me.
And yes, some of the responses you’re getting are verge on childish.
God of Blue Pencils, have mercy on my typos.
… all of that.
not particularly accurate by most measures.
Many regular posters hereon BMG did not “pan” Brown.
“Widely” means most or at least many. That adjective was not accurate.
I know you in particular like your facts twisted so I’m not surprised.
I also like how you revert to calling Brown names. What are you, in third grade? While I’m not a Warren fan I don’t think I’ve ever trashed her personally like most of the people here do about Brown.
Further confirms why there is no middle in America. Way too much bad behavior among liberals. I really thought things would be more civil.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of your candidate, who by your own definition is, apparently, in third grade. 🙁
And I genuinely think it’s sad. This new heritage ad is an embarrassment to Team Brown. The Weld/Kerry Senate race was hard fought, but I don’t think either side resorted to garbage like what the Brown campaign just released. This race could have, and should have, been as good as that one. Thanks for nothing, Scotto.
I do think the overwhelming assessment of the punditocracy was that Brown was weirdly aggressive and did not come off particularly well during the debate. So I stand by that adjective as “accurate.” I mean, do you really think he should have *opened* with Cherokeegate?
He’s a two year incumbent Republican elected in a special election in the bluest state in the country. I expect him to try to win. No one on this board would ever give him credit for “fighting the good fight” or “losing with grace.”
“Weirdly aggressive?” By your standards? You already start out hating him.
The only relevant piece that I searched that had both weird and aggressive in the content scored the debate a draw.
http://www.wbur.org/2012/09/21/brown-warren-debate-domke
So you can continue to lead the “I’m never wrong team” here which is a widely prevalent character trait on BMG.
Weirdly aggressive by the standards of a guy, regardless of how I might feel about him, who’s attempting to coast to the finish line on likeability and aw-shucks charm.
with the “character” question. Brown started out with his boy scout routine about how a senator must be honest, brave, clean and reverent…blah,blah – who can argue? Then he charged into the smear.
I characterized his campaign as “greasy, redolent, and juvenile”. I characterized the candidate that they seem to be promoting as a “frightened and cowardly bully”. Neither is “calling Brown names”. Mr. Brown chose his campaign staff and says he approves the various ads — not me.
When this guy acts like he does, am I supposed to ignore it?
You’re not Merrimack at all.
Look at ‘im! I mean, c’mon, look at him. Nah.
this blog gets weirder and weirder
He tried to orchestrate a delaying tactic in Senate floor voting that would prevented his traveling back to Massachusetts for the debate. That, that right there, is evidence Brown is panicking.
that’s your source? Really a non-partisan opinion.
First time in awhile that I find myself in agreement with merrimackguy.
Reid seems to the guy who says stuff like this in this campaign.
So, sorry you missed it.
Brown told the Boston Globe at 2 in the afternoon he might skip the debate to stay in DC for a meaningless (continuing resolution easily made it through on a procedural vote, 76-22.) vote.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/20/senate-vote-schedule-threatens-scuttle-senator-scott-brown-participation-debate/XMaYKPT1sTy1NPC7G7OUWK/story.html
WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown raised the possibility he might miss tonight’s lead-off debate with Elizabeth Warren because of the Senate voting schedule, before Democratic leaders challenged that assertion and Brown himself headed to the airport for a flight back to Boston.
besides the Herald, I read the Globe, Eagle Trib, Lowell Sun, NYT, WSJ, HuffPo, Google News, and a bunch of other stuff.
I guess you’re forcing me to take a shot at Methuen again. Nice to see your ex-Mayor (and probably personal hero) gets taken out by a women from Newburyport. Word is around here (and I know a lot of people in that district) that the “No More Pols from Methuen” sign was lit. Also nice to see the most liberal candidate (Coco) lost as well.
It still goes back to Reid as the source. At 2 PM it appears that Brown thought there still might be a vote. It’s only Reid’s word (as reported here) that say Brown knew already.
Proof of panic: None.
.
about Democratic angst. It good to see many of you are getting over it. As Yogi Berra noted “It’s not over until it is over.” Time to roll up sleeves and help in any way you can to get people to pull the lever, fill in the circle, or drop a ballot in the mail for EW. Her accomplishments obviously outshine Mr. Republican and everyone should know about it.
He’s got his good guy image, but Brown’s campaign thinks he has to increase Warren’s negatives. I think a lot of us feel him treading that line and react every time we think he’s losing his balance (even if he isn’t).
The silly ad where Brown complained about Warren’s going negative seemed silly in isolation, but I think it was an intentional pre-emption of the remarks that would ensue when he went negative, which, of course he planned to do and he did shortly afterwards. Research shows that many people don’t keep track of such things as who has gone negative or went negative first; they just hear about candidates going negative. By accusing Warren first, his ad activates the inevitable negativity meme, creates the effect of both of them doing it (even though only he has been seriously negative), and providing some defense that he’s been much more negative than she has.
I wasn’t pleased with Warren’s debate performance, but I think that was because I wanted to see her clash more. She showed herself as pretty unflappable and not strident. The more people see her, the more they like her or at worst, the more they don’t mind her.
Brown has exposed his nice guy flank. The question is whether we’ll be able to take advantage of it.
http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2007/03/02/massachusetts_state_senator_scott_brown?blog=119
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/brown-won-t-apologize-to-students/article_9bbc45bc-dc2e-5b0b-93f8-9260baf2f6ea.html
Some ‘nice guy’.
Elizabeth Warren came out with an ad that hit Brown on his actual votes in the Senate, then Scott Brown wrote an ad decrying the ‘negative’ and ‘false’ ads (where were less negative than they were honest and didn’t have any part of ‘false’).
Now, Scott Brown’s coming out with a truly negative ad, on a months-old issue (that he essentially made up — insofar as he’s claiming/lying that it helped get her the job). His truly negative ad isn’t based on the actual issues of the campaign or anything she’s done in her vast record.
What a hypocrite.
He’s Scott Brown “but he supports this message.” It’s almost like he’s trying to say “I’m a nice guy, but I’m going to put out something vicious and false/misleading.” Scott… you can’t have it both ways.
The crazy thing is if Scott Brown really were a nice guy — and it weren’t all just a PR campaign — maybe he really would be in a better position to win. This kind of crap — and the kind of crap that he pulled at the debate — isn’t very Senatorial…. and the people of this Commonwealth thankfully aren’t stupid.
We’re on to you Scott. Your days in the US Senate are numbered.
That helps a lot. Now she needs to do one about the Travelers insurance thing. That would be great.
podcast
I thought she came across not wanting to answer questions. Especially her ROmney-like I’m not hiding anything in my Harvard records but I won’t release them to the public non-answer. Jim kept coming back at her to release them and she just redirected and said it wasn’t an issue. Maybe you’ll think she did well but I think she did poorly overall (with a few good moments).
The only ones asking to see records are the opposition who want to divert attention from their own real failings. EW was in her 40s and already an accomplished academic, author, and researcher. She had even delayed her tenure at Harvard and her heritage was not an issue in their wanting her on their faculty. She was well known in her field of expertise and had earned her accolades through hard work. She is new to the political scene and she had made the choice to present her background and what she supports and how she would legislate differently than Scott Brown. The present junior Senator has decided on the low road. He does not seem to have the same pride in professional milestones. But don’t worry since I think if Sen Brown brings this up again in the next debates he will start eating his words.
opposition who want to divert attention from their own real failings.
You said it perfectly. Did you listen to the interview, just curious?
One of the things we agreed to before I believe was not giving bad marks (-) for opinions you disagreed with but concentrating more on the style and content. Are we doing that again or have we returned to giving a negative score if a BMG says something you don’t like. I was annoyed by the -2 score I had until I saw who gave them… no surprise.
?
He wrote the very post I was sitting down to write. Well done, old chap.
It may well be that a key turning point in this campaign was Brown’s decision to open with a race-based attack on Warren in the first debate. The ads are just doubling down on a nasty, personal attack campaign stressing an issue most MA voters have demonstrated they don’t care about.
Brown’s greatest #1 top asset was his likability and his difference from crazed vicious national Tea Party Republicans. Now, in his moment of crisis, he is looking just like them. That will polarize independents against him. If people in MA wanted to vote for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Karl Rove, they would say so to the pollsters.
We’re only dealing with the low information voters now and Warren doesn’t know how to relate to them. They don’t understand anything about her except that she looks like their grandmother, doesn’t have a Massachusetts accent and talks like a professor. I bet they don’t even think that Native Americans are a race.
… saying earlier about thinking highly of people?
I didn’t coin the term, it originated here and I am not making any comments about them as people. They could be professionals with advanced degrees.
They are walking into the voting booth with no knowledge of the issues, voting records, bios etc. Even party affiliation.
You can be all noble about it, but that’s a fact. And it’s not my idea. It originated here on this blog (as far as I know, I haven’t seen it elsewhere).
“Low information voter” has its own wikipedia page.
and surf the web. Thank you for the reference. In my defense (but more to figure out if I had really missed it somehow) I searched Google News and got only 10 hits, so journalists aren’t using it. It looks like the Wikipedia page had some recent (2012) research after the term being coined in the nineties without many mentions after that. I am happy to stop sourcing BMG as its origin.
Based on the Wikipedia it looks like this might have limited its use
that’s clearly the interpretation of Mr. Lynne above.
I like this instead
… this: “I bet they don’t even think that Native Americans are a race.” Which seems more derogatory than informative.