It’s remarkable, really. A little less than three years ago, Scott Brown managed to win an election he was supposed to lose. He did it by running a savvy, positive, upbeat, energetic campaign, and by taking advantage of the sloth and the panicky mistakes of his opponent.
And now, we’re watching with amazement as Brown runs the movie in reverse. He was OK back when he was ahead in the polls, and not so bad even when it was getting close. But once the polling starting shifting Warren’s way in earnest, he freaked. He threw over his “Mr. Likable” image, and instead started running grainy, dishonest attack ads – just like Coakley did. It didn’t work for her. And he let his anxiety about losing goad him into saying stupid things late in the game – just like Coakley did. That didn’t help either.
Even more startling was the news that Brown has bailed out of the final debate because … well, because he felt like it, as there is no good reason why the candidates couldn’t debate tomorrow evening. Coakley never did anything quite like that – but she was loudly, and accurately, accused of not working hard enough to close the deal once it became apparent that she was in a really tough race. Remember the infamous “standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” quote, which showed up in a Globe story only six days before election day? That was widely seen as an indication that Coakley was “not sweating it,” that she was “complacent,” even that she was “trying to lose.”
It’s difficult not to see Brown’s last-second refusal to debate (even as he had assured everyone that he would do so despite the storm, as Glen Johnson documents in detail) in the same light. In the few hours before Brown announced that he wasn’t interested in debating any more, the Globe published a poll showing that he was up 2 points. We don’t know what Brown’s internal polling says, but one has to imagine that it shows him at least tied. And so, Brown seems to have concluded that the best strategy is to stay below radar; to do a couple of events (he has only one listed today on his public schedule); and to let his new TV ad do most of the work while he tries to run out the clock. It would seem that he didn’t anticipate that a Suffolk poll showing Warren up 7 would emerge the same day, but them’s the breaks.
Meanwhile, the Warren campaign has set about winning this election the old-fashioned way: they are earning it. Here’s a key quote from that article, which focuses on Warren’s statewide GOTV plan:
Brown’s campaign has its own get-out-the-vote effort, coordinated through the state Republican Party. But by all appearances, it does not have the sophistication or the manpower that the Democrats have amassed, despite the millions that Brown has raised.
Who wants this thing more? And who’s willing to work for it? The answer is clearly Elizabeth Warren. What a difference a couple of years make.
oceandreams says
That perfectly sums up Scott Brown’s decision on the debate. Who cares that voters might want one more head-to-head between the candidates in this important race? So what that he already agreed to do four debates? What do we think is more important to Scott Brown: His word? What his constituents want? Or what’s best for Scott Brown’s career as a Republican politician on the rise?
demeter11 says
I have always held Coakley’s campaign team responsible for not getting her out where she should have been, not prepping her well for debates and not creating a “brand” people could hang their hats on. He slogan was “A Different Kind of Leader,” whatever that meant.
This time around I think Brown’s campaign team should give him a refund. This was his race to walk away this by continuing his Mr. nice guy — Mr. bipartisanship farce. The press loved him and so did enough voters. But no. His team cooked up the all-attack all-the-time strategy, even though it doesn’t work well in Massachusetts. As late as yesterday Brown is going on about having done two debates that Warren didn’t bother to show up at.
I only hope he’s blown his image enough that he can’t be elected anything anymore and can go down to Delaware and get the pentagon job that I think was his fall back all along.
cos says
Brown was always at a disadvantage. He was always, IMO, likely to lose this year. He was also at a disadvantage in 2009/2010, but his campaign did an excellent job of preparing for the chance of a lousy opponent, and he did indeed get a lousy opponent, so he capitalized well on it. This time I think they also laid pretty good groundwork for beating a weak opponent, but they instead had to face a good strong candidate. They really had nothing that could have beat her except very very good luck. When they didn’t get such very good luck, and could see the race leaning her way as it was always likely to, they had no high-probability way to change that, so they went with long shots. It’s not a big shock that their long shots are failing, but they were in a nearly-impossible situation. Warren was reasonably likely to beat Brown from the start; Brown still needs a big stroke of luck for that to not happen. It’s still possible, just not super-likely.
oceandreams says
he has damaged what was most valuable about his brand. He could have run a Lincoln Chafee type campaign and yes, risk losing despite very high favorability ratings because of the Republican affiliation problem. But, like Chafee, he could have been well positioned to run for something else down the road. Brown used to be very well liked in this state. Now, his favorability ratings have dropped substantially.
johnk says
that about sums it up for Brown. He moves have been questionable and dodging the debate is just another blunder.
bob-gardner says
one from the state democratics pro warren
two from the state republicans pro brown
three from the state republicans attacking warren (all accusing her of the $716 “cut” to medicare)
three from unindicted money launderer Grover Norquist’s ATR attacking Warren
Lot’s of last minute mail–did anyone see Frontline last night?
Ryan says
if it was Elizabeth Warren who chickened out of the debate like Scott did? We’d get an entire column about how it wasn’t even a real storm, how she was a Harvard elitist who was afraid of standing up to the guy with the truck, and that she pulled a Martha Coakley by dissing the voters.
I could practically write the column myself, it’s so predictable.
I really can’t stand guys like Howie Carr. They are the total definition of a tool.
fenway49 says
in yesterday’s mail. One from our GOP candidate for State Rep., a lady from the Newton aldermen, who smartly says “VOTE THE PERSON” and avoids all issues in favor of things like “lending an engineer’s perspective to our government’s problems.” The word “Republican” does not appear.
Three from the Mass. GOP attacking Warren. First two repeat the $716 billion Medicare lie. It says she wants to cut Medicare but raise Medicare taxes.
Eek! Particularly egregious is the line “Medicare is a promise…one Elizabeth Warren wants to break.” Seriously? The GOP has been dreaming of abolishing Medicare since 1965 and now they have the Ryan budget, already passed in the House.
Third: “We deserve to know the truth. Elizabeth Warren pioneered legal strategies to help big corporations break their promises to working people.” (Travelers and LTV Steel cases).
The Mass. GOP wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the ass (which I hope it does). When I think of protecting “working people” against “big corporations,” I always think of the Mass. GOP first.