david
| Thu, Oct 4, 2012
12:18 PM EST
It’s a 1-minute radio ad … and I have to say that I kind of wish it were in Warren’s voice rather than an announcer’s. But I’m sure there are reasons for these things that are beyond my ken. Anyway, here it is.
Some of the text is pretty darn close to what I suggested might be effective. 
Return to the Home Page
Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.
RSS - Front Page
RSS - Latest Posts
RSS - Latest Comments
ADVERTISE ON THE BLUE MASS GROUP NETWORK | WORDPRESS HOSTING & WEB DESIGN BY PONTICLARO
Discuss
16 Comments . Leave a comment below.It’s a good spot, especially for those who don’t think about government and politics daily. But, there are two things I don’t like…
1. Scalia was tied to two “lady” issues — choice and equal pay. They’re important issues, and men should care about them too. Still, it would be nice if Warren used something from Scalia which wasn’t a “lady” issue — anything else. Make it a bit broader.
2. It’s true, the senate matters in confirmation of SCOTUS, but it seemed a bit of a stretch. Not wrong, not implausible, but ultimately I don’t think that a Dem POTUS will appoint a justice who isn’t pro-choice, and I don’t think a GOP POTUS will appoint a justice who isn’t pro-life. In that sense, for that issue, I really don’t see how a Dem or GOP senator from MA will result in anything but a faster or more drawn out confirmation process. It’s POTUS who will determine if the court will tilt, not SOTUS.
I think the point of the ad is not so much what type of SC nominee Brown would support, but more of “he’s not really a moderate” without having to say “moderate”.
Not many will delve into what an individual Senator’s role is confirming judges. I think it’s fine.
Putting aside the filibuster for just a second, there is a subcontext of Senate control. A GOP majority could decline to confirm a Democratic appointee. Anyway, according the national media this morning, assuming we’ll have a Democratic President is premature (for the record, I still don’t expect Romney to win).
The ad is very close to David’s suggested language. They may have used the narrator to create the impression it’s a concerned female citizen – the target – rather than Warren personally expressing her partisan view. I think most voters see through these things but every little bit helps. I’m sure they considered it carefully.
Kennedy. Bork.
Yes, one senator can stop a supreme court nomination.
They could have added one other issue and it would have been much better. Lots of things to choose from.
On #2, I’m not. The Supreme Court nominations is one of the most important things the Senate does, and I think people get that. It’s a good way to hit on the message that the party Scott Brown would put in charge of the Senate would be even more harmful than Scott’s votes.
I hear what Stormv is saying, but the Scalia remark is fodder for all kinds of ads. A Citizens United-Disclose Act ad would be a perfect example, but cramming it into a women’s issues ad is a waste of time. Even at a minute, don’t bombard people with lots of stuff.
Which is why maybe going with Citizens United instead of Roe-v-Wade would have been preferable to me.
Roe v. Wade has more more power. Citizens United, though a huge deal in reality, is not on most people’s radars. Going that direction also invites a review of who’s donating to the Democrats (though Warren doesn’t get as much Wall St., etc., money) and the demonization of unions through false equivalencies.
Frankly, 97% of Americans’ eyes glaze over when the subject of campaign finance comes up, and I’d venture to say virtually 100% of undecided voters. The Roe line seems much stronger to me. There just aren’t that many SCOTUS-related issues that are of interest to non-political junkies, but Roe is assuredly top on the list of those that are.
You’re right, David, that most voters care little about campaign finance as an issue. HOWEVER, it is possible (even in a radio ad) to make the Citizen’s United issue important to undecided voters. I’d envision a radio ad with Warren herself saying something like:
[For the record, I'm well aware that this text is hardly original. It mirrors David's original suggestion and copies word-for-word from Warren's recent DNC convention speech.]
There’s no reason why Elizabeth can’t do another radio ad just like that, or on some other Scalia-related topic. Frankly, I think it’s worth some investment to try to make this issue have legs. It’s an even bigger gaffe (or should we say revelation?) than his kings-and-queens comment.
I don’t disagree with your assessment on SCOTUS-related issues of interest. Are there (any) others with that magnitude of interest related to Scalia?
Without numbers to base an assessment, it seems to me that:
* Obama has a huge lead in female voters over Romney
* EWarren *probably* does (haven’t seen it, but would be shocked if otherwise)
* the POTUS election will drive turnout
* male undecided voters don’t think of abortion as a big issue for them
Again, these are all assertions without numbers, so feel free to produce numbers which undercut this conjecture. I’m essentially just wondering if there is some other issue which will bring in more on-the-fence or prospective Obama-Brown voters…
According to the latest WBUR poll, Obama has 65% of the female vote behind him, compared to just 51% for Warren. By WBUR’s estimate, 52% of the electorate is female, so the 8% of women who are undecided represent 4% of the vote. If Warren can capture all of those undecided women (and keep the folks she already has) she gets to 51% of the total vote.
By that math, I think ads focusing on ‘lady’ issues (a characterization that is a off putting by the way) is exactly the way to go. I don’t have the numbers to back this up, but my understanding about Massachusetts politics is that the candidate women living between 128 and 495 support, is the candidate that wins.
17% of women 18-49, and 20% of women 50+, have yet to decide if they view Brown favorably. Virtually all men have made their decision on that. This is where the Scalia stuff can be of help.
Weirdly, it sounded better there.
I also caught the latest Scott Brown radio ad, in which he tries to suggest the Boston Globe said Elizabeth Warren hurt the abstesos workers. AKA grossly lying. /facepalm
n/t
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 10:03 AM