I was one of the first to congratulate Scott Brown and his supporters for their victory yesterday, and I still do today. It was a very impressive showing, and they should be proud of the victory.
But it was not an upbeat campaign. True, Brown himself did not run negative ads like the “you will be raped in a parking lot if you vote for Deval” piece that backfired so badly on previous Republican candidate Kerry Healey, although he did go mildly negative.
He just got smart and realized that he didn’t have to descend to that level himself. Talk radio, the Fox Republican Channel, and the teabagger army that descended on this state from New Hampshire, Virginia, and elsewhere did it for him. From death threats and horrific statements on Facebook to 24/7 radio vitriol, there was an ugly side to the Brown campaign. To his credit, Brown initially spoke out against some of this, but toward the end, he accepted the ugliness. This video is an example. Not especially important in itself, but an important indicator. In any event, only 97,000 people saw this on YouTube: a tiny fraction of the over two million people who voted, even if all the viewers were from Massachusetts and voted, which certainly is not the case.
Now, the Coakley campaign ran a lot of negative ads produced, according to AmericaBlog, by the firm GMMB headed by Jim Margolis, and some of her supporters did even worse. They appear to have hurt her, because her poll ratings sank like a stone in the last few weeks of the campaign. I think it is fair to say that she arguably ran an even more negative campaign than Brown, when she ran a campaign at all. The key point, however, is that she had to do it herself.
This dynamic may change in the future, for better or for worse, as a result of the rise of the Internet — if 1,000,000 people had watched that YouTube clip, far fewer might accept the idea that Brown ran an “upbeat campaign” — but it hasn’t happened yet. The power of the intensely partisan traditional media system the Republicans have built to do electoral dirty work while offering plausible deniability to candidates is impressive.
Whether Scott Brown ran a clean and upbeat campaign or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not the wide swaths of casual voters and self-described “independent” voters perceive that he is running a clean and upbeat campaign or not.
<
p>From a casual stand-point, his personal campaign was clean and classy, despite the tea-bagging, talk radio periphery.
Here is an email that I sent out this morning.
<
p>On Tuesday, when the forces of darkness prevailed, and Massachusetts elected a malevolent incompetent (as a classmate described the Bush administration) as Senator, it might be helpful to recall the quote that I included on my greeting card this past season:
<
p>”In the midst of death, life persists; in the midst of untruth, truth persists; in the midst of darkness, light persists. Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light.”
<
p>- Mahatma Gandhi
<
p>I included that quote not because I believe in God, but because of the distress all of us feel at the tea baggers and their ilk, who have utter contempt for our democratic values and are driven in no small degree by raw hatred. They invaded (their word) MA in large numbers to elect Brown. Many of them harassed and intimidated Coakley supporters, and deserve to be called “Brown Shirts.”
<
p>Ultimately, as Gandhi says, they will not prevail. (I’m old enough to remember people defending Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and Richard Nixon).
<
p>I also think we need to be clear that Martha Coakley’s campaign was a disaster. Because of her ineptness, we have lost a seat that should have stayed Democratic. She seemed to do nothing until a couple of weeks ago. When she finally did take the campaign seriously, it was mainly through a series of negative ads and mailings that clearly turned people off, as did her performance in debate where she let Brown say numerous outrageous things. She allowed Brown to conduct a vile but effective campaign based on fear and contempt for American Democratic values – shades of Bush vs. Dukakis, or Karl Rove.
<
p>The bottom line is that we lost this seat not because people are disgusted with Obama and his policies, as the right wing would have us believe, but because of incredibly bad and ineffective campaign waged by Coakley.
<
p>A better Democratic campaigner would have defeated Brown.
<
p>Masses of blue collar working people voted for a man whose sole interest is protecting the moneyed classes. Ironically the well-to-do suburbs with better educated people, such as Wayland, voted against him, while the people most harmed by his policies voted for him.
<
p>The last Republican Senators from Massachusetts – Leverett Saltonstall, Ed Brooke – were decent honorable men. What a contrast to Scott Brown!
<
p>If there is a silver lining in this (and it’s pretty faint) it is that Brown will almost certainly not be re-elected in 2012 and we can elect a far better Senator than either Brown or Coakley.
<
p>
<
p>You’re in the odd position of arguing that the voters were to rational to vote for Coakley and too irrational not to vote for Brown.
<
p>If, as you posit, people voted against their own interests what would you have had Martha Coakley do differently? Would you have had Martha, or some hypothetical ‘better’ candidate, do? Would you have this ostensibly superior candidate run on a campaign of cognitive dissonance, like Brown? If the voters respond to irrational arguments (as I’ve explained elsewhere, Browns argument wasn’t simply incoherent, it was in opposition to itself…) would you have the ‘better candidate’ provide an irrational argument? Would you have the Democratic campaigner be as exploitive and duplicitous as Brown?
<
p>I think that Coakley, and the Mass dem party and the DNC, all took one look at Brown and said “I trust the voters of Mass to see through his shtick.” That’s exactly what I said to myself in November, when he first ran and ad against all the primary campaigners… I was still saying it at 8pm last night. apparently that trust was misplaced. So I don’t blame Coakley or the DNC or anyone other than the voters: they fell for the con, again. After 8 years of Bush and 4 years of Mitt Romney, they fell for the pretty face and ravaged fecklessness of the GOP. It’s barely conceivable at this point… but it is what it is.
Did they?
<
p>Several of those voting against Coakley happened actually to be political progressives who correctly had assessed Coakley to be one of the most far right leaning of Democratic nominees for state-wide office in this Commonwealth for quite some time. It seems to me they said, “Try again.”
<
p>A great many progressives stayed home, others voted for Brown or for Kennedy, while the “support” of Kennedy family members and Mayor Menino seemed lackluster at best.
<
p>This was hardly because they found Brown an appealing candidate. Rather, my suspicion is that they viewed him as someone a genuine progressive could unseat in two years.
<
p>If Coakley won, then she would have become an institution.
are giving voters too much credit here, but also disagree with Petr.
<
p>If Martha Coakley started her campaign on December 11th with as much as zeal as she did on January 14th, this election would have had the opposite results.
<
p>Simply put, Martha Coakley would have starved the Brown campaign of any oxygen and not let it get on the map and build the momentum it did.
<
p>An aggressive air and field campaign starting on day 1 would have negated the jump start Brown received because he was the only one doing it.
<
p>This was a candidate and campaign fail. Nothing more.
<
p>This is a state that elected Mitt Romney for gods sake. In this decade no less. Of course it was possible.
<
p>Call it what you want, hubris, arrogance, whatever. Her campaign and the candidate failed. End of story.
‘Tis true, ’tis pity, and pity ’tis ’tis true…
<
p>
<
p>I think this is true enough. My point, such as it is, isn’t that Martha Coakley missed her opportunity, but that any Democrat, in similar circumstances would not be faulted (at the time) for making the same decisions. Hindsight is 20/20. Up by 19, with a month to go, in a Januray election, with the whole weight of historical precedent behind you and a clearly duplicitous candidate…
<
p>Sure, another candidate might have made a different decision, but it’s not at all clear that they definitively would have done so. There is a world of difference between could and would and I think that Martha is being hung upon that difference upon very little evidence that she deserves to be so crucified.
<
p>As I said, I view the entire Scott Brown campaign as preposterous on its face. I still hold to that view. A majority of people voted for an utterly preposterous candidate who ran an utterly preposterous campaign. Go figure.
I don’t think anybody could have forseen this happening 3 weeks ago. I just think it was a number of things combined – just going from people I know, there were some Capuano supporters who never took to Coakley, plus people who support HCR but were mad about no public option, people who didn’t like/were afraid of HCR altogether, and people who believed his claims that she would raise taxes. Some stayed home, and sadly, some voted for Brown.
<
p>What I find really scary is how many of my kids friends (college age) voted for Brown without knowing anything at all about him – it was almost like it was a fad of some kind. And when my daughter called a few of them out on it, they couldn’t even explain why they were voting for him, except that all their FB friends were. Really creepy.
<
p>I absolutely believe no matter who the Democratic candidate was in this situation, the result would be the same. I wish people would stop with the circular firing squad, and just start getting ready for November. Anybody who thinks this vote wasn’t in part payback for Washington arrogance is sadly mistaken – some people voted for this guy thinking they’d send a message to DC, and he’d be easy to get rid of later. I just hope it’s that easy to get rid of him in 2012.
<
p>… but I’m not going to go arguing with my friend William of Ockham. His razor is sharp.
<
p>In addition, while often clumsy, Democrats are less often venal and manipulative… which is kinda my point as to why we lost. It’s a loss I’ll accept. If we lost because some Dems pulled the rug out from under Coakley, as you allege, then I don’t want to be in that Democratic party.
I would not have a hard time believing this at all. I felt tht she got very lackluster support from the entire congressional delegation (except Tsongas). And Barney Frank didn’t help matters throwing her under the bus last weekend.
Or was it a split progressive vote in the primary? We DID have a contested primary after all with at least one candidate who both had strong resume and progressive credentials.
one of the nicest people I have ever met in the political scene. He cares about people and family and will not allow our safety or future economic viability be comprimised. I and others I talk to are freshed to see someone who is not part of the “machine” have a say in the future of this country. Thanks Scott!
about George W. Bush if you knew him personally. He was still the most incompetent President in my lifetime.
I lived through four years of Jimmy Carter. I lived through eight years of George W. Bush.
<
p>I get that you disagree with Jimmy Carter’s politics. I can think of nothing that compares to George W. Bush’s long list of utterly incompetent acts.
<
p>Please let me know which claimed failure of Jimmy Carter even gets on the same radar screen as:
<
p>These are just the first three that come to mind, George W. Bush’s list is very long.
<
p>Please cite even one comparable screw-up by Jimmy Carter, never mind the dozens that we can enumerate for Mr. Bush.
google the words failure and Carter. The list runs into the thousands. I just remember sitting for long hours in line waiting for overpriced gasolne; 21% inflation which took a horrendous toll on my in-laws; total impotence with regard to the hostage situation; a totally botched and embarrassing rescue attempt at same (the buck stops with POTUS as people here are fond of saying); and a willingness to give in to the Soviets on arms control in Western Europe.
Thank God that Reagan came along and took away the “malaise” that Jimmuh gave us, as well as ending the Evil Empire.
George W. Bush was personally responsible for the three items I listed, especially the first.
<
p>In the planet I live on, the overpriced gasoline was caused by the combination of OPEC and American’s mythical belief that we are entitled to cheap gasoline. In the planet that I live on, American had gas lines around the block and even/odd rationing while Richard Nixon (a loyal Republican) was President, in 1973. Six years later, Americans were shocked … just SHOCKED … that those pesky Arabs did it to us again. You call that Jimmy Carter’s failure? The 21% inflation rate was a reflection of your first complaint.
<
p>The Iranian hostage situation certainly wasn’t helped by the secret deal being made between Iran and candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager, soon-to-be CIA chief William Casey.
<
p>If you think that Ronald Reagan ended the “evil empire” (as opposed to providing a pretext for its continuation years past when it would have otherwise failed), you really DO know next to nothing about Russia and its history, the Soviet Empire, economics (including Soviet economics) and the history of how governments fail.
Speaking of Reagan in the context of a botched hostage rescue, perhaps you’ll recall 241 American Marines, sailors and soldiers killed in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. And maybe you’ll even remember Reagan’s powerful response to that terrorist act:
how the Cold War ended. I was living in the old Sovok during the Fall of 1989. Reagan was a hero to the people because of his attitudes toward collectivism. Many a dinner or party began with this toast: “Long live President Reagan who told the truth about our Evil Empire.” Russians admired the fact that, unlike Kennedy and llberals who played up to their leaders, he had the stones to tell it like it is. You want to continue to drink your Liberal Kool Aid, fine with me.
Wow, you have a selective memory. When Reagan did away with price controls, much to the consternation of your democrat friends (who apparently have no idea of how free market economics works) the price of gasoline fell dramatically. Do you remember that? The Arabs had nothing to do with it.
know in regard to Sovok economics, Russian history, etc. I have been a Russian language translator for almost 40 years in both official and unofficial situations, have many Russian friends here and there. What is your expertise in this field, what is your background and education in same?
You wrote:
<
p>When you offer patent nonsense such as this — specifically, the myth that Ronald Reagan ended the Evil Empire — you invite such challenges.
<
p>The disclosure and publication of reams of Soviet- and Gorbachov-era documents and files reveals the extent to which Reagan’s posturing kept the Soviet party apparatus in power years longer than it would have failed on its own.
<
p>If you were living in the old Sovok prior to 1980, on what basis do you claim knowledge of events in the Reagan administration, never mind the Carter years before it?
I lived there in 1989, not pre 1980. Had only been a tour guide and group translator before that. I lived with Russian and Armenian families in the Stavropol, north Caucusus, Krai.
As to documents, most of the ones which have come out since 1991 show what weasels the liberals and left were during the Cold War. It is almost to the point that you and your comrades have some blood on your hands for the victims of the Gulag. I advise that you read about Magadan and some of the other gulags of the era, run by your collectively minded brethren who believed that Government could solve all problems, especially those involving dissidents.
I’m sure that you have a compelling story to tell, a story that I genuinely want to hear. I don’t doubt the sincerity of your first-hand experiences and the learnings you draw from them. I would like to remind you that those first-hand experiences are not a substitute for, nor do they enhance, your objectivity. This is particularly true when you make assertions about the political scene of the United States during the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter administrations. A number of Cuban Americans have similarly heroic, inspiring, and genuine life-stories to tell about their first-hand experiences in Cuba before, during, and after both Batista and Castro. Surely you can appreciate that those experiences do not enhance their objectivity in assessing what actually happened in Cuba during that time, nor what US policy should be towards Cuba today.
<
p>I lived in a Washington, D.C. suburb during most of those years (I moved to Boston in 1974, the year that Republican President Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace), I grew up political in a political family, I too have first-hand experience with the politics — good and bad — of all sides during this period. I would like to remind you that MLK speeches, the marches on Washington, every inauguration — all of it — happened in my neighborhood. I’m weary of being lectured about what I do and do not know about American politics during that time.
<
p>We aren’t talking about how despicable the behavior of all sides were during the cold war. We are, instead, addressing an utterly false claim you made regarding Jimmy Carter and George Bush. You attempted to buttress that claim with a similarly unsupported assertion about Ronald Reagan and his role in bring down the Soviet empire. The horrors of Magadan, as awful as they were, have little or nothing to do with Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.
<
p>The shortcomings of Jimmy Carter are negligible compared to the long list of abject failures, incompetency, lies, and outright crimes of George W. Bush.
But I think that you are a little over-the-top re Bush. Let History be the best judge.
local peanut gallery chimes in with its “6’s” to support you. As I have said from day one, people here have no greater purpose in life than to echo each other’s opinions. It really is funny.
Your arguments aren’t all that compelling. Hint: just because the WSJ editorial page says it doesn’t mean it’s true.
<
p>Jimmy Carter meant what he said. It’s a fatal flaw in a politician. He ended up getting shot by both sides. If Bush had half of Jimmy’s brains and integrity we would be having an entirely different discussion.
Hint: just because Daily Kos or Puffington Post says it doesn’t mean it’s true.
But I read neither. Heck, I don’t even listen to NPR.
They were both journalists. My mother became a lawyer after my father died.
<
p>I was born skeptical. 😉
<
p>NPR is a funny thing. Many of my friends have it on everywhere, almost as background music. It makes me nuts. I’d much rather listen to music while working.
You really think that nine second YouTube video would have changed the election?
<
p>I’ll be honest I had to watch it six times before I could make out the “scandalous” audio on it.
I revised the post above. The video is just an example of this side of the campaign. I’m surprised you see the need to put “scandalous” in quotations. Even Brown, who says he didn’t hear the comment (one can judge for oneself) I believe said he thought it was appalling when asked about it later on.
The way to run a proper whisper campaign is to keep the negative stuff away from the public persona, and keep it in whispers.
<
p>I think a lot of the rhetoric was shipped in from outside the state. A lot of it was tied to national talking points that have been drummed for the past 14 months. I saw quite a bit about Nazis and Socialists accompanying the campaign — again, not coming from Brown, but not being rejected by Brown either.
<
p>A lot of the stuff I saw looked coordinated. Too many online posts started out with “I am a lifelong Democrat who is going to vote for Scott Brown” — but when you look at that person’s posting history, they rail on about the unions, taxes, minorities, ACORN, etc. I saw too many posts about “Obama said he would do business on CSPAN” — that’s not something the average person thinks of.
<
p>When you have national news/propoganda organizations campaigning the negative for you, it’s easy to appear clean.
people watched this video. Whether or not he “heard” the statement really doesn’t matter to me. He is on the stump, in the middle of a impromptu speech rallying the troops. What is supposed to do, NOT shake hands in the cold and snow? The nerve of him. Every rally for any political party is bound to have a few people with some screws loose. What control does any candidate or campaign have over that?
<
p>If he did not hear the statement, no harm, no foul. If he did, he is guilty of what? Not stopping and reprimanding a foolish volunteer/supporter? Is this really worth discussing? Did I leave the iron on?
<
p>This clip is the last thing I would be breaking down in this campaign. The ads, yes. The nasty mail that was sent out by the state party when no positive mail was sent out before, yes. The absolute lack of a coherent voter contact/field program, yes. Please let us discuss the lessons learned to move forward with some new ideas on how to win the next one, but this video is not one of them.
I feel a candidate should be responsible (to an extent) for their supporters behavior at rallies. If he heard the statement (and there’s really no way to prove what HE did or didn’t hear), he should have said something to show he didn’t condone it and to set an example for his supporters.
<
p>Last year McCain should have called out that woman who called Hillary a bitch, as he did with the supporter who called Obama a Muslim. I was one of many people who was apalled last year at how many people showed up at Obama rallies openly wearing shirts saying “Palin is a C*nt.” Behavior like this by supporters is deplorable and should not be tolerated – they are really only hurting their own candidate IMO.
<
p>Scott Brown ran one of the classiest campaigns I can remember. I worked on it and we were reminded constantly to stay focused and not engage in yelling, screaming or name calling.
<
p>How can you denouce talk radio for saying things and then blame Scott Brown for it?
<
p>Is Martha’s campaign responsible for the words of Keith Olbermans on election eve about Scott Brown?
<
p>Quote
It is embarrassing when you comment without reading, John.
<
p>I thought Olberman’s rant was absurd.
My gripe with your comments were due to you trying to say there was an “ugly” side to Scott’s campaign because “Talk radio, the Fox Republican Channel, and the teabagger army…” did things which you didn’t like. iF Michael Graham of Jay is going to say something negative about Martha, don’t call that an ugly side of Scott Brown’s campaign. As I stated above, if Keith Olberman or any of the other established MSM who support Dems said a remark about Scott Brown, it would in no way be tied to Martha or her campaign. I think it’s a unreachable stretch to blame him for Rush…
You must be SO proud. 😉
My brilliant evisceration of John’s argument? The acid accuracy of my assessment? My ability to waste way too much time bloviating about something that matters only to the small collection of shut-ins that comprise our merry band here at BMG? I’m just proud to share a few pixels with John and you, huh. 😉
But any and all of the above work. 😉
You cannot pin wacky right comments to Scott Brown anymore than I can pin Keith Olberman’s verbal diarrhea to Martha Coakley. Nice try though. Thanks for the pixels.
<
p>Shut-ins… are you engaged in “name-calling”?
If Brown wanted to be classy, he would have denounced the horrific things said by third parties the way McCain denounced people who were shouting “terrorist” etc. about Obama at rallies. That’s not “a bunch of crap” it’s what John McCain did quite recently. (Sarah Palin, who also shares many other similarities with Brown, did not.)
<
p>The reason he didn’t publicly deny the outrageous statements being made in his name, I suspect, is because that was the strategy all along: to let third parties throw the mud. But you can provide your own theory: because he didn’t ever hear any of the bad things said? because he was too busy doing more important things?
<
p>The fact is: horrible things were said; they were publicized; and Scott Brown sat back. That’s an ugly side of his campaign.
Scott was very busy during the campaign driving his truck around. I don’t know if it even had a radio to “hear” the talk radio banter, he probably doesn’t read the left-wing radicalized Boston Globe so he never “read” any inflammatory remarks and his campaign workers were so busy shouting “go Scott go” that we never had a chance to tell him in person. So you see, he probably would have gone out of his way to deny reports from third parties but he was unaware of them.
Homophobic? Sure. If you don’t believe that gays should have equal rights, you’re a homophobe. If you want to move progress backward, you’re a reactionary. Scott Brown is both of those things.
<
p>Irresponsible? That’s an opinion (one with which I’d agree). Racist? I have no idea. So, at minimum he’s got 2 out of 4.
Do you really consider anyone against gay marriage a homophobe? Webster says it is…
<
p>
<
p>I think a person can be against gay marriage without being called a homophobe.
<
p>Webster calls reactionary as…
<
p>
<
p>While I admit Scott is more conservative than Martha, can you explain why you think he a “extremely” conservative?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30…