A while ago, the editor here posited four reasons why Elizabeth Warren was now 5 pts behind Scott Brown. I can answer that question definitively:
She is not in any way likable. She never smiles, she is always pointing and lecturing. She reminds all men of their ex-wives or ex-girlfriends. I don’think she can change this aspect of her personality. That is why, despite her attempts to nationalize the campaign, she is going to lose. No one wants to spend the next 6 years being lectured by her.
Please share widely!
I find her very likable, and only the 1% is really the target of any “lecturing” on her part.
It appears “bluemaxxx” has confused “U.S. Senate race” with “Patriots cheerleader tryouts.”
(Either that or should explain how John Kerry is always smiling and never lectures. Because surely bluemaxxx doesn’t think male voters would demand something in a woman candidate that they don’t from men?)
nt
But thanks for sharing. We’re here as a digital shoulder to cry on.
!
was telling us to foresake Warren for Marisa DeFranco.
n/m
This is telling:
“Telling”?
I don’t know what it tells you. It tells me that she is a strong, smart, successful woman. I guess that a twenty-plus year marriage isn’t good enough for some.
the fact that you think women belong at home, cooking and cleaning? I’m so confused.
but with the apple on your head, Seascraper.
It’s very strange that seascraper did not find the circumstances around John McCain’s divorce “telling.”
(Am I doing it right? Isn’t that how our Right-Wing friends always say “Yeah, but one of your guys did something bad, too!” whenever a Republican shows up badly?)
I think in this case that seascraper is just being an a-wipe.
There’s nothing wrong with being divorced, especially when it is followed by a twenty-plus year second marriage.
Abandoning the disabled wife who waited faithfully for your long-delayed return – so that you could marry an heiress – does show a certain quality of character, though, wouldn’t you say?
Then there is always Newt and filing for divorce while your spouse is in the hospital. There is someone who “Knows” what that “Sanctity of Marriage” means.
proved she wasn’t gay, she didn’t need him anymore.
is that Scott Brown has placed and is so far ahead on his a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the Massachusetts press corps.
How many Mass. voters know about his record voting twice against the DISCLOSE Act, twice against Paycheck Fairness, protecting Bush tax cuts, for tax breaks for big oil (and them lying about it), vote to filibuster the Creating American Jobs & Ending Offshoring Act, vote to filibuster legislation to extend the payroll tax cut for working families, votes to filibuster the Small Business Jobs & Credit Act, against the EPA and on and on and on.
The real Scott Brown — a total pro-big business, pro-wealthy senator — has never been described by any major media outlet and does his best to hide from any real interaction with citizens or reporters, except those who are his pals. Heck, he’s even hiding out from the Republican convention by using faux National Guard stuff without people knowing about that trick. The bet? So far, so good.
if I was in the Warren campaign, I would take them seriously. I don’t believe Warren’s campaign ads are coming off very well to the average voter. She does seem to be doing too much lecturing in them.
In my view, Warren has the perfect message for the times we’re living in. She’s fighting for the middle class at a time in which the middle class is under seige. She needs new ads that will tell this story without her standing in front of the camera and having to tell it herself.
I envsion an ad, for instance, in which parents tell a hard-working high school student that she won’t be able to go to college because they’re too far in debt. Or someone loses their house because their bank won’t restructure their loan. You get the idea. Warren’s message is not getting through to voters right now.
Anyone who complains that a female candidate reminds “all men” of their “ex-wives and ex-girlfriends” and is thus unlikable is not someone worth trying to persuade. I doubt there’s anything an intelligent, capable female candidate can do to appeal to a voter like that.
Separately, though, it’s a fair question as to whether Warren’s current ads are effective in portraying her as the compelling candidate she is. I’d suggest looking at the campaign Hillary Clinton ran in New York when she first won the Senate seat as a useful model to learn from. Although Clinton had way more name recognition than Warren, she was viewed as a fairly polarizing figure and managed to overcome that quite handily. Granted, Lazio was a weaker candidate than incumbent Brown, but Clinton also had more negatives to overcome.
In person, Warren is friendly, engaging, and down-to-earth. But the ads aren’t showing that side of her to its best. I may not think I’m being lectured to, but I’m in the choir.
As much as I dislike Brown, he has a strong intuitive sense for selling his likability, even though he’s a big-biz sellout in his votes. What if she were to do an ad in which she’s not talking TO the camera, but to real people about the things that matter to them, with the camera as the person-off-to-the-side?
… that guy (generically) in the marketing department that you’re not sure why he has a job because he doesn’t seem to add to anything or be good at anything other than shaking hands.
All of her ads focus on issues. The first job of a candidate is to be liked. Is that shallow? Yep. Is that all Scott Brown has? Yep. But it still matters. A campaign is sales, and the best salesmen are likeable? Am I right, JohnD?
Did I say that?
Oo.
… and in a lifetime of following politics this is the very first time I’ve heard the above criteria listed as disqualifying attributes.
The list of unlikable (male) politicians starts with Pompey Magnus and continues down to Phil Gramm, of whom it was said, “even his friends don’t like him.”
A short list of people who never smile(d) but nonetheless were elected:
Winston Churchill
Lyndon B Johnson
Bob Dole
Richard Nixon
John McCain
Come to think of it, Abe Lincoln was kind of a gloomy sod also…
A longer list of people who point and lecture: All of the (male) politicians…
Just as a public service I’m going to shorten your criteria to the much simpler: ‘has estrogen.’
likeable. He was personally very popular and known as a great storyteller, regardless of what many considered an odd appearance.
Today’s GOP would say he was a race card playing, big government, tax and spend, anti-constitution, bleeding heart… and then demand his birth certificate.
is immeasurable. Bottom Line is as long as the Dem is not a neanderthal, can walk and talk at the same time, and in some ways shares my values (which for Scottie, would be 0% of the time), I will be voting for the Democrat.
I am further totally discussed by the misogynistic tone that the Republican Trolls are making this. “Ex-Wife and Ex-Girlfriend”, give me an F’n Break. This isn’t High School – gerkwads.
mi·sog·y·nis·tic (m-s j-n s t k) also mi·sog·y·nous (-s j-n s) adj. Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
just listening to Rachel Maddow as I type, she said EW will be a guest on her show very shortly. Ain’t that special??? No time for local talk radio so I can ask her opinion on carbon taxes, for example. Ok, she is on, get ready for a love fest.
.
The professor said D.C. is rigged for big business like oil companies and CEO’s paying the same tax rate as their secretary. Hmmm, what about Harvard paying zilch in federal taxes? Get on local radio Lizzy, dance with Dan from Waltham for a few minutes.
danfromwaltham
Can you please shuffle your deck or something? Your relentless harping on things that only you care about is truly tedious.
Tell us, Dan — if you learned she was against them (or for them, it doesn’t matter), would it make you vote for her?
I didn’t think so. So please — hush, and move on.
Why the fog? The House passed bill on Cap and Tax would require a family of 4 to pay an extra $2,000 a year by 2020. Anyone in the mfg. industy could kiss their jobs goodbye. I guess many here are rich and $2K is a drop in the bucket, but it is a fair question we need answered. Scotto claims he stopped Cap and Tax by being #41.
If she is against a carbon tax, I will applaud her. Question is, how would you feel about it?
…. everyone is clamoring for this issue to get addressed. I mean everyone. There’s danfromwaltham and then there’s… er… um. There’s…. hmmm. Of course there is also… uh…
As you well know, this is a very complicated and tricky political issue.
Direct support for a carbon tax would immediately elicit negative attacks (Warren supports large new taxes on the middle class!).
Meanwhile, a complete rejection of such a sensible idea risks the support of environmentalists and also from other Democrats who insist on ideological purity (Marissa DeFranco types). So, what does the wise candidate for statewide office do? Exactly what Warren has done. Hinted at her opposition to the carbon tax through her silence on the issue while simultaneously acknowledging the reality of climate change and indicating support for the hard fight ahead on combating the looming global threat.
Here, for example, is her (non) response to a direct question on the issue:
Similarly, Warren has quite a bit on her website about the environment and energy (http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/energy-and-the-environment) . She even mentions carbon sayings:
But, again, Warren passes on the opportunity to directly support a carbon tax and instead again focus on the need to invest in clean energy.
My conclusion? She opposes the carbon tax. Or she would have expressed her support (and taken the political hit) long ago in the primary.
Deafening applause from dan? I suppose not. But the reason is at least as much that dan doesn’t want an answer than the reality that Warren is wisely refusing to give much of one.
theloquaciousliberal @ Thu 30 Aug 2:06 PM
I fear she does indeed support a carbon tax and won’t admit it. If she is refusing to give a clear answer like Sen. Brown, then she is not deserving being a dog catcher, let alone senator.
Thanks for your post, I will insist on an answer and not rely on reading between the lines, open interpretations of answers, winks and nods. We have enuff politicians in DC, how about some HONESTY!!!!
Romney is fit for anything, since he denies what he has supported in the past, like the insurance mandate, and a women’s right to choose. How about some HONESTY from Tampa, because every single thing I have heard so far is a flat out lie and both Romney and Ryan are garbage.
Please don’t morph into the Obama Campaign.
Calling men of achievement and presidential candidates “garbarge” is unbecoming. Do you hear me use that term on Obama or Warren? I do call Biden VP Cheapskate but that is it.
If switching positions on abortion is a disqualifier, then both Clinton and Gore were once pro-life. Obama was asked when life begins and he could not answer the question, it was above his pay grade, he said.
I admire people who would rather change and be right, than be rigid and be wrong. I hope you do as well.
We don’t care how mike_cote “comes across to you”.
No one does.
Your opinions are as uninteresting as they are predictable.
That’s why I would never vote for Warren.
They would be such a terrible idea because we should just keep polluting as fast as possible until we can release all the carbon stored over millions of years in the shortest amount of time into our atmosphere and destroy our environment–that would be great for the kids.
Don’t kill the messenger…address the reality…Elizabeth Warren is not likable and likability is VERY important.
Watch the national news and all they talk about is how Obama is much more likable than Romney. Obamas only hope is people wanting to see him on TV for the next 4 years more than Romney. Obama can not run on his record, he can only run on Romney’s record (in business). Why does likability matter when discussing Obama but not Warren?
You seem to be confusing “your opinion” with “facts.” The poll that spawned the original comment shows Elizabeth Warren with a +10 favorability rating — her favorables are 10 points higher than her unfavorables. Kind of tough to read that as “not in any way likable.” What it means is “you don’t like her.” Those are, it may surprise you to learn, actually not the same thing.
Romney’s favorability is under water — as the same poll pointed out, he’s the only candidate whose unfavorable number was higher than his favorable number (that was in Mass., but he’s got the same issue in national polls). That’s why people are talking about Romney’s likability, because more people dislike him than like him. That’s not the case in the Senate race for either candidate.
Also, as long as you want to compare races, 12% of the “very likely” voters in this race did not have any favorability opinion yet in the Senate race. There’s still a lot of room for movement. The undecideds are much lower in the presidential race, which means Romney doesn’t merely have to convince undecideds, but make people who have already decided change their minds.
“on” with “up” and his shoulders with his butt.
… ’cause I just sprayed it with coffeee.