Please note I support Elizabeth. I am a liberal Democratic, with a capital D. I have sent her campaign money and for awhile did phoning for her campaign. But I am unwilling to make calls any longer because I feel as though she does not want to win. This should not be shocking to many of you. Yvonne Abraham pointed out this same issue in a recent Globe newspaper column. But it does not seem to have gotten through to her or her campaign staff, who one would assume want to win. She runs these interesting but not hard hitting (unless you believe she is running against all Republicans in general or against Romney) TV ads. I don’t believe I have yet seen or heard an ad from her campaign that mentions she is running against Scott Brown, nor that differentiates them at all and of course there are huge differences that matter. She certainly has not run an ad pointing out that he is no moderate independent, as his radio and TV ads imply. Her ads are wimpy at best, and do not push the differences between what a Democratic senator would do versus a Republican, Scott Brown. I don’t believe she has ever mentioned his name in a TV or radio ad. I understand she is great out in the field, but many people do not go to rallies for candidates and don’t even read the newspapers sadly. We all know TV and radio can be very effective when done right. She has allowed him to not only define himself as a pleasant moderate who won’t vote for anything that would upset Massachusetts voters (such bullshit!) but to even to define her in some ways. Yesterday on the Up with Chris Hayes show on MSNBC Cong. Nadler from New York said how once Sen. Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown the Republicans had and continue to have a filibuster proof Senate. He said it better than I am saying it and it would make a great ad. But again the Warren campaign won’t use it and because of her agreement with Brown, no outside group can advertise. He may have more money overall but she has plenty to run the weak ads, why not spend money actually trying to win by pointedly showing the differences? Is this going to turn out to be Martha 2 but from a different perspective? locallady
Does Elizabeth Warren actually want to win or just teach us her views?
Please share widely!
There was an interesting Business Week piece from a reporter who managed to get into a private for-top-donors-only Karl Rove fundraiser for Romney. One of Rove’s main points was that in order for Romney to win, he will have to convince some of Obama’s 2008 voters to switch sides. From the story:
Yes, I know it’s debatable whether this holds for our current Senate election, since the turnout for the 2010 special election was lower than what we’d expect for the 2012 presidential, and there are more undecideds. And it sure is odd to hear Karl Rove say something like that. But the Warren campaign may be balancing whether they think Elizabeth Warren can win simply by turning out more of the Democratic base, without enticing 2010 Brown voters to switch, or whether she should she try to attract some of Brown’s 2010 voters by using this Rovian approach.
Viscerally, I too would prefer more attacks. Tactically, though, I have not seen enough data on the undecideds in this race to make a call.
I’m surprised at the cede-the-center strategy.
a) The obvious. Centrist voters like CentralMassDad who will vote Obama/Brown or Obama/nada.
b) The less obvious. Has allowed Brown to “get away” with naked centrist moves. Even floats skipping R convention.
By “get away” with, I only mean his base feels antagonized enough by Warren to turn out for him no matter what RINO moves he makes.
In her book, Warren describes her support for school choice and vouchers. I don’t recall that or any other Clinton DLC “centrist” type of proposals. Tho perhaps I missed em.
I saw a column that said Obama’s best answer to Republican sniping about slow economic growth is to blame it on Mitch (McConnell.) Congressional Republicans are in the doghouse as far as public opinion goes, so why not run against them? I think that goes doubly for Elizabeth Warren. She should not allow Brown to reposition to the center when his vote may put Mitch McConnell and GOP extremists in total control of the U.S. Congress. He’s also made a lot of votes that Mass. voters won’t like if they know about them. Sure, he voted for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal in the end, but he voted against it on a procedural issue–putting him on both sides of the issue.
Her ads are terrible. After the Martha Coakley debacle, isn’t somebody responsible for staging an intervention in order to retrieve Democratic chances of holding the Senate?
The conventions are over, we’re well into September, and I still get NO sense of urgency, passion or energy from Elizabeth Warren.
It’s time to get it in gear, friends.
Apparently Bill Clinton made a ton of suggestions to the Coakley in 09, DSCC and DCCC in 10 that went entirely unheeded. Warren should call up Bill and Stan Greenberg and James Carville and become a full throated populist. Her speech should have been a Truman esque rallying cry and fell as flat as a Harvard law lecture (though it was very well written-Bills speech was not so its all in the delivery).
That team made Notre Dame law prof Harris Wofford win over moderate Republican Dick Thornbough by utilizing white working class voters. Like Warren, Wofford was a darling of the left and a public Intellectual not a regular politico, but with both candidates running as social moderates it was time to move to the hard populist left in economics to win over more socially conservative working class voters. Worfords campaign was the first to use “it’s the economy stupid” and Warren should listen to Bill and make that her campaign. No one in my Hyde Park church thinks she can win, no one my age in MA does either-she really needs to get fired up and fast. Like Tom I don’t see it happening. Brown social moderation has neutralized the social issues-time to hammer the economy and jobs.
Charley on the MTA says
I didn’t think it was the absolute best she’s done, but I still thought she did a good job. So did most of the folks I’ve talked to. FWIW
She mentioned Brown not one time. Not once! I mean, c’mon.
Her best line? “No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”
BUT, then, the next thing out of her mouth isn’t “And that’s why I’m running for Senate, to stand for the actual people.” Or, better yet, “And that’s why Scott Brown and his corporate backers need to hear from you in November that your just not going to take it anymore” No. the next line is “And that’s why we need Barack Obama.”
The whole thing made me want to scream at my television.
Take the ads already made which say, “Republicans did x” and make it “Republicans like Scott Brown did x” or “Republicans voted to do y” change to “Scott Brown voted to do y”. The People’s Pledge as I understand it only prohibits outside ads; it does not prohibit the candidates themselves from going negative.
She should fire her ad guys and hire you
Donald Green says
I understand the criticisms here especially every time Scott Brown shows up in his truck with some meaningless platitudes. One can have their views on strategy but you get what you pay for if support is withdrawn from Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy. This is not the time to turn off but it is time to double down. I will be walking my neighborhood to solidify votes for Elizabeth Warren. It is her campaign and lives or dies with it. If you believe she is a necessary addition to the Senate as opposed to do nothing Brown in spite of his public fluff, then it is time to roll up our collective sleeves. At least you don’t have the problem of having to elect Mitt Romney who turns off people to the nth degree. Scott Brown is a Republican and Romney-lite. He must be defeated in November.
Donald Green says
Mitt Romney said he will appoint judges who will repeal R vs W. This election is not about campaign strategy but about the lives of those affected by the Supreme Court. So if you feel Elizabeth needs to make a better case then here it is is. Let’s get to work.
If anything EW has tried and failed to connect Scotty to Akin. We already have LGBT vote in the bag, I suspect women who like Gail and Ayla and think Scotty is a hotty are too disinterested in policy to be swayed by R v W arguments. It’s time to get those fishermen, cops, firefighters and union household back with a full throated endorsement of populism. How many independents know Scotty is a pawn of te Koch brothers? Where
his money comes from? Votes against the JOBS Act, the Life Science Bill that would add jobs in MA, votes against education not to mention the sweetheart deals with Wall Street and State Street. He can rise up and down Main Street in the Marlboro Labor Day parade in the truck and win
more swig voters than EW harping on social issues. Concede he is a social moderate and move on-focus on voters wallets not their bedrooms.
Find me a race in recent history that was truly won on choice.
The Congressional incumbent, pathetic as his record is on choice (pro-Stupak), in the newly reformed 1st district, won against pro-choice, qualified, better platforms and smarter Democrats.
It is not about quality in candidates today, it is about like-ability. Like-ability backed by a campaign machine that can deliver what people imagine they want in a candidate……Brown has the madonna-whore thing down pat…..family guy who was a hottie.
Meanwhile, Warren has Menino putting nails in her coffin. Someone should f%!*k him up. What percent of our super majority male elected officials in the state are going to the wall for Warren? Yah, huge numbers of women consistently work their a$$e$ off for male candidates in this state….I have yet to see the favor returned.
… well, earlier than he was supposed to, for Elizabeth. That’s about it. Where was our other senator? Did Kerry even speak at the state convention?
I’m still not sure what the deal is with Menino. Personal relationship with Brown or his family? Warren’s not part of the old boy network? Or he’s chosen not to piss off big finance folks like Fidelity?
I suspect that a fair number of pols with ties to financial industry donors don’t want to work for Warren, at least publicly, because they’re afraid their money spigot will dry up and that money will go to fund their challengers. If we want politicians who are not tied to big money, we have to do more of the work ourselves this race.
So, summer is over, and many people are starting to pay attention to this race. It’s nice to see you making your first post, locallady, and it’s also very nice to see your concern for Elizabeth Warren.
But, why the sense of panic? There’s two months to go, and there’s five debates planned. There is plenty of time for Elizabeth to attack Brown in ads and in face-to-face encounters.
Elizabeth Warren is a hard-working fighter. She is going to win. Keep the faith.
I heard this same nonsense about the Coakley Brown fight “once X happens everything will be fine”. With Coakley “x” was the primary ending, then it was debates, then it was Vikki’s ads, then it was the SCOTUS appointments, then it was Browns record on birth control, then it was Obama coming. Every time I heard that I knew an excuse was being made and a bar was being lowered. A Republican with this abysmal voting record in a presidential year should be down five points not up by three. It’s time to press the panic button and right the ship-NOW. EW has been awfully silent on here lately have her come back and listen to us.
Martha lost this seat for the D’s for a long, long, long time if something dramatic doesn’t happen soon by and for candidate Liz Warren. I advise NOT bringing in Bill Clinton as it will seem that she cannot do it on her own. She has to do it on her own skills, personality and vision. It is a real challenge in the misogynist circles of MA politics for a woman to be passionate without being labeled shrill.
The friggin’ “from the road,” fishing commercial is brilliant…..more populist than anything from the populist candidate and it is coming from the elitist GOP candidate. Who gives a rat’s ass about the working class guys.
Yes, there is a similarity to the Coakley-Brown election. Here’s what’s similar: Democrats hit the panic button in that election also.
Right now, a lot of energy is being wasted on criticizing the campaign. It’s too bad that energy can’t be used to criticize Brown or to help get the vote out.
Incidentally, did you see Elizabeth’s speech at the convention? She was totally awesome!
Democrats, as has been said imnumerable times, are adept at snatching defeat out of the very jaws of victory .
Trickle up says
By this time Brown should be on the defensive. He’s a weak get-along guy who is over his head, palpably not Senate material But he is getting a pass.
I say this as someone who has scoffed at early critiques of the Warren campaign. We have not done too badly, but we are nearing the end game and we are running out of room to maneuver.
At this point, what is the election about? If it’s about keeping a “moderate” in the Senate we will lose.
Unlike the presidential race, there are a lot of undecideds — in the last poll, 12% of people who self-identified as “very likely” to vote still hadn’t picked a candidate — and I imagine the “somewhat likely” voters are even more undecided. Public opinion is likely to move in the next month.
I still remember this from last election:
That was just a couple of weeks before the vote. And yes, the timing was heavily compressed and it was a special election and Coakley ran a considerably worse campaign than Brown is running so far. But I am not sure that down the stretch, Brown will be able to continue dodging the fact that he’s a Republican who has voted with his party — a party that is far, far to the right of the center in Mass. — considerably more often than he hasn’t. And yes, it sure is up to the Warren campaign to point this out.
Charley on the MTA says
It is, however, tune-up time. More folks are paying attention, so the shortcomings we see should be addressed now. Problem with Coakley is that no one got too concerned while there was still time to do anything about it. We’ve got two months to go.
Panicking would be to flail about for a new strategy, a new line of attack, grabbing for anything that might work. A proper tune-up would be to sharpen message (eg hit Brown for specific votes), and develop and enrich the basic theme of economic justice and fairness.
We’ve got a good candidate, great basic message, jacked-up base, good organization, and plenty of money. We’ve also got a very nimble opponent – much better, say, than Healey, Baker, or for that matter, Romney.
No one should be surprised that this is close. Thing to do is go canvassing and give the radio ad *you* would write.
Trickle up says
The man is so craven he will vote against his own legislation when so instructed by his party boss.
So yeah, connect the dots on the issues but don’t let him off the hook on his character.
If you go to the http://www.publicpolicypolling.com website you can see the results of their 8/21 poll which shows that 54% of Mass. voters think Brown is “about right” to the question “Do you think that Scott Brown is too liberal, too conservative or about right?” 38% of the people polled ided themselves as Democrats. Only 15% identified as Republicans. That to me shows the problem and it is not being addressed by the campaign. It is as simple as that. We can discuss this all we want but until she addresses it and she is not, she fails.He voted against three job bills that would have brought 22,000 jobs to Mass, he supports every Republican filibuster, he voted to protect tax breaks for the oil companies, he voted to increase interest rates for college students, he voted to deny women equal pay for equal work, he voted against tax cuts for everyone except for millionaires and billionaires,he is no moderate and from her notices to her supporters you know this but she needs to reach out to those who she needs to win and tell them this. She is not and to me that is the bottom line.
Let me answer your question unequivocally – yes, we want to win. No question about it. We want to win because of what is at stake in this election. Elizabeth Warren and Senator Brown have very different views on the important issues facing our state and our country, and this election could very well tip the balance toward one or the other viewpoint.
Elizabeth has been clear about where she stands – with working families in support of a level playing field. Too often, Senator Brown has taken votes that show he stands with the big guys – big oil companies, billionaires, and Wall Street. That is a clear difference in this race.
It’s also one worth fighting for. I respect your opinions and appreciate the advice in your post, but I don’t think the answer is to stop working or volunteering. Rather, I think it is the opposite – work hard, knock on more doors, have more conversations with friends, neighbors, and co-workers.
We are constantly having conversations and listening to suggestions because we want to run the best campaign we can. The stakes are too high to do anything else. But we need you and everyone else who shares Elizabeth’s values and priorities to work with us to make this happen.
Donald Green says
Many of you must know this but trimming down to basic talking points that are important to large swaths of voters, specifically on women’s rights, jobs bills, the environment, easing of suffering for unemployed workers, and defense issues show up in the negative on Scott Brown’s voting record. A detailed summary of his votes, his policy beliefs, and what he outright supports can be found at votesmart.org. If many of you haven’t looked at this site, take a gander and then put some boots on the ground.
Everyone will either blame the voters or complain that Brown competed unfairly.
I don’t think it’s her campaign. She’s just reached the maximum appeal with her current message, and I think it’s too late to alter it substanitally.
You should guess that if BMG’ers think she’s the best thing since sliced bread that independant voters might have trouble embracing her, and that “low information” (love that term, glad I read BMG so I could learn it) voters would not care about Warren’s issues.
Maybe the pledge now looks like a bad idea. She could be savaging Brown with “destroying the environment” claims, which I though made more sense (for her) than the “rich buddies/hates women” tact, which doesn’t really stick well to Brown.
Mark L. Bail says
Brown’s run a good campaign. If he wins, blame the people whose campaign let him become an incumbent.
As far as the voters go, it wouldn’t matter if they had the IQ’s of houseplants. They rule. It’s a mistake to attribute some sort of wisdom to them. The majority rules. It doesn’t mean they know best. Low info or not, they are a fact of life.
I try not to get all elitist, noting that the issue of who gets to call the shots has been with our country since its founding (Jefferson v. Hamilton, et. al.).
Funny that in America the person that runs the best campaign wins, which is why people knocking on more doors typically beat people who have a better resume/personality and seem like they’d be a better elected official.
Mark L. Bail says
to say that democracy doesn’t guarantee that we will get the best government but it will guarantee that we don’t get the worst government.
Charley on the MTA says
“Everyone will either blame the voters”
No. Though obviously I have an opinion that I hope they agree with.
“or complain that Brown competed unfairly.”
He hasn’t yet. He’s made a goof of himself with the welfare thing, but that doesn’t really count.
“I don’t think it’s her campaign. She’s just reached the maximum appeal with her current message,”
“and I think it’s too late to alter it substantially.”
Don’t think it needs substantial alteration; it needs development and color.
Low information voters don’t have an opinion. They are acting on impulse or impression or even just guessing.
I said compete unfairly, and you turn that into an unrelated Brown slam.
One sorta agreement. Great.
Development and color? I’ve never heard of campaigns needing development and color. Whatever. We’ll see in November.
Waah!! Waah! Boo frickin hoo. Wailing, moaning, gnashing of teeth, etc…
Here we go again: at the drop of a hat some entitled liberal throws up their hands and throws in the towel because, when choosing between the perfect and the good, some other squeamish sot has fostered the perception that EW has already thrown up her hands and thrown in the towel: it’s like a liberal square dance, only in a revolving tesseract of anticipation and letdown: without even actual events intruding!!!
Obama fails to walk on water? Bail!
Coakley fails to turn water into wine? Bail!
EW isn’t doing things in MY approved and so-obviously and emminently practical and perfect manner? Bail!
Typical entitled liberal, back-seat, monday morning quarterback bullshit: my candidate isn’t perfect so she must be dumber than the Edsel and unmotivated to boot. More of the typical Massachusetts messiah complex: why settle for the good when the perfect can be had for a hallucination and a song?
Why in the world would Elizabeth Warren want to win for you if your going to bail this easily?? If you’ve given up now, what is it that EW has to work with? Huh? How’s about people learn to support first and complain last…? Instead we continually get the the default liberal position which is the converse: complain always and support only when all the planets align, the buddha is enlightened and candy-shitting unicorns genuflect before your capital Demands.
Charley on the MTA says
Give people a chance to climb down before you incinerate the whole damn tree.
why are the radio and tv ads not addressing these points? Mr. Rubin, you avoided answering the real question–it isn’t about whether or not people like me get out and work for her. People will who are motivated. I still support her and will do phoning again. The issue is about people who don’t know the differences between them or who don’t understand them. They count — she needs their votes to win. I agree that the stakes are too high and that is why I and many others are so concerned about her tv and radio ads. As noted previously some people do not read newspapers, they don’t check the internet, some people and I think there are many, get most of their news from radio and tv. The ads are wimpy and they don’t address the differences between her and Scott, who is her opponent. Romney is not.
Yes, there are many people who are not yet decided, but not everybody watches television. If you want Elizabeth to win, here is what is really important: It’s field work. Talk to other people. Tell them why you are voting for Elizabeth. Knock on doors. Make phone calls. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Put a lawn sign in front of your house. Those actions are more important than the ads.
At an event, a Warren staffer told me that Brown voted with the Republicans 93% of the time before Warren entered the race. After she entered, he quickly got busy casting votes (insignificant votes?) with the Democrats in order to get his number down to 70%.
I’d like to see the Warren campaign hammer home that 93% number and then explicitly state this point: When the extreme right has taken over the party, you cannot vote with them 93% of the time and still call yourself bipartisan and independent.
Comes from this report:
Unfortunately (for those of us who believe in telling mostly the whole truth) there’s a lot of nuance here that “Brown voted with the Republicans 93% of the time” glosses over.
The real statistic is that, prior to Warren’s formulation of an exploratory Committee in August 2011, Scott Brown voted in support of Republican obstruction of measures with majority support 93.8% of the time. To be more specific, he voted 30 times out of 32 with the majority of Republican Senators on votes in which 50 or more Senators supported a measure but the Republican minority used Senate procedural rules to require 60 votes for passage instead of a simple 50 vote majority for passage, and on which a majority of Republican Senators opposed a measure.
Not exactly an easy soundbite if you insist on reality-based argument.
The reality is that most more neutral looks at his votes show a fairly moderate voting record. Here, for example, is the Washington Post’s “votes with the party” analysis:
You’ll see there that Brown is listed as voting with the party just 66% of the time. That puts him tied with Susan Collins (66%) as the 98th most moderate Senator in the entire Senate. He voted against the part 1 out of 3 times, more than any Democrat and more than any Senator excepth Dean Heller (the Ensign replacement appointed in May 2011 who now has to run for re-election in turning blue Nevada).
So, there’s a little cold water on your “but he’s 93% Republican” plan of attack. Sorry.
Thanks, I didn’t know this. From the report, it appears Warren could say that Brown likes to claim he’s a bipartisan leader but when it really counted … then run through a series of popular measures that he voted with the Republicans to block/obstruct/deny. If Brown had voted “yes” on any one of these bills, they would have passed. Instead, he joined the right-wing Republicans who just say no.
That’s not bipartisan leadership … it’s more of the same gridlock.
… something along those lines.
should focus on those votes by Brown that were votes against his constituents and for the special interests of his party and Wall St. Why elect someone who we have to worry and hand-wring over his every vote to see if his interests outweigh the people of Massachusetts. Warren can say we know where she stands on the major issues. Forget the wonky percentages that only lead to digressive arguments.
Her campaign is almost there in saying that, but as another post pointed out, she hasn’t singled out Brown directly yet in her ads.
That the strategy has been to pretend that Brown is Todd Akin, thus sticking with “national” issues. But he has established himself as a moderate, and I do not think that this is likely to change.
You may say that this is a mirage for reasons XYZ, but I still don’t think that trying to run against Senator Extremist Republican is going to gain much traction. I also am not sure that I have a Plan B to suggest.
Mark L. Bail says
Brown doesn’t foam at the mouth; Akin does.
The way to attack Brown, however, is to attack his strength like the Republicans do. Make his moderation and bipartisanship a negative. Make it look like extremism in sheep’s clothing. Demonstrate his flip-flopping. Even against himself. Then draw his competence into question.
On the flip side, Warren needs her own “On the Road” type commercials that create a narrative about her. Brown’s commercials are terrific. Look at me. I drive around and visit people and listen to them and value them. I’m a nice, humble, likeable guy. I’m really impressed with Brown’s campaign.
I would add that the Lukes/Menino, etc. ads were effective.
I’m not so sure that these favors from mayors stem from their obligations to wall street, so much as it stems from their need to have someone to call in Washington. And so much the better if it is someone in the majority.
Dad is 100% correct that Brown is not Akin and we are wasting our time making him out to be. His economic record is identical to Paul Ryan’s and I am shocked we have heard his name zero times from the Warren campaign. Rennet that Buffalo special election with the devastating ads about Ryan? By Dougie copy that ad and run it tomorrow! Run an ad about brown votes against fishermen, the jobs act, biotech and all the Wall Street money he is getting. You promise to run that ad today on this forum I will donate $50 to the campaign and get BMGers to match me.
I’m really sick of people saying they care about this race threatening to withhold support unless they do X. We can have a discussion on whether they’re doing the right thing, but the time to act is now. If you’ve got $50, the campaign needs it yesterday.
On the issue of whether they should attack Brown the way you and others suggest. I’d love to see those ads too, but I’m not sure they’ll be effective. My mother has voted for the candidate who won in every statewide campaign since she moved here in 1980. She’s one of those middle class women who live between 95 and 495 who decide so many elections. She likes Scott Brown, she thinks he’s a good Senator, that if the Republican party wasn’t so daft, that he’d be a good choice. But, the Republican party nationally, not Scott Brown personally, is daft, so she’s voting for Warren. I know anecdote’s are meaningless when it comes to public opinion, but if her view is one held by a good portion of those independent women, talking about Romney and the national Republican agenda might be an effective strategy.
I live paycheck to paycheck and I’m not wasting my money on a losing cause-that’s why I want to hear about the strategy and the grassroots here that ate active progressives deserve better than repeated calls to shut off our legitimate criticism and let this train wreck continue. I was called a chicken little last time by one if the editors and Brown won, let’s get our heads out of the sands and start fighting. If I see that spirit in the campaign, the hunger to win, than Ill donate. She has my vote and I am getting friends registered and sending absentee ballots, so don’t imply I am sitting on
my hands. Warren is sitting on hers and I wont give until
I see more spirit. Obamas bundles felt the same way and he kicked it up a notch at DNC and out raised Romney thus month by FIRING US UP. I need Warren to do the same.
You remind me of the old joke about banks: they only give you a loan if you can prove that you don’t need it.
So, you only want to give to a campaign if you are convinced that it’s going to win? Sounds like you will always have an excuse not to donate, because there’s always something wrong with every campaign.
I gave, as a high schooler I might add, summer
job money to the Dean campaign who inspired me but I suspected he would
lose. I gave time and money to Deval when nobody heard of him and Tom Reilly was invincible. I froze my ass off in Iowa City for Barack when it looked like Hillary had it in the bag. I love underdogs and as a progressive have backed many over the years including some losers. That said-I think this is a winnable race and the candidate and her campaign are blowing it-te same way I felt towards Kerry in 2004. For me to donate it’s important I know the candidate cares and is smart enough to address the issue. There are debates and there is still time but Liz has to stop being the darling of the cocktail party crowd and campaign and fight for the people-and if she is doing
the right things already then come here and tell us and get us fired up.
with a much longer track record of being independent. Chafee bucked his party and voted against the Iraq war, something that most Democrats were afraid to do. And yet Rhode Island voters were made to realize that a vote for Lincoln Chafee was a vote to give hardline Republicans control of the United States Senate. It worked. That can’t be the only line of attack, but it’s an important one.
We don’t need to parse labels, is he or isn’t he moderate? But let’s talk about Scott Brown’s work to weaken financial industry regulations. Voters, are you happy about that? Let’s talk about his work to get a huge tax break for the financial industry. Voters, do you think that’s fair? Let’s talk about his vote for the Blunt amendment — Do you want your senator voting to allow employers to deny health insurance coverage for anything they feel like? Let’s talk about his voting against Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court — Voters, do you think the Supreme Court confirmation process is important? (Looks like Scott Brown is to the right of Lindsey Graham on this one.)
Scott Brown: I’m happy to talk about that. When Professor Warren makes this charge – that I worked to weaken financial industry regulations – she’s ignoring the fact that I actually voted *in favor* of the financial reform bill. The Dodd-Frank bill passed by a vote of 60 to 39. Just three Republican senators – myself, and Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine – joined 57 of the 58 Democratic Senators to give the bill the 60 votes it needed to pass. Indeed, I did work to strengthen the bill and make sure that Massachusetts financial industry was protected from overly burdensome regulation. But the final vote shows that I bucked the Republican leadership and supported this important financial industry reforms once my efforts to fix the bill where successful. as Harry Reid said ‘Despite the difficult political climate, these Republicans have joined Democrats to support these common-sense protections for consumers, investors and financial institutions that will help prevent another financial crisis.'”
Scott Brown: “It seems like the Professor and I will have to agree to disagree on the impact of this amendment. I am pro-choice. But I believed this was an issue of religious freedom. I believe it’s possible to provide women with the access to the health care they want while at the same time protecting the rights of Americans to follow their religious beliefs.”
Scott Brown: “”I approach the duty of voting on nominees to the United States Supreme Court with a deep sense of the constitutional responsibility. First, let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Elena Kagan. However, I believe nominees to the Supreme Court should have previously served on the bench. Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience to compensate for the absence of prior judicial experience. In Elena Kagan’s case, she is missing both. When it comes to the Supreme Court, experience matters. No classroom can substitute for the courtroom itself, where decisions are made that affect the day-to-day lives of American citizens, and where one’s judicial character and temperament is shaped in favor of the fair and just application of the law. The best umpires, to use the popular analogy, must not only call balls and strikes, but also have spent enough time on the playing field to know the strike zone. Therefore, I could not support Elena Kagan’s nomination.”
All that said, I agree that if Chafee was defeated, the Brown can be too. But it ain’t that easy to cherry pick a few votes that sound good when spun left but can be easily spun the other way.
that doesn’t mean the attacks won’t be effective. Brown said this about Kagan before the Senate Judiciary committee — before deciding to vote with his party: “As an attorney myself, I recognize an impressive legal resume when I see one. . . . Ms. Kagan is undoubtedly a brilliant woman who has served her country in a variety of capacities.” Did he not understand when he read her resume the first time that she hadn’t been a judge? Sorry, but as a lawyer he knows that excuse is a crock of —-. On that basis, he’d have called Louis Brandeis unqualified.
And if he thinks the Blunt amendment was only about religious freedom and , he doesn’t know how to read legislation. “religoius beliefs or moral convictions” — hey, a guy from Saudi Arabia thinks it’s immoral to allow women to drive, so it won’t cover any injuries sustained by a female automobile driver. How does Senator Brown feel about legislation that supports THAT?
Scott Brown doesn’t appear to be running the kind of hideous campaign that Mitt Romney is running, but it’s still pretty content-free and he’s still managing to dodge actual issues. Just because it won’t be as easy to nail him as it is to show Romney trying to pretend he’s one thing when he’s another, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It should be.
Donald Green says
From a pollster with Republican leanings we have a new Warren-Brown poll and the lead for Brown compared to their last one is now erased. Elizabeth has pulled even. In drilling down I think the Boston Metro Area is underrepresented but others have disagreed with my assessment before. However it is time again for the purists to buck up and get their hands dirty in the nitty gritty of this campaign. So let’s get off our collective behinds, if you haven’t done so, and put in the elbow grease to get Elizabeth Warren elected.
Wow, dramatic movement in favorability. Scott Brown’s net favorability dropped 6 points and Elizabeth Warren’s rose by 7 points. That’s a 13-point swing in less than 3 weeks.
This clearly is a chump outfit looking for a little attention to drum up some business.
they’re only counting self-identified ‘very likely’ voters; they toss out anyone who answers that they’re ‘somewhat likely’ to vote. And, it seems surprising to me that 48% of the electorate would be age 60 or over, but that’s their sample. Not to mention that this is a Republican-leaning consultancy, and, well, I haven’t been impressed of late in general how Republicans have been talking about numbers 🙂
So, I’m not sure it’s predictive of how the election would go if it were held tomorrow, let alone predictive of what will happen in November. That said, though, I’m moderately interested in trends in their data over time if the methodology is consistent.
So, this republican polling organization says that Elizabeth Warren is actually in an excellent position.
Of course, some Democrats will discount this polling information and still panic.
I am saying far too many Dems-YOU among them think all we have to
do is knock on more doors, call more voters, etc. Its not my fault
that Coakley lost-I voted absentee from Chicago and two friends to do it with me, I got five apathetic friends to vote back home and got a roommate from MD to donate money to her campaign. She blew that election and I will never forgive her for it. Coakley didn’t lose because she assumed she’d lose-she lost because she’d assumed she already won.
FAR too many on this site scoffed at my suggestions Brown was coming back just as the first reaction a month ago was to dismiss the polls showing its a tie. Warren should assume she is losing and take risks and get the fire back in her belly. I agree with loquacious that I am almost convicted she simply does not want to win and that’s the fault of the candidate not me. She earned my vote long ago, but she won’t earn my hard earned money and time unless I know she wants this.
Charley on the MTA says
calling and knocking, we’re gonna lose anyway. Coakley had no ground game of this kind, so I’m told.
Calling and knocking will swing the race if it’s within a few points, which I think is entirely likely.
It’s a close race. Call and knock.
Donald Green says
As Pogo says, “We have met the enemy and it is us.” As a volunteer for the campaign I know EW makes 5 to 6 stops or more a day. She holds phone conferences from the back of her car. She is meeting the public and is received well wherever she goes. There are few towns she has not visited. The stronger ads will be forthcoming and the debates should boost her. The media has been more caught up with the national conventions but should soon tune into the race and Elizabeth should be getting some more local air time. She has been on Rachel Maddow and the Today show. Scott Brown has been hanging out with his rich entitled friends on Nantucket all summer and can not even mount the podium at his own Convention. His ads say nothing about policy and seem like introducing someone who has already been introduced. Quite lame in my view. He is the one assuming he will be the winner. All he has to do is play Joe Sixpack in a truck. I believe the Mass electorate is smarter than that. In EW they are buying something new so they are “kicking the tires” right now. The one running Elizabeth’s campaign is the same that brought us Deval Patrick as governor. I have even seen him blog here. So they are fully aware of everyone’s concerns but they must follow their own analysis how to win this race. If you believe in the candidate and they ask for certain help, give it. Don’t gripe. It is a real downer. Donna Brazil, Barney Frank, Howard Dean will be showing up to help get her elected. They said so at the Mass DNC breakfast. The President himself might even chip in. He knows better than anyone the stakes of a successful second term depends on a cooperative Congress.. This fight has just begun. She is about to come out swinging, not by being nasty, but by pointing out that Scott Brown is the wrong person to represent Massachusetts and more importantly, the citizens of this country. She is not taking her win for granted, she and her staff and the hundreds of volunteers are working their tails off. She is running against a popular incumbent who can not break 50% in any poll. Again, especially jconway and locallady, we still have game even it not what going according to the style you prefer. We’ll only know who was right after Nov 6th. Now is not the time for Monday morning quarterbacking when it is only Friday.
All this is profoundly true, in toto and sum… yet those of us on the outside, who don’t have the time or the wherewhithal to be more active in the campaign, have only to watch and listen to the speech she gave at the convention: she was visibly fatigued, noticeably thinner and her voice is distinctly more hoarse than at the start of the race; it is clear that she is giving very much of herself in this race and to this election; and that, despite the obvious toll this campaign is so far taking, her desire, demeanor and will to continue is undimmed, if not emboldened.
She actually reminds me of Bill Clinton in ’92 who campaigned himself hoarse and darn near cadaverous in the last three months of the race.
I’ve seen Warren on the trail in person 3 times now and she is absolutely energized, trying to personally meet and greet as many voters as she can. She’s got a field organization around the state. From what I can tell, she’s got a jam-packed schedule and is working her — off. It’s fair to disagree with the current media strategy, but to question whether she’s got “fire” or “wants to win” is absurd.
I realize some people are still traumatized by the last race. I too remember the squandered lead of 2010. Yeah, it’s a painful memory. But it’s time for us to get over it. Learn some lessons and move on. That’s what winners do, whether it’s in sports or in politics.
Sure, get motivated by the last loss, but also apply some wisdom to understand that it’s not the exact same case.
Coakley lost in part by not tending to retail politics. Warren is not making that mistake. But as a challenger, Warren shouldn’t necessarily adopt all the same tactics as you think Coakley should have used when she was the better-known candidate for an open seat.
I understand that you can’t forgive Martha Coakley for blowing the election. But is it reasonable to blame Elizabeth Warren for what happened last time too?
No, it’s not your fault Coakley lost in 2010. It’s not my fault, either. But I’m done with 2010. If you believe that Elizabeth Warren is a candidate who thinks that shaking voters’ hands is a waste of time, I strongly suggest you watch her on the trail. Joe Scarborough of all people called her one of the most naturally gifted campaigners he’s seen. I hope you’ll shake off ’10 and join the fight to elect Elizabeth Warren as our next Senator.
it may be that one of the coakely lessons was learned — retail politics. fine.
….but a new issue emerged — who’s a moderate. coakley was already perceived as moderate by voters.
harvard law, occupy, brown, and warren’s chosen messaging have defined her, thus far, as non-moderate. maybe the debates can reframe.
of course, one never knows: candidate herself, or the campaign? who is the “real” candidate?
from her books, and from the fact that even the republican law students loved her class, i’m guessing that warren is actually more of a centrist.
campaign puts her in bubble. very left speech? adoration. fired up base. independents on the outside turned off, though.
and rubin is smart. maybe her path here, as loyal has said, is indeed cede independents, heavy retail, and turn out an enthused base.
…the one about small business and how the game is rigged. She talks about corporations not paying taxes and big oil getting tax breaks. Did Brown’s votes contribute to this situation? If so, the ad should make the connection and call him on it. If it all predates Brown’s time in the Senate then why hasn’t he done anything about it? If he is the Senator for the average people as he claims to be where is leadership in remedying this situation? The ads need to make the connection, especially the way Brown has marketed himself.
Charley on the MTA says
…I’m not sure what you’re refering to about the other shoe in this case.
that is for a campaign against Sen. Brown, rather than against “Washington” or “the system.”