Maura Healey hits the airwaves:
And Don Berwick issues a 15-second “preview” of an upcoming web video. Not sure exactly why you wouldn’t just, you know, release the web video, but here’s the preview, FWIW.
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
n/t
And we are both Tolman supporters saying that.
This is who Don is, a trusted doctor (and an accomplished entrepreneur), not an insider politician. Assuming this ad goes in this direction and gets airtime, it could attract a lot of voters who might otherwise say home on September 9th.
so no airtime.
On that basis it look promising, but the Healey spot shows the sort of thing Berwick’s people should have been doing for him.
Seriously. Just because Rondo can spread the ball around doesn’t mean he’s going to usher in a new era of inter-agency cooperation. This is getting a little ridiculous.
I think it’s very smart politics. Bear in mind that most people seeing this ad on TV probably have no idea who either she or Warren Tolman is. It’s a relatively small part of the 30-second ad, but it’s also a cool part of her story, and I can’t see why she would shy away from it.
Frankly, it’s the best ad I’ve seen this season, in terms of introducing people to a candidate and briefly listing who they are and what they hope to do. Deb Goldberg’s ad, and the Berwick ad where he pulls over to help do a good job of this too. All three ads use an analogy to another skillset (basketball, mechanics, helping around the store) to emphasize the human qualities the candidates hope to to get across to voters, and that indicate who they are and what they hope to do.
The main arguments in favor of the basketball angle seem to revolve around the idea that voters don’t know squat about candidates and need any discussion of policy agenda to be presented only by reference to to other, non-political, attributes to which they can relate.
“What’s she wanna do as Attorney General, Pa?”
“I dunno, something about courts or lawyers or something. But anyone who can hit a jumper from 20 feet is plain folks fightin’ fer us. I’m votin’ fer her.”
That may be largely true but it’s depressing. I can understand why it would rub political junkies the wrong way.
Political junkies/operatives are exactly the kind of people who would think that talking about a sport you played 20 years ago, 3000 miles away in Austria, after Harvard, before Law School, some how makes you MORE relatable than the guy who drove a UPS truck and was a Watertown substitute teacher to pay for law school.
I get it, its cute, its something different. But it is in no way substantive (unlike Tolman’s ad, which is thankfully better than his convention videos) and so I think there’s a lot of confirmation bias and patting on the back going around right now, and I’m curious to see who’s right on this.
Between “not shying away from” her basketball past and working behind the scenes to trot out the endorsement of Bob Cousy, a guy who last endorsed Scott Brown.
The ad doesn’t mention Austria, and it looks like she is shooting hoops on the court I played on with my cousins in Salem back in the day. But yeah, Tolman is the guy who drove a UPS truck and paid for law school the hard way, and you know what, he should put that in a friggin ad. That would move way more undecided voters than the buffer zone, an issue for political junkies if there ever was one (since it’s so complex, not that it is unimportant or doesn’t affect working women)
Operatives – the folks who conceive of such commercials in the first place and craft the campaign’s message – and junkies of the policy wonk, let’s get down to brass tacks on the issues variety. For the first group you’re probably right.
To think campaigns are decided on issues and candidates win voters due by discussing policy.
At the end of the day, it’s about values, character, and the leadership qualities a candidate either has or doesn’t. This is why Berwick, arguably occupying the same pole on the left side of the spectrum that Patrick did, is failing to make traction in a 3-way primary Deval easily won. They are both public administrators and business leaders who are first time candidates, but, Deval’s amazing life story and charismatic personality (I’d actually say he is one of the best political orators in the country) fired up a whole lot more people than Berwick has or Reich did. Similarly, like her or not, Coakley has a passionate base of support among women, seniors, and labor and that seems to be more than enough for her to win this primary decisively.
I don’t think campaigns are decided on issues. I just think they should be and it’s unfortunate that they’re not. I also think it wasn’t always like this, though it’s definitely been this way for my entire life.
My dad was 2 when this classic came out, it not only doesn’t mention any issues, it also doesn’t even mention the candidate’s occupation or party.
While I get your point, I think we should remember that “Ike” Eisenhower had been the Supreme Commander of the Allies for years, WWII had just been won, and virtually EVERY household knew him.
“I like Ike” was more than enough to elect Ike Eisenhower.
He was a bipartisan national hero. Truman was open to stepping aside so he could have the Democratic nomination before Ike came out as a Republican.
My original remark related to earlier than that, though. Just one example: Tumulty’s book on Woodrow Wilson discusses his start in NJ politics and it’s striking how many ordinary people were very tuned into issues as competing visions of the NJ Democratic Party battled it out. Electoral politics always has been a mix of issues and theater/biography. The issue is the balance, which in my view has swung far too far away from issues in recent decades.
A President I am inclined to consider overrated, but I am also unfamiliar with the newest scholarship that had come out. He has undergone a mini-revival like Adams did ten years ago.
In some ways but he got a lot of good things done. He rode the wave of Progressivism without compromise for the most part. I’d have taken someone a bit more like him in 2009.
… escaping one pseudonym with another…?
The very first time I went to Fenway Park I loved it. Had a great time. I was knee high to a cricket and what with the noise and the game and the excitement…. What fun.
The only downer to the entire day happened when I had to use the bathroom. First of all the bathrooms at Fenway in the 70’s were just gross: Just a room with a common sink and tubs sorta dug into the floor; No separate urinals; No privacy; No nothing. You would, shoulder to shoulder, just whip it out and let it fly. But whatever…
As I was urinating I says to my dad… “what do girls do when they gotta go at the game?”, cause it occurred to me that this was most certainly not suitable for the mechanics of the female. At this, the white haired drunk with the florid face whizzing next to me angrily spat out an approximation of a laugh and said, very loudly and ver rudely, “Girls don’t got to ball games!!” A coupla of the other men, all white, chuckled too. This old whodat actually gave me a dirty look as though I had offended him. I was, like, 7 years old.
Later on that same day, driving home from the game my dad, who’d had a few also, had to swerve to avoid another car on rt 3. I was, unbuckled, in the middle of the big bench seat next to him (my dad favored big Oldsmobiles back then…), one of my brothers besides me, the other two in the back… I had been sorta sleepy but the jerking of the car as my father swerved to avoid the other car perked me up. I didn’t see the other car, but I did hear my dad say ‘f-ing, women drivers.’ That’s was, approximately, 40 years ago and I’ve been seeing it since. I’ve seen the infrastructure (bathrooms and other accommodations) change, and the attitudes expressed by both my father and the other drunken white men go from dominant virtue (some of them truly thought themselves to be protecting what was then known as the ‘weaker sex’) to socially unacceptable but sub-rosa resentment (for having their virtue challenged). Point is, not everyone got over it.
It’s only been about 15 years since Shannon O’Brien was the first female elected statewide (treasurer) so the sample size is small, but I find it fascinating that the first female candidate to forthrightly tout her professional sports achievements gets such comments from ‘slapNtickle’: which comments are rather similar to strident comments made by ‘others’. All I really hear is that old drunk rudely yelling “Girls don’t go to ball games!” Maybe that was slapNtickle Sr?
I’m just a mid-twenties former Warren staffer who thinks two years of playing basketball is pretty irrelevant to the political process.
And for the record, 50 years ago my mother was going to Mets games, she went to Game 7 of the 86 world series (sorry!) when she was 8 months pregnant with my sister, and she’s the one who taught me how to keep score properly.
So just relax. Healey has plenty to run on and so does Tolman. Outside of the worrying potential of a Coakley-dominant Tammany Hall type situation, this race is a win win for all of us.
… that you rushed to BMG, registered a salacious name, and started commenting — your very first under this name– about an irrelevancy?
The gob, it is smacked…
Or a former staffer, tell him to get better ads. He should’ve had this in the bag and she is starting to run away with it. Time for him to steal the ball back.
but I sort of agree with you.
And yes, Petr, its pretty clear that, for better or for worse, Healey keeps insisting that being a 5’4 point guard proves that she knows how to take on the big guys and I think that’s political tripe in the worst way. Maybe I’m wrong – I’m told it happens all the time.
But you know who else was a point guard, a co-captain and a state champ? Sarah Palin
Without comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatnIb2UL9A
…But that won’t affect my decision to vote for either AG candidate in the least.
So, ah, what’s your point?
Has shared campaign tactics with the two dumbest politicians of my life time, Scott Brown and Sarah Palin. I don’t consider that a very promising sign. Apparently you do?
But you’d pretty clearly rather spout nonsense about your misogynist, drunk-driving father and how shitty the bathrooms in Fenway used to be rather than just speculate as to whether or not this crappy imitation of the EW fighter ads will pay off.
but there’s no denying that they’ve both won a bunch of elections, and that a lot of people like them.
The point of a campaign is to win. There are lots of theories as to how best to do that, but the ultimate goal has to be to win. If it’s not, there is no point in going through the exercise. Healey has made the judgment that her basketball background will help her win, and I think she’s right. So it’s very hard for me to fault her for talking about it.
If you honestly feel, as a former Warren staffer, that he is the best candidate and his blue collar background as a UPS driver and in the labor movement is more impressive/relevant than a basketball career spent overseas-than have him articulate that in an ad! Hate the player, don’t hate the game. I dislike a lot about Healey’s campaign so far, but it is hard for me to argue that it isn’t more effective than his.
So far, judging from his ads on the air alone (convention performance matters next to zero to the primary voter, the vast majority of whom didn’t attend), I get that he is for buffer zones and gun control, neither of which hit the top three issues I would associate with him: clean elections, taking on big business, and standing up for workers. Cut his better ad, don’t whine about hers, it’s unbecoming.
I don’t want to put words in “slapNtickle’s” mouth, but since you’ve said it a couple of times: my reading is that the Warren in question is Elizabeth (with the “mid-twenties” being the tip-off).
How dare you compare a fucking Harvard grad who’s ran half the freaking AG’s office to Sarah Palin.
And that’s to say nothing about your should-have-been-banned-yesterday username.
Since the Dem Convention, I’ve been convinced that this will be the closest of the statewide races. The Globe poll had it 28-26 Healey (well within the margin of error) and the Herald had Tolman up by 6 (edge of the margin of error). So, I’m not sure how one could say that Ms. Healey is “starting to run away with it”.
I lean toward the Globe poll and suspect this will be a late night for both candidates on September 9th.
I was trying to stick to basketball analogies, she has stolen the ball and knocked Tolman off his game a peg. She is certainly not running away with the election, and I agree it will be a nailbiter, and I also agree that I hope Warren wins. The mistakes made thus far are of a candidate who hasn’t been active in awhile, but I agree with Tom that he gave a better answer on Ferguson related issues, agree with you that he is a solid champion of labor, and hope his ground game can make up for his second place air campaign so fair.
choosing a name like “slapNtickle,” I can only imagine why…
Completely innapropriate username.
I see nothing inappropriate about the username.
I’m reminded of the kid being given an ink-blot test. He describes each image as something sexual. Finally, the doctor says “You seem to caught in sex.” The kid says “You’re the one showing me the dirty pictures.”. ba-ba-boom. 🙂
This Maura Healey spot strikes me as a virtual clone of Martha Healey’s claims.
In my view, the record of what the AGs office did NOT accomplish is more striking than these claims of what they did.
hang out with Governor-to-Be Charlie Brown? 😉
n/m
Counting the dents on the Green Monster? It’s a critical question for Massachusetts’s future.
*lol*
I agree with the prior comments about the basketball piece: a cool, different enough part of her story that it’s worth emphasizing if only so that Maura spinning the ball on her finger is an image some folks remember in the booth. Smart play on the part of MH.
The really great strength of the Maura ad, though, is that she’s constantly surrounded by people. There are people around her in almost every shot of the ad. She’s talking. She’s arguing. She’s leading. Regular people really make the difference.
Easily the best ad by any candidate this election season. Easily.
you guys are fooling your selves if you think so.
Cheesy Scott Brown stuff. The best part is at the end, maybe more of that would have been better.
Not a commerical but you get the picture:
They Lost.
More issues, less BS please.
But from an ad standpoint, his buffer zone ad was cold and relied on fear, even if the issue was important and his role was decisive-not the best way to introduce yourself to voters. This one was warm, broad, and really introduced you to her in a concise way. He and Berwick should also know that starting into the camera for a long period of time with a monologue isn’t a great way to present yourself to the voters, this ad has a lot of movement, and has the candidate surrounded by others who seem happy to be in her presence. It gives off the vibe that she is a person of action who relates to people. Starting into the camera and lecturing us on single payer or a massacre 20 years ago isn’t the way to do that, and I say this as someone who is supporting those two candidates.
The Scotto that insulted a distinguished woman’s heritage and occupation was a loser, the Scotto that drove a truck and loved the Sawx was a winner.
not what will play best. I watched the debate video yesterday and it was awful and snippy. I think I’m more frustrated than hoping for a certain winner.
A few things did stand out to me with both candidates. I admit that I’m harsher with Healey as I was hoping for more, but after this last debate I’m not sure it’s there. I also question Tolman in the courtroom. Both are not deal breakers, and they are both very good candidates. But that’s where I am.
There are 500 lawyers in the office. The elected AG doesn’t really need to go to court. Coakley was widely panned for arguing in person (apparently poorly) at the Supreme Court a few years ago, though as I recall I was OK with the state losing that particular case.
People otherwise busy who lack sufficient time for politics are well aware that they don’t understand the issues. They hear people arguing but they know they don’t have all the facts. So they’re reluctant to takes sides.
What low information voters do think they’re good at is judging character. Why, they do that every day! Every day they meet new people they have to decide whether to trust or not. They have co-workers whose motivations they’ve pondered. They practice character judging constantly.
So these personal, issue-free ads are exactly what low information voters think they need to decide who to vote for. Why, they’ll vote for the person of the best character, and that’ll be just the best thing.
*
Issues? Who really understands taxation or health policy or transportation budgets? Do you? But boldness, a common touch, honesty — these are all things we can read immediately.
No?
from Mass LIve story on debate
Woops!!
Not everybody remembers (I didn’t) the NYT article from the 2002 campaign where Romney used the same term unbecoming to Shannon Brian.
Warren is no misogynist, but he needs to be vary careful in his retorts to a tough smart female candidate.
maybe Warren’s response is better than this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/02/us/the-2002-campaign-the-accusations-tight-and-heated-race-rages-in-massachusetts.html
Tolman just keeps walking into doors.
n/t
…For Treasurer O’Brien.
How do you think it “should” have worked out… ?
Judy makes it seem like this moment crushed Romney and could crush Tolman, except that Romney became Governor and went on to run for President and Shannon went to…wherever she is now
… I thought Judy was doing a straight up comparison of Tolman to Rmoney, which, in the context of a Democratic primary, ought to be crushing. I don’t remember Rmoney winning the Democratic primary in 2002…
Tolman failed to demonstrate grace under pressure. I included the NYT piece because it shows that Romney also failed the same test in a debate with a tough strong woman.
I don’t think this a big dent in Warren’s image as a genuine advocate for women’s rights, and I hope that he is developing a response that will be better than Romney’s
n/t
Tolman trying to be act politics, but instead had demeaning remarks. Healey’s response to Tolman on sexual assault on campus:
They in a word sucked yesterday. I mentioned it earlier in this tread it was just frustrating beginning to end.
BS ploy. My mistake, it seemed genuine at first glance.
This race had gone to crap in the past day.
check.
Now maybe they could both apologize of the debate yesterday.
that is
among a specific legally established constituency is politics.
it was in reference how how poorly Tolman tried to act above the fray, and did miserably.
But honestly, a fundraising email? really? Maybe David should post that Tierney style. Sad. It’s getting worse and the day goes on.
came, I believe, from EMILY’s List, not from the Healey campaign. I thought it was a bit over the top, but I’m not going to post every annoying third-party email – I’d never get to post anything else!
was Healey’s statement as reported by the Lowell Sun:
I find that statement’s dog-whistle identity politics lamentable – in fact, the worst thing done by any candidate this campaign season. While the Healey camp is having a fake freakout over the use of the word “unbecoming,” trying to capitalize on lingering bad feeling relating to Romney and Shannon O’Brien, there’s little hesitation on their end to use language that would divide these candidates by gender, appearance, etc. Meanwhile, Shannon O’Brien herself told the Sun she finds this absurd in light of Warren Tolman’s long record on the right side of countless issues affecting women.
The Sun piece also says:
(emphasis added)
Someone else will have to confirm if they got that right. Either way, my esteem for Marty Walz just went down a peg. Sounds like a campaign trying to make hay because they think they’re losing.
I suspect a Planned Parenthood fundraising appeal is just as much part of the Healey campaign as a TV ad critiquing Coakley’s stance on a particular gun policy is Grossman’s.
1. I specifically avoided vouching for the Sun.
2. Fundraising appeals from PP are fine. Ones that seize on a single word to all but suggest Warren Tolman’s a sexist pig are what I find objectionable.
3. Grossman’s NRA attacks on Coakley are stupid.
that sent out the Walz email. So I stand corrected. This is the text:
I just had to filer the DSCC and the daily onslaught.
Here’s hoping for a better discussion with the next debate, but I’m not holding my breath.