Google Ads


Site Stats

MA-Sen: Scott Brown Leads All Dems

by: Crisitunity

Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 7:55 PM EST


Public Policy Polling (PDF) (11/29-12/1, Massachusetts voters, no trendlines):

Mike Capuano (D): 36
Scott Brown (R-inc): 52
Undecided: 12

Stephen Lynch (D): 30
Scott Brown (R-inc): 49
Undecided: 20

Ed Markey (D): 39
Scott Brown (R-inc): 49
Undecided: 13

Vicki Kennedy (D): 41
Scott Brown (R-inc): 48
Undecided: 11

Deval Patrick (D): 42
Scott Brown (R-inc): 49
Undecided: 9
(MoE: ±4.4%)

PPP's first look at 2012 in Massachusetts shows that Democrats who've been treating this like an easy pickup are in for a rude awakening, with Scott Brown leading a spate of five Dems by margins ranging from 7 to 16. Some of these prospective Dem candidates can point to the problem of being little-known outside their House districts at this point (Mike Capuano is 47% unknown at 26/27, Stephen Lynch is 50% unknown at 23/26), but even the ones with a statewide profile (Deval Patrick and Vicki Kennedy) still trail Brown.

Despite the overall very-blue hue of Massachusetts, Brown seems able to hold his own through a mix of personal likeability (53/29 approval) and ideological positioning (53% say he's just right, while 33% too conservative, while voters say, regarding the whole GOP, that it's 52% too conservative and 32% just right). These numbers might change a bit once a) there's a defined Democratic candidate getting all of the attention, and b) said candidate calls attention to some of Brown's not-so-moderate moments, like his unemployment benefits blocking today. (Another consideration: the state's Democratic city machines, which seemed to slumber through the special election, will be working in full effect in a presidential year.) However, with nearly 50% of the vote today, Brown's starting in a strong position for now.

As for the possibility of just-re-elected Deval Patrick getting in, that seems like kind of an odd throw-in by PPP, but don't totally discount it. While he's publicly saying he's not interested (repeating that today, in fact), he says he's "staying involved" in the race. There are reports that he's working back channels about that race, though perhaps more so about trying to facilitate a non-brutal Dem primary.
Crisitunity :: MA-Sen: Scott Brown Leads All Dems
Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

MA-Sen: Scott Brown Leads All Dems | 111 comments
Racial numbers
Scott Brown's strength with blacks is amazing for a Republican. He has a +23 approval with them (38-15) and he gets 31% of them against Capuano, Lynch, Markey, Kennedy, and Patrick. Does this suggest that a solid 31% of black voters are committed to Brown, if he even gets 31% against Patrick?  
That is pretty damn impressive for a republican
I'd like to a second poll before I completely buy it but as I said Brown will not be a pushover. Any thoughts on why this number might be as high as it is?  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Maybe
Scott Brown's been driving his truck around lately....

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Nope
He doesn't have the same truck anymore. After the election, he auctioned it off for charity.  
[ Parent ]
He lost his secret weapon! /s
Roy Herron did a similar thing in TN-08, actually.  It's rather gimmicky and it may not work for Brown this time.  This time, though, the DSCC won't be forced to scramble into making last-minute ads upon learning their candidate fucked up.  They will be ready.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
He has been pretty quiet
when he was elected everyone expected him to be the 41th vote. But after the health care/financial reform there was no major vote that made him look back. So without major headlines he is still popular.  
[ Parent ]
I disagree
I disagree. He's incredibly vocal and in the spotlight for a freshman senator. Maybe it's just cuz I live in the beltway but this guy is mentioned in every article as being the Dems bast chance at ..... and he's being watched like a hawk by Dems to see him mess up.
[ Parent ]
polls this far out
in my opinion, seem to always show black support being very off from what Election Day will be. And if it weren't going to turn out that way with the numbers naturally shifting to where they should be, one Obama rally will do the trick.
[ Parent ]
Might they simply
be screwing something up in regards to black voters? They are only about six percent of the population in the state. There are actually more Hispanics in the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Blacks made up 7% of the sample
Or they made up 35 out of 500, which puts the margin of error for that group so high that it's not even worth commenting on whether or not black voters really like Scott Brown or not.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I assume will tighten when the campaign gets into gear.
But still Brown won't be a pushover. Though I still think the Ds are favored if they get their act together by 2012

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
If
I was Patty Murray and if the Democratic primary takes a turn for the worst, I'd have the DSCC make a seven figure buy and flood the state with attack ads so Brown doesn't become the overwhelming winner of a nasty Democratic primary.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
Have to be careful though
makeing sure the ads are focused only on votes where he was one of the deciding factors in killing legislation. Don't pull an "Aqua Buddah" which I fear the democrats might do here.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
I doubt that
Massachusetts is a nonreligious state, especially compared to Kentucky, so any religious allusions will likely fall flat. And Brown has no weird baggage like that. If he did, it would have come out already.
[ Parent ]
Furthermore,
I don't think Brown has an "Aqua Buddha" moment for Dems to prey on.  

NY-01/NY-19
[ Parent ]
Lol
Sorry spelling mistakes don't bug me but when talking about religious issues and jumping at controversial past events we should get the word pray right. Aqua Buddah moment was prey to Conway but he should have prayed on it before jumping on the attack.
[ Parent ]
No, he used it correctly
to prey on someone/something means to treat it as prey.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Well
Democrats did make some stupid mistakes during the special election.

Like using the World Trade Center as a symbol of Wall Street greed! (And don't forget that Coakley ad that had Massachusetts misspelled.)



19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Ironically, Scott Brown voted FOR it.
One of his better moments.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
No he didn't,
he ended up trying to block it, unless he went back and forth a few times in the last few days and I got mixed up.
[ Parent ]
He
initially voted against cloture (as well as Ben Nelson) but once the filibuster was broken and all the amendments were voted on, Brown eventually voted. They even reopened the conference committee when Brown voiced his disagreement with the bank tax.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I ment that in principal not "aqua buddah" itself.
Brown is a very likeable guy so avoid the character stuff. The democrats are generally good at this but have messed up in the past on the same count.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
TV Ads
Dems are normally good at having uplifting positive messages where they break down policy to what it means for people. I think part of this is because Dems are more positive about issues. When on the attack it's hard to be uplifting.

Here are some amazing examples all from Joe Slade White (the best ad guy in the business in my opinion)

The Tom Udall ad is amazing. Really yanks at your heart.

Tom Udall "Humbled" ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Michigan Prop 2 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Chet Edwards on CHIPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

One Iowa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Biden Senate 2006 (really used for Obama campaign in Philly market): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
I think they should do that regardless.
If going negative is going to help us, there's no reason not to do so. I'm not saying that we need to brutally bash his character, but why not force him to tell us where he stands as far as, say, Social Security privatization or global climate change. He can either piss of the Teabaggers by going more towards our side or he can watch his support amongst Democrats start to drop. Or, if that wouldn't work, find something that does.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
That is exactly what I want the democrats to do.


CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
I agree

[ Parent ]
Not surprising
Brown's personal numbers are almost guaranteed to be higher than his re-elect numbers. People--for now, at least--really like the guy, and the key for Democrats is going to be whether or not they can get swing voters to look past their personal affections for Brown and vote for someone who is closer to the state on the political spectrum.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
What are the recent tests of this situation?
Connie Morella was in almost exactly the same position.  Jim Leach, Chris Shays, Lincoln Chafee, and Gordon Smith also. On the flip side, I bet Russ Feingold had pretty high personal ratings even as he lost.  Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards probably did too.  And Jon Tester will probably have good personal ratings and a very tough election.  

It will be interesting to compare the course of Tester in Montana and Brown in Massachusetts.  In a Dem environment, we win both.  In a GOP environment, we lose both.  In a tightly fought base-vs-base election, like in 2004, both incumbents lose.  But in a more muddled, everybody-is-pissed-off-at-both-parties-because-the-economy-sucks election, I don't know.  Do they lose because they're incumbents, or do they win because both parties are discredited and a larger share of the electorate than normal is voting personalities rather than parties?  

I tend to think that both parties will be looking bad two years from now, since unemployment will probably be 8% and blame will redound more equally to Ds and Rs.  The Rs might be revved up anyway over their presidential nominee, but if their base is at all satisfied with their nominee, then the D base and an awful lot of indies will probably be horrified enough to cancel out that advantage.  It's easy to see how both bases could be disappointed, or how both bases could be revved up; it's harder to see how you might find one base excited and the other disengaged.  It would take a very smooth operator to both please the Tea Party in the primary and not terrify Ds and Is in the super-high-profile presidential race.  Huckabee might could do it.  I'm not sure anyone else has the charisma.

Scott Brown does, ironically enough.  He's too far left for the primary though.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
Interesting comments.
I kind of want to throw out some of the precedents for when candidates have been reelected based on unemployment, if only because it's unlikely such a supposedly absolutely necessary benchmark will be hit. Instead, I think it's all about the trajectory. If people feel that it's finally looking better than it has in a while, even if they haven't felt those effects just yet, I imagine Obama will do fine. If unemployment is dropping by .1 each month and there's a clear trend in jobs, he can probably capitalize on that. It doesn't even have to happen until 2012.

Anyway, I think this is pretty much the key question: will those who show up at the polls like Brown enough to not vote for the Democratic candidate, even though it's a pretty natural thing for them to do? Or maybe it should be: do enough presidential year voters in the state feel the need to vote Democratic in the biggest races regardless who the candidates might be?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
There are tea party types that don't get indy voters up in arms
Now no doubt, if the Republican party nominates a Sarah Palin, then Democrats have a huge year.  But, there are also plenty of "tea party" candidates, that are not nut bags.  Independent voters in Florida certainly were not scared away by Marco Rubio.  Independent Voters in Pennsylvania were not scared of Pat Toomey who was as has been said many times "tea party before tea party was cool".

For every tea party nut job, there are every bit as many established politicians who will keep the tea party happy, but that haven't dabbled in witch craft, said that they can't tell the difference between Mexicans and Asians, or said at least they don't wear high heals....

I don't see any of these guys being scary for independent voters:
Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbor or Mitt Romney

[ Parent ]
The standards in a presidential race are much much higher than a Senate race
I'm not talking about candidates with clearly defective personalities driving off indies.   I'm talking about the policy positions they may have to adopt.  There is one or two orders of magnitude more scrutiny in a prez race, not just by the media but by voters as well.  Policy positions that you can get away with in a midterm just won't fly in a presidential general.

For instance, any talk of abandoning the 14th amendment will get a candidate at least a week of catastrophic coverage in the general. A plank to repeal health care reform would require a real counterplan, which the GOP doesn't really have.  Climate change will be a difficult needle to thread -- the kind of mush that worked for Ron Johnson will not fly in a prez race. Warlike comments toward Iran will get play too.   And that's before we've even arrived at their "carve up th government" planks.

(I am leitimately curious what will happen in GOP primaries re: Afghanistan. The base seems to be over it, but the elites are all in.  An anti-Afghanistan nominee would be thrilling, albeit unlikely.)

Point is, senate candidates are auditioning for a much less important job, and a lot of stuff flies in a Senate race that will get you blown to he'll in a prez race.  Yet, the GOP base will be expecting those things, and in a competitive primary, someone may be selfish enough to give it to them. It's hard for me to see how someone can waltz through a GOP primary without picking up a dozen or so red flags for the general.  Perhaps leadership can finesse it, as they did when Thompson stayed in just long enough for McCain to survive SC.   It's a tall order though to produce a nominee with an electable platform, and keep the Tea Party base happy. I think an overwhelming amount of charisma is the only route to doing so, and even then it's not easy.  Prez races are tough for good reason.    

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
Do doubt that pres races are tough for a reason
But, I don't agree that health care would be difficult for the GOP nominee to deal with.  Here is a real simple answer for the health care bill issue.  Yes I want to repeal it, and in its place, we are going to put in a bill that gets rid of preexisting conditions, keeps kids on their parents plan plan longer, get rid of the lifetime cap, reform malpractice lawsuits, etc (all the popular aspects of the health care bill), but we are not going to have the requirement that everyone must have coverage.  (Admittedly, even as a conservative independent I actually LIKE the mandate to purchase Health Insurance, and don't have a huge problem with the HCR bill).

And the "tea party" is not concerned about global warming, I might be surprised, but I don't think global warming is going to be a huge deal breaker in the campaign.

Will it be difficult for the republicans to elect someone to run for president, that will make the tea party happy, and not have the democratic base fired up, absolutely.  But, the problem for the most part this year for Democrats wasn't that their base didn't show up, it was that they lost independents big time.

IMHO there is lots of room on Social Security, Health Care Reform, Global Warming, etc to take a very conservative stance of things but not come across as scary to independents.  Sure, you take on Social Security, HCR, Global Warming, democrats will be up in arms.  But, it is independents that decide the outcome of races, not the bases of either party.

[ Parent ]
What about that thing about tea-party repubs self-ID'ing as indies?
Does anyone know of how big this was?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
This'll probably tighten...
... BUT all the New England states have a streak of Yankee contrarianism, so it's hardly a given that we'll be able to defeat him even if Obama's winning reelection.  
half the sample doesn't know who Capuano is
and he's only 16 points down two years before the election. I think this will end up being a strong pickup opportunity. Party discipline will force Brown to cast a lot of Senate votes that are unpopular with Massachusetts voters.
I'm
sure Massachusetts is going to be flooded with ads again. Especially if Brown's seat is the seat that will decide control of the senate, you can bet Karl Rove's group will spend early and big here.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I would guess
Lincoln Chafee's numbers looked like this in Dec 2004
In April 2006
There was a Rhode Island College poll that had him leading Sheldon Whitehouse 51-32.  
[ Parent ]
And Scott Brown makes Lincoln Chafee
look like Barbara Lee. (not that Chafee isn't a fairly liberal guy anyway.)

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Suffolk
Had Brown down 58-27 in early November. Based on low recognition for him and excellent favorables for Coakley. Campaigns can and often do change everything.
[ Parent ]
A couple of
Problems with the Brown-Chaffee analogy, one that's beneficial to us and one that isn't. Using it assumes that 2012 will be a year like 2006 and with a lot of the idiotic things said bu people about to enter congress and the possiblity of a Sarah Palin-led GOP ticket, its not out of the realm of possiblity that 2012 could be a year like 2006, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The other is that I think opinions about Chaffee were much more entrenched. People loved the guy as evidenced by the fact that he's the Gov-elect of the state. I don't think the support for Chaffee is quite as entrenched and is much more succeptible to a negative campaign.

[ Parent ]
I would guess that Kent Conrad's numbers also looked similar at that time
Everyone loves to cite the outliers when it helps their case. But the fact of the matter is, most Senators with these sorts of leads even two years out win re-election, even in tough states. (Even though 2006 was an outlier, Conrad won in much less favourable years including 1994).

By no means is Brown safe, but he has to be reckoned a decent favourite. The standard spin here about Republicans who are leading is that voters will eventually "wake up" and "realise [Candidate X] isn't as moderate as he claims." This just doesn't seem to happen very frequently in practice.  

[ Parent ]
Of course.
But the vast majority of senators end up getting re-elected so any metric you choose to use will demonstrate that.

Brown's got some strengths and it won't be easy to beat him, but I still like our chances

[ Parent ]
I think it's too early to tell
No way a competent Democrat will be trailing him by this much once the campaign gets started. In a Presidential year, Brown is going to be facing a very Democratic electorate and will have to rely on ticket splitters to win re-election, which isn't an easy task.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
Brown is far from DOA
though he's going to have to walk a very fine line once his party gets around to selecting a nominee (particularly if it's somebody like Sarah Palin).
The Democrats
should force him to stand one way or another in a very clear way.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I personally think these numbers look kinda bad for Brown
Let's just set aside the Capuano, Lynch, and Markey numbers.  No one knows who they are, those numbers have A LOT of room for growth.  You have Patrick who is unliked only being down 7.  I dont know much about Vicki Kennedy and if she has any name beyond being Ted's wife, but her being down 7 aint bad either.

No one has the tier one combination but many many many candidates can get up there.  I also have feeling those numbers are Brown's ceiling.

Brown
There is no question that Brown will have a fight on his hands, but I have always felt he starts with the advantage.  He's a very skilled politician and is fantastic at the retail aspects of it.  He'll continue to throw some votes the Dems' way and I don't see any way that the late Dem primary is going to be anything but nasty.  He'll have a huge warchest and whoever he faces will be beat up, broke and will have had to have tacked far left to get the nomination.  That will put him in a great spot to hold his indy vote.

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22
No way it will be nasty?
I would agree if a bunch of candidates were piling on and entering the running, but it's too far off to predict a nasty primary.  The point is "Who freaking knows yet"?  It could be a nasty primary or it could be a generic one.  Besides, if Marty Meehan runs, he'll have $5 million right off the bat.  He turned down running for President of UMass, so there's still a chance.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I mean: "No way it won't be nasty?"


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Nasty Primary is dependent..
On who's definitely running. Capuano, or any Generic D representative or state official, probably only runs if they feel like labor and other constituencies are willing to go to the bat for them and they're only going to face Some Dude opposition; after all, in 2009 there was nothing to lose because Coakley and Capuano could run for renomination, reelection because it was a special election. Someone will probably jump in early, say mid-spring of 2011, to try to soak up a lot of early endorsements like Coakley did. In that case, Lynch and others will probably stay out, and you'll get maybe a few older or retired pols like Meehan who see nothing to lose jump in. Does anyone think Lynch is going to give up his seat for life, for example, to get destroyed in a one-on-one or three-to-four way field if Planned Parenthood and SEIU decide to point their targets at him and let the other, more liberal candidates divide the 60-70% of the Democratic primary electorate that would probably be off-limits to a Democrat like him?

I actually think a one-on-one contest would be worse then a multi-candidate field, since in 2010 there was no real ideological divide between the Democratic candidates, just one establishment figure who got a head start, didn't come under the microscope enough, and then ran a bad enough general election campaign to convince enough Dems to stay home and enough Dem-leaning independents to jump ship. And even if there is tension between a more liberal nominee and a more conservative loser, any appeal Brown makes towards conservative/moderate voters is going to be more cultural then issue-based anyways; hard to see how Brown, being pro-choice, can capitalize on abortion, and gay marriage didn't seem to be a big issue in 2010 (though I could be mistaken). Advantage Brown for now, but he shouldn't be too cagey; as an incumbent he can't run like he did in 2010, and if he's not careful he could become Blanch Lincoln 2.0.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
Brown will have many trouble for win a full term

Only S Brown and J Ensign have at this point some potential democratic challenger back in single digits, then, both are the obvious targets for the DSCC in this cycle. That will not change and we will fight both seats until the end. The DSCC need polls in both states including all the strongest democratic options for know who are the strongest challengers and make the right recruitment. I hope all the likely candidates be responsible in these states and give not troubles.

The chance of defeat both is so high. J Ensign has his scandals. S Brown has two years for vote in the senate. Two years voting as a obstructionist republican can be too much for many democrats from Massachusetts. We have the recent examples of J Cao and C Djou. Both begin showing some strength but both lose finally the election day.

There are 9 people in
MA who have signed a petition for Congressman Capuano to take on Scott Brown.  They are his fellow congressman from the Bay state.

His running for that seat would solve a lot of redistricting problems.  

Well, I was telling y'all this for awhile...
A guy who's as good looking and charming as Scott Brown can get away with all sorts of crap and still win.  He's a player... like the guy that comes into a bar and when you turn your head you see him walking out the door with your girlfriend before you know what you.

This was never going to be an easy race.  He can bullshit better than Romney ever could, and a wink of his eye sends starbursts shivering down the spines of independents.  Remember that he's still a celebrity.  That may wear off in time for the election, but maybe not enough...

His opponent is going to have the tough task of proving to everyone what a fraud Scott Brown really is.  He is no moderate, and he isn't reasonable at all.  His stand on unemployment benefits is absurd, but he gets away with it with a wink and smile.  It's going to be downright maddening for his opponent, that's for sure...  They are going to have a tough time making the truth stick to a celebrity "dream date" like Brown. You're not going to be able to knock him down too much... you're going to  have to do everything you can to pick yourself up instead and hope turnout puts you over the top.

What specific
stance on unemployment benefits are you referring to?

I sometimes wonder if the best solution is to drag him down so much that he's viewed a lot less favorably and the Democrat ends up winning just because of the strong presidential turnout. In the end, who cares if the margin is two percent or 12 percent? The eventual victor will have six years to repair his or her image if it's that badly tarnished. I'm not always the biggest fan of the mud slinging, but if doesn't involve absolute lies and it ends up working, I'd probably get over it.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
He keeps blocking unemployment extensions...
...and being very sanctimonious about it.  
[ Parent ]
I believe you, but
do you have any specific links?

In any event, that's infuriating. I wonder how he feels about extending the Bush tax changes for the rich. I imagine he supports that completely.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Run Against Mitch McConnell
I think that's a big part of the answer. That wouldn't work if the election were next week, but it might well work two years down the road, especially in a Presidential election year. Running against Nancy Pelosi seemed to work pretty well in a lot of conservative districts. McConnell may not be Majority Leader but the way the Senate works he doesn't really have to be.

Play that clip of McConnell talking about how the #1 item on his agenda is to make Obama a one-term President. (Not "work with the President" or "do what's best for the country" or even "give the country the conservative leadership it needs" but tearing down and tearing down only.) Swing voters in Massachusetts may not be especially liberal, but they will like the slash-and-burn crew that is the GOP on Capitol Hill even less once they get to know them better.  

Tell Bay Staters they need a Senator who is going to stand up to these people. The best Scott Brown is ever going to do is stand on the sidelines.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry
if this is a little too blunt and my cursing offends people, but if that goddamn clip isn't in every fucking political press release from every Democratic group for the next two fucking years, I will lose my fucking shit. Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done with that if a Democrat had uttered it after 9/11? He would have taken that to his political grave and been haunted by it in the after life.

Seriously, McConnell should choke on that remark. There's virtually no ambiguity to what he meant, and he certainly wasn't kidding. He can run away from it, and he might be partially successful, but he'll have lots of trouble with his base. But regardless, he can be easily tarred with it, if only the Democrats want to do so. Obama might not be willing to throw down, but there's absolutely no reason why other Democrats can't do it.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Targeting McConnell is a waste of time, period
Republicans won nothing that they wouldn't have won otherwise by targeting Pelosi in 2010, and the same is true of McConnell or Boehner.

I mean really, what persuadable voter (in Massachusetts or any other state) is going to change their mind over what the Republican Senate Leader says about anything.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
It's not
about tying him to any one person. It's about tying him to ideas or actions that most voters in Massachusetts would probably diasgree with and thus getting them to vote against him for it.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
It's not about tying him to McConnel per se
but the obstructionism McConnell advocates. As I said above target the votes that would have been popular in MA that Brown sided with the republicans on.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Demonizing McConnell is completely fair game, though.
The only question is whether it would be effective to blast senate R nominees/incumbents with McConnell's "priority" line.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I think it could be,
even if it does nothing else but drive a wedge between the base of the party and everyone else. It'd probably be best to pretend as if the individual candidates themselves said. By that, I mean claiming that that did, but by assuming that the already agree with it because they are all against Obama and want to focus on nothing but ending his presidency. In other words, claim that they aren't focused on jobs or lowering health care costs but only on politics of defeating Obama and force them to deny that. But don't accept the first denial or apology. Instead, keep hammering them on it until it's very clear that these people are putting their party before their country.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
It didn't work for Republicans
People are assuming that because Republicans ran against Nancy Pelosi, they managed to win more seats than they would have otherwise, but the reasoning is bad, because that same logic dictates that Nancy Pelosi had absolutely no negative effect on Democrats in 2008 (or 2006 for that matter).

Running against Mitch McConnell isn't going to help the Democrats. Nor, for that matter, will running against John Boehner, it's running with Obama in his re-election, his name is on the ballot, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Reid aren't in Massachusetts or anywhere (except small parts of California and Ohio).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I agree that Pelosi wasn't the problem.
Anybody in her position would be attacked as an extreme liberal.

To whatever extent that the attacks were effective, and I think they were to a large degree, it was because they focused on a particular idea, however disconnected from reality it might have been. It's essentially as if the Republicans started claiming "Hey, Pelosi, her pal in the White House, and [incumbent Democrat's name here] are responsible for all of your problems!"

If the Democrats could make something like that work, it would be because they put a face on the problems the electorate had. They would be given someone to blame, and if prodded enough times, they'd blame him.

Here's a really simple ad with this in mind: "Not enough jobs. Health care costs out of control. Schools that aren't as good as they could be. And what's the Republicans' number one priority? [insert bit from McConnell about denying Obama a second term] Instead of creating jobs, getting health care costs under control, and making your schools even better, [Republican candidate], his ally Mitch McConnell, and the other obstructionists in Washington are playing political games." And the final line could be something along the lines of, "Why are they putting their party before their country?/They have their goals in mind, but they certainly aren't your goals!/Why can't they get their priorities straight?" Work the language to make it a little more direct and a little tougher, and then play it repeatedly.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
But everyone knows who Nancy Pelosi is
Everyone knows who Nancy Pelosi is, and her unfavorable ratings are threw the roof.  Noone knows who Mitch McConnell is, and still won't in 2 years, as he will still be the minority leader in the house.

Obama tried that exact strategy of attacking John Boehner, and using some of his comments against him and other Republicans.  But when no one knows who you are to begin with, they don't stick.

[ Parent ]
Attacking Pelosi sure did wonders for Congressman Tim Burns (PA-12).


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Exactly...
"Some Republican leader that Brown voted for says his top priority is beating President Obama."  Brown goes back to his traditional, "I don't care what any of the leaders want, I'm working every day for the people of the State of Massachusetts.  I work for them, not Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid."  I can hear him saying it already.  Then he'll go to another parade and get a bunch of moderate Democrats to see him and feel comfortable voting for him so they can say that they don't just vote for all Democrats reflexively.  He's the best retail politician in the country right now, bar none.  He still might lose, but it's not going to be because of Mitch McConnell's idiocy.  It'll be because more straight-line Democrats come out for Obama and don't really follow things enough to like or dislike Brown.  
[ Parent ]
Exactly...
"Some Republican leader that Brown voted for says his top priority is beating President Obama."  Brown goes back to his traditional, "I don't care what any of the leaders want, I'm working every day for the people of the State of Massachusetts.  I work for them, not Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid."  I can hear him saying it already.  Then he'll go to another parade and get a bunch of moderate Democrats to see him and feel comfortable voting for him so they can say that they don't just vote for all Democrats reflexively.  He's the best retail politician in the country right now, bar none.  He still might lose, but it's not going to be because of Mitch McConnell's idiocy.  It'll be because more straight-line Democrats come out for Obama and don't really follow things enough to like or dislike Brown.  
[ Parent ]
I don't know
how well known of a figure McConnell is compared to Pelosi, but he's not a minor player in the Senate. It wouldn't he hard to make him a frequent topic of conversation if they wanted to. Besides, if he's not yet defined, we have the ability to define him.

The point isn't so much who you pick. It's what you say and how often you say it.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
You can define him all you want
You can define him all you want, but if most people don't know who he is, and non political wonks know who Mitch McConnell is, you can make Sharron Angle is normal compared to him (not that that is actually possible) but you are not going to get anyone to vote against a guy that they like (and right now Brown is liked by lots of people) no matter how scary you make someone that they don't even know seem....

If this was a lesser of two evils race (Nevada, or Illinois this year) or get rid of him, he voted for all these terrible bills that you hate, then that strategy might work.  But in 2012, Republicans will still be in the minority in the senate, so there are not going to be many if any bills that pass because of his vote, that Democrats will want to run against....

[ Parent ]
People don't "know" who McConnell or <s>Bone</s> Boehner are because
the Dems haven't spent the time and effort demonizing either of them as much as the Repubs have spent demonizing Pelosi.

Remember this: When you give people information, that counts as information, even if it's blatantly false or crap.  And first impressions matter a lot.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Normally,
I am not sure how I'd feel about that. It's not exactly a high brow strategy, to say the least, and McConnell isn't a particularly odious figure amongst Republicans, but it looks like it could be effective. (This does not, by the way, mean that Pelosi was a problem, because they'd do that to any Democrat.) At the very least, it doesn't look like it'd hurt.

Anyway, while McConnell isn't Bachmann, he deserves to have his face kicked in for that comment. I hope Democrats do just that over the next few years.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I actually don't think McConnell's statement was unreasonable
It perhaps could have been worded a bit better to avoid seeming like a pure personal attack. But consider - suppose your ultimate goal is more conversative policies. (This is why you're a Republican legislator, right?) You could come out and say "My #1 priority is more conservative policies". But in the short term, you're not going to get more conservative policies with a Democratic President due to his veto pen. If you genuinely think conservative policies are best for the country, and defeating the President will allow you to pass conservative policies, then you should think that defeating the President will be good for the country.
[ Parent ]
Oh, that statement makes complete sense from a game theory perspective.
Though it's fair game for attack material.

That said, I'd say all legislators, of ANY party, should have as their ultimate goal to make their level of government govern, and govern efficiently and effectively.--and NOT merely to push some sort of agenda.

And especially not because it's gonna benefit you or your cronies.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
It's an unreasonable statement
because it looks like he meant it. If he said their number one political priority would be denying him a second term, and they actually worked with Democrats to help people, it'd be a different story. But their actions make it damn clear that they aren't interested in doing anything that reflects well on Obama, no matter how many people suffer.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I'd say we should give the good ol' "Party of No" meme another shot.
Because that's one of the best memes on our side.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I think the exact pitch
is less important than a theme that is emphasized from all angles, repeatedly and forcefully.

I was thinking about something earlier tonight. There was an episode of "The West Wing" during its last season when Alan Alda's character, California Senator Arnold Vinick, who was the Republican nominee for President, was dealing with the fallout from a nuclear accident after he said nuclear power was completely safe. It was killing him during the campaign, turning what looked like a Reagan-esque landslide into a race where he was failing fast. Instead of listening to his advisers, he finally dealt with the issue head on, holding a press conference in front of the site answering all questions until the reporters were exhausted and didn't have anything left to say.

I realize it's just a television show, but I wonder what the effect would be of Obama taking his case directly to the people and letting different crowds ask questions until they are done--basically, a non-stop town hall. Some might yell or become emotional in some other way. And yes, there would be some element of political theater to it, but if he was prepared to make a case of what should be done, even one that people didn't agree with, rather than possibly sticking with bromides as some might be tempted to do in a similar situation, I think it'd go over very well. He retains a strong personal appeal with people, and he's charming enough and a strong enough speaker. If he's just not going to be a Truman-style hell raiser like I sometimes wish he'd be, this--making an emotional and intellectual appeal--isn't a bad alternative. What's the worst that could happen from something like this?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Filibuster.
Brown's lucky that, assuming that every Senate Democrat is still more liberal then the least conservative Republican senators in the 112th Congress, he's not the 59th-61st vote for Democratic-sponsored legislation, and that unless something dramatic changes in the next Congress he probably won't be forced to make tough votes unless he has six or more Republicans standing with him. If I were Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe, I'd be feeling pretty happy about this now, too (or as happy as they can get with tough paths to reelection being on the horizon).


20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)
(Nearly) Worthless
Brown leads a bunch of people who few have heard from two years out. Martha Coakley had a big lead much closer to her Senate election.


36, M, Democrat, MD-03
It's not like...
Brown is going to have to block that many Democrat bills. The House is overwhelming GOP and wont be sending any bills to be blocked. In the Senate there are 5 or 6 Rs who can split the tough votes. That isn't even considering the squishy Democrats (Nelson, Liberman and Nelson up in 12) who will defect on tough bills.    
a greater risk for brown
might be bills for the base that he either has to vote against, or look like a loon.  birther bills, or bills to get rid of the department of education, or something like that.  normally i wouldn't think boehner would let bills like that get out of committee, but in these days of the tea party, i'm not so sure.  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Can't they
set him up a little?

Wasn't there some sort of non-binding resolution or something else fairly minor a few years ago, when Bush tried to pursue Social Security privatization, and Pelosi or some other Democrat had a bunch of Republicans go on record saying they supported it? I mean, she or whoever else did it didn't force them to do anything, but they all ended up going on record saying they supported Social Security cuts. I might have some of the details wrong, but I definitely remember something like this happening.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
exactly
If I were Reid, I would go ahead and let the Senate vote on some really ridiculous bills coming up from the House. Some of those will be stopped in Senate committee, but if some get to the Senate floor people like Brown and Snowe will be in a tough spot.  
[ Parent ]
This is very smart strategy

This would be a big trouble for Brown, and for Snowe.
[ Parent ]
The funny thing is
Lieberman is actually on our side on most DemocratIC bills. Especially on social issues, where he's spearheading the charge to repeal DADT (which, btw, will also hurt Brown).

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
He'll vote for DADT repeal
He's not stupid--voting against repeal would be obvious fodder for outrage in MA. His opponent will be able to attack him on not supporting repeal of DADT sooner (I think his official position was waiting for DoJ review), but he can save face by voting for the repeal bill itself.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
Was he waiting for DoJ review?
I mean, so was McCain and we know what he meant by that. I suppose Brown will vote for final repeal to fool swing voters, just like Lieberman can tell people he supported HCR (and gloss over his public option shenanigans). It will be really really important for the Democrats to run a good campaign here.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Yes
I just looked up a story from March, when he announced he would vote against the repeal bill in committee. He said that he was keeping an open mind to repealing DADT, but he wanted to wait until the Pentagon (not the DoJ, my mistake) had fully studied the situation.

I don't know why he did that, especially when public opinion is heavily on the side of letting gay people serve openly and he knows he'll have to vote to repeal if he's going to get re-elected. Why not just vote for repeal back then instead of having to change his position?

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
Well, my theory is that
he's basically Dave Reichert on steroids--will throw the Dems a bone to get re-elected, but wants to vote as conservatively as possible.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Why not?
He is a Republican after all)) And Republican party is, generaaly, a conservative party on US political landscape. Just as Democratic is liberal, despite all individual variations...

With present level of political polarization you don't expect many Jacob Javits'es on Republican line and many Larry McDonald's - on Democratic..

[ Parent ]
I know, but some people
swoon over how moderate he is, when in reality he's the same old song with a different tune.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Not the same
I, certainly, can't equate him with Jim DeMint. He is really much more moderate Just as i can't equate Ben Nelson and Al Franken - the first is, obviously, much more conservative. But at the same time - we all know, that now even the most moderate Republican Senator is still more conservative then even the most conservative Democratic (not so in, say, 60th or 70th, when, for example, the above mentioned Jacob Javits was much more liberal then half of Democratic Senators). IMHO - that's very bad, but it's the fact.

P.S. That's why i repeat my request for list of "mavericks" (really conservative Democrats and really moderate Republicans) in state legislatures amd (say) among mayors. It will be interesting to follow their future political fate...

[ Parent ]
Well, I'm not saying he's hard-right
but let's call a spade a spade and admit that he's conservative. Moderate is, say, Scozzafava or Wayne Gilchrest.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Moderate conservative))))

[ Parent ]
Rephrased
Why not? He is a Republican after all)) And Republican party is, generaaly, a [bigoted, homophobic] party on US political landscape. Just as Democratic is [more or less pro-civil rights], despite all individual variations...

And that's the problem. Brown isn't the kind of guy you'd expect to be a bigot, nor should he be one. The kind of guy who is known for having posed nude shouldn't act like there's something wrong with people who are openly gay serving in the military without discrimination or persecution against them. And if this doesn't hurt him, as far as I'm concerned, shame on the voters in Massachusetts!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Absolutely No and 100% disagree
I never meant such rephrase and never made such statement. It's very far from being true....
[ Parent ]
Not Sure
The dominant influence on Brown for his Senate performence is John McCain who he sees as a role model. It was McCain who got him into opposition of DADT repeal before, and while I agree it would be damaging for DADT to still be there come a year from now and Brown to have been responsible he is not supportive of it.

This does not mean he won't vote for it if it comes up for a vote. But his signing that filibuster letter indicates he has found a way out. Stop it from coming up for a vote without taking an explicit position - claim that the economy is more important - and then switch to outright support only when new GOP senators make repeal impossible next spring.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
Lieberman's been very pro-DADT repeal for awhile
He helped craft the language that's in the defense authorization bill.

He's a dick on an awful lot of things, but on this he's been very good.  

[ Parent ]
I know.
I actually noted that in another comment (not sure if it was this thread), but I think he will try to take credit for HCR as well by pointing out he voted for the bill in the end.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Capuano seems like the best choice
Markey adds several points of disapproval for +3 approval and poll numbers, Lynch is gonna annoy lots of liberals, and Vicki might not go over totally well if people are in an anti-incumbent (and thus anti-nepotism) mood.

Patrick is a nice backup choice though.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

PATRICK IS ABSOUTELY NOT A NICE BACKUP CHOICE
In MA, he only got 48% of the vote, and I am positive if Cahill weren't on the ballot, that he would have lost.  I don't want this guy running against brown unless his favorables do a massive turn around.

The fact that people are even talking about Patrick being the nominee sickens me.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
Agree
Cahill-Baker quarrel decreased Baker's ratings and increased Patrick's, allowing him "to stand above the fray". Otherwise it would be extremely close at least...
[ Parent ]
Okay, never mind what I said about Patrick, then.
However, we have gigantic majorities in the state legislature chambers.  And Brown himself came from there.

Shouldn't we have a massive bench?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Split decisions in presidential years
1992 (11 - 6 D/5 R) - Shelby (D-AL), Graham (D-FL), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), D'Amato (R-NY), Dorgan (D-ND), Conrad (D-ND), Packwood (R-OR), Hollings (D-SC), Specter (R-PA), Daschle (D-SD).

1996 (10 - 7 R/3 D) - Hutchinson (R-AR), Cleland (D-GA), McConnell (R-KY), Collins (R-ME), Baucus (D-MT), Smith (R-NH), Domenici (R-NM), Smith (R-OR), Johnson (D-SD), Thompson (R-TN).

2000 (9 - 5 D/4 R) - Nelson (D-FL)*, Miller (D-GA), Snowe (R-ME), Carnahan (D-MO), Nelson (D-NE), Santorum (R-PA), Chafee (R-RI), Jeffords (R-VT), Byrd (D-WV).

2004 (7 - 5 D/2 R) - Lincoln (D-AR), Salazar (D-CO), Bayh (D-IN), Reid (D-NV), Gregg (R-NH), Dorgan (D-ND), Specter (R-PA).

2008 (6 - 5 D/1 R) - Begich (D-AK), Pryor (D-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), Collins (R-ME), Baucus (D-MT), Rockefeller (D-WV).

So three things - firstly, it is quite possible to win a senate race when the same state is being won in the presidential race by the other party. Secondly, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do. Thirdly, Democrats are slightly better at it than Republicans in each of the last three presidential cycles (despite losing 2 of them) and progressively so.

Interesting that the Dems could'nt beat Hutchinson
with Clinton at the top of the ticket. Was the dem just to mediocre/and or corrupt?  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
The Whitewater scandal took out Jim Guy Tucker in Arkansas that year
It probably hurt the Dems in the Senate race as well. It was a narrow win -- 53-47 for Hutchinson.
[ Parent ]
Ah gotcha
never really studied the Clinton era as much as I did the 60s, 70s and 80s.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Yep, things are becoming more polarized.
Curiously, based on full polarization, Dems would hold the presidency while Repubs would control both houses of Congress, by small margins.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
Whoops
That was meant to reply to conspiracy's comment above.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
MA-Sen: Scott Brown Leads All Dems | 111 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox