RSN June Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Pierce writes: "Anyone who tells you that Warren is 'the same candidate' as Martha Coakley, whom Brown defeated in the 2010 special election, has issues with women candidates because Warren has no more in common with the buttoned-up Coakley than she does with Rajon Rondo."

Elizabeth Warren needs to nationalize her campaign to save Democratic control of the US Senate. (photo: Getty Images)
Elizabeth Warren needs to nationalize her campaign to save Democratic control of the US Senate. (photo: Getty Images)


How Elizabeth Warren Can Win

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

23 August 2012

 

here's been a bit of a bustling in the hedgerow over Public Policy Polling's new numbers showing Elizabeth Warren five points up the track behind incumbent Scott Brown here in the Commonwealth (God save it!). Democrats around the country are expressing some level of surprise/shock/anaphylaxis at this, despite the fact that it's still August, and that neither one of them is above 50 percent in the poll, and that there's as much good news as bad for Warren in the poll's internal numbers. She simply has to do better among Independents - although, in Massachusetts, that generally means Republicans who didn't vote in the primaries for the last few cycles - but there's also this entirely weird stat that says 53 percent of the people polled want the Democrats in control of the Senate, which is not really a plausible scenario if Warren doesn't win. We'll get to what that number could mean in a moment.

The major problem all along has been that Senator McDreamy really is a nice guy. He doesn't just come across as one. He is. He's thin-skinned as hell, as they all are, and he occasionally acts as though his fluke election was a world-historical event on a par with the elevation of Charlemagne, but his favorability is through the roof and it's going to stay there. We have been deluged here with whadda-nice-guy ads featuring superannuated putative Democratic mayors Ray Flynn of Boston and Connie Lukes of Worcester, neither of whom wields the political influence of the average deer tick, but both of whom are nice old folks who think the young man really is the cat's pajamas. As such, they're very effective ads. By comparison, Warren's commercials are perfectly adequate, but they do very little to capture the charisma that become obvious to anyone who spends 15 minutes with her in the same room.

Other curious local factors are in play as well. For example, we've got a history of voting for R's statewide, as the country is presently learning to its horror. Also, in the history of the state, we have elected a grand total of three women to statewide office, all of them to secondary positions, and none of them to the Senate. (By comparison, Arizona has had three consecutive female governors.) There remains in the old-school Massachusetts Democrats a fundamental abhorrence for candidates with ovaries. Read deeply into Alec MacGillis's piece in The New Republic from a couple of weeks ago, the one in which he quotes a whole raft of guys who were passing over the hill when I was working for the Phoenix in the late '70's. For my money, MacGillis has been as good as TNR gets during this election, and his general perception of the state of the race here is close to dead-on but, Jesus Christ, he's walking with the Undead here. Larry DiCara? Tom Birmingham? Oh, and young Jimmy Shannon! God love ya, lad, but your career is as dead as Curley, boyo. And Chris Lydon is a career foof who told Warren, as recounted by MacGillis, "You have to be an awfully nice girl to run for office and not be too strident or too depressing and not condescending about people's problems. How are you working that?" McGillis says that this condescending warning about the dangers of condescension "caught Warren off-guard," the evidence for which may well be that she didn't pick up her chair and park the fathead who delivered it into the third row. Here's the tell: Anyone who tells you that Warren is "the same candidate" as Martha Coakley, whom Brown defeated in the 2010 special election, has issues with women candidates because Warren has no more in common with the buttoned-up Coakley than she does with Rajon Rondo.

The other real problem is the genuinely stupid deal that the Warren campaign cut with the Brown campaign in which both sides agreed to keep outside money out of this campaign, thereby essentially wishing away Citizens United like children who think, if they can't see the bear, the bear can't see them. The only possible way for Warren to be sure to win is to nationalize the campaign. Here's where that odd polling data about who should control the Senate comes in. Warren's got to be able to point out that, nice guy or not, McDreamy is of the party of the crazy people, and that a Republican-controlled Senate is one step closer to the abyss, and she needs to make that charge stick. Just today, the Boston Herald, McDreamy's local fanzine, went into full high-sterics about the possibility that Todd Akin's little foray into reproductive biology might damage Brown's chances here, even though Brown himself stepped up quickly and strongly and told Akin to step out.

Later, of course, Brown declared himself a "pro-choice Republican."

"Apparently she's a little confused as to who she is running against," Brown said of Democrat Elizabeth Warren. "She is running against Scott Brown. I am a pro-choice, independent Republican who has a history of being an independent thinker."

Of course, he's nothing of the sort. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Period. You are not pro-choice if you believe in banning the medical fiction that is "partial-birth" abortion, a political term of art ginned up by the hardline anti-choice movement to great success, or if you support the Hyde Amendment. That may make you a "pro-choice Republican," but that sort of the whole point, isn't it? At least he's saying he's some sort of a Republican these days. Generally, he doesn't bring that up. It should be brought up for him. He should be made to support or stand against every bit of lunacy that's coming out of the national party with which he's aligned and then he should be asked what's left to support. You can make running from his party and being a part of it two sides of the same political attack but, to make this kind of argument forcefully enough, and given the nature of the bad bargain to which she agreed, Warren needs the dead serious involvement of the national Democratic Party. They need to treat this race like Jon Tester in Montana and, yes, McCaskill in Missouri, and they need not to listen to a bunch of superannuated coatholders who are still waiting for the call to join the cabinet of President Dukakis. Tell all your Democratic friends that they're idiots if they think otherwise.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+54 # Lisa Moskow 2012-08-23 11:17
Elizabeth Warren is wonderful!
 
 
+50 # Barbara K 2012-08-23 11:27
Go Elizabeth! We have your back, you can win. Your opponent has a lousy voting record.
 
 
+40 # dkonstruction 2012-08-23 12:08
It is sad that in an article entitled "How Elizabeth Warren Can Win" the author mentions only abortion? Don't get me wrong, i think it is critical for progressives to defend a woman's right to choose and to vigorously combat the right-wing's "war on women."

At the same time, as an electoral strategy i believe it is a serious mistake to focus solely on the "social issues" and not make the simple straight forward case why those making under (insert $ amount here) should vote for Warren as opposed to her Republican opponent. This goes for the dems as a whole. If they cannot make the economic case as to why the represent the interest of working class voters as a whole (which these days is the vast majority of voters no matter whether they believe they are somehow part of the "middle class"...sorry, if you are a wage-worker...o r these days, even a salaried employee...with no real decision-making powers or the power to hire and fire anyone you are part of the working class)then the dems are indeed doomed as a party and have betrayed all that they have come to stand for since the days of FDR and the New Deal. The only things the dems are doing by not doing this is running from the "class warfare" label the right is hurling at them instead of recognizing the right-wing has been waging class warfare at least since the recesssion of the early 1970s and so far they have been kicking our butts. Time to fight back with a genuine people's economic platform.
 
 
+15 # brux 2012-08-23 15:03
right on .... the way to get support for social issues is to point out when where and how they promote prosperity and balanced growth, not ignore the issues or hand wave. this is how republicans always cast doubt on democrats, particularly women - and it is unfair.
 
 
+14 # LML 2012-08-23 15:40
The problem is that very few in this country consider themselves "working class" -- even if they are!! Maybe especially if they are, they see themselves on an illusory trajectory to middle class or higher....
 
 
-11 # FDRva 2012-08-23 20:39
Unfortunately, the FDR Dem party I grew up in no longer appears to exist.

Just like the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln and Gov. George Romney no longer appears to exist.

The gay & green emphasis of most national Dem pols makes them both 'politically correct' and laughably irrelevant.

And almost certainly losers at the national level.
 
 
-49 # Mainiac 2012-08-23 12:21
Very few people have bothered to check Warren’s Foreign Policy statement. She makes it clear that she will be right behind Obama, if he is reelected, when he decides to wage war against Iran. I cannot vote for someone who wants war. I will not vote for Scott Brown or Mitt Romney either. I am going to vote for Jill Stein who is the only sensible person in the race.

It doesn’t really matter whether Romney or Obama gets elected because they are both in Wall Street’s pocket. Neither does it matter whether or not the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. They have been useless.

I have been an active Democrat for twenty-five years.But our Party no longer represents us and neither will Elizabeth Warren. For one thing, she is not receptive to advice or the wishes of her constituents.
 
 
+19 # dkonstruction 2012-08-23 12:41
Mainiac, I have read the Warren foreign policy statement on her website (if by that you mean the one labeled "Veterans, Military Families & National Security" as she actually does not list "foreign plicy" amongst the list of issues the website covers). While i would certainly agree that it is at best disappointing and far too vague i do not see how you can state that "she makes it clear that she will be right behind Obama...when he decides to wage war against Iran." The only thing she says on the website is "I support the approach President Obama - joined by a bipartisan consensus in Congress - has taken in working to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. I support strong economic sanctions in conjunction with other countries that have placed serious political pressure on Iran, as well as vigorous diplomacy to try to resolve the situation through negotiations. Like the President, I believe that careless talk of rushing to war is unhelpful, and, like the President, I believe the United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon". I'm not saying I agree with this statement and as i've said find it disappointing and far too vague but i don't think this is the same as saying we know she would support Obama going to war against Iran...Are there other statements she has made that have led you to your conclusion?
 
 
-1 # 1984 2012-08-26 19:23
dkonstruction: you have fallen victim to the propaganda this country and Israel want you to believe. Why do you say a nuclear Iran is a danger to the US? Haven't you read about the one million people who marched against their present government and who love Americans? Iran says they are not developing a nuclear weapon and there have been articles saying they stopped that endevour in 2003. The papers tell you they are enriching uranium to 20-30% and you think that is a sign of making a bomb?? What the papers do not tell you is that it is the level necessary to produce electricity. It takes 90% to make a bomb. Other countries which have nuclear power, Japan, France, and more also enrich to 30%. This is permitted by the non proliferation treaty which Israel did NOT sign. Iran is only SUSPECTED of trying to make a bomb. There is no evidence of this...just like there was no evidence, in fact, about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Iranians are very very nationalistic.D uring the Iran-Iraq war, soldiers walked across fields to blow up mines, along with themselves...hu ndreds of thousands of them. Neither America nor Isreal can win a war against them. I fear for so many soldiers lives cut short again on a false pretext. I know you are a person who does not easily fall for propaganda.... but this time they gottcha!
 
 
+27 # julileegal 2012-08-23 12:44
Maniac. Since you intend to throw your vote away, it doesn't much matter what you think.
Our Democratic Party is still there. We've had to take a reprieve while we recover from what the KarlRove, Cheney,Bush bunch has been allowed to do to our country. Obama
Has made some mistakes, but he is doing as good a job that can be done with a Tea Party Congress and those who are really trying to take our country down? NO to everything the Pres wants and all because they are still carrying the race yoke around.
Shame on you for being a QUITTER!
 
 
-7 # shraeve 2012-08-23 13:49
Don't you think the Republicans are saying the same thing to people who are voting Libertarian?

The only vote that is thrown away is a vote for someone you don't want.
 
 
+29 # Timaloha 2012-08-23 13:13
Obama ended one war in Iraq, is in the process of drawing down troops in Afghanistan to end that war and has pursued every diplomatic solution possible RATHER than go to war with Iran. Romney has all but PROMISED to go to war in Iran at the first opportunity! There are only TWO possible outcomes to this election, and if you vote for anyone other than Obama, or if you don't vote at all...you ARE voting for Romney...and another war. If you don't vote for Warren you're assisting in handing over the Senate to the very party that salivates at the chance to enter another war for profit. Are you really against war...or just expressing faux indignation? If you're serious, put your vote where it can really matter.
 
 
+34 # pbbrodie 2012-08-23 15:01
I'm sorry, I like to be nice but this is just plain stupid. If you don't vote for Warren, you are voting for Brown and no matter how much you believe the Democrats have abandoned you, the will not appoint rightwing fanatics to the courts and the Republicans will. That is all you need to know. Regardless of any problems you may have with the Democrats, electing Republicans is way, way worse!
 
 
+8 # CAMUS1111 2012-08-23 16:47
@mainiac--- what a tool
 
 
+16 # BradFromSalem 2012-08-23 12:38
Charles Pierce,

I am very disappointed in your article. First the title implies that you were going to draw up a roadmap for Elizabeth Warren to follow and win against the swell guy, Sen. Scott "ain't he grand!" Brown. All you have down is advise her to play the game on the Republican playing field by bringing in outside cash.
Second, you puusyfoot around the core issue where Professor Warren is taking direction from a bunch of old-time Democratic operatives. This is her biggest mistake, and possibly fatal. These guys have not been able to get a Democratic Governor elected in over 20 years! (Probably longer) A large number of the old time Democratic power structure in the state has been very slow to get behind Warren, while at the same time repressing a Primary challenge from her left. The net effect has been to make her look like she's running all alone. The party has not stood up and ran to the microphones when the Republicans invented controversies about her heritage and her daughter working with the State to register welfare recipients.
She needs, as you point out, to stop listening to old time party hacks, just as Mike Dukakis and Deval Patrick did - oh, that makes it over 30 years of failures. Then she needs to tell the Mayor Meninos, the rest of the Democratic establishment that the next time a make believe controversy erupts, they better stand up for her if they want her to help them when she becomes Senator.
 
 
+25 # moonrigger 2012-08-23 12:48
View Brown's record at http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/18919/

He voted against some key legislation, such as extending unemployment, extension of tax cuts for the middle class, and of course the jobs bills. So much for helping people help themselves...! He avoided voting on extending the Patriot Act, and tobacco bills. He voted against extending student loan interest rates. It's not difficult to see where his loyalties really lay.
 
 
+30 # robniel 2012-08-23 12:56
I'm a long way from Massachusetts, but I have contributed to her campaign. Her work on consumer protection has been unparalleled, so much so that Wall Street demonizes her and prevented her from leading the Consumer Protection Agency she set up with Obama. Do what you can to support this lady. We need her in office.
 
 
+10 # Henry 2012-08-23 15:25
I've contributed too! Here: http://elizabethwarren.com/welcome?sc=ad_g_nat_s_ad3_p&gclid=CJHg5-7x_rECFSaHtgodawUAlQ
 
 
+11 # X Dane 2012-08-23 20:24
robniel

How do we go about sending all the smart comments and advise being given here to Dr. Warren. I think she needs to see,... what the people who WANT her to win...is saying. And she surely needs to point out Brown's voting record.

And she most certainly needs to point out what Romney/Ryan wants to do, and that she will work hard to help THE PEOPLE, not the wealthy few.

(I intensely dislike politicians saying I will fight for..!!) There is altogether TOO much FIGHTING going on. We need our elected leaders NOT to fight, but to WORK HARD for their constituents.
 
 
+26 # tanis 2012-08-23 13:03
there are many sides to every thinking person. One side to E. Warren is that she listens. She works hard, and she is extremely intelligent. Rather than be overwhelmed by all the points to disagree with, look to the really good points of this woman. Imagine having a really bright person in the senate who listens to people. Her main thrust is jobs and a renewal of the great economic machine that drives this country. That is what she is about and that is what is needed right now. to hell with MA. political tradition. Change it!
 
 
+19 # angelfish 2012-08-23 13:32
What MORE could they ask for in a Candidate? She has HEART, she actually GIVES a damn about the people, she is owned by NO ONE, unlike Mr.Brown who probably owes his soul to the Koch brothers, et al! I wish we had an Elizabeth Warren in South Carolina! Mostly Cretins, "Birthers" and "Right to Lifers" down here! WHY do they hate ANYONE with an INDEPENDENT, FUNCTIONING brain? This Anti-Intellectu alism Crowd has GOT to GO! It USED to be that MOST folks WANTED their children to be educated and equipped to function in the REAL World. Sadly, they all prefer to sit at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party and drink the swill of the moment! Currently the flavor is "Legitimate Rape"! Remember dear folks, get up, get out, REGISTER, help others to do the same and VOTE, and oh yes, never, EVER Vote ReTHUGlican!
 
 
+5 # X Dane 2012-08-23 20:40
angelfish.

OH MY GOD, you live in South Carolina, That must be hard with so many Cretins as you say. I would think that you are outnumbered constantly by republi- teabags

There are of course many republicans here in California, but it IS a blue state, and will surely go for Obama and Diane Feinstein will skate back into the senate, as Barbara Boxer did in 2012.
 
 
+6 # shraeve 2012-08-23 13:46
I don't see how allowing outside money into the Massachusetts race will help Warren. For every pro-Democrat ad I see on TV, I see at least two Republican ads. They have more money.
 
 
+5 # X Dane 2012-08-23 20:55
shraeve.
The money comes in very handy, when you need to QUICKLY respond to something nasty your opponent has said about you, for you CAN NOT afford to let it stand for a moment.

Remember KERRY?? He didn't respond immediately to the swift boat attacks, and that sank his campaign. For voters began to think about him as too week. And you can not let that stay in their mind .
 
 
+13 # brux 2012-08-23 14:47
I really like elizabeth Warren, and I wish I could vote for her.

I think one inherent problem Democrats have is that their determination to fight for social justice makes people scared that they will not be for or will even inadvertently be against growth and prosperity.

I don't know how Republicans can honestly make that argument ... not that Republicans make any argument honestly, but somehow this kind of thing can stick - and I don't understand why.

I think Warren needs to speak strongly in favor of what she can do to help business or frame her social justice issues in a way that highlights how it will help everyone.

A good example of this kind of issue has always been the minimum wage. Every time the minimum wage issue has come up the Republicans lie and say it will lead to a drop in employment and every time it has passed a higher minimum wage has raised employment. What this means is that employment is so unfair in the US that people cannot take jobs in many cases because they do not pay enough. For example if you had to take a job that risked your body without health insurance would you want Republicans attacking you for it?
 
 
+5 # brux 2012-08-23 17:01
A good example of this kind of issue has always been the minimum wage. Every time the minimum wage issue has come up the Republicans lie and say it will lead to a drop in employment and every time it has passed a higher minimum wage has raised employment. What this means is that employment is so unfair in the US that people cannot take jobs in many cases because they do not pay enough. For example if you had to take a job that risked your body without health insurance would you want Republicans attacking you for it?

In other words behind every Republican lie is another rip off or some weaker class or group that they do not want to acknowledge.
 
 
+18 # William LeGro 2012-08-23 15:25
Of all the places in this intellectually benighted country, I would have thought that it would be Massachusetts where the smart people outnumbered the dumb people. Where people would want someone who would actually take the fight to DC rather than a guy whose MO is to relax and go along to get along, as if he were just another pretty face in a magazine centerfold.

Given the polls, I guess not. I can only hope that the polls are very, very wrong.
 
 
+7 # BradFromSalem 2012-08-23 18:45
William,

You would not believe how stoopid some people are here. Remember, we gave you Willard. Prior to him we had Jane Swift as governor. She was so dumb that the Republican party had to reach out to Mitt and get him to return so she would not run. The Dems chose some lame brane dame instead of Robert Reich. I was at that convention, and Reich was not the only qualified candidate, but instead my arm was twisted in knots to vote for Shannon O'Brien; who was not ready for primetime.
Talk radio here is dominated by the Righties, and even a former Speaker of the Mass House was on the station. A blatant supporter of Brown. The Dems have by and large ignored Warren; even the Boston Globe has given her little respect.
But the recent polls are a reflection of recent controversy, and should be ignored at this point in time. A Federal agreement with the state regarding outreach for registering voters on welfare resulted in a mailing of voter registration forms to those on welfare! The group that brokered the agreement is headed by Warren's daughter. Brown was trying to convince people with fleeting success that this constituted recruiting voters for Warren since people on welfare would likely vote for her.
The Globe at least recognized that there was no controversy, but the rhetoric on talk radio would make you think that Warren should be put in irons, brought up here to Salem and tried as a bitch, I mean witch.
 
 
+17 # Buddha 2012-08-23 15:37
So, in essence, too many in Massachusetts falling for Brown's flash over Warren's substance. That has always been the Dem's problem, our platform and argument doesn't fit on a bumpersticker and requires a brain not stuck in neutral to get.
 
 
+10 # ghostperson 2012-08-23 18:52
If I had to put my life, my child's life and my business affairs in the hands of a single individual, it would be Elizabeth Warren, the smart, hard-working, blue collar gal who worked her way up the economic food chain and who can take on Wall Street greed mongers with half her brain tied behind her back. They oppose her for a reason. Did you see the Geitner smackdown? It takes teams of plutocrats to even keep up with her analytical wizardry. Go Liz, Go! Do us proud!
 
 
-7 # FDRva 2012-08-23 19:51
Liz Warren's problem is Obama.

Liz is much more human--and competent-- than Wall Street's Barack.

And even in blue Mass. Pres. Barry Obama is not especially personally popular.

And his policies?

Continue Bush's Banker bailouts--not popular.

Continue Bush's wars & start one with Iran--not popular.

Impose Mitt Romney's local health-care reform nationwide--not popular.
 
 
+3 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-08-23 21:18
Ah, they forget so soon. Warren scares the GOP to the tune of "we'll hold our breath and hold up congress if you let that new sheriff into our Congress."
Remember how the agency she created against all odds, and should have been run by her, was blocked by the GOP (Great Obstructionist Party)?
They will do all they can to try to defeat her. Brown is getting loads of money from the likes of Rove, Koch and the other cabal sewer rats. We just don't see it because we're not allowed to see it, by law. SCOTUS is running the show to some extent.

But all this is useless if you believe the guys who 'predicted' a Romney win. Some gambling algorithm they have been using since 1980. Screw them! Let's see them predict when the Arctic Ice Cap will be completely melted so I can try to get an apartment on a higher floor from which I can see the Statue of Liberty drown in the new Great Lake (formally known as New York Harbor.

If all the 'pundits' continue to say that Americans vote their pocketbooks, and all the pocketbooks of the 99% can fit into the one pocketbook of the 1%, I have a bridge to sell them connecting Manhattan with Brooklyn. I'll sell it real cheap, since it will be totally under water after the ice cap melts...sucker!

I know I'm sounding crazy, and all over the place, but all this stuff is just that-crazy!!!

RSN commentators for Congress! The only way to save the nation.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN