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)
How Elizabeth Warren Can Win
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.
|
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. |













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
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.
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.
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.
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!
The only vote that is thrown away is a vote for someone you don't want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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?
In other words behind every Republican lie is another rip off or some weaker class or group that they do not want to acknowledge.
Given the polls, I guess not. I can only hope that the polls are very, very wrong.
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.
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.
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.
RSS feed for comments to this post