A light snow is falling in central Mass. I just came back from voting for the probable loser.
Brown led an excellent marketing campaign. He built an image of himself that appeals to everyone and ran commercials endlessly to get the message out. His biggest platform was to lower taxes. Although i don’t think people fall for that anymore, he seemed to stay away from other Republican ideas. He’s got good looks and charisma and he used that to his advantage.
Coakley’s campaign was very milquetoast. Half of her commercials just stated her platform. Boring. The other half attacked Brown, painting him as just another Republican. Even in Massachusetts, i don’t think this line works anymore with both U.S. Houses, the Presidency, and the Governorship all in Dem hands.
As for the Democrat primaries, all four candidates seemed almost exactly the same regarding their ideas. I think Coakley won because she appealed to women, who are the majority of Democrats in Mass.
Can you please start another thread about this topic if you think it’s important? We’re just trying to discuss whether or not this guy will win and what it means if he does.
Having seen her speak, I’ll just give her a compliment and say she’s not as bad as Lieberman.
Image is pretty important in politics, and Brown certainly has the image factor won handily. The news story I read this AM in my paper said that he made a great effort to run as an “independent” (small “i”) rather than a Republican. It mentioned that his web site doesn’t show his party affiliation.
We were away all weekend, and got back to find four phone messages – all political. One was a recorded message from Bill Clinton and another a recorded message from Barack Obama. They reeally do want to make sure people get out and vote.
One peculiarity here is that posters and political ads rarely mention which party the candidate belongs to. I’vew never understood this. Brown is using it to his advantage, trying to call himself an “independent” and not mentioning that he’s a Republican in hopes of snatching up the crucial undeclared and independent voters.
as for Coakley running an “attack” campaign, I don’t see it. Of course she’s attacking Brown – but no more than Brown’s attacking her. More to the point, in view of what I say above, is that she’s tying Brown tpo the Republicans, so that independents and Democrats who might not be following this won’t vote for him under the impression that he’s not aligned with either party.
We’re constantly being barraged by these ads. I can’t wait for this election to be over.
Our house got at least 12 robocalls over the weekend, including one from Curt Schilling. That’s 12 answered - after a while we stopped answering if we didn’t recognize the caller ID, so it may have been closer to 20.
And when I voted this morning there was a light snow falling, but I’ve never seen the polling place so crowded at 8:30 AM. I think turnout will be bigger than anyone expected.
Anecdotally - I live about 15 miles north of Boston. I’ve seen plenty of lawn signs for Brown, but not a single one for Coakley. I think Brown gets a very narrow win.
I grew up in Massachusetts and I’m very torn about this election.
On the one side, I support the health care bill and want to see it pass; I also support much of the Democratic platform. I’m pro-life, but Brown is pro-choice anyway so that has no bearing.
On the other hand, I confess a certain amount of glee at the thought of having the MA democrats get their hat handed to them. And also, Diogenes has really pissed me off in this thread also so I’d like to see him eat crow.
As a Democrat who is not from Mass, but who knows many folks there, I understand this completely. The stiff spine of the Mass dem-leaning independents is not to be trifled with, and Coakley is not particularly inspiring.
The really funny/sad thing about this is that if the state legislature hadn’t revamped the way a vacant Senate seat is filled (in anticipation of Kerry’s move to the White House, not Kennedy’s demise), none of this would be occurring. Deval Patrick would have appointed an interim Senator, and a replacement for the remainder of Ted’s term would have taken place in November 2010. The usual gang of Congressmen would have gotten re-elected, and you wouldn’t be worrying about snowstorms or low voter turnout & disinterest. In that case, the Democratic candidate would have won easily.
What’s really funny is that revamping the election law yet again this year, and for an obviously partisan purpose, lost the Democratic Party in Massachusetts a good amount of credibility with many voters and likely hurt them in this election, in the aggregate.
Of course, Brook was quite liberal for a Republican and most members of the party elected to Congress or governor have been fairly centerist politically. Even if they identified themselves as conservative (e.g., Romney) they were still considerably to the left of the rest of the Republican Party. Brown is very different in that he seems to be an actual right-winger who won’t even slightly deviate from the party line if elected.
NDP: It does appear that Brown is a true blue conservative, while Brook was indeed quite liberal, with not much difference between him and Ted Kennedy. Brown, if elected, would have to move to the center or he won’t remain in office for more than two years. Many in Massachusetts, including yours truly, wouldn’t mind it in the least if we had a moderate Republican in the Senate to balance the ultra-liberal Kerry, however we don’t, most of us, want an extreme right winger.
The weather is pretty clear now in Beantown. I voted this morning, The polls close at 8:00 PM sharp, so the news will begin to trickle in within a few minutes after.
