Scott Brown

Even with an unexceptional legislative record Brown did the best with what he had – and it proved more than enough. So how did he do it?

First, he developed a clear, crisp campaign theme that caught voters’ concerns: “I will create jobs, end business as usual in Washington and stop the health reform bill that will raise your taxes.”

Martha Coakley’s apparent theme, “I will be accountable to you,” ignored voters concerns and challenges of these difficult economic times.

Second, Brown spoke with an emotion, energy and sense of urgency that communicated far more than the denotative meaning of his words. He wants to be Senator, and he has a plan.  Coakley, during the debates, spoke in a flat, emotionless tone that made it hard to imagine she wanted to be Senator.

Third, Brown made human, emotional contact with voters. Night after night local TV newscasts showed short clips of a smiling, affable Brown approaching people and extending his hand, saying: “I want to lower your taxes, and end business as usual in Washington…but I need your support…” He was conversational and at ease talking with voters and in front of TV cameras.

Coakley, according to the Boston Globe, which endorsed her, was all but invisible to the electorate. Days before the election, a You Tube video shows her briskly walking past reporters in Washington, DC. An aide is seen shoving a reporter. As Coakley disappears into the night, we hear her say: “no comment.”

Fourth, Brown clearly defined himself and his role. This gave him the mindset to look and sound like a Senator. At the final debate in Boston, the moderator spoke of Ted Kennedy’s seat, to which Brown sharply retorted, “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, not the Democrat seat, it’s the people’s seat.” It’s possible the race was decided at that moment.

Worse for Coakley during the debate, she allowed Brown to define her saying, “you are wrong, Martha…. This isn’t a court room, Martha…”

Two other debates in which a candidate defined an opponent in unfavorable terms. In 1980 Ronald Reagan several times defined Jimmy Carter – “there you go again…” He ended with a question: “Ask yourself are you better off than you were four years ago?”

In 1984, Reagan defined another opponent, Walter Mondale saying: “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth or inexperience ….” Even Mondale chuckled. The Presidential race probably was decided at that moment.