Scott Brown’s upset victory over Martha Coakley seemed unimaginable only a few weeks ago. Brown, an obscure Republican state senator, in a state with only 12% registered Republicans, was down 30 points in the polls to Martha Coakley, the Democrat. He was written off by everyone – Republicans and Democrats.
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.
Isn’t it it really about a rejection of Barack Obama and his policies?
It’s possible Obama’s policies may have contributed to the forces that drove 52% of the electorate to support Brown. But his message was more focused on voter’s anger and fears about job loss, a slow to improve economy, and skepticism about a health care reform bill.
He provided a vision and solution that energized his supporters: “I am an independent thinker who will be your voice to end business as usual in Washington. I will create jobs, and not let them raise your taxes by stoppling the Health Care Reform bill.
My name is Piter Jankovich. Only want to tell, that your blog is really cool. Is this blog your hobby?
I was starting to think I could possibly end up being the sole man or women who thought about this, at the least currently. I am going to make sure to take a look at a few various other articles when i get some caffeine in me. I was up late playing zynga poker.
Hi: Thank you for the article.
Thanks, for your comments. One point about Senator Brown. He worked many years to become a strong campaigner with a message that spoke to the interests of those who voted for him.
When Senator John McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin as his VP nominee, Obama is reported to have said she won’t be effective. He said it took him over a year of campaigning to define and sharpen his message and delivery. Governor Palin had only eight weeks to develop a message. This may explain why she was more comfortable attacking than putting forth a plan for a possible McCain-Palin administration.
Thanks, regarding the posting. It is enjoyable to go through anything smart once in a while instead of the ordinary stuff masquerading as information sites on the internet.
Hi. Excellent little blog you got here.
Thanks for the post! I love it!
thanks.