Remember that guy you started dating who thought you were all sweetness and light up until the point you told him you didn’t want to date him, when you spurned even his request for “no-strings” sex? You know, when he starts reacting in a manner that, well, is not likely to endear him to you.
It seems that guy has taken the helm of the Coakley campaign in Massachusetts.
Seeing Bay State voters considering rejecting their gal, he’s had her (campaign) go on the warpath against Scott Brown (you know the guy who looks like we imagine ourselves to look). To be sure, the situation is not entirely parallel, but the attitude is. Massachusetts Democrats and their special interest allies have subjected their state to a barrage of negative ads while Scott Brown has maintained the high ground, making a positive case for his candidacy. In a strange video more about himself than Martha Coakley, even the President has has joining the braying fray, calling the Republican an “opponent of change.” Guess his New York’s resolution to promote unity doesn’t kick in until January 20.
The airwaves, according to Boston friend of Bill Kristol “are blanketed with negative ads attacking Scott Brown. Frankly, I think that most of them are so over the top that they are unlikely to be productive.” He’s not the only one to speculate about the effectiveness of Democratic bile. Rating the race a toss-up, Stuart Rothenburg believes the ads might backfire:
Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.
Quoting an e-mail from a Bay State friend, Jim Geraghty provides some anecdotal evidence to back up Rothenburg’s point:
Couple of people at work have voted for Republicans in the past, but usually lean left. They’re registered indies (or, in this state, “unenrolled”). Both told me, separately, that the avalanche of anti-Brown ads is pushing them away. One said she wonders, “why didn’t we hear about all this stuff before if he’s such a bad guy?” A month ago she was leaning toward Coakley, but now says she’ll “probably” vote Brown. The other person labels the anti-Brown attack “pitiful, hail-Mary stuff”. He was a Democrat up until a few years ago, then registered unenrolled. He’s voting Brown via absentee tomorrow.
Coakley could still win this thing, but the victory will prove a tremendous cost to the Democrats, spending millions to save a Democratic seat which won’t be able to be used to protect other incumbents in trouble and furthering the image of theirs as the party of attacks and recrimination.
Hardly a way to begin their second year in power.
This is starting to sound like a rehash of my home state of Virginia last year. The Democrat candidate, Creigh Deeds, spent his entire time attacking Republican Bob McDonnell. McDonnell, on the other hand, spent his time talking about his plan to create jobs and boost the economy.
Obviously there are vast differences, too, I was only speaking to the campaign ads.
WHAT?! Obama making the situation About Him? Nooooooo…! Never happens! 😉
Would any other special election in any other state mean as much as a Democrat loss this coming tuesday in MA?
Even a 5 point loss by Scott Brown has to throw terror thru the Democrat caucus. You’d think 4 or 5 senators would go to Reid immediately and opt out of the Obamacare debacle. I mean how many jobs does Obama have for ex disgraced Senators who vote for his messes?
“It seems that guy has taken the helm of the Coakley campaign in Massachusetts.”
Amusing lead in. Kudos.
Maybe Obama made it so generic in order to be able to use it in many, many Democratic campaigns in 2010.
One thing that I have noticed is that almost all of the blogs are attacking Brown because he is a good looking guy… is that a bad thing for liberals? I know they hate pretty ladies (Carrie Prejean), and I know the left hates successful people, and rich people, and people who do well in life, and happy people, and religious people, and good people, but I guess I hadn’t heard that simply being a good looking guy was a bad thing. Anyone else notice this?
Well, ACT, they hate Sarah Palin in part because she is a good looking woman. Maybe appealing, good-looking, and seemingly kind and normal people remind the hard Left of their own emptiness and feelings of inferiority.
Hmmm… “looks like we imagine ourselves to look”? I wonder what exactly you mean by that. I for one have never imagined that I look anything like that, though I wouldn’t mind if I did.
Not holding my breath about the outcome but it does seem Brown has the momentum.
BTW, I read Brown’s rebuttal to the Boston Globe’s endorsement of Coakley and turned to the comment thread with a sense of trepidation. Amazingly, comments supporting Brown outnumbered those criticizing him by at least 4 to 1. And I didn’t see a single comment that was strongly pro-Coakley.
Brown has this year’s mo. But the Dems in MA have five decades of mo – that is, of inertia. So will Brown’s be enough?
Ah but Gene, You are forgetting about Fannie and Freddie, where good little Democrat soldiers, who do their duty and destroy the country for their party (Jamie Gorelick anyone? The woman who built up the wall between CIA and FBI so they wouldnt catch the Clintons illegal foreign campaign contributions, And in so doing, making them unable to stop the 9/11 attacks) get sent to give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for getting banks to give enormous numbers of loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back — again destroying the country for their party, and then giving huge amounts of money to elect…Barack Obama, who then quietly, on Christmas day, eliminates all limitations on money going to Fannie and Freddie….
There is no end to the payoff these Democrats will get, because there is no end to the money Fannie and Freddie will get.
My guess is James Carville is running this show. Nasty he does well.
How in the world are the liberals and the media going to spin
a Scott Brown win in MA?
There’s no way they can spin it other than a huge disaster for the liberal agenda. Even now they have flown in every democrat and union thug to help muscle Coakley over the finish line. Having done that….how can they smile and say “ummmm she was a bad candidate with a bad campaign……”
I am a democrat, I am stead fast, work hard, have a family and live quietly. Republicans always describe my politics with such emotional hyperbole. I don’t worship Obama, I admire what he has done and wish he was able to do more. I do pray for him, he has a hard job and he will fail unless others work also, to help fix the messes we have in this country. I don’t think the republicans even think about the problems , they seem more interested in the emotion fanship of party. It will be hard to straighten out the problems. I am not terrified if a democrat lose a seat. I have seen a lot of back and forth. I think the politics of hatred is hurting us, but a lot of voters seem more impressed with celebrity news and sports type hype. I wish we weren’t into that carp, I feel we are willing to be silly, it isn’t a good time to be silly.