Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blaukraut

(5,919 posts)
5. Actually, not in this case. EW and SB have an agreement: no 3rd party ads
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 04:04 PM
Sep 2012

There are simpler explanations.

1.Scott Brown is running an excellent campaign. You would never know he is a Republican just by watching his ads. Very personal, nothing political, appealing to the working class MA voter.

2. Elizabeth Warren's campaign, otoh, is not achieving the one thing that she needs to achieve, and that is getting MA voters to 'know' her as a person. She needs to run ads that introduce her. Her liberal credentials and where she stands on issues are already known.

3. This is something beyond EW's control. The majority of registered voters here in MA are Independents. However, probably 75% of these so-called Indies are really Republicans who just won't admit it until they hit the voting booth.

4. Massachusetts folks hate it when their elected officials see their office as merely a stepping stone to bigger and better things. And with (imo) too many out of state calls for 'Elizabeth Warren 2016' and more money raised from outside sources than from MA residents, it does raise a red flag. Scott Brown probably has more higher office aspirations than EW, but he has managed to bamboozle the people here into thinking he loves being our 'senatah' and nothing more.

5. Finally, Baystaters are disgraceful when it comes to electing a women.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

maybe a matter of image and perception instead of content? nt msongs Sep 2012 #1
CU $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CU NRaleighLiberal Sep 2012 #2
That is the single biggest threat we have now I think...Amend now! silvershadow Sep 2012 #3
Actually, not in this case. EW and SB have an agreement: no 3rd party ads Blaukraut Sep 2012 #5
Thanks, I agree. Mass Sep 2012 #7
yup, you got it! n/t MBS Sep 2012 #16
great insights - thanks! NRaleighLiberal Sep 2012 #8
I like everything about Warren EXCEPT unhappycamper Sep 2012 #9
Probably true... pipi_k Sep 2012 #11
His "on the road ads" may seem silly but they are effective, I think. chelsea0011 Sep 2012 #13
so it's Coakley all over again? bummer. 0rganism Sep 2012 #14
good analysis! MBS Sep 2012 #15
What The Hell Massachusetts?????? krhines Sep 2012 #4
I've been wondering the same thing. Loved her speech yesterday! dreamnightwind Sep 2012 #6
Having lived here for nearly pipi_k Sep 2012 #10
That's just it! All politics is local! Blaukraut Sep 2012 #12
Thanks for correcting the "deep blue" image. MBS Sep 2012 #17
Even the Berkshires pipi_k Sep 2012 #18
I'm thinking that Massachusetts is bi-polar. There's no other explanation... Stardust Sep 2012 #19
Things may start to change. She is starting a new series of ads on 9/14 and chelsea0011 Sep 2012 #20
She isn't! nt valerief Sep 2012 #21
Not any more, she isn't. polmaven Sep 2012 #22
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Massachusetts»Can someone here explain ...»Reply #5