Reply #4: Brown's excuse does not hold water [View All]

[karynnj]

If he really was JUST concerned that it did not apply to all groups, the obvious solution would be to find a Democrat clearly for transparency (not hard to find - even sticking to his state's delegation) to offer an amendment that applies the DISCLOSE rules to EVERY entity that funds an ad. He could then, in good conscious, say that he will vote for the bill if it passes. That would actually strengthen the bill. (I know this would upset some Democrats - and I know that was part of a compromise in the House. )This could make them rethink this. I personally think that tagging a union backed ad as being a union backed ad is more likely to make it more effective - not less. As to the NRA, if they are ONLY putting out ads dealing with gun policy, I doubt their tag would be a problem. This suggests to me that they intend to target opponents with ads that have nothing to do with their gun policy.

As to the relative fund raising amounts, they could have pointed out that in 2006, 2 years before JK's election he had something like $14 million - after giving millions to the DNC, DSCC and DCCC. ( remember Hey, John?) He has had many appeals to raise money for hundreds of 2005 - 2010 races for other Democrats, without a major effort to raise money for himself. Another way to put Brown's number in context is that (from memory) JK spent $9 million in 2008. I have no doubt that Brown's funds will continue to increase well beyond their current amounts. Although it is presumptuous of me as someone not from MA to speak on his chances in this group where others know far more about MA politics, I think he will have a harder time than the MSM seems to think. At any rate, he will need far more than the rather frugal 2008 Kerry campaign spent.

In 2012, Brown is very unlikely to get an opponent as lame as Beatty was - and given the need to cross the line, he likely could get a tea party candidate primary challenge that would be more serious than EOR ever was. In the general election, there are many seemly excellent Democratic Opponents. The Boston Globe editorialized about Elizabeth Warren. Over at Blue Mass, some seemed to think that Tim Murray might be a great choice to oppose him if Patrick wins. MA people obviously have seen far more of him, but at least in the one event I remember (that had online video)- a vet event with Kerry and Cleeland in Worchester, he had all the same charm as Brown, without the stupidity and phoniness. Being a LT Governor also could help vs having a DC job. The articles about Kerry/Weld all spoke of how, until the Senate recessed, Kerry was at a major disadvantage because he was not in MA. If he hasn't already, Patrick when reelected could give Murray roles that would help him gain name recognition - while helping the state. The Blue Mass people pointed out that Murray could cut into Brown's totals from the Worcester area.

With Murray, many of the Congressmen, or someone like Elizabeth Warren as possible opponents, Brown's race is not at all like what Kerry faced in 2008. Some Brown positions - like voting against extending unemployment - seem to be getting negative comments even in the Boston Herald. Kerry's over all positions were (and are) majority positions in MA and, RW snark to the contrary, he was seen as a very competent, honest, senior Senator - getting even the Boston Herald's endorsement. (Kind of like Brown getting the endorsement of the Phoenix). Even now, the only one of those attributes of those Brown would get is honest.

In addition, Brown is not Kerry. In 2008, what was clear is that the approval rating did not capture Kerry's true strength. In the same polls where his approval rating was near 50, he beat any Democrat or Republican by more than 20 points. My conjecture is the opposite is true of Brown. There have - to my knowledge - not been any head to head polls for Brown. It is well known among pollsters that one source of bias is that many people try to answer the way they think the pollster wants. As the message has been that Brown is cool and a rock star, many with no strong feelings would be inclined to say "approve" - and many liberals and moderates, given that Brown had just crossed to vote yes, might have said "approve" to appear fair minded. In Kerry's case, even though in the same poll they picked him over popular people, when asked approve/disapprove, they appeared to remember something (such as losing in 2004) or remember it's not cool to like him.

Not to mention there is the turn out issue. In 2008, Brown only got slightly more votes than McCain got in 2008. In a Presidential election year with a more engaging opponent than Coakley, Brown would likely need about 35% more votes - and they would have to come from people who voted for Obama and Kerry in 2008 who did not vote in 2010. (Proof: there were approximately 3 million voters in 2008 of which Kerry got nearly 2/3rds - Brown won with about 1.1 million votes - getting 52% of the vote. If there were 3 million voters, he would need over 1.5) Not to mention, in 2008, both the Presidential race or the Senate race were clearly going to be landslides. What I am estimating here is the likely increase in votes Brown will need to get 50% or more of the vote - which means a close Senate race. This could mean that the number of voters could be even higher. As Brown likely energized the Republicans as much as they could be energized, the untapped voters are more likely to be those who lean to the Democrats.

The only things that I can see that could help Brown is if he continues to get the endless positive coverage and if people cynically think that as the man in the middle he can get more for MA than a freshman Democrat could.