Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Now I "Get it". Try it now. Apologies everyone.

Much better - thanks.

[Marek]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

The news this morning mentioned Brown spent $13M to Coakley's $4M. And that excludes all the PACs supporting him which, if the calls we received in the final two weeks are any indicator, clearly out-gunned the groups helping her. So how much of his success was tapped voter dissent versus raw marketing dollars?

[joost]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

It is unfortunate that this election was polluted with spectre of the Healthcare Bill looming on the background. The Republicans have made it no secret that they see killing the bill as their ticket to controlling Congress again. There was every incentive for the party to make an all-out effort to shame the Democrats in MA, and they succeeded rather well. To my regret the flawed healthcare bill, although less flawed than the utterly broken healthcare system, will be the victim of the party's political games.

Although my inclinations towards the fiscally conservative, socially liberal side of things, I greatly regret that this important legislation has now come under threath. It is the citizenry which are going to loose out on this one.

The Democrats deserve this loss. With their almost Soviet / union way of thinking, they assigned this important candidacy to the person who's "turn" it was, rather than someone impassionate and dynamic. I can not blame Massachusetts for rejecting the aparatchnik choice and going with the charismatic former skin model. Good for them. They probably made a wise choice.


Unfortunatly, it will hurt what is likely the most important piece of legislation they will see this decade.

Brown, to garner the support of his own party's leader and gain funding, probably had no choice but to promise to vote against healthcare. I hope that he will turn into a true Senator, and vote what he really thinks.

So well done Massachusetts, meanwhile, Democrats, take a lesson from the Republicans, and wake the hell up. This loss is due to lazyness and lack of imagination, not because their this no support for the policies you so poorly try to promote

[tombat1913]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Martha has NO Mass Appeal

I agree with your analysis but, you ignored one critical analysis - Martha Coakley's lack of charisma or mass appeal.

That was one of the first things he addressed.

Political analysis will chalk the loss up to Coackley's lack of charisma and her endorsement of the Obama health care plan. But Massachusetts has a long history of electing less than electrifying candidates to office, and it's not the health care plan itself but what it represents that puts voters off. There was more to this election than meets the eye.

[WDCRob]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Martha has NO Mass Appeal

From a Massachusetts Research 2000 poll, which polled the 18% of Obama voters who returned to the polls and voted for Republican Scott Brown:

* On health care, they oppose the Senate bill because it "doesn't go far enough" and they overwhelmingly support the public option (82%).
* On the economy, by 2 to 1 they think Democrats have put special interests ahead of folks like them -- and by large margins think stronger regulation of Wall Street is more important that cutting spending.
* And 57% say Democrats are not "delivering enough on the change Obama promised."

In other words, Scott Brown won not because Republicans have suddenly won the heart of the working class - but because Obama and the Dems have been so completely pocketed and unwilling to fight for them that people are pissed.

[c1ue]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

The news this morning mentioned Brown spent $13M to Coakley's $4M. And that excludes all the PACs supporting him which, if the calls we received in the final two weeks are any indicator, clearly out-gunned the groups helping her. So how much of his success was tapped voter dissent versus raw marketing dollars?

Where is the source of this information?

According to OpenSecrets, the spending was $5M Coakley vs. $1.2M Brown

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=MA

[ggirod]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Where is the source of this information?

According to OpenSecrets, the spending was $5M Coakley vs. $1.2M Brown

I believe the answer to that is a lot of funds have not been reported yet, since reports are historical and filed regularly. So, in a while the final tally will be available.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

I don't disagree with any of Eric's points, except his claim that Scott Brown is a social liberal. Massachusetts is a state that has already legalized gay marriage, but Scott Brown supports a US constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That doesn't sound socially liberal to me.

This is a lie. Not only was he endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans, they are wildly enthusiastic about him. But that might also be because he is hot.

I have quite a few friends in the organization, what can I say.

[jtabeb]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

This is a lie. Not only was he endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans, they are wildly enthusiastic about him. But that might also be because he is hot.

I have quite a few friends in the organization, what can I say.

So what are you saying?????

Are YOU a republican?!?!??!:rolleyes:

[c1ue]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

The source is an unnamed "campaign official" - not clear which side but presumably Scott Brown's as reported by Boston.com

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...in_final_days/

But the article also notes a last minute Coakley campaign - thus assuming the attribution is true, the campaign spending on both sides is likely to rise:

Brown skillfully made the election a referendum on the issue, nationalizing the race when he repeatedly said he would be the 41st vote in the Senate, enough for the GOP to block the Democrats’ bill. Money poured in from around the country. His campaign had an initial budget of $1.2 million but eventually spent $13 million, about $12 million of which came in via the Internet, a campaign official said last night.

...

In winning, Brown withstood the most blistering assault of late attack ads the state has ever seen. As Coakley began to collapse, her campaign, Democratic Party committees, outside organized labor, and environmental and abortion rights groups bankrolled a desperate multimillion-dollar carpet bombing ad campaign in an effort to halt Brown’s surge. It backfired. The ads, some of which distorted Brown’s record, created a blowback that scorched the Democrat. Coakley entered the campaign as a well-liked politician and ended with high negative poll ratings.

[Marek]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

My source was a Morning Edition story on the local NPR station WBUR. I believe the interview was with a Coakley staffer.

[Raz]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

If you have the money, then you organize a third party. It isn't going to happen.

What can happen is un-elect all incumbents time after time until the scroungy bastards get the message--I don't know who here is going to live long enough to see things change, but another party regardless of whatever it espouses only place another hurdles between what people want and what gets done.

I fear that you're correct about this.

I was hoping that maybe twenty or thirty members of Congress could see the impending disaster and rise to the level of statesmen by leaving the RepubliCrats and forming a small but principled Third Party. THAT would be mucho shocking to the political establishment!

But you're probably right - it's just another version of the "working-girl's dream".

[Marek]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

I fear that you're correct about this.

I was hoping that maybe twenty or thirty members of Congress could see the impending disaster and rise to the level of statesmen by leaving the RepubliCrats and forming a small but principled Third Party. THAT would be mucho shocking to the political establishment!

But you're probably right - it's just another version of the "working-girl's dream".

The more likely scenario is that presaged by the political news this week even bigger than Brown's election: the Supreme Court decision that corporate donations are protected speech. Brown's election is a shift within the ebb and flow of recent politics. Unlimited corporate donations change the game.

I've been half-expecting a statement from EJ on this decision.

[jpatter666]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

I fear that you're correct about this.

I was hoping that maybe twenty or thirty members of Congress could see the impending disaster and rise to the level of statesmen by leaving the RepubliCrats and forming a small but principled Third Party. THAT would be mucho shocking to the political establishment!

But you're probably right - it's just another version of the "working-girl's dream".

Ha...strangely my wife and I were just discussing the possibility of this during the morning. We both decided were a competent third-party try to come into being, we would feel obligated to give active (monetary and actual help) support.

[SamAdams]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

The more likely scenario is that presaged by the political news this week even bigger than Brown's election: the Supreme Court decision that corporate donations are protected speech. Brown's election is a shift within the ebb and flow of recent politics. Unlimited corporate donations change the game.

I've been half-expecting a statement from EJ on this decision.

Agreed. This seems to strike down some of the restrictions on campaign promotions but there remain a lot of restrictions as I understand it. The problem is these rules are often arbitrarily only enforced against candidates from 3rd parties or those that are "outside the mainstream". You might recall difficulty for many candidates to get on the ballot in recent elections for example, because of insufficient or incorrectly completed forms in certain states. I think an argument could be made that the restrictions on money raising did not prevent Obama/McCain from raising nearly $2 billion between the two of them - but prevent large contributions from individuals supporting lesser exposed candidates who cannot as easily command attention from mainstream media sources. I mean even if you allowed McCain and Obama to raise $20billion - after a few billion you reach a point of diminishing returns and saturation. However for a 3rd party candidate to even reach a few $million is difficult when you are limited to a few $thousand per individual contribution as a small candidate.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig..._United_States

From 2005 - http://news.cnet.com/The-coming-crac...3-5597079.html

The coming crackdown on blogging
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News
See all Newsmakers

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.
Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.
In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" regulatory process now is under way.
CNET News.com spoke with Smith about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, and its forthcoming extrusion onto the Internet.
Q: What rules will apply to the Internet that did not before?
A: The commission has generally been hands-off on the Internet. We've said, "If you advertise on the Internet, that's an expenditure of money--much like if you were advertising on television or the newspaper."
Do we give bloggers the press exemption?
The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law.
Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't give bloggers the press exemption, we have the question of, do we extend this to online-only journals like CNET?
How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to political advocacy.
It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. And that's the direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have us move in. Line drawing is going to be an inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be pushed to go further. Why can this person do it, but not that person?
How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a dollar, to a campaign?
I don't know. But I'll tell you this. One thing the commission has argued over, debated, wrestled with, is how to value assistance to a campaign.
Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly.
Then what's the real impact of the judge's decision?
The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services.
They're exempt from regulation only because of the press exemption. But people have been arguing that the Internet doesn't fit
under the press exemption. It becomes a really complex issue that would strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing out there today. (Editor's note: federal law limits the press exemption to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." )
How do you see this playing out?
There's sensitivity in the commission on this. But remember the commission's decision to exempt the Internet only passed by a 4-2 vote.
This time, we couldn't muster enough votes to appeal the judge's decision. We appealed parts of her decision, but there were only three votes to appeal the Internet part (and we needed four). There seem to be at least three commissioners who like this.
Then this is a partisan issue?
Yes, it is at this time. But I always point out that partisan splits tend to reflect ideology rather than party. I don't think the Democratic commissioners are sitting around saying that the Internet is working to the advantage of the Republicans.
One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) now is you don't know who's benefiting. Both the Democrats and Republicans used the Internet very effectively in the last campaign.
What would you like to see happen?
I'd like someone to say that unpaid activity over the Internet is not an expenditure or contribution, or at least activity done by regular Internet journals, to cover sites like CNET, Slate and Salon. Otherwise, it's very likely that the Internet is going to be regulated, and the FEC and Congress will be inundated with e-mails saying, "How dare you do this!"
What happens next?
It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress is willing to stand up and say, "Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make it clear," then I think grassroots Internet activity is in danger. The impact would affect e-mail lists, especially if there's any sense that they're done in coordination with the campaign. If I forward something from the campaign to my personal list of several hundred people, which is a great grassroots activity, that's what we're talking about having to look at.
Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we have to regulate the Internet, that we have to regulate e-mail. They sued us in court over this and they won.
If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?
We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.
Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well?
Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?
Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.
So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, and you're reproducing it on your blog or forwarding it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble?
Yes. In fact, the regulations are very specific that reproducing a campaign's material is a reproduction for purpose of triggering the law. That'll count as an expenditure that counts against campaign finance law.
This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre.