How Scott Brown took Teddy's Seat

In an interesting piece in the Daily Beast Nicolle Wallace, former director of communications for the GW Bush White House, speaks to the reasons why Scott Brown was victorious in the Massachusetts senate seat election. In her words "Scott Brown won for a variety of reasons".. here are a few of her reasons why he did..
  • He is scrappy, accessible, humble and hard-working. The pickup truck helped. So did his young, energetic daughters.
  • He didn’t back away from the issues that are of the greatest importance to Republicans.
  • He wasn’t intimidated or distracted by the white noise that emanates from Washington about how Republicans can’t simply run “against” something; they need to be “for” something. Scott Brown proved all the wise men (and women) wrong on that front by running as “41.”
  • He was for the important things: jobs, tax cuts, less government, and a strong military.
  • Brown ran as an unapologetic supporter of waterboarding and an opponent of granting rights and privileges to enemies during wartime.
  • He allowed voters to like Obama. For Republicans to win in November, they will have to acknowledge the personal appeal of both President and Mrs. Obama.
Wallace ends her piece saying..
Perhaps the secret of Brown’s appeal to the independent set is the simple fact that he knows who he is; he hasn’t been focus-grouped or scripted or insulated from the people he represents.
Firstly.. I do know that the seat was not Teddy's.. calling it "the people's seat" was one of the things Brown said that I think helped him win the race. Another thing that Wallace did not say was that Browns democratic opponent Martha Coakley didn't run a very good campaign.

All that said I do think that I agree with Wallace on a few points.. Brown does seem to know who he is and what he believes in. In hindsight I think that the main thing was that he came across as an independent running on the GOP ticket.. I feel that this attracted moderate democrats and independent voters.

Lastly I think that voters did weigh in on Brown as the 41st GOP senator.. I may be wrong but I think people have grown weary of a non-collaborative effort by the congress.. and having the 60 Democratic senator super majority has not presented an image of bipartisanship.

Wallace (and I) may be off on this assessment. Why do you think Brown won?


  1. KB, in my opinion, you and Wallace made excellent assessments. I got the daily irritation...uh, privilege to watch and hear all the ads. On your point about Coakley's campaign - it seemed that she and her people made two errors from my perspective. First, they seemed to think they would win just by being Democrats - it was in the bag - and seemed to avoid anything but the pre-recorded party message. They're messages were focused on making sure the health reform bill will get passed. Second, when they realized it wasn't "in the bag" they came back with negative ads, that said Brown's name over and over. Nobody tried to outline Coakley's accomplishments, beliefs, or let us know what she is about.

    Brown's ads were personable and consistent - and he usually referred to Coakley as "my opponent" rarely by name. Although, he was rather cocky in his acceptance speech - but it might go with the winning part, so I'll wait to see if it sticks that way. :)

    Also - I don't know if others felt this way, but in her ads, Coakley appeared and sounded very robotic and uncomfortable.

  2. Ever since your article on "humble opinions", I think of that when I make a comment.

    I have to agree with Missy as I think you and Nicole both made good assessments.

    I think Scott Brown got carried away with the excitment of winning, and don't think he will prove to be a cocky person.

  3. If Brown believes in torture he shouldn't be a lawmaker.

    I think Coakley lost because the Dems didn't deliver the change that the majority of MA voters expected after the 2008 elections. But what sense is there in voting for the candidate that has vowed to oppose the specific changes that the voters still want. Does it make sense to pluck out one's eye because of poor eyesight?

    I think the MA voters have made a big mistake and they aren't the first or the last to do it. Our Congress provides ample proof. Michele Bachman, Virginia Foxx and Joe Lieberman are just a few examples.


I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.