Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Looks/Charisma won it for Brown, a lazy condencending effort lost it for Coakley.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jonathan_seer Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 03:49 AM
Original message
Looks/Charisma won it for Brown, a lazy condencending effort lost it for Coakley.
She clearly felt winning the primary was the same as winning the general.

She took a 10 day Christmas vacation, and when she was actually campaiging was rarely seen or heard by any but those who could give her money. Every day voters were told they had NO choice but to elect her to Kennedy's Democratic Senate seat.

Saying that alone figuratively as her campaigning tactics did would have been enough to sink her, but she did many more things just as insane that caused her to lose.

And in the end it's THE CANDIDATE, NOT THE PARTY that is responsible.

Dismissed the need to glad hand the public and meet them face to face or otherwise get my hands dirty actually asking Massachusetts voters to vote for her.

Instead she depended on stock mail outs, and canned robotic appearances which immediately made people NOT like her when juxtaposed next to teabagger studmuffin man.

If there is one truth re: ALL of America regardless of politics, color or income it is we are very looksist society.

Looks grant untold power to those blessed with an abundance of good looks without justification, without reason beyond merely looking at someone who is exceedingly attractive makes us feel good.

In the case of Brown even Progressives weren't immune for it seems some found reasons to vote for him.

If Dems. had run a halfway war candidate than much of Brown's appeal would have been nullified.

In Coakley though there was the perfect candidate to dramatically magnify Brown's natural abundance of looks based charm into raging charisma so powerful that a naked centerfold that would have sunk any other candidate resulted in charges of ugly tactics by Democrats and people everywhere defending him. That's the power of looks.

A man that good looking knows all too well how potent his "looks" are provided he handle it properly and not come off as a "looksist" be willing to wear the disguise of an every day guy who doesn't even know he's attractive - willingness to do a centerfold in a woman's magazine aside.

This was tailor-made for probably the most attractive politician in the nation today to craft an upset.

Everything so many people are trying to interpret this election to mean is too quick post game analysis, and avoiding probably the #1 factor that made Brown's otherwise insane positions for Massachusetts seem not to matter. in the same way a sports analyst sometimes attributes a victory to destiny rather than the winning team playing much better and smarter than the overconfident favorite who took the week off from training before the big game, and deigned to play their first stringers after the opposing team had built an insurmountable lead.

In a short election like this, where your guy is actively driving voters away with a pretentious demeanor and comments indicating a sense of entitlement that most loathe, this advantage is way too much to overcome.

People don't quickly forgive those they loathe, and they prefer to ignore they are even there.

By saying all the wrong things, doing all the wrong things as pretentiously as possible, taking Rahm's claim that progressives will do what they're told made her loathsome to the Mass. electorate.

When she finally realized the danger she was in, they were in no mood to listen to her or give her the benefit of the doubt. They were busy admiring Brown's cosmopolitan centerfold, ironically rather than damaging him it acted as sort of a positive shield that deflected serious questions and made many people defend him

All this due to charisma boosted by an truly incompetent campaign by an otherwise qualified candidate.

In the long term his charisma won't withstand his horrid political positions IN Mass.

In a short term election like this one, where one side dismisses making an effort, because their win is a given charisma can short circuit the critical observations of most voters.

They're still getting used to Brown's extremely good looks - give the anti-christ er I mean man his due.

It's not true what we were told on Buffy the vampire slayer, NOT all demons are hideous ogers. Quite a few are extremely sexy and get away with being so evil, because they're so hot the notion they could be a bad person is not something words can convey, only their actions.

Now we've been taught that lesson once again, I hope we don't let it happen again (romney)

That's something that in 2 years time, Brown should have ample opportunity to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kurt Remarque Donating Member (709 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. not pretty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Great writing......
I wonder if Coakley would have had a nude centerfold,
what would have happened? You think it would have helped her....?
cause I'm starting to think that it should have,
but being a Democrat, perhaps not. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. And whose fault was this this was allowed to happen? Great writing?
I think not. It is just an opinion that hat deflects the blame from where it really belongs.So far some have attempted to blame women, unions, voters, GLBTS, anti-war protesters Coakley and everyone other than those who shouldered the brunt of the responsibility for this loss, the Party apparatchniks who failed in any kind of GOTV Primary effort, selected the entitlement candidate, and didn't even bother to disguise the fact that she felt entitled and persisted in turning a deaf ear toward base policy.This was a "safe" seat and they wanted who they wanted. I guess that backfired. Perhaps they might learn from this! Or they can keep ignoring the base and pandering to the special interest corporate elite.If we could become Democrats again, Democrats would win!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. It wouldn't have helped
She's a woman, so it would have shown her to have loose morals

BTW: I do like the cat pic you have
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Don't put all the blame on Coakley. Most of it belongs on the party Admin and leadership who allowed
this. Nothing was done to create a win and the entitlement candidate was selected.And GOTV was non existent as usual for the primary.And don't blame the voters either. Blame the party message crafters who provided no reason to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Curt Schilling gaffe was pretty bad too, and often overlooked here on DU.
I'm not even a huge baseball fan, and I realize Schilling was a Red Sox pitcher.

I also realize the Red Sox and the Yankees have quite the rivalry - I see it every day where I live.

Kerry just juxtaposed the names of two Red Sox players, not exactly a big deal. Coakley said, days before the election, that Schilling was a Yankees fan. Way to piss off every Red Sox fan in Massachusetts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 04:09 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R, very well written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonathan_seer Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. thanks for
the kind compliment :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC