Is Coakley's negative ad blitz doing her in?

[liberalpragmatist]

Up until this week, all the polls had Coakley up at 50% or just below. Now, it seems like the bottom is falling out. There's the Suffolk poll that has her at 46, but her own internals have her support falling to only 44 (3 points behind Brown).

Had she stayed at 49-50% in the polls - which is where her support had consistently been - she would be on track to win a closer-than-expected race.

Instead, her losing is a very real possibility and maybe even likely.

I'm wondering if her last-minute negative ad blitz is backfiring. This is anecdotal, but a couple friends of mine in Massachusetts say that all they're seeing are Coakley ads and that they're amateurish. And both said that lots of independent voters they talked to were complaining about them or saying they don't like Coakley because of that.

There are also lots of examples in past campaign history about negative campaigning - it works early when you're defining your opponent, but tends to backfire in the closing days.

I don't know - anybody else think this is what's happening or do you disagree?

[BeatleBoot]

1. If you haven't solidified your identity with the electorate, then

negative campaigning doesn't work.

It's Friday and she has no "October surprise".

So I think it's grim in Mass.


Just a view from Detroit.

[vadawg]

10. yup watched the same trainwreck from deeds in VA last year.

you can just see the public turning away every time the ads are run...

[Raven]

2. Her opponent is awful, just awful. No negative ad could do him justice.

Check out his voting record. There is no excuse for a democrat to sit out this election and no excuse for any decent independent to vote for Scott Brown.

[KingFlorez]

3. What was she supposed to do? Let herself get steamrolled?

This is critical, you have a threatening force trying to manipulate their way into office, we need to know what sort of person the Republican is. The Suffolk poll is horse crap anyway, none of the other polls have Brown leading and all of the sudden one pops up? Please.

[Clio the Leo]

4. I cringed when I saw that one the first time....

.... and there was Brown driving around in his truck.

Ugh.

[Xipe Totec]

5. It's phony baloney

Brown's campaign started negative and has stayed negative.

Now he's playing victim because Coakley responded.

Makes him look like a whiner.

[RBInMaine]

16. They need MORE ads SLAMMING this TEA-HATER F-ING RePUKE ASSHAT !

[karynnj]

6. One example where going negative hurt was GHWB

At the very end of the campaign, stunned he was losing, he did things like calling them Bozo and Ozone Man (I think this is right) and an already unlikable Bush began to become increasingly unlikable. Now, I am not in MA, but I doubt that she is at that level of unlikability. It does seem she may need a better mix with some ads showing a kinder, more caring side.

But, one question I have - do you think that the fact that most college kids are still on break this week could be affecting the results. I know from my daughter, who was at a MA college last year, that there was a huge effort to enroll students. Now, my daughter registered in NJ, but many register at the college. I would assume that the colleges are more Democrat than Republican. Could this block be mostly missing?

[SpencerS]

7. I have a question...

A bit off topic, but can someone please, please answer a question for me? Do you think crowd sizes at campaign rallies make any difference? Because I checked looked up news about the Scott Brown rally, with Rudolph Guilliani, today. The report covering Scott Brown's rally said that over 200 people showed up to his rally. I saw a picture, and it looked a bit scarce out there. And, I think they were outside. I read another article that covered Martha Coakely's rally with Bill Clinton, and the it said that over 750 people were there. Theirs was held indoors. Do you think the sizes of the crowds at their campaign rallies matter?

Scott Brown/Rudolph Guiliani rally
http://wbztv.com/politics/scott.brown.rudy.2.1429036.html


Picture at Scott Brown rally
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/giuliani_leads.html

Martha Coakley/Bill Clinton rally
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_hoping.html

[Imajika]

8. You can't really get the pulse of a campaign..

by the size of rallies you see on TV.

Losing candidates can still draw huge rallies, yet it doesn't mean a thing.

Just an example - Mondale/Ferraro in 1984 drew big, enthusiastic rallies right up to the end - they lost 49 states.

Here's another, Palin was very good at drawing big, excited crowds, and well, we all know how that worked out for her and the figurehead at the top of the ticket.

[LiberalLions]

9. Why did they even pick her

She said on the radio today that Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan, Schilling is a famous Red Sox pitcher. There is also Viki Kennedy repeating the words that Brown used in the debate in a new ad. Everyone knows Brown said it and some our gonna associate that meaning Kennedy supports Brown.

[RBInMaine]

15. Schilling is no longer with the Red Sox, he's a Re-PUKE, and it was just a bad joke. &WHO CARES?????

[RBInMaine]

17. Why didn't you run? Why aren't you more upset about Brown speeches at TEA-HATER rallies?

[RBInMaine]

18. What about Brown voting against rape kits and posing nude?

[karynnj]

11. I think they clearly are an indicator of interest,

but they are very difficult to compare. For instance, I am sure Clinton and Kerry are both bigger draws in MA than Guilliani. That would not measure the relative support for the two candidates.

Even when comparing rallies just with the candidates, there could be differences - such as the place of time was more convienient or it was better advertised and coordinated by the campaign. Then there is the subjective measure of how involved the people were and if the candidate really was able to reach people not previously committed.

[Unvanguard]

12. Quite possible. Whatever she's doing, it isn't working. This will be won on GOTV if at all. n/t

[RBInMaine]

14. GOTV is EVERYTHING especially in special elections. If Dems vote, she wins. No question.

[RBInMaine]

13. NO. It is all about GOTVing the BASE. And the BASE is motivated by negative ads. They are GOOD.