Negative Attacks Taking Toll On Brown and Warren
Monday, October 08, 2012
Warren holds a five-point lead over the incumbent Senator, 50-45, according to a new survey by the Western New England University Polling Institute with the Springfield Republican released Sunday. The results were in line with the Polling Institute's previous poll, conducted September 6 through 13, which found Warren ahead of Brown by 6 points, 50-44.
Favorability Suffering From Negative Ads
However, the new poll of 440 likely voters, conducted from September 28 through October 4, found a negative shift in the favorability ratings of both candidates.
The Democrat's unfavorability rating has ticked up to 41 percent, up 8 points from the 33 percent recorded in the September survey. Warren lost 3 points in terms of favorability, dropping from 53 percent to an even 50 percent.
Brown's numbers shifted as well, with his favorability falling from 54 percent to 52 percent since the last poll and his unfavorability increasing by 4 points to 36 percent from 32 percent last month.
“The negative ads that each campaign has aired recently may be hitting their targets,” said Tim Vercellotti, director of the Polling Institute and a professor of Political Science at Western New England University.
The Warren campaign released two new radio ads last week, continuing its attacks on Brown. The first ad highlights the Republican Senator's choice of Antonin Scalia when asked to name a model Supreme Court Justice during his second debate with Warren in Lowell. The radio spot focuses on Scalia's opposition to Roe V. Wade and the Justice's belief that the Constitution does not protect women from discrimination.
In the second ad, workers and advocates criticize Brown for using his opponent's legal work on a case involving Travelers Insurance and asbestos victims, characterizing the Senator's attacks as a misleading attempt to score political points.
A new television ad from Warren, however, left the Republican Senator unmentioned, opting instead to focus on the candidate's work as a consumer advocate and her willingness to fight for working people against big banks and corporations.
Meanwhile, the Brown campaign rolled out two new web videos. The first goes after Warren for her legal work for LTV Steel in a case where the steel conglomerate attempted to get out of providing health care benefits to the company's retirees.
"Sports Legends for Scott," on the other hand, follows up on Brown's endorsement from Celtics great Bob Cousy in Worcester with words of support from the Hall of Famer as well as former Celtics Dave Cowens and JoJo White and Patriots stars Drew Bledsoe, Steve DeOssie and Fred Smerlas.
A Balancing Act Until Election Day
Dennis "DJ" Deeb, a professor of Political Science at UMass-Lowell, had previously warned of the potential cost of going negative, arguing that the attacks could end up backfiring if voters becomes so turned off that they blank the Senate portion of their ballots on Election Day.
"I don't see the positive side to it," he said.
At the same time, an opponent's negative attacks all but necessitates that a candidate respond in kind.
"You have to fight fire with fire in a political campaign," said Deeb.
But with less than 30 days until November 6, Brown and Warren still face a balancing act as they try to win more voters to their corner and hang onto the ones they already have.
“The candidates cannot take their supporters for granted,” Vercellotti said.
“With a month to go before the election, Warren and Brown have not fully closed the deal with voters.”
Related Articles
- Second Brown-Warren Debate: Who Came Out On Top?
- Brown Doing His Own Dirty Work: Stays on the Offensive
- Can Brown Afford to Keep Going Negative?
- Clark Professor: Brown-Warren Race to Get Uglier
- Sen. Brown Maintains Edge In Central Mass
- MA Experts Say Brown-Warren Spending “Politics As Usual”
Comments:
Iron Mike Farquhar
8:22am on Monday, October 08, 2012
Not hard to understand. Brown stands firmly in the middle of the road – astride the yellow stripe and the occasional dead skunk.
Warren stand firmly on 'her mother's word' that she's part Cherokee and part Delaware, - and that she is the 'intellectual foundation' of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. She believes she's entitled to practice law without a license, and flip foreclosed homes in Oklahoma while railing against the banks that foreclosed them, – even while taking their campaign money.
What's to like about either one? Voters will choose the least worst. For me it's Brown, because while part of him is a Democrat, - ALL of Warren is socialist.
Kristin Mayo
12:40pm on Monday, October 08, 2012
A widow tells the truth about her husband's death from asbestos.
" Scott Brown should be ashamed of his attacks on Elizabeth Warren's asbestos work."
TV Ad: Ashamed - YouTube
http://www.elizabethwarren.com/ashamed
(refers to Scott-- should be ashamed)
If you copy and paste the link into google, it works
Kristin Mayo
12:47pm on Monday, October 08, 2012
Hope you can click on this.
TV Ad: Ashamed - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn9G7ZS_2Uo
Edward Saucier
1:28pm on Monday, October 08, 2012
Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it. I consider any political ad that does not tell the truth to be a negative ad. I consider any political ad that does tell the truth to be a positive ad. Ads that are made to misinterpret facts or mislead people into believing that something happened that did not happen is a negative ad. As far as I'm concerned it's the same as lying. I like to check out all the ads by Warren and Brown for verification.
The way I see it, Elizabeth Warren is truthful in her ads and there is nothing in them that is misleading. Scott Brown, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. He often misrepresents the facts and most of his ads are misleading. The way I see things, people like that are not trustworthy, have no honor and don't deserve the vote of any person. It also seems to me that Scott Brown doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, or, he does know but just doesn't care.
Kristin Mayo
6:32pm on Monday, October 08, 2012
I thought that readers on this Site might like to know that MetroWest called Scott Brown out.
Editorial: Scott Brown’s character assault - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x21086401/Editorial-Scott-Brown-s-character-assault?zc_p=1
Harvey Beehive
6:43pm on Monday, October 08, 2012
So Ed, when Elizabeth Warren claims to have always stood up for the litle guy, she's being truthful? How do you reconcile that claim with her representing a big insurance company against working people trying to collect on an asbestos-related illness?
Kristin Mayo
7:02pm on Monday, October 08, 2012
from the MetroWest editorial 10/08/12:
We blame the moderators for devoting so much time at the beginning of the first two debates to Brown’s trivial attacks on Warren’s character. But the moderators haven’t forced Brown to flood the airwaves with negative ads rehashing the tired Indian heritage business and distorting her courtroom record.
Pundits typically note that politics is a contact sport and both sides do it, the better to appear balanced in their criticism. Not in this case. Warren has not attacked Brown’s character or his family. She has stuck to his record and their differences on issues.
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x21086401/Editorial-Scott-Brown-s-character-assault