I take no pleasure in writing this, but I'd like to provide honest feedback from a supporter, a huge fan. I know it might not sound like it, but hear me out, because I think it is important for Warren and her campaign to hear it.
I have worked in political campaign messaging for awhile, as well as been a journalist and a TV script writer. Both my husband and I are professors of communication. I say all this because we've both spent a lot of time evaluating performance.
EW did well at the beginning and was very strong in the early sequence of comments on women's health. So why were my husband and I dismayed by Warren's overall performance in the debate against Scott Brown?
Follow us over the orange croissant...
Let's start with the attitude. EW is so earnest. And, in short bursts, that quality wins -- wins big. But over an hour, it gets wearing. In our view, she doesn't change pitch, tone, style, or level of emotionality enough. Generally, she moves between lecture mode and a kind of soft, faintly ironic direct appeal, usually with both hands outstretched. a shrug, and the suggestion of an eyeroll.
And just when she needs to hit something big -- she doesn't do it. The best example comes close to the end, when she makes what we thought was a serious error:
Brown twice accuses her of taking more than $225,000 from rich corporations to sell out ordinary people and families suffering from asbestos exposure. She responds in a most reasonable tone, avoiding the charge and talking in generalities. He repeats the insult. She responds, still reasonable: (paraphrasing) "The Boston Globe investigated this and dismissed it."
By this time, she has been reasonable for about 50 minutes. Enough!
She should have raised her voice and smacked him down but good: "This is a despicable lie that is absolutely disgusting. The Senator has no moral compass. He stands here and lies about me and lies about his record. The people of this state deserve better -- heck, I deserve better. And I'm not going to let this kind of scumbaggery stand! Scott Brown, have you no shame?"
Physical appearance and carriage in a debate count too, as Richard Nixon learned to his detriment. In the debate, EW was on stage right, with the moderator in the middle, and SB at stage left.
EW needs to stand her own ground and that means addressing her own camera. Brown looked at the camera (the audience) almost all the time EW spoke. And it served him well. When EW spoke, she sometimes directed her remarks to her right, rather than at the camera. And when Brown spoke, she looked right about half the time.This turn away from the camera made her look weak and overly deferential.She should review the tape and practice communicating nonverbally to the audience while she is not talking.
That exchange was the worst. But the end wasn't much better.
Brown ended by summarizing his stump speech. EW used all her summarization time to argue that this election was important because it would determine the balance of power in the Senate. It would make Jim Inhofe Chair of the Environmental Committee. (I'll bet MA citizens are shivering in their winter boots over that insider bit of information. Sure the ones who know, know -- but they are already voting for EW.)
Brown said "You are not running against Imhofe, you're running against me in Massachusetts," and went on to re-summarize his campaign.
EW failed to respond and repeated her balance of power/Inhofe statement -- wasting her opportunity. As my husband puts it: Brown wore a self-satisfied smirk as she doubled-down on fucking up.
In our view, this entire line of argument carried a heavy opportunity cost because she failed to spell out exactly why her election is important to every voter in MA. So she didn't say -- but could have said:
-- "By sending me to a Democratic Senate, I will be in a position to work far more effectively for MA citizens than a member of the out-party. that means jobs, and funding for infrastructure, research, and education.
-- "I can be counted on to insist on accountability, honesty, and transparency for any proposals to go to war in the Middle East.
-- "Sending me to the Senate means having an effective advocate for women, for workers' rights, for consumers' rights, for rational banking regulation.
-- "Most importantly, Massachusetts will have a Senator who is honest and will stand by her voting record -- not a political coward who doesn't have the courage of his convictions."
So we reluctantly reach the conclusion that Warren needs to retool her debate kit for the next encounter. We hope she does. When it comes to Elizabeth Warren, we're all in. Sending her $25 now -- and we hope she uses it for an expert debate coach.