In my research for my last post, I came across a Scott Brown ad and a Martha Coakley ad, and I just fel the contrast was too great for me to ignore. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uku_zI03bMs&feature=related]
It's not a matter of the issues they discussed, though I the Brown ad I remember (despite my bias against the Republican) and the Coakley ad, well I have no idea what she said, I had to watch it again to get the point. A big part of that is connection and emotion. Watch those two ads who do you connect with? Who is more authentic?
I'm not saying Coakley has to be charismatic or exciting, but she needs to come off as real, like she's not just reading a script, like she cares at least. But that's how I feel watching the ad, like she's just reading a script, like she's going through the motions. She may be great at her job but not so great at reading to camera, then why is she reading to camera?
The great manager of the Baltimore Orioles, Earl Weaver said something like, "Good managers put players in roles they can succeed in." Well, a consultant should put their politicians in roles they can look good in, roles in which they can connect with voters. Brown does that in spades. I disagree with him, and still find his ad compelling.
I'm not saying national trends don't matter, or if health care was more popular the result would have been different (for a great analysis read Nate Silver's breakdown), but what I am saying is that the ads matter. Watching only two ads it's clear that Scott Brown connected with voters, that he came across as authentic and real, and Martha Coakley lack those qualities, and that as much as anything is why she lost.