The Battle for America 2010: In Connecticut Senate Race, It’s Likability vs. Electability
Likability helps get politicians elected. That’s what recent studies on power found, reports Jonah Lehrer in the Wall Street Journal. And in his 1988 book The Power Game, Washington, D.C., journalist Hedrick Smith also points to that social skill as a primary source of influence.
If likability is that key a factor in elections, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, will win the race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut against Linda McMahon, his GOP opponent.
Voters such as New Haven’s Anthony Beedle and former Family Relations Circuit Court employee Sandra Laggis perceive Blumenthal as an official who fights for the people. His track record includes saving jobs at Electric Boat and Pratt & Whitney. Beedle adds, “And no one likes a millionaire.”
The opinion of these two voters — that Blumenthal has always been there for them — is the populist message which Blumenthal transmits in his television commercials. Real people provide testimonials how the AG went to bat for them and stayed with the cause until it was resolved. The state’s memory bank is filled with media images of this attorney general either being actually on the scene as soon as trouble develops or making a public statement. He has been astute in managing his visibility — another trait Smith cites as important in getting and keeping power.
In contrast, McMahon brings to the campaign built-in challenges to likability. Her wealth, generated by founding the World Wrestling Federation [WWF], is conspicuous at exactly the wrong time. The state is enduring a no jobs recovery. Although the WWF created 500 CT jobs, another prominent number associated with McMahon is the $22 million of her own money she spent on the primary.
Her gender, notes political consultant Jan Selman, vice president of Georgia-based Selman and Associates, will also factor into her particular likability, both positively and negatively. “Women are judged and viewed differently from their male opposition,” Selman asserts. “They must walk a very fine line, between just tough enough and just feminine enough. The double standard is alive. In addition, the press is likely to focus on hairline, neckline and hemline.” Selman has consulted for a number of Georgia campaigns and currently serves on President Obama’s National Arts Policy Committee. She is not involved in the Connecticut race.
The Democrats have been attempting to influence the likability meter. For example, they are playing and replaying a WWF video in which McMahon appeared to kick a man in the groin. “Many men say they respect McMahon,” opines Laggis, “but they tend to be scared of strong-willed women.”
In her numerous television commercials, McMahon addresses diverse aspects of her image. For instance, in a version of the early 1990s “Harry and Louise” commentators on health care reform, two 30-something upper-class women are featured in a series of ads. In each one, they start out skeptical of McMahon. Then they conclude that with her track record for getting things done, she will be able to shake up politics as usual in Washington, D.C. The ads also position the WWF as entertainment or a “soap opera,” undercutting the perception that it has been a setting or source for violence.
In other television advertising, McMahon reinforces her human side, including having been a mother who had experienced financial setbacks. The narrator describes how, with a second child on the way, she and her husband had to file for bankruptcy. She also adopts the persona of a well-groomed but accessible woman, which plays to the conservative New England social ethos of the state.
Who do we need in the Senate right now – another lawyer who has spent his entire career in government (never actually producing anything for the economy) or a successful business owner who knows how to run a multi-million dollar company and create jobs? We are long past likability and desperately need results on job creation. I will be happily voting for McMahon in November.
From KS, Blumenthal looks like the guy on TV who wants to help you sue on some bogus mesothelioma claim. He’s about as likeable as Eliot Spitzer, who looked extremely wierd and alien. And Spitzer was the very image of a modern major shyster. You’d expect him to jump out of bed every time he heard a siren, like a firehouse dog. It’s a stereotype, but they both fit the picture like almost no other pols I’ve seen. Lying about VietNam service is a scumbag move, but how many people in Connecticut would care? If I recall, most of them were rooting(?) for the NVA.
This is CT and it is true blue (really communist red). Blumenthal has it sown up. Between the two major rags (New Haven Register and Hartford Courant) the sheeple have been fed a diet of good Dem, bad Rep for years. The result dumb or duped sheeple ready to believe anything a Dem speaks and to discredit anything a Rep. speaks.
Not one word about Blumenthal’s attempt to charge with fraud or RICO NY businessmen for “not paying their fair share” of taxes. When he was challenged by Beck on this his justification was not legal but was emotional which we know the Dems are pretty accustomed to using.
And exactly how many jobs did the AG save? Never mentioned only that he saved jobs. Not a word mentioned about the suit brought against a private company-Pratt-for wanting to relocate because of CT over-the-top taxation, and regulations against industry.
The most over the top thing to occur with nary a wisper of criticism is that the Dem majority state legislature passed a bill to make state funds available to Dem Malloy for his run on the governorship. So a state in the red finds money to help a fellow Dem run for office and our AG sees nothing wrong with this.
Wow! Is Blumenthal that one that claimed he was in Vietnam? And no one finds lying repulsive? Especially about pretending to be with those that fought and died for us. Back 10 year ago if you had lied about Vietnam the media would drive a stake through your election hopes. But now you have the Islamic symbol going up next to the World Trade Centers just years later. After what the lawyers have done to our country and our jobs I can’t believe anyone is that stupid to rally behind someone that is a liar. I would go with the successful businessperson before I would ever consider a lawyer to legislate my standard of living down to raise their income and power over me. Simple facts come hard to poorly educated journalist except at the Pajamas Media
Simply put, Blumenthal has been running for the Senate since the moment he became AG. (That’s the same path Lieberman took.) He’s carefully built his fiefdom and can do no wrong as far as the local press is concerned. If there’s no TV camera around he won’t touch an issue. If there is a TV camera around, he’ll grandstand whether the law is on his side or not. He’s supported the party and this is his reward. The party and the newspapers won’t let the Republican win.
Unfortunately McMahon steamrollered over a couple of solid candidates for the nomination. Simmons isn’t glamorous but he has a good honest record and congressional and military experience; Schiff has business experience and at least gives the impression he cares about the job. McMahon is in this for herself and has never convincingly pretended otherwise. Most of the people I know voted on “electability,” in other words for what they thought other people wanted not what they wanted. That’s never a good plan.
I really dislike Blumenthal and if he wins he’ll be there for life. But I am reluctant to give McMahon the keys to the store so she can run it into the ground as she expands her empire.
Is it wrong to pray that a meteorite hits the TV studio during the next debate?
excellent overview. thanks
His actions as AG have followed the typical populist left wing script. The people of CT don’t even know how bad those actions have been for CT business and the people they were supposed to support and protect. But my concerns go deeper than a misguided aristocrat with a guilty social conscience trying to “better the world.”
There are three people that just based on their public behavior I have never trusted and could not understand how anyone ever thought they had any political value: John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer and Richard Blumenthal. Two of those three have already been disgraced. Supposedly Blumenthal is a Boy Scout and well above reproach, though the same was said of Edwards and Spitzer. I have nothing to offer other than my “spider sense.”
Unfortunately Tim’s analysis of McMahon vis-a-vis her opponents is spot on. She’s now the quintessential “least of two evils”
Sounds like a toss up. I kinda despise the fake Viet Vet, I bet I’m not alone.
It’s worse. It seems there are a third or more of Americans and more than half of the rest of the world (if the U.N. is any measure) that believes the *individual* is the problem. . . that believes “individualism” is a dirty word. Individuals are greedy self-interested tyrants who, simply BY BEING and proclaiming themselves as individuals prove themselves to be racist, homophobic, non-politically-correct UNIculturalists.
Why else would they choose to be or assert their individuality?
So anyone voting “for the people” wins.
Since when is having money a problem. The Kennedy family proved that all it takes is plenty of cash in the righ place. Jon Corzine came into New Jersey fresh from Goldman Sachs, a newly minted billionaire and bought himself first a senate seat and then the governor’s chair. This is America after all where the champions of the poor like Johnny Edwards built the larges house in North Carolina with his hundreds of millions he stole by suing doctors. John Kerry the wealthy through marriage icon has five mansions and a million dollar yacht still he ran as the champion of the working class.
I’m not so sure he’s that likeable. He’s comes off as a bit smarmy and does not do well in interviews. He doesn’t like to fight in an election; he just wants to win easily. In addition to his weird Vietnam claims, he comes across as Elliott Spitzer, only less fun. Now may be the year that even deep blue CT rejects career pols.
I don`t know what part of Ct.Ms.Genova lives in but she has been exposed to a totally different view of Blumenthal than I have.Likability is not a description I could ever apply to Blumenthal.Basically he comes over as a stiffer version of Spitzer.
Either Simmons or Schiff would make a better Senator than McMahon.Just a rich opportunist.Republican leadership in Ct. is only marginally better than that in NY.Republicans had a great opportunity here but it looks to me like it is being wasted.
Blumenthal used to go on the radio and take questions from callers about legal issues. Until the internet started to reveal the truth about his bad behavior, he was generally well thought of.
Now the people of CT are learning about how many jobs his legal antics have killed. For every “success” he touts, there are a dozen miserable failures.
Doesn’t anybody get it. This election is just like all the other elections. Its about who will support Obama and who won’t. Are the people of Connecticut so blind that they will still support Obama or rather vote in a man who will?
I watch another scene playing itself out here in Los Angeles, CA. Senator Boxer is vulnerable and everyone knows it. Obama tried to come to her rescue last night. This leads me into my story. I had a choice of going to a fund raiser for the Democrats which Obama was attending or going to the Skirball Museum and listening to a lecture by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. I first opened my wallet to check and see if I had a spare $30,000 for admission to the Obama fund raiser. Finding myself a few dollars short, I opted to spend the $25 for the Geller lecture. Things were going smoothly until I had to pick up my wife for the same lecture. Traffic in LA is tough; however, this was ridicules. My car moved three car lengths in fifteen minutes ( I timed it). Having picked up my wife, finally, I dodged various barricades and inched through traffic to the Geller lecture. This morning the media was aglow with the report that Obama had a successful fund raiser and raised $1,000,000 which brought me to do some thinking about the cost of this success. I made the following calculations which are based on what little I know.
Travel distance from here to Washington, 3000 miles. 3000 miles at 500 mph gives you 6 hours of travel time. According to federal figures each hour of travel time for those big jets is $30,000. That means that the cost of the trip here from Washington one way was $180.000. We all know that this trip is not going to be one way so that doubles the cost. However, the President never travels with just one plane his 747. He has a support plane which is a C17 which also accompanies him. Double that cost again. And, everyone knows, where ever the President goes so does his platoon of security people. My estimate for this is $250,000. This brings me to the huge number of police barricading the streets. It reminds me of the Michael Jackson funeral only this is much bigger. It cost the city $1,000,000 in police overtime expenses for the Jackson funeral. This bankrupt city in this bankrupt State couldn’t afford it. I will be very conservative and say that the police presence cost the same. However, this wasn’t enough manpower, so the parking enforcement people were used to supplement the police. I guess another $200,000 in charges. One photo op helicopter ride to the airport, #10,000. Miscellaneous barricades cost another $5,000. Now finally I get to the real cost. One million (this is a very conservative number) motorists stuck because of all the barricades and shenanigans, at one gallon of gas for that one hour, $3,090,000. This brings the total cost of Obama’s trip here to be $6,625,000. Like I said this is a conservative figure, real cost could be up to ten times as much. I’m so glad Obama raised his one million dollars.
Getting back to my bitching. Obama raised $1,000,000 yesterday at the fund raiser. That means that 33&1/3 people paid to meet the President. I want to know who that 1/3 person was. Now I know that there are 33 fools with money in this town. The 1/3 person must only be a partial fool. Like my old grandfather used to say, “33 fools with money, quick show me where they live so I can go there and sell them some junk!” What bothers me now is that 1/3 person. If he’s only 1/3 of a fool, I might not be able to sell him anything.
Two factoids, One was a VietNam Vet befor he was found not to be VietNam Vet. Two, Her life story is more similar with average Americans, struggle, apparent failure, determination equaled success. One parlayed elite education and political connections to attain his goals. Two, mastered the art of BlueCollar entertainment by knowing how the majority of Americans think. The majority believe that right will eventually prevail over wrong, it may take a protracted course but eventually good overcomes evil. Anyone who has ever watched WWF, don’t say you haven’t as its viewership exceeds even the NFL, the good guys and gals get pummeled by the bad, but just as it seems hopeless, some inner power of strength emerges to defeat the bad. One, get caught lieing and makes excuses. Two, gets attacked for her simple heritage but she takes the slings and arrows in stride and comes back swinging. CT has had too many of the Number one type Senators, it is time to give those of supposed lessor pedigree control.
I don’t know how many people are willing to admit this on a political site, but I’ve been a wrestling fan for years and I knew quite a bit about Linda McMahon long before she entered politics.
First of all, you can’t argue her success in business. The product in the ring was all due to her husband Vince. Linda, as CEO, got the non-glamour part of the WWF/WWE. It was Linda that handled the marketing. Linda was the one counting beans while her husband was in front of the camera. Vince McMahon developed Wrestlemania and other PPV events which are still the most lucrative PPVs in the business. Linda was the one who worked out the contracts and brought the money home. The wrestling business has always been an industry where women could hold high responsible positions while their husbands put on the show. The WWF/WWE’s sucess has been due to Vince McMahon’s showmanship, but the McMahons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars today because of Linda.
On the downside, when I first heard that a McMahon was entering politics I thought to myself that when it came to charisma and working a crowd, they couldn’t have made a worse choice. Vince, as well as the McMahon children Shane and Stephanie, all had the ability to engage a crowd and make them cheer or boo on demand. Linda is terrible at this. Rightly or wrongly, this is an important part of beinng a politician. Linda is seriously lacking in the charisma department.
McMahon’s supporters will point to her lack of political experience as an asset. Although I understand the appeal of a non-politician politician, I often wonder how many voters would choose a brain surgeon based on the idea that they wanted their surgery done by someone who had no surgical experience. Linda’s political instincts have been a bit lacking. The worst mistake she has made that I know of was sending out a mailing calling for more deeep water oil drilling while BP’s oil rig was spewing out millions of gallons of crude in the Gulf of Mexico. Never mind the issue itself (that’s a whole other debate), the timing could not be worse. Linda has moved considerably to the right during the primary and has already made declarations she does not actually believe to win over conservative Republicans. Will she be able to defend her primary statements and still win enough support to get elected in a fairly liberal state? That is going to require a lot more political skill than Linda McMahon has. She might be able to buy enough experts with political skills to pull it off, but she’s at a serious disadvantage because she knows very little about politics. McMahon has rarely even voted. The fact that a major corporation like the WWE often gives donations to both parties is not going to help her keep her conservative base happy either.
Personally, I don’t think Ms. McMahon would be a bad senator. I’m not sure she’d be a good one, but she probably wouldn’t make Washington worse by being there. But I have serious doubts about her ability to get elected in the first place.
A final observation. Although the press and the Democrats are having a lot of fun with the whole “rasslin” aspect of Linda McMahon, at least she’s no Jesse Ventura!