Did the MA media allow Brown to be a "stealth" candidate, hiding his positions

[ProgressiveEconomist]

on issues?

What's YOUR opinion? Here's a Kos post I found that may help explain what to me seems inexplicable: How a Tea Party Republican could take the Senate seat held for decades by John and Ted Kennedy, one year after a blowout Democratic Presidential victory.

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/19/826617/-MA-Sen:-All-Politics-is-Local :

MA-Sen: All Politics is Local by Laura Clawson

"... No, for all the efforts to nationalize this election, it's time to go back to the maxim that "all politics is local." In November, a Suffolk poll showed Coakley defeating Brown by 19 points. The week before the election, a Suffolk poll showed Brown up by four points. Now, ask yourself this. Did the national political environment swing 23 points away from Democrats in general in that time?

Scott Brown was able to tap into national issues effectively, it's true, but the key word there is effectively. The fact is, he ran a great campaign. He worked his ass off. He downplayed being a Republican in his public campaigning while playing to the teabaggers below the radar. He defined himself strongly from the get-go. And then at the end, he shut his mouth and refused to say anything about his positions, only speaking publicly to pretend that exploration of those positions constituted negative campaigning. ...

Brown's answers to reporters, on anything: "We're working hard" or "No, no, no" (walks away) The media was complicit in that evasion -- but in part because Brown had done such a good job setting up his image. ... At the end, with the alarm sounded not by her campaign but by public polling, actual professionals arrived. They attempted to do in a week what she should have spent six weeks doing, but rolling out an entire campaign's worth of opposition research in a week inadvertently played into Brown's "I'm a victim and she's a vicious harpy" strategy. ..."

[Bumblebee]

1. No, the Dems did.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Should Coakley have challenged Brown to a debate when she was up 19 points

in the polls, just 2 months ago?

Obviously not. But in the absence of debates, how could Brown have gained net 23 ponts in two months without some inadvertent help from airhead reporters spreading his disinformation unchallenged?

[uponit7771]

4. AMEN!!! +10000!!! She didn't define him but let him define her!!!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. So Coakley created a vacuum. But just how did Brown fill it? His TV ads

must have struck SOME nerve to gain him 23 points in two months.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. kick

[marshall]

2. They ignored him altogether until recently

He wasn't expected to even get close to winning. He didn't even think he had a chance of winning until a week or so ago.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. Did he run lots of TV ads at the last minute? What did his ads SAY?

[OHdem10]

7. The Corn Husker Kickback, The Louisiana Purchase, the Union

Deals for their Cadillac Plans, were hung around Coakley's
neck according to Greta Van Sustern. "I watched her poll
numbers fall from a 19 point lead ."

IMO, I have said this before, the way the HIR Bill has been
handled by the Senate, has been a serious problem.

Never fighting back and letting the Republicans define
and describe the bill with never any corrections from
the Democrats. Until the Democrats realizes the seriousness
of not using Television, people are going to believe every
nutty idea put out there.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Thanks for that. Being outside MA leaves me with no idea of what Brown and Coakley

actually DID, despite hours and hours of national media "coverage".

[TomCADem]

9. I Posted On This Before The Election, It Was Very Difficult To Get Any Mainstream Media...

Discussion of Brown's actual positions on the issues.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Do you recall any of the good points in that thread, or, even better, do you have

a link?

[HughMoran]

12. Her campaign could have, should have been alert to what he was up to

Snooze you lose - she lost.