Marshall Arts
June 23, 2010 - by
There’s a simple explanation for Elaine Marshall’s victory: Thomas Mills.
Her homegrown campaign manager outwitted Cal Cunningham’s bigger-name team, defied the DSCC and disproved the doubters.
Maybe one time in 10 the candidate with less money wins. This was one, and that’s a big win in politics.
As Secretary of State, Marshall had a low profile and left few tracks. Suddenly, she becomes the crusading champion for what BP’s boss called the “small people” against big corporations.
Suddenly she’s a better and more focused speaker. And, apparently, a more disciplined and effective fundraiser.
Her campaign turned all that – and even the DSCC’s doubts – to her favor. They ran a much-ridiculed TV ad that connected better than Cunningham’s poll-tested ads. And they focused their money on the right targets: women over 50 and African-Americans.
I salute Mills & Co.
And this is not to diminish Marshall . She was a much better candidate this time than in 2004. Losing sometimes makes candidates better. Jim Hunt was a far better candidate in 1992 for losing in 1984.
This time, of course, Marshall didn’t have to run against Erskine Bowles’ money. Cunningham was a perfect central-casting candidate, but he didn’t raise enough cash to overcome Marshall ’s quasi-incumbent status, smart campaign and the advantages that came with being a woman.
His campaign’s biggest failing was not developing a compelling message. “Fresh face” and “having a real plan” weren’t enough in an anti-Washington, anti-big boys year.
But Cunningham may be back. Some of his supporters were already talking about him as a future candidate for governor.
To win, Marshall needs big bucks from her new friends at the DSCC, a shift in the national winds and some breaks. That’s asking a lot. But if it all comes together, she could become Richard Burr’s nightmare. This is not a year to be running against a woman with an anti-Washington message.
Marshall Arts
June 23, 2010/
There’s a simple explanation for Elaine Marshall’s victory: Thomas Mills.
Her homegrown campaign manager outwitted Cal Cunningham’s bigger-name team, defied the DSCC and disproved the doubters.
Maybe one time in 10 the candidate with less money wins. This was one, and that’s a big win in politics.
As Secretary of State, Marshall had a low profile and left few tracks. Suddenly, she becomes the crusading champion for what BP’s boss called the “small people” against big corporations.
Suddenly she’s a better and more focused speaker. And, apparently, a more disciplined and effective fundraiser.
Her campaign turned all that – and even the DSCC’s doubts – to her favor. They ran a much-ridiculed TV ad that connected better than Cunningham’s poll-tested ads. And they focused their money on the right targets: women over 50 and African-Americans.
I salute Mills & Co.
And this is not to diminish Marshall . She was a much better candidate this time than in 2004. Losing sometimes makes candidates better. Jim Hunt was a far better candidate in 1992 for losing in 1984.
This time, of course, Marshall didn’t have to run against Erskine Bowles’ money. Cunningham was a perfect central-casting candidate, but he didn’t raise enough cash to overcome Marshall ’s quasi-incumbent status, smart campaign and the advantages that came with being a woman.
His campaign’s biggest failing was not developing a compelling message. “Fresh face” and “having a real plan” weren’t enough in an anti-Washington, anti-big boys year.
But Cunningham may be back. Some of his supporters were already talking about him as a future candidate for governor.
To win, Marshall needs big bucks from her new friends at the DSCC, a shift in the national winds and some breaks. That’s asking a lot. But if it all comes together, she could become Richard Burr’s nightmare. This is not a year to be running against a woman with an anti-Washington message.