UConn Professors Analyze McMahon’s ‘Spectacular Failure’
by Hugh McQuaid | Nov 7, 2012 6:04pm
(18) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012, Town News, Mansfield-Storrs
STORRS — Among the post-election topics analyzed by a panel of UConn political science professors Wednesday was how well Linda McMahon was served by the consultants she paid and the millions she dropped into this year’s U.S. Senate race.
McMahon, an independently wealthy former wrestling executive, loaned close to $100 million of her own money to fund back-to-back, unsuccessful bids for a U.S. Senate seat.
“I’d suspect that Linda McMahon is wondering now if some of the consultants that she hired took her for a ride and gave her advice that didn’t play out well,” Ronald Schurin, a professor of political science at the University of Connecticut, said.
Schurin was one of five professors who, on the day after the election, delved into the broader implications of the results in state and federal races. After the panel he said there’s evidence that self-funded candidates like McMahon, who have a lot of resources to spend, are sometimes convinced by the people they hire to spend more than what’s necessary.
“One would think that someone with broad business experience would be more immune,” he said. “She paid an awful lot compared to what she ended up getting.”
But her 2012 campaign was supposed to be different. When she announced her candidacy she said it would be a different campaign. One where she wouldn’t be spending as much of her own money and would be seeking donations in an effort to build grassroots support. It seemed to be working, but as the campaign wore on and the polls showed her opponent gaining ground, McMahon started spending like she did in 2010.
That’s not to say self-funded candidates can’t run effective campaigns. Schurin pointed to, among other people, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, a wealthy businessman, has spent an enormous amount of money on micro-targeted campaigning. Schurin said the strategy has been effective for him.
In McMahon’s case, Schurin said the candidate may have ended up spending more money on television commercials than what was wise. She also built her campaign into a massive operation with a huge staff.
“Linda McMahon campaigned as a job creator and she certainly was because she spent $100 million in her two races, much it of hiring people both distributing her literature, distributing her T-shirts and generally to work for her campaign,” he said during the forum.
One of the people she hired was an undergraduate UConn student in the audience, who identified herself as Catie.
“I actually worked for Linda McMahon and during the campaign I saw that a major focal point of her campaign was the economy and improving jobs and her five-point plan,” she said. Catie asked whether McMahon could have picked up more women voters if she had focused more on presenting herself as an independent woman.
Vincent Moscardelli, another professor on the panel, said that McMahon had done horribly among women in 2010 and needed to close the gender gap to win. He said she succeeded in making inroads with female voters up until around August.
“But two things happened. One, those gains kind of stalled in August. And second, even as she was picking up ground with women in terms of likability, it was never translated into votes,” Moscardelli said.
Schurin said McMahon’s “big problem” with women in both races was how she made her fortune in wrestling.
“If Linda McMahon had become a multi-millionaire in financial services or IT, she might of done somewhat better,” he said.
Moscardelli said he thought the distinction on women’s issues was sometimes overstated. Many women care about economic issues to a greater extent than they’re concerned about things like reproductive rights.
But in addition to women, McMahon needed to pick up some Democrats. The campaign expended resources trying to encourage voters planning to cast ballots for President Barack Obama to split their ballot and also vote for McMahon. Some Democrats did vote for McMahon, but it wasn’t nearly enough to secure a victory.
“I’m not sure she could have had enormous success by touting her independence. My old thought on that has always been, if one Democrat runs against another Democrat, a Democrat is going to win. So if what she was simply doing was saying, ‘I’ll behave like the Democrats,’ then why not just vote for Murphy if you like him on the other issues,” Moscardelli said.
Moscardelli compared McMahon’s efforts to win over Democrats to U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s unsuccessful efforts to get re-elected in Massachusetts.
“The fact is, both Brown and McMahon were up, in many ways, against the same thing and that is they were trying to win as Republicans in a year in which there was a popular Democrat at the top of the ticket,” he said. “. . . I think at the end of the day it was just a really tall order for Linda McMahon.”
McMahon’s race demonstrates what an obstacle a Republican in Connecticut or Massachusetts faces, regardless of how much money they have to spend, he said.
Christine Sylvester, a political science professor who was in the audience, asked about the impact of Super PACs in this year’s election, even if it wasn’t tied to what she called “McMahon’s spectacular failure.”
Schurin and Moscardelli both agreed that the long-term impact of Super PACs remains to be seen, even if it appears that many of the candidates who saw heavy support from the groups lost this year.
“I think the fear will be that people will infer something from this election that the data don’t really bare out. We just don’t know yet. They’ll say ‘Oh look, Super PACs don’t matter.’ And then we’ll see after that,” Moscardelli said.
Tags: Linda McMahon, UConn, Political Science, Storrs, Republican, Vincent Moscardelli, Ronald Schurin, Hugh McQuaid, dh
(18) Comments
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | November 7, 2012 10:01pm
It doesn’t take a UConn professor (or a panel of them) to know why Linda McMahon lost—she was a lousy candidate. Period.
And “Moscardelli said he thought the distinction on women’s issues was sometimes overstated. Many women care about economic issues to a greater extent than they’re concerned about things like reproductive rights.” Seriously? He doesn’t think that an unwanted pregnancy is an economic issue?
posted by: vyfareon | November 7, 2012 10:04pm
Mr. Moscardelli doesn’t quite get that reproductive rights is an economic issue.
posted by: AndersonScooper | November 7, 2012 11:42pm
McMahon led all candidates as they over-saturated the airwaves with nasty, negative ads.
And when voters got sick of it all, of course the massive self-funder would reap most of the fall-out.
Would it have been different had she gone purely positive from mid-September on? I mean at one point this summer she was almost coming off as likable…..
posted by: mpalmer | November 8, 2012 9:18am
The panel apparently doesn’t know anything about being a candidate or running a campaign or perhaps even running a business. McMahon hired the consultants. The hired consultants ran the campaign that McMahon wanted to run. McMahon essentially ran the same campaign twice, with some minor variations. She didn’t spend on mailers to every household the second time around, but then she didn’t need to since she already had name recognition. It was McMahon’s campaign, McMahon’s decisions. The consultants carried out the decisions. Bad business sense does not magically translate to good campaign sense.
Alan West apparently was the best funded House candidate. Lost. Rove went through $400,000,000 with little to show for it. What we seem to have is a Republican self and super PAC funded training program in how to lose. Consistently. Hate and anger works periodically but the long term problem with that approach is that it does turn in on itself. It’s always somebody else’s fault.
posted by: Reasonable | November 8, 2012 11:18am
AndersonScooper: Give it a break, already. The only reason that Murphy breezed by McMahon at the polls was the Obama coat-tails that Murphy rode in on. In the meantime—our country is facing the “plague of Obamaism” for the next four years—if we survive this monumental ordeal on our country. Unfortunately, for all of us—you asked for it. However, misery shouldn’t be looking for company, A.S.
posted by: kenneth_krayeske | November 8, 2012 11:32am
How many women were on this panel? The only women quoted in the story were in the audience. I love when men gather to talk about how women feel.
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/08/problem-men-explaining-things-rebecca-solnit
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | November 8, 2012 2:38pm
Remarkable, a panel of professors.
I think nononsense2012 should be appointed chair of the brain trust in that department. What kind of people are teaching our kids?
Just a couple obvious observations: 1)macmahon was shallow, empty, and uninformed. As a result, she was as bad a candidate as you could find. 2)she financed her own campaign, what does that tell you? 3)her supporters were paid, hello? 4)she got trounced by a fair, at best, candidate from the other party as a result.
A panel of professors???
HST
posted by: swhin | November 8, 2012 4:04pm
Linda and the Super PAC were good for our economy and neither moved the electorate. Hey we’er nutmegger’s, we know what counterfeit and what’s not.
posted by: JustAnotherTaxPayer | November 8, 2012 7:00pm
It is a pleasure to read the comments from women on the McMahon candidacy, and subsequent failure. I think anyone reading them should do so twice, and focus on what is being said. This is the common sense intelligence that makes up the majority of voters here in Connecticut. It is something to be thankful for, and grateful that they did not do as much commenting as most of the insulting fear mongers that proudly proclaimed they would support McMahon.
No, they showed their knowledge and commitment by showing up at the polls in large numbers. Thank You.
It is a shame that not all voters are this insightful, sincere, and well intentioned. No name calling, no lies, no insults, no fear tactics, just a well informed vote for the better choice.
The one thing Linda McMahon will never be for any elected office, or postion that calls for unselfish dedication to serving the public, to make everyone’s life better.
Thank You again to those that commented, and voted, using their insight, knowledge, and common sense. Bravo!
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | November 8, 2012 7:24pm
@DrHunterSThompson: Thank you very much, but I don’t have the qualifications.
posted by: Reasonable | November 9, 2012 9:08am
JustAnotherTaxpayor The Obama-Murphy team will make you:JustAnotherBiggerTaxpayer starting January 1. Give Linda McMahon a break “as you obviously voted to keep the big-spenders in office.”
posted by: MGKW | November 9, 2012 9:10am
Look at the 4 debates and then you tell me who is the better candidate? Her shallowness, her presumptiousness, and her money did her in. Let’s hope she gets the message that she should stick to peddling moral depravity—-its what she does best along with her husband.
posted by: Reasonable | November 9, 2012 11:19am
swhin: And we elected a counterfeit nutmegger senator at that. What else is new?
posted by: Reasonable | November 9, 2012 11:36am
MGKW: You still can’t justify voting for an absolute six-year non-performing loser in Chris Murphy, so you keep attacking Linda McMahon instead. A very weak coverup for your irrational
judgement. Murphy came in on Obama’s coat-tails—which is not necessarily a blessing for the USA.
posted by: Concerned Citizen | November 10, 2012 7:54pm
Thanks to the CTNewsJunkie for bringing us this article. It is a worthy stimulant for discussion for two main reasons. 1) The analysis of the two professors (panelists) mentioned and the question from Christine Sylvester, a female PoliSci professor in the audience, are worth a vigorous civic conversation.
2) The obvious—even blatant—omissions in this article are also worth being discussed.
a) At the opening we are told that five professors participated, but we see pictures of only two white males, and read comments only from those two males.
b) We get a glimpse of someone we assume to be a black female professor, but according to this article, she said nothing worth reporting and she was not important enough (even in the interest of fiend diversity) to be shown in the article. Of course, neither were the other panel members.
c) Christine Sylvester, a female PoliSci professor (in the audience) asked an important question about the impact of SuperPacs. Either the reporter did a poor job of summarizing their responses, or their responses were so anemic, so paltry that what we have is the best summary that could be culled.
posted by: ramonesfan | November 11, 2012 12:24am
In one sense, Linda achieved her goal, despite being a two time loser. She was certainly in the media spotlight over the past two years, to a greater degree than she ever was as part of the WWE. People all over Connecticut (and political junkies around the U.S.) paid a lot of attention to her. These two campaigns made her very famous and talked about, and maybe that was all she ever really wanted. From her point of view, the increased celebrity was worth the $100 million expenditure.
posted by: MGKW | November 13, 2012 10:47am
Reasonable…Tough time accepting defeat? Has a list of accomplishments which range from healthcare, veterans affairs, ending the war in Iraq and creating jobs through tax credits and other incentives for companies to do business domestically….Murphy won, get over it! Btw, he also won by over 8% in 2010 in a down year…next time he comes up for reelection in 2018 he will do the same with or without the President.