Whythehell is Scott Brown leading Elizabeth Warren in MA?

[eridani]

I'm not understanding this.

[samsingh]

1. me neither

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. He's certainly out-advertising her.......

Nothing but Scott Brown bullshit on the radio/TV around here.

[RBInMaine]

3. She hasn't launched the full fledged attack yet. Too many men and Indies think he's "moderate."

He continues to pass himself off as a "moderate good old boy who drives a pickup truck". Her team has not yet gone full court press attack mode on NAKED MAN yet. She is just starting to really start attacking his voting record. Plus he has incumbency on his side, which is always a plus. What she needs to do soon is get into full attack mode. Probably coming after labor day. She and her team MUST drive his negatives up by supergluing him to the LARGER REPUBLICAN AGENDA AND PARTY by attacking him relentlessly on his votes in the Senate which are at least 80% with the right wing and by running ads with him begging David Koch for money. In order to win, THEY MUST DRIVE UP HIS NEGATIVES and cut into more men and Indies. They also need to stress the need to have a Dem controlled Senate. They must do what John Kerry did effectively to Bill Weld when he beat Weld: they tied him to the large Republican Party and agenda.

[cali]

14. he isn't begging Koch for money

they have an agreement about outside money.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/outside-money-ban-massachusetts-senate-race-working-price-101237240.html

And what is she waiting for?

[RBInMaine]

17. He ALREADY begged Koch for money & it's on YouTube. Go there and KeyWord "Brown begs David Koch."

[cali]

25. that was before they forged the agreement- over a year ago

from everything I've read, both sides have kept to their agreement about outside PAC money.

Here's an article from 2 days ago:

<snip>

Yet even as spending from super PACs and other interest groups reaches new levels this year, with more than $90 million spent in 16 states with Senate races, the money has not touched the Massachusetts Senate race since January.

A groundbreaking pact between Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren to prevent third-party ads has survived, to the amazement of partisans around the country who expected it to crumble in the midst of what may be the nation’s most competitive Senate race."

<snip>

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/08/20/surprise_brown_and_warrens_truce_on_outside_spending_is_surviving_imid_hard_fought_campaign/

[RBInMaine]

33. That is about 3rd party PAC ads. Koch can still give thousands in individual donations. THAT is what

NAKED MAN was asking for. Also, just the mere fact that he is on video sucking up to Koch tells everyone that he is NOT really just a "Regular guy who drives a pickup truck" but a corporate toadie who sucks up to the teat of the PAC-ad Billionaire In Chief and THAT is who he is REALLY loyal to. It tears the "good old regular local boy" mask right the hell off.

[cali]

36. uh. yeah, they can give 2,500 bucks each dear.

Of course he's not a regular guy. I never claimed that. Way to try and squirm away from the facts.

[RBInMaine]

44. No dear, the Kochs can give $40,000 in total, and the fact is that he SUCKED UP to them. Read on:

Each Koch can give $2,500 directly to the candidate for the general election. (Add another $2,500 each if Brown even technically ran a primary campaign, even an uncontested one.) Each Koch can then give $5000 to any IN-STATE pac supporting Brown. (Their agreement is only about out-of-state pac ads. There are many in-state pacs.) And each Koch can give $10,000 to the state Republican party or a local Republican committee in Brown's home county or city which, of course, would be used in large part for the activities supporting Brown. Now just tell me dear, how many average people can give $20,000 each? Or even $2,500? (**** And remember, the Kochs of course can also ask their MANY rich friends and associates to ALL do the same thing. And of course they would.)

But that isn't even the main point. The main point is that he is on video SUCKING UP TO THE KOCH BROTHERS' TEATS, AND THAT IS ROTTEN AND CORRUPT EVEN THOUGH THEY LATER STRUCK A DEAL ON OUTSIDE PAC ADS. He is right there sucking up to the PAC AD BILLIONAIRE-IN-CHIEF AND MAIN LOBBYIST AGAINST DEMOCRATS AND FOR THE ULTRA RIGHT WING. The narrative this supports, absolutely regardless of the deal, is that Brown is no "nice moderate local boy who drives a pickup truck and cares about the folks". His true colors are one of a typical Republican corporate toadie who sucks up to the likes of the Koch Brothers for money. It should be up on the airwaves. Yeah, he and his team would bitch about how that doesn't matter anymore because they struck the outside pac deal, but c'mon. It shows the asshole's true colors and smashes down his good old local boy image, as it well should. Brown is a Wall St. toadie who votes with the Pukes 80% of the time in the Senate, and he needs to be properly welded to those FACTS. He needs to be connected bigtime to the larger CORRUPT Republican Party, its money machine, and what the corrupt Republican Party is really all about.

[MrSlayer]

4. Maybe people really don't like liberals.

She's a real deal liberal Democrat. People have been brainwashed into hating them for decades now, even when they agree on the issues individually. Perhaps a Kennedy is the only liberal they'll vote for up there.

Or it could be that she's a woman.
Or it could be that the pukes are outspending her a hundredfold.

Maybe she's not more likeable than Brown.
Maybe Massachusetts is not as liberal or smart as people think.

They did elect Mittens after all.

[RBInMaine]

5. No, that is all crapola. It is for the reasons I have said, which is supported by the polling data.

[MrSlayer]

6. Oh, I didn't realize you were an absolute authority.

Far be it from me to dispute the words of an all-knowing, all-seeing guru such as yourself.

I'll just go ahead and erase my speculative post.

[pbmus]

7. Careful to tiptoe around certain members

[RBInMaine]

19. Speculative is all it is. No basis in fact or evidence.

[MrSlayer]

28. Exactly. I'm just throwing it out there.

That doesn't make you right, though. I'm more inclined to trust Will Pitt on Massechusetts matters.

[former9thward]

38. You haven't put any facts or evidence in your posts in this thread either.

[cali]

15. the pukes aren't outspending her or outraising her

she's run a lousy campaign.

[MrSlayer]

24. Didn't they learn from last time?

That was the excuse from the last person to lose to Brown. How hard can this be?

[getthefacts]

8. She is trying to pull a Coakley 2.0

I have yet to see Warren campaigning. It seems like she is going to sit the election out just like Martha Coakley and hope that "progressive" Massachusetts voters will pick a Democrat by default. She has barely reached out to the communities west of Boston, and I'm not sure if she has done anything much around Boston either. She didn't have a strong primary challenger and that is probably why she is not fired up.
I know having the president on the ticket will help, but Scott Brown, regardless of his politics, is still well liked in the state.
Plus, I suspect Massachusetts voters may have something against women on high office. Probably all thanks to Republican governor Jane Swift...

[RBInMaine]

20. Bullshit. She has been all over. Ads have been up. Go her website and see.

[getthefacts]

39. Warren

You using big words and telling me she is been all over doesn't change the picture. I live 40 minutes west of Boston, in a region Scott Brown barely won. She could turn this around handily, but the only time she came near here was when she announced her campaign. A month ago, they didn't even have district leaders setup in the state (I learned that when visiting a democratic campaign headquarter to offer help and trying to find whoever was coordinating her campaign). She just started challenging the fact that Scott Brown is like every other Republican.
She better move fast or we will end up with Brown for another six.

[ProSense]

9. It was tied, and

then PPP switched its method.

The first PPP poll of the Massachusetts Senate race since they switched over to their likely voter model shows a marked drop for Elizabeth Warren, who had previously been tied with Scott Brown and had led in the polls before that. The main story here may simply be the change in composition, though the 2008 presidential sample isn't particularly odd at 58-33 Obama; the actual vote was 62-36. But another story is that Brown's approvals do seem to be rebounding from earlier in the year while Warren isn't winning undecided voters over as they come off the fence. Brown's approval rating now stands at 53/36, up from 45/42 in March (when it was his turn to trail by 5). Warren, by contrast, has 46/43 favorables, compared with 46/33 in March.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/22/1122778/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Morning-Digest-New-PPP-poll-finds-Elizabeth-Warren-trailing-Scott-Brown-by-five

Confirmed in the PDF:

Raleigh, N.C. – Scott Brown has returned to the lead in the crucial Massachusetts Senate race. The two were tied at 46% in PPP’s late June poll, but in the firm’s first test of likely voters in this fall’s election, Brown tops Elizabeth Warren, 49-44.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_0821121.pdf

[Nye Bevan]

10. She has run a horrible campaign.

And the 1/32nd Indian business certainly didn't help.

She is essentially Martha Coakley the second.

[ProSense]

11. So Brown, with all

the dumb shit he has said, is run a great campaign?

The guy supports the worst of the GOP's anti-women agenda.

A close race is not a sign that she's run a "horrible campaign."

President Obama is running a great campaign, and look at the polls.

In Missouri, a shithead wingnut was leading McCaskill, what's up with that?

I know it's MO, but she's the incumbent.

[cthulu2016]

48. Okay, I looked that the Polls, as you advised

A close race is not a sign that she's run a "horrible campaign." President Obama is running a great campaign, and look at the polls.

RCP Average: Obama is up 18.7% in Massachusetts.

Obama has, indeed, run a good campaign. And that's why he is up about 19% in MA running against a man who MA elected governor.

So yes, Warren has quite obviously run a horrible campaign.

[RBInMaine]

21. Bullshit. She has been campaigning all over the state. The indian crap is just that, silly crap.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. Who's running her campaign? n/t

[WilliamPitt]

13. Reposting from yesterday thread on exactly the same topic:

Because despite all the stereotypes, Massachusetts is not as solid blue as everyone assumes.

Sixteen years of back-to-back Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, until Deval Patrick won.

Plus, the Democratic machine in MA is not, shall we say, the cleanest and smartest operation.

Fact.

[crimson77]

16. Did you know we've are last 4 speakers of the house have all been indicted or

done jail time. And the fifth one is almost assuredly going to be indicted soon. So we have that going for us, which is nice.

[WilliamPitt]

18. All too aware.

Two words.

Billy Bulger.

Kinda says it all right there.

[crimson77]

22. He was actually Senate President

But what's the diff.

[WilliamPitt]

41. My point exactly.

[RBInMaine]

23. She has seized on the Akin issue and has a hard-hitting new radio ad out. MORE MORE MORE. This is

what has been lacking. She needs to be campaigning hard every day, and she needs to be smacking the shit out of Brown and all his horrid votes and get him the hell on defense and NOW.

[cali]

26. she should have been doing all that for the past several months.

[RBInMaine]

34. I think the early part of the campaign was to get her known and lay foundation. Many people don't

pay much attention until after labor day, though she has attacked his votes to some extent on tv and on the stump. Now it is time to go full throated attack mode.

[pstokely]

32. What radio is she advertising on?

Better not be wasting $ on AM hate radio

[RBInMaine]

35. Go to her website and listen to it. Not sure what stations. Hopefully many and mostly FM.

[pstokely]

37. Hopefully music stations

Even sports talk listeners skew male and repuke

[still_one]

27. I believe that after the repuke party has come out against women's rights that will change /nt

[snooper2]

29. He has been able to project the a moderate sane image

no major scandals, is pro choice, comes off as "one of the folks"...

[ahlnord]

30. MA electorate is sexist

I am sorry to observe that for all its progressivism, Massachusetts is sexist, and prefers men. I would not go so far as to label it "misogynist," but Massachusetts' voters have a long tradition of being represented by "leading men," often philanderers who treat women carelessly while espousing liberal causes. They accept men in leadership roles, while the women in their lives are to quietly tolerate their bad boy behavior. The public also tolerates the sexism in their "leading men" because of their politically progressive positions. I don't know how Elizabeth Warren can overcome this preference for men. It is a real bias, inconsistent with true liberalism. But I hope she can! Does anyone have any constructive suggestions to help her campaign? Her standing in the polls does not make sense without taking into account the bias against women. I believe this is a wholly subconscious bias, and one which Massachusetts voters would protest is untrue. Women are not yet allowed to lead in that state. Let us hope Ms. Warren can break through that glass barrier.

[graham4anything]

31. Warren needs to take a public vow to NOT run in 2016. Senate is NOT a temporary stepping stone

sad to say that a state that houses the Kennedy's and elected Deval Patrick is not hospitable to women candidates ad that is one thing...

and Brown(phony as he is) is running as if he is not one of the 99.999% of the other republican candidates.

Warren should be ahead by 15%

this should be a gimme. and the sad fact too is- the left keeps mentioning her as a 2016 candidate, meaning some people are thinking this senate seat is temporary, stepping stone, and it is so wrong.
Warren should take a public pledge that she is going to complete her term and leave 2016 to Hillary. Maybe the public would want to know that if they go out and vote for her, she will be there for them the entire 6 years. (and also, maybe her vow not to run in 2016 will inspire all Hillary and Bill fans to 100% support her instead of thinking of her as competition).Just saying.

and what is the point, if the Dems get a solid liberal in the senate to replace the repub, would it be for her to quickly leave.
Teddy remained for decades and became the greatest senator of all time once he stopped thinking about going higher.
That is what the people of Mass. want.

by the way, though I am not from Mass. my sister has been a resident now for over 20 years and is very political and very liberal. So I know what I am speaking of here.

[trumad]

40. I've never seen so many so-called experts in one thread.

I'd say 75 percent of those who posted in this thread are full of shit.

[WI_DEM]

42. maybe she's not running a terribly effective campaign???

[rox63]

43. A number of reasons

Like Mittens did, Brown passes himself off as moderate. Although it's not necessarily true, he is fairly effective at pulling it off. Warren is not exactly the most charismatic campaigner. She is very smart, and she is right on most of the issues. But she doesn't connect as easily to voters as Brown does. Maybe it's the Harvard professor thing. Also, as several people have stated, Massachusetts isn't a solid blue state. The cities are very blue. But quite a few of the suburbs and the rural areas are pretty red. We've got our share of rednecks here, just like any state. My corner of the state (northeastern MA) has a lot of red areas, with patches of blue covering the urban areas.

[AngryAmish]

45. There still is discrimination against Native Americans

Remember that Boston has a lot of bigots in it.

[cthulu2016]

46. DUZY!!