Massachusetts maybe the "bluest" of the blue states but some things should be understood. The Mass state legislature is often described as "all democrat all the time" a situation that can encourage some corrupt behavior. Massachusetts has, in the past, elected republican governors to add some checks and balances to the state congress. Most of them have been pretty moderate repubs. Bill Weld would be good example. I thought he was, for all intensive purposes, a pretty good guy. Too bad he became bored with his job and sort of just handed things over to Lt. Governor Paul Celucci. I doubt you would see a Rick Perry or other ultra-right candidate run in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney did not run for governor with the same rhetoric he's using now for the presidency.
When Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's senate seat I spoke with some old friends about it. All said the same thing. The candidate that the Dems ran against Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, was seen as incredibly weak and certain observations gave the impression that she was somehow entitled to Kennedy's seat. They may have thought her as a competent attorney general but thought otherwise as a senator. Brown took the election by a 5% margin.
My guess is that Elizabeth Warren is a much stronger and more formidable candidate than Martha Coakley could have hoped to be. This is my guess as to why Scott Brown is being evasive when it comes to debating her. I am willing to bet his handlers think Brown will get crushed in a debate format with her and is thus unwilling to venture outside friendly territory that is the Boston area conservative radio personalities.
As a previous poster said there are too many dumb white males in Mass. I would tend to agree.
I also think some of the tea party fever spilled into Mass from New Hampshire which may explain why the surveys put Brown and Warren neck and neck.
How I see it anyway.
= new reply since forum marked as read
