(Rasmussen) Poll: Warren And Brown Still Tied In Massachusetts

[ProSense]

Poll: Warren And Brown Still Tied In Massachusetts

The new Rasmussen poll of the Massachusetts Senate race finds a tied race between Republican Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic former White House advisor Elizabeth Warren — suggesting that Warren might not really be getting damaged by the ongoing story about her having previuosly claimed Native American ethnicity based on an ancestor.

The new poll has Warren and Brown at 45 percent apiece. The survey was conducted on May 7, and has a ±4.5% margin of error.

This virtually identical to the previous Rasmussen poll from a month ago, which gave Warren a 46%-45% edge.

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-warren-brown-still-tied-in-massachusetts

[gateley]

1. Can somebody from MA explain WHY Warren isn't leading by leaps

and bounds? Or, why ANYONE still supports Brown?

[Jackpine Radical]

2. One word:

Rasmussen.

[gateley]

3. Yeah. You're right. And one more word: Money. :-( nt

[Mass]

5. She has more money than he has. This is not the issue.

And frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by these numbers. After the lousy week she just had, I was expecting worse.

Also, there are no third party ads.

[gateley]

7. Thanks -- I always automatically assume (I know) that Republicans have more

money than Dems.

Why did she have a lousy week?

[TheWraith]

6. It's not just Rasmussen.

Most of the polls for months have shown Brown winning or a near tie; the only recent one going the other way is a PPP poll which only had Warren up by 5, with 13 percent undecided.

For whatever reason, even though they're not overly wild about Brown, Warren isn't rallying a ton of support.

[gateley]

10. That just surprises me. Granted, I think EVERYBODY feels as I do, and once they listen

to Warren, they'd be sold! If only life were that simple.

[ProSense]

13. Here is

the TPM average from the link:

The TPM Poll Average has this race essentially neck and neck, with Brown at 45.7%, followed right behind by Warren’s 45.4%

Of course, Rasmussen polls are factored in.

On another note, Scott Brown just voted against the student loan bill:

<...>

Senate Democrats brought their version to the floor today, which would also keep interest rates where they are, and pay for it by closing a tax loophole that currently allows some very wealthy people to shield some of their earnings from the payroll tax (the S-corp provision). Republicans have, in the recent past, pointed to this as the kind of loophole they might be willing to close.

<...>

All 42 votes against the bill came from Republicans, including vulnerable incumbents like Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.). Maine's Olympia Snowe (R) voted "present."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11600674-senate-gop-blocks-student-loan-bill

[gateley]

14. I hope she (and all Dems) run with that. They've been trying to rationalize the vote, but

the bottom line is the bottom line.

Thanks!

[Mass]

4. Because Brown is popular and a good and experienced campaigner

and she is not. So, it was not going to be an easy race ever. The fiasco of the ridiculous "Native American" gate should have lasted a couple hours. Because of the inability of the campaign to give an adequate answer quickly, it lasted 4 days and gave Brown the ability to use a classic GOP talking point: affirmative action is bad.

In addition, most people think MA is a democratic state. But independents are 50 % of the state. Of course, the progressive democratic base is acquired to Warren, but the unenrolled, in particular those who are not strong progressive, still do not. When Ms Warren will start addressing more than the Democratic base, I imagine she will make progress. Sadly, this has not yet happened.

[gateley]

8. I guess I'm surprised because my boss, who leans WAY Right, loves Warren.

So, I thought she might have that appeal to others who lean Right, too.

I'm SO hoping for the best for you guys, and that in turn is the best for us all!

[longship]

12. Maybe she needs a James Carville

I know. He's a bit of a jerk. But, he did help Big Dawg win.

I love Warren, but if she is even with the Republican opponent she doesn't have much time to decide when to turn her campaign around. If I were her, I would put some experts on the task of turning this around now. Doing it later looks like desperation. Doing it now, not so much, no matter how Brown might portray it.

[karynnj]

15. I think Carville's reputation is overrated

I think that Clinton was a very talented politician - and GHWB was at 33% by election day. In addition, Perot was in the mix. The main impact of Perot was likely in early 1992 when he was out there day after day blasting GHWB, but by election day, a large portion of the population thought he was extremely weird. Yet Clinton did not win by a landslide.

Given all this, is it hard to understand why his campaign manager was considered to be excellent.

Then look at 2008. Carville was helping the woman, who was said to be inevitable - and she started in 2005 with about 45% of the primary vote - enough to almost certainly win - and the party and media support. I knew Democrats - almost happy that Kerry lost, because now (eyes light up) "we get Hillary" - and they did not understand why I was devastated. So, how was he on the 2008 campaign - pretty bad.

Not to mention, Carville is selective in the Democrats he helps - he was horrible to Kerry - spending his show making snarky jokes about Bush that made people happy, but did not help. The only time he spoke of Kerry - was to complain that he was not Bill Clinton. He seemed to have spent no time learning anything about Kerry. Had he done so, as one of teh few Democrats on TV, he could have helped Kerry.

[lpbk2713]

9. Please don't stink up GD with a reference to Rasmussen polls.

Thanks.

[mfcorey1]

11. Lies. I put little faith in polls. nt