Elizabeth Warren Is Pulling Ahead Of Scott Brown: Poll

Source: TheHuffingtonPost.com

Democrats' bet that former consumer finance watchdog Elizabeth Warren could take down Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) appears to be paying off, as a new poll suggests she is pulling ahead.

The survey by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst finds Warren leading Brown 43 percent to 39 percent -- just within the poll's 4.4 percent margin of error.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/elizabeth-warren-scott-brown-poll_n_1123387.html

---

NO SURPRISE!

NT

Whatever help the Koch brothers gave notwithstanding, Scott Brown campaigned his ass off and Martha Coakley figured Ted Kennedy's seat was the permanent property of the Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Warren won't do that.

And she seems to know that she's got to keep fighting. Very pleased to see this.

Coakley is a damned good AG and she is not running against either Warren or Brown right now, but the Koch brothers will.

I fought against Coakley and for Capuano in the primary, but, at this point, I see no reason to take a gratuituous shot at her, especially when the issue for this upcoming election is very much the Koch brothers and not at all Coakley.

She is NOT, however, a good senatorial candidate, as witnessed by the fact she's still the Attorney General of Massachusetts. And that is exactly what I was saying.

More to the point, it is exactly what you should have understood I was saying.

in response to my post about the Koch brothers and this election.

It seemed gratuitous.

Go, Elizabeth!

... she listens.

<a href="http://imgur.com/DoEBt"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>

Here hot-pants Scottie listens to David Koch tell him how to vote in the senate, while Scottie wonders if the picture the camera-person in front of him is taking will make it onto a Librul website somewhere. Yup...we're here Scottie-boy. Enjoy your last year in the senate.

...implies that the donation came from a progressive.

Some to choose from:
https://secure.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/27666

All my 2012 cash goes to Elizabeth.

What a brilliant mind!

What did you think I meant?! :patriot:

for Scott.

Obama will win Mass by 30 %.

How can Brown convince so many voters to split their vote Obama-Brown. I don't see it.

Same way I can't see how Ben Nelson can win in Nebraska.

I agree with you that she can't really count on the local media. (It STILL surprises me that in 2010, one TV channel saw no conflict in having his wife as a news presenter.

The one thing where Massachusetts seems better than most states is that more people are genuinely interested in politics and many will see her speak. If they are impressed, which is very likely, they actually become part of stopping the Koch sears.

I have thought in the past that the progress of a lie through a population is similar to the way a virus propagates through a population. If a virus is virulent (or the lie well funded ), the way it can be stopped is to have a sufficient percent of the population vaccinated. For political smears, the "vaccine" is people exposed to the truth. Given that there is slightly less than a year and Massachusetts is a relatively small state, she should be able to get enough people to see her - and that alone will counter the Republican image projected of her. She is a likable, intelligent, usually soft spoken woman. Not to mention, she is not radical or a "socialist". What she is is someone for good government, the regulation of powerful corporations, and fairness.

It summarizes her life story, which is quite appealing, hopefully to both the left and to independents, maybe even to some of the sane righties, if there still is such a thing as a sane rightie. For instance, all her brothers joined the military and she put herself through college.

My hope is that she learns from Brown, as far as methodically visitng every corner of the state. (Remember the infamous truck?) And also that she exposes his voting record in both the Massachusetts legislature and the U.S. Senate.

He has described both as "independent," shrewd in a state where over half the registered voters are registered "independent," but that simply is not a truthful descrption of his voting record.

But that will be money they wasted.

I don't think we can be complacent about the Brown turd.

Been there, done that.

We need more people like Warren in the Senate!

elsewhere to candidates they think can beat dems. They may think Brown a lost cause.

margin of error, when, by all that's rational, Warren should be hitting it out of the park.

Besides, never be either complacent or hopeless about any election. Both are great ways to lose.

the love and affection of at least half the Boston Globe writers, she is doing quite well to have consolidated her position as tied or slightly ahead of Brown. This in spite of the fact that her OWS comment was likely an error. (In a way, it is good that she did overstate things because she now sees personally how any politician's words are distorted - especially Democrats.)

What is interesting in the internals is how badly Scott Brown's favorability has fallen. That he is under 40% is a huge change from the beginning of the year. It is also interesting that the BG has yet to really accept the idea that he may not be that popular. With his numbers in that range, she just needs to withstand all that will be thrown at her - and she seems to do that extremely well.

IOW, do you disagree that Brown was supposedly doomed to lose the special election?

Or that both hopelessness and complacency are our enemies in an election?

Or that this poll is within the margin of error?

Or, by all that is rational (as far as the quality of the candidates), Warren should be hitting it out of the park?

I did not mean that statement as a negative comment about her or her performance, only as a negative comment on what Koch money (and a deceptive candidate, like Brown) can do in an election, even in a state that has an unusually high number of institutions of higher learning.

the park. I don't think that anyone has thought (this year) that beating Brown would be a cake walk. I think Warren is an extremely good candidate, but it will take her time to reach the people not as engaged or as liberal/progressive as you.

I agree that this result is in the margin of error, but it is a mistake to say that at the moment, she has the edge. There is some (very small) probability that they are really tied or he is ahead, but there is a much higher probability that she is actually ahead. This is a good position for someone who entered the race in August against a then "popular" incumbent.

I certainly don't think this should lead to complacency. It says the race is extremely close. Brown, as an incumbent has several advantages. Expect a lot of grandstanding legislation, especially as every bill he introduces gets significant, favorable coverage.

I did not say she should be hitting it out of the park.

I said "by all that's rational, Warren should be hitting it out of the park." The key phrase being "by all that's rational."

And, in my prior post to you, I elaborated on what I meant by that, explaining it was not a criticism of her or of where she stands in the polls now, given all the circumstances, like local media and Koch money..

I meant simply that, any rational comparison between her as a potential Senator and the Brown turd as a Senator should have her ahead by miles. I don't think you would disagree with that.

He got a ton of money from outside Massachusetts. There are other elections that repuiblicants would love to turn red in 2012 and the money may not flow to Brown the way it did 2 years ago.

My point is not that Warren will lose. My point is that we should not take anything for granted, being neither hopeless nor complacent. Those are two very different statements.

One way to adjust a poll is using the difference between polling and turnout in the previous matchup of the two.

The special election was in a very compressed campaign period, not at all comparable to this extended time for campaigning (this is still primary season, yet Warren has been THE candidate for a while as the others dropped out). IMO, anything could happen and Democrats should neither despair nor relax if they want her to win. That is my only point.

As you know, there is no previous match up between Brown and Warren.

As far as the polls re: Coakley. They went, during that compressed period from over 30 points in her favor to quite a few points in Brown's favor right before the election--not 30, certainly, but I don't remember how many.

We can only hope.

would be ahead 65% to 35%.

And, when he started his Senate campaign, even as the natural ideological successor to JFK, brother of the man whose Senate seat he was seeking.

Yet, in the state legislature, he voted something like 94% or 96% with his caucus and my guess is that his voting record in Congress is only slightly better.

However, in our system, it is the job of Prof. Warren and the Democrats to get that info to the public. Whether they will or not is another issue.

However, the ad she is running right now, summarizing her own life story, is pretty good.

Need to donate again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.