Well, not the greatest news in the world …
Brown has the lead on Warren thanks to a 58-32 advantage with independents, comparable to what he won against Martha Coakley in 2010. He has Republicans strongly unified around him (91-7) and he’s pulling a pretty decent amount of Democratic support, 20%, with just 73% of her party’s voters committed to Warren at this point.
Several possibilities:
- Brown’s TV blitz of conserva-Dems talking about how nice and bipartisan he is, has worked. Wouldn’t surprise me; they’re nice spots for him.
- It’s just an outlier. Nothing wrong with it; just happens sometimes. Every other poll has shown them tied.
- Warren is still not known among the general voting public. She’ll bring home the Dems once the debates hit and once the Presidential race heats up. Warren doesn’t yet have the local pols with independent cred working for her full-time yet. (Menino sure would be a nice get.)
- Or, Warren is becoming better known, and seems shrill and polarizing.
- Maybe the Cherokee thing took hold finally. Pretty sure I don’t believe this.
Anyway, we’ve got our work cut out for us. Five points is just outside the threshold where on-the-ground organization can swing the election. We need money, well-spent media with a clear and convincing message, and shoe-leather.
Speaking of shoe-leather … come to Lowell on Sunday @ 12:30pm and get it done with us!
Discuss
74 Comments . Leave a comment below.MA voters just like Scott Brown more than Elizabeth Warren. Really, it is possible. Now what I’ve heard here before from BMGers when this happens is “low intellect” voters support the GOP candidate, which I’ve always thought was such a “high and mighty” opinion of oneself and their support of candidates and issues. But folks, sometimes you guys just have the person/issue which the majority of voters DON’T LIKE. It’s funny how some people’s support of the democratic process seems to melt away when “their guy” loses.
Or you can make yourself feel better and go with door #2…
IIt’s just an outlier. Nothing wrong with it; just happens sometimes. Every other poll has shown them tied.
I’m pretty sure I conceded that what you say might be a possibility in my post. And I certainly didn’t say anything about intellect. I was suggesting possible reasons for an apparent change in the race. Some might be relatively benign to Warren, some aren’t.
I did not mean to imply “you” specifically say voters who vote against your person/issue is of low intellect, but I did mean to say that that is common theme here.
differentiate between BMGer’s, you’re going to need to start naming names. Your lumping makes everyone sound bad while at least many of us don’t fit the bill.
When I mentioned the new Scott Brown ad, he wrote “I guess some “low-information voters” might find this persuasive.”
I can’t count the number of times I read “moronic statement” about posts that were not spiked with blue Kool-Aid
I call ‘em as I see ‘em.
The ads from Scott Brown appeal to voters who don’t know or don’t care about his record on issues, his voting, the reality of his loyalty to the GOP versus his marketing, and the impact of what he proposes.
In short — “low-information voters”.
generalizations about BMGer’s.
Apparently you are bad at counting. I searched BMG for the phrase “moronic statement”, and found precisely THREE unique hits — two of them from the distant past (2009, 2007). Many of us are able to count to three.
By the way, the phrase in question was: “sharia fundamentalism that came from left and right after 911″, and the characterization was from mr_lynne.
I might have chosen a different phraseology (“egregiously wrong”, “utterly false”, etc.) but I think “moronic” isn’t far off. I’m not sure how anyone with even a tenuous grasp on reality can write that phrase.
… term. For anyone that wants to review:
I would submit that merely calling that statement some variety of ‘wrong’ misses the depths one has to be willing to dive into to hold the statement as ‘not wrong’.
How about “pathologically wrong statement” or “insanely inaccurate statement” (going for an alliteration)?
I totally agree with you, and welcome the opportunity to give some more airplay to your succinct and accurate demolition of the bizarre quote.
Come on, John, are you REALLY unable to differentiate between “intellect” and “information”? REALLY?
The phrase several of us (including, proudly, yours truly) is “low information“. That is a world apart from “low intellect”. In fact, I reserve my highest contempt for those of any stripe who are “high intellect” and “low information” voters — and they are all too frequent.
Poll data is going to be noisy. I would not be as triumphalist as you are being after one poll showed my candidate suddenly breaking ahead. Most polling has been giving Warren a 2 point lead.
It looks awfully like we are getting caught with our pants down again like we were with Coakley and I don’t want to say ‘fool me twice…’ after November. I liked her last ad, I think an ad like the one Christopher and STom came up with in the last one could really connect Wall Street reform to Main Street MA issues. That said, as I said before, its time to bring Brown down and the high road campaign Elizabeth has been running will lead to Dukakis-Gore-Kerry-Coakley-loserville instead of the Senate. I want some seriously devastating ads against Brown, the low road mostly negative Obama campaign has succeeded brilliantly at getting Midwesterners to mistrust Romney and not switch horses in mid stride. We have to do the same to Brown. And lets not feel bad, every single vote he has made has been at the behest of Wall Street and Republican leadership. As Adlai once said “they will only stop telling lies about us if we stop telling the truth about them”, its time we realize Brown will lie his way to victory and its high time we take the fight to Brown and tell MA voters the truth. Confronted with the truth there is no way he can win. Stop making this a positive feel good Deval/Barack esque ‘hope and change’ election, its not, this is down and ugly old school street politics and we don’t bring knives to gun fights.
Scott Brown is not Mitt Romney. It’s embarrassingly easy to make devastating negative spots against Romney – and they have the additional advantage of being true, as the saying goes. The negative case against Brown is more difficult, because he is not as awful as Romney or Paul Ryan.
His voting record is really not that far from Paul Ryans, at least on checkbook issues, and like Chafee and Specter before him he has learned to be a social moderate and occasional Democratic only when his vote doesn’t make a difference. He has yet to disavow the convention plank on forcing women to have their rapists child, he was for a Santorum esque conscience clause that frankly would have allowed any employer to use his own religious views to deny health coverage, and he is 100% against gun control which Governors Weld and Romney fought for. He is really not the moderate the Globe and even some of us here make him out to be. He is a lot more charismatic than Romney but there is a jugular we can go for and I am not seeing it get done.
Not true – see my comment below.
“doesn’t agree the government should force a rape victim to have their rapist’s child” as an indication of being a ‘moderate.’
Here’s some of the Globe’s excerpts:
He’s gone way beyond the issue of pregnancy due to rape. He’s urging the platform to make allowances for “pro-choice Republicans like myself.” Of course that is not going to happen, but Brown has again positioned himself very well for the MA electorate.
When it comes to religious views (as opposed to “moral conviction”) and contraception, that was not that different from Ted Kennedy’s position. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
is not going to win if the focus is solely on social issues. That’s my take after this week.
Just coming off reading Kahneman’s latest book: to human minds, negative stuff is much more salient than positive.
I just thought it was interesting and Martha Coakley might advice EW to take it seriously. She’s almost as out of touch with MA as Martha appeared to be.
I know you guys love her but I think she sounds terrible in her ads talking about everyone getting “hammered” blah blah blah.
I just heard her ad about accountability. So when she said this…
Did she ever ask why the OBAMA Justice Dept and/or the OBAMA SEC has not done anything to the people who she is referring to? What is he waiting for? Did he need the campaign contributions from Wall St so badly that he’s handed out “get out of jail free” cards to all the people who “broke our economy”??? EW, call the guy who dropped you from the Consumer Protection Agency job and ask him why he hasn’t done anything.
I recall Kennedy supporters (those who weren’t drunk) in 94 chanting “Michigan Mitt”. I believe many people can’t relate to Warren b/c she is not from here. I won’t say she’s a carpetbagger, but she has no roots or ties to Massachusetts. Beside being a brilliant campaigner, Brown is the most bipartisan senator in the country.
We are just over two months to the election, and Menino has not endorsed Professor Warren. That is the nail in the coffin.
I don’t even know where there is an evidence to back this up, it also has absolutely no bearing on his effectiveness as a legislator or whether or not he is serving his constituents. In his later years Ted Kennedy tried to be more bipartisan and it lead to some good ideas like SCHIP with Hatch and some bad ideas like No Child or McCain-Kennedy (sorry folks it was a terrible blueprint for true immigration reform). A bipartisan bill is only a good thing if it actually accomplishes good for the people. The Iraq War was a very bipartisan idea backed by a lot of ‘vital centrists’ in both parties and in editorial pages, even the Times reluctantly endorsed it. The Patriot Act got 99 votes in the Senate, Scalia and Thomas won bipartisan votes. This doesn’t make any of these policies intrinsically good. Also I sincerely doubt he has been bipartisan where it counts.
Your second point is right on though which is why, like Romney in 2002, Warren should stop pretending to be a Red Sox fan and have local roots and just hammer over and over again why Brown is a shitty Senator. Romney won by tying O’Brien, fatally, to the Beacon Hill machine and she never recovered. Warren, clearly outside of that machine, can also tie Brown to that same machine and to the national machine of modern day bosses in grey flannel suits in Wall Street who are clearly the puppeteers. And yes the AFL-CIO should threaten to knife Menino if he doesn’t stop our Scott Walker so he can get the hard hats and blue collar patronage army out in force for Liz like they were for Deval.
By that argument, the presidential election is pretty much of a wrap, I suppose.
As to Massachusetts, it’s far from clear why anyone would consider Scott Brown likable once they find out he tried to get Fenway Park closed down.
this story has NO LEGS. Nobody cares. It’s right up there with Obama ate a dog,
Open minded, evenhanded. Good tone.
I will respond in kind.
One piece of political “wisdom” (is any of it really that wise? isn’t it often upended?) is that when you vote to remove an incumbent you are in essence “firing” them. While most people of strong opposite (to the elected official) opinions say “yea, get rid of the bastard” the true independents don’t really see much reason to fire him.
One other note about party affiliations. Because the MA GOP has such an awful history as a party, the unenrolled ranks have a lot of people who vote Republican in them. There are also of course unenrolleds who vote Democratic regularly. They might even think they are actually Democrats. The Brown voting Democrats are not surprising either. Because of it’s strong Democrat history there are many people who are lifelong Democrats who registered at 18, but never changed their registration as their views changed. My next door neighbor, union guy, registered Democrat who votes every election (I checked) is a big talk radio fan and almost always votes for the R.
…because they understood that in a close national election, voting for Lincoln Chafee was a vote to give radical right-wing Republicans control of the U.S. Senate. I really liked Chafee as a senator — he was truly independent; but if I had been a resident of Rhode Island, I would have voted against him also for that reason.
I can’t believe there are a lot of centrist independents in Massachusetts who support Mitch McConnell and the extremist Republican agenda. If Democrats can successfully tie a vote for Scott Brown for a vote for the national Republican agenda, he will have a big problem.
Has Brown made any comments about the Republicans pro-force women to have their rapists’ child platform? Lets get Emilys List or Planned Parenthood off their asses and run that ad now. We have the most pro-choice electorate in the country and its time we let independents know that Brown is an extremist-NOT a moderate.
No can do, unless it’s direct mail (which IIRC isn’t covered). People’s Pledge prevents them from running ads – and that’s a good thing, IMHO.
And the case for Brown being an extremist is weak. Yes, he’s an enabler by backing Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership, and that’s important. But I stand by my description of a few months back:
And yet, Brown keeps demonstrating how sharp his political skills are. A character in a Monty Python sketch once observed, “well, I may be an idiot, but I’m no fool.”
I said it at the time that pledge was tying her hands behind her back before she could even begin to fight, and it may be the albatross around her neck come voting day, lets hope Brown breaks it first or she can win while honoring it.
and go back on her word (like Obama did when he ran in 2008 concerning public funding.
What kind of backlash would she get from you guys? Nothing. Even David’s words above saying this pledge is a good idea would continue to support EW in every possible way. Right?
It would definitely hurt her with independents and give Brown huge leeway to attack her, but she should’ve known the corporate money would hurt her in this race and the only way you beat the incumbent is taking them down a peg. Very dumb tactical move. Obama’s move was a smart tactical move though with the headwinds at his back I wish he had kept public financing, and that’s one of the few issues McCain didn’t flip flop on. Now with the pandora’s box open thanks to the Supreme Court no way we will ever see public financing again, and no reason for Warren to have made that pledge.
yes, he sent a letter to RNC chair Reince Preibus (or however you spell his name) saying that he didn’t like it.
He doesn’t have to be the most extreme Republican, but how many times has he voted with the party including on filibusters, after campaigning on being the person who could bring people together? Those commercials with the Democrats must be answered directly.
No way around it. I want a fighter, on paper, on the Daily Show, heck even on Oprah she is clearly a fighter for the middle class. Part of being a fighter is taking on the powers that fight against what you believe in and bunching them straight in the privates-i want to see Warren do that-I know she is capable of that her handlers just need to let Warren be Warren.
Elizabeth Warren entered the race. Then suddenly he decided to appear all bipartisan-y, according to data from ProgressMass.
like this…
…sure it’s to early to tell if this is an outlier, but that won’t stop the pundit blowhard class from yapping, so why should it stop us?
I do think the Dems for Brown ads the “I call’m as a see’m” ads Brown has up are effective. Warren’s ads appeal to her base and this is what the race is shaping up to be: Brown hoping the race is decided on turning the 5% that makes up today’s “swing voter” and the Warren camp is banking on a strong base turnout to overwhelm the swing voter.
As I suggested in David’s post on Sunday regarding the Globe’s Warren profile, Warren and her people apparently want to hide the fact that she was once a Republican and MAY HAVE even voted for Ronald Reagan. I say, move that bio fact out front and center and also compete for the swing voter.
Warren can develop two distinct strategies that can be merged together into an election day victory. The base is already fired up and the wheels are already well in motion for another big (even bigger) GOTV effort. Why not start telling true independents that Warren is not the two-headed communist the R’s paint her as? She is a former Republican for God sakes!!
Brown only has one card to play: Joe independent. Warren has two cards to play–if she chooses to. So far we’re only seeing the base card being played. Is today’s poll an indication of how well that’s going?
It worked for Webb and the reason is he was able to say that the Reagan era populism of the GOP was long dead and sold to the highest corporate bidder. I think if Warren does this she can win the hardhats and Reagan Dems, who are the vast majority of the unenrolleds, back into the fold. A strong independent voice who will take on the fat cats both parties are too afraid to stand up to. I have been waiting for the ad that says ‘the woman Wall Street didn’t want to face’. She can be a progressive and a populist and she can do it.
by Akin and the far right, it makes him seem moderate. Personally, I’ll wait until after this Akin things moves on and check the next poll, if it’s back to even, then can we say that votes are running away from Brown? I personally want the right to jump all over this, it will make the next poll worse than it actually is. My sense is that they are both still even, felt this way when Warren was lead as well. But we’ll see where this goes.
At best, just a day of the polling reflected Akin’s comment and none of it reflected Brown’s push back against Akin’s. If anything, the last couple of days of Brown denouncing Akin and the GOP Platform will make him look better in the eyes of the indies.
I would tend to agree with your point.
Dear Chairman Priebus:
First, let me say thank you for your leadership of our party. I know how hard you work on behalf of making our party and our nation stronger. I am writing to you on an issue of importance that I believe has the potential to strengthen us as a party by sending a message to all Americans that we are broadly inclusive and open to different points of view.
As you know, every four years the Republican Party crafts a platform intended to give voters an understanding of our Party’s principles and policies on important issues of the day.
The Party is currently engaged in the process of developing its 2012 platform. Media reports indicate that the Platform Committee will consider draft language opposing a woman’s right to choose and supporting a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I believe this is a mistake because it fails to recognize the views of pro-choice Republicans like myself.
Even while I am pro-choice, I respect those who have a different opinion on this very difficult and sensitive issue. Our Party platform should make the same concession to those of us who believe in a woman’s right to choose.
If we are to grow and succeed in all parts of this great nation, we must be a “big-tent” party. There are people of goodwill on both sides of the abortion issue, and we need to send a message to voters that there is room in the Republican Party for differing perspectives.
The Party platform is, of course, not a platform for every Republican candidate. In Massachusetts, I’ll be running on my own platform, and focusing on how to create jobs and get our economy moving again, strengthening our employer community by keeping taxes low and reducing burdensome regulations, and controlling spending through passage of a balanced budget amendment.
But the Republican Party would be well-served to recognize in its platform that you can be pro-choice and still be a good Republican. I hope you and the Platform Committee will recognize this reality as you finalize this year’s Platform document.
Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
U.S. Senator
Is that this particular race is being fought on *somewhat* narrower ideological ground than is the national election. This would aid Brown, since as has been said, he’s not Todd Akin, or even crypto-Todd Akin, as many GOPers are.
The question is whether Brown can be linked to the filibustering GOP enough. And I think the Warren campaign needs to go there, because it’s true.
Even if you like him, you can’t elect him – he can’t be independent in any effective way as long as he’s with the party of crazy.
A big problem with voting for Scott Brown is that he will be voting to make Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader, the guy who thinks covering 30 million uninsured Americans isn’t an issue, who thinks disclosing corporate political donations harms corporate America, opposes stem cell research, voted against the stimulus, voted for a Constituional ban on same-sex marriage, was a key player in turning a usually routine bipartisan vote on the debt ceiling into a game of political chicken, risking the good credit of the U,S. for his goal of trying to destroy the Obama presidency …. If you vote for Brown, you’re voting for someone who’s going to support the guy who’s pushing all that and more to be running your United States Senate.
A guy who can’t even pass a budget in over three years, who pushes legislation that benefits his sons and himself and makes outrageous claims using a unnamed source, McCarthy-like tactics.
Maybe Harry’s tactics were more in the style of the Republicans (e.g. I don’t hear any calls to rein in Michelle Bachman from Romney or other party leaders), but it is perfectly obvious even to you that Romney is hiding something extremely damaging to his campaign.
It doesn’t trouble you what that might be?
I would like to see Hizzoner endorse her. Now. Is he trying to out-Ray Flynn Ray Flynn?
Well, it may be an outlier with Brown ahead 5 points but what I see in the central/western region is 50:1 signs for Brown. I know signs don’t vote, but it is the audacity of those conservatives who were silent for years….not even bothering to put up signs or bumper stickers for the GOP candidates that now have the signs but also display evidence of coordinated campaigns: local, state, federal.
People are energized for Brown….he can pull in the uber-male vote as well as the smart professional female. His likeability is that he appeals to the man’s man with the guys, including the strong pro-gun lobby, as well as the females who want a fairly good looking middle-aged man (who used to be hot!) be their leader.
Whereas the buzz for Elizabeth Warren has not left the core Democrat hive.
Scott Brown’s agenda is not in sync with the majority of people of Mass. However his physical appearance, the tone of his voice, and not letting you read between the lines on what he really votes for in terms of pocket book issues and social issues is how he wins people over. He will say he wants jobs but then vote against helping workers. He will say he wants health care for everyone but then votes for private insurers who have not delivered and are making it worse. He decries what has happened in the financial world but then hangs around with them, takes their money, and makes sure nothing changes through back door methods. None of his ads show what he will do to improve anything. Further the data of this poll is not totally revealed. We do not know what part of the state and in what percentage was phoned. These were also not live interviews. If high population areas such as Boston and Worcester were under sampled it may not be a true reflection of the electorate. It does not mean anything should be taken for granted but if the big cities were left out, a strong get out the vote effort is in order. Depending on Mayor Menino may be somewhat helpful but can also seem desperate. Looking over Elizabeth’s bio in the Globe this is not her style. For those who defend a party affiliation and Republican mantra she represents more of what you want. A prosperous nation with no undue influence from the financial sector, a social insurance for health care like social security is a capitalist’s wet dream. Any potential entrepreneur would be freed from the greatest expenses outside of wages to make their business succeed. This is the dirty secret the Republican ideologues kept from the public. Not supporting these reforms makes for cheap labor, exactly what they want. The proof is staring you in the face–increasing poverty, medical bankruptcy, excess deaths among the uninsured, stagnant or declining wages. Not that Democrats are excused from their legislative behavior. Many voted for the Iraq War and Rep Wyden got into bed with Paul Ryan. It is time to have someone who truly wants to level the playing field and stop squandering our resources. That candidate is Professor Elizabeth Warren.
I expect “low intellect” voters to fall for democratic talking points like “Scott Brown votes against helping working people”. You lost me there…
How has he worked to help working people? I’m listening.
I never characterized anyone as low intellect. It is not a tactic that is reasonable or true. Some people are just more drawn by optics than deeper inspection of a person’s views.
some people just have a different philosophical view of things. If I happen to believe in cutting spending and you happen to believe in raising taxes, I don’t think that I’m necessarily of “low intellect” or am being “drawn by optics”. I just believe how I believe. And so many things we argue today are subjective and really have no definite answer. You can argue that economist ABC says this but I can argue Economist DEF said that.
Sometimes we just don’t know enough empirical data to make a “correct” decision. For a long time fat was bad for you, then we found out there is “good” fats which are good for you. We may find out tomorrow that some of the “good” fats are really bad and vice versa.
I don’t agree with many people here, including you, but I don’t think your decisions are stupid or that you are stupid, we just disagree.
since I want to learn. What proposals has Scott Brown initiated or co-sponsored that has helped working people. Your take on philosophy is nice but is there an answer to the question?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/brown-will-break-with-gop_n_472300.html
He added his vote, with the post script he would have liked some other program cut more. He did not initiate or sponsor this legislation as the question asked. His vote was a political move to do what you just did to keep his seat. So again where is the legislation he introduced or sponsored for working people. He is a reactor not a leader.
I gave you an example of how he helped working people. I’m done. You want to take that as a victory then go ahead, we all need our wins.
Her question was (emphasis mine): “What proposals has Scott Brown initiated or co-sponsored that has helped working people.”
You gave an answer that was not responsive to her question. Perhaps if you took a bit more time to actually read what folks write, you wouldn’t be attacked so much. With me, it was your repeated distortion of a phrase I use. With oetkb, it was your presumption that oetkb didn’t actually mean “initiated or co-sponsored”. Surely your background in sales has impressed upon you the importance of paying attention to what somebody actually says.
John, nobody said you were of low intellect.
When someone asserts a position that is demonstrably false in the presence of compelling information that that position is false, then it is legitimate to describe that person as “low information” (the various alternatives — “low integrity” or “willfully wrong” or “irrational” — are surely worse).
While it’s true that some of the things we discuss are subjective, many of them are not. There is nothing subjective about Scott Brown’s full-throttle retreat from his voting record or his position on issues — that’s just fact.
John, you are the only person on this site to use the phrase “low intellect”. I just searched it, and this comment from you is the only place it appears. The phrase that I (and others) use is “low information”.
Such lies demean you.
do you like to call people names for fun? Get over it. Did you ever make a mistake in your life? A gaffe? How many times have you written how you wish you could edit some of your comments (due to typos…). I made a mistake, sorry, not a lie.
Ok, low information voters, feel better? Voters who disagree with you aren’t stupid, we just are lacking information. Wow, how’s that cloud you’re living on?
One time, a mistake. Multiple times, after you’ve been informed of your “error” — something different.
You’ve been all over the site with this meme, please stop.
WTF are you talking about? If I write something 1 time or 9 times and then find out it was a mistake, then it’s a mistake. I have not written anything about “low intellect” since I admitted to the mistake. If I do it “after” the mistake is admitted to, then you call it something different. Follow?
This word is only used with regard to women candidates and I find it sexist and offensive. As long as we continue to describe (or give opportunity to dispute the description of) women candidates with this word, the sexism will never go away. It never even occurred to me that Elizabeth Warren was shrill. Women are not shrill. We need to stop giving opportunity to describe passion and assertiveness as shrill. Please.
She is not polarizing, but the term is not sexist, so the discussion on that is a valid one. Thanks!
I agree with you that “shrill” is only used with regard to women candidates, and I agree with you that it is sexist and offensive. Sadly, that is nevertheless the state of too many Massachusetts voters. Hence, I think the original wording (“Or, Warren is becoming better known, and seems shrill and polarizing.”) is accurate.
She does, to all too many sexist Massachusetts voters, seem “shrill” as well as polarizing. Note that I’m NOT saying that voters who prefer Scott Brown are sexist. I’m instead saying that voters who ARE sexist find Ms. Warren “shrill” and prefer Scott Brown.
I am going to be out of town and off the internet all day and most of the night, so I am not going to able to debate this with you for now. The only thing I am willing to debate is whether or not the description “shrill” is sexist. I will not debate whether or not Elizabeth Warren is “shrill”. That is so sexist and I seriously cannot believe such a conversation would be initiated here on BMG, no matter who continues to promote that language in their daily conversations with individuals.
Which part of “I agree with you that it is sexist and offensive” is hard to understand?
You can’t believe that significant number of Massachusetts voters are sexist? Really?
Sexist voters are for Brown, low information voters will support Brown, MaryLou coffee drinkers (just dirty old men) will be for Brown, people who like Chic- Fil – A (they must hate gays) will vote for Brown.
Never seen someone smear voters like somervilletom. Poor Professor Warren, she has a 4-1 party registration advantage and is losing. God forbid its her policies or lack thereof (waiting on her opinion on a carbon tax).
I didn’t say anything about “MaryLou coffee drinkers” or “people who like Chic-Fil-A”, those are your inventions. In fact, my own comments about the Chic-Fil-A episode highly critical of Mayor Menino for starting the spat and of the portions of the LBGT community who perpetuated it.
Here’s your chance, Dan.
Please enumerate the policies that are attracting voters away from Elizabeth Warren and to Scott Brown. Where do “high information” voters obtain specifics of Mr. Brown’s stances and actions on those policies?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 19 Jun 12:59 PM