Wendy Kaminer publishes in the June 12, 2010 edition of the Atlantic, an interesting article that discusses whether Scott Brown will lose the support of women in 2012 becuase of a recent vote he took that refuses military women the right to an abortion overseas and for his continued support for pedophile enabler Jeff Perry in his run for Congress.
Kaminer's piece makes one begin to question when Massachusetts Republican Heavyweights like Mitt Romney and Scott Brown will withdraw their support for Perry who protected and covered up for serial child molester Scott Flanagan on multiple occassions?
To read Kaminer's piece as the Perry Sexual Molestation Scandal continues to go national, click on the following link:
Please share widely!
His election was a fluke and he will go down the tubes in 2012 just like Charlie Baker will this fall. The GOP uprising in Massachusetts is dead and they have no chance at the corner office or any congressional seat!
Scott Brown is going to win another term and is on a glide path a presidential candidacy.
<
p>Did you see the most recent Rasmussen poll?
<
p>He’s got 56% favorable to 24% unfavorable. He actually does better among women than men. Women give him only 23% unfavorable. Pretty solid numbers for a Republican in a Democratic state.
the claim isn’t that Brown is unpopular now. The claim is that when there’s a full length campaign season, all of Brown’s turkeys will come home to roost. He’ll get beaten up on environmental, labor, LGBT, reproductive, veterans, and all sorts of other issues. His favorables will drop like a rock.
<
p>That’s the claim. It ain’t about his popularity in June, 2010.
you can predict the future, and you do so by picking the result that you would like to see. It’s just too obvious that many of you here have just not been able to get over Brown’s victory. You know, kids, you just can’t have everything you want in life. :-))
I’m about to let go of my pen. I predict it will hit the ground.
<
p>.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<
p>It did. Theories make for good prediction.
<
p>Actions have consequences. The Atlantic journalist offers up the idea that the brown pen will fall once let go. MassElect2010 pointed out that brown is still three feet in the air. I pointed out that it hasn’t been let go of yet. You cast misplaced ridicule, KBusch calls you out on it, and then you strawman.
<
p>Yawn.
or did it hit the floor?
or maybe the carpet?
sometimes it’s how you see things or label them which make predictions come true.
So you are asserting that Brown will lose in 2012, with near absolute certainty?
<
p>How does this compare with your certainty of the result of the special election late last summer?
I wish I could have that minute back. That is a good example of why I let my Atlantic subscription lapse after they moved to DC.
If you think that all the talk here is so much wishful thinking, then it would be more helpful to provide an argument to unmask the wishful thinking. Show us why Mr. Brown’s approval is so robust.
<
p>Mr. Brown has made his share of exploitable mistakes. No one is pumping them into the airwaves just now, but you can bet that he’ll be a top target when next up for re-election. So certainly the only direction his approval is going to go is downward.
<
p>Now I don’t claim to be a Mr. Savvy Pants, but what makes you think that his approval is insured against dropping below the 50% mark?
(repeat: opinions) versus another. Stomv uses the word “claim” himself and five of you jump in with “6’s” to echo his “claim.” You have no more facts, one way or the other, than I do. Ken, be nice to me or I’ll tell Santa Claus on you1 :-)))))
It’s not my claim. I wrote about this clearly, in multiple posts. Were the 6s because those folks agreed with the claim, or because they felt it was “excellent” to point out what I pointed… that it is the author’s claim on a future event, not on a current reality? I’ll leave that speculation to you.
<
p>Keep setting up strawmen about “some of [BMG]” and knocking ’em down if it keeps you off the streets.
to hear your doubletalk and strawman accusations after Brown is reelected. Whom do you talk to in the real world besides BMGers? You’ve got to get out on the street; BMG is not the bellybutton of the world. (the Oracle of Delphi)
I’m quite the fool for continuing to try and communicate with you using words.
Stomv is using “claim” in a fashion I’ve seen a lot in academic and academic-influenced writing.
<
p>The exchange seems to have gone like this:
Diarist
These things are going to kill Brown’s relection.
2010
No, they won’t he’s very popular now.
stomvThat hardly matters. June 2010 polling rarely predicts 2012 elections.
Stomv did not express an opinion as to whether the diarist or the magazine author’s predictions were true. I think your misreading of the word “claim” has fooled you into thinking he did.
<
p>Perhaps you think that we liberals have fallen into “group think” again. In fact, all we’ve done is express an extremely conventional opinion about public opinion.
especially in today’s world where we have a myriad of purveyors of different points of view, indicate what that person’s philosophy is. “Stomv did not express an opinion as to whether the diarist or the magazine author’s predictions were true. I think your misreading of the word “claim” has fooled you into thinking he did.” Now, if I ever saw stomv quote or cite the Wall Street Journal or that radio guy who writes for the Herald about an election, then I might have a different take on his post.
“Perhaps you think that we liberals have fallen into “group think” again. In fact, all we’ve done is express an extremely conventional opinion about public opinion.” I dislike groupthink on both sides of the political equation, not just from liberals. I’ll spare you the details, but I have acquaintances from both wings who think that I am a total ahole. Doesn’t bother me one bit. Best regards to you, Ken.
… today be any different?
The problem appears to be in tour assumption that people are on here to have discussions. Edgar is clearly hear to bolster his feeling of smug superiority. Edgar needs us to know we’re deluded sheep. His compulsion to repeat that opinion ad nauseam says more about him than us.
showing the honeymoon was ending. He was in the 70s and within two months is at 56 in a Rassmussen poll. Not to mention his approval rate was not significantly different than Kerry’s. (Given the HUGE amount of positive coverage for Brown, it is telling that he is losing support.)
<
p>It is also possible that some of the approvals were because, at the time of the poll, he had just voted against the Republican parties attempt to filibuster finance reform.
It says people will turn against Brown for 3 reasons:
<
p>1. He is not “pro-choice” enough
2. He is not “pro LGBT” enough
3. He’s friends with Jeff Perry
<
p>These are patently silly claims.
<
p>1. Scott Brown says he is pro-life, but he isn’t acting against abortion law. He has made a few votes against expanding abortion rights further. Abortion is an issues which is trending anti nationally and in Massachusetts. That he isn’t hard line pro-abortion is only going to help help. The majority position even in massachusetts is that the state should not be using tax money to fund abortions. Brown is in line with that.
<
p>2. I haven’t seen polls but I believe the LGBT issue lines up with voters roughtly 15% pro, 15% against, 70% don’t care. The 15% pro-LGBT aren’t going to vote for Brown regardless. Everyone else simply isn’t going to care. Catering to the LGBT issues is a must have for someone building a coalition from the left – not from the right.
<
p>3. This is the silliest one. So are we to believe that 13 years ago a policeman does a questionable search on a girl, Perry was the Police Chief, so it becomes his political problem. Brown supports a fellow Republican, and so now he is somehow tied to the issue? Whether Perry wins or loses in 2010, this will be a long forgotten issue by 2012. This issue doesn’t even have legs to hurt Perry never mind Brown.
<
p>
“I started yelling, I started screaming, I was crying, and I was real upset,” the 14 year-old victim testified in the civil case.
Remember all of Obama’s nasty, dirty friends?
<
p>Didn’t work. Theories make for good predictions, and I theorize that guilty by association only goes so far in villifying politicians, and Scott Brown isn’t within a mile enough of being close to Jeff Perry that this will burn him.
It wasn’t “Perry’s victim”, it was some police officer. Perry was just the guy’s boss. It’s a strech to tar Perry with it. It’s a crazy stretch to try to tie Brown to it. By your logic no Republican could ever get elected because all of them support Perry.
I know this is hard, as it defies the Kos stereotype, but there are MANY pro-choice Republicans in Mass.
It is stunning that with all the positive coverage and the fact that the later poll was taken after some reasonable votes, that he already was losing popularity quickly.
hence the reputation as a right-leaning pollster.
Rasmussen avoids running polls close enough to elections that their “everyone loves Republicans!” narrative is uncontradicted.
Rasmussen avoids having its polls “proven” right or wrong.
Here’s what Rasmussen seems to do:
<
p>Long before the election: heavily weigh the GOP candidate. Their numbers are consistent outliers long before the election, and (nearly?) always skewed in favor of the GOPer.
<
p>Right before the election: stop heavily weighing the GOP Candidate. Now, their numbers are much closer aligned.
<
p>
<
p>Thing is, if you’re comparing pollsters to actual results, you don’t look at the pollsters numbers from 60 days before the election for the same reason you don’t use a 1-0 score in the middle of the first inning to predict the outcome or score of a baseball game.
<
p>It’s a clever trick. When you know that skewing your polls can’t really be used against you, you show the bias, helping to set a media narrative, a fund raising scenario, etc. Then, when your polls will be compared to actual results, you behave like a proper pollster again.
<
p>
<
p>Is Ras really doing this? Hard to say with certainty because there just isn’t enough polling in most races to demonstrate it one way or the other. There is some evidence in the Coakley-Brown race that this was happening, but it’s certainly nowhere near conclusive. I haven’t been following those who are following this, so I don’t really have a feel for the entire body of evidence one way or the other. My point is merely to respond to your question: and the answer is not really, and more “no” the farther away you are from election day.
to keep the seat as long as he wants to. He had constant and intensely positive press throughout the election, he is an excellent and handsome campaigner, he can present himself as very moderate on issues when he wants to, his daughter is probably the most popular young woman in Massachusetts, and his wife has deep media connections from being a 15 yr plus news anchor. He has this media presence and the support of the Romney machine added to the 25%-30% right wing talk and conservative base that any republican would have. This makes me think that it would take an extra-ordinary heavily funded media-savvy Dem to challenge him.
like Vicki Kennedy?
league, I think. I wonder if the PUMA’s would be unleashed against any Kennedy the way they went after Caroline Kennedy.
against Angus McQuilken, who unfortunately lost by a narrow margin in a special election, there was a sign illegally posted on a telephone pole on our street which tells you all you need to know about Brown and his supporters. It read:
<
p>”Homo Sex education in public schools: Angus for, Brown against”