A new poll from Western New England University (PDF) confirms the results of two recent polls from other organizations: Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren are in a statistical dead heat. In a head-to-head matchup, Brown leads Warren 47-42 (10% undecided), well within the poll’s margin of error of 4.5%. The only other head-to-head matchup tested in this poll was Brown vs. Alan Khazei, which shows Brown ahead 52-35 (12% undecided). Favorable/unfavorable ratings were 52/27 for Brown, 33/16 for Warren, and 14/11 for Khazei; 30% of voters said they had never heard of Warren, and 47% had never heard of Khazei.
Another particularly interesting result from the poll is this: when asked whether Warren’s job as a Harvard law professor would have any effect on their likelihood to vote for her, 63% of voters – and 60% of independents – said it made no difference. Overall, 21% said Warren’s Harvard affiliation would make it more likely that they’d vote for her, and only 13% said it made it less likely.
The Harvard results confirm information that I received from a source at Majority PAC, a so-called “super PAC” devoted to keeping a Democratic majority in the US Senate. Majority PAC recently polled Massachusetts voters on a variety of issues, and one of them was their impression of Harvard. My source told me that only 11% reported an “unfavorable” view of Harvard, and roughly a quarter of voters had no opinion. So it sure isn’t looking like the “Harvard” line of attack is going to work very well.
Both of these polls of course were taken before “Thank God”-gate; we’ll have to wait for the next round of polling to see if yesterday’s developments have any impact on the race.
stomv says
according to this poll, Brown is up 5 with a MOW of 4.5. Doesn’t that make Brown’s lead decidedly not “within the poll’s margin of error”?
David says
because both Brown’s and Warren’s numbers could in fact be 4.5 points higher or lower. So if Brown’s real support is, say, 44, and Warren’s is 45, that would be entirely consistent with the poll results.
stomv says
Brain fart on my part.
mski011 says
If the error swings to Warren, she’s at 46.5 and also swings down for Brown to 42.5%, Warren is ahead. Statistically, they remain tied. For either to pull away they need to be outside of the margin of error for each of their numbers.
greenemax says
My guess is that the polls will swing in Warrens favor. I also don’t think the issue is that big of a deal, so Warren must continue to put out a strong message to keep the points she gains. She’s quickly becoming the nominee, so the Republicans will start throwing punches soon.
petr says
… and may be descriptive of the themes around which the campaign will play out. Certainly Brown has aggressively started gunning with both barrels on the perceived notion of Warren as elitist, whilst simultaneously putting his full sexist habits of thought and an increasingly neurotic seeming victim identity on display. (it’s just like having Nixon back…) Despite both the inconsistencies and the iniquities of this approach there is a marked affinity for this among the electorate, both among males and among a surprising amount of femaies.
Warren, meanwhile, is an un-apolegetic intellectual heavyweight who is unabashedly middle class (as, indeed, the majority of true intellectuals are…) who faces the pitfalls of seeming elitist merely by being several orders of magnitude smarter than the combined entirety of Scott Browns campaign staff. She’s going to clean his clock again and again and again and he’s just going to come back with the elitist thing. She has a confidence and a clear sense of self that is both compelling and evident which will be presented as hauteur and patronizing.
So it’s a big deal. It’s the whole of the campaign in a nutshell: her job is to make her real self known, his job is to keep his real self under wraps.. Based on what I know about the electorate in the commonwealth, I’m going to call it a dead heat at this point.
Jack Mitchell says
Does that canard play in MA? I’d give a nut to get my kid into Harvard.