If you don’t subscribe to the Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest, you should. It’s an amazing compendium of the latest goings-on in important races around the country. You can sign up at this link.
In any event, this morning’s digest has what struck me as a very smart take on yesterday’s poll that showed Scott Brown with a 5-point lead over Elizabeth Warren.
The first PPP poll of the Massachusetts Senate race since they switched over to their likely voter model shows a marked drop for Elizabeth Warren, who had previously been tied with Scott Brown and had led in the polls before that. The main story here may simply be the change in composition, though the 2008 presidential sample isn’t particularly odd at 58-33 Obama; the actual vote was 62-36. But another story is that Brown’s approvals do seem to be rebounding from earlier in the year while Warren isn’t winning undecided voters over as they come off the fence. Brown’s approval rating now stands at 53/36, up from 45/42 in March (when it was his turn to trail by 5). Warren, by contrast, has 46/43 favorables, compared with 46/33 in March.
It doesn’t seem like Warren is on track to win this purely on likeability grounds, but PPP’s Tom Jensen sees Brown’s Achilles heel here: Even while 54% of voters think he’s “about right” ideologically, 56% also think that the GOP in general is “too conservative,” and more importantly, 53% of voters would like Democrats to be in charge of the Senate, compared with 36% who would like Republicans to control the chamber. Warren’s problem is that only 76% of those voters who want Democrats to be in charge are in powers planning to vote for her. The roadmap here is to follow the same path as Sheldon Whitehouse vs. Lincoln Chafee in 2006, another case of taking down a likeable moderate by tying him at every turn to the national party and educating voters about how the Senate as a whole functions… a lesson which hasn’t seemed to sink in with a large enough share of Massachusetts voters yet.
I completely agree with this assessment. Nobody will ever out-“likable” Scott Brown. The question, really, is whether (to quote myself a few months ago) “an affable, somewhat bumbling, mildly conservative fellow” is good enough, or whether Massachusetts can do better – particularly when our affable Senator may not be ideologically totally in sync with the GOP leadership, but he nonetheless enables them by voting them into power, and by joining their filibusters more often than not.
Meanwhile, for your viewing pleasure, BMG is pleased to present this delightful nugget from 1983, sent along by an alert reader.
Steven Leibowitz says
Completely agree. I don’t think you can possibly say Romney-Ryan-Brown enough times. There is certainly that opportunity for EW at the DNC to start that ball rolling.
mjonesmel says
Great post. This is the key point why Brown must be defeated:
No amount of “regular guyness” or a compelling personal story can make up for this. Brown enables the Republicans to screw families on welfare, among many others, even though at times he was supported by welfare growing up. How nice is that?
Sadly, there’s also a misogynistic streak that runs pretty deeply in Massachusetts politics, which creates a headwind for Warren. Massachusetts has a lower percentage of women legislators than Arizona and, unlike South Carolina, has never elected a female governor (as we know, Shannon O’Brien lost to Romney in 2002, when Romney was playing a Republican “moderate” much like Brown). I bet Warren loses at least two or three points in the polls simply because she’s a woman.
merrimackguy says
So the strategy is to take out moderates, which then makes the GOP entirely populated by conservatives.
Probably the GOP pursues the same strategy, making the Democratic party as whole more liberal.
Which would be the conclusion drawn from an examination of Congress, which shows that not only is there zero overlap in the parties (vs 1980 when there was a lot), they aren’t even close.
So less chance for compromise, more complaints about partisanship, more Red/Blue states, more regional factionalism. More people who feel that their interests are not be represented.
What a great political system. Really gives me hope that we’ll be able to move forward and fix the problems of the country.
marc-davidson says
Scott Brown votes with his very conservative party.
The notion that he’s one of the few Republican advocates of bipartisanship is unsupported by the facts.
merrimackguy says
I can get the source on this (block quote). I cut and pasted this in an email to a very conservative friend who said “Brown hasn’t really done anything that mattered to us.” The friend was right (see below)
I suppose there are dozens of vote analyses that can paint any picture that you want (as we all know, determining what is actually being voted on is complex at times), but I bet most voters in MA (including David earlier today “particularly when our affable Senator may not be ideologically totally in sync with the GOP leadership”) do not view Brown in this way.
Maybe we could argue over “very” “always” or conservative, but when even conservatives (like my friend) don’t view him as conservative, it will be hard to push the middle (or the “low information”) voters in that direction.
Mr. Lynne says
http://www.wbur.org/2012/04/27/scott-brown-votes
My google-fu is strong.
mjonesmel says
he will caucus and vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate. If you feel OK about increasing the probability of a Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, then maybe the stakes in the Mass. Senate race aren’t so high and Brown could be congratulated for his bipartisan moderation. Personally, I’m not OK with the Republicans running the Senate and, for that reason alone, I think Brown’s defeat is urgent.
johnd says
just wondering…
Mark L. Bail says
likability. This is doable. In person, she’s very likable.
Karl Rove would attack Brown’s likability. Brown isn’t always likable, though that may be difficult without negative advertising. If can be nudged into performing like John McCain during the debates, it might work.
Right now, the best we have is that as a Republican, Brown is part of the problem, not the solution.
Ryan says
He may have that reputation, but he’s demonstrable thin-skinned, hypocritical and he yells and swears at teenagers for their comments on Facebook.
Instead of bowing down to his ‘like-ability’ we need to get out there and make clear how fake that is, and that the Scott in commercials and radio ads is a very different person than he is in real life.
It’s his biggest and most important talking point and strength. Do like Karl Rove and attack him on his strength. If, by the end of the election, the people of this state realize he’s a thin-skinned a-hole, they’re going to run in the other direction.
johnd says
and I like him!
Mr. Lynne says
… so far as the image he cultivates. However I also find that this image is a mirage – just ask the guy who drives his truck to his events. (I was seriously laughing out loud when I first saw his latest ad from his truck.)