I kinda wish she wouldn’t. I want her in the job she is totally qualified for, as head of Consumer Protection. Failing that, I am happy to see her running for some position of power, but fear she may have taken of something too big, if she fails, she will most likely disappear, and she is the homeliest woman I have ever loved.
Money loves Scott Brown, and will shower down on him in buckets.
Did you forget Janet Reno?
She’s better looking than Ann Richards or Molly Ivins, but that’s just MHO.
This isn’t a special election, though, with only a couple of months of campaigning. The election is still over a year out, and that’s plenty of time for her to get her name recognition up, and her image defined on her own terms. In fact, at this point in the cycle, her low name recognition bodes well, since if she’s polling so close even with that low name recognition, she can be expected to do much better once her recognition goes up.
She’ll probably win, if for no other reason than Garry Trudeau demands it (a recent Doonesbury strip had one of the long-running characters getting ready to be part of her campaign, which means the whole thing will be in something close to the national spotlight, and considering that the strip is currently printing unflattering excerpts from the Palin book, something tells me it’s not exactly going to get a pro-Brown slant).
Remember this is Massachusetts where people would be willing to vote in a cocker spaniel if it has a (D) next to his or her name on the ballot. And considering she’s trailing by nine points its a bit misleading to say she is within single digits.
Yeah that’s why Brown was elected…
So ‘nine’ isn’t a single digit in your world?
[quote=“boytyperanma, post:27, topic:596250”]
Yeah that’s why Brown was elected…
[QUOTE]
My point is that Democrats are extraordinarily strong in Massachusetts hence the polling number.
Technically which is why I said “misleading” not “false”, by this logic Obama won by single digits.
[quote=“Qin_Shi_Huangdi, post:28, topic:596250”]
[quote=“boytyperanma, post:27, topic:596250”]
Yeah that’s why Brown was elected…
Numbers have specific meanings if you are mislead by them perhaps you should have paid more attention in kindergarden.
A margin of nine points is a landslide, in an actual election. But in a poll a year out, yeah, it’s pretty close.
This article lays out what Warren is going to need to win. Basically, the example she wants to follow is Sheldon Whitehouse, who beat Lincoln Chaffee for Senator from Rhode Island in 2006. Chaffee had a 60% approval rating through the election, and tried to distance himself from the Republican Party, even making it clear that he voted against Bush in '04, but was unable to overcome his party’s image with RI voters.
I’m guessing the biggest thing that would help Warren is if Rick Perry is the Republican nominee. I don’t think anybody’s been polling Perry’s popularity in Massachusetts, but it’s a safe bet that he’s vastly less popular than Romney here. And he’s got a whole primary campaign to badmouth our state. Brown will probably have to take care never to actually be seen near Rick Perry. Whereas Obama will probably be happy to help out the Warren campaign (and may not be getting too many knocks on his door for such things), and could actually be a useful presence.
Please refrain from personal remarks, boytyperanma.
Thanks,
twickster, Elections moderator
That’s the popular meme among people who don’t actually live here or pay much attention to it. It avoids having to actually make the effort to understand why the Democratic party is dominant here, and allows one to pretend that it’s only the result of a shortage of thought or principle resulting from, well, maybe the air here, who knows? :rolleyes: Perhaps you can explain how Mitt Romney and Scott Brown won elections here, or why Reagan won MA twice? :dubious:
Perhaps MA is only somewhat ahead of the nation in social progressiveness, as has historically been the case for centuries, but is also, as usual, capable of backsliding or temporary loss of resolve.
When she starts making headway, the Repubs will come down hard against her. The Repubs are trying to kill consumer protection . They will want her to lose. I suspect the Koch suckers will pour endless cash into this race.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/20/poll-warren-takes-early-lead-over-brown/
It did not take long. Warren is ahead in the latest poll. So this secure seat the other posters saw, may not be so secure after all. He may not be the most popular pol in Mass. after all.
I never said the seat was secure.
You, however, should not make the mistake of overconfidence in the other direction. Frequently the latest entrant in a political race polls particularly well for a short time. Whether that momentum holds is another matter entirely.
I just figured out my strategy - I’m going to arrange for my parents (who live in MA) to come visit me and their grandkids the first week of November next year. I don’t think they’ve ever absentee-voted in their lives. That’s two Scott Brown votes lost.
That’s like me voting for Warren twice!
“is” became “was”. Warren has passed him in the polling. She’s going to mop the floor with “the most popular politician in Massachusetts”. Brown can run on destroying Medicare, privatizing Social Security, and preserving low tax rates for millionaires. This should be one of the earliest and most enjoyable calls next November.
By logic as brilliant as that, everyone should have started ignoring Rove five years ago.
Strangely, his stuff still gets published, yet unless Bob has a secret identity of which I am unaware, Bob is not.
Unless you think Bob should be held to a higher standard than some GOP political genius?
-Joe