# Who Should I Vote For: Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 11, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809 "2012-06-11T13:34:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/21 "2012-06-12T15:22:09Z")
> [@Bpelta](#): > > WADR Had to google this one to understand WTF it meant. [QUOTE=Oakminster] You’ll grow out of that “leaning left” stuff as you gain experience and wisdom. [/QUOTE] Nothing like condescension to make people want to think your way. [QUOTE=puddleglum] As someone older and wiser, my advice is to not vote for Elizabeth Warren [/QUOTE] See above. There may be some coherent points to be made against more regulations on Wall Street, however there have been none made in this thread. I think the moneyed interests are already more than adequately represented in Congress and consumer advocates are very much under-represented. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/22 "2012-06-12T15:36:39Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Someone who has repeatedly shown willingness to lie and cheat to advance her career is not someone who should be trusted with power. Yeah, no matter how old and wise you think you are, you still repeat nonsense misinformation that was fed to you by right-wing media. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/23 "2012-06-12T16:01:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > …Nothing like condescension to make people want to think your way… Maybe. I’m in my later youth now, and have held pretty much the same set of political views I had when I was a much younger fool. I was a radical then, just a lefty now. And so it goes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/24 "2012-06-12T16:17:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Citation appears missing. Hmmm. Wonder why? Well, the Google monster is right at hand, let’s see what we can find…ah! _Breitbart_! What a surprise! One can hardly doubt the integrity of such a site. But the quotes don’t match, that can’t be it, can it? Oh, _Legal Insurrection_, now we are getting to the real scholarly stuff here. > > [The vetting of Elizabeth Warren’s academic background begins](http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/the-vetting-of-elizabeth-warrens-academic-background-begins/) > > [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/11/The-Academic-Scandal-Elizabeth-Warren-and-Harvard-Dont-Want-You-to-Know-About](http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/11/The-Academic-Scandal-Elizabeth-Warren-and-Harvard-Dont-Want-You-to-Know-About) > > Come now, **Puddlegum** , there’s no reason to be embarrassed about your sources, simply because of association with one of the most prolific partisan lying sacks of shit ever! > > And lest one think that Legal Insurrection is too dry, too formal, too academic…well, no. Their critique of Ms Warren’s academic work wouldn’t be complete if they did not include as proven fact any allegation that might cast doubt upon Ms Warren personally… > > So, stay tuned, same Breitbart time, same Breitbart channel. Can’t fit it all in at once, so tune in next time for more of the hideous crimes of Lizzy! > > I do so enjoy scholarly, non-partisan critiques. Bring us one, sometime, won’t you? Ahem. Your cite says that the article was posted in the **Rutgers Law Review** : > [@](#): > > The article is posted here, and was published in the 1990-1991 edition of the Rutgers Law Review. Not only that, it was published over 20 years ago. So, how is Breitbart responsible for that. Do you contend that the minions in his secret lair have built a time machine and went back in time and paid Michael Patrick Leahy to do a hit job on Warren, so that 20 years later the article could be discovered and used against her in the political campaign that they just knew she would be entering into? Or is it just that you resent his organization doing the work that the mainstream media seems unwilling to do? In other word’s, Shecky, what’s wrong with the Rutger’s Law Review? Or better yet, the critique by Leahy? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/25 "2012-06-12T16:19:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Nothing like condescension to make people want to think your way. Perhaps he should have used a winking smilie face for the humor-impaired. You know, the cousin to one of these: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/26 "2012-06-12T16:28:43Z")
Oh, there’s nothing wrong with linking to Rutger’s Law Review. But he didn’t, didn’t he? Didn’t link to anything. And who’s “Shecky”? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/27 "2012-06-12T16:39:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, there’s nothing wrong with linking to Rutger’s Law Review. But he didn’t, didn’t he? Didn’t link to anything. > > And who’s “Shecky”? But YOU provided a link and tried to disparage the substance of article by your usual. “Ew, it came from Breitbart’s site”. In YOUR cite it says that the article appeared in the Rutgers Law Review. But you skip over whatever credence that might give the article and instead lamely attempt to disparage the whole issue because you can attach Breitbart’s name to it. “Ew!” You try to construct an alternate reality that the critique comes from Breitbart, and thus (in your view), should be ignored. So, funny man, if Breitbart links to the U.S. Constitution, does that render it a partisan document? Your shtick is as fallacious as it is transparent as it is stale. Trifecta! Good job!!! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/28 "2012-06-12T16:46:41Z")
You have a point. I hold Breitbart in the utterest contempt, and that colored my viewpoint. Of course, had the original Rutgers critique been cited, that would be 100% kosher. But since this is your point, what other critiques are out there? Are they all as uniformly condemning? If you’re done talking about me, you want to talk about that? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/29 "2012-06-12T17:13:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You have a point. I hold Breitbart in the utterest contempt, and that colored my viewpoint. Of course, had the original Rutgers critique been cited, that would be 100% kosher. Fair enough. Perhaps now that you know you can easily be steered by you bias, you will endeavor to not make the same mistake again. > [@elucidator](#): > > But since this is your point, what other critiques are out there? Are they all as uniformly condemning? If you’re done talking about me, you want to talk about that? I don’t know if there are other critiques of what she wrote. Maybe there are, maybe there aren’t. If you think there are critiques to counter that was provided via Breitbart, perhaps you should offer them up. In the meantime, feel free to explain why the report itself is flawed. Or, if you’d prefer, why it’s author, Rutgers University Law School Professor Philip Shuchman (not Leahy—my mistake)‚ should be questioned, due to extreme bias or stupidity or some other reason. For what it’s worth, here is all I could find out about him with a few minutes of searching, his obituary: [http://www.clnj.org/shuchman\_tribute.htm](http://www.clnj.org/shuchman_tribute.htm) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/30 "2012-06-12T18:49:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Fair enough. Perhaps now that you know you can easily be steered by you bias, you will endeavor to not make the same mistake again… Absitively, posolutely! When it comes to strict non-biased, utterly non-partisan fact, you are our lodestar, our constant beacon. We done now? > [@](#): > > …I don’t know if there are other critiques of what she wrote. Maybe there are, maybe there aren’t. If you think there are critiques to counter that was provided via Breitbart, perhaps you should offer them up. In the meantime, feel free to explain why the report itself is flawed. Or, if you’d prefer, why it’s author, Rutgers University Law School Professor Philip Shuchman (not Leahy—my mistake)‚ should be questioned, due to extreme bias or stupidity or some other reason. For what it’s worth, here is all I could find out about him with a few minutes of searching, his obituary: > > [http://www.clnj.org/shuchman\_tribute.htm](http://www.clnj.org/shuchman_tribute.htm) She had him killed? Alternatively, you could tell us why you find it such a strong and dispositive case. Apparently, this is the only critique you know about, and you are content to push the burden of proof elsewhere and pat yourself on the back while at it. Not to put too fine a point on it, if her book was so totally full of shit, wouldn’t there be more? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/31 "2012-06-13T02:24:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Absitively, posolutely! When it comes to strict non-biased, utterly non-partisan fact, you are our lodestar, our constant beacon. Wow, you actually _have_ been paying attention! :eek: > [@elucidator](#): > > Alternatively, you could tell us why you find it such a strong and dispositive case. Apparently, this is the only critique you know about, and you are content to push the burden of proof elsewhere and pat yourself on the back while at it. This is laughable. (Hey, you finally wrote something funny!) But I see you know squat about the burden of proof. Warren was a professor and wrote a book. The assumption at that point is that it was not bad, not great, but having more merit than not, like the majority of scholarly books published. But then a respected economics professor enters the scene and writes a 60-page review attacking both the arguments and the authors’ methodology. Barring no rebuttal, he deserves the same assumption of: not bad, not great, but having more merit than not. But you come in and seek to disparage the review because it was cite 20+ years later by a site you don’t like. I point out this nonsense to you, and you, to your _apparent_ credit, see that you were misguided in doing so. And now…? Now you seek to further assign the burden of proof to me. Keep in mind that up to now my comments were only of the “what the fuck are you doing disparaging a 20-year-old review simply because it was cited on Brietbart?” But here’s how it works, Shecky: evidence that Warren was talking out of her ass and guilty of shoddy scholarship is present, in the review. Now the burden is on YOU to offer counter-evidence, or falling short of that, explain why Shuchman’s review was erroneous or fallacious. Or perhaps, why his review shouldn’t be trusted. So, the ball is in your court. But, not one to stand on ceremony, I’ll say that I give credence to the review because: 1. Shuchman was a respected economist in the field 2. The review was written over 20 years ago, when, to the best of my knowledge, neither Shuchman nor Warren had any political aspirations 3. I’m aware of no reason to doubt Shuchman’s scholarship or expertise. Nor am I aware of arguments at the time challenging his review. If you have information that applies to the three items above, I’m happy to take it into account. In the meantime, I hope you take what you’ve learned in this exchange about your knee-jerk tendencies and “burden of proof” and look forward to you not making those same mistakes again. What’s that? Oh, no…don’t mention it. Glad to help. _Yeah, that’s me patting myself on the back for fighting ignorance._ ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/32 "2012-06-13T16:22:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not to put too fine a point on it, if her book was so totally full of shit, wouldn’t there be more? I only included one quote because this is an elections thread and I did not want to turn this into a Great Debate about Warren’s scholarship, but since you asked here are more critiques of Warren as a scholar: [Considering Elizabeth Warren, the Scholar - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/) > **[Elizabeth Warren and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad, Utterly...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/)** > > The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118705537958296783.html?mod=todays\_us\_opinion](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118705537958296783.html?mod=todays_us_opinion) She consistently uses strange metrics and odd definitions to try to find results that fit her predetermined narrative. For example she sent out a survey to people to find out why they had declared bankruptcy. 32% of the respondents said it was due to medical expenses, and yet her paper based on the survey said 66% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. Read the links, read Schuman’s critique and read the scholarship. If you do it will be obvious that Warren is willing to commit academic fraud to further her career and her agenda. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/33 "2012-06-13T16:57:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But, not one to stand on ceremony, I’ll say that I give credence to the review because: > > 1. Shuchman was a respected economist in the field > > \ > > _Yeah, that’s me patting myself on the back for fighting ignorance._ Fight mine, if you would be so kind. How did you glean from the cite that is, in your words, _“all that I could find out about him”_ that this late Rutgers Law School Professor was an economist? I won’t quibble with the quality or validity of the review; Professor Shuchman quite adequately establishes his credentials as one who is qualified to analyze and review the book (if this link works, [here](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/122052167/rutgers-shuchman?#) is the actual review). From what little I can understand of it, the professor’s complaints were more about the methodologies used in researching, compiling, and writing the book, and less about fundamental disagreement with the authors about what would constitute a fair and just bankruptcy system in the U.S. [Here](http://www.amazon.com/As-Forgive-Our-Debtors-Bankruptcy/dp/1893122158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339604697&sr=8-1&keywords=as+we+forgive+our+debtors) is the book itself. It may be worthy of note that Ms. Warren is the _second_, as opposed to the _first_ of the three authors. Also, I note from the list of books published under her authorship (on her [wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_warren), that this was her first book. As it is the Elizabeth Warren of 2012, and not of 1989 who is running for this seat, if her detractors wish to make her scholarship the issue, they might better serve their agenda by finding something that refutes (and actually _refutes_, as opposed to criticizes the scholarship of) one of the seven books that she has published this century. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/34 "2012-06-13T17:33:29Z")
The problem with economics is politics. Its almost as if there are two versions of academic economics, one right, one left. Kind of like when the Koch Brothers offered to fund a chair of economics, but only if they could be assured that the person chosen to fill the chair was reliable. Now, speaking as a mathtard, I am instantly out of my depth when it comes to metrics and mathematical models. The criticism of Ms Warren’s work may be wholly justified, or it may be an obscure argument offered precisely because it is an obscure argument. I sincerely doubt that the Breitbartish bloggers who are screaming their heads off about this understand it any better than I do, but who knows? Maybe they are chock-a-block with Ph.D’s over there. Any academic economists out there have a clue? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/35 "2012-06-14T23:57:05Z")
[Warren says Americans “understand the game is rigged.”](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/14/warren-americans-understand-the-game-is-rigged/) ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/36 "2012-06-15T00:03:44Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > MA voter here-Brown is NOT a Senator from MA, he’s a Senator from Wall Street! He’s the reason Wall Street reform is as weak as it is. You do realize most Democrats also voted for the 2010 bill (I’m guessing you refer to that)? To the OP, while I’d think it better vote for Brown, by your standards, Elizabeth Warren fits your description better. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/37 "2012-06-15T01:25:46Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > You do realize most Democrats also voted for the 2010 bill (I’m guessing you refer to that)? Since the proposed Dodd-Frank Bill was too weak to satisfy Russ Feingold, the Democrats had to water it down even further to get Scott Brown to be the deciding vote. Although, to be fair, as I recall it, he wasn’t carrying water for Wall Street as much as for Boston-based financial firms. I think the changes he demanded and got primarily helped custodian banks, which is something Boston firms, especially State Street Bank and Trust, do a lot of. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/38 "2012-06-15T02:04:26Z")
**water** -thanks for the supporting info! I didn’t realize he mostly cared about the Boston banks. My comment refered to the fact he’s the leading congressional recepient of contributions for the finance sector. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/39 "2012-06-15T04:17:47Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Since the proposed Dodd-Frank Bill was too weak to satisfy Russ Feingold, the Democrats had to water it down even further to get Scott Brown to be the deciding vote. Although, to be fair, as I recall it, he wasn’t carrying water for Wall Street as much as for Boston-based financial firms. I think the changes he demanded and got primarily helped custodian banks, which is something Boston firms, especially State Street Bank and Trust, do a lot of. Thanks for the info. > [@etv78](#): > > **water** -thanks for the supporting info! I didn’t realize he mostly cared about the Boston banks. My comment refered to the fact he’s the leading congressional recepient of contributions for the finance sector. I wonder if a lot of that has to do with him being a swing vote-moderates are worth spending money on to influence unlike more strongly conservative or liberal Congressmen. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809/40 "2012-06-16T05:56:11Z")
Ontheissues ought to help. [Elizabeth Warren](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm). [Scott Brown](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Scott_Brown.htm). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-should-i-vote-for-scott-brown-or-elizabeth-warren/624809.md?page=3)