#rsrh Looks like the Elizabeth Warren boomlet has faded…

…and by ‘faded’ I mean ‘disappeared.”

OK, that’s a little cruel – and, more to the point, anticipatory.  Still,  two new polls inRasmussen and Mass Insight – show Brown leading Warren 49/44 and 52/42, respectively (the last Mass Insight poll had Brown over Warren 44/39).  National Journal, never being one to avoid taking a slap at a Republican, notes that “[t]he new poll does not reflect the weeks of controversy around Brown’s co-sponsorship of legislation permitting employers to restrict access to contraception insurance coverage on religious grounds.”  The assumption there is apparently that Massachusetts voters are going to be upset with Senator Brown taking an identical position on that issue to Teddy Kennedy… and, yeah, if you write it out that way it really does sound like whistling in the dark, huh?  I should also note that Suffolk found Brown up by 9 two weeks ago, so this isn’t exactly coming out of the blue.

Meanwhile, here’s the MA GOP ad on the Hollywood hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren:

Don’t you just love phony populists?  They know the words, they know the moves, they even know the tune… but people like Elizabeth Warren can never quite fake sincerity well enough to really sell the product.  But who knows?  Maybe the Democratic party of Massachusetts will have a rush of oxygen to the brain and nominate somebody else…

Oh, wait, no: they thought that Martha Coakley was a viable choice for US Senator.  Never mind…

Moe Lane

11 thoughts on “#rsrh Looks like the Elizabeth Warren boomlet has faded…”

  1. I’m quite thrilled they’ve thrown everything they have behind Elizabeth Warren. When she loses, it’ll end her nascent “all-star” political career. I’m just ashamed we come from the same state.

  2. a glimmer of hope on a dark day. I wonder if with a full 6 year term Brown will be any better. Not to be trusted though.

  3. I’d be quite happy to keep calling legislation to repeal the unconstitutional mandate the Ted Kennedy/Hillary Clinton Religious Freedom of Conscience Act. 🙂

  4. I have a few friends in Boston who are big Warren backers. Big lefty wonks who thought her work on crafting that new regulatory agency was just “teh AWESOME!!!1!” That YouTube video of her declaring that nobody did anything that didn’t wasn’t ultimately dependent on some sort Govt action was like sweet music to their ears.

    I’m sure they just love that she’s currently doing worse than Martha Coakley.

  5. Aruges: How can you stand to hang out with them? I think I’d need some alcohol.

  6. Earlgrey: Our friendship isn’t based on shared political values. Don’t you have friends you profoundly disagree with on something?

    Discussions of politics were usually confined to trips the bar, so alcohol was a great social buffer.

  7. Warren will be in the Senate one way or another. Either she’ll beat Brown or Patrick will name her to replace Kerry when he takes over for Clinton as Secretary of State.

    The election doesn’t really matter all that much to her future prospects.

  8. Aruges: Yes I do have friends of different political persuasion, and mostly my comment was made in jest. Although.

    I did have a particularly interesting weekend with a former conservative who is now a die hard liberal. I have no problems avoiding political discussions, but he kept bringing it up, knowing my views are different from his.

  9. We also have the benefit of being about half a country away from each other these days. No one wants to spoil the brief times we meet with side issues.

    Ugh. That’s sad. Trolls suck.

  10. You may be onto something there, Heartbreak.

    “It’s much easier to get stuff done when you’re willing to give them the credit”…


  11. I hadn’t seen this when telling a liberal friend today that I think the nation misreads Massachusetts. We’re the most Big-D Democrat state in the union, but not as liberal an electorate as perceived. This ain’t San Francisco.

Comments are closed.