How does Senator Scott Brown keep managingthis? ‘This’ being defined as “An aide to Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, appears to have knocked the video camera of a Republican tracker after an event this weekend in Martha’s Vineyard.”
According to a Kimball Political Consulting survey of registered voters in Massachusetts, Senator Scott Brown has a 6 point lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren (49 percent to 43 percent) with 9 percent undecided. The figure is just within the survey’s 4 percent margin of error.
President Obama continues to hold a double digit lead over former Massachusetts Mitt Romney (52 percent to 41 percent) with 7 percent undecided. Poll results are based on a sample of respondents most likely to vote in November.
Actually, I know that, yeah, Bookworm Room here is just messing with the Democrats by suggesting that Lizzy Warren is their only hope:
The only “young” gun they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren. She’s struggling to stay above water in Massachusetts, but Democrats might see her as someone who can revive the base if she’s on the presidential ticket. After all, when it comes to “You didn’t build that,” she and Obama are two minds with but a single thought. Better an exciting candidate on the presidential ticket than a struggling candidate for a senate seat that’s already filled by a fairly popular, attractive RINO.
Oh, this is embarrassing: apparently, a hardcore Lefty group had made the claim that incumbent Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown had plagiarized a somewhat obscure Democratic candidate for North Carolina state Senate. If you’re asking yourself why Brown would do something like that, congratulations: you’re showing one of the traits necessary to make a go with it in New Media. To wit, the ability to keep asking questions rather than just accept the first answer. In this case, it turns out that the aforementioned Democratic candidate (Hi, Earline Parmon!) had ripped off Scott Brown, not the other way around*. This revelation unfortunately comes too late for Rachel Maddow, who had to post an embarrassing retraction after accusing the Senator of plagiarism. As you can imagine, Red Mass Group** is taking a victory lap on this one.
Now, what was that brag of the mainstream media, again? “Layers of editors and fact-checkers,” or something like that?
Background: Mike Bloomberg came out with a surprise endorsement of Republican Senator Scott Brown, supposedly due to Brown’s opposition to cross-state recognition of other states’ Concealed Carry Weapons permits. Which is an issue that… I have not really considered before now, actually. Personally, a Bloomberg endorsement is not something to look for, so if you’re more suspicious of Brown accordingly then I’m not about to criticize you for it. More to the point, there’s an excellent chance that this endorsement was hastily made in order to explain away a fundraiser that Bloomberg was planning for Brown next month – which I assume would have some resonance in Massachusetts.
Because I think – and interestingly enough, I think that Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) thinks – that the President may be just a little bit, ah, reluctant to get on the court with somebody with absolutely no reservations whatsoever about beating him.
Alternate title: I was wrong about Elizabeth Warren.
I hate to admit being wrong, of course, but I’m pretty much stuck here. You see, last week I RedHotted a post where in passing I more or less indicated that I didn’t think that it was particularly fair to ding MA senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren for her claims of Native American ancestry. When I read the story, it seemed that she had merely repeated it as an anecdote from her family history – which is to say, something that I’ve done myself (family history claims a Huron great-grandmother; I have no evidence whatsoever for this). I also didn’t really think that it was all that big a deal that Harvard University was claiming minority status for her for a time; universities do weird things for publicity, she wasn’t running for office when it happened, and besides, Harvard stopped doing that a while back anyway. I figured that there were more important things that I could be doing with my time.
Well. This is what happens when you trust the ethical sense of a progressive politician. It turns out that Elizabeth Warren in fact claimed minority status: specifically, in the “Association of American Law Schools’ annual directory of minority law teachers” (H/T: @CoonDawg68) from 1986 to 1995 (more about this at The Volokh Conspiracy (via Instapundit), which also has some interesting details about ‘racial fraud’ as a legal concept in Massachusetts). As the Boston Herald helpfully notes, universities would have had access to this information… which, presumably, would include their hiring committees. Are we really expected to believe that Harvard University didn’t consult the AALS minority directory as part of their vetting process? In fact, are really expected to believe that the University of Pennsylvania didn’t, either? – Because I don’t, and that means, again, that I was wrong. And I’m sorry about that.
Having criticized her Republican opponent for voting against a millionaires’ tax measure, U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said here Friday that she opted not to pay a voluntary higher tax rate in Massachusetts.
Short version: back in January Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agreed to keep negative third-party advertising out of the MA-SEN race, and ever since then Elizabeth Warren keeps getting hurt more and more in the polls. Which is to be completely expected, of course: such an agreement helps Senator Brown, who defaults to being a very personable and engaging politician… and hurts Ms. Warren, who defaults to being a somewhat querulous and definitely lecturing liberal academic. This is in fact so obvious that one might almost wonder why Warren fell into this trap – until you remember that she’s had no relevant electoral experience, and has been told that she’s the brightest person in the room one too many times. Continue reading #rsrh Elizabeth Warren guessed wrong on outside ads?
OK, that’s a little cruel – and, more to the point, anticipatory. Still, two new polls in – Rasmussen 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…