With Elizabeth Warren and Senator Scott Brown preparing for their second debate Monday night, Warren appears to be inching ahead in the highly competitive race for Senate, as Massachusetts Democrats energized by the presidential race begin to fall in line behind her, according to a new Globe poll.
Warren, a Democrat, leads Brown, a Republican, 43 percent to 38 percent, a shift from the Globe’s last poll in May, when Brown held a 2-point lead. But the race remains within either candidate’s grasp, with 18 percent of voters still undecided, said Andrew E. Smith, the Globe’s pollster and the director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
Comments
Nobody believes The Globe's polls.
I'd rather believe the Globe's polls than Brown's landers and lies about Elizabeth Warren's American Indian ancestry and her legal work on the Traveler's and LTV cases, as the GLobe's polls are far more honest. If one has a mind that isn't closed to reality, a reading of the facts of both those cases with regard to her work on them demonstrates conclusively that her work on them was completely in line with the rest of her work on behalf of working and middle class people. Check out Noah Bierman's articles on the Travelers Insurance and LTV cases in the Globe, (the one on the Traveler's case is better, as that case was simpler than the LTV one) and also read the comments on a BlueMassGroup thread [bluemassgroup.com/2012/09/how-big-a-problem-might-this-be/], paying attention especially to comments by WHosMindingDeMint, 25 Sep 8:45 am and fenway 49's reply for a good explanation of Warren's intent and purpose in the LTV case.
Seriously, we should rely on The Globe and Blue Mass Group commentors for the unbiased facts? No thanks, I'll take a few extra minutes and do the research myself. For instance, where is Warren's license to practice law in Massachusetts which was required for her to 'work' on these cases? Integrity matters!
Brown's being hurt, I think, by excessively mean Republican political ads... and they are really nasty. No matter which candidate you support, how can you approve of ads that personally denegrate the opponent? I could never countenance such ads being run about Brown.
Those ads might work in Georgia or Kansas, but voters here are a little smarter, I think. I'm convinced that excessively negative ads by Kerry Healey's sank her campaign. Patrick just ignored them.
Are you living in 1940 as your screen name suggests? The Brown ads are commenting on Elizabeth Warren's serious character flaw, her integrity. She has lied repeatedly in her lifetime right up until the present. You are right though that Massachusetts voters are a little smarter than voters in Kansas or Georgia. That's why we have elected the likes of DiMassi, Finneran, Flaherty and Thompson who have resigned from office due to criminal activity. Ya, we're a lot smarter. Healey lost because she ran as a Republican in a state where Democrats outnumber Rebplicans by 3 to 1.
Interesting comment from "jim1751" that "Healey lost because she ran as a Republican in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1." Hmmm. Didn't Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney also run as Republicans in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1? Doesn't Scott Brown face the same issue?
The problem with Scott Brown's negative ads is that he's savaging his opponent at the same time he's claiming to be a bipartisan guy who can work with people of both parties. I'm not a Scott Brown fan, but I thought he was running a pretty impressive campaign until a couple of weeks ago. However, his current incarnation does not at all look like he's a bipartisan guy who can work across the aisle.
It seems obvious to me that Karl Rove is working behind the scenes to orchestrate these quaisi-truthful stories. This is Karl Rove’s technique--take a persons biggest strength--Elizabeth’s Consumer Protection Act and her advocacy for the middle class -- and throw little bits of mud all over her. See if something sticks. Karl tries to muddy the water--and better still, he tries to make white look like black. We know that Scott was seen talking to Rove at a local restaurant the one day Scott was at the Republican Conference. Apparently that was his most important reason to be there. Scott keeps his voting record quiet. He doesn’t want us to know that he votes with the Republican except when his vote is not needed. He then votes with the Democrats in order to claim bipartisanship. Mud slinging, with Rove’s help, is all he has. Elizabeth’s work to get the Consumer Protection Agency in place speaks much more to her character than these shady attempts by Karl Rove and the Brown campaign to re-invent her past.
Kristen you should spend a few minutes and do some fact checking on Rove's statements. I was not a big fan of his when he ran Bush's campaigns but since then I have found him to be a genius in his political commentary. He's hadly ever wrong. Do us all a favor by taking some time and post up his lies and misrepresentations so that we can see him the way that you do.
jim1751: Rove's Crossroads GPS attacks Elizabeth Warren in New Robocalls to Mass residents. In part the call says “ The health care law backed by Warren could limit the availability of care seniors depend on from the Medicare program they paid for.“ The truth is President Obama's health-care law is not a "takeover"—four different news organizations have debunked that claim, and PolitiFact named this its 2010 "Lie of the Year." As for Obamacare cutting $700 billion in Medicare spending, PolitiFact rated that "Mostly False." (as the money is transferred to ObamaCare).
So Rove is lying to Seniors about Medicare in a scare tactic. Beyond that, the lies are the false information about Elizabeth, which I believe is orchestrated by Karl Rove for the Brown campaign. Of course, Scott could have just learned Rove's techniques. They are quite obvious. Attack a strength and turn it into a weakness by lying.
Perhaps MA voters should read what major newpapers have found out about Elizabeth Warren.
"Handmaid to the Plutocrats" in Saturday's WSJ. Elizabeth Warren's ironic legal past.---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443507204578020900744277668.html?KEYWORDS=plutocrats+warren
This comment has been removed.
It's an opinion piece from the WSJ. Nothing new, just the same talking points the Brown campaign uses. For example:
"In a 1995 brief, Ms. Warren argued that the Coal Act mandate was grounded in union contracts that were dissolved by bankruptcy, and therefore Congress was retroactively and illegally creating a new liability. She lost in court, though she was right on the merits. But we can only imagine what Ms. Warren's ads might say about this if her GOP opponent Scott Brown had represented LTV."
Hardly compelling stuff.
The results would be more believable if broken out by party affiliation.
They are. Follow the link: http://www.boston.com/multimedia/2012/09/30poll/poll_web_sunday.pdf
This is to those truly undecideds out there trying to figure out just what makes sense. Scott Brown has stretched the truth to something unrecognizable but still confusing enough to put voters on the fence. In reality there is nothing in either canidate's background that is a disqualifier for running for the Senate. However a Senator's position matters on some very important issues. They become part of the decision to go to war or not. They confirm Justices to the Supreme Court. They legislate and support one bill or the other. This is where the tires really meet the road. Scott Brown voted for employers to have powers over employees where their salary is spent(the Blunt Amendment). He voted against putting people back to work or some assistance to get through hard times. He voted against preserving tax cuts for 98% of citizens unless those who had no need of for it also received a cut. He strongly believes in trickle down economics and has said so. He voted against environmental protections. He voted against Justice Soto Mayor's appointment to the Supreme Court, an advocate of settled women's rights. He is a Mitch McConnell Republican though he hides his affiliation and has voted lockstep with his Senate leader to thwart President Obama's plans for this country. He refused to stand up at the Republican Convention to assert his views on the national scene, yet he strongly endorses Mitt Romney. A vote for Scott Brown will be a step to put Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate. In contrast Elizabeth Warren proudly showed her support at the dais of the Democratic National Convention in prime time for the President and what she believes in and what direction we should steer our country. The term fighter in the political sense has been bandied about and may have different connotations for different people. For me, it means Elizabeth Warren will stand up to straighten out what has caused so much economic suffering in this country by advocating for needed legislation to stop financial industry wayward practices. It is widely known that it is Senate Republicans who are blocking progress and Scott Brown is another Republican vote. In spite of his words to the contrary, Scott Brown is a country club Republican by his votes and the people he hangs out with. We also now know he is not such a nice guy, falsely attacking a prominent educator, researcher, and author who was the founder of the Federal Consumer Protection Bureau. So the politics here is important and each of us must truly ask what's in it for us, our family, and our community. In short what will enhance this country's prosperity?
Very good points about the Supreme Court. It brings up a question though ... We know that Warren would vote to confirm a self-described "Affirmative Action Baby" like SotoMayor, but what if a candidate came up for confirmation that was a fake affirmative action baby like Warren herself? I'm just not sure how current liberal thinking threads that needle .... Oh what a tangled web we weave
Jeez Western I was addressing the undecideds not those entrenched in Brown's camp. However glad to see you have woken up to the importance of the Supreme Court in this election. By the way what was Clarence Thomas? Affirmative action does not guarantee how far you advance. It only gives you an opportunity you would not have otherwise. By the way Western Sotomayor graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton University. Now I know you truly are a Brown supporter, just making up stuff no matter how slanderous it is.
This comment has been removed.
Is this the same poll that had "Marsha" Coakley up by 15 points on Scott Brown a few years ago? There is a reason I don't buy the Globe anymore, its all the lies, half truths and the blatant disregard for giving anyone a fair shot with an R after their name. Keep it up and continue to watch subscribers head for the door.
So why are you here?
You might not by the print edition, but commenting here requires at lest an online subscription. Are you saying you are just finishing out the month you have paid for?
You can't believe any poll that has a majority of respondents in Massachusetts claiming to be Democrats. Clearly biased. I'd like to see the results when an equal number of Democrats and Republicans are polled. (satire)
This comment has been removed.
It's easy to understand why an uneducated person would be confused by statistics. Statistical samples are randomly chosen from the population. In this case, the population would be all eligible voters or all eligible voters who indicate that they are likely to vote. One would expect the sample to include a mix of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans that is similar to the mix in the overall population.
This comment has been removed.
How is 43 to 38 within the margin of error? That's a 5-point difference, and you say margin of error is plus or minus 4.4.
With 18% undecided, a 5-point lead means much less than if it were 5% undecided.
The plus-or-minus margin of error applies to both numbers in both directions. For instance, Warren's 43% could be as little as 38.6 or as much as 47.4. Brown's 38% could range between 33.6 and 42.4.
A worst case scenario for Brown would be Warren at the top of the margin, 47.4, and Brown at the bottom, 33.6, which would give Warren a lead of 13.8 points.
A worst case of Warren would be Brown at the top of the margin, 42.4, and Warren at the bottom, 38.6, which would give Brown a lead of 3.8 points.
The Guardian had an article on Friday about how Romney is having a negative affect on Republican congressional candidates. In particular, the choice of Ryan as his running mate, and Romney's criticism of the 47% who do not pay income taxes (most of whom are Republicans), have both weighed on the congressional races. Ryan has made it clear that he wants to eliminate Medicare, and Romney has criticized people who receive Medicare as being dependent on government handouts. Therefore it's not surprising that polls are identifying Medicare and healthcare as the major issues in this campaign.
Who could ever question the integrity of a Boston Globe Poll? I know Senator Coakley didn't!
Great handle!
Bush Kept Us Safe? From 9/11? Pathetic handle.
Funny, last week 5% was a "Big" lead. Now it's a slim lead?
Many voters are believing the "bipartisan" claim of Brown. His voting record is Repub with a few voted casrt for bills that wouldn't pass,just to get the percentage of "bipartisan" votes. The problem is that these voters who fall for this are not getting decent info and are going on superficial claims.
Fair and balanced is not the Boston Globe! No wonder the readership is in the tank. The paper does come in handy though when I run out my Charmin!!!
You use your computer to wipe? Fascinating.
esf..you could always step forward! Fascinating.
I love that Libs want to hold Senator Brown to a Bipartisan Label when we know Ms. Warren will do nothing but toe the Liberal Pelosi/Reid playbook. Do you think she will ever be Bipartisan? Of course not.
Facts are apparently another thing BushKeptUsSafe from.
Warren has taken a big lead among candidates who gamed affirmative action, practiced law for a decade in Massachusetts without being a member of the bar, plagiarized a recipe in Powwow chow, fought for Big Steel to limit pension payments to workers and flipped foreclosed property!
I'll ask again. Got anything positive to report about Scott Brown? Salndering the opponent just adds to your and his negatives.
slan·der /ˈslandər/ Noun: The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Not slander when it's true.
Sadly, Warren will end up winning because she will ride the coat tails of Obama who will win here by 20pts. She is a hypocrite, liar, and unworthy or being a US Senator. She will side with the Dems 100% of the time and will have no impact on the Senate. Scott Brown is best for MA and our country as he is not a rubber stamp for either party.
law license story any where?
Not even in your beloved Herald. Wonder why that might be?
I loved all the lawyers calling in to confirm Liz practicing law without a license and worse, not even paying the fees for a suspended license! Lawyers who pay all the little fees the state insists on were OUTRAGED by Liz. And no story here in the Globe....
Brown has to have a five point lead going into the election or he is going to have a very difficult time. The casual Democratic voter who just votes the party line will show up to flip the switch for Obama. The Presodent has a twenty point lead over Romney in this state. If only half of those folks follow the column down Warren picks up a bunch of votes over and above her solid support.
Why does the Globe embarass itself and lose credibility with these garbage polls?!?!? Simply ask around: no one is voting for this fraud Liz Warren. No one! The Globe is becoming more of a joke than ever.
If "no one is voting for this fraud Liz Warren" why are you on here everyday slamming her? Must be scared of something. Still haven't seen you or WestSuburbDad post a reason to vote for Scott Brown. Not one!
What scares me is that this fraud wasn't dismissed by the Democrats at their state convention!! This woman disqualified herself, and disgraced herself, before she even entered this race. And when her sins became known, Democrats should have fixed this mess at their convention, and they didn't! They took a pass! Democrats, of all people, should understand why Liz is disqualified. That they apparently don't and that she is in this race, does indeed scare me. It indicates this state and the 'responsibility' among Democrats has fallen even more than imagined the past coulple decades. That you would still be supporting her at this point speaks volumes about yourself...
This is what happens when being the President of the United States is your first real job.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/sep/28/deroy-murdock-obama-has-been-countrys-slacker-in/
That link is to an editiorial from a paper in a small town in West Central Texas. It's just a recitation of smears from other sources. Is that really all you've got?
sorry, missd it and just looked at it. Very skewed towards dems. Not sure how valid it is with that type of n. Just like other polls.
Registered Democrat 183
Registered Unenrolled 243
Registered Republican 72
I have to say I'm amazed at how few people missed that the poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. They're respected and non-partisan. Follow the link: http://www.boston.com/multimedia/2012/09/30poll/poll_web_sunday.pdf
That should say "how many people missed" Dang.
ES - Wish it had, or I did not see, the dem to rep ratio. Did it and I missed it? In some other state polls those have been skewewd
We simply cannot afford to have Mitch Mc Connell and Repubs controlling the Senate.
Damage to Medicaire and Social Security,repeal of the ACA,weakening womens' choice,higher taxes for middle calss and lower for the rich.
Tom Menino,who endorsed Warren, referred to Brown as "wishy-washy" and sitting on the fence on important issues.He said that,although Brown is a "nice guy" we need someone who is clearly and consistently on our side.
That's the most reasonable argument I hear from liberal friends. We can't have the Repubs controlling the Senate, so we'll hold our noses and vote for Warren.
I presume you're doing the same for Scott, since you all you do is smear Ms. Warren. Come on. There must be SOMETHING positive you can say about Scott Brown. Let me start: he has nice hair. Ok. now you try.
Check the article on the Huffington Post website on the left side of the page.
i.e. the Politics section of the Huffington Post.
"Warren’s lead is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent, meaning a spread of as much as 8 percentage points between the candidates would still statistically count as a dead heat. " NO! That's not how to interpret polling stats! It's not a "statistical dead heat" - that would be if it were 44% to 43.9%. With a 5 pt lead and a 4.4% std deviation, sure that says it's possible that Brown has a slight lead, but it's equally plausible that Warren has an 11 pt lead. If one candidate is ahead by more than the MOE, you should not say that it's a statistical dead heat. You should say "Warren appears to have a slight lead." Read the AP's style guidelines here for how to report poll results: http://ralphehanson.com/blog/ap_poll.html
Elizabeth Warren is one of the greatest senatorial candidates that Massachusetts ever has had the opportunity for whom to vote. We are so lucky. Not only is she committed to the middle class but she is a brilliant academic scholar of economics at a time when we need such expertise. Scott Brown with his tomahawk chops, insulting and racist staff rants cannot hold a candle to this woman of character and integrity. I am hoping fervently that the voters of Massachusetts will see what I see having met Elizabeth Warren on three separate occasions. Since listening to her interview with Bill Moyers on PBS during the near total economic collapse of 2008 I was convinced of her phenomenal ability. Unless you are part of the 1% wealthiest then YOU should vote for Elizabeth Warren. If you are a Massachusetts resident and part of the 99% YOU should vote for Elizabeth Warren. If you want a more equitable, fair and just nation then YOU should vote for Elizabeth Warren. She will not let us down. In addition to her academic excellence she is a humane and wonderful human being whom I will be proud to call my senator from the great State of Massachusetts!
Elizabeth Warren is a GEM, a price above rubies, and Massachusetts should NOT let this gem slip through our fingers.
"Brilliant academic scholar of economics"? She's a lawyer. While she has misrepresented herself numerous times, she has never claimed to be a "brilliant academic scholar of economics". Where do you come up with this stuff NRosen? We can only pray that Independent voters will come to realize what a fraud she is in time for election day.
Oh jim1751, give it a rest. People like you have no substance to use so you keep talking about these trivial issues about a box on a form or some other phony issue. The fact is, if you had anything of substance to talk about, you would. If she were not so highly qualified, you'd be pointing that out. If she were wrong on the issues, you'd point that out. If she was in the pocket of big money, you'd point that out. And guess what? Scott Brown is losing. Why? Because he's a lousy candidate, a lightweight Senator, and a lucky dog that he was up against Coakley in a very short special election. So, there was a fluke, he got in, and now it's time for a real Senator. Of course, when Senator Warren is passing new financial reforms and relief for underwater homeowners and sitting on finance committees making this country safer for consumers, you'll still be slandering her with your racist, low class insults. Fortunately you are in a minority. Elizabeth Warren is the real deal. Can't wait for her to be my Senator.
How about Elizabeth Warren practing law without a licence? Any problem with that?
BeGolfing already asked that. There are two obvious responses:
1) You don't need a MA law license to speak before the Supreme Court.
2) Not even the Herald has touched that one. Wonder why that might be?
I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to come up with something positive about Scott Brown.
and somehting positive about her? SHe was on a case in MA too. Look at his record and rating. Do not know what else you want for 2 years of work
Maybe I missed it,but did the Globe ever report that the two canidates were in a dead heat?How about Brown in a lead? Obivously Brown was at one time leading,if he wasn't Warren's "slim lead" would not be a story. After the Coakley/Brown race I really do not pay much attention to your published polls.Credibility is just not there.I feel that you blinded by your agenda.
Yes they did. Repeatedly.
I do have to ask -- if the Globe sucks so much, why are you here in a subscribers forum?
If you weren't paying attention to the polls, you wouldn't be here to comment. If you'd studied the polls during the Coakley/Brown campaign, you'd know and would have known at the time that a last minute surge of undecided independent voters moved Brown. The poll with Coakley in the lead was about two weeks before the election and reported a large number of undecided voters. You need to do more than read headlines and listen to sound bites to know what's going on.
This poll also showed a large number of undecided voters. Pay attention. The details are important.
"Globe Poll Shows Coakley With 15-Point Lead Over Brown."
Dan Kennedy has an excellent article on that.
http://dankennedy.net/2012/09/30/the-brown-warren-race-and-the-ghosts-of-2010/
So what went wrong in 2010? My theory: Nothing. The story about that earlier poll is protected behind a paywall (I’m a subscriber, so I’ve reread the whole thing). But as you can see from this excerpt, the poll was conducted between Jan. 2 and 6, and the election to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by Ted Kennedy’s death was held on Jan. 19.
Thus it’s likely that the poll was accurate when it was conducted. People were just getting back to their normal routines coming out of the holidays. The race broke very late for Brown. By the time the story was published, on Jan. 10, the race was already trending away from Coakley, and within days, other polls were reflecting that.
registered voters would be better, harder, but better. the n is skewed towards dems so do not take much out of this report
egistered Democrat 183
Registered Unenrolled 243
Registered Republican 72
Even if you split the unenrolled 5/50 you get dems 304.5 and R 193.5.. Also expalins the overwhelming support for Kerry, that joke.
R:
Dude, read the article. Every single question is broken down by REGISTERED Democrat, REGISTERED Unenrolled, and REGISTERED Republican. It IS just registered voters.
As to claim of Bias because of percentages: it accurately reflects the state. The majority of respondents were unenrolled.
You're a member of a minority party. Deal with it.
p.s. Just because you have some sort of personal hatred for Kerry, doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to like him. In fact, as the poll shows, they do. It doesn't make the poll invalid, it just makes you part of a minority.
I never said the Globe sucks,I just question the accuracy of their polls.
"Credibility is just not there.I feel that you blinded by your agenda."
Never mind that the polls are conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, not the Globe.
so? sample? skewed.
Poll at Massachusetts Laywers Weekly.
Should U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren be investigated for possibly practicing law without a license?
Yes (87%, 958 Votes)
No (13%, 138 Votes)
http://masslawyersweekly.com/
but, but, but, ..............
That's quite a scientific poll. Not.
Let me know when the BBO changes their mind and decides there's something to investigate other than which hairs to split.
es - still waiting on a response for the "n"
I've answered it multiple times. So did who cares:
"As of 2010 only about 11% of voters are registered Republicans. Democrats made up 36% and Independents 53%."
The poll is registered voters (no matter what you chose to believe). The breakdown is:
- Registered Democrat 183 (36%)
- Registered Unenrolled 243 (48%)
- Registered Republican 72 (14%)
SO, if anything, the poll is skewed more Republican than the actual population.
I don't believe ANY poll that the Globe conducts. Whom did they survery, three hundred moonbats? They are desperate to get another Dem elected. So much for bi-partisanship. Mainstream Mass. voters will Never vote for Professor Warren; a box checking fraud.