Politico: Obama’s Performance Sinking Dem House Races – Warren (D-MA) Candidate – Fewer Ads In MA – Latest Warning Brown Might Turn Senate!

Final Polling before the election 1980 - note: polls were weighted for the 1976 election image GuardianUK

From Politico: headlines: “Obama's bad October hurts House Dems” suggests that the President is having a George W. Bush effect on his party’s incumbents – apparently there is a loss of confidence in Democrats in general by the public. It is entirely possible, as those casting votes (both early voting and through the election cycle) may choose not only to choose Presidential Candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, over Obama, but will also take a chance on voting against any Democrat on the ticket – similar to what happened in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If history repeats itself, and one takes a look at the 2010 election with a projection of more than less identifying themselves as either Republican or Independent leaning Republican, one can suggest that the 2012 general will look quite a bit like the house trumping of 2010 in a broader sense.

What of the polls? One has to take a strong look at any polling data at this point and basically throw the baby out with the bath water – for example, in 1981, after the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan over former President Jimmy Carter, the head of Gallup explained what had happened and why poll models showed a tight race up to the bitter end. It is suggested that the polling organizations had based their models on the last General election, which had shown an increase in those voting Democrat. That increase percentage was added to the 1980 polls, which gave several points to James Carter that simply did not exist. What was missing from the models, as it was explained by Gallup, the fact that the voter identification had taken a turn to the Republican Party in the two years prior to the 1980 General election. Thus rendering models basically useless. Understanding that models today, for the Presidency, as well as those House and Senate races, are using the 2008 statistics to project winners and losers in the 2012 General. All polls are weighted by a minimum of eight points or more in some cases.

Of course turnout will also have an effect, one cannot dispute simple math. Those identifying themselves as Republican or leaning Republican are significantly more enthusiastic about voting, and there are simply more of them. That said more individuals vote in a General election than a Mid-term, which, using the 2010 model would then skew the poll without compensating for population. The only way, at this point, would be to project using as current as possible voter identification models from each of the fifty states to get a more accurate projection. The fact that Gallup has gone to a “likely voter” model suggests that the polling firm is concerned about using the “weighted” method, as it has, along with the rest of the polling firms, been burnt before (1980 for example).

It is, however, more probable that the 2012 midterm election pattern will be more likely pattern to follow, in part, when one looks at the swing states, or any state to get at least an idea of what might be occurring on a national basis. Although one might find the media “hyping” a certain state, while others have automatically been dubbed “safe Democrat” or “safe Republican” one might want to take a look at what happened in that state during the period of 2009-2010.

Looking at Massachusetts for a moment, one finds that in 2009 special election, the polls and pundits, suggested that then candidate Martha Coakley would best Republican Scott Brown by up to 15 points. The fact that Brown won with 5 points (and the dead and missing voting), suggests that Massachusetts voters changed preference for that election. Going into the 2010 election, all house seats in Massachusetts with one exception saw Republican challengers, the general consensus from the Pundits, was an automatic “safe Democrat” with wide margins of wins projected at 75% of the vote. That was not the case how-ever, as those Democrats, many for the first time, were facing challengers who appeared to have a wind at their backs. In other words, they had to stay home, fight and use their war chests – which kept that extra cash in MA, while it was badly needed for Democrats elsewhere. The final results, although the Democrats held their seats, Massachusetts voters sent a message, as the spread was not a 75% margin, but a 2% to 10% margin.

Therefore it is not without some wonderment, that while Elizabeth Warren the Democrat now running against incumbent Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, is polling a 5 points – looking at the marginals of some polls taken in the Bay State, the most interesting aspect is the geography – pollsters are using a sample of voters from very low population and very Democrat – Left Ideology, while the sample dismisses (10-25%) the larger populated and more right leaning Worcester County. This also artificially gives Warren a non-existent boost. The Warren Campaign has been running back to back advertisements up until last week, when those ads began to thin out a bit, while Brown’s hammering the airwaves. More over the latest ad is a “hoot” to say the least. In menacing terms, the ad suggests that should Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, he might vote with the Republican Party, and in addition, he might be the one who gives the Republicans a majority in the Senate!

Therefore, what Warren ad is saying, there is nothing essentially wrong with Scott Brown now, except he might be the Republican that takes the Senate away from the Democrats! It smacks of desperation.

The video clip of the ad appears below.

If a Democrat is having problems, regardless of inflated polls, in Massachusetts, where it is suggested that he state is hopeless for Republican’s, what one might suggest is that MA may not be automatically “Safe Democrat” for the General election. It was a state that was certainly a surprise in 1980 to both former President Carter, and President Elect Ronald Reagan.

To further add to the debate: Take Wisconsin’s, where the recent recall of Governor Scott Walker, was a blowout for the incumbent and a resounding defeat of his Democrat Challenger. It is why, at this point, the State of Wisconsin appears “up for grabs” even using the automatic 8 points for Democrats.

In Ohio, the same sample is used, as it is nationwide, therefore, the current tie in Ohio, complete with a new Republican State House and Republican Governor courtesy of the Mid-Terms, may not be an actual battleground – the actual battleground may be elsewhere, in states that are not even under consideration, and holding combined electoral votes to rival Ohio.

Of most interest is the Real Clear Politics electoral college map – take into account this is based on polling data, some overly generous toward the incumbent (specifically those university polls that over-sample low population, heavy Democrat areas, while under sampling, high population, more Republican areas, and then weight an additional 8 points on top. What one finds in the individual polls I that there has been a definitive shift in the voter preferences over that time, and even adding those polls into a combined poll method that Real Clear Politics uses, shows a growing trend towards candidate Mitt Romney. (See Map here at realclearpolticis.com - it is an interactive map, which shows the two candidates with states granted by virtue of having been heavily Democrat or Republican in 2008 – those states are automatically added (MA in the mix), then states considered solid in the polls for either candidate, those leaning towards a candidate and those listed as “toss ups”. (Using polling data, both weighted and over an extended period of time.)

Although a fan of historical data, one must consider in projections that it is best to consider historical trends as well. Understanding that there may be some explaining to do by pollsters on the Wed. following the 2012 elections.

Elizabeth Warren Ad re: Brown Vote may Give Republican's the Senate

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) Debate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – Brown Bests Warren in 2nd Debate – Warren Comes Across As Occupy-Partisan

Scott Brown, the former State Senator and now U.S. Senator has, in representing either the people of his district or the Commonwealth, been extremely independent minded. It is rare to hear Brown even smack of partisanship – one knows he is an independent simply because he is angering either straight Republicans or straight Democrats, and is not what, one would call, a consistent party-line vote.

Therefore, when Elizabeth Warren, College Professor from Harvard, and former Obama Administration Appointee, announced she was running for the Senate, it was with some surprise, considering that Brown is an extremely capable, competent and perhaps, the only independent-aisle-crossing-get things done, bi-partisan representative the people have, be it in Massachusetts or the rest of the nation. When Warren began her campaign it was evident that she was, for all intents and purposes, particularly partisan, in an almost anarchic “Occupy Wall Street” way – It’s all about Billionaires and the “rest of us” – a class warfare set-up that highlights both her ideology and her demagoguery when it comes to political thought. In her closing statement to defend hers candidacy last evening, she appeared all party-line, giving a hint of what would be should she go to Washington and cast straight-party-line votes. She thanked the moderator, and then went into a diatribe on how Scott Brown supports Billionaires! She sounded fresh out of college rather than a college professor. For starters, anyone who has followed the legislation of Scott Brown (R) knows that he is for the “little guy” rather than big business, unless supporting business brings jobs. In his first term in the Senate, Brown pointed out that Legislatures were allowed to do a little insider trading, something he found a bit underhanded, wrote the legislation and got it passed. Warren lost her opportunity to outline her plans, to put out her plea to the voters, instead haranguing Brown in her closing statements. It was evident that she is new to the political arena or the debate arena as she appeared to harp her way through the entire debate, sometimes appearing “coy” and using her femininity rather than displaying herself as a strong woman. This begs the question from a feminist point of view – When will any party in Massachusetts put up a strong, non-partisan woman to run for a higher office? Until then, the answer to the question of “Why hasn’t a woman been elected to the Governor’s office or the Senate in Massachusetts?” will continue to evade those moderators who ask ridiculous questions at debates.

On Brown’s part, he was straight-forward, typical Boston, take no prisoners, debate from the hip, rather than the lip, and that caught the independent, once again. Where Warren makes her error is in plain got her base, the 30% of the Democrat voters in MA, which, not unlike the 11-12% of Republican’s can get no-one elected. One has to be in the middle – squarely – and no one does that better than Brown.

The one clip that is being played as a “Mistake” on Brown’s part, is the answer to a question on Supreme Court Justices – Brown hesitated, saying they were all good, and began by listing Scalia, first, followed by Kennedy, Roberts and finally Sonia Sotomayor. Which is to say, he could not decide because he pointed out, they all are good justices. In Brown’s true format he chose from the right, the center and the left – an independent point of view. That said, Warren immediately chose Kagan, the justice that must recluse herself from most cases due to her partisanship.

Go figure.

The full debate is below via You Tube, and the next debate will take place in Western Massachusetts , on October 10th at Symphony call according to Masslive

Video - via You Tube



Note: If a woman were to run, say one former Senator and now Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, she would have the vote. This is because she proved herself to be a positive influence while in the Senate, and able to work across the aisle to actually accomplish much – As to admired women in public service, she is, perhaps the epitome of what younger woman should strive to emulate. Whether one agrees with her personal politics, or not, it is the way that she voted, her ideals and her unabashed straightforward method of dealing with situations that make her, or anyone who has even a hint of her persona, as a woman, a credible candidate. Unfortunately, those who would be choosing women to run for office in Massachusetts do not look towards what one might call the “Clinton Model” – they should – then, and only, then would one see a women elected in the Commonwealth. Which is why women in the Commonewealth won't vote for just "any woman" they have an ideal that can and should be met.

Brown-Coakley MA Senate Debate – Brown Wins Round 1 – Specific on Issues, Warren Lackluster first Debate Performance

Warren and Brown at First Debate - Image: democraticunderground.com

The Scott Brown – Elizabeth Warren debate was held last night via a local CBS Boston and broadcast on their sister radio station, WBZ News Radio. – Brown was straight forward in his answers, and went after Warren’s character – the issue which will not go away – Warren’s claims to be a Native American and the use of those claims in her applications to universities, as well as her application to teach at Harvard, which landed her a six figure, part-time job.

Brown continued to be his usual straight-forward self, and Warren was carrying the water, very carefully for the left, she has a very difficult time trying to sound “independent”, while Brown has his record upon which to rest as well as a personality that is independent. In this opinion Brown won based on his ability to directly answer questions, rather than side-step issues as Warren appeared to do. The full debate is available in video below in two parts.

The Debate was polled immediately: via Kimball Political Consulting: with Republicans and Independents giving Brown the win, by a margin of 61%, 62% of Democrats surveyed felt that Warren won the debate (Marginals and cross tabs here) . If Brown is attracting 61% of unenrolleds, 82% of Republican’s and Warren is only pulling 62% of Democrats in this debate performance, perhaps Harry Reed should have kept Brown in the Senate!

Reid shut down the Senate on Thursday to “force Brown into debating Warren”. Careful what one wishes for Senator Reid - Or perhaps Reid would prefer Brown to Warren in the Senate – what Warren offers is a reliable Democrat vote, while Brown, will be non-partisan, as his record indicates.

For anyone interested in working with the Brown Campaign at one of their 10 field locations visit: www.scottbrown.com/find-a-field-office-near-you click on the pins on the map in your city, and contact and address information is given.

Debate Part 1



Debate Part II



Audio Version

Romney-Ryan on 60 Minutes – Media response: Crickets – Choice of Ryan Ignites Race – Thousands Show Up To Rally - Fund Raising Up in first 24 Hours

Ryan and Romney in Wisconsin - photo: Drudgereport.com


Four years ago when Sarah Palin gave her first CBS interview to Katie Couric, the media blitz was immediate and negative – thousands of articles appeared on Google outlining the highlights of once 7 hours interview edited to a short segment. Fast Forward four years to last night’s interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, which was announced by several news outlets in advance – with articles highlighting the choice of Ryan as “risky”.(Orlando Sentinel). The segment which aired at 7:00 pm (approximately after the U.S. Open), apparently did little to diminish Ryan or Romney. They faced off against Schieffer who was quickly “handled” by both Romney and Ryan when he trailed away from policy issues. Ryan’s, “that’s distracting from the issues” moved the topics forward. The interview, in its entirety is below.

CBS Interview with Romney and Ryan


The “risky” choice of Ryan, according to the media has framed the debate for the election as one that is ideological, however, one might also consider that the debate is now issues based – specifically the issue of the economy. Although the left, and the media are doing their darndest to tear about Ryan’s budget plan, there are zero links in articles to the actual plan on the Congressional Record's site, which is written in, shockingly, plain English. Normally, bills, budgets and resolutions are written in legislative jargon one must look at 60 days till Sunday to glean meaning (unless one is trained as a lawyer, or is a career politician – but not the average citizen). Therefore the claims of Ryan’s policy affecting Seniors, the Middle Class, and tax cuts for the “rich” – are not based on Ryan’s actual budget proposal. The key word there is – proposal. Ryan’s plan seeks to close loopholes on the highest income earners, it does not change Medicare one whit for those 55 or older, while suggesting an option of purchasing private pay plans for those under 55. The Ryan budget does, in fact, reduce taxes on the middle class. However, that’s a fairly mute point, considering Romney is at the top of the ticket and will be making the final decisions on budgets, of which he has his own. Romney made that clear in the 60 minute segment.

As to the choice as “risky” – that may be true if one were trying to attract the Progressive arm of the Democrat Party – otherwise, Ryan’s appeal was immediately evident as rally’s over the weekend saw crowds in the thousands waiting to hear the new V.P. nominee speak. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “VP candidate Ryan returns to Wisconsin to adoring crowd” – of 10,000 – in Waukesha. According to the U.S. Census that would be one in 7 of every single resident of the City of 70,000, 23.7% of which are under the age of 18. That’s quite a “homecoming” in a State that has been seen, until recently, as more of Democrat, rather than Republican in voter identity.

The Boston Globe reported on the rally crowds in North Carolina:

“A buoyant Mitt Romney and new running mate Paul Ryan propelled their bid for the White House through a series of boisterous events Sunday in the first day of extensive campaigning together since the former Massachusetts governor chose Ryan as his political partner.

His events having the energy of a rock concert, Romney fed on the fervor of the crowds, dispensing high fives, effusively praising his new pick, and at one point joined a chanting crowd: “Paul, Paul, Paul.”

Supporters stood in line for hours to get a glimpse of the new Republican ticket.”
(Of course, no article about Romney-Ryan would be complete without quotes from the White House.)

“Congressman Ryan is a right-wing ideologue, and that is reflected in the positions that he’s taken,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He is quite extreme — good, good person, you know, genial person — but his views are quite harsh.”

President Obama, who has sparred several times with Ryan over economic policies, made his first comments on Ryan’s selection during a fund-raiser in Chicago.
“I know him, I welcome him to the race,” Obama said. “He is a decent man, he is a family man, he is an articulate spokesman for Governor Romney’s vision. But it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with.”

Axelrod and the “new kid on the block” Progressive Democrat Senate Candidate in MA, Elizabeth Warren, were on the attack immediately, Warren quipped ”'Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy', specifically highlighting the economy (Springfield, MA Republican), which drew an immediate response from commenters that was less than kind to Ms. Warren’s point of view. One commenter noted that

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy and leave working people and small businesses to struggle in the mess.

It's already a mess... is she kidding with this statement... what planet are you on
Ms. Warren?

(Read balance of 60 plus comments at the Springfield Republican’s, Masslive site here

The “risky” pick also had the effect of the campaign raising 3.5 Million (in 24 hours) after the Ryan announcement (thehill.com)

The Romney choice of Ryan is also shedding new interest on the V.P. debate that will take place between Vice President Biden and Paul Ryan, insuring a ratings boost for the network which will broadcast the October 11th Debate at Centre College in Danville, KY.

From this perspective Mitt Romney chose a Vice President he felt was first, capable of not only working within the administration, but that would be able to assume the Office of the Presidency. Romney took the risk of choosing Ryan as the State of Wisconsin is not as strategically important as, Florida (Rubio – electoral votes). Additionally, Romney who is focused on policy and economics, chose someone who is of a similar mindset - in doing so, he would have a Vice President that would work, rather than one which was used for the Senate tie-breaker as the occasion might present, or someone who was not involved in policy of any kind - in other words, a proverbial ribbon-cutter.

In addition, Ryan stands for his principals, and respectfully agrees to disagree, even with the President especially when it comes to numbers, budgets, and what might be in the aforementioned. Ryan comes armed with statistics and facts, not pulled out of left or right field, but from reliable and non-partisan sources – Ryan, as a choice, was not in the least risky, rather brilliant, and above all, one that would work for the American People, rather than one that is merely politically advantageous. Of course, one must expect that the Press and the Obama Campaign must stress the negatives in order to attempt to achieve parity, however, one can anticipate a compare and contrast, uplifting tone from the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Elizabeth Warren, Democrat Challenger for U.S. Senate, Backs Off Attacks on Senator Scott Brown. Ray Flynn endorses Brown

Senator Scott Brown and Progressive Democrat Challenger Elizabeth Warren - image with article from www.ankagallery.com

Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat challenger to Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate Seat, recently suggested that Brown release 20 years of tax returns, as he had been in public service for that period of time. When asked to release her returns beyond four years as an Obama appointee, Warren, according to the Boston Globe reporting on this latest Warren flap “Warren backed off her demand, saying today that six years was enough. She did not, however, offer to release any more of her IRS filings.

Both candidates were asked by the Globe in April to release six years of tax returns, a common request to check for conflicts of interest, and contradictions between a candidate’s policy pronouncements and personal financial practices.

Brown agreed to allow reporters into his campaign office to inspect all six years of documents. Warren would only agree to allow reporters to inspect four years worth of returns, releasing some documents outright and allowing reporters into her office to review the supporting documents covering the same period.”
(Boston Globe)

Warren, who has had some fits and starts over several controversies was supposed to be a more viable Progressive Democrat alternative to run against Brown, however, unlike former Brown opponent, Martha Coakley, Warren’s advertising to Massachusetts voters does not mention her party affiliation, which is a bit odd, considering that she is a Progressive Democrat in a heavily Democrat state. That said, perhaps not that unusual, as Massachusetts Democrats and Republican are often just as independent as the states majority voters – the 50 plus percent who designate themselves as “unenrolled” (no party affiliation). Some might view this attempt as somewhat deceptive of Warren, who casts herself as rather benign figure in advertising; however, Brown’s ads have contained the same theme, his independence. The difference is that Brown truly has been an Independent Republican as he served in the State Legislature, and the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. To politically survive in Massachusetts, while holding an elective office, one apparently must be truly independent in practice in order to get things done. Brown took his Massachusetts independent streak to Washington, and has irked both Progressives as well as hard Conservatives with some of his votes – that means he’s doing his job. Warren, who has never held an elective office, has been on the attack on the stump, while Brown has been out on the stump, comparing and contrasting, while picking up one endorsement after another – of Democrat heavyweights in the State. One has to ask why? – It’s the fact that Brown honestly is one of those rare politico’s who looks at both sides of an issue, beyond party politics and makes the decision based on what he feels is best for Massachusetts. While State Senator, Brown was extremely accessible to his constituents, and has remained the same since moving to the U.S. Senate – this remains rarity for most politicians.

Perhaps it was his Massachusetts upbringing, perhaps it is his lengthy service in the National Guard, which gives Brown that quality of a “boy scout”, but he remains a fighter – that’s the Massachusetts in Brown.

What about Political Party and the Democrat Hold on the State? – It matters very little, for the majority of the electorate – if given an opportunity to choose a politician that is not corrupt (this is Massachusetts, which has more than its share of embarrassing politicians serving time and being subpoenaed so often it’s almost expected), over someone who is forthright, regardless of party, that individual will win – if they have the ability to cover the state or district – which is where the money game comes in. That said, one can see politico’s crossing party lines, regardless of affiliation to stump for and support someone from the “opposition party over one of their “own” – it comes down to the individual. There is also a difference between Democrats in Massachusetts, which, one can expect, is a nationwide theme – it is simply this: there are the Progressive Socialist Democrats, and then there are the rank and file, old time Democrats, those who belongs to the party that stood for the poor, the unions (when they represented the factory workers who faced seriously hazardous conditions and those Police and Firefighters who risk their lives every day – rather than those who pay dues to hold desk jobs.) – They were fiscal conservatives (no kidding), and few were obviously partisan. That changed, but those old time Democrats, are now referred to in some instances as Blue Dogs – a Democrat who is somewhat like a Republican – or, in real speak, a Democrat who is somewhat independent of party. Warren is not one of those Democrats, she is a Progressive to the core and it shows, despite the ads that depict an otherwise non-partisan message.

This may be why Brown is picking up the heavyweight endorsements, specifically that of former Boston Mayor and Clinton appointee as Ambassador to the Vatican, Ray Flynn. The Boston Herald reported on July 27, that Flynn was appearing in a Scott Brown Ad, endorsing Brown. There are more Democrats who have come out in support of the Senator – An article in today’s Southcoast Today, in which Paul Walsh, the former Bristol County DA, will appear in an advertisement for the Brown campaign. The article suggests that Walsh is one of those “old time Democrats”, as he has endorsed both sides of the aisle – only the article was more accusing than matter of fact about the nature Walsh’s endorsements.

The list goes on, so much so that national news outlets, finding this one of the most “competitive” races in the nation (based on campaign funds collected (Warren has the edge, with the majority of her contributions coming from out-of-state, while two thirds of Brown’s contributions are from Massachusetts – which speaks volumes (US News & World Report)
The U.S. Article referenced above suggests that Brown is gaining momentum on Warren due to the types of endorsements he has received, especially Ray Flynn, who is compared to the legendary, Tip O’Neil, in the piece. One might take a look at the polling with a grain of salt as well, the last polling conducted by the Mass Inc. Polling Group (via Real Clear Politics – PDF), shows Warren with a 2 point lead, in a survey of 445 registered voters, taken July 19 – 22nd , 2012. Brown has an overall favorability rating of 50% with 33% (somewhat to) unfavorable and 17% undecided/never heard of, while Warren has a 47% favorability rating, with 26% (somewhat to) unfavorable and 26% undecided or never heard of.. Of course its summer, and that may be the reason that those polled had no idea of who Brown or Warren were – as the never heard of were equal to those undecided’s. Mass Inc bills itself as a non-partisan organization – visit site at www.massinc.org. (Or all national polling that shows a "tight" race at this point, for that matter.)

One might be more inclined to rely on Ray Flynn’s assessment at this point, and look at polls coming from local sources to have Warren up by 15 points the weekend of the election (See Boston Globe from January 10th, one week from the special election, which had Coakley up 15 points over Brown. The end result was more Flynn Like – Brown up by 5 over Coakley.

Brown endorsement and Small Businessman with Scott Brown on Warren’s statements

Sen. Scott Brown Continues to Pick Up Endorsements of Democrat Politicians in MA – The Real Deal – vs. – Warren as Outsider – Commentary

On the One Hand - Brown's Just so Darn Likable - image salon.com


From The Boston Globe: Elizabeth Warren, Progressive-Democrat Senate Candidate (MA), suggested that she would bring an “outsiders” view to Washington in a recent interview. The Globe also noted that Warren’s quest to unseat Republican Scott Brown is her first attempt at running for public office, and it shows. To suggest that Warren would bring an “outsider view” to Washington is somewhat a stretch, considering she worked with the Obama administration, has rallied for President Obama and is being touted by Progressives (petition and all) as the next Barack Obama – someone that can be molded into a 2016 Presidential Candidate. All the brouhaha over her false heritage claims, her house-flipping deals on foreclosed homes, her plagiarism (cookbooks of all things) pale compared to her latest claims as an “outsider”.


Massachusetts politicians appear to agree – especially those that would be considered “peers” of Warren, were she a fellow “Democrat” – conventional wisdom dictates that party members support one another – however – it appears that certain Democrat and Independent Massachusetts politicians are not enamored of Ms. Warren, and are endorsing her opposition – incumbent Senator Scott Brown.

In 2009, Brown took the “people’s seat” (previously referred to as the “Kennedy Seat”, by a margin of 5 points, which, in Massachusetts with the dead voting, that’s no mean feat. The spread between Brown and Martha Coakley was, in all probability, much higher – that aside, there were forces at play in Massachusetts that were a signal to the rest of the nation – find a Conservative Republican, who is willing to work across the aisle, and who sticks to his principles, no matter what – and you have a winner. Brown is the real deal – and attracted a myriad group of supporters in Massachusetts – Green Party, Democrats, and even some of those Republican’s that are said to reside in the “Bluest State”. Brown also was a Mass. State Senator, and had built a reputation on defending his constituents, regardless of party affiliation – the biggest attraction: Brown is just one of us – his story is the story of most regular folks – he just took a different path from most, dedicated himself to service, and it brought him to the U.S. Senate.


Brown knew how to campaign, but he was genuine in his approach – the money poured in after bloggers got busy when it was apparent Brown was able to defeat Coakley, even though the Beltway suggested the seat would go to Coakley, the polls indicated the same, but the 300 plus miles that separate Massachusetts from the Beltway – made it impossible for any real “political intelligence” to penetrate those pundits that decide a race before it even begins. They were not on the ground, did not see the volunteers filling Brown offices, did not see the guy in his pick-up truck crisscrossing the state – or feel the excitement – neighbor to neighbor – most shockingly because Brown wanted to Stop the Legislation on the Affordable Health Care Act and bring work towards a better model.


Therefore, the fact that he is picking up endorsements left, right and center, endorsements that should go to Warren, is not surprising to those of us who live here in the “Bluest State” – Warren is, regardless of friendly polls, and friendly press, and Progressive Democrats glowing - indeed an “outsider”.



In Massachusetts, party affiliation is one thing, but most of the public that votes, consider themselves “independents” – and, indeed over 50% of the State’s electorate is enrolled as “unenrolled” (no party affiliation).



In April, according to The Hill Blog (speaking of Beltway):


“Ray Flynn, who served as Boston’s mayor for almost a decade before being named an ambassador under President Clinton, will endorse Brown on Monday at South Boston’s Castle Island. A conservative Democrat, Flynn has long been allied with Brown, and endorsed his 2010 Senate bid against state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D).

Hours later, former Worcester, Mass., Mayor Konnie Lukes will announce her support for Brown in the city Lukes ran until 2009.

Both endorsements serve as reminders of Brown’s continued crossover appeal to centrist Democratic voters, despite the star power and grassroots energy behind Warren’s campaign.”

To which one might ask the Hill, what grassroots behind Warren’s Campaign? – It’s not on the ground in Massachusetts, unless one counts the fundraisers in Boston at which she has appeared or perhaps her trips across the state, surrounded by local Democrats – grassroots’ appeal is defined by Brown, when average (non-paid) individuals stand up and support a candidate.

In June Mass Live (The Springfield Republican) noted that Democrat and Independent Politicians had endorsed Brown followed by the July 3rd Masslive.com (The Springfield Republican) Scott Brown picked up the endorsement of Paul Walsh, the former Democratic District Attorney of Bristol County. Walsh joins nine other Bay State Democrats who have endorsed Brown

Therefore, Brown’s managed to cross party lines, both in the political spectrum, in the interest of his constituents, and now, in the election arena, as those public servants, from either party, or independents, see Brown as a politician who is more interested in the people he serves than in furthering a political party.

Brown has never written a cookbook, he wrote a tell-all book about the pain he suffered in his childhood that led him to rally hard for women and children’s rights both in the MA Senate and in the U.S. Senate.

Brown is Brown, Warren is – another Obama.




On the other hand - Warren - obviously partisan -image northamptonmedia.com


To wit, Barack Obama was groomed for a political background rooted in Academia. His rise through Illinois was nothing short of meteoric, a term in the State House, then right to the U.S. Senate and without finishing his first term, he ran for the Democrat Nomination – was handed that by Progressives in Congress who, though super delegates overrode the popular vote (Hillary Clinton) and appointment Obama the nominee – and the rest is history. Now, Progressives see another opportunity – to mold a newcomer, an academic, someone with little to no experience in legislation, a stint in the White House surely, but neither in crafting legislation nor responding to constituents needs – but she does answer the call of the Party.

Therein lays the difference – and why one might anticipate additional endorsements from individuals of all political affiliations to go to Brown. Warren truly is an outsider – Brown remains one of us.

Elizabeth Warren, (D) for Senate, Mass. – House Flipping History Does not Square with Stump Speeches – Hypocrite?

Elizabeth Warren, Dem for MA Senate, (Against Scott Brown), shown with house she "flipped" in OK - image Boston Herald)


Elizabeth Warren appears to have a bit more family history that might not square with her “persona” as a “champion for the middle class” – The Boston Heraldreported that Warren and her Husband made huge profits off foreclosed properties in Oklahoma, and lent money to family members at high interest rates to boot. The woman who is being groomed by the Democrats as the “Next Barack Obama” (NYTimes-Multiple source), apparently has more hypocrisy in her history besides claims to have begun the Occupy movement (Shades of Al Gore), and her fiasco of a claim that she was part Cherokee, to the extent that it appeared to have given her a job at Harvard. The list goes on and on – making her one of on the biggest shysters to come down the Massachusetts Turnpike (see Big Dig) in a long time.

The problem with Warren, is not so much her ideology , which as progressive as the President, and every college professor in Massachusetts (with few exceptions), Warren is the typical bongo drumming, down with capitalism, up with the people, taxes are great, share the wealth nonsense everyone in the Bay State is used to hearing – and for the most part ignoring. – Of course, not everyone buys into the Progressive Democrat ideology – with booksellers to bakers from the East Coast to the Western Hills, using the moniker for cities such as Amherst and the entire Bay State – as the “People’s Republic”. The difference between those die-hard, tie-died liberal progressive Democrats is that they are sincere in their belief structure, having of background of bongo drumming and the occasional protest against whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. Even criminal Speakers of the Massachusetts House are so transparent, that they are normally indicted – Massachusetts politicians maybe a lot of things, but for the most part, they are essentially honest and have a past, criminal or otherwise, to back that up.
However, the more we learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more it appears as if she’s taken advantage of the programs and the systems in a way that would make most EBT Fraudsters proud – and to top it off, has an excuse, or press release – handy whenever the next shoe bomb falls. All in all, the whole lying about being a Cherokee to get ahead, and get federal student loans, and into specific colleges, and into jobs, fairly commonplace – and not such a big deal, on the face of it – so Elizabeth Warren lack integrity. The fact that she’s flipped houses, for profit, and then goes on an “Occupy Wall Street Rant” – classic do as I say, not as I do elitist Progressive fare. However, she continues to offer these press releases stating that it’s overblown – seriously.

Warren who runs ads that do not tie her in any way to the Democrat Party, rather attempt to make her appear as independent as possible to Massachusetts voters – are so lacking in depth that no one east of the Boston Globe, the Herald and the Mass DNC knows who she is and what she is running for – a recent Democrat Convention held in Springfield, MA was underpublicized, except in a local daily, and a few blubs on local news – the bulk of all Warren stories, good or bad, are coming from out-of-state.

That strategy is not going to work for Massachusetts, assuming that one will get the vote simply because one has a “D” in front of their name, especially when the incumbent, even though a Republican, is one Scott Brown – popular. It’s rather hard to find anyone who doesn’t know who Brown is – but on the other hand, it’s difficult to find anyone who knows show Warren is – even down to the Cherokee Nation – and for Warren – she’s got too much fodder on the table now to try and play coy – she’s a carpetbagger from Oklahoma who has splaining' to do about her “dubious” past, and even that might not work. However, in order for the DNC plan of turning her into the next Barack Obama, so they can achieve another historic 1st (1st women President), they need a springboard, so they are using Massachusetts as a way to get Elizabeth some credence. They should back another horse, find another state, and go for it, leaving Warren to fare for her. It’s going to be a huge waste of money and comparable to the attempts of the SEIU and Wisconsin Democrats to topple Scott Walker in a recall.

Why? Brown broke the mold – not the mold as in now everyone who is a Republican will get elected (although there are a few house seats that are going to be extremely competitive and could give the Congress a few more Republicans), but the mold that puts people in a mindset of “vote Democrat if you’re a Democrat” - Independents, if one must be reminded are the majority “party” in MA, and they no longer care if someone is “a friend of Barack Obama’s” or “A Kennedy”. Therefore, stand up Elizabeth be proud of your hypocritical land-flipping, your claims of being on the “Trail of Tears” (sarcasm), and anything else that might come up – (the Herald is most likely saving the better skeletons for September and October) – and run for a statehouse seat. You could then get elected to the Speaker of the House (just as good a platform for a woman, historically, in Massachusetts, and just as lucrative a job opportunity!) If all else fails, after the indictments are handed down, Warren could enjoy a massive state pensions then take to the airwaves, as a talk show host – maybe grab a spot next to Carr’s on WRKO.

As a feminist, one must realize that not every woman who comes down the pike (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York just to name a few turnpikes), is worth the vote. One must be discriminatory, when looking for someone who would represent not only the people, but women in general – as a first of anything, or as a Senator or elected official. It is imperative that the credentials be almost squeaky clean – maybe a blur, but not to the point of continued “revelations” of character flaws. Why? Women have a hard time being taken seriously, still earning less on a dollar despite multiple attempts dating from JFK forward to enact “Equal Pay Laws”, maligned for everything from biological to fashionable, women themselves eat their own (See Hillary Clinton, most qualified candidate in the past decade for President, thrown under the bus, by alleged “feminists”), so why would a flawed candidate believe for one minute that they would be qualified to not only take on the Senate, but stand for all American women? The danger in electing Warren isn’t that she’s incompetent, or that she stretches the truth, or that she’s a Progressive who sits at Obama’s right hand and has become his biggest Romney attack dog – the danger is that should she be elected, she’ll be the one all women are judged against, especially in Massachusetts – making it impossible or implausible that another woman running, even a competent woman would be able to make the grade. Is it Warren’s fault? Not entirely, it’s the DNC and their failure to completely vet; their arrogance in thinking that anyone they choose to be the Next Barack will just be so elite, no one would dare question their choice. (The DNC isn’t the only major party with that problem – See Scott Brown early election with the RNC stayed out of the race until it became glaringly apparent that here was a race and he had a snowballs chance in Hades that he just might win and make history.)

To recap, Warren is a lovely woman, grandmotherly, sweet, in her ads, but a tool none-the-less of the DNC, she has made at least one glaring hypocritical error, and of course, figured out how to best the system by being “American Indian” – perhaps thinking no one would buy her being another “minority”. Due to the benign ads, no one has a clue that she’s a Democrat – which might play in her favor, except she’s unknown and Brown is known – for doing a lot and working for the state. He may have those who disagree with him, especially within his own party, but that’s a non-starter. When name recognition is a problem, something is wrong – and for Warren to get her name out there, she’ll have to bring all the baggage with her – then the PAC ads will begin – and that will be the end of it.

Although polls show this to be a close race, one must recall the Massachusetts polls of the past, specifically with Scott Brown, where he was the underdog, by upwards to 15 points, 3 days before he won by 5. In Massachusetts, when one is known to be doing their job, Democrat or Republican, people remember, and instead of voting just because someone is of a certain prominent party, or in support of ObamaCare (the TAX), or in support of “middle class families, losing their homes”, while having flipped houses, one will vote for the Devil the know – rather that the Devil that they don’t.
It’s that simple.

Elizabeth Warren (D) for Senate in Massachusetts – Campaign of Mayhem!

Elizabeth Warren - Red Carpet for Time Magazine - image Freedomphoenix.com


Warren Cookbook: Pow Wow Chow - Wow, She's Plagiarized, Cherokee's Not Thrilled - image Masslive.com


Elizabeth Warren, Democrat and former Obama Advisor, to of all things, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau, is once again in the spotlight for something somewhat hypocritical. Although the Administration, before foisting her off on Massachusetts to run against popular incumbent Senator Scott Brown, must have known something was “slightly wrong” with Warren as she was passed over to head the agency she “created” by Obama (begging the question: why did we need a bureau when we had the Consumer Protection Agency in the first place?). The answer becomes glaringly clearer by the day – as one fraud committed by Warren, after another, comes to light.

In spite of the fact that she pretended to be part Cherokee Indian in order to gain placements at colleges and universities as well as a job at Harvard (see: minority status appointment), she won a majority of the delegates (95%) at the Massachusetts Democrat Convention held last weekend. Of course, this is Massachusetts, where indictments and jail time for Democrats is par for the course. In fact, it’s difficult to recall a Speak of the House who has not been indicated or served time, or had a family member being hunted down for decades, therefore, Warren’s “indiscretions”, to the political class apparently are a lot to do about nothing.
That aside, she’s now making national news on two new fronts: The Cherokee American Indians are asking Warren to stop claiming she’s one of them and have been for some time – she’s simply not a Cherokee (Legal Insurrection)– She’s from Oklahoma (as far as anyone can tell).

She was a house-flipper back in Oklahoma buying houses on the cheap, and reselling them to family members at high interest rates, who then “flipped the houses for high profit – (Boston Herald), which, on the face is not a bad thing, except this is exactly the type of profiteering that Warren rails about when on the campaign trail.

The question posed last week by WRKO’s Howie Carr, (paraphrasing), “Someone should look into how Warren got the loans for those houses – Do American Indians qualify for special interest loan rates?” Understanding that Carr is a right-leaning independent, this is a fair question considering how much and how often Warren has fabricated her past. To answer Carr's question: Yes - American Indians do qualify for low interest rate loans (HUD)- Would Warren apply for such a loan? - Who Knows!

The bigger question is – what else is out there that makes Warren even more ridiculous as a candidate for the United States Senate?

Granted, she is running against one popular, Scott Brown, a Republican who has a voting record that drives both sides of the aisle crazy, and is known to be rather Independent – he’s also rather busy since he entered the Senate in the special election dubbed the “Massachusetts Miracle” – writing legislation and getting it passed in a climate that is chaotic (being polite). All the aforementioned regarding Brown does not appear daunting to Warren, nor the Democrats, who perhaps forgot about the drubbing they took when they ran Martha Coakley against Brown in the first place. Coakley was not as flawed a candidate as Warren – Coakley was a Democrat who never expected a Republican to do well, so she sat back and neglected to campaign for 3 weeks, she believed the Boston Globe and the local university polls that gave her a huge lead over Brown, then a State Senator. By the time Coakley woke up and smelled the coffee, Brown had a ground game going, was receiving millions in donations from across the country and crisscrossing Massachusetts in a pickup truck, - and the worst part of this fiasco for Martha – he was the real deal.


Scott Brown, The Real Deal - image salon.com

Therefore, Warren, who has already put more embarrassments up on the board than Martha could possibly have done, with more time to stick her foot in it than Coakley (that was a special election with mere months to campaign, versus an entire year), stands to embarrass Massachusetts Democrats once again. Of course, she could very well win, if all eyes are elsewhere and the dead are voting – See Pew Research via Metro west Daily News. However, even with the dead voters on the rolls (or moved, or duplicate) in Massachusetts (Galvin rolls with the Obama administration on this one), there may not be enough to allow Warren the win – but relying on the usual bag of tricks becomes a pretty big gamble with time enough to let the voters here in the Bay State get to know who Elizabeth Warren really is.

Elizabeth Warren, Democrat Candidate for Senator, MA, Working the System as a “Minority” Proud that she is 1/32 Native American!

An ABC Newsarticle suggests that MA Democrat Senatorial Candidate, Elizabeth Warren, used her status as being of Cherokee Heritage to claim minority status:

Law School directories from the Association of American Law Schools from 1986-1995 list Warren as a minority law professor. During this time Warren taught at the University of Texas School of Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

.

Somehow, being 1/32 of any culture, gives you a bit of bragging rights, however, to use this as a means to obtain employment, is a bit of a stretch – and/or otherwise: working the system.

Elizabeth Warren will face one of Massachusetts most popular politicians, Scott Brown, Republican Senator from Massachusetts. Brown, who at times angers far right conservatives for taking a moderate approach, is a hit with the unenrolled, which make up a majority of the voters in the Bay State.

Warrens advertising is very subtle, no attacks (yet), but an introduction of sorts, one thing of note - nowhere in any of her televised ads does it mention political affiliation. They are so low-key as to be non-memorable.

See latest ad below – Perhaps she is taking the tactic that someone may think she is running sans Party:



The rhetoric contained in the advertisement is also very “Occupy Wall Street” a movement Warren has taken credit for in the past – similar to Al Gore and the Internet.