Breaking –Election 2012 – Attorney’s from MA and NY to Monitor Polls – in the Bay State.

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney campaigning in PA, image US News & World Report online

The world has turned upside down – for some reason attorney’s will be monitoring the general election in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, according to Mass. Lawyers Weekly. A Boston Attorney, Vincent DeVito, noted that “lawyers from New York will be on loan to help with the Massachusetts Republican Party’s poll-watching efforts on Nov. 6.”, and shockingly: “This year Massachusetts is a battleground state.” (Mass. Lawyers Weekly)

Of course, common perception is that Massachusetts is a completely Democrat state, however, the truth is – not so much. With over 50% of the electorate registered as “unenrolled”, and up until recently an extremely anemic Republican Party with few, if any contested races prior to 2010, there was little choice each election – resulting in votes for myriad cartoon characters.

That said, with the Romney PAC running ads in Massachusetts to reach New Hampshire, and the fact that New York City is a disaster area comparable to Katrina, with people diving into dumpsters to find food, electrical crews turned away from volunteering because they were non-union coupled with the unemployment rate in Massachusetts climbing for the third straight month and most importantly, Scott Brown’s race with Obama appointee and part-time Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren, the impetus will be a drive to the right by Independents.

Again, to emphasize, Massachusetts voters voter roles have again seen an increase in Independent (unenrolled voters) as of February 2012(Boston.com) and Masslive, the website for the Springfield Republican, noted this morning that “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is growing more popular in Massachusetts, particularly among independent voters.” This is based on poll findings by Western New England College/Masslive, which saw an increase for Romney in the Bay State: The pollster had Obama leading by 30 points, that lead is now at an incredible 18 points. This poll was conducted similar to the polls in the 2009 special election which gave then candidate Martha Coakley a 15 point lead over then candidate Scott Brown. (In that case, Democrats were counted as equal to the number of unenrolleds, and Republicans’ were over counted by 2 points, in addition, geography counts, Worcester County the second most populated area of the state, was counted at lower percentage than Western Massachusetts. Of note: Conservative leaning independents in the Worcester area are far more prevalent than the less populated, Western Mass area.)

In other words, the poll is suspect. A private polling firm released a poll on a Massachusetts District race in one of the most Democrat areas of the Commonwealth. In that poll, before the debates, Romney was tied with Obama. Granted that was a Congressional District Poll, but, again, in an area that actually leans Democrat. Therefore, with the Dead Voting, trolling for votes in Alzheimer’s wards, and other hi-jinks by the Democrat Party in MA, one might think that Attorney’s coming in to watch the polls is prudent at this stage. It is also known that the media is interested in what appears to be a “hotly contested race” for the Senate between Brown and Warren, so eyes will be on Mass.

The last time Massachusetts voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate: 1984 (also 1980) – for President Ronald Reagan.

The state’s “Independent Streak” which was responsible for the Reagan win, has broadened in scope since the 1980’s with the largest percentage growth of the electorate – as unenrolled. Therefore, if Romney is appealing to the Independents, it is quite plausible that Poll watchers may be necessary, and that Massachusetts with its 10 Electoral College votes, might bear watching. It is more likely, all polls now stand as “Safe Democrat” and the state was automatically put into the President’s column. It was also a given for James Carter.

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

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 Gets the Nod from Mass. State Dem Convention – “Bubbling” Warren looks forward to Debate with Scott Brown- Won’t Commit to Debates

Elizabeth Warren, Obama Democrat gets the Go-Head at Dem. State Convention to challenge Senator Scott Brown in November - image The Atlantic.com


From the Boston Globe:Elizabeth Warren received the go ahead at the State Democrat Convention held in Springfield MA on Saturday June 2nd – she will face popular Senator, Republican Scott Brown in November. From the Globe:

“I’d love to see some debates with Scott Brown,” a bubbling Warren told reporters moments after her victory was announced. “Let’s get started on this. I’m ready.”……
Warren, who called Brown a “Mitt Romney Republican” and a “Wall Street Republican,” listed a series of votes the incumbent had made, including votes against a Democratic bill to prevent a doubling of student loan interest rates and in favor of big oil subsidies.
She also invoked the memory of the late Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who for 47 years held the seat that Brown won in a special election in 2010.
“It’s a long way from Ted Kennedy to Scott Brown,” said Warren.

(Boston Globe)

Brown has already accepted an invitation for one radio debate, and would like to see at least 3 to 4 debates, according to the Boston Herald, however Warren is not ready to commit” to any debates(Herald)

The point of the debate process would allow a small percentage of Massachusetts residents to see both the incumbent Brown and the challenger Warren go toe to toe – In the special election of 2009, Brown bested Martha Coakley in the two debates, which were not exactly “prime time” – Warren, who has already started hedging, may be difficult to pin down, and chances are debates will take place at odd times – the first debate on talk radio: WBZ AM Boston, with Dan Rea, was accepted by Brown – however, according to NECN: “On Sunday, a spokeswoman for Warren replied in an emailed statement that the Democratic candidate is glad Brown accepted her debate challenge on Saturday and that she will reach out to her rival to discuss details.” - , which is not necessarily a definitive “yes”, as implied by the cable station.

Warren, a Harvard Professor and Obama appointee, may be a step up from Coakley in the debate arena, however, judging from a debate between her and primary challenger Marisa DeFranco, she will struggle against Brown – (see: Video here) – Thereby, by narrowing the debate schedule and timing, it would benefit Warren – who is going to have an uphill battle, despite the implications by Massachusetts media and a recent poll by Western New England College and Masslive (The Springfield Republican) suggests that voters will identify Warren with Obama and Brown with Romney – giving Warren the edge, given the polls outcome of a significant lead in the Bay State by Obama over Romney However, missing from both the Western New England Polling Institute, and the Springfield Republican site, Masslive are the marginals – one can see the methodology – however, how the poll was parsed to be inclusive of the make-up of the state is not available.

That is important because if the poll was taken giving Western Massachusetts a larger share, than say, Worcester (Central Mass) there is the issue of population and voter affiliation being – equal to the actual election. Suffolk University Polling includes its marginals with the results, giving a distinct overview of the methodology and the makeup of the polls, which allows those who would read the polls, to understand if the poll accurately represents the electorate. In the case of Western New England’s polling – it does not.

One might believe that the lay of the land has changed since Scott Brown shocked the Beltway and won the “People’s Seat”, but it has not. Coakley got a little help from Barack Obama, and that association did very little to pull up her numbers – Invoking the late Senator who’s seat was open, may not do much for the general electorate, but Democrats in general who make up approximately one-third of registered voters in the Bay State.

What is perhaps, the most interesting aspect of the race, to date, is Warren’s advertising, which does not mention “party affiliation” rather speaks about her being “a regular person” – which begs the question, why is she distancing herself from screaming from the rafters “I’m a Democrat, friend of Barack Obama and a Harvard Professor (the later in there) – In the best scenario for Warren, she will pick up the majority of Democrat votes, and possibly shave off 8 to 10% of those unenrolleds who consistently vote Democrat – Brown would pick up the balance – giving him an approximate 5 point edge in the end results, despite the media’s best intent to forward Warren.

As to Obama’s lead in Massachusetts, that may be a given, understanding that in the last two Gallup state by state polls, (2010 and 2011 respectively), the President has approval ratings over 50% in 10 states, one of which is Massachusetts. The latest from the conservative (meaning careful in the instance) pollster suggests nothing has changed over the past three years , with Obama holding 50% or more in the same states. In addition, Gallup also reports on the partisan trends in states whereby the Republican’s have gained an advantage in several states – the top Democrat leaning states in Gallup’s research are: DC, HI, RI, MA, NY, MD, CT, VT, DE and IL, while the Democrats lost voters in : UT, WY, ID, AK, KS, NE, ND, AL, SD, MT (See article: States Move GOP 2011)

That said, Massachusetts has that independent streak, and to date, Brown has managed to vote his way, creating angst from the Far Right and the Far Left, which means he’s no rubber stamp, no matter how hard the state media, with the Democrat Party, attempts to paint him as a Mitt Romney Clone.

That also may not be the best idea, given the fact that Obama’s popularity in Massachusetts is based on polls that suggest he has overwhelming Democrat support – (the key word) – yet when push comes to shove in November, Mass voters may do what they have rarely done, vote Republican, for both Brown and Romney. As of this point, and this early out, it is clearly impossible to take polls seriously regardless of the results, (unless a specific pattern has been developed such as the state by state research by Gallup, trending three years of statistics – even that is subject, however, to change).

It will be, above all, entertaining to see (or hear) the debates between Brown and Warren, even if they are available to a narrow audience, one will be able to find recaps on YouTube, or the news sites, such as NECN, which should carry the entire debate on their website.

Bloggers personal note: In the early stages of the Brown Camping, it was recognized that he had the temperament, experience, and ability to run for Senate, and would appeal to both Republicans in Massachusetts (the few), some Democrats (no kidding) and those unenrolled (the majority). In a visit to a phone bank center located at one of the eight Brown campaign offices at that time, it was interesting to note that the majority of the hundreds of people phone banking were not Republican Party affiliates, rather: Democrats, Unenrolleds, Green Party, Libertarian – Brown, for all the hoopla surrounding the “Kennedy Seat” at the time, was helped by the “people” – After his win in January – Brown went back to each location across the state (in his pick-up truck no less) and personally thanked those who helped is campaign, those who voted for him, and even those who did not, he wanted a opportunity to meet them. In going to one of these events, it struck me that, although he may have run late for the next event he made sure he shook every hand, and spoke to each constituent there – it was not about partisan politics, it was genuine. – This is the kind of public servant, who regardless of party, is about doing the business of the people. Therefore, given the close ties that Warren has to the President, and seeing yet another rubber stamp in the making, it is clear that a Senator who has voted with and against him own party in the interest of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, gets the vote.

Scott Brown (R-MA) Attacked over Irish Visa Bill – Elizabeth Warren (D), 2012 MA Senate Candidate on the Supreme Court

Brown (the Independent Republican) vs. Warren (In Obama's Pocket Democrat)- the MA Senate Race 2012 - image talkingpointsmemo

It’s an election year in Massachusetts, and the key Republican in the Commonwealth, one Scott Brown, is being attacked for being – Scott Brown. Brown an independent voice, more than a partisan voice, has gone to Washington and, unlike some of his longer-tenured peers in the Senate, has actually written bills and pushed through legislation – he did so by reaching across the aisle - this from an interview conducted by CNN’s Pierce Morgan. Brown by the polls, has been up and down, depending on the college that is polling – however, one can look towards the independents, who make up over half of the state’s electorate to find the key to Brown’s continued success in the Bay State – simply put – out of 14 polls taken since Warren announced her candidacy – the average continues to show Brown with a lead, while Warren has bested Brown in four of the polls taken. The most reasonably close to the actual electorate poll, was thus far, by Suffolk University which gives Brown a 9 point advantage – the majority of the support coming from the 52% of the Independents polled.

Brown bested Democrat Martha Coakley in a special 2009 election, where the dead voted, by 5 points. One has to ask, with Martha having had more experience than Warren; will the vote fall along partisan lines as usual? If that is the case, one can anticipate Warren receiving the 35%of Democrat Votes, while Brown will take the Republican vote (11 to 12%) and the Independent Vote should break 50/40 for Brown given the same manner in which it broke in 2009.

Is Warren different than Coakley? Surely more organized and better funded – Warren recently reported she had out-raised Scott Brown in fundraising, but will money, in Massachusetts, buy her the race? Perhaps within her own academic circle – however, the general populace has yet to hear of Elizabeth Warren, and when they do find that she lays claim to starting the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and most recently, came out against the Supreme Court, siding with the Obama administration, that news might sway Massachusetts voters - Warren , of course, sides with the Obama Administration over the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn his Health Care Mandate – as those rascally Supreme’s, just might be legislating from the bench. Over in Massachusetts, legislating from the bench and special interest groups connected to the Democrat Party have, at times, given the voting public heartburn. It sets up a situation where Warren wants the Courts to rule in favor of Progressive Ideals rather than by the Constitution (either State or Federal). This one might be fodder for Brown’s campaign to run negative advertising, but that has not been his style. The camping may point out where they differ from Ms. Warren, and one can bet the house, she will go negative. (See Martha Coakley).

What else can one do to defeat a popular incumbent?

Get the press involved.

Brown has most recently been criticized by special interest immigration groups for sponsoring legislation that would allow 10,000 plus Irish Immigrants work visas. The unmitigated gall of the man for wanting to bring in a specific group who would actually work! The Enterprise, reporting on the criticized Senator Brown, suggest that his detractors are concerned that he did not support the dream act, or support other groups for work visas. Further, his detractors have criticized Brown for pandering to the electorate of Massachusetts, which, as everyone knows, Irish. That may be news to the rest of the Residents, who are from all ethnic backgrounds, but the Irish, especially in Massachusetts, and in New York or any original point of call, were historically – persecuted.

One might watch the “Gangs of New York” for a refresher, or just talk to someone over the age of 50 to get an idea of what life was like for the Irish who had emigrated from the 1800’s forward – not exactly rosy. Again, the emphasis is on work visas, not a free ride.

Similar legislation was also, according to the article, proposed by Chuck Schumer of NY, who has not been criticized roundly in the press for leaving out Asians and others, as well as Schumer pandering to a huge Irish electorate in New York – of course Schumer is a Democrat, therefore, in his case it may be herald as a fabulous bill, while his Republican Counterpart in Massachusetts is given the short shrift by the press.

Scott Brown is an equal opportunity aggravator. He aggravates the left, he aggravates the right, he really tees off the Tea Party, and other groups who took credit for his election, and he does so by virtue of the bills he sponsors, by the votes he casts – all with an eye towards what’s best for the State. In other words, he’s doing his job. One might want to find another Congressional representative that, in the partisan world of Washington, is doing the same. Good Luck.

All Massachusetts voters need to know, outside of the R or D next to the name, is this: Brown will vote for what he feels is in the best interest of the people, either with the Republican’s or the Democrats, as long as it works for Massachusetts – and he’ll take the flack – on the other hand, Warren will be a rubber stamp for the Obama Administration (should the Obama Administration be given a second shot at the nation). Do we really need more partisanship in Government, no matter how endearingly loopy the woman is?

Occasionally, and very occasionally, Massachusetts gets it right, in the case of Scott Brown that was one of those times.

Note: The author of this blog supported and actively campaigned for Brown’s election in 2009, and since that time, some of the Senator’s actions have made this blogger somewhat agitated, however, as an Independent, it is precisely this type of politician one rarely finds, so once again, Senator Scott Brown will had my support. For the record, I’m not of Irish decent. Also, as a feminist, it is not that all women who run for office deserve a vote by virtue of their gender, but by virtue of their experience and the actions taken or not taken that might make the difference and improve the lives of the citizens of that State or Country. One woman overall, (who was, in this opinion robbed) and who fits that bill is one Hillary Clinton. Support was not based on gender, although that would have been a bonus, but on her record in the Senate.

WV Governors Race - Will the 2012 Special Elections Be a Repeat of 2010? The Rebranding of American Politics

In 2010, the first salvo’s fired from the voters came with the election in Virginia of Republican Robert McDonnell followed by the shock of John Corzine’s, a New Jersey Democrat Icon, loss to Republican newcomer, Chris Christie. The final nail in the proverbial coffin came with the special election in Massachusetts, of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, in a 5 point lead over Martha Coakley, which in terms of Massachusetts and the ability of the dead to vote, was a screaming referendum on the Democrat Party. The three together herald the historic gains of Republican’s in the House in 2010.

2012, so far, indicates a similar political landscape, perhaps even more telling than Christie’s win in New Jersey, the win in New York’s 9th District which saw Republican, Bob Turner, with no previous government experience, elected to the office held by Democrats since the 1920’s. Today, West Virginia will go to the polls in yet another special election. Two weeks ago, polls tightened in the W.V. race, with Republican, Bill Maloney, in a statistical tie with current Democrat Govenor, Earl Ray Tomblin, whose had desperate misleading campaign adspulled from the air. Maloney, a businessman, is also not a seasoned politico and one has to take into account that West Virginia, was the home of Robert Byrd the longest serving Democrat in the history of the Senate. With clear skis forcast for the “Mountain State”, a win by Maloney will be akin to an earthquake. Not for nothing, but on January 19, 2009, the weather was fair in the Bay State.

A win today for Maloney, just like the previous two special congressional elections (Mark Amodei, Republican, in Nevada and the New York 9th) will be a referendum, not only on Obama, as many in the press indicate,, but on the Democrat Brand, and in total, the “Washington as usual” brand. This leaves room for speculation on the 2012 race in total, and the dismay of those elite in Washington and both coasts, in both major political parties, who are fearful of a win by candidates who resonate with “the people” such as Herman Cain, or the yet to announce, Sarah Palin.
The fact that “Washington” and the “elites” who run both major political parties, as well as the conventional press, no longer hold sway with the electorate, will make this 2012 election cycle one of the most interesting in memory. Moreover, this portends the historical election of the individual, rather than the “political party”. That would herald a return to the vision of those who authored the Constitution and held political parties in abhorrence, which may be why those Tea Party Candidates, whether running as a Republican or a Democrat (that is not a typo), are replacing those with long ties to political organizations or are career politicians.

2012 Update – Mass. Democrats Begin Campaign Against Scott Brown (R-MA) Use Cut, Cap, Balance “Vote” To “Vote” on the Budget Plan – No One Has a Plan!

Brown known to cross Party Lines: See Boston Globe:Kerry Brown image Boston.com

From the Attleboro Sun Chronicle: Massachusetts Democrats are digging deep and getting a little help from their “fact-checking” friends: (Reporting on the Democrats :)

Democrats are waging a two-front war against U.S. Sen. Scott Brown over the debt ceiling issue.

On one front, they are knocking Brown, R-Mass., for voting for a Republican plan called Cut, Cap and Balance that Democrats claim would devastate Medicare and Social Security.

The Problem is that Brown never voted for a “Plan” he voted to against Sen. Majority Leader, Harry Reid’s Plan to “table” the House Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan See ABC News blog: www.blogsabcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/timing-is-everything-reid-forces-early-vote). Reid had decided on early the week the House voted to pass the bill, that it would not gain support in the Senate from Democrats.

The problem with the bill from the Democrat’s perspective was the fact that it a) allowed the President to raise the debt ceiling, b) called for budget cuts that to Congressional Discretionary Funding, one which would be spread over ten years, and c) included a Balanced Budget Amendment with riders in place to override a Balanced budget should a national security crisis arise.

Senate Democrats are against a balanced budget bill, a bill which, if passed in the Senate, would then go to all fifty of these United States for individual State Votes, there would need to be two-thirds (a majority) of the State’s voting to accent a federal balanced budget before it could become law and an actual amendment to the Constitution. This process can take decades.

Which when one understands that Democrats controlled both the House and Senate from 2006 to 2010, and maintained control of the Senate only in 2010 forward, cutting back on spending was not the rule, rather, spend with abandon is the Party mantra. It is not only the Democrats in Congress from that period forward that are to blame, Republican’s before them similarly spent the taxpayers’ dollars with abandon, however, the level of abandon was ramped up a bit (that’s sarcasm) once the Democrats took over both houses. When Obama was elected as our President, with a like minded Senate and Congress, it was debit “party time”.

Brown, who is known to take his time before making known is stand on a position, which anyone with an once of brains understands that Brown is studying the particular bill, looking at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts first and assessing the benefits for the people, not the Republican Party or the Democrat Party. He has voted for and with Democrat plans, and for Republican Plans since entering the Senate – which frankly drives everyone a bit batty (the media, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and especially the Democrats!). Brown has an independent streak and thinks for himself.

Back to that “vote”: Reid forced the Senate to vote early on allowing the Cut, Cap and Balance to even go to the Senate floor and be “debated”, it was not an actual vote on the bill itself - it was a bill to allow debate on the plan. The Democrats, to date, have not put a budget together for the past years, (that’s right, years), rather continue to run our country on a procedure that pushes a budget down the “road” and then allows continued spending. They have no plan on the so called “Debt Ceiling’ other than to raise it and make a few billion dollars in cuts. In fact, Cut, Cap and Balance was criticized by hard-line conservatives for not going far enough!

To get the story straight and recap:

Brown voted to allow debate on a bill, he did not get a chance to actually vote for or against the bill called Cut Cap and Balance.

The Bill did not take away anyone’s entitlements (Medicare or Social Security not in danger, never were), other that Congress, allowed the debt ceiling to rise for the President (that’s called a compromise), asked for cuts that would be spread over ten years (compared to the immediate rise in the debt ceiling), and to the shock and horror of the Democrats led by Harry Reid and the President, asked that a Balanced Budget Amendment with safeguards in place, be allowed to be voted on, voted on, not passed. The Balanced Budget Amendment would then, again, take possibly decades to become law because it would have to go to each state to be voted on, would require a two-thirds majority of states voting in favor of a Balanced Budget, before it could become law.

The sad part about today’s political rhetoric is that those members of political parties that are “entrenched” (meaning one cannot pry them out of their taxpayer funded jobs even with dynamite), use flat out “lies” to slam opponents. This appears to be particularly one-sided and one can take a stab at guessing which party is guilty most of the time. (Allowing for the fact that there may be a Republican out there that acts like a Democrat – or worse, Republicans and Democrats (most often those darn “Blue Dog” Democrats (not Progressives), who cross the aisle on occasion when one party or the other has a good idea. This is, of course, infrequent.

The Cut, Cap and Balance bill was a good idea, but was killed by a straight Party Line vote in the Senate by Democrats. The Cut Cap and Balance Bill was also very popular with the American People, one can take a look at a less than Republican friendly U.S. News report “opinion” blog, on a CNN (another non-conservative news outlet) poll:

A CNN poll released Thursday shows that nearly two thirds of the American people support the "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan that passed the House of Representatives Tuesday, throwing a monkey wrench into President Barack Obama’s plan for a deal of grand design.

Therefore, Brown looked at a House Bill, that was supported by a clear majority (this is a CNN poll mind you), and voted only to allow debate in the Senate on Cut Cap and Balance - which may be why Brown continues to be popular in the state with the state’s majority of voters – unenrolled, or independents! Democrats control the majority of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, all ten Congressional Seats (which will soon be all nine due to redistricting and people fleeing the State to get away from the usual high taxes and uncontrolled spending that residents are over familiar with and that has been exported nationally), and the State House, Senate and Governorship. Massachusetts has a lot of deadwood on the voters rolls (literally dead and moved individuals) which the Democrat Secretary of State refuses to remove. One can imagine why these dead and moved voters might come in handy – see 2010 election and several districts that were won by Democrats, in the waning hours with an enormous “get out the vote” effort.

In other words, they’ve (The Massachusetts Democrats) got nothing on Brown and so, they have to manufacture something!! If they have to run against his actual record, the majority who already support the Senator would be increased. The simpatico press, is going to run articles without correcting factual errors, either because a) they are clueless of the actual procedures (which is entirely possible), or b) they all happen to be Progressive Democrats. Both may be possible, which is why the Gallup Trust in Institutions poll suggests that the majority of Americans (close to 75%) do not trust what is written or broadcast.

The old adage "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" is apropro in regards to the current Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Senate of the United States of America.

Trust in Institutions - See where Media stands with Americans from Gallup Polling: image Gallup.com