Poll: Scott Brown Crushes Ed Markey In Hypothetical Special Election Matchup

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM



TOM KLUDT 2:17 PM EST, FRIDAY JANUARY 25, 2013

A majority of Massachusetts voters would back former Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) over Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) in a special election to fill the seat expected to be vacated by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), according to a poll released Friday.

The latest survey from MassINC Polling Group showed Brown easily cruising in a hypothetical matchup against Markey. Fifty-three percent of registered Bay State voters said they would support Brown, compared with just 31 percent who indicated they would vote for Markey. But pitted against a generic Democrat, Brown was shown with only an 8-point edge.

The poll showed Brown continuing to enjoy sky-high popularity — as was the case throughout his brief stint in the Senate — with 55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable view of the Republican. Markey is a relative unknown throughout the state: 59 percent of voters surveyed offered no opinion of the longtime congressman.

Although the state and national Democratic establishment has coalesced behind Markey, 71 percent of would-be Democratic primary voters favor a contested primary — an encouraging sign for Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who will reportedly announce Friday that he's challenging Markey for the party's nomination in the special election.

-30-



Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-scott-brown-crushes-ed-markey-in-hypothetical

---

Link to MassINC Polling Group:
http://031d482.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Topline-01-13-Q1-Omnibus.pdf

[aquart]

1. Why?

[onehandle]

2. No shit. All part of the Susan Rice takedown. nt

[Scairp]

48. Why would they want him back?

He showed what a complete prick he is during his brief tenure as a senator and attempted re-elected against Elizabeth Warren. I don't think Massachusetts would give him the time of day at this point. But their Dems need a bigger name or something, just to make certain.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Well, that blows.

[TeamPooka]

4. I'll wait for Nate Silver to analyze this poll and its results. nt

[GoCubsGo]

19. I'll wait for Markey to win the primary.

Until the Dems chose their candidate, none of these polls mean anything.

[chelsea0011]

30. Amen. People outside Rte. 495 barely know this guy. They will like him

when they get to know him.

[Exultant Democracy]

86. What does mean something is that Republicans are better at showing up for special elections.

The dem core constituencies are harder to mobilize for special elections. Another important fact is every rich plutocrat conservative is going to be cracking open his piggy bank. Finally the most important thing to remember is that Scott took Teddy's seat, an outrage that I will always remember, if he can win Teddy's seat he can win Kerry's.

[GoCubsGo]

88. Another important fact to remember is that Martha Coakley ran an abominable campaign.

That's when she bothered to campaign. The Democrat who wins his or her party's nomination to fill Kerry's seat is not going to make the same mistakes she did.

[Mass]

90. Sure, because we should choose DINO Lynch because of a stupid poll?

[Still Sensible]

5. Perhaps the way to attack this problem

is for the governor to appoint a solid, electable demcrat that will have some period of incumbency to gain some advantage and hold onto that seat. It would be important for Kerry to be a very solid supporter of this individual as well. I believe putting an "interim" seat-filer, with no intention to run, would be a serious mistake.

[DonViejo]

27. The election to replace Kerry has to be held

within 6 mos of his resignation. A temporary appointment will not have the time to serve in DC and campaign for the office.

[samsingh]

6. i hope we don't lose that senate seat

[The Stranger]

26. Lose it? We handed it to them.

We could have had any of a hundred people scoot on over to be in the lame duck cabinet.

The Republicans wanted us to pick John Kerry so they could have another shot in the Senate.

And John Kerry, KNOWING THIS IS WHAT THE REPUBLICANS intended to do, went right along with them.

He just couldn't find it in himself to take a step back and put the nation and the party ahead of his resume.

[DonViejo]

28. Can you provide us with a list of those 100 who could have

scooted over to be Secretary of State?

[politicasista]

66. Nothing to do with that or his Senate seat

Some are just chronic Kerry haters for personal amusement only.

[samsingh]

38. i have no idea why this stupidity was done

[RBInMaine]

42. Oh what a bunch of defeatist SHIT. It's BLUE Mass & not even a campaign yet. Let's just wait & see.

[sheshe2]

72. +1000

[otohara]

7. He Lead Warren

as I recall.
Then he opened his mouth too many times.

[LyndaG]

8. If I were the WH

I'd be on the phone telling Gov. Patrick he needs to run for this Senate seat. Wasn't there polling showing he'd have the best chance of winning?

[CBHagman]

9. Not popular enough to get re-elected, though.

So we shall see...

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

10. Extremely superficial conclusions

It would be remarkable right now if Brown didn't lead any and all hypothetical opponents by a fairly hefty margin. He has built statewide recognition and his possible opponents do not. When the campaign begins - indeed, unless I missed it, a specific date hasn't even been set - his numbers will start to tumble.

[MBS]

11. " " " " " n/t

[cyclezealot]

12. Should Brown return to the Senate: Mass voters are:

PSYCHOTIC. Mass being represented by one of Wall Streets most hated senators.. Elizabeth Warren . And one of the banksters most beloved.. and corrupted . Scott Brown..
Just when much of the world thinks, Mass voters are among the most educated.. Call in the shrinks before the special election to get this disease under control.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Iowa has a liberal (Harkin) and a conservative (Grassley) representing them in the Senate

[sheshe2]

56. Hey! Watch what you say about Mass voters. nt

[cyclezealot]

76. I didn't create the headlines that's Brown's ahead.

Just talking about those who would vote for Brown and are fooled by the fact, he is much different from the rest of the Republican ilk in the senate.

[cosmicone]

13. Ed Markey has been a tool for Pakistan's interests.

I'd support someone else .... where are the Kennedys when we need them?

[elleng]

41. PAKISTAN's interests???

[cosmicone]

85. Please see post #84. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Ted Kennedy's widow has endorses Markey:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/john_kerry_victoria_kennedy_back_ed_markey_massachusetts.html

[Cha]

68. Please explain your post? You can't just leave something like that

against Vicki Kennedy and John Kerry's choice and not back it up.

[cosmicone]

84. Ed Markey has taken anti-India positions consistently

even supporting the Khalistan terrorists and Pakistan's claims on Kashmir.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/truth_on_kashmir_and_terrorism_in_india.htm

US Congress passed a resolution congratulating India for successful elections in 1999. Of 400 votes cast, 4 were opposed. The tiny opposition included Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Don Burton (R-IN), who have in past spoken out on behalf of Khalistan terrorists. http://koausa.org/destruction/chapter11.html

Ed Markey had sponsored a bill against the ratification of the US-Indian Nuclear Cooperation Treaty http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/18ndeal1.htm?q=np&file=.htm

Since all these positions indirectly help Pakistan, one can only speculate. (Dan Burton (R) of Indiana is a well-known congressman in Pakistan's pocket and any ally of him in anti-India legislation will be suspect.)

[NorthCarolina]

14. Amazing...if true.

The ignorance of voters truly is astounding.

[GoCubsGo]

17. And, that is exactly what's going on here.

Markey is a Congressman. Most people outside of his district know little or nothing about him. So, it's not surprising they'd chose the known over the unknown. If Markey wins the primary and starts campaigning, there is a good chance those numbers will change drastically. He hasn't had the chance to slap little Snotty around, like Elizabeth Warren did. She was down by some twenty or thirty points at the time she got her party's nomination last year, BTW.

[graham4anything]

15. The damn thing is, Brown has 3 coming elections to win one. Damn thing is, he will.

It's too bad Vicky Kennedy doesn't want to run for elected office.

there will be the special election, two years later the regular election, and the governor's race.

Markey sucks as a candidate.

Too bad Ben Affleck is all talk and no action.

Thanks John Kerry. Thanks for your ego. Thanks for not thinking senior senator was worthy of your time and it bored you so.

[RBInMaine]

43. What a load of defeatish SHIT. Christ, can we at least have a primary first. Sheesh.

[karynnj]

59. Ok then, Do you think HRC should have kept the position

even if it meant not running in 2016 when she is the highest polling candidate.

(The analogy is that Kerry really was THE most qualified person for this job.) It is idiotic that he should turn down the President's request to take a position that he is completely suited for and can do more good than he can in the Senate. Any number of MA people have said that it is the state Democrats job to replace him after over 28 years of serving as their Senator.

[Cha]

69. Amen! KarynVT! n/t

[graham4anything]

78. Again, I will blame John Kerry if we get into any war.

Because it is now 100% his responsiblity to see that we don't get into a war or altercation somewhere during his watch that costs many lives. Because he is going in there with filtered views, and well, just as Condie Rice is 100% responsible for Iraq,Bob McNamara is 100% responsible for the upgrade in Vietnam, John Kerry would be 100% responsible for Iran
(and its no difference between SOS and SOD in different administrations, because sometimes one is held to a different standard than the other, depending on the president).

but what a silly analogy you pose above.(and how scorched earth a tactic it is, indeed).The SOS is not an elective office, so
to use a Bing Crosby analogy, "stretching, stretching" as his character said in White Christmas.
BTW, one of the members of the John Kerry forum group here said John Kerry was always the best person(putting Hillary down in the process.) I don't recall which one of the group said it, but one did, therefore according to the JK group, the statement you made isn't what the JK group thinks, because they thought JK was the most qualified for years now, didn't they.
(ooops)

but anyhow, IMHO

NO, John Kerry is not the most qualified person. That is a fan's assessment.
He was the best at lobbying behind closed doors and in the press for the job and did not want to be senator in a state (It was boring to him I guess), where the odds are good that Markey will lose to Brown. For all we know, since his BFF John McCain led the campaign to get rid of Susan Rice, it might have been John Kerry whispering in McCain's ear to further that along. We don't have any idea.
I would love to have JK under oath talk about that. Too bad no one brought that up during questioning. Bring it out into the open. Who was the one that sabatoged Susan Rice?

Or worse, Brown will become Gov. and the unqualified Markey will slink in to the senate as a caretaker for 2 years.(note-I am NOT a fan of Markey at this late date, for my own very specific reason).
Hey, but then maybe Martha Coaxley can be called upon to run for Gov against Brown.

I fully expect Scott Brown to have some elective office in Nov. 2014.(and that being Gov., whether or not he runs/wins as Senator this year.)

Hopefully though by 2014, a Kennedy will take their rightful place again.

Hey, maybe we can convince Scott Brown to be a democratic crossover. Because it is looking more and more like he will win office, maybe that would be the easiest way. Get him to switch parties. (long as he if he gets a job, actually wants that job after all.)

[karynnj]

83. Where in the constitution is the SOS given the ability to take the country to war?

There is no way that Kerry - like ANY US SOS - will not do all he can to avoid a war. Now let's correct your misinformation. Condi Rice was not SOS in March 2003, Colin Powell was and NO ONE suggests that he was 100% responsible. The only person who could (and did) take the country to war was GWB. As others have pointed out to you, MacNamara was NOT SOS, he was SOD. In addition, he could not have escalated the war without the president's approval. I am happy that in Kerry and Hagel, you have two people who will do all they can to avoid a war. (I note that you do not assign 100% responsibility for either the escalation in Afghanistan or Libya to HRC - I guess in her case you realize that though she had input in both cases, Obama made the decisions.)

I am sick of your insane argument that Kerry got this by either undermining Susan Rice or lobbying with the media. The fact is that the media lobbied for Susan Rice - even as they in 2008 and 2012 mentioned that JK was an obvious possibility. I concur with whomever in the JK group said that JK was most qualified in 2008 - more than HRC.) As to not wanting to be Senator, that is idiotic. He has said that often that he found being a Senator rewarding and he loved the job as Chair of SFRC and was one of the best they ever had.

I assume you did not watch the hearing. One repeated comment of Kerry's was his goal to work closely with Congress. I have watched hearings since 2005 when I found you could. One of the complaints has been that the administration has not been as available as Republicans AND Democrats wanted. In addition to the spurious Benghazi arguments, one thing that is also true is that Rice in her 4 years as UN ambassador did not build strong ties to Congress.

There are very few people with Kerry's PROVEN diplomatic skills - that were highly praised by Holbrooke's top aides and Ambassador Eikenberry, a career diplomat, who described him as the best diplomat he has ever seen. Then add in foreign policy knowledge that the entire country saw in hi first debate with Bush. Add in that he CAN work well with Congress. Can you list even ONE person better on those accounts? Or, maybe, Hillary Clinton just has to stay.

Not to mention, Markey is certainly not unqualified. He has been an outstanding PROGRESSIVE, liberal Congressman, who has led on the environment. It is pathetic that you put him down - then suggest that Democrats should elect Scott Brown. (!)

[Mass]

91. Totally incoherent, as usual.

Kennedy will not be the next senator. Only in your dreams.

Markey is totally qualified, and you show once again your ignorance when it comes to MA.

[demwing]

16. Two Words

Barney Frank

[GoCubsGo]

18. They said the same thing about Eliabeth Warren when she first ran.

Just sayin'.

[Cha]

21. Exactly.

[sheshe2]

58. Exactly! I would not rule this man out so easily...

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]

[Cha]

60. I haven't seen him in 12 years..

the last I saw Markey he was speaking up for Gore in the 2000 Florida Debacle. Loved his accent..

love the pics, thanks she!

[MBS]

22. yup, you said right. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

37. And I said the same thing that I'll say about Markey:

He'll win big once all Bay Staters know more about him.

[Cha]

20. Yeah, well I know people on the ground who worked in Elizabeth's

Campaign who don't think so. They're gearing up for another Win. This time it will be only one campaign and they'll have Kerry's people, Obama's, and Elizabeth's.

Wasn't ol washed up Scott Clown ahead of Elizabeth at one point? Before he shot his big stupid mouth off?

[GoCubsGo]

23. Good points.

They also won't have Martha "I don't need to campaign" Coakley running.

[Cha]

24. Martha's campaign was bizarre and

now a textbook case of what not to do when running for any office. I actually heard she was going for AJ of Mass in 2014 so it will be interesting to see how much she's learned from her Mistakes!

[RBInMaine]

44. She ALREADY won re-election as AG AFTER the defeat to Brown. So guess she learned.

[Cha]

49. Ah, thanks, RBInMaine.. Good to know.. I guess

it's the re-election I was reading and didn't get that part.

[graham4anything]

79. well, a textbook case of how not to run for office was 2004 Presidential race Kerry ran

the odd thing is, after Mike Dukakis lost his race being defined, people said it would never happen again.
But in 2004, John Kerry copied the also Mass. Dukakis's strategy and promptly got himself defined(swiftboated it was called in 2004), and he did not answer for what, six weeks?
(same as how Dukakis wasted six weeks).

then, the odd thing is, in 2012, Mitt Romney (three in a row for Mass. candidates, odd coincidence, or is it arrogance?) was defined and left it unaswered (though in 2012, Mitt was a loser, guaranteed from day one, so it really didn't matter.)

(some could even say my favorite, Teddy Kennedy, also ran a horrible campaign in 1980, not being able to tell Roger Mudd why he wanted to run in the one time he shouldn't have run, as opposed to 1972, 1976, 1984, etc.)


so yes Martha ran a bad campaign.
(and she wants higher office, so she will run again for something)

But, one has to wonder, what is it about the water up there or something that makes Mass. candidates such bad ones in modern political history? One reason why the democratic base should never look to Mass. for a presidential candidate anytime soon.

Thank God for President Obama and Chicago, getting Elizabeth Warren into the Senate with his coattails, because she won by less than he did in a state that is suppose to be the most liberal state in the nation(though I think that is not quite true anymore, that was though what people said in the 1970s and 1980s.)

I think California is a lot more liberal than Mass is.

But Martha has alot of company in races that were poorly run, snatching defeat from victory.

[davidpdx]

82. I know people are not going to like me saying this

But there has been quite a few examples of inept campaigns that have been run in the last 15 years or so years and Coakley was just one of them in both parties.

[The Stranger]

25. I hate to be an "I toldya so," but I toldya so.

John Kerry's need to pad his has-been resume fucked us in the Senate.

[RBInMaine]

45. You are being a defeatist WIMP. For ChristFuckinSake, let's please have a campaign first. JESUS !

[Cha]

50. Sorry, you haven't told us anything. We Will WIN. nm

[patrice]

52. "need to pad his has-been resume" uh... John Kerry doesn't "need" to do anything. I think you're

reading that personality all wrong.

[karynnj]

61. John Kerry could have stopped his public life at testifying in 1971 and he would have

had more significant accomplishments than all but a very few 9in his generation.

Obama ASKED him to take this position and it is one where he may be able to use his talent and abilities to make the world a little safer.

The Democrats in MA should be able to beat Brown again. Not to mention, the Senate would not be that different with 54 vs 55 Democrats - not to mention, Brown would have to run again in 2014 meaning that to have a chance, he would have to vote with the Democrats often. (He then he loses again for the same reason he lost this time - control of the Senate.)

[sheshe2]

65. What this country needs is a strong SOS! Kerry will be one.

The senate seat up for grabs stinks...However I really wish people here would stop putting down MA voters. I am one. We are ready for a rumble...and we will need a lot of support! You know the Kochs will be slipping Scottie mucho bucks.

Can we just show a little vote of confidence, please. It hasn't even begun....and from what a lot of you are telling me, we already lost!!!

[Cha]

70. We're with ya, She! I have another cyberbuddy

in Mass who(canvassed for Elizabeth and P Obama) is saying you will get that support and I know DU will rally.

we are into the next campaign! thought we'd have some rest and celebration for a while, but it is so important. i have been assured, though, that we will have much help from people all over the country, which thrills me. and it is, at least, just one campaign, for now. several on the horizon, but just one full-on, thank goodness!

Ms she

[graham4anything]

80. Yup! This post says it all.

and even if the dems eke out a victory now, there is the Gov. race in 2014, and the regular senate race in 2014 for Brown to have two more opportunities to win position.

[JDPriestly]

29. This is precisely why I did not want John Kerry to go to the State Department.

We really need him in the Senate.

[karynnj]

64. Just saying Brown could win, does not say we need Kerry

It is a very weak argument that Kerry is the ONLY Democrat (other than Warren) who could beat Brown. In addition, it equates him to any run of the mill mediocre Democrat who is simply one more vote for our side.

This when a case can be made that he would be an extraordinarily good SOS.

[Zen Democrat]

31. Markey being a congressman, would have to become known statewide in the campaign.

Just like Elizabeth Warren.

[chelsea0011]

32. Brown has to run on his record. He said during the campaign that he would not

raise anyone's taxes including the top 2%. Well, he saw which way the wind was blowing and voted for the tax increase on the very wealthy. He will be reminded of this day after day by the Dems and will have to explain himself over and over. It will be fun.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. You think he'll be punished for doing the right thing?

Maybe by the top 2%, but I'd guess the majority will approve of his change of heart.

That's how I'd spin it, if I was on his campaign.

We need to find better issues than that.

[chelsea0011]

95. He promised and got 44% of the vote. Do you think they are happy?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

96. He'd get some votes no matter what he said

... just because he had "R" next to his name.

Then he got votes based on various issues, or other reasons.

How many of the "undecided" picked him solely because of his stance on taxing the rich? I doubt any of the 1% were "swayed" by his speeches. Most of the 1% are steadfast in their party loyalty, I'd bet.

[SunSeeker]

57. Saying he raised taxes on the top 2% could get him re-elected.

In fact, that could explain his popularity despite saying some really stupid things against Warren. Markey won't have as long to campaign as Warren had. That poll really bums me out. We have a lot of woek to do and not a lot of time to do it.

[millijac]

33. Scott Brown was even LESS well known

than Markey is today when he won that special election. And the Dem machine didn't turn out for Coakley at all. We are not making that mistake again.

All this poll means is that we know where we stand and what we have to do.

We're NOT going to send that empty pink leather shorted airhead back to the Senate.

[MrSlayer]

34. The seat is his for the taking.

Because Democrats will not turn out as they did in the Presidential, they just won't. All those extra people that came out in '08 and '12 came out to vote for the President and everyone rode his coattails. The Republicans vote in every election and the extra Obama voters only come out if he's on the ticket. It's why we lost in '10 and is why we'll probably get shived in '14.

The President must convince those minority and younger voters that voting Democratic in 2014 is the same as voting for him "one last time" or we're going to get teabagged again. He must campaign for this special election as well.

This all assumes Brown wants the Senate seat again and not the Governor's seat.

[Exultant Democracy]

87. He is going to have vrtually unlimited funding.

[BeyondGeography]

36. Ed Markey has been a Boston-area congressman for 36 freaking years

And he doesn't poll better than this? Massachusetts is a small state and he is (or should be) known in its largest media market. It really shouldn't be this much of an uphill battle for him.

[David Zephyr]

39. I like Markey, but Massachusetts should follow California.

Nominate women.

Win with women.

It works.

It may be Markey's turn, but it's not his time anymore.

[graham4anything]

81. Should have been Vicky Kennedy.

[grantcart]

40. Generally speaking this is a good poll result.

First for those who haven't studied Poli Sci as a discipline let me explain the most crucial known poll realityt that has been well established for decades. Positives in a poll, especially months before any campaigning. are meaningless.

The reason for that is positives generally camouflage degree of support. If someone doesn't really know anything about a candidate but recognize their name they will tend to say "favorable". These favorables have the strength of sand before the tides and are easily moved.

Much more concrete are the negatives. It is very very difficult to change a negative because if someone has told a complete stranger they have a "negative" impression of a candidate it usually is based on a very particular reason.

In this poll Brown's negatives are at 32% while Markey's are 17. This is what the professionals are looking at.

This general rule has been proven over and over again. For example when Senator Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination for President she started with 40% positives. But her negatives were also in the 40s and that is why so many challengers were willing to enter the primary against her. (Interestingly those negatives have probably declined significantly due to her outstanding service as Secretary of State and the Clintons positive roll in supporting BHO.)

Very significant in the poll is only 2% of respondents had never heard of Brown. 34% had never heard of Markey.

I think that Democratic campaign operatives will see lots of hope in this poll and Republican money folks will see some big problems in it.

Just remember the favorable rating at this point is more garnish than main dish.

[Deep13]

51. MA has no shortage of low-information voters. nt

[bucolic_frolic]

54. Agree there

Uneducated women will go for the photogenic Brown in droves.

Massachusetts may be a liberal state, but it remains traditional
in other ways.

[virgogal]

55. What a condescending post. Uneducated women aren't necessarily shallow.

[sheshe2]

67. IMHO

Your post is insulting to women in general, and most certainly to the women voters in MA.

Educated or not, you are saying that women are so stupid, that they are just going to swoon and fall over and vote for Scotties pecs! Seriously? That is your opinion of women?

You do not necessarily need a college education to vote, to understand the issues that are important. Life, and the hardships we face teach us much about life. It can shape our lives and our values. What is fair and just.

Your post sure as hell sounds like GOP talking points. The GOP can face the wrath of Women, they already did in 2012:

The women’s vote propelled Barack Obama to victory.

Women, particularly young women, turned out to vote for the president, according to exit poll data. About 55% of women polled voted for President Obama vs. 43 % for Romney.

Young women aged 18-29 favored Obama 60% to 36%. Unmarried women also voted for Obama 68% to 30%. Women with children voted for Obama 56%-43%.

Issues around reproductive and women’s rights became central in the final months of the campaign. Republican legislatures have proposed radical personhood bills and laws meant to limit abortion rights, pushing agendas that would result in making it more difficult for women to get insurance coverage for contraception—or banning women’s birth control in some cases. The extremism of the Republican agenda received national attention after high-profile blunders of Rep. Todd Akin and Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.

Akin was caught on camera talking about women having a natural biological defense against pregnancy from “legitimate rape,” and Richard Mourdock stuck to his beliefs that pregnancies resulting in rape are “something that God intended to happen.” The Romney campaign disagreed with Mourdock’s stance but continued to support him and did not ask the Mourdock campaign to pull an ad featuring Romney’s endorsement of Mourdock.

Abortion was named the “single most important issue for women in this election” by female voters in 12 key swing states in an October Gallup poll.

And trust me the poor simpering Women of MA will stand up! Educated or not!

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7nD9awNRQ0cAW9FXNyoA?p=final%20%25%20women%20vote%202012%20obama&fr2=sb-top&fr=vz-portal

[Cha]

75. To Massachusetts Women!

[NYC Liberal]

53. Poll: Scott Brown In Great Shape Heading Into 2012 Reelection Campaign

In hypothetical 2012 contests, Brown led Rep. Mike Capuano (D) 51% to 38%, and topped Elizabeth Warren — the Harvard professor and liberal favorite for her support of stricter financial regulation — by a comfortable 51% to 34%. And though Capuano and Warren don’t have Brown’s name recognition, that’s not the only reason he holds such strong leads on them. Over half of all respondents (52%) said Brown deserves to be reelected.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/poll-scott-brown-in-great-shape-heading-into-2012-reelection-campaign.php

[Cha]

62. Brawawaaa.. I guess they changed their minds whence

they got a look at him up close and personal.. raging On Elizabeth for her Native American Heritage because he didn't trust his Scalia mentalilty to win anything.

Good job, NYC Liberal

[Mass]

93. Thanks for that. I was looking for this.

[OldHippieChick]

63. Okay, I don't mean to blaspheme, but

Does it really f'ing matter anymore? Reid won't even make the Repukes do a real filibuster. Until and unless we get 6O Dems, it really does not make any difference. I'm just so tired of hoping against hope and then ... Carl Levin and Reid let us down ... again

So what difference does another Repuke mean - not much

[sheshe2]

71. Yes it does matter!

Reid can not push a filibuster vote, unless he Has the Votes! Reid did not cave...other Dems did. Let's call them out instead of Mr. Reid!

[Cha]

74. I'm thinking it matters a whole lot to you Dems in Mass, eh

she?

[Cha]

73. Hello.. it does most certainly matter to the people of Mass and to

the Senate. Bernie Sanders said on the Ed show that Reid only had 47 votes for the Filibuster Reform. So with 2014 coming up we need all the Dem Senators we can get. I'm betting Kerry voted for Reform as will Ed Markey.

Defeatist attitude never helped anything that I'm aware of.

[Ken Burch]

77. If they love this guy so much, why did they vote him out three months ago?

n/t.

[madville]

89. This time he doesn't have to run with President Obama on the ticket

That will certainly affect turnout

[Mass]

92. Thanks for posting this POS. and thanks to TPM for this as well.

MassInc is a poor pollster in general, and this one is even worse with internals that are simply stupid (1/3 of the sample comes from Western/Central Mass).

This poll is mostly a push poll to get Scott Brown to run, because at this point, it seems he wants to skip this one and run for governor in 2014.

I understand many do not understand MA politics, but this is a poll with a sample of 400, in an election that has not yet started, and a huge bias.

And now that you have had your moment of panic, sleep well.

Here is a poll from TPM from 2011. They fall for all the media noise.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/poll-scott-brown-in-great-shape-heading-into-2012-reelection-campaign.php

[Mass]

94. Mass inc - Aug 2011 (When Warren announced)

http://www.wbur.org/files/2011/09/0905_wbur-senate-poll.pdf
Scott Brown 44%
Elizabeth Warren 35%

Just to say that early polls are often very wrong.

(and there was an election at this point)