Tag Archives: Massachusetts Senate race
A brand new WBUR/MassInc poll shows that Scott Brown would be the choice of Bay State voters when matched up against many of the state’s likely Democratic candidates if the potentially imminent special election for John Kerry’s US Senate seat were held today. Clearly, WBUR reporter Fred thys had not been reading this blog lately.
Scott Brown’s 2010 victory and Elizabeth Warren’s victory last month were due primarily to factors unrelated to either of their campaigns. The fundamentals of both races pointed clearly to the eventual result. The difference is that in 2010 no one was looking at the fundamentals, while in 2012 at least one political scientist you know and love called the race ten months before Election Day by learning the lesson of 2010 and applying it.
I’ve decided to create a “can’t help but wonder” file and my first entry has to do with the decision by Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate re-election campaign to refer to his opponent as “Professor” Warren, rather than Ms or Mrs Warren. Everyone understands the thought process on this. Professors (especially Ivy League profs) are elitists, right?
If the UMass Minuteman football team were to play the New England Patriots in an exhibition game and win, how many football fans and analysts would give them a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning a re-match?
The following is a list of links to all 55 blog posts I wrote that touched on the Brown-Warren Senate race between August 16, 2011 and September 28, 2012. It is both interesting and instructive to see how well my assumptions and expectations regarding this contest have fared. At this point my only uncertainty concerns the margin of victory for Warren. I predicted a “comfortable” margin. But what is a comfortable margin? I think Warren would have to win by AT LEAST 5 points for my prediction on this score to have been accurate. Anything less, would represent over performance by the Brown campaign.
The following is my post predicting a Warren victory in next week’s Massachusetts U.S. Senate race. It appeared in this space on January 13, 2012.
The upcoming U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts between Senator Scott Brown and rising star in the Democratic Party Elizabeth Warren has, is, and will receive more than its share of analysis. The contest for the first full six year senate term since the death of Ted Kennedy is being touted as “one to watch.” According to both campaigns and virtually every journalist or pundit, it is going to be a very competitive and expensive battle. All the polls show a race that looks like it should be a squeaker.
As October surprises go, Sandy won’t rank very high. It’s hard to be surprised by a Hurricane during Hurricane season. And Sandy isn’t the political trick that dominates our mythology of presidential elections. Still, the storm barreling our way promises to intrude on the campaigns with the potential to impact the final results around the margins. It brings with it a high degree of uncertainty.
I was in Springfield’s Symphony Hall last night for the third debate between Senator Scott Brown and Professor Elizabeth Warren (note: “Professor” isn’t an insult on this site ). The debate was a good one. Professor Cunningham’s impressions were accurate in my view, but clearly understated judging by the audience’s reactions. Basically, the professor schooled the boy senator. The moderator, PBS’s Jim Madigan, did an excellent job keeping the candidates on task and policing what was one of the most boisterous crowds I’ve ever seen at a political debate.
To the consternation of many, a good number of Massachusetts voters are again flirting with a split ticket.
Why don’t citizens just listen to political scientists, party leaders, and political commentators and vote a straight party ticket?
The media’s reporting and analysis of the 2012 election is replete with two irrepressible canards: a phony notion of balance and a need to inflate the competitiveness of marquis races. Obviously, it’s literally true that even the most lopsided races are not over until they are over, so to speak, but the tendency of media analysts to break their backs trying to include positive and negative comments about both sides in campaign coverage is annoying and absurd. For example, ending every column with some version of “anything could happen” is often transparently absurd, if not dishonest.