Back in August, I offered a pre-Labor Day view of the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren race for US Senate here in Massachusetts. I suggested that Warren was in trouble on the emotional front having "failed, so far, to convey in a visceral way who she is and why we should like her."
The polls now show a close race with Warren ahead by several points. I'm hearing otherwise in my unscientific research. My non-random sample (in Middlesex county) has been college-education, employed men and women who view themselves as being on the liberal end of the political spectrum. I first ask them how they handicap the race and, without provocation, most then tell me how they really feel. These are the kind of sentiments I get from men:
He's a good guy who works in a bi-partisan manner. We need people like that in a divided Congress.
From women:
I feel like she is lecturing at me, and I am tired of it. I don't want to have to listen to that for the next six years.
From both:
Isn't it a good idea for Massachusetts to have some Republicans in the delegation?
These reactions are in spite of an acknowledgment that they might agree more with Warren's policy prescriptions.
Interestingly, the presence of young Joe Kennedy as the apparently anointed replacement for Congressman Barney Frank may have a spill-over effect into the Senate race. People seem to take his election as a sure thing because of the family dynasty, but they are uncomfortable with that presumption, even if they plan to vote for him. How odd if his being on the ballot actually causes cross-overs to Brown!
Speaking of cross-overs, let's consider the impact of the elimination of polling machines--where you just run you hand down a bunch of levers and vote for one party--to the use of paper ballots--where you can't. I voted early this week because I will be away for election day. You have to work hard to vote a party line. The placement of the Democrat and Republican on the ballot is different in each race (President, Senator, Representative.) While Obama will sweep the state (after all, we really know Romney!) I expect to see a lot of cross-overs this year in the other races in Massachusetts.
The polls now show a close race with Warren ahead by several points. I'm hearing otherwise in my unscientific research. My non-random sample (in Middlesex county) has been college-education, employed men and women who view themselves as being on the liberal end of the political spectrum. I first ask them how they handicap the race and, without provocation, most then tell me how they really feel. These are the kind of sentiments I get from men:
He's a good guy who works in a bi-partisan manner. We need people like that in a divided Congress.
From women:
I feel like she is lecturing at me, and I am tired of it. I don't want to have to listen to that for the next six years.
From both:
Isn't it a good idea for Massachusetts to have some Republicans in the delegation?
These reactions are in spite of an acknowledgment that they might agree more with Warren's policy prescriptions.
Interestingly, the presence of young Joe Kennedy as the apparently anointed replacement for Congressman Barney Frank may have a spill-over effect into the Senate race. People seem to take his election as a sure thing because of the family dynasty, but they are uncomfortable with that presumption, even if they plan to vote for him. How odd if his being on the ballot actually causes cross-overs to Brown!
Speaking of cross-overs, let's consider the impact of the elimination of polling machines--where you just run you hand down a bunch of levers and vote for one party--to the use of paper ballots--where you can't. I voted early this week because I will be away for election day. You have to work hard to vote a party line. The placement of the Democrat and Republican on the ballot is different in each race (President, Senator, Representative.) While Obama will sweep the state (after all, we really know Romney!) I expect to see a lot of cross-overs this year in the other races in Massachusetts.