Warren Should Focus on Brown as a Republican To Win, Local Democrats Say

After three polls released last week showed Elizabeth Warren ahead of Scott Brown, while another showed Brown ahead of Warren, Patch surveyed influential Massachusetts Democrats to get their take on the tight race.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren should focus on Sen. Scott Brown's Republican affiliation and continue to tie him to the national GOP during the final stretch of his campaign: that's the main finding of this week's Blue Commonwealth survey of influential Massachusetts Democrats.

Three polls by three separate polling organizations showing Warren ahead of Brown—but barely—were released early last week. 

Further illustrating how tight the race has become, hours after Patch sent the survey out to Massachusetts Republicans, another poll by UMass Lowell and the Boston Herald showed Brown ahead of Warren by 6 points, with a 5.5 percent margin of error, after an UMass Lowell/Herald poll nine months ago had Warren leading by 7.

Almost half of the influential Massachusetts Democrats that Patch surveyed, 48.2 percent, said that Warren's reported rise in the polls is most likely attributable to a post-Democratic National Convention bump that energized Democrats and left-leaning independents, while 29.6 percent attributed it to other factors, such as grassroots strength and voters "learning more about both candidates."

Those surveyed expressed confidence in the efficacy of Warren's get-out-the-vote organization compared to Brown's, with 37 percent saying it's "much better" than Brown's and 40.7 percent saying it's "somewhat better."

Reach Out to All Demographic Groups

The Western New England University (WNEU)'s Polling Institute's poll last week showed Brown leading Warren among male voters 49-44, while Warren led among female voters in the same poll 55-40. Asked which strategy Warren should focus on regarding the gender gap, influential Massachusetts Democrats were split: 37 percent said she should focus on cementing and extending her lead with female voters, 25.9 percent said she should try to make gains among male voters, and 33.3 percent voted "other."

In the "other" responses, some Democrats said Warren shouldn't focus on one demographic or another and go after voters from both groups, with one respondent adding that in focusing on both groups, Warren should be "providing a message that meets the needs of all, not some."

Asked how Warren could win over either male or female voters, some respondents focused on the 'War on Women' theme used by Warren's campaign to cement and extend her lead with female voters.

"Remind women that if Brown wins and the Republicans take back the Senate, it will be bad for women on reproductive issues, women's health, and workplace issues," one respondent wrote. "And that Brown tried to bully Warren during the first debate and obviously feels intimidate by smart, successful women, since he keeps sarcastically referring to her as 'The Professor.'"

Other respondents urged Warren's campaign to focus on economic issues, such as taxes and bills such as the American Jobs Act, and contrast her stances on those issues with Brown's, while connecting Brown to the national GOP's stances on the issues.

Define Scott Brown as Republican, Not Independent

Asked what should be the primary issue that Warren should focus on during the final stretch of the campaign, most of the survey respondents said that Warren should go after Brown for his voting record, which respondents described as "not independent" and "consistently with the Republican right wing."

Some respondents said that in defining Brown as a Republican, the Warren campaign should also emphasize the possibility of Republicans controlling the Senate, while others said Warren should focus on contrasting her views on economic issues with Republicans' views. 

"Republican economic policies gave the middle class almost a decade of stagnation, followed by an economic collapse from which we're still recovering," one respondent wrote. "Once again, the GOP 'solution' is more tax cuts for the super-rich. We tried that, and it didn't work. Scott Brown says he's independent, but he only acts that way when it's easy. On the hard votes, on the important votes, Scott Brown toes the party line." 

Brown and Warren had their first debate of four last week and most of the respondents leaned towards the debates deciding the race, with 59.3 somewhat agreeing it would be the deciding factor in the race and 18.5 percent strongly agreeing. Another 18.5 percent were neutral on the impact the debates would have on the race.

Red and Blue Commonwealth Survey
Our surveys are not a scientific, random sample of any larger population, but rather an effort to listen to a group of influential local Republican and Democratic activists, party leaders, candidates and elected officials in Massachusetts. All of these individuals have agreed to participate in Massachusetts’ Patch surveys, although not all responded to this story’s questions. Answers have been edited for style, but not for content.

Patch will be conducting Red Commonwealth and Blue Commonwealth surveys throughout the 2012 election season in hopes of determining the true sentiment of conservatives and progressives on the ground in Massachusetts. If you are an activist, party leader or elected official and would like to take part in periodic surveys that last just a few minutes, contact Associate Regional Editor Daniel DeMaina at danield@patch.com.

Note: This article is published across multiple Patch sites in the area.

Diana October 01, 2012 at 12:48 AM
I find it fascinating that in your fevered mind all the failings of people who agree with you can be attributed to the government. Seriously, you should be studied or something.
Diana October 01, 2012 at 12:51 AM
For the particularly notable ones likely more, especially with Mitt Romney's generous donations to the school. Warren taught at Harvard Law, incidentally.
Ron October 01, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Isn't that what the BO Admin want? People to depend on the gouvermemt. I mean with the vast majority of job growth thats being reported being Federal jobs. Remember, small business wasn't able to do it by themselves. Someone (Gov) helped thrm do that.
Charles Towne October 01, 2012 at 01:24 AM
@ Diana, go ahead and say it. The waitress is a racist (and it doesn't matter what color she is) just like the great Dem Robert Byrd..
Charles Towne October 01, 2012 at 01:29 AM
If the Republicans are the party of the rich, then why do 7 of the top 10 members of Congress (that's the House and Senate) have a "D" after their names? Go ahead Diana, I know you can "Google" it. Why aren't George Soros and Warren Buffett for Romney?
lcgrz October 01, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Where do you get your numbers, Ron? The majority of job growth (~4.5 million) since this administration took office has been in the private sector. Net growth in the public sector has been negative.
Bob Ferrari October 01, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Lyawatha...' nough said.
Bob October 01, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Alan, I have been accused of being a racist all my life by liberal pukes and black racists who knew nothing of me except I grew up in South Boston. People who actually know me (many close black friends) have never heard me utter a racist utterance in the 40+ years they have known me. I have friends of all races, religions and nationalities. Unlike the Democrats of today, I listened to MLK and I do not judge by color of skin but content of their character! Your thought is wrong. It is the white guilt liberals that are trying to over compensate for their racism. I know many catholic democrats and they are some of the most closet racist people I hope to even come across. Look in the mirror and stop trying to project. The left has taken ANY disagreement about anything and twisted it into a racist or sexist attack. Nice strawman on affirmative action. I won't dignify it with a response. Your assumptions on Warren benefiting are just that. Ask yourself this simple question... If Warren didn't self identify as Native American, where did Harvard get the idea of listing her as such? Did they just make it up? Someone did and they got large amounts of federal money because she was identified to the federal government as a Native American. I know lying is OK in Democrat circles but come on!
Bob October 01, 2012 at 01:18 PM
Mike, The American Jobs Act of 2011 was voted against by a large number of Senate Democrats. It was unworkable. They have since, with Brown's bi-partisan mind set, passed several sections that did help a little. Rebuild America Jobs Act - Was defeated with 2 Democrats voting against while the same day a Republican jobs bill was voted down 47-53. I expect you are not happy with Kerry on that one? Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act - would saddle the local communities with a bill to pay or lay them off next year. With fewer people paying taxes, we cannot afford to add public payroll without cutting somewhere else. It is a simple issue of economics. It was a pander bill to rile up the unions and get them to intimidate as they always do.
Bob October 01, 2012 at 01:19 PM
Diana, how about the President who support equal pay but pays women in his WH less than the men?
Ron October 01, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Do you think the likely more notable ones checked a box to get more or did they get more because they where male?
fred October 01, 2012 at 01:38 PM
2nd that
quasimodo October 01, 2012 at 01:49 PM
@Ron Typical: "don't bother me with facts, I've made up my mind." Here are some facts you obviously want to ignore (it's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) 28 consecutive months of private-sector job gains nationally, dating back to March 2010. 4.2 million jobs created in the private-sector during this same period, an increase of 4 percent. 22 months during which the number of government jobs declined, out of the last 28 months, including losses of government jobs the last four months and 10 out of the last 11 months. 576,000: Government jobs lost during this period, a decline of 2.6 percent.
Ron October 01, 2012 at 01:51 PM
Made them up, just like Lying Liz Warren and Howard Dean. I guess it depends on what you call private sector and what those jobs are for. Would any jobs that GM adds be considered Private or Federal and why won't the Obama Administration sell back the 25% of GM that it owns? Are they includeing the jobs to help welfare recipients register to vote? Deval approved 300K for OT for Warren's daughter's group to make sure those on welfare who are not registered get the necessary paperwork so they can vote. No idea why those people haven't been able to do this to date but I'm sure there are valid reasons, might be similar to reasons that Lying Liz couldn't keep up on her license to practice law in NJ and TX. Unfortunately Bill Gavin has missed the date to get the proper paperwork to our military overseas so they have the same rights. Will our Military voters not have a voice in the upcoming elections? I'd imagine we can all agree that voice of our Mass Military members overseas should be counted as well as those on welfare?
Who Me? October 01, 2012 at 02:53 PM
quasimodo October 01, 2012 at 05:04 PM
@Ron So, smarty, if you think these statistics have been made up, why don't you provide us with your "real" statistics, including the sources (if there are any, that is, Rush, maybe?)? Furthermore, why include in your answer a tirade about voter registration, which has nothing to do with the employment stats? Really, Ron, your a poor debater.
A Taker October 01, 2012 at 05:10 PM
and your a pour grammaticist.
Ron October 01, 2012 at 05:46 PM
I don't believe the numbers because everyone knows that numbers you can make any point, you just need to massage them to move the needle until you get the result you want. I don't believe the numbers that the Obama Administration claims because I don't believe they are able to tell the truth about anything when the truth is not as beautiful as the "Eye Candy" that he is. Your smart enough to know that numbers can make anything look good, I can tell you are. What happens when people fall off the unemployment scale? Are they factored into any of the figures that are reported anywhere? I heard (no way of knowing the actual numbers but I'm sure you do) that close to 80M Americans between 18-65 are without work (either can't find work, can't afford the pay cut compared to the assistance they're getting or have stopped looking). If your private sector job numbers are correct than over the past 28 months less than 4 have been created. With so many people looking is 4% good? Sorry about the voter registration tirade. Didn't mean to offend. As long as Lying Liz's daughter can get voting information out at home first. The Military can wait. They love BO anyway. I will agree with you about this Quasi, you are correct. I am a poor debater, I admit it, I didn’t realize that I was in a debate with the undisputed Mass Debating Champ. You wear and represent the belt well Quasi.
Patricia October 01, 2012 at 07:00 PM
As a woman I say that women should not be treated differently in a debate -or anything for that matter. If she or you feel as a woman, she should be treated differently, I guess that would be sexist.
Bob October 01, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Patricia, didn't you hear? It was because of 16 years of Republican Governors in a state where Republicans have 16% of the elected officials!
Vincent DiRico October 01, 2012 at 08:18 PM
well said Bob!
quasimodo October 02, 2012 at 01:10 AM
A Maker wrote: "and your a pour grammaticist." Are you kidding me? In a 5-word "sentence," you have 2 mistakes and a word which does not exist in the English language! Good work, Maker. :~))
quasimodo October 02, 2012 at 01:19 AM
Like I said, Ron, first, stay on the topic (no need to be a great debater for that). Second, if you have numbers, any numbers, which can bring some light on the subject, good, and let us on them. Personally, I might learn that I was wrong, having been fooled (once more) by my Government.
Vincent DiRico October 02, 2012 at 02:26 AM
q-modo: The job #s are spun more than a spiders web, they start counting when convenient, ... Real #s are: - unemployment then 7.8% now 8.3% - median income then $54,983 now $50,964 - gasoline / gal then $1.85 now $3.87 - national debt then $10.6 trillion now > $16 trillion - food stamps then 28 million now 47 million - ssi/disability then 7.4 million now 8.7 million - Mr 0-care STEALS $716 billion from Medicare - no plan to balance our budget (dirty Harry has not passed a budget in over 3 years! where is the criticism there?) - Mr 0 cannot build a consensus on matters that matter, he is a divider in chief - foreign policy in the middle east is in flames, new chant for Joe B "OSL is dead and al-Qaeda is ALIVE", Russia waits to hear what hush hush extra flexibility Mr 0 will have after the election - GDP was just adjusted down, the economy is almost in a STALL (0 growth), in a good recovery it should be going UP - ... Mr 0 is in over his head, there is NO proof he'd do any different/better over the next 4 years. I look forward to your attempt at spinning these numbers/points.
Vincent DiRico October 02, 2012 at 02:34 AM
This from Clinton News Network http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fact-check-4-5-million-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009. When Democrats use the 4.5 million jobs number, they're referring to jobs created after the economy bottomed out in January 2010, one year after Obama took office. That time frame excludes the worst job losses, which took place in 2009, and which many Democrats argue were the result of Bush policies. CNN concludes: "The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."
Phil October 02, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If Warren wanted to run for the senate, why didn't she run in Oklahoma? She ran in Mass because the National Democratic Party put up the $ to try to grab 1 of 50 seats in the senate. She will be voting the party line whatever it is. Brown ran against Martha (the heir) to Ted's seat. Yes he got national money but he worked for Mass. I didn't agree with all of his votes. Some may have been naive or just plain dumb. At least he was trying, not just a rubber stamp.
Vincent DiRico October 02, 2012 at 07:20 PM
crickets, typical!
Vincent DiRico October 03, 2012 at 04:13 PM
Kevin, did you see the debate and SB's thoughts on the mortgage interest deduction last night?
Laurie October 04, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Diana, I totally agree. Have you noticed how Scott Brown, always refers to himself, as Independent? Did he change his political affiliation in the middle of the campaign?
Laurie October 04, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Is that you mittens? We know you don't want to get caught again talkin bad about the 47%!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »