Why Is Scott Brown Losing in Massachusetts? By Michael Graham The question Massachusetts Republicans are asking themselves today isnât âHow did Scott Brown do in last nightâs debate?â but rather, âIs there anything Scott can do that will make a difference?â The two debates thus far â and there are two more coming â are widely seen as washes. No big winners or losers. The polls, on the other hand, have been moving in Warrenâs direction. Sheâs got a small â two to five point â but consistent lead. And when you look at the crosstabs, the polls are even worse. The latest Boston Globe poll, for example, finds that Senator Brown has a high favorability rating, beats Professor Warren 2â1 as the most âlikeableâ candidate, and is seen as an independent, bipartisan representative of Massachusetts. And heâs losing. Why? Because heâs not a Democrat. And in Massachusetts in 2012, that may be all that matters. People outside Massachusetts tend to forget just how partisan this state is. Until Scott Brownâs special-election win in 2010, there hadnât been a Republican at the federal level in Massachusetts since 1996. In 2010, as the tea-party-powered GOP tide swept the U.S., not a single statewide Democrat lost an election â not even the Democrat running for auditor who had been caught cheating on her taxes weeks before the election. These facts fly in the face of the myth treasured by the Massachusetts political media that Bay State voters âare actually very independent.â In truth, they are overwhelmingly Democrats who only twice since 2000 have elected a Republican to any state or federal office â and one of those Republicans is about to lose his home state in a presidential race by the biggest margin in history. Elizabeth Warren understands that, which is why she kept repeating the âmarching in lockstep with Republicansâ line last night. She wants a purely partisan battle in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3â1. Senator Brown understands it, too. Thatâs one reason he keeps talking about the Native American issue and Warrenâs corporate clients â he wants voters focused on the candidates as people, not their party affiliation. But when youâre outnumbered this badly, personality alone isnât enough. Which is why Senator Brown is making an affirmative argument for electing an âindependent voice,â as he puts it, âwho can reach across the aisle and get things done.â Which is why the best moment of the debate for Senator Brown was when Warren was asked to name a Republican senator she could work with. âRichard Lugar,â she replied â an unfortunate choice given that he lost his primary election earlier this year and wonât be in the Senate if she gets there. Worse, she couldnât name another Republican. Scott Brown immediately seized upon the moment, making the case that if you want Washington to work, if you want bipartisan action, then sending another hard-core partisan like Warren to Washington is a mistake. Which brings us back to the main question of this election: Do Massachusetts Democrats really want âgood-government bipartisanship?â Or would they rather just elect a fellow Democrat and call it a day?
Remember how Scott Brown was elected - as the one republican that could have stopped Obamacare. He was the deciding vote the first time around. Then what did he do? He sided with the left on a bunch of things that left his conservative base (yes, there is some in Mass, that's how he got elected) completely de-energized. Poetic justice, in my opinion.
I am wondering whether people such as homosexuals, bodybuilders, exercise nuts, and young females voted him in the first time based on looks without knowing his political views. He is an accident of democracy, like W. when voted because people saw in him someone they could take a beer with. (if beer is extended to his case, it may look like f***). This time they would vote him to run a gym at the corner, or to sell sports cars and the like. Warren spent her time thinking, reading, writing, and he may have spent his time in a gym, and laying cream on his body, etc.