MA: Public Policy Polling: Brown improves, but still tied

[Miles]

New Poll: Massachusetts Senator by Public Policy Polling on 2012-6-24

Summary: D: 46%, R: 46%, U: 8%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[krazen1211]

Excellent news for Scott Brown as he is well on the path to victory to do what Chafee did in 2000.

[RogueBeaver]

It all depends on the Anthony Kennedyesque blue-collar Dems and their E-Day mood.

[Joe Republic]

Excellent news for Scott Brown as he is well on the path to victory to do what Chafee did in 2000.

Win re-election, become a huge thorn in the side of Senate Republicans, lose re-election six years later, and eventually leave the Republican Party altogether and become a failing governor?  If that's really what you want...

[Vosem]

Excellent news for Scott Brown as he is well on the path to victory to do what Chafee did in 2000.

Win re-election, become a huge thorn in the side of Senate Republicans, lose re-election six years later, and eventually leave the Republican Party altogether and become a failing governor?  If that's really what you want...

Notice the qualifier 'in 2000'. I have helpfully underlined the parts of your quote that happened in 2000 for you.

[Joe Republic]

And I elaborated what happened next.  Believe it or not, things tend to keep happening after elections take place, you know.

If Krazey wants to draw a (tenuous) connection between Scott Brown and a fellow New England GOP Senator, I'm happy to play along.

[krazen1211]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

[RogueBeaver]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

They already have a candidate- Joe Kennedy III, if he wants it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

If Elizabeth Warren was male would you still perceive her as wacky? Would anybody?

[krazen1211]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

If Elizabeth Warren was male would you still perceive her as wacky? Would anybody?

Warren with her mama knows best academia background? Certainly, that is why she gets 9% less of the vote than Barack Obama, if PPP is to be believed. That will be a problem, of course, if Governor Romney was to reach 41% of the statewide vote, which he likely will, if PPP is to be believed.

Though in a state like Massachusetts she would likely get more votes as a male.


On another very interesting note Romney is certainly going to do very well in the 6th  Congressional district if he gets 41% statewide.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

If Elizabeth Warren was male would you still perceive her as wacky? Would anybody?

Warren with her mama knows best academia background? Certainly, that is why she gets 9% less of the vote than Barack Obama, if PPP is to be believed. That will be a problem, of course, if Governor Romney was to reach 41% of the statewide vote, which he likely will, if PPP is to be believed.

Though in a state like Massachusetts she would likely get more votes as a male.


On another very interesting note Romney is certainly going to do very well in the 6th  Congressional district if he gets 41% statewide.

41% or thereabouts is Romney's ceiling, and '9% less of the vote than Barack Obama' isn't set in stone, you know. Believe it or not, the courses of general election campaigns do in fact create new dynamics and situations with some frequency. The fact that Warren, despite her 'wackiness' and your presumption that my state is inherently sexist in its voting habits, is tying an incredible anodyne incumbent US Senator and has in every poll for some time doesn't seem to interest you.

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

[krazen1211]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

If Elizabeth Warren was male would you still perceive her as wacky? Would anybody?

Warren with her mama knows best academia background? Certainly, that is why she gets 9% less of the vote than Barack Obama, if PPP is to be believed. That will be a problem, of course, if Governor Romney was to reach 41% of the statewide vote, which he likely will, if PPP is to be believed.

Though in a state like Massachusetts she would likely get more votes as a male.


On another very interesting note Romney is certainly going to do very well in the 6th  Congressional district if he gets 41% statewide.

41% or thereabouts is Romney's ceiling, and '9% less of the vote than Barack Obama' isn't set in stone, you know. Believe it or not, the courses of general election campaigns do in fact create new dynamics and situations with some frequency. The fact that Warren, despite her 'wackiness' and your presumption that my state is inherently sexist in its voting habits, is tying an incredible anodyne incumbent US Senator and has in every poll for some time doesn't seem to interest you.

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

I find this line at least quite interesting. Your first half of your first sentence sets an artificial ceiling for Mr. Romney in stone, and then your remaining few sentences simultaneously claim that such things are not set in stone.

There was certainly not much of a question of Elizabeth Warren's ability to reach 46% of the vote as Martha Coakley also achieved such. I merely made an observation on the nature of politicians elected from Massachusetts in recent history.

I have no problems with the concept of education as a theory. In reality of course when I learned to compose English, it was much cheaper for the taxpayer. That is a very valid reason not to offer political power to profiteers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect that Scott Brown can accomplish the beginning and end of that as he can bail to run for governor in the open 2014 seat, yes. Certainly not the middle..

He is certainly not very like to win in 2018 as the Democrats will eventually not run a wacky female candidate in a state that doesn't elect many wacky females to begin with.

If Elizabeth Warren was male would you still perceive her as wacky? Would anybody?

Warren with her mama knows best academia background? Certainly, that is why she gets 9% less of the vote than Barack Obama, if PPP is to be believed. That will be a problem, of course, if Governor Romney was to reach 41% of the statewide vote, which he likely will, if PPP is to be believed.

Though in a state like Massachusetts she would likely get more votes as a male.


On another very interesting note Romney is certainly going to do very well in the 6th  Congressional district if he gets 41% statewide.

41% or thereabouts is Romney's ceiling, and '9% less of the vote than Barack Obama' isn't set in stone, you know. Believe it or not, the courses of general election campaigns do in fact create new dynamics and situations with some frequency. The fact that Warren, despite her 'wackiness' and your presumption that my state is inherently sexist in its voting habits, is tying an incredible anodyne incumbent US Senator and has in every poll for some time doesn't seem to interest you.

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

I find this line at least quite interesting. Your first half of your first sentence sets an artificial ceiling for Mr. Romney in stone, and then your remaining few sentences simultaneously claim that such things are not set in stone.

It's two separate issues. We can talk about ceilings and floors until the cows come home but claiming that X Senate candidate will underperform or overperform Y Presidential candidate by such and such a margin is patently absurd and if you can't see why

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in Massachusetts. We elect women to statewide office. We don't happen to have had particularly competent women running for the sorts of statewide office that people in New Jersey who are blithely uninformed about Massachusetts politics would know or care about. I'm also not questioning Scott Brown's ability to reach 46% of the vote. He's more than done that in the past--granted, in an entirely different electoral situation--and is more likely than not to do it again. There's no disagreement between us on either candidate's ability to reach or exceed 46% of the vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm having trouble connecting each of the three sentences in this paragraph to each other or to any theoretical skeleton of an ongoing argument, despite your use of the phrase 'of course' and the word 'reason'. That is a very valid reason to think that your English composition lessons were not as good as you think they were.

[Miles]

I'm having trouble connecting each of the three sentences in this paragraph to each other or to any theoretical skeleton of an ongoing argument, despite your use of the phrase 'of course' and the word 'reason'. That is a very valid reason to think that your English composition lessons were not as good as you think they were.

This is how krazen learned to construct English sentences:

NOUN- ARTICLE- VERB- OF COURSE.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm having trouble connecting each of the three sentences in this paragraph to each other or to any theoretical skeleton of an ongoing argument, despite your use of the phrase 'of course' and the word 'reason'. That is a very valid reason to think that your English composition lessons were not as good as you think they were.

This is how krazen learned to construct English sentences:

NOUN- ARTICLE- VERB- OF COURSE.

I keep hoping he's using some fun and playful (by English standards) method of rhetoric like kishōtenketsu or something, but then I remember that there are only three sentences in that paragraph, and kishōtenketsu requires at least four, and that makes me very sad again.

[krazen1211]

It's two separate issues. We can talk about ceilings and floors until the cows come home but claiming that X Senate candidate will underperform or overperform Y Presidential candidate by such and such a margin is patently absurd and if you can't see why.

If anything, ceilings and floors are far more exposed to fluctuating conditions and far less set in stone due to fluctuations in population and voting behaviors over time.

The advantage of an incumbent Senator compared to Y Presidential candidate, is quite set in stone and is backed by historical election results. The specific margin of said advantage is certainly up for debate, but unless Nathan has a crystal ball, it is certainly prudent to make an observation based on available polls. Unless of course you don't like polls at all.

I certainly agree though, with your hint that Elizabeth Warren is not particularly competent.

I'm having trouble connecting each of the three sentences in this paragraph to each other or to any theoretical skeleton of an ongoing argument, despite your use of the phrase 'of course' and the word 'reason'. That is a very valid reason to think that your English composition lessons were not as good as you think they were.

Oh? You seem very confused.

There is nothing at all hypocritical about wanting to pay reasonable wages for 6 million education employees as this nation did in 1990, but balking at 8 million excessively paid education employees doing the work that 6 million cheaper employees were capable of doing in 1990.

That is merely being prudent and looking out for the interests of the private sector taxpayer.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's two separate issues. We can talk about ceilings and floors until the cows come home but claiming that X Senate candidate will underperform or overperform Y Presidential candidate by such and such a margin is patently absurd and if you can't see why.

If anything, ceilings and floors are far more exposed to fluctuating conditions and far less set in stone due to fluctuations in population and voting behaviors over time.

The advantage of an incumbent Senator compared to Y Presidential candidate, is quite set in stone and is backed by historical election results. The specific margin of said advantage is certainly up for debate, but unless Nathan has a crystal ball, it is certainly prudent to make an observation based on available polls. Unless of course you don't like polls at all.

This is all very neat and tidy, the problem is that other than certain elements of the first sentence none of it is actually true, and you are in fact the first person I have ever met whose attitude towards polling, which is hardly consistent in your interpretation of all polls I might add, hinges upon subtracting numbers from one race from numbers from another and then assigning values to the latter in order to determine the former (and doing this for only one of the candidates! Brown is out-polling Romney by 7 points. Therefore Romney has to get 43% of the vote in Massachusetts for Brown to win reelection. QED).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kerry Healey and Martha Coakley certainly were not. Elizabeth Warren, of course, has not yet lost an election for those Massachusetts political offices that stupid people from other states are familiar with, and hence cannot yet be judged in terms of such loss.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh? You seem very confused.

There is nothing at all hypocritical about wanting to pay reasonable wages for 6 million education employees as this nation did in 1990, but balking at 8 million excessively paid education employees doing the work that 6 million cheaper employees were capable of doing in 1990.[/quote]

Of course, that would be entirely true if it were a remotely reasonable assessment of the education situation in this country, and I would have understood it perfectly had any of the three lunging, guttering, spasmodic sentences with which you expressed this sentiment in your previous post contained some rhetorical or teleological link to the other two.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is the only type of person that matters, of course.

[krazen1211]

Bypassing the large paragraphs of childish insults and lack of facts, I am nor surprised you forgot Governor Romney's victory in 2002. He even won Middlesex County, home of some of the nuttiest Professors you will see.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't see why Romney's victory ten years ago in an entirely different context to what we're currently looking at is at all relevant, unless you're solely interested in reminding me of the fact that Shannon O'Brien has a vagina, is marginally competent at what she does, and narrowly lost a statewide election, which is more relevant than anything else you've spewed in this or most other threads but is nevertheless anecdotal for reasons that, as I hope I have touched on sufficiently, relate to the existence of the past and the future. (You'll also remember that that was one of those elections in which Romney ran on a platform bearing almost no resemblance at all to his current one--granted, slightly more to Scott Brown's, but not by particularly much.) I'm glad that you can apparently recognize childish insults considering your own love of them but I'm afraid you also seem to have a tendency to register false positives, perhaps having to do with your martyr complex as a poor oppressed middle-class white man.