Suffolk University finds that Elizabeth Warren’s support is actually holding steady in Massachusetts, despite the ongoing controversy about her dubious Cherokee ancestry claims. Sen. Scott Brown and Warren still appear to be in a dead heat:
Republican incumbent Scott Brown (48 percent) clings to a one-point lead over Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren (47 percent) in the Massachusetts race for the U.S. Senate, according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH-Boston) poll of likely general-election voters in Massachusetts.
The poll result is well within the margin of error. Five percent of voters were undecided in a race that has drawn interest from across the country, even though the primaries are months away. The race has closed since a February Suffolk University/7NEWS poll showed Brown leading Warren 49 percent to 40 percent, with 11 percent either undecided or choosing someone else.
As you can see, Warren has gained significant ground since Suffolk’s last poll in February, while Brown’s support has stagnated just below 50 percent. While the Cherokee story makes for delicious headlines and entertaining blog fodder, Massachusetts voters don’t seem to view it as a negative reflection on Warren’s personal ethics. On that point, Allahpundit points out perhaps the most telling finding in the entire poll: when asked which candidate respondents trusted more to tell the truth, 40 percent said Elizabeth Warren as opposed to 37 percent who said Scott Brown.
As AmSpec’s Aaron Goldstein writes: “If voters in Connecticut didn’t care about Richard Blumenthal misrepresenting his military service, is it really a stretch to imagine that Massachusetts voters won’t care if Elizabeth Warren lied about being Native American to advance her career?” Good point. If the state GOP is able to tie the ancestry issue to an angle Massachusetts voters do care about, maybe they can get some more mileage out of the scandal. Otherwise, it looks like Warren may be in the clear.
Democratic Party "elites" do not care if their candidates lie. They are postmodernists and consider truth to be relative. Moral people are rarely Democrats. We should calmly and precisely describe them as unethical human beings. Republicans are sometimes hypocritical and deceptive, but Democrats philosophically believe they have right to tell fibs. It is part of their ideological DNA. n nBlue collar Democrats are often very decent people. They adhere to religious values and salute the flag. These folks unfortunately bought into the nonsense that FDR saved capitalism and the party looks out for the common folk. "Elite" Democrats are almost always morally disgusting folks. Recognizing this distinction is of utmost importance.
How much proof do we need that Massachusetts voters are ethically challenged to the point of "ethics, what ethics?"
Brown beat the Democratic favorite Coakley last time around, and he's likely to beat this ultra liberal Warren who brings too many problems to the table. The Cherokee thing isn't going away, and her lack of public experience other than founding another boondoggle federal bureaucracy is going to be a drag. n nShe's a firebrand liberal and has some good slogans to toss around to the true believers, but Scott Brown is a likable man who relates well to the working people. The Boston Globe loved Coakley, and they love Warren. The kiss of death, in my opinion.
Nobody ever said that the Bay State Commonwealth possessed common sense. Politicians who will fill hands with free handouts is the only requirement necessary there . . . and in Greece also (hmmm).
Professor Warren is making us laugh. That's worth some votes.
The outlier in this is the amount of money both are spending. Warren is having to spend NOW to deal with this, and she won't have that money later. n nWhat would the poll results be if she wasn't doing this spending? That and giving Howie nCarr something to roast her with in the fall is the real impact of the fake Indian story, and while I don't know how you adjust polls for spending, it ought to be done.
We are not as all surprised as progressives all follow the Alinsky motto…. n nThe ends justify the means……
One of the election "experts" suggested something rather interesting yesterday — Elizabeth Warren and this fake-Indian story possibly damaging Obama as it brings national attention to Affirmative Retribution and the rest. Remember that both she and Obama claim to be part Cherokee, and that Obama really isn't "Black" in that he has no ancestor who suffered under segregation let alone slavery. He was raised by his white mother and her family, his father was an African national. n nContrast to Alan West, Condi Rice and others — they lived the "Black" experience that Obama never did. Throw in his pothead stories, which middle America is going to have more problems with than TeamObama thinks — believe it or not, there were K-12 students in the '70s who weren't on drugs, I was one of them, and back then there was a caste difference between "druggies" and "college bound" that is blended now. n nThere were the people who did the stuff that Obama did, and then there were the people like me, who chose not to. The Baby Boomers say the same thing, they went to college to learn something, not to protest and do drugs — and there is a visceral level of contempt for those who did that you can hear to this day. n nMitt Romney may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, it does help to be the son of a Governor being considered for POTUS, but he really did go to Europe, really was in a near-fatal car wreck (which he ought to talk about, that has to be a formative experience), really did stuff. n nObama — both of them — have had everything handed to them. Elizabeth Warren is going to make that quite clear to the nation, and hence while the Faux Indian story may not her, it will hurt Obama.