The other day I slammed the generic content on the issues page of Michael Sullivan's new web site. Today in the Globe, Eric Moskowitz reveals that it's even worse than I thought -- it's pretty much all lifted from the web site of the last campaign Paul Moore managed, for congressional candidate Richard Tisei.
Rank the Congressional delegation on likelihood of running for an open US Senate seat in a special to replace Kerry.
Aha! A political Q. I'll include current and incoming.
1. Steve Lynch
2. Michael Capuano
3. Ed Markey
4. Niki Tsongas
5. Joe Kennedy
6. Bill Keating
7. Barney Frank
8. Jim McGovern
9. Joe Olver
10. Richard Neal
11. John Tierney
Scotto has announced his bottom-line numbers for the second quarter of 2012, following E-Dubs. Neither of them included their spending figures, but having both a + and - button on my calculator I have been able to compute that Elizabeth Warren spent about $6 million and Scott Brown spent about $4.4 million.
That's an awful lot of money before the All Star Break.
On a morning conference call, E-Dubs & Barney Frank tried to convince the media to cover something of substance. Then Scotto said something goofy that lent itself well to jokes, so the Democrats spent all day making jokes about it, and the media covered that.
A lot of people are going to be puzzling over Scott Brown's decision to turn down a proposed debate proposed by Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the legendary previous holder of Brown's US Senate seat; and hosted by the new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the US Senate and the University of Massachusetts-Boston.
I have a possible answer that I can sum up in three words: The Catholic Church.
So today on Twitter I got goaded into writing Massachusetts-politics lyrics for the currently most-parodied song around, Call Me Maybe. My first quick attempt prompted Senator John Kerry to Tweet: "how did Weld and I get thru 96 without a song like this?"
With that endorsement, here's what I came up with....
I threw a vote in for Scott
Now that all the alternatives have been dispatched, we officially have a five-month heavyweight one-on-one slugfest between Republican US Senator Scott "Scotto" Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth "E-Dubs" Warren. I might be the only one using those particular nicknames, but the important thing is that, in a heavily promoted Pay Per View event like this, the contestants need nicknames.
I have to hand it to the Elizabeth Warren team, and their partners Deval Patrick and John Walsh, for convincing the gullible press -- including me -- that an obscure candidate with no funding, no staff, little organization, and no noticable presence at the vast majority of caucuses had gained the support of 15 percent of Democratic Party delegates to the state convention to be the party's candidate for US Senate against incumbent Scott Brown.
Brian McGrory has an odd column today, in which he proclaims the Elizabeth Warren heritage mess a legitimate campaign issue calling into question her "integrity, credibility, and authenticity," and thus her fitness for high office.
I was interested to read his argument, because I've been trying to pose this question of late, and want to open it up now for public response: What about this Cherokee heritage story should dissuade voters from giving Warren their vote? (Not whether it will, which is a political analysis question, but whether it should.
The new Suffolk poll released late last night shows the US Senate race in Massachusetts as effectively dead-even, with Scott Brown at 48% and Elizabeth Warren at 47%. This is a big improvement for Warren over Suffolk's February poll, which had Brown ahead 49%-40%.
I'm going to make two quick arguments here: that the Cherokee-heritage story has helped Warren; and that the poll actually holds some good news for Brown.
Suffolk University is releasing a poll on the Massachusetts US Senate race tomorrow, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) just released its own poll, taken May 8-10 of likely voters, showing the race tied, 46%-46%.
The Elizabeth Warren camp tends to think that Suffolk skews to Scott Brown -- they had him ahead 49%-40% in February.
"Jack" goes back to the US Senate race:
Elizabeth Warren is meeting with Bay Staters, face to face, in small and
large groups, at a steady pace. Contrast that with Coakley, who didn't
have the time or inclination to present herself. Also, Brown is tied up
in Washington, for now. Further, Brown is known mostly by
public persona, rather than direct contact with residents/voters.
"KZB," who is clearly a horrible troublemaker, asks:
Call it now -- who wins, Brown or Warren? By how much?
Call it now -- who wins, Brown or Warren? By how much?
Brown by 3 percentage points. But the confidence level on that is low, and the margin of error is high.
Off we go on a fabulous Ask Me Anything Day! First up, "jessiekb" asks:
Will delegates to the Democratic state convention give Marisa Defranco
the 15% she needs in order to appear on the primary ballot in September?
Yes. Just about every Democratic insider I've asked thinks so, and I get no sense that top party and Elizabeth Warren people are willing to make the kind of effort it would take to prevent it -- if they can.
In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I write that US Senator Scott Brown will be very difficult to beat this November.
Recent polls have shown him lead Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, which seemed to come as a shock to a lot of Massachusetts Democrats and Washington pundits.