Does having a leftist challenge hurt or help Hillary?

By Richard Barry

Go get 'em, Bernie

It is being reported that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, will announce on Thursday his intention to run for president in 2016. Though an Independent, he plans to enter the primary and caucus contests as a Democrat, according to his advisors.

Sanders, who calls himself an independent socialist, will of course be running to the left of Hillary Clinton. The question is whether that helps her or hurts her.

I like Senator Sanders. I like Senator Warren. But if the left-wing of the Democratic Party thinks Hillary Clinton is incapable of successfully addressing a challenge from their quarter, they are mistaken.

Despite what we hear from the vocal left of the Democratic Party, the American electorate is quite conservative, as is the Democratic Party. Sanders will say important things about income inequality, the challenges facing the poor and the middle class, and the need to better regulate Wall Street, etc., etc., and Hillary will agree with him, but she will also position herself as a moderate when dealing with various scourges because that is where the votes are. Yes, she will care, and she will promise to do things, but not too much and not too fast, but thank you Senator Sanders for providing contrast.

If you haven't noticed, Hillary is already doing a decent of job of holding Elizabeth Warren close.

I am trying to imagine an issue on which Sanders will seriously challenge Clinton that will have a significantly adverse impact on her vote share in the general election. Sanders will not be there for the general election, and not being far enough to the left will matter not at all when it comes time for Clinton to face off against the GOP nominee.

The greatest danger, and I truly hate to say this, is that Hillary will allow herself to be so spooked by her left flank that she gives away too much and alienates moderate voters who could vote for a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

What a world.

Hillary Clinton's left-speak

By Richard K. Barry

Don't you sometimes wonder how much Hillary Clinton is really enjoying having to share even a small part of the stage with "darling-of-the-left" Sen. Elizabeth Warren?

Oh, sure, in the latest edition of Time magazine, Clinton was asked to contribute a short piece on her BFF Elizabeth in a feature on the world's 100 most influential people, and no doubt gladly complied. 

"She never hesitates to hold powerful people's feet to the fire: bankers, lobbyists, senior government officials and, yes, even presidential aspirants," Clinton, the clear front-runner to win the Democratic nomination for president, wrote in an apparent wink to herself.

"Elizabeth Warren never lets us forget that the work of taming Wall Street's irresponsible risk taking and reforming our financial system is far from finished," Clinton wrote in Time after the magazine named Warren, a former Harvard law professor and a senator for Massachusetts, one of the world's 100 most influential people.

Though Clinton has talked about fighting growing income inequality, we know virtually nothing about what specific policies she might propose or how, for example, she might increase Wall Street regulation.

But there she is, making the right noises.

One of the more foolish things said in politics concerns the potential danger of pissing off a significant flank of a given party such as the far left of the Democrats or far right of the Republicans. Some say it doesn't matter because "where are they going to go?", meaning they aren't going to vote for the other party.

No, but they could stay home, forget to vote, forget to volunteer, or forget to give money.

The left-wing of the Democratic Party is increasingly vocal and active. They know Hillary is not really their cup of tea, but if she at least makes an effort to say a few things to placate them, it could help her immeasurably.

And if she has to do it by smiling through gritted teeth while embracing Senator Warren, that's okay.

Elizabeth Warren's charm

By Richard K. Barry

I fully understand why Hillary Clinton is still playing hard to get. Though we all know she will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, she has to roll out that fact on her own timetable in order to minimize her exposure as a target for her opponents. 

Elizabeth Warren will not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, and though I think her "economic populist" message is one of the most important recent themes in American politics, Ms. Warren is not ready for prime time. 

Still, she is a hot ticket, especially on the fund-raising circuit. As per Huffington Post:  

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is quickly becoming a top Democratic fundraiser and campaign powerhouse, hitting the road on behalf of candidates in key races the party will need to win to retain control of the U.S. Senate in November.

Since March, the Massachusetts Democrat has stumped for candidates in Ohio, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Kentucky and has trips planned this week for West Virginia and Michigan. It's a hefty schedule for a freshman senator who not long ago was teaching law at Harvard.

Campaigning in Kentucky with Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, Warren had this to say about Senate Republican efforts to scuttle a bill that would let college grads refinance their students loans at lower rates: 

When you've got a choice between billionaires and students, Mitch McConnell says it is more important to protect the billionaires.

Not that this is overly incendiary stuff, but it is the kind of stuff I'd like more of those in the Democratic leadership say. I'd really like Hillary Clinton to beat this particular drum, though I'm not holding my breath.  She and Bill are simply too close to the boys and girls on Wall Street and wouldn't want to suggest that the wealthier sort are a great part of the problem, not the solution.  In the words of Bush '41: 'Not gonna happen."

Yes, Hillary is the best way to ensure the GOP doesn't get its grubby little hands on the White House. For that reason alone I'm on board. Sad that American politics has come to this.

As for Elizabeth Warren, it's probably too late for her ever to run for the presidency, though she can do some fine work in the Senate. And if, in the longer run,  she encourages a few on the left to understand that you don't fundamentally change a corrupt system by begging the wealthiest in the land for table scraps, we could do worse.

Are you listening, Hill?

Run Elizabeth run!

By Richard K. Barry

Sen. Elizabeth Warren got a standing ovation at a progressive conference on Wednesday in Washington. She was encouraged by some to run for the presidency as they chanted "run, Elizabeth, run!" She, however, made it clear for the umpteenth time that she would not be doing that.

 

As reported by The Hill:

Her well-received speech at the liberal Campaign For America’s Future (CAF) conference only underscores liberals’ growing frustration in finding an alternative to all but undeclared frontrunner and former secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Progressive groups such as CAF, which helped launch then-Sen. Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, have become increasingly more vocal about their concerns with Clintons' economic policies.

I understand the sentiment, but it's time to accept reality.  

(Cross-posted at Cultur-olio.)

Could Elizabeth Warren lead a progressive insurgency against Hillary in 2016?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's one of the speculative non-stories du jour, if still an enticing one, and, as Scott Lemieux over at LG&M writes, Noam Scheiber says yes while Jamelle Bouie says, er, not so much. Lemieux hopes that the former is right but agrees with the latter:

[W]hile I take Scheiber's point that it's too early to declare anyone inevitable, it's just going to be very difficult for anyone to beat Clinton. Clinton is a much more popular figure than Christine Quinn, so I don't think the de Blasio example gets you very far. Since I don't see a better possible candidate to challenge Clinton at this point, I hope Warren runs, but she'd have to be considered a massive underdog against Clinton.

I agree.

I want to win in 2016, and so Hillary seems like the obvious pick, and I'll back her if she wins the Democratic nomination, of course, but I have my concerns, as I did with Bill, not least because of her Republican-friendly centrism and the cadre of corporate cronies that make up so much of the Clinton inner circle, and ideally would like to see a more progressive nominee or at least for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to have more influence in the party, particularly after the less-than-impressive progressivism, to put it mildly, we've seen from Obama thus far.

And I really like Elizabeth Warren.

But let's face it, barring something crazy happening, if Hillary runs, she wins. She's already seen as more or less inevitable, and I suspect that Democrats will jump on the bandwagon sooner rather than later -- those that haven't already jumped on, that is.

Still, it would be a shame if Hillary were just crowned the nominee without any serious challenge, whether it's from Warren or some other credible progressive. At the very least, there ought to be a serious discussion of the issues that matter to us, a presentation of the alternatives, before Hillary is selected. That would be healthy for the party and also an important reminder to Hillary that there is more to the Democratic Party than her inner circle of loyalists.

Senator Warren tells it like it is

By Richard K. Barry

In a speech from the floor of the Senate. Very impressive indeed.

The cost of democracy

By Richard K. Barry

An organization called MapLight has published the average amount it cost in the 2012 campaign to run for the House or Senate:

• House members, on average, each raised $1,689,580, an average of $2,315 every day during the 2012 cycle.

• Senators, on average, each raised $10,476,451, an average of $14,351 every day during the 2012 cycle.

According to The Week, Maine Sen. Angus King got away the cheapest, raising about $3 million in campaign contributions:

Progressive icon and Wall Street critic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised $42.5 million, by far the highest total of any 2012 winner, in her bid to unseat Republican Scott Brown. That sum was more than twice the amount raised by all but two other victorious candidates in Senate or House races, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), who raised about $26 and $22 million, respectively.

Read more »

No recess appointments make filibuster worse

By Frank Moraes

Tired of hating on Harry Reid? Then click away, because I have something all new to bitch about. On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came down with a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution that will basically end recess appointments. These are temporary appointments that the president makes when the Senate is in recess. Now, I'm no great fan of these, except right now when the Republicans are so committed to obstruction that they wouldn't approve the nomination for dog catcher.

When I first started thinking about the filibuster, I thought, "Why kill it now? After all, the House is still in Republican hands. There isn't much that is going to get done anyway!" I thought that for about a nanosecond. Then I realized: presidential nominations! Obama has hardly been radical in his appointments. Consider, for example, Mary Jo White to head SEC. About the most outrageous choice was Elizabeth Warren. But she wasn't even chosen. That was just too controversial a nomination, so now that "radical" Warren is a lowly United States senator.

Yet the Republicans have blocked all kinds of minor and uncontrovertial nominations. Why? For the same reason a dog licks its balls. And this is why we needed real filibuster reform. The fact that Obama will likely not be able to make any more recess appointments makes Harry Reid's newest "handshake agreement" all that much worse.

Read more »

The sound of heads exploding on Wall Street

By Richard K. Barry

It is being reported that Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren, the arch-nemesis of big banks everywhere, is likely to be named to the Senate Banking Committee. 

According to The Boston Globe:

The appointment has not been formally announced by Senate leaders and will not be final until an official vote on assignments by the members. The pending appointment was described to the Globe by aides who requested anonymity because Senate Majority Leader Reid has not made a formal announcement.

You will recall that after Warren helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory act, Senate Republicans threatened to block her appointment to head the agency. This led to her successful bid for a Senate seat all her own.

And now she's on the Senate Banking Committee.

Bwahahahaha!!!

Kerry to the Pentagon, Rice to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

I have enormous respect for Senator Kerry and would love to see him get a senior post in the Obama Administration. He'd be a fine SecDef. (And Rice would a fine successor to Hillary.)

But I have two big concerns:

First, Democrats would lose a key voice in the Senate, particularly on foreign and military policy. Then again, he's almost 69 years old. How much longer does he want to serve as a senator? Maybe four years at the Pentagon -- with the Afghan War drawing to a close, the U.S. continuing to face nebulous threats around the world (and requiring new strategies for dealing witht them), and the military in need of major reform -- would allow him to leave a greater mark.

Second, Democrats could lose Kerry's seat in the Senate, reducing their majority. Because while Scott Brown, still a credible figure (or at least still a big name) even after his big loss to Elizabeth Warren last week, may run for the Republicans, it's not clear who the Democrats have even in solidly Democratic Massachusetts to compete for the seat in a snap election. Sure, they'd find someone, but what if that someone turned out to be as incompetent as Martha Coakley (who ran a terrible campaign and lost to Brown in 2010)? Other than Kerry, the biggest Democratic figure in the state is Gov. Deval Patrick, who proved to be something of a superstar this year supporting Obama's re-election (particularly his outstanding speech at the DNC), and he's already in his second term (having won re-election in 2010), but he's already signalled he'd rather stay where he is. But maybe. Because if not, Scott Brown might very well be a senator again.

So basically I'm fine with Kerry leaving the Senate for the Pentagon, but I'd be a lot happier about it if the Democrats found a strong candidate to replace him.

New poll: Warren strong in Massachusetts

By Richard K. Barry

Who's a happy candidate? Yes you are.

Just because I've been following this one for quite some time, I wouldn't want to miss the chance to say that Elizabeth Warren now has her biggest lead over Republican incumbent Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race. According to a PPP poll, she is up by a margin of 53-44 percent.

We know nothing is over until it's over, but this is good news for Warren.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New polls: Warren ahead of Brown in Mass.

By Richard K. Barry

In a poll released on Wednesday, Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren had a four-point lead over Republican incumbent Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race:

A Mass Insight Global Partnerships poll of 450 Bay State adults concluded that Warren is maintaining the edge on Brown, 48-44 percent, although her lead is within the 4.6 percent margin of error.

And a couple of other polls:

A WBUR/MassInc. poll released on Monday showed Warren ahead by two percentage points, 46-44, while a Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire poll released on Sunday concluded that Warren was leading by five points, 43-38 percent.

The Mass Insight poll also found this, though I'm not sure exactly what it means:

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said that Massachusetts needs to elect a Democrat to help prevent the Senate from falling under control of the national Republican Party. At the same time, 40 percent said that "having a moderate Republican senator is good for Massachusetts and the country."

Can we say that this one is still close? I will add, though, that the fact Obama will bury Romney at the top of the ticket in Massachusetts can't be bad for Warren.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New poll: Warren ahead of Brown in Mass., but race still very tight

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One of the most closely-watched Senate races this year is taking place in Massachusetts between incumbent Republican Scott Brown, who is trying to straddle the internal Republican divide between the extremist Tea Party and the somewhat more moderate establishment, and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, a progressive favorite who isn't exactly the most dynamic campaigner.

It looked early on like Brown had a small but clear advantage, reflected in the polls, as he appeared to be the sort of pragmatic Republican who has done well in the state (like former Govs. Weld and, yes, Romney), but Romney's unpopularity, not to mention the Republican Party's generally, along with his own Romney-like shiftiness on the issues, has pulled him down somewhat, and Warren's effective campaign, highlighted by her prominent appearance at the Democratic convention earlier this month, has helped her pull even and even into a small lead.

Following on a poll a couple of weeks ago that showed Warren with a 6-point lead, the Globe finds a similar result:

With Elizabeth Warren and Senator Scott Brown preparing for their second debate Monday night, Warren appears to be inching ahead in the highly competitive race for Senate, as Massachusetts Democrats energized by the presidential race begin to fall in line behind her, according to a new Globe poll.

Warren, a Democrat, leads Brown, a Republican, 43 percent to 38 percent, a shift from the Globe's last poll in May, when Brown held a 2-point lead. But the race remains within either candidate's grasp, with 18 percent of voters still undecided, said Andrew E. Smith, the Globe’s pollster and the director of the University of New Hampshire ­Survey Center.

And the trend is clear:

This survey is the sixth of eight public polls taken this month that show Warren ahead.

Warren's lead is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent, meaning a spread of as much as 8 percentage points between the candidates would still statistically count as a dead heat. Still, the survey is sobering for Brown six weeks before the election.

"It's trending away from Brown," said Smith. "Brown right now is not doing well enough among Democrats to offset the advantage that ­Warren has," said Smith. "That's just such a big obstacle to overcome for any Republican candidate" in Massachusetts.

The large number of undecideds means this race is far from over, but obviously it helps Warren to have a surging Obama at the top of the ticket.

And Brown, now in ugly attack-mode, isn't helping himself by going racist as he finds himself in an increasingly desperate situation.

Landslide? Fight even harder!

By Infidel753

Even dwellers in the right-wing alternate-reality bubble are getting hard-pressed to deny it:  the polls are looking very good for our side these days. The RCP average this morning shows Obama up 4% nationally, boosted by a Gallup tracker lead of 6%.  Recent data have him leading 52%-43% in Pennsylvania, 53%-43% in Ohio, 49%-45% in North Carolina, 52%-43% in Nevada, 52%-41% in Wisconsin, 48%-40% in Minnesota, 54%-42% in Michigan (and that's Rasmussen!), 51%-44% in Iowa, 50%-46% in Colorado, and 53%-44% in all-important Florida.  Our Senate candidates lead 52%-40% in Wisconsin, 49%-43% in Pennsylvania, 53%-39% in Florida, 48%-42% in Connecticut (yes, that one had been close earlier), 50%-40% in Ohio, 48%-44% in Nevada, 53%-37% in Michigan.  Massachusetts looks close, but in the end I can't see that state re-electing Brown. The Republicans are getting so desperate they're even starting to rehabilitate Todd "legitimate rape" Akin. An Obama popular-vote margin bigger than 2008's, 350 electoral votes, and an enlarged Senate majority suddenly seem like real possibilities. Some even dream of re-taking the House, though that remains unlikely.

So does this mean we can relax? Sorry, but this is no time to stop being on guard against complacency. Even if you think victory is inevitable, the margin matters.

If a real landslide is in reach, we need to fight all the harder to make sure we get it. Obama will still be president whether he gets 270 electoral votes or 350, 51% of the popular vote or 55% -- but in the latter cases he'll have a stronger hand to play in appealing to the public against Republican obstructionism. A Senate majority that includes Elizabeth Warren will be give the party a different character than one that doesn't. A badly-mauled Republican party is more likely to be weakened by internal recrimination and infighting than one that just barely lost.

This is a high-stakes election. The stakes are theocracy vs. secularism, denialism vs. reality on global warming, Randian laissez-faire and an unregulated financial parasite class vs. a rational mixed economy, mythology vs. science in public schools, insurance-company death panels vs. a major step toward universal coverage, Bible-based bigotry vs. marriage equality, relentless attacks on abortion and even birth control vs. individual choice, cave-man foreign policy vs. informed diplomacy. And don't forget Supreme Court appointments.

Slavery, votes for women, and interracial marriage were once genuinely controversial issues. After thumping defeats, the reactionary side on each of those issues faded away and ceased to be part of the national conversation. That's what real victory looks like. If 2012 is a chance to administer another thumping defeat to the bad guys, let's do it.

(Cross-posted at Infidel753.)

On the offensive: Republicans mock Elizabeth Warren with war whoops and tomahawk chops

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may know, there is a bit of a controversy in Massachusetts over Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's claim to Native American (Cherokee) ancestry (and whether she ever benefitted from such minority status), with Republican incumbent Scott Brown, falling back in the polls, turning it into a major campaign issue (because he doesn't have much else to say, and because this is the sort of thing Republicans do when they're desperate, or that they just do generally):

Brown, a Republican, has attacked Warren, a Democrat, over her purported ancestry in their first debate and in a tough new commercial he released Monday. Brown has argued Warren is not in fact Indian -- "as you can see, she's not," he said during the debate -- and has suggested she claimed minority status to advance her career. Warren, who has no documentation of her roots, has argued she did not benefit from her ethnic background, and has pointed to family stories to substantiate her heritage.

Personally, I see no reason to disbelieve Warren -- she's obviously not counting on the small Native American vote to put her over the top, and it's not like being a small part Cherokee is the sort of thing to swing the independent vote.

Of much greater concern is how Brown has responded, and gone on the attack. The "she doesn't look Indian" attack is deeply ignorant and remarkably stupid. As Josh Marshall points out: "Now that sounds like a great gotcha line. Unless, you know really anything about the modern Cherokee Nation. In colloquial terms at least, most Cherokees, certainly many, 'look white.'" And so "this 'she don't look Indian" line Brown is now basing his campaign on is ignorant to the point of offensive."

And over the weekend it got even uglier:

At least two Republican staffers, including a member of Scott Brown's US Senate office, apparently mocked Elizabeth Warren's claims to Native American ancestry by making tomahawk chops and war whoops outside one of Brown's campaign events in Dorchester, according to a video filmed by the state Democratic Party.

In the video, filmed by a Democratic tracker on Saturday outside a Brown event at the Eire Pub, the staffers can be heard whooping and seen making the tomahawk motions amid a crowd of boisterous supporters of both candidates.

Now, okay, this wasn't Brown himself, and apparently one one of his staffers was doing it, and yesterday he said that "that's not something I condone," but he remained on the attack nonetheless.

This may not be his "macaca" moment, but it was deeply offensive, as is his line of attack generally, and it's just the sort of disgraceful act of insensitivity that has come to characterize his campaign.


**********

Update:

Check out Charlie Pierce's characteristically astute take (via BBWW):

There's only one reason to pound the issue about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry and that is to race-bait, to gin up the lizard-brained anger at "quotas" and "affirmative action." Brown already tippy-toed down that line last week in the debate, when he explained that he can tell an Injun jes' by lookin' at one. You talk about her like she gamed the system and you're not merely casting aspersions on her career, but you're giving a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to all the usual suspects out there who know somebody who knew somebody who was related to somebody who knew somebody who didn't get the job they should have had. This is also what they do. This is also what they've always done. This is also why you hired people because this is what they do.

Race-baiting by Republicans? For them, it's called getting out the vote.

Reading the tea leaves of Romney's demise

By Richard K. Barry

If things really start to go badly or, I should say, worse for Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations, it will be interesting to see what the early signs might be. Will some super-PAC money start to move away from Romney and towards tight Senate and House races? Will the blame game among the radical right begin sooner than we might have expected? And, maybe most tellingly, how soon will it take for Republicans in close races to begin to distance themselves from the top of the ticket?

Well, on that last point, apparently not all that long.

The Hill reports that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass), who is currently on the losing end of polls against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, wasted no time denouncing Romney's controversial remarks on the "47 percent."

Everything's good... right?

In an e-mail to The Hill, he said this:

That's not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs.

In a decidedly blue state, Brown knows what he is up against as Elizabeth Warren had this to say about Romney's comments in an interview with The Washington Post:

It's a party that says, "I've got mine and the rest of you are on your own," versus those who say, "We're all in this together." There's a clear choice in this election, between those who believe that to build an economy, the rich and powerful should get richer and more powerful, with tax cuts for the wealthiest and deregulation, while everyone else is left to pick up the pieces.

Yes, Romney might have made things harder for himself, but he is making things damn near impossible for Republicans who are tying to win in more progressive states.

He said what?

Meanwhile, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is running for an open seat in Connecticut, also denounced Romney's comments in a statement posted to her website:

I disagree with Governor Romney’s insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be. People today are struggling because the government has failed to keep America competitive, failed to support job creators, and failed to get our economy back on track.

McMahon's Democratic opponent Chris Murphy dismissed McMahon's criticism of Romney as a "desperate attempt to distance herself from the right-wing agenda and Republican party she strongly supports."

So, there you have it, two Republican Senate candidates running away from Mitt Romney as fast as they can.

Who's next? Don't be shy.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New poll: Warren pulls ahead of Brown in Massachusetts

By Richard K. Barry

According to pollster Tim Vercellotti, commenting on Elizabeth Warren's 50% to 44% lead over Republican Sen. Scott Brown in a new poll conducted by the Western New England Polling Institute:

This may be not just due to her speech, but the overall enthusiasm Democrats have had coming out of their convention. The data shows that Democrats are more fired up right now than independents or Republicans. 

According to MassLive.com, one of the partners responsible for the poll:

The gap among registered voters is even larger, according to the survey, which concluded Warren leads 53 to 41 percent. The poll of 545 registered voters has a 4.2 percent margin of error, while the sample of 444 likely voters has a 4.6 percent margin of error.

Mr. Vercellotti also said that Warren's lead is attributable in part to the fact that she's firmed up support among Democrats to 89%, losing only 6% of her party's support to Brown.

Brown runs strong among those in his own party as well, but in Massachusetts there just aren't that many Republicans. As of August, 35% of the state's residents were registered Democrats and 11% Republicans, which is why Brown has been trying, and succeeding, in his bid to court independents. Still, that is not, for the moment, enough to overcome Warren's strength with Democrats.

It's too early to break out the bubbly, but these are good numbers for Warren in a race that has been tight for a long time.

As the pollster says:

When we poll again in the next couple of weeks, we will see if her numbers remain steady among Democrats, which may demonstrate that the party is unified under a continuing narrative that will carry on throughout the election season.

Maybe softening her supposedly too-tough image has helped, as I wrote a few days ago. Who knows?

(image)

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Behind the Ad: Elizabeth Warren softens her image

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Elizabeth Warren Senate campaign.

Where: Massachusetts.

What's going on: I mostly hate this, but I did see it coming. Elizabeth Warren is being encouraged to ratchet down her intensity a little bit in her ads, which is something men are almost never asked to do.

Aside from the concern that her ads have been too generic and not focused enough on the issues most of interest to Massachusetts voters, the The New York Times adds this:

There have also been worries that Ms. Warren comes across as a scold when she speaks directly into the camera, while [her opponent] Mr. Brown's ads show him driving around in his truck, appearing folksy and down-to-earth.

And this:

But in this newest ad, she is shown in a decidedly softer light. She does not speak into the camera and she does not discuss issues. Instead, ordinary people testify on her behalf that she is fighting for those who find "the system rigged against them." As they speak, soft music rises and the screen fills with images of a smiling Ms. Warren greeting voters, hugging them, listening to them and holding their hands.

Okay, bring in the spinmeisters, make it all warm and fuzzy. Who needs to talk about Wall Street reform anyway?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New poll: Elizabeth Warren pulls into a tie with Scott Brown in Mass.

By Richard K. Barry 

In a poll by Kimball Political Consulting, Sen. Scott Brown lead Elizabeth Warren 46% to 45%, which is well within the margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

In the previous poll by the same firm from three weeks ago, Brown led 49% to 43%.

According to TPM, the PollTracker Average shows Brown ahead, 48.6 percent to 44.9 percent, but things are heading in Warren's direction.

As Daily Kos writes:

Even more encouraging is President Obama's 16-point lead in the state, where his coattails can make a difference. The problem for Warren here is that 12 percent of Obama voters say they'd split their ticket and vote for Brown, whereas only three percent of Romney voters would consider voting for Warren. Warren needs to appeal to those Obama/Brown ticket splitters. The last PPP poll showed the way: tie Brown to the unpopular Republican Party.

Scott Brown is fully aware that in a blue state like Massachusetts, he needs to run away from his party. The question is, will he be able to do it?

As an aside, Sen. Brown has an ad out in which he pats himself on the back for helping to pass the STOCK Act, which clamps down on insider trading by members of Congress. You'll notice the part in which Obama tells Brown "good job" at the signing ceremony. You can't actually hear it, but a subtitle is helpfully added. 

I don't know that anyone will think this makes Brown bluer, but he's trying.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(photo)

(For my comments about Tuesday, see here.)

There were some great moments today, along with a bit of overblown controversy over "God" and Jerusalem, and some great speeches. Let's focus briefly on the most prominent ones of the evening:

-- Sandra Fluke. She's hardly a political pro, but that made her speech all the more remarkable. She spoke with confidence and conviction as one of the most prominent targets of the Republican war on women. Ann Romney says women should "wake up." Really? It seems to me that women are already awake to the Taliban Republicans who seek to control them. Just look what happened to Fluke, whom Dear Leader Rush called a slut simply for wanting to be able to make her own choices. The convention is dominated by politicians, of course, but sometimes you need to hear from the non-politicians to get a sense of the human implications of the ugliness and brutality of Republican ideology. And Fluke did an impressive job, to say the least.

-- Elizabeth Warren may not be the most dynamic figure ever to grace the national stage, but she's a powerful voice for liberalism, particularly when it comes to financial regulation. Her speech doesn't stand out the way Julian Castro's did last night, but it was nonetheless effective at drawing the clear distinctions between the two parties and the two presidential candidates. And hopefully it will give her a boost back home in Massachusetts, where she's in a tough race with incumbent Scott Brown, who alternately presents himself as a moderate or a right-wing hardliner depending on the audience to which he's sucking up. In stark contast, Warren is a woman of genuine principle, and that came through in abundance tonight.

-- How awesome is Bill Clinton? Seriously, what an amazing speech. It was long, and it meandered at times, occasionally feeling like one of his own State of the Union addresses, occasionally going into a bit too much detail perhaps, but he was as commanding as ever -- folksy and authoritative, persuasive and inspiring, funny and enlightening. If Michelle Obama spoke about Barack the man, the personality and character, Bill Clinton spoke about Barack the leader, the policies and politics, and he was just as much a champion of the president. (He's just wrapping up as I write this.) He held the room and those present, and those watching on TV, in his hand, speaking with compassion and respect, understanding and conviction, drawing the contrasts just like other speakers have done but also compellingly making the case for coming together -- because, as he said, we're all in this together, this historical quest for a more perfect union. A formidable man. A brilliant speech. 

Wolf Blitzer says it just might have been the best speech he's ever heard Clinton give. That's high praise.

And there he is, President Obama coming out on stage to greet President Clinton and to give a wave to the crowd. You knew it was coming, but it was stirring nonetheless, a prelude to tomorrow, when he will accept the nomination. The energy in the arena is palpable. I can feel it here, a long way away. (If only I was there. Alas.)

Paul Begala on Clinton's speech: substantive and riveting. Yes, that's it. He knows his stuff, for sure, and can speak so intelligently on so much, but he's also so engaging, so compelling, and, yes, he does it without talking down to anyone, and quite the reverse by lifting everyone up along with him (which of course is so unlike the Republicans, including Romney and Ryan, who are arrogant and dismissive and utterly contemptuous of anyone other than themselves and those just like them).

For all the tension that may have been there during the '08 Democratic primaries, there is a close and it would seem completely genuine connection between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. That was on full display tonight, and it was just what was needed as we head into the final day of the convention, and then into the last two months of the campaign.

Another great day for the Democrats.

(photo)