Scott Brown pulls ahead of Elizabeth Warren in Mass. Senate race

Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican who famously won the seat held by Edward Kennedy, has built an early lead against Elizabeth Warren in what will be a closely watched race nationally. 

|
Josh Reynolds/AP/File
Democrat Elizabeth Warren talks with people at a diner in Framingham, Mass., during her first day of campaigning for the US Senate last year, challenging incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R).

New polls this week show Sen. Scott Brown (R) of Massachusetts leaping ahead of Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, as one of the closely watched Senate campaigns of 2012 is about to get under way in earnest.

The race, set to ramp up following Tuesday's Massachusetts primary vote, important for two big reasons: the symbolism and the simple math.

On the math front, Republicans hope to take control of the Senate and holding on to Senator Brown's seat could be key. 

Symbolically, the outcome could reveal whether a Republican senator can deepen his roots in a "blue state" that usually votes Democratic, or whether he will be unseated by an unabashed champion of anti-Wall-Street populism.

The latest poll, released Sunday by Western New England University, shows Brown's support at 49 percent of registered voters, compared with 41 percent for Ms. Warren.

That echoes a Rasmussen poll released last week, surveying likely voters, with showed Brown at 49 percent to Warren's 44 percent.

Both candidates have some national name recognition: Warren for her combative tone as head of a congressionally appointed oversight panel on bank bailouts, and Brown for his upset win in an early 2010 special election after the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D).

Brown's victory put Democrats nationwide on notice that they faced tough sledding in a year that ultimately left Republicans in control of the House of Representatives.

It's probably too early to read much into the polls other than that a close race may lie ahead. Brown isn't in a commanding position, while Warren is within striking distance. One early February poll showed Warren with a slight lead, for example.

As with other hot Senate races, significant amounts of outside money are expected to flow into the advertising campaigns.

The conservative group, Crossroads GPS, aired ads late last year calling Warren the intellectual force behind the "radical" Occupy Wall Street protests.

Then, in a tactical shift in December, the group attacked her as pandering to big banks. The Annenberg Public Policy Center, in its FactCheck project, called the ad "absurd" for implying that Warren had an administrative role in the bank bailouts, when in fact she chaired a watchdog panel about them.

Republican opposition to Warren thwarted President Obama's efforts to appoint her to lead the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Both candidates are casting themselves as advocates of the middle class, though with differing ideological spins on what that means.

Brown's Senate website says he "has fought for lower taxes, less government spending, and pro-growth policies that will put people back to work."

Warren's website says the US needs oversight of Wall Street to prevent financial crises, and government investment "in first-class education, in basic infrastructure, in 21st century manufacturing, and in research."

The two are articulate advocates for their views, Brown as a pickup-driving member of the Army National Guard and Warren as an academic researcher on challenges facing middle-class families.

Warren is expected to formally earn her slot as the Democratic challenger to Brown in the primary election Tuesday.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Scott Brown pulls ahead of Elizabeth Warren in Mass. Senate race
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0305/Scott-Brown-pulls-ahead-of-Elizabeth-Warren-in-Mass.-Senate-race
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe