Warren Up in Polls, Herald Endorses Brown: Who's Winning?

With Warren holding a small lead in the polls, and Brown getting a key endorsement from the Boston Herald, who do you think has the momentum coming into the final days of the election?

Democrat Elizabeth Warren is up by five points over incumbent Republican Scott Brown in the latest WBUR/MassINC poll of the Massachusetts Senate race. That's a near-total reversal of the WBUR poll last month, which had Brown up by four on Oct. 9.

In fact, Warren has been trending upwards in most recent polling. The New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog has Warren up by four in an average of recent polls. The blog, which uses advanced statistical modeling akin to baseball sabermetrics (think Moneyball) gives Warren an 89 percent chance of winning the election.

But Brown's got some significant energy on his side as well. He's been barnstorming the state with political luminaries like Sen. John McCain and today won the Boston Herald's endorsement.

So what do you think? Who has the momentum coming into the final two weeks of the election? Do the polls in liberal-leaning Massachusetts mean anything to you, or will Brown's high-profile support sway the electorate? Give us your prediction in the comments below!


Joe October 25, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Its easy, if you want a Nancy Pelosi democrat clone who votes strictly party line, then vote for Warren. (ie: Leftist Liberal) will not work across party lines with republicans. If you want a republicrat (ie :a MA. democrat running as a republican), then vote for Brown... #1 he is a veteran and will not vote for military cuts #2 will actually work across party lines
ron johnson October 25, 2012 at 05:28 PM
As a Brown supporter I am getting tired of his ads; the point has been made. I would rather he attack her for what she is allegely for. So far, I am struggling with determining anything other then Brown is against women, and is a republican. I would love to hear what she is for and how she thinks everything will be paid for if elected. And it is not only by taxing the "millionaires and billionaires" I would like to know what she is for other than increasing jobs in the public sector. It is easy, to go around and tell firefighters there should me more, and police there should be more. The fact is they are paid for by our tax-dollars. As as a the Herald endorsing Brown, I am sure that the Globe will endorse Warren.
Anna Bucciarelli October 26, 2012 at 12:34 AM
I am in full agreement with you re: the ads but I feel the same about EW's ads. I must say that this is the sleaziest campaign I remember in a long time, issues are not discussed by either side and I have to remind myself at times why I prefer who I do. I have no doubt about why the one I trust least, like least and admire least is off my list ... a No. 1 loser in my book and an embarrassment to womankind first, mankind in general, with not a thing to offer except a bounce by puppet strings and echolalia in voicing the party line. Last, I am not impressed by endorsements too much ... they blow with the wind sometimes and I think we the people are a bit smarter than media gives us credit for. You think?
ron johnson October 26, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Anna, I am not sure if I have ever seen a more intellectually dishonest person run for office than EW. She is a fraud and a hypocrite. You are right about the endorsements as well. That is clear when you see all the fellow Dems go to fundraisers for guys like Tierney. EW wanted to talk about the student loans and had to abandon that, in that she is a prime beneficiary of the increased tuition costs. She wants to talk about a made up war on women, while ignoring the fact that not all women share the same beliefs. She can't say more than two lines without using the phrases "hammered" and "millionaires and billionaires." She has until she was asked to run by the WH to get the seat back, built her career on lies and has never worked for the middle class ever. I wish Scott Brown would move away from the attack ads and focus on what ideas she is proposing. As far as I am concerned she has none other than parroting what the WH as told her. I saw all I needed to see when she chose to hide behind Patrick at a news conference when asked about her heritage way back in the April-May time frame. She is a puppet with the President and the Governor the puppermasters.
Anna Bucciarelli October 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM
I agree with all you say but you forgot another one of her favorites, "rigged". I agree about Scott's attack ads, I feel it is really beneath him but what do I know about what drives him to lower standards except maybe he feels compelled to stoop to her standards and is just not a campaigner by nature, even though I thought he did well last time around and I truly believe his heart's been in the right place until now and I still champion him. It is very close, tho, and I worry. You were so right about the Glob ... tho I did not see the articles, apparently they did a page (+/-) or 2 yesterday on each candidate and the one about Scott talked mainly about his "beefcake" pose for Cosmo and his carousing as a young man, going to a particular NY bar to "score", and on and on, while the article about Warren boasted her "many" accomplishments. Dan Rea, Nightside on WBZ radio, did a whole hour on this and I listened before I fell asleep before the discussion ended. Dan, by the way, has no love for EW but does a good job dealing with facts and not just give his opinion and he read practically the entire articles, they were not his words but the Globes. And this further convinces me that we are not in Kansas anymore, that honesty goes by the board and the media is very much to blame for most of it.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »