Shift in Massachusetts: Scott Brown leading while Elizabeth Warren’s campaign finances come under scrutiny
A new Boston Globe poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center shows Scott Brown is making a successful October push in Massachusetts to keep his seat in the United States Senate. The Globe now has Brown leading 47-45.
The poll is a reversal from a September Globe survey that showed Warren ahead 43 percent to 38 percent, as well as several other recent polls that have found Warren with a slight lead. The shift underscores the belief long held by both sides that the race, active for more than a year, would be competitive until the end.
[WAJ adds — UNH have been overly friendly in its polling to Democrats, including Martha Coakley back in January 2010 and Warren in early September, so this is particularly surprising.]
On top of this good news for the Brown campaign is more bad news for the Warren Campaign as new details about the questionable source of a large chunk of her campaign contributions is raising eyebrows.
Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com reports:
A Breitbart News analysis of Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s recent October 15, 2012 filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that more than half of the $36.2 million Ms. Warren has raised for her campaign has come from online websites that are vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.
Ms. Warren has set several fundraising records that she doesn’t want voters in Massachusetts to know about. The two most alarming records are:
(1) Most money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations: $18.3 million ($15.8 million in “unitemized” donations and at least $2.5 million in itemized donations from conduit site ActBlue.org).
(2) Highest percentage of money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations as a percentage of total funds raised: 50.5% (43.7% in “unitemized” donations and at least 6.8% in itemized donations from conduit site ActBlue.org).
Warren’s 43.7% of receipts from “unitemized” donations is more than double the 15% of her opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown.
Brown’s website deploys industry standard security methods, and none of the 15% of contributions that come from “unitemized” donations are vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations. In contrast, all of the 43.7% of Warren’s contributions that come from “unitemized” donations. In addition, the 6.8% of her donations that have come through conduit website ActBlue.org are vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.
The article goes on to note that there is one other campaign that happens to be in the same ballpark as Elizabeth Warren’s record setting fundraising numbers that are vulnerable to fraud.
The Warren campaign has been even more successful than the Obama campaign at raising money from vulnerable online websites. Obama’s 38% (according to Open Secrets) of total contributions raised in “unitemized” donations from vulnerable online websites is the only other major political campaign that comes close to Warren’s 43%.
The Warren campaign is faltering at the finish line and from the looks of the new Boston Globe poll, Scott Brown is capitalizing.
Read Leahy’s full article here.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Very nice!!! And Scott Brown, the National Guardsmen, is helping out at a storm bunker today. Where’s Elizabeth?
Liz is bailing out her teepee.
I so want pudding on November 6.
Another interesting nugget from the Boston Globe poll:
“The poll shows that Obama leads Romney 52 percent to 38 percent, a substantial margin, but down significantly from last month, when Obama held a 27 point lead over Romney in Massachusetts.”
So Romney has gained 13 points since the last MA poll. I believe this is helping Scott Brown as well.
Without a 3rd party an incumbent below 50% odds of winning are very low…
Regardless of the outcome of this election, Elizabeth Warren should be investigated for falsifying a minority ethnicity to the EEOC, or causing Harvard to do so.
Warren had no tribal affiliation and she could not document Native American lineage. Therefore, she failed to meet the EEOC’s own defiition for Native American classification.
This exploitation is pathetic and shameful and it must be exposed.
Everything about Warren is suspect: the scholarship of her book, her Cherokee heritage, her law practice, and now her campaign finances.
How fitting that she claimed she “created much of the intellectual foundation” for bogus OWS.
That Prof. Warren is making use of the some of the same skanky funding mechanisms, such as the non-secure on-line donation websites, that Champ is using, raises an interesting question —
— what other major Democratic candidate is doing the same?
There are other major Democrats running for Senate. Governor. Wonder what McCaskill is doing in Missouri, for example?
An audit of each of these campaigns would be in order, not that it will ever happen. But as Prof. Jacobson has done with the Warren campaign, perhaps other local/regional bloggers could put these other candidates under the microscope.
The magnitude of likely illegal contributions to Obama, Warren, and probably other America-hating liberals suggests to me that those contributions are coming from demographic groups with a goal of destroying America as a world power.
Nice news. Go Scott!
As I mentioned previously, Warren was killing Brown with a misleading, but highly effective, ad says Brown was not “for” women. Brown, then, attempted to counter the ad with one featuring his own wife. It did not seem to be working then. But maybe it was working
Anyway, Brown now has a much more effective ad feature a very articulate and compassionate seeming women who is not related to Brown. The women in the ad just tells other women that she trusts Brown, that Brown is Pro-Choice and Brown is pro-women, and strongly so. I think the new ad will help Brown quite a bit.
Brown is also doing well with the ads suggesting Warren “is not who she says she is” — e.g., Lizzie is not for Asbestos victims, Lizzie is not for breast implant victims, Lizzie is not for coal miners and others. Hmmm, now where did Brown get his research for that!
I know that earlier on, and maybe currently, most of Fauxcohontas’s money came from OUTSIDE MA, while most of Brown’s came from within the state.
That sends a message (that the Boston Globe will never talk about)….
Does anyone known if Suffolk will do or has done another poll before the election? Their September poll was depressing, because it showed the Warren gains mentioned in this article as being substantial. Suffolk is one of the more reliable polling entities, especially for this region. Quinnipiac also doesn’t have a recent Brown/Warren poll and they may not as the school is one of many in CT without power or with disruptions as of today….
“LIZZY WARREN APOLOGIZES TO NO ONE”
She’s “gotta get the money”
From where? She doesn’t care,
‘Cause nobody will notice
Or nobody will dare
To question her about it
Or expect she’ll follow rules,
‘Cause she THINKS she is Cherokee,
And rules are just for fools!
She’s “gotta get elected”
Doesn’t matter why,
Fact is she’s Obamabot,
And doesn’t need to try,
To come up with a program,
To try to make a plan,
‘Cause when you are a Dem-Rat,
You just say, “BO’s my man”!
She’s “gotta get the big fees”
Is she licensed? Doesn’t care,
‘Cause she’s a law school graduate,
And nobody will dare,
To question her about it,
Or expect she’ll follow rules,
‘Cause Harvard is “BARACK’S SCHOOL”
And he can MAKE the rules!
Brown pulls out of the Senate debate tomorrow because of the hurricane:
Massachusetts political polling is just such garbage. It gets so skewed by machine politicians affixing their asses to seats for decades. It wasn’t until the weekend before the Brown-Coakley special election in 2010 that polls were predicting a Brown victory. They had zero sense of the enthusiasm which was, in fact, palpable on the ground. Also, I don’t think most people appreciate the dynamics of Massachusetts voting. Blue west of Springfield, blue in Boston and the Route 128 limousine liberal belt, blue in the few remaining urban pockets, but DEEP purple everywhere else. And red-ish on the Cape. This is why Weld, Celucci and Romney all had success. It’s not a pure blue electorate, although there’s certainly an automaton blue-voter base. See the Coakley/Patrick vote totals to identify that.
Warren’s latest ads are targeting Big Vagina mean that she’s still needing to secure her base. And my anecdotal evidence on that point is that my uncle and aunt – both broken glass Kennedy Democrat voters, who probably haven’t pulls a Republican lever in … ever – reported that they just cast absentee Brown ballots. I don’t see him losing this.
You should see the number of Brown signs in yards in the Valley – even in the Five College area. You know something is up when you find homes sporting Brown signs WITHIN walking distance of the center of town in Northampton or Amherst. Both of those towns voted well over 80% for Obama in 08. You didn’t see a single sign for Brown in 10, either.
Heh. I imagine there are some uncomfortable wiccan meetings happening in the Greater Northampton area, these days. But that’s fantastic anecdotal news, because I’ll bet if you stood at Northampton City Hall on election night while results filtered in, if Scott Brown has anything above 20%, you can call it and go home. Or just watch Bolton. I was at Boston City Hall in January 2010 watching the first of the Brown results come in and we didn’t even wait beyond the first handful. We went right over to the party.
This is the typical Massachusetts profile when there’s a competitive Republican candidate. Those blues have to be 80-20 blue or greater for Warren to win.
Jack, don’t forget Central Massachusetts. The towns south of Worcester are SOLID RED; some vote 65%+ republican
Objectively, I find it hard to believe she’s leading. Brown, an incumbent, seems too entrenched.
Again, leftist poll propaganda.