Latest PPP numbers show Elizabeth Warren with comfortable lead over Scott Brown
http://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/status/182127171026948096
PPP:
Brown is not proving to be an overwhelmingly popular Senator. 45% of voters approve of the job he’s doing to 42% who disapprove. That’s actually up a little bit from a 44/45 spread on our last poll in September. Republicans love him, giving him an 80/7 approval spread. But his appeal to Democrats and independents is not what it once was. At the end of his first year in office Brown was nearly running even with Democrats, with 35% approving of him to 41% who disapproved. Now he’s at 23/63 across party lines. And although he remains popular with independents at 53/34, it’s not the 61/25 rating he enjoyed with them at the end of 2010.
In the head to head with Warren, Brown has the GOP base completely locked up 89-3. And the 17% of Democrats he’s winning is comparable to the 19% we found him getting against Martha Coakley in 2010. But he’s only up 48-36 with independents, a far cry from his 64-32 advantage with them against Coakley, and that’s the main reason he trails by this narrow margin.
Warren is reclaiming the middle from Brown. We find her up 42-40 with moderate voters, a group that we found Brown leading Coakley 55-41 with. She’s also inspiring a lot of enthusiasm from young people. 56% rate her favorably to 27% with an unfavorable view, and she leads Brown 56-29 with them.
Read the whole thing, where it goes on to say that her unfavorability is rising faster than her recognition. That might be key.
Everyone who follows politics at all knows that Warren is proud of her providing the ‘intellectual foundations’ of the Occupy movement. If you research Warren’s background, you find that her track record in government policy advising is comparable to Mistress of Disaster Jamie Gorelick’s. In other words, it’s awful, and most of it has had to do with economic policy. We’ve not seen this aired in the MSM.
PPP surveyed 936 Massachusetts residents, and reckons on a margin of error of +/- 3.2%. Otherwise, there’s no news at the link or the PDF linked from there about the methodology.
Comments are closed.