MA-2012 Senate: 48% Warren (D), 44% Brown (R) (Suffolk 9/13-9/16)

Suffolk University/7News
9/13/12-9/16/12; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
Suffolk release

Massachusetts

2012 Senate
48% Warren (D), 44% Brown (R) (chart)

2012 President
64% Obama (D), 31% Romney (R) (chart)

Comments

[JerseyGirl4Obama]

12:27 PM on 09/19/2012

Elizabeth Warren 2012 will be a champion of the people.

Vote straight democratic ticket coast to coast this year and give President Obama people that want to work with him to continue to move this country forward instead of trying to obstruct his every move. We cannot afford to go backwards now. Just think what could be accomplished with a working Congress instead of a DoNothingCongress; a Senate to work with Congress and the President.

Obama/Biden 2012

[TJampel]

02:28 PM on 09/18/2012

Three unanswered polls in a row for Warren averaging a nearly 4 point spread. I'd be expecting Brown to answer with an internal if he's really up. His team's polling every day. Where's his poll showing him up 3 or 4?

If Dems support Warren at high 80s levels and if they show up Brown can't win, unless he totally crushes with indies. The state has so few Republicans. He's way up with them but not enough, and Warren's new Ad strategy of using "regular Joe" types as surrogates seems to be working. The best thing, unlike most challengers in Senate races, she's really well funded; she can go wire to wire with Brown from here in out.

[SergeantSuj]

10:43 AM on 09/18/2012

Many people are talking about down-ballot gains for Democrats after the convention, which begs the question: what are the odds now of a Democratic takeover of the House? This was unthinkable a month ago. Still a long shot, but is it now worth discussing?

Also, could it be possible that Democrats gain a seat in the Senate? Again, unthinkable a month ago, but it seems like a non-zero chance now.

[ashenthorn]

11:02 AM on 09/18/2012

It wasn't in play before Romney selected his running mate and put the term "Ryan Budget" into the election conversation. It's a candidate killer in swing districts.

[Bukama]

01:22 PM on 09/18/2012

I think it is still a non-chance. Democrats won't gain more than 6 to 8 seats (if that) in the house. The only way to win dozens of seats at the House level is for a wave election. There is no great enthusiam for the Democrats who controlled the House from 2006 till 2010.

As for the Senate, the best they could do is a 50/50 split. Thompson is going to win WI, Flake is going to win AZ, Fischer is going to win Neb., Berg is going to win ND, Rehberg is going to win Mont., I think that guarantees them 50 seats, even if Brown loses in MA and McMahon loses in CT and Allen loses in VA. And the Republicans will get at least one, if not two of those three.

[TJampel]

02:24 PM on 09/18/2012

you need to add "And I am unanimous in that!"

[dopper]

01:26 AM on 09/19/2012

Democrats will gain more than 6-8 House seats. Wave election tend to sweep in a lot of week candidates who only win because of their party label. A lot of these district will often flip back. Based on the fundamentals the GOP should have won about 43 seat in 2010. They won 63 so about 20 seats were "wave" seats. A reversion to the mean would be closer to 10-12 seats for the Dems.

I also think your way to optimistic on the GOP's chances in the Senate. Presidential election years have much higher turnouts than off year elections. The voters who show up in pres-year's versus off-year's election tend to skew Democratic. If Romney was winning, or a strong candidate I would agree with you. But I doubt he has the coat tails or the ability to generate enough Republican enthusiasm to sweep all the lean GOP seats (AZ, ND, MT), split the true toss ups (WI, VA), and win a blue leaning seat (CT, MA). I just don't see that right now. MO cost the GOP their chance to take the Senate.

[Briansfunpage]

10:32 AM on 09/18/2012

As a former New England, both Dems & liberal leaning Indies like to toy with the thought of electing a Republican to Federal office. However, the difference is at the Massachusetts/Connecticut state level when you elect a Republican governor the state house can be over 70% Democratic. In National politics, you have crazy Republicans that will torture liberals/moderates to their graves.

Warren will win this race by 5% to 8% in the end. Just look at the outcomes in all of the very liberal parts of Mass. Warren will have many towns where she is at 70% and higher.

[imsexyandiknowit]

09:06 AM on 09/18/2012

ok I don't live in Massachusetts. my question is, is it normal in MA to have a senate election at 48/44 when the presidential candidate is 64/31??

seems a bit off to me.

[dopper0189]

09:33 AM on 09/18/2012

It's very hard to say remember Massachusetts (where I used to work) had Ted Kennedy and John Kerry running there. Kennedy had 1 tough race (against Mitt where he came back to win comfortably) but normally he win in the 60% ranges. Kerry had one tough one against either ex-Gov Celluci or Weld (can't remember which one) but normally he win in the high 50% ranges.So I don't think you can compare this with recent history.

[Awaiting theIdiocracy]

10:24 AM on 09/18/2012

It's an outlier....Brown is a very moderate Republican, with decent approval ratings. The only reason he's losing, in my opinion, is that Democrats understand they need this seat to hold the senate.

[dopper0189]

08:35 AM on 09/18/2012

If I had the money to start a Super PAC I would just run the clip from the secret recordings where Romney talks about investing in a factory in China surrounded by barbed wire fences (and yes I would cut the clip right there) and run it over and over and OVER with graphics on the screen showing stats on how Bain pioneered outsourcing. Then I would end it with him promising to get tough on China. I would run this ad in every state in the Midwest (even Indiana, Missouri, and the Nebraska 2nd district) and watch as Romney imploded.

[ashenthorn]

07:11 AM on 09/18/2012

It's a welcome development that Mitt Romney opened his mouth and regurgitated the "47% pay no taxes" right wing talking points, because it begs the question - who exactly are these people that pay no federal income taxes? Of course Mitt may not like the answer - they're mostly seniors (more likely to vote republican) and low income workers. Perhaps Mitt was talking about seniors like my 80 year old parents, who've paid a lifetime of income and payroll taxes and no longer do now that they live off their small savings augmented by Social Security. Next time I see him, I'll have to ask my dad if he views himself as a victim. Mom has cancer now, but I'm sure she could use a lecture from Mitt about the need for her to take "personal responsibility" over her life and to stop mooching all the free stuff she's getting from the government like physician's care and medication.

[ashenthorn]

07:26 AM on 09/18/2012

But maybe Mitt wasn't talking about seniors. Maybe it was just the lower income workers that he can't teach to take responsibility for themselves. Why not? He could at least try. They largely work in professions like food service, retail, hospitality, etc. I mean every day, they make Mitt's food, serve it to him, take away the plates and clean them, clean up after Mitt, make his bed and wait on him hand and foot as he travels the country demonizing them. Perhaps at one of Mitt's photo ops purporting to show him shopping for paper towels at a supermarket, Mitt can ask the low wage checkout clerk why she's mooching foodstamps from the government to help feed her child instead of simply making more money like he and Ann do. She'd probably like to hear that from Mitt.

[ashenthorn]

08:08 AM on 09/18/2012

Or maybe Mitt wasn't really talking about seniors or low income workers, or the disabled, or the struggling unemployed. Maybe Mitt was just trying to evoke a foreboding vision (that half of the country consists of lazy darkskinned people spending their days in front of the TV waiting for a check from Barack Obama) and make a room full of people happy. After all, Mitt was just responding to a question. A question that really wasn't a question and was more of a quiz. A quiz that Mitt Romney aced by reciting the exact talking points that the room wanted to hear. He didn't make this stuff himself, he learned it word for word, then parroted it.

[A New Jersey Farmer]

06:16 AM on 09/18/2012

Good news for Warren, but a DNC bounce could still fade for her. Are there other fundamentals that have changed in MA or are Democrats just coming home?

[dopper0189]

08:02 AM on 09/18/2012

Democrats are coming home and Warren is now running commercials that are closing the likability gap she had with Scott Brown. I'm already hearing whispers that Brown my be planning on running for Governor since Duval Patric is term limited from seeking another term.

[Gopherguy23]

12:38 AM on 09/18/2012

We've seen three polls within a day. Warren is now definitely ahead. Brown is in big trouble. It's probably premature, but I'm confident enough to say that this is lean D instead of tossup.

[AaronTX]

03:08 AM on 09/18/2012

The DNC was so much more of a success than the RNC. It may have only given Obama a small, but significant bounce (when you compare to Romney's "no-bounce"), but it has given significant help to down-ballot dems like Warren.