Elizabeth Warren got 59 percent of Women Vote, 47 Percent Men

[JI7]

why did so many Men, particularly White men vote for Scott Brown ? Scott Brown got 53 percent of the male vote and 58 percent from white men .

considering that Elizabeth Warren is probably the Top official in the Country to speak on economic equality this shows it's not Women who are standing in the way of economic fairness .



http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MA/senate

[MADem]

1. Because Scott Brown wore a barn coat and drove a truck. He was also-for what it's worth--the

INCUMBENT. A brief incumbent, but an incumbent nonetheless.

He mocked Warren with "Woo woo woo" and "Pow Wow The Indian Boy" jokes, and he called her "Per-fesser" in a derisive way.

His entire campaign was snark and put-downs. He condescended.

He also thought he had her beat, so he didn't prep at all for the debates and that's where he messed up but good.

That said, MA is not always a "Democratic" state. We have a bunch of Dems, a cadre of Republicans, and a whole heap of INDEPENDENTS. Scott Brown got the GOP vote, and the Libertarian-Asshole Independent vote. We do occasionally elect a Repubican, mostly to keep the Dems humble.

It was an expensive campaign. People have this idea that Warren won easily--that's not at all true. It was a tough slog for every single vote. But it was sure as hell no walk in the park.

[joshcryer]

2. She outraised him by $12 million dollars.

Much of which came from out of state donations.

[MADem]

5. While Barn Coat Scott got huge sums from "Corporations are People" PACS

And just because they have a presence in the Bay State (and every other state and nation in the world, pretty much) doesn't make them "in state" entities.

EW's "corporate" donations came from unions comprised of actual humans with real live concerns!

At the same time, Brown is relying more heavily on donations from political action committees than Warren.

The most recent campaign finance reports filed by both candidates with the Federal Election Commission show Brown collected more than $1.6 million from PACs in 2011.

That's more than ten times as much as the $142,000 collected from PACs by Warren, who entered the race in September.

The PACs backing Brown included financial institutions, defense contractors and corporations like Citigroup, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, McDonald's, Microsoft and Google.

My editorial note--so much for Google's bullshit "Don't Be Evil" pantload!!!

Many of the PACs supporting Warren represent labor unions, including the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, the Laborer's International Union and the American Federation of Government Employees.

- See more at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/02/03/warren_raising_bulk_of_campaign_funds_out_of_mass/#sthash.ZM0O4lRt.dpuf

[JI7]

3. i remember it wasn't easy and she worked very hard for it

i posted it mostly to show the Nader defenders are wrong when they criticize women for caring about things like birth control and the supreme court and claim they don't care about economic issues .

[MADem]

4. Yes, you are exactly right. The Nader defenders are just wrong -- that's the bottom line.

They don't "get it" and they never will. They're as clueless as ... Scott Brown!

There's an element of trying to justify their fucked up support for that asshole in some of those conversations on DU, and there's an element of--to be blunt--trollishness in others; the old "let me see how much of a rise I can get out of these people" game-playing. Throwing a "NADER" apologia into DU is like throwing a freshly ripped-off bloody leg into a tank of piranhas. And they KNOW it. Which makes one wonder as to their agenda...!

I mean, this IS Democratic Underground. The goal is to elect Dems--not Greenies or Reforms or some other Libertarian asswipes--the goal is to elect Dems. That WAS a general election. Anyone who's boasting about voting for Nader, or supporting him, would probably be better off at Green Underground, or Reform Underground, or Libertarian Underground...oh, but wait, no one has gotten off their asses and created a decent website where those people will gather in any number (assuming they could muster up a quorum, that is). I guess the Paulbots have a place, but it sucks. Not user-friendly like this fine spot on the web-which is why so many disruptors are intent on "tagging" it. And of course, plenty of them come over from the wingnut websites, assume a mantle of faux liberalism, and shit-stir to beat the band. Incessantly. If they aren't causing people to get all bent out of shape, they just don't feel they're doing their job. We know them when we see them; I wish we'd see less of them! Trash thread works a treat, I've found!

Funny how, even with DISCUSSIONIST up and running, they can't--or won't--take that shit over there, where it would be welcome...! That's a clue, I'd say, in many cases. They out themselves with the repetitive bashing and trashing.

It'll be soon enough that general election season starts, I guess they have to sow their FUD while they can...?

At any rate, our hard work to put EW in "Ted's" seat won't go to waste. When she's not helping other candidates with their campaigns, she comes HOME. She does local "Meet and Greets" all over the state. I like that she is responsive to her constituents--and she is responsive.

[JI7]

6. agree with all of this

what's funny is when they get angry when i tell them to not vote for the democrat if they really feel that way.

for all of their outrage they just love posting on this site so much that they will claim to vote for the dem just so they wont be banned.

[RobertEarl]

7. Progress!!

Now when Liz runs for president, we can expect that almost all women will vote for her. I like it!

Women united for progress! It's a real winner!