Hey, there! Log in / Register
Never Trumper could try for Republican nod to run against Warren
By adamg on Fri, 03/10/2017 - 9:26am
The Globe reports that businessman John Kingston is looking at going for the Republican nomination for US Senate in 2018.
Kingston last year unenrolled as a Republican as he explored ways to stop Donald Trump. He's looking to gain the support of non-Trump-voting Gov. Baker - and he's willing to heavily self-fund his campaign, the Globe reports.
If he does run, he'd first have to pro-Trump rightwinger V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, who has the backing of online talk-show host Curt Schilling, and Allen Waters, a self-described "angry, conservative black man with a chip on his shoulder."
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Anybody but Warren
Even Doug Bennett!
Plywood 2018.
Mock Dugg at your own peril. His master plan of political dominance is years in making and soon to bare fruits. Lets look at the facts.
Plywood is environmentally sustainable - Environmentalists - Check
Some signs have loose screws - Mental Health Advocacy- Check
Orange, think Home Depot, Think Trump's blue collar coat tails - Check
Steve Murphy is running - Check
The times, they are a changing.
Why settle when you can have
Why settle when you can have a real Turkey in office?
VOTE TLF!
Good luck with that
The only reason Scott Brown won his 2 years in the Senate was Martha Coakley. And Elizabeth Warren is no Martha Coakley.
Polls
Polls show Warren not overwhelming popular. If Clinton (or another Dem) was in the White House and it was Warren vs. Baker it would be a tight race.
With Trump it would be exceedingly unlikely Massachusetts will elect any republican.
Since the "polls show" it...
...you'll be able to provide links to those polls.
http://www.wbur.org
http://www.wbur.org/politicker/2017/01/23/warren-baker-poll
confused..
...I'm a little lost here. Are people (mainly Simón Rios at WBUR) suggesting we could see Baker running against Warren for Senate? Or Warren running for Governor?? I guess it's interesting to gauge their respective levels of approval/disapproval but they aren't going to be running against one another in Massachusetts, so I'm not sure I get this article or the point of the poll. Obviously the state parties are not monolithic. Even the very small rubber raft of the MA GOP has got people spitting venom at each other. It would be nice to see those Massachusetts Democrats whose felt pen tips hovered over the bubble next to "Trump" (and in many cases filled the fucker in) just go ahead and register as Republicans and create a viable, honest-to-Christ Republican party instead of having a bunch of lunch-bucket types who pay their union dues and then go vote Bush, Trump and the rest.
508 People Who Answered Unknown Calls On Their Telephones
It's really hard to take such "polls" seriously. First of all, someone has to have a landline telephone. Second, they have to answer a call from an unknown number. Third, they need to respond to questions about their personal political beliefs, asked by a total stranger.
This isn't 1960. Most people just won't do that anymore.
It's hard to take polls seriously
When they don't jive with what you think, right?
The 2016 national Presidential polls were fairly accurate (the problem being with state polling, or a lack thereof), so your obituary for polls may be a bit premature.
That isn't the problem and you should know that
Seriously - Elmer is right. That methodology is seriously flawed if the goal is to have a representative sample of voters. The reporting of results is seriously flawed if it is implied in any way that it came from a representative sample of voters.
You learn these things when you take basic inferential statistics courses - sample methodology is very important and not exactly intuitive. Here's a start on learning more - many of their courses are free or close to free: https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=inferential+statistics
I know about the concerns
Statstics is the class us "social" scientists (or is it social "scientists") take. That said, decent polling groups are still able to conduct surveys that are still correct withing the margin of error 98% of the time. People have been raising Elmer's concern for over a decade, and typically they do when they don't like the results.
Speaking of dislike of results causing doubts on methodology, remember that BUR survey 2 years ago that showed a growing disapproval of the Olympic bid along with a support for space saving? Oh, how heads hurt on this website since they asked the exact same people those questions.