<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  It&amp;#039;s still March, and the Massachusetts Senate race is already making me dizzy. Now, it seems that Elizabeth Warren has regained her slim lead over incumbent Scott Brown, in one poll, anyway. What has been generally screwy about this whole contest so far is the fact that the polls seemed to swing wildly without any intervening major events that were significant enough to cause the swing. Quite simply, nothing is really going on here. Warren is raising money and building a campaign. Brown is raising money and trying to define Warren as a Harvard know-it-all who parachuted in and who couldn&amp;#039;t find her way from Wollaston Beach to Quincy without a driver. But neither one of these efforts has made all that much of a difference; in fact, Brown&amp;#039;s slump in this poll comes after about a month of pretty good news for him, save his bizarre decision to jump on the Blunt Amendment. (This poll was conducted between March 16 and March 18, so Brown&amp;#039;s inexplicable choice of which measure to back to demonstrate his conservative bona fides may well have swung the numbers against him, which would be the first time that any one thing a candidate did had that singular effect.)  One thing that is apparent is that, his support for the War On Ladyparts Amendment notwithstanding, it is going to be next to impossible to paint Senator McDreamy as a bad guy. People like him. He has a compelling story to tell (see John H. Richardson&amp;#039;s in the new issue of Esquire, and here and here), even though he tends to use it only as an shield against political criticism. (He&amp;#039;s not anti-woman because of the strong women around him. The Tea Party should get off his back over his vote to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act because of his experience with domestic violence as a child.) Let&amp;#039;s assume, for the moment, that Warren can fight off all the Harvard-elitist crap. Glorioski, then, this might be a race that&amp;#039;s decided on the merits of the issues. I&amp;#039;m not sure anyone knows how to cover one of those any more. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13241/elizabeth-warren-poll-numbers-7480328/>