1. Weinstein 1
Jackie Weinstein
December 17, 2012
Political Science 338-01
Decision 2012: The End of the GOP in MA
After months of campaigning, Massachusetts voters chose to send the first woman in the
state’s history to the United States Senate in Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Warren, and
rejected incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown’s bid for a second term. What does this
mean for the future of state politics? This race will have major consequences by plundering an
already non-existent Republican Party into deeper obscurity and cementing a one-party
dominated state that inhibits the kind of debate needed in a democracy.
There are four key points of this argument to explore further. The first area necessary to
explore involves demographics and a set of exit polls released by CNN that convey the problems
facing the Republican Party in the state. Brown lost or underperformed among groups he did
well with in 2010 against Attorney General Martha Coakley. The next area will analyze the
importance income played in this election, by looking at an article by Larry Bartels and how he
conceptualizes the term “middle-class.” The third area will evaluate the changing political
culture in Massachusetts and how this transformation has impacted Republicans in the state.
Finally, there were some key moments and issues that arose in this campaign that should not be
ignored and that only served to tarnish Brown’s image and consequentially, his chances at
retaining his office.
An Issue of Demographics
This election has plunged the state’s already minute Republican Party further into the
abyss and if they have any hopes of correcting this downward trend, they will have to appeal to a
wider swath of voters. The story of this election – both locally and nationally – was the rise of

2. Weinstein 2
the non-white vote. Demographics will either help the Republicans avert complete obscurity in
the state, or will send them further into obscurity. Before, a wider discussion is had on the
importance on demographics, it is first necessary to understand the different environment from
2010. Scott Brown shocked the political world when he won the Liberal Lion’s seat in the
special election against Attorney General Martha Coakley in 2010 in a state dominated by
Democrats. However, his victory was largely due to a different political milieu than this year.
After taking a trouncing in 2008, the Tea Party revitalized a beleaguered Republican Party and
there was a wave of GOP victories across the country. Moreover, it was an off-year and
Democrats did not turn out for Coakley. This year, however, Warren had the benefit of having
President Obama atop the ticket with a well-organized Democratic machine that got out the vote.
This increased turnout did not bode well for Brown in a state where registered Republicans are a
minority. According to Michael Levenson of the Boston Globe, more than 52% of the state’s 4.2
million registered voters are not affiliated with either party, more than 35% are Democrats and
11% are Republicans, which fell from 13% in 2004 (Levenson). The numbers are unmistakable:
for a Republican to win in this state, they need to capture independents that make up more than
half of the electorate. Brown won independents 59% to 41% (CNN).
So, why did he lose? Steve Koczela, President of the MassInc. Polling Group explains
that Brown was able to capture independents by more than 30 points in the 2010 race against
Martha Coakley, but this year’s margin of 18% was too narrow. Warren was able to close the
gap among independents by turning more Democrats out to vote (Koczela). A major aspect of
Brown’s victory in 2010 was the ability to capture the support of disaffected Democrats.
According to Koczela, Coakley won 81% of Democrats in 2010. This year, however, 89% of
Democrats supported Warren making it even harder for Brown to win (CNN). Fundamentally,

3. Weinstein 3
his 2010 coalition cracked and he lost the groups that propelled him to victory just two years
earlier. Moreover, Brown underperformed among just about every group that he needed to do
well with.
Unions were one such group. They usually support Democrats, but as Melanie Trottman
of the Wall Street Journal reported in 2010, Brown won this key voting bloc. “A poll conducted
on behalf of the AFL-CIO found that 49% of Massachusetts union households supported Mr.
Brown in Tuesday's voting, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley” (Trottman). In
2012, the CNN exit polls did not measure union support, but Steve Koczela of MassInc. says
they went heavily for Warren. Unions are crucial for Democrats but Brown’s ability to win them
in 2010 offers a glimpse of hope for the GOP in the state. Brown won unions despite the AFL-
CIO’s endorsement of Coakley, so the right kind of Republican can win key parts of the
Democrat’s coalition, especially when the Democrats pick a weak candidate. In 2010, Brown
was the “right” type of candidate. He was able to connect to working-class voters in a way
Coakley was not able to. Think of the imagery of his advertisements: the pick-up truck and
emphasis on his blue-collar upbringing. However, this year was a different story. Warren was
able to connect to middle-class voters and portray Scott Brown as favoring the wealthy by
targeting his support for the Bush-era tax cuts. The disconnect that was clearly present with
Coakley disappeared with Warren, a major reason why she gained union support along with a
more concentrated effort to target this important voting bloc.
Women (see table below) is another pivotal voting bloc that Republicans will need to
appeal to going forward, and in this year saw a widening gender gap. Warren won women 59%
to 41%, an untenable number for Brown and Republicans (CNN). It showed attacks on Brown’s
record on women’s issues made an impact. One such charge came from Warren in October in an

4. Weinstein 4
ad that the Boston Globe’s Glen Johnson reported on. “The Warren ad uses interviews with
unnamed women and an off-screen announcer to criticize Brown on equal pay for women,
abortion rights and insurance coverage for
birth control” (Johnson). Perhaps, what was
more damaging was Brown’s reaction to the
advertisement. “Brown, in response, did not
dispute the specific votes Warren cited, but called the ad ‘inappropriate’ and accused Warren of
trying to scare women” (Johnson). However, Brown’s accusations did not resonate with voters
and was unable to convey a strong defense and as a result, lost women by 18 percentage points
(CNN). For Republicans to regain some sense of viability in future elections they need to appeal
to women and this election conveyed how problematic such a wide gender gap is.
Scott Brown’s problems did not stop with women. He lost younger voters between the
ages of 18 and 29 61% to 39% (CNN). Normally, such a number is not so consequential because
the elderly tend to turnout more faithfully than younger voters distracted by other priorities in
life. However, the CNN poll shows that both younger voters and those 65 years or older made up
19% of the electorate. Many were concerned that the turnout among younger voters would not
be high and that there was a lack of excitement compared to 2008. However, younger voters
turned out in even larger numbers this year. Warren’s outreach to college students and
Democrats’ organizational efforts on campuses across the state helped Warren. A CNN exit poll
from 2008 showed that same category of 18-29 year olds making up 17% of the electorate.
Younger voters are an important constituency that Republicans cannot ignore, especially in a
state dominated by a strong education industry. Moreover, as Maurice Cunningham, a professor
at the University of Massachusetts, Boston explains, how a person votes when their younger is
Vote by Gender
Elizabeth Warren
(D)
Scott Brown
(R)
Men (47%) 47% 53%
Women
(53%)
59% 41%

5. Weinstein 5
typical how they will vote when they grow older. If this assertion is accurate, then Republican
need to quickly target younger voters or the growing turnout among this group will benefit
Democrats, and will further diminish any chances of Republican success in the future. It should
be no surprise that Warren won younger voters, but it should cause some consternation that the
margin was so significant.
Education was no better for Brown. Koczela explained that voters without a high school
degree went for Brown in 2010, but this year, Warren won this group by 10 points (CNN).
Again, Brown underperformed among a group he had won two years earlier. Individually, these
numbers paint a picture of a GOP that is in serious trouble going forward. It is difficult to fathom
a Republican resurgence with such dismal numbers, but Brown’s ability in 2010 to win among
many of these groups proves it is possible for the right Republican to win in this state. However,
a substantial turnout and more energized Democrats this year than 2010 proved too much for
Brown and he not only faced-off against Warren, but a well organized Democratic Party in the
state. The Democrats knocked on thousands of doors daily to garner support for Warren. The
Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh believes door-knocking was an integral
part of their success in this election. ‘So what we’re trying to do is to deliver politics the way
people want it, which is personal, face to face, you know, neighbor to neighbor,’ Walsh said.
‘That kind of engagement, that kind of community conversation, is really what makes this work’
(Thys). Republicans are not well organized and could not match that sort of grassroots outreach
that gives Democrats such a powerful advantage.
Income as a Factor
The second dimension that is important to understanding the problems facing the state’s
GOP as they fall deeper into irrelevance is how voters made their decision based on income. The

6. Weinstein 6
results from the CNN exit polls are shown in the graph below. One area of heavy focus
throughout the campaign was on the middle-class. The conceptualization of such a complex term
is not easy, but Political Scientist and Princeton University Professor Larry Bartels attempts to
parse out its meaning. Bartels asserts that white working class voters have increased their support
for Democratic candidates and rebuffs the
claims that this group of voters abandoned
the Democrats after John Kerry lost his bid
for the White House in 2004 (Bartels 66).
Bartels explains that commentators like
New York Times columnist David Brooks
touted Bush’s victory among the “working
class,” but that there is a discrepancy over how to define who makes up the working class (68).
Bartels uses family income as a measurement of class status, and defines low income as being
below $35,000, middle income between $35,000 and $70,000, and high income referring to
family incomes of $70,000 or more (71-72). With these parameters in mind, looking back at this
year’s election results shows a major problem for Brown and Republicans when it comes to these
lower-income and middle-class voters. They comprise a large percentage of the electorate and
Brown lost both groups. He lost middle class voters by a much smaller margin (51% to 49%)
than lower-income voters (61% to 39%), but when the two groups are aggregated together, the
numbers convey a bleak outlook for Republicans (CNN).
Furthermore, Brown did receive high marks from voters when it comes to the economy.
When asked the most important issue facing the country, Brown received 51% compared to
Warren’s 49% on the economy (CNN). Such a number is surprising, considering Warren’s
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Less than
$50k
$50k-100k $100k or
more
Vote by Income
Warren
Brown

7. Weinstein 7
record on the economy and her image as a crusader against Wall Street. However, as Steve
Koczela explained, voters were looking for a different kind of candidate this year and the CNN
polls validate that assertion. Voters wanted someone they could identify with and that would
fight for their interests. When asked the most important quality in a Senate candidate, 32% of
voters said someone who cares about people and of those voters, 77% said Warren cared more
about people and Brown received 23% (CNN). A major reason for this number is Warren’s
portrayal of Brown as being out of touch with middle-class Americans, and highlighting his
support for the Bush tax cuts on wealthy Americans. This is a dangerous perception for any
politician and it clearly cost Brown many votes. Going forward, the GOP needed to be able to
recapture what Brown was able to do against Coakley, and that is to relate to voters and convey
the perception of understanding their interests.
The State’s Changing Political Culture
The third area to analyze in order to understand the pounding Republicans took at the
polls on November 6th
is political culture. The GOP’s large defeat was not unique to
Massachusetts, but was more pronounced in this state, especially with Republicans like Richard
Tisei losing their bid despite facing a candidate in John Tierney that was embroiled in a tax
scandal. It points to the extent of how entrenched Democrats have become in this state and how
difficult it will be for Republicans to regain presence in state government, which is vital to have
in a democracy. How the state became so solidly Democratic can be traced throughout the
Commonwealth’s history, but analyzing the political culture of the region yields some interesting
finds. Daniel Elazar describes three political cultures dominant in the country: individualistic,
moralistic and traditionalistic (Elazar 99). The individualistic political culture holds that
“government action is to be restricted to those areas, primarily in the economic realm, which

8. Weinstein 8
encourage private initiative and widespread access to the marketplace” (99). The moralistic
political culture focuses on the idea of the commonwealth as a fundamental component of a
democratic government (101). Elazar sees a predominately individualistic political culture in
Massachusetts with undertones of a moralistic political culture (106). It is not too hard to see an
example of these divergent cultures today.
Governor Deval Patrick’s speech at the Democratic National Convention invoked the
need for a united commonwealth. He said this about the Orchard Garden Elementary School in
Boston that went from one of the worst to one of the best performing schools in the district: “But
those Orchard Gardens kids should not be left on their own. Those children are America's
children, too, yours and mine…For this country to rise, they must rise…” (Patrick). Governor
Patrick spoke a moralistic message of collective responsibility to ensure that our children
succeed while at the same time, appointing to his administration Sheila Burgess as the State
Highway Safety Director despite her having a poor driving record. The Boston Globe reported
that: “When asked if he would try to find out how she was hired so those involved would face
consequences, Patrick said that the paper trail of her hiring was destroyed as part of a routine
destruction of state records” (Bierman and Levenson). Governor Patrick did say that
Representative James McGovern referred Burgess and that his administration would look further
into how she was hired (Bierman and Levenson). The individualistic political culture is
conceptualized by Elazar as being very businesslike and it is clear from this example that there
was some patronage happening with Burgess (Elazar 101). Governor Patrick’s emphasis on the
commonwealth is important to understand and it traces back to the state’s founding.
The idea of the “commonwealth” is a key construct of the state’s political culture that
traces back to the Puritans and John Winthrop’s idea of the “city on a hill” with the eyes of the

9. Weinstein 9
world watching. Massachusetts will set a poor example if our state is run by one-party. A
democracy is not constructed of one party. Republicans are necessary to challenge Democrats
and hold them accountable for their decisions. If Massachusetts is to set an example as it always
has, then its government must be composed of two parties that are engaging in healthy debates
and compromise – the very essence of democracy.
However, the Republican ideology does not tend to align with this culture and helps
explain why the GOP has performed so poorly in state politics. It is an ideology that tends to
disproportionately favor the upper echelons of society, and it is sentiment felt among the state’s
voters. According to the CNN exit polls, those who said Brown’s positions on a myriad of issues
was too conservative comprised 34% of the electorate. Within that 34%, 95% were Warren
supports and 5% were Brown supporters (CNN). Another 50% of the electorate said Brown’s
positions on issues were “about right” and of that 50%, 19% were Warren voters and 81%
Brown voters (CNN). This would not be a problem for Brown in Mississippi or Texas, but in a
state with a moralistic political culture, conservative ideology is not going to help a candidate
win. Brown won many Democrats in 2010 and was not able to replicate that success this year. A
major reason for this was Warren linking Brown to Republican Party and making that “R” next
to his name as visible as possible in voters’ mind.
Alexis Levinson, a political reporter for the Daily Caller summarized Warren’s effort to
link Brown to the national GOP during one of the debates in October. “Early in the debate,
Warren accused Brown of stealing from Mitt Romney’s ‘playbook’ for last week’s debate when
Brown said that the Affordable Care Act, which Warren supports and he does not, would take
$700 billion from Medicare. ‘It was wrong then, and it’s wrong tonight,’ she said. She later
repeated the line” (Levinson). This effort to connect Brown with Romney and an unpopular

10. Weinstein 10
national Republican Party was a winning strategy for Warren despite Brown’s effort to tout his
independent record in Congress. Warren beat Brown 74% to 26% among voters who listed
healthcare as the important issue facing the country (CNN).
Edgar Litt divides Massachusetts political culture among four distinct groups: the
patricians, the managers, the workers and the yeomen. The Patricians and Yeomen tend to be
solidly Republican while the Managers and Workers tend to be Democrats (Litt 24). In a state
where Managers have gained dominance, especially in last several years in industries from
healthcare to education, it poses a major problem for Republicans in their effort to gain statewide
offices. The Republican Yeomen showed some vitality in 2010 in the analogous Tea Party, but
that fervor was proven by this year’s election to be transient. There just is not enough of that
group to sustain any Republican success over the long run. The Yeoman and Patricians have
faded away and do not comprise enough of the electorate. Brown tried targeting Workers in
advertisements that featured endorsements from the former Mayor of Boston Ray Flynn, but it
did not translate to support on Election Day. The GOP cannot stave off an even further decline if
they fail to appeal to Workers and Managers which dominate the state’s political culture.
The final area of this argument of a prolonged Republican decline in the state involves
religion and some other key moments in the campaign that will impact the GOP’s chances in the
state for years to come. In terms of religion, the changing composition of the Catholic vote is a
pivotal for Republicans to consider going forward. Steve Koczela wrote an article for
CommonWealth, an online magazine where he examines the changing face of the Catholic vote.
In a poll released by MassInc back in April, 44% of Massachusetts voters identified as Catholic,
a quarter as a Christian denomination, and 20% listed none, atheist or agnostic (Koczela). The
Catholic vote often is meshed together as one vote, but as Koczela explains it encompasses

11. Weinstein 11
Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. Back in May, Brown held a much larger lead among non-
Hispanic White Catholics than Catholics as a whole. Hispanic voters leaned more towards
Warren. What does this all mean?
“The Catholic vote and the Irish vote are not one and the same in the Bay State. While
white Catholics will continue to be the majority for many years to come, the Latino population is
growing rapidly, and will play an increasingly significant role in the so-called ‘Catholic vote’
(Koczela). Catholics are not a monolithic group and not realizing this diversity will have major
consequences for Republicans. More broadly, demographics are probably the most crucial lesson
to be learned from this election – both locally and nationally. It is unmistakable that the face of
the American electorate is changing. Republicans are not keeping up with this change. Mitt
Romney and national Republicans saw this first-hand as Barack Obama won the Hispanic vote in
record numbers to propel him to a reelection victory. If the GOP has any hopes of averting
insignificance in the state, they have to recognize that Hispanics are becoming an increasingly
prominent slice of the electorate, especially among Catholics. Republicans in this state will need
to appeal to this voting bloc or risk losing more elections.
Scott Brown’s Image Problem
There were also many other key moments in this campaign that did not help the image of
the GOP in the state, and especially Scott Brown who has remained a relatively popular
politician. One such moment was the never-ending controversy over Elizabeth Warren’s Native
American heritage and whether she used her status to gain advantages reserved for minorities.
Sean Sullivan of the Washington Post reported on Brown’s effort during one of the debate’s to
bring the issue to the forefront. “‘Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person
of color — and as you can see, she is not,’ Brown said at the debate. ‘I didn’t get an advantage

12. Weinstein 12
because of my background,’ rebutted Warren” (Sullivan). This debate over Warren’s heritage
was a key theme in the campaign but it never gained any major traction and the election results
validate its ineffectiveness. It is puzzling why Brown chose to stick with the issue and Steve
Koczela explained that according to the polls, the issue never went anywhere. In fact, Koczela
argues that it cost Brown in his favorability ratings.
Furthermore, the issue only grew worse for Brown as several of his supporters were
caught on tape making Native American chants in September. Sean Sullivan of The Boston
Globe reported on the story. “On Tuesday, a video showing individuals making war whoops and
tomahawk chop gestures outside a rally reportedly included Republican staffers and an aide to
the senator, forcing Brown to play some defense. He said he did not condone the actions”
(Sullivan). Brown’s aggressiveness with Warren over this issue did not help him among voters.
In an October poll by the University of Massachusetts Amherst 45% of respondents said Scott
Brown ran the more negative campaign and 26% said Warren was more negative. These kinds of
attacks only serve to turn off voters and can be dangerous politically, especially for a male
politician who runs the risk of conveying the perception that he is talking down or being
condescending to a female challenger. The extent to which these specific attacks hurt Brown is
tough to gauge, but considering that Brown lost women by 18% according to the CNN poll, it is
clear that the attacks did not help him. Moreover, these numbers are magnified when juxtaposed
with the University of Massachusetts Amherst numbers from October that showed Brown losing
women but by just 9 points. Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe asserts that Brown’s attacks on
Warren had an unmistakable impact on women. “The state’s junior senator was basically arguing
that Warren didn’t deserve her success and the only way she got ahead was by claiming to be
part Cherokee” (Vennochi). This, Vennochi argues, consequently insulted any woman who

13. Weinstein 13
worked hard to “prove her worth, and her right to an equal seat at the table with men.”
Republicans need women voters and cannot afford to create a perception of attacking such a
pivotal voting bloc. The GOP will not be competitive in the state if they fail to close the gender
gap that grew even wider in this election, and one way to start on the path towards correcting this
problem is to stop attacks like those charged against Warren.
Elizabeth Warren’s 54% to 46% victory over Scott Brown will have major implications
of further sending Republicans into the political abyss and this will have significant
consequences for the people of the Commonwealth. As a democracy, one party rule is not
tenable. It deprives the political process of the kind of debate needed for our government to
function and this election further hindered the potential of preventing one-party rule.
Republicans need to encroach on the subgroups that Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats
dominated against like women, minorities, low-income voters to name a few. As a moralistic
political culture overwhelmingly led by Managers and Workers, the GOP cannot afford to ignore
these groups any longer and need to widen their appeal to include these groups.
The composition of the electorate is continuously changing with each election cycle and
the GOP has failed to adapt. President Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Democrats nationwide
recognized this change and targeted voters accordingly. Mitt Romney, Scott Brown and the
Republicans failed to target these groups and paid the price in November. Warren’s eight point
victory would not be considered a close margin in most states, but it is close in this state. Brown
kept the final vote relatively close in a state dominated by Democrats and with President Obama
atop the ticket beating Mitt Romney by more than 20 points. It is not impossible for the right
type of Republican candidate to win in this state. Look at the state’s history: despite complete
legislative dominance by Democrats, the Governor’s office has switched back and forth several

14. Weinstein 14
times in the past few decades. Going forward, the success of this state will hinge on our leaders’
abilities to bridge differences and come together to solve problems, but if we as a state allow for
one-party to rule unchallenged by an opposition, then we as voters do a disservice to ourselves
by making our democracy that much more weaker.

15. Weinstein 15
Bibliography
Arsenault, Mark. “In new ad, Elizabeth Warren slams Scott Brown’s votes on women’s issues,
Brown says Warren trying to scare women.” Boston.com. 12 Oct. 2012. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/12/new-elizabeth-warren-slams-
scott-brown-votes-womens-issues-brown-says-warren-trying-scare-
women/hsRTrgpXyb5Iie1HhvgRxK/story.html>.
Bartels, Larry. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York:
Princeton University Press, 2008.
Bierman, Noah, and Michael Levenson. “Governor Patrick says public defenders’ estimate of
drug lab scandal costs is overblown.” Boston.com. 28 Nov. 2012. 14 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/28/governor-patrick-says-public-defenders-
estimate-drug-lab-scandal-costs-overblown/iAWYFiIrVH74uVfdiOLbTO/story.html>.
Cunningham, Maurice. Lecture. University of Massachusetts, Boston. 26 Nov. 2012.
Elazar, Daniel. Marketplace and Commonwealth, and the Three Political Cultures. Baltimore:
Lanahan, 2001.
“Election Center” 12 Nov. 2012. CNN. 28 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MA/senate>.
“Elizabeth Warren Maintains Narrow Lead Over Scott Brown in Massachusetts Senate Race”
09 Oct. 2012. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 27 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.umass.edu/poll/polls/20121002.html>.
Koczela, Steve. “Does religion matter in the Brown-Warren race?” CommonWealth Magazine.
09 May 2012. 28 Nov. 2012 <http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/Voices/
Perspective/Online-Exclusives-2012/Spring/007-Does-religion-matter-in-the-Brown-
Warren-race.aspx>.
Koczela, Steve. Lecture. University of Massachusetts, Boston. 28 Nov. 2012.
Levenson, Michael. “Registration figures show Massachusetts voters continue to abandon two
major political parties.” Boston.com. 28 Aug. 2012. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.boston.com/ metrodesk/2012/08/28/registration-figures-show-
massachusetts-voters-continue-abandon-two-major-political-
parties/xS4cwS1ivqo5Jj3Cxw4aRM/story.html>.
Levinson, Alexis. “Elizabeth Warren links Scott Brown to national Republicans.” The Daily
Caller. 11 Oct. 2012. 29 Nov. 2012 <http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/11/elizabeth-warren-
links-scott-brown-to-national-republicans/>.
Litt, Edgar. The Political Cultures of Massachusetts. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1964.

16. Weinstein 16
Sullivan, Sean. “The fight over Elizabeth Warren’s heritage, explained.” The Washington Post.
27 Sept. 2012. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
fix/wp/2012/09/27/the-fight-over-elizabeth-warrens-heritage-explained/>.
The Huffington Post. “Deval Patrick Speech Text: Read The Governor's Democratic National
Convention Remarks.” 04 Sept. 2012. 14 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/deval-patrick-speech-
text_n_1852774.html>.
Trottman, Melanie. “Union Households Gave Boost to GOP’s Brown.” The Wall Street Journal.
22 Jan. 2010. 01 Dec. 2012.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704423204575017690900226982.html
>.
Thys, Fred. “Mass. Democratic Party Chair: We’re Ready For Next Race.” WBUR. 16 Nov.
2012. 14 Dec. 2012. <http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/16/massachusetts-democrats-
walsh>.
Vennochi, Joan. “How Brown lost support from women.” The Boston Globe. 08 Nov. 2012. 29
Nov. 2012. <http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/11/08/how-brown-lost-support-
from-women/sB5PpFKUpYGIcQMDihMtwI/story.html>.