Who Won the Brown-Warren Debate?

Incumbent Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren squared off in their first debate Thursday night.

Republican Senator Scott Brown faced off against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren Thursday night in a debate televised by WBZ-TV. The debate was the first of four planned tilts between the candidates, and it saw disagreement between the two on just about every topic.

Polls have seesawed over the last week, with Brown and Warren swapping small leads, as they have throughout the campaign. The debates may provide one or the other an opportunity to change voter minds and swing the election his or her way.

Central to Thursday's debate was the focus on taxes, jobs and the economy.

"He has said he will defend the top 2 percent and the top 3 percent...and will hold the other 98% of families hostage," Warren said, referencing Brown's position against extending the Bush-era tax cuts unless it also contained cuts for the country's top earners. 

Brown countered by noting that Warren's policies would raise taxes, on everyone, in fact, it's the "first thing she looks to do," he said. 

"And the criticism is that I don't want to raise taxes," he said. "Guilty as charged. I'm not going to raise taxes. I'm going to protect taxpayers' pocketbooks and wallets."

Who do you think won the debate? Did the back and forth change your mind about the upcoming election? Did the candidates answer the questions you had? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

Adam DeHaven September 21, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Scott clearly won the debate and comes across as a person of character and integrity. Warren does not, and her leftist philosophy is not what this country needs. The reason we're in a situation where we can't come to agreement between the President and Congress is the refusal of President to come to the middle as well as many members of Congress - on both sides. Someone just voting the party line is not going to help Congress get their act together, so Warren is not the answer. I guy like Scott Brown looks to bring the sides together which is exactly what we need to get things done. You want to keep a divided Congress, keep separate sides of the room with stubborn agenda driven people with their arms crossed unwillingly to comprimise, vote for Warren.
Linda Deveau September 21, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Scott is petty. What was all this time spent on whether Elizabeth is part indian? Soctt is part of the Repulican main stream when possible and votes the way he think MA would like at times when it hardly matters. Scott is part of the divided congress. Just tell me where Scott has brought 2 sides together in his time in congress. Have you looked at home much wealth Scott has amassed over his time in Congress? Where is it coming from? He's just another wolf in sheep's clothing. We know where Elizabeth stands and who she will work for. Give me Elizabeth Warren anyday!
Frank September 21, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Brown won easily.Warren actually said she thought Obama was doing a good job in regards to foreign affairs.Our ambassador was killed and dragged through the streets and we apologized.Sorry I can't believe any true American could agree with that type of thinking.
ted September 21, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Brown first words was the color of Warren skin this shows ...his lack of respect for his oppent. Brown this serious act serious!!!
Alex September 21, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Warren will be voting strictly along the party lines so how can she be better in the terms of bringing sides together? Can you please elaborate on this part of your post?
Alex September 21, 2012 at 06:42 PM
To Ted: Comment was relevant due to Warren's (seemingly bogus) claim about her Indian ancestry. Funny as the whole issue may sound it is quite serious and Warren never came clean on it. Issues like this one tell a lot about person's integrity (if it matters when we are electing "public servants" :-)).
hammergjh September 21, 2012 at 07:01 PM
No one apologized to anyone over this egregious act of terrorism. And no one was dragged through the streets. Please stop using the right winged smear machine (Faux News, Rush Limbaugh) for your information. It diminishes your posts. Obama can't come "to the middle" to meet the Republicans in congress because he'd have to go to the extreme right to meet them. I will not give the right wing any additional voices in this congress because of their extreme hateful ways. They are ruining this country, plain and simple. Their first order of business was to foil any plans Obama had to fix the dire economy the right created. Make Obama fail to the detriment of the country. The Republicans wrap themselves in the American flag but they are not patriots. They are self-centered extremists. Elizabeth Warren all the way.
Mike Benton September 22, 2012 at 02:41 PM
Scott signed the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes by one penny. In other words he pledged to the exteme wing of the republican party not to compromise on deficit reduction. So he can't come to the middle to work out a balanced approach to reduce the debt. Elizabeth Warren wants a balanced approched to reducing the deficit. Spending cuts and small increase in taxes for the upper tax brackets.
Mike Benton September 22, 2012 at 03:00 PM
Scott spent the whole debate trying to persude everyone one he's not a republican. But he can't run away from it. He supports Mitt Romney ( the 47% of Americans are moochers guy) and he holds the republican position that you can reduce the debt by cutting taxes for big business and upper bracket tax payers by 20%. He also voted against equal pay for women on the basis it would be a burden on the employers would are the the discriminating. He took sides with those discriminating against women and expects women to be good sports about it for the sake of the bottom line of companies who pad thier profits by taking advantage of women.
Steve Marino September 22, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Hey mikbee, Presidents John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both cut taxes on "all" taxpayers across the board and the result was more jobs and more money to the federal government because of more workers in the work force paying taxes and businesses making more money and paying more taxes! This would still work even with the 16,000,000,000,000.00 we owe The communist regime in China if we stopped spending and were actually serious about the deficit. You only have to look back to the Carter administration to see that taxing the job creaters creates hardship on the middle class. The reason that we have a continues unemployment rate of over 8 percent through the Obama administration is because he doesn't understand that it is businesses that employ middle class workers and that most buisnessess do not have the money or confidence to expand. If he continues to play this class warfare card and does indeed raise taxes on the job creaters, we can expect to see much higher unemployment and deficits spiraling out of control! Socialist ideals have never worked in any country that has implemented them. You need look no further then Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Block to see the suffering of its people. We are suffering as a Nation because of the failed policies of this administration and this vote on nothing that will help Democraticlly controlled Senate! It is time for a change!
Mike Benton September 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Hey Steve, Reagan cut taxes and the debt started to skyrocket. He had to raise taxes back up because of the rising debt. Bush cut taxes and the same thing happened. The debt got out of control. It is now a proven maxim that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. The Reagan style tax cuts for business are an effective stimulus for business investment. But the trickle down effect was overstated and the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. Don't forget a lot of those Reagan tax cuts are still with us. The Bush tax cuts also had a disappointing trickle down effect. Those tax cuts are still with us. There is no way we can have a thrid round of the same kind of stimulus because of the crippling debt the first two left us with. Moreover, businesses would get the tax cuts and still take advantage of foreign to keep thier personell costs down. Also, employers are averse to hire since they don't want to provide insanely expensive health insurance to new employees. This was not something employers had to deal with durring the Kennedy and Reagan administrations.
Steve Marino September 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Hey mikbee, You need to do a little research to find the truth rather that repeating stale and false democratic talking points!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something