Blue Mass. Group (D) / Research 2000
1/12-13/10; 500 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Blue Mass. Group: post, crosstabs)
49% Coakley (D), 41% Brown (R), 5% Kennedy (L) (chart)
Hehehehe, Blue Mass Group.....I love it!
Posted on January 14, 2010 1:57 PM
I would say if this were anywhere other than Mass, the polls would be wrong, but based on my personal phone calls this sounds about accurate. Out of the 30 people who have declared who they are voting for about 20 have declared coakley and the other 10 or so have declared Brown or are undecided. I called 2 towns in rural western Mass mostly. They would be more likely to be less Democratic than they are in the Boston Hub.
Posted on January 14, 2010 2:15 PM
But just the fact we are treating Mass and disecting it like it was PA or Ohio is hard to believe. I honestly believe that any election being held on Jan 19th regardless of who the candidate is the second year a president from the party is in office is difficult. I honestly think after Katrina in 2006, when Bush's popularity had dropped, Democrats could have gotten a Conservative Democrat elected to Idaho if enough people turned out.
Posted on January 14, 2010 2:18 PM
PS....I think generally speaking no poll is as accurate as the actual results. I know for a fact that getting people you don't know to even take part in a poll isn't always easy. Some people may vote, but really don't care enough about politics to even bother. Many pollsters get hung up on. That leads me to believe that the people who participate in polls may tend to be more politically concerned.
Posted on January 14, 2010 2:22 PM
Depends what you mean about Western Mass, the Berkshires are heavily dark Blue. As others have noted Coakley's numbers seem to be pretty consistent no matter which poll it is, and it's Brown's numbers that aren't agreeing.
Its going to be all about turnout in this one. Though i think all the stars would need to line up perfectly for Brown to pull it out.
Posted on January 14, 2010 2:28 PM
Let's see, poll commissioned by a Dem blogger plus a 4% MoE and Kennedy won't poll nearly as well on election day as he is now.
I'd say that this is a tossup, though probably Coakley still has the edge. Now we'll see if the big guns coming out helps her or backfires. If it helps, she'll win by 6-8. If it backfires, I think there is a real chance Brown wins. I'd say the odds of him winning re 3:1, which is damn good for a GOPer in Massachusetts.
Posted on January 14, 2010 3:10 PM
The Berkshires are indeed dark Blue because of it's huge focus on the arts. The Springfield area near CT is a different story; lots of chemical companies and Smith and Wesson. That makes a little bit of a difference.
Posted on January 14, 2010 3:16 PM
Pretty much every poll on this race indicates that Coakley only needs a small amount of the undecideds to win. Brown would need to win 80-90% of them. Given recent electoral history, one party is unlikely to get more than 60% of the undecided vote, and usually it splits more or less evenly. I think the "undecided rule" is no longer valid and hasn't been since the 1990s.
Posted on January 14, 2010 3:34 PM
I figure Teapartiers won't crash this party considering MA folk know how it really went down.
Posted on January 14, 2010 4:43 PM
The undecideds helped Christie win.
FM is right....every start woul ahv eto align for Brown. The absolute perfect storm would have to occur for him....3:1....I'd say Brown has a 1 in 25 shot. However, I think its 50/50 if he can keep it 5 points or below....which would allmost have the same effect as a brown win. Dems need a big win here to really sew up HCR and give purple and red state Dems hope for the fall......a dinky 3 or 4 point win her ein Mass is not goign to help the Dem cause oen bit.
Posted on January 14, 2010 5:08 PM
I just don't see this going Red, but the Dems will have to spend much more money in this one then they thought they would. Similar to Virginia. The RNC dumped most of it's cash this last cycle and is pretty strapped right now.
I still don't understand why this WH choose so many sitting Senators to fill positions. I know this one was different, but talk about starting your team off on defense. Incumbents win like 80% of the time, why put that many states in play going into a mid-term, when you know you have a recession and are trying to take of HCR?
Posted on January 14, 2010 5:31 PM
Its an interesting situation with the effectivenss of negative ads too. Just now in a commercial break for the local news of the 5 commercials, 3 of them were anti-Brown ones from Coakley. I know that may work for some votes, but how many do you lose just because of the overkill.
Posted on January 14, 2010 5:57 PM
Negative ads work. Sad,but true... Ask Hillary... when she went hard on Obama she won those races...
In Coakley's case, keeping indies home helps her, and that's what negative ads do to drive down turnout.
Coakley needs some positive ads as well...
Posted on January 14, 2010 6:14 PM
I think this poll confirms the consensus; the race is stuck with Coakley up by 2-5 points and hoping for decent turnout. Rasmussen had it +2 for Coakley without the Libertarian. I don't think he will score more than 2%, which would make this current poll 49%/44%/2% with 5% undecided. If Brown were to get 80% of the undecided, he would still lose by a point.Cu-writer and MassE make good points though...negative ads and Democratic big shots have the potential to backfire...or lead to a comfortable win. This is a race that sets up like a good game...pull up the chairs and grab some popcorn, because it is going to be close.
Posted on January 14, 2010 6:40 PM
The closeness of this election being reported by PPP, when it was may be the one thing that saved the election for the otherwise unnoticeable Coakley. It lit a big fire under her ass and every Dem leader including, now, Obama. Imagine if no one had bothered to poll until this week. I can easily imagine Brown up by a few points by now and it would be too late to rev up an Ad campaign, even one with Massachusetts spelled Massachusettes
A few other reasons I think Coakley will win now that all the stops are being pulled out.
People know that the HCR bill is essentially DOA if Brown wins. That's a good thing for Coakley, since it galvanizes those who do really care about the bill. HCR has 53% support overall in MA, meaning 75-80% of Dems. A lot of those people will turn out at this point because they are suddenly freaking-out-desperate, and they know the national ramifications of not passing this bill, even if it's not well-liked. Passing nothing dooms dems to huge perhaps historic losses (loss of House and 7-8 Senate seats)because Dems would be seen as trying to pass something with 60 freaking seats and totally screwing up; that's seen as shear incompetence. Passing this bill dooms them to medium to (possibly) large ones (like 5 Senate seats and 30 House seats). That's because there are some provisions of the bill people will actually like and it will mitigate the anger over time.
If there's a decent turnout from them it will negate much of the expected Republican turnout advantage. The Teddy legacy also carries weight as do the Kennedy family...with those who love or respect them at least.
I agree with the statement that negative ads tend to make people who don't have really strong candidate preferences to stay home.
Lastly, I do think Brown did something really stupid in saying he didn't know what the Tea Party movement was, when he's on video speaking at one of them (in Worcester) and he attended and spoke at another as well.
I'm sure this will be used in some Ad (if not already) to cast doubt on Brown's honesty, which is why he was stupid to say something that everyone knows is a lie.
Posted on January 14, 2010 7:21 PM
As a libertarian Republican I support the independent Joe Kennedy. However, it is now clear he will not win this seat next week. Brown is an enemy of civil liberties and Coakley only wants to continue on the course of the endless government spending. I disagree with both of then on their social and fiscal policies, respectively.
I am a registered Republican voter but I can't ever bring myself to vote for Scott Brown. He is pro-war in Iraq/Afghanistan and he is against civil liberties. He is not a true conservative if he is for these things. However, if other libertarian minded voters can stomach Brown, vote for him over Kennedy. Even though Kennedy can't win I usually would still encourage voting for him, but with HCR on the line, Brown would be better off than Coakley.
Thanks to Emily for posting this link in the Outliers section. Steve Kornacki says internal polling from last night indicate the race is closer then previously thought. His prediction is now 46-44.
Posted on January 14, 2010 7:50 PM
Nate at 538 says that a Suffolk poll will be out tomorrow morning. dKos will have a R2K followup poll soon (which will track trends with this one), and PPP will release their last poll on Sunday night. I presume that Rasmussen will also release one of their Sunday one-day polls on Monday. (or maybe even do a Monday poll and release late tuesday--would be strange of them to do it, but who knows!)
So,there will be no shortage of polling in the last days of this race... I think we'll know where everybody stands pretty well by Monday.
BTW, I think Scott Brown wins... Mr. Charming always wins (even with Obama who was much more charming than McCain), and I think a lot of Democratic men are woo'd by Mr. "I drive a truck (and have 5 houses, but I won't tell you that)."
It feels a lot like when Obama was rocking the house in the early primaries and he could do no wrong and she could do no right. Although turnout is important here, it really only matters with the base. If indies actually go out and vote, then he squeaks by.
Now, Hillary regained her momentum by going full negative on Obama a week before the Ohio and Texas primary, and the NAFTA leak on Friday ended up killing him (along with bad weather in cuyahoga county primary night)...
But, I digress...
Obama screwed himself had when he stopped fighting for the public option. Democrats are not enthused right now at all. Conservadems holding their priorities hostage are killing them. Fortunately, there will be some divine justice, as the conservadems will be the ones who will lose the close races.
I never thought I'd see as bad a candidate as Creigh Deeds, but Martha Coakley is about as bad a candidate as one can get! The base doesn't like her very much, and she's never had to deal with a competitive race.
Still, it's technically hers to lose... we'll see what happens. If this wasn't a special election, she'd be up comfortably, but it is, and anything can happen.
Posted on January 14, 2010 8:58 PM
It seems to be over... yes, it's the Boston Herald, but still...
New Boston Herald poll has Brown 50%, Coakley 46%.
Posted on January 14, 2010 11:01 PM
Regardless of the new Herald numbers, a paroled murderer just got collared for killing a defenseless clerk. All politics are local, this can't help the Attorney General no matter how much blame she should actually should have.
Posted on January 14, 2010 11:23 PM
Worst candidate ever... I thought Creigh Deeds was bad... but, she is definatley the worst... How could you lose Kennedy's seat and kill the cause of his life with your negligence, Martha?
Posted on January 14, 2010 11:47 PM
Quote: "PS....I think generally speaking no poll is as accurate as the actual results."
Yes, one thing you can say about the actual results: they're generally 100% accurate.
Posted on January 15, 2010 12:43 AM
Isn't the Herald the conservative paper in Boston? But yet again, Coakley is at 50. I expect she'll more or less split the undecideds, giving her between 50-53% to Brown's 47% or so. Conservatives will spin this as a win no matter what happens.
1) Brown wins: they'll say dems cannot even win in a very blue state. Portends a massive loss in November.
2) Coakley wins within 5: they'll say dems only barely won in a very blue state. Portends a republican sweep of in November.
3) Coakley wins between 5 and 9: they'll say that since polls showed the race close, the dems demonstrated serious weaknesses. Portends a tough race to hold on to the house and senate.
Posted on January 15, 2010 1:20 AM
"Worst candidate ever... I thought Creigh Deeds was bad... but, she is definatley the worst..."
Why is she bad in your opinion?
Posted on January 15, 2010 1:22 AM
They are giving Brown the 50%, not Coakley... their turnout assumes large numbers of indies and depressed turnout in urban areas. They may be right, the SOS said that urban absentees are down, while rural ones are up... None of the signs are very good at all.
She took a vacation, thinking this was in the bag, and she has no passion or zeal. Everything that comes out of her mouth seems to be wrong... obvious inexperience in a contested race, and she's understandably getting killed.
She blew this race by thinking it was in the bag...
Posted on January 15, 2010 2:12 AM
Some signs of optimism... Suffolk had Corzine up by 9 points in their last poll before the election.
Posted on January 15, 2010 2:18 AM
I'm actually going to be looking to Rasmussen for some clarity on this; he is bad months out but generally very accurate this close to an election. I remain unconvinced that any pollster has an accurate turnout model so in the end I guess we'll have to wait and see. As for Suffolk, there are some problems with that poll, need another one to confirm movement toward Brown. Ie: their MA approval on health care varies significantly. Suffolk had it at 36 while Rasmussen showed it at 52.
Brown must be doing something right - the independents in Mass are overwhelmingly liberal.
Posted on January 15, 2010 3:25 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR