Dueling polls
So, which Brown/Coakley poll is closer to reality?
This one, which says the Massachusetts Senate race is a dead heat?
Or this one, which has Coakley up by 15?
Dunno. However, the all-important details of the demographics of the second poll (such as how many of each party were sampled) remain a mystery. Both are being reported by pro-Democratic sites, and both involved randomly selected “likely voters.”
The poll that shows the race as a dead heat reported its sampling. Here are the percentages:
Obama voters: 54
McCain voters: 38
That sure says something. As does this:
Democrats: 44
Republicans: 17
Independents/Other: 30
And even in the poll showing Coakley way ahead, there are signs of possible trouble for her. It was taken on January 2-6, and if most of the questioning was done closer to January 2, that was before the main push for Brown really began. Up to 25% of those polled were undecided. And among respondents who said they were “extremely interested” in the race (the most likely voters of all), it was a dead heat.
Interesting.
Having lived in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts for many years, I have faith that there are a sufficient number of die-hard liberals to give Coakley the win. There are too many people in Massachusetts who will vote for the Democrat – no matter what – that a Republican gets elected to state offices only when the situation is desperate (specifically, when the Democrats have screwed things up so thoroughly that the citizens can see it all coming apart).
A Republican for Senator Kennedy’s throne? No way.
And even if Coakley loses the actual election, liberals run MA: they’ll steal it.
PPP has had some real mixed results with their polling, so I’d be wary of them saying the race is a dead-heat. On the other hand, William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection was at Brown HQ yesterday and said the phone banks were fully staffed and getting an enthusiastic response to the calls. Based on this and other anecdotes, I’d say the race is close. Just how close is anyone’s guess.
Pingback:Jules Crittenden » Up 1 Or Down 15?
Democrats 44; Republicans 17; Independents/Other 30. That sums to 91%.
Sampling “likely” voters and having an Other category implies the total should sum to 100%.
Am I misinterpretting the data?
This was also present:
Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley.
The only thing I can guess is that Independents BELIEVED Obama and are extremely awake now – thank goodness…. maybe too late.
Off topic:
Steele calls for Reid’s resignation
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/10/video-steele-calls-for-reids-resignation/
These percentages of Obama/McCain voters do not jibe with the 2008 results.
.For the 2008 election in Taxachusetts, the results were Obama 62, McCain 36. In the election, there were 72% more Obama voters than McCain Voters in Taxachusetts, but in the poll there were only 42% more Obama voters (62/36 versus 54/38)This divergence may be due to sampling bias, or it may be due to buyers’ remorse: some are ashamed to admit they voted for Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#State_results
Gringo, the poll was of likely voters so perhaps some of the Obama voters are going to sit this election out?
What is interesting in its own right is that the Republican from the bluest of blue states, when Dems control the White House and Congress, less than a year after a popular Democrat was elected President, is even able to make a showing much less give the Dems a run for their money. If Brown is anything but trounced in this election, fear of the electorate will spread through the Dems like a virus.
Especially given the weak support from the RNC Brown has received.
I think Kevino hits the nail on the head.
I didn’t read the polls, just saw the headline and immediately thought it was an attempt to roll the bandwagon for undecideds.
It IS interesting. Especially since the temporary replacemt. for Kennedy (appointed) currently in Senate announced this week that the new Senator-elect would not be sworn in until AFTER the vote on the Healthcare Bill. Whether they can get away with it — I don’t know. But thus far, Chicago muscle has made possible an awful lot in the past year that hasn’t exactly been on the up and up.
I would think that the key is all about the Independents, or people who now identify themselves as Independents after the mess that Obama and Dems have gotten us into to date. (And one would logically think that the massive problems w/ exploding escalation of costs in the MA healthcare system, would push against a Democrat. But nothing’s been exactly logical or rational since Obama’s election.
I’m also guessing that perhaps it’s the few Republicans and the Independents who are now outraged by the current state of affairs, would be the ones moved to get out to the polls, rather than the forever-liberals who take the Kennedy seat as Democratic for granted. But what do I know? Though I was always petrified of Obama’s election, I still never dreamed he could get away with many of the things he has, and I would not have guessed he and a Congress would so arrogantly ignore the American people’s voice! They’re all about THEIR agenda, and full steam ahead no matter what.
And then there’s always A.C.O.R.N…..Anybody heard how strong a presence they have in Massachusetts? Espec. around polling time?
There were a couple of other inconsistencies. The Globe Poll used a samller sample, and actually had the pollers speak with the respondents. The questions were worded in such a way as to push the respondent towards Coakley.
PPP is a democratic polling source, but they were the ones who were calling the NJ and VA races for the Republican candidates when the MSM was saying that the Democratic candidates were in the lead. Basically, if they are saying the race is tight, I believe them. I would actually give Coakley a real lead of very low single digits.
The other thing that doesn’t get mentioned is the voter intensity. Basically, the Republicans and Independents are VERY anti-Washington right now, and are motivated to GOTV for Brown. Coakley seems like she’s waiting around to get annointed.
FWIW
Off topic:
Venezuela’s idiot
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTtr11jqdrdM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Wow-Republican-leads-in-Massachusetts–81078007.html
Scott Brown has built a strong grassroots movement to win this special election for the United States Senate on January 19th and send a political shock-wave across the country and to the Washington establishment. The left Boston Globe had to publish this bla bla bla poll today. What else do you expect from them? The arrogant-elite-socialists have understimated Scott. This is why the radical MoveOn.org has decided to MoveIn to Massachusetts to try and help the lethargic Martha Coakley campaign gain some traction. The SEIU, the nation’s largest public employee union is also pouring thousands of dollars into this race to defeat Scott’s momentum. The energy and support for Scott is amazing. A win on January 19th will deliver a devastating blow to the out-of-control spending bureaucrats and those that want a Government Run take-over of our health care. Teddy the lion is gone (RIP). The revolution has begun. It is time to support Scott Brown. Now is the time.
http://www.RedInvadesBlue.com/Moneybomb/donate.html
Neo, this is totally unrelated to the topic, but I am such a fan of your writing and I wanted to show this photo I took last night in honour of you. My husband is the ResistNet co-ordinator for our town and we had our first meeting last night. The photo is of the members (so far) of our group. Here’s the link to my blog page. http://nostalgic-nana.blogspot.com/2010/01/readiness-and-rabblerousers.html
A few comments:
First, the research organization I worked for had two or three people collecting polls full time, saving them and loading them into our databases, and talking to them and looking at quite a few polls over 25 years makes me believe that you can get a poll to basically come out any way you want, by careful structuring of the universe of people you poll, by how many you poll, how you word your questions, and the order in which those questions are asked. So, I do not put much faith in polls.
Second, given Massachusetts and the Democrat’s track record–this is the state, after all, that elected and keeps returning to Congress the various Kennedys, our new Caligula, Barney Frank, whose live in boyfriend ran a male prostitution ring out of their townhouse on Capitol Hill, and kept returning Gerry Studds to Congress for 24 years after he was caught in a men’s bathroom at the Library Congress with a 17 old page. Thus, I’m assuming that the people of Taxichusetts are mostly “yellow dog Democrats” and will, indeed, vote for a mangy yellow dog, if it has a sign on it that says “Democrat.”
Third, it is very possible that the Democrats–fresh off their success in stealing the election in Minnesota–will steal it here too, if Coakley is loosing.
Fourth, I notice the Democrat’s backup plan–which the Democrats have been very up front in bragging about–of just delaying seating Senator elect Brown in Congress, so that if Brown does–despite all the crap that the Democrats pull–win, Democrats in power will delay seating him until the Democrat who is temporarily filling Kennedy’s seat can vote through the Health Care Reform bill.
If Brown does win, I’d say that no matter what kinds of fraud, lies, or blaming Boosh the Democrats do, unless they declare martial law–which I wouldn’t put past this crew with Obama in office–Brown’s victory would be a very powerful indication that Democrats are going to get slaughtered in a “wave election” in 2010.
Hi Folks,
The talk on the this blog about stealing elections is a little over the top. Its true that Democrats know how to steal an election, but until now, that has only been true when the race has been closer than .1%.
In the Minnesota Senate race the total number of votes was over 1 million, while the difference that was “stolen” was around 500. I may be naive, but I don’t think the Democrats can steal the election unless the result is closer than 50.1% to 49.9%.
Jim
“”I may be naive, but I don’t think the Democrats can steal the election unless the result is closer than 50.1% to 49.9%.
Jim””
Doesn’t this assume a 50.2 to 49.8 or greater democrat win was arrived at by a legitimate vote counts in the first place?
James you are correct for the outright theft part of elections. Hugh Hewitt’s If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat makes the same point.
Misrepresentations and media bias provide a bigger chunk of the Democratic advantage, I think. I would like to believe that has become a more precarious advantage, even in Massachusetts. We shall see.
A very important component of the poll showing Coakley up by 15 is not clarified – exactly how many of those polled as voting for Coakley reside in the cemetaries?
All kidding aside, I do expect the democrats in MA to pull this one out for Coakley.
I just can’t imagine the voters of that state who sent Franks and Kennedy back into office, for election after election, now sending a republican.
I would be happy to be mistaken, however…..
I agree with Scottie. If Brown were to win it would indeed be a political earthquake of shattering proportions. I don’t see that happening there yet, and I hope I’m wrong also.
P.S. That said, it hasn’t stopped me from snail mailing Brown’s campaign a contribution. Money well spent no matter what the outcome.
LOL…never ever forget nor underestimate the impact of the deceased democrat demographic!
Could someone explain what it means to steal an election?
I sent $50 to Brown’s campaign. The more money the DNC needs to spend on a “safe” seat the better.
And, as the Wall St Journal says this morning, how ironic that the vote to kill the healthcare bill would come from the seat to whose predecessor the wretched thing was dedicated.