Research 2000 for Blue Mass Group (1/12-13, likely voters, no trendlines):
Martha Coakley (D): 49
Scott Brown (R): 41
Joe Kennedy (L): 5
Undecided: 5
(MoE: ±4%)
Research 2000 checks in with its first poll of the Massachusetts Senate race (although the poll was commissioned by local blog Blue Mass Group, rather than the big orange mothership, not that that should affect the numbers). This is also the first poll taken after Monday’s televised debate. They find an eight-point lead for Coakley, obviously much better than the most recent Rasmussen and PPP polls, though still hardly a slam dunk (rather concerning, for instance, is that the Libertarian candidate, Joe Kennedy [no relation to the dynasty], is polling at 5% — as we saw in New Jersey, third party candidates like that tend to fall off a bit in the final equation, and Libertarian votes seem likelier to gravitate toward Brown).
In the crosstabs, Brown leads 49-36 among independents, which is a much smaller edge than PPP saw. Coakley is leading only 46-45 among whites and is trailing Brown 50-41 in the state’s southeast; her lead seems based primarily on non-whites (including an 86-4 lead among blacks) and the Boston area (where she leads 53-37). (Discussion also underway in conspiracy‘s diary.)
Brown is trying to walk a tightrope here, as he’s trying to attract enough support from nationwide tea-party types to attract their dollars, while still keeping them at arms’ length enough to keep the votes of local moderates. For instance, he’s been avoiding asking the potentially polarizing endorsement of Sarah Palin (and she’s been smart enough to not offer it without having been asked). However, he’s been saying he’s not familiar with the Tea Party movement… a petard on which he’s currently being hoisted, as video and photos of him addressing local Tea Party gathering have surfaced (including from his own Flickr account).
Meanwhile, Coakley received the Boston Globe‘s endorsement (although that shouldn’t be any more of a surprise than Brown getting the Herald’s endorsement). One other story getting play today is the possibility that it may take weeks to certify the winner of the election, especially if it’s close (but even if it’s not, as town clerks need to wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before certifying their town-level results). Naturally, the right is assuming this is a ploy to give the Democrats enough time to wrap up health care reform before Brown arrives on his white horse to kill it.
UPDATE: I know I’ve seen lots of talk in the comments that the deal-sealer should be Vicki Kennedy cutting a TV ad on Martha Coakley’s behalf, and having that be the campaign’s closing argument over the weekend. Via Chuck Todd, it sounds like that’s exactly what they’re doing. Leaving nothing to chance, the DNC is also reportedly sinking another $150K, but more importantly, a lot more manpower on the ground, into the race.
RaceTracker Wiki: MA-Sen
Unless the election is super close, that won’t matter. That being said, if Massachusetts decides to follow the letter of the law, I won’t be particularly bother by it. Of course, hopefully Martha will win and it will be a mute issue.
“A close finish would send a terrible message about the political health of Obama and Dems, and it would be a national story with awful symbolic overtones, given the hallowed identity of the seat’s previous inhabitant.”
Frankly, I’ll just take the win. Any win.
He just moved this race to tossup right after this poll came out. Martha Coakley numbers in this race are reminding me a lot of Saxby Chambliss’s in Georgia in 2008. If I had to predict at this point I’d say
50% Coakley
47% Brown
3% Kennedy
The issue I see is that Brown’s numbers are having trouble moving beyond the 47%/48% area. I think an upset may be possible but if GOTV continues like it has been enough democrats will hopefully show up to seal the deal for Coakley.
but didn’t know where else to put it.
Shadegg (R-AZ-03) retiring.
http://rothenbergpoliticalrepo…
we are pouring funds into a seat that should be a gimme come hell or high water b/c this lady was a sleepwalking dullard! What about all the money she raised? What happened to all the 600+k Dem primary voters who picked btw her, Capuano and Khazei? If we are spending precious $$ in expensive Mass, how are we going to fight in OH, PA, CO etc.
This so called complacency is primarily b/c Obama decided to play inside baseball on the most important legislative agenda of any Demorat (HCR), but then sat on his thumbs while the maniacical oppposition (a minority of the minority, mind you) defined his agenda w/ lies and faux outrage and rather than beat the living shit out of them, he wasted precious time chasing GOP senators and reps who had NEVER had ANY intention of lifting a finger for anything! (Earth to White House: there is a reason Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have Rs next to their names not Ds). I mean, I could have told them that and I’m just a regular voter? We have tons of history of how this shit happens: Clinton ’94, Gore ’00, Kerry ’04, you can’t be that stupid to have forgotten how the same playbook works?I’m beginning to wonder if Obama is proving the experience deficiency Clinton talked about and, more importantly, whether the he has the right team to help him govern and win an ’84 like 2nd term. Don’t let loyalty be the enemy of success (G.W. Bush learned that the hard way). Just b/c the economy sucks doesn’t mean you can’t act or lead with conviction.
Now couple that with our failure to properly screen candidates before they run for federal office (maybe we should have appointed a tough S.O.B. to this seat instead and let him/her run in Jan). This woman is being carried over the finish line on an IV in a stretcher in a state that is as Democratic as the word is spelled. How fucking annoying! I her advisers are to blame, they should’nt get a dime.
Sorry if I was threadjacking! I had to vent after I unsubscirbed from OfA and any Dem thing a few months ago. I’m just amazed how we NEVER fucking learn. It’s like we are the STUPID party and the other guys are the CRAZY party. And Americans are too crazy stupid to figure it out.
I’d be willing to bet that at least half of them are low-information voters who think Joe Kennedy is a real Kennedy. Every one of those votes would go to Coakley, while probably only a substantial majority of Libertarian votes would go to Brown. If half are Kennedy-Kennedy votes and half are Libertarian votes, then any eleventh-hour collapse in Kennedy support would benefit Coakley, not Brown.
“Vote for Martha. Teddy would have wanted it that way.”
Joe Kennedy is on the ballot as an Independent, not a Libertarian. Kennedy polling 5% with the Libertarian label is kind of remarkable (he wouldn’t top 2.5% with that label). But if the polling noted his actual party, it’d be a bit higher and Coakley’s total would be a bit lower.
Massachusetts has a history of electing candidates with similar names/last names to other office holders. That has kind of died down due to television and 4 year terms (and probably harsher primary ballot access). But in this situation, Libertarian Joe Kennedy takes votes from Martha Coakley because people think that Libertarian Joe Kennedy is Democrat Joe Kennedy.
Which gives me an interesting ad idea involving a certain Kennedy who was a Massachusetts Congressman until 1999.
Assuming Coakley wins, I’m guessing that Joe III is already getting calls about challenging her the next time around.
I’m wondering how Coakley (and the DSCC) will do with fundraising in the wake of the Haitian earthquake, as many people that probably would have donated to her campaign will give money to earthquake relief instead. Also, much of the national media attention that was starting to focus on this race has been redirected to covering the earthquake. So the sense of urgency for both sides (at least among people form outside of Massachusetts) may have dissipated. Not to say that people shouldn’t be focused on the earthquake or donate to relief funds, I’m just wondering how this event will affect the Senate race, any insights?
might actually be what it is on election day. You gotta think with these low-turnout special elections.. this 5% or so we are seeing could be for those true libertarians that won’t vote for any other party. Their high numbers may be due to still low turnout for the other parties (especially democrats)
In most of the congressional special elections, we have seen some 3rd parties pull in around 5 to 6 percent. So we may see that happen here.
See my comment here in the other contemporaneous diary by conspiracy.
Not what I wanted to hear or report. But the report is what it is.
Tuesday can’t get here fast enough, just to get this over with. My stomach is in knots right now.
Martha Coakley by a long shot. I’m not saying and I’m not hoping she loses, but turning what was a sure win into a dead heat shows what kind of horrible campaign she’s ran.