MA-Sen: Suffolk Shows Brown Up by 4

Suffolk University (1/11-13, likely voters, 11/4-8 in parens):

Martha Coakley (D): 46 (58)

Scott Brown (R): 50 (27)

Joseph L. Kennedy (I): 3 (-)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Just to keep you up to speed, this is the second poll we’ve seen of Massachusetts today. Earlier, R2K released a survey showing Coakley up by eight points. We’ve also heard word of a new Dem internal poll showing Coakley up by five.

Amazingly, we may have to stay up way past our bedtimes next Tuesday in order to find out the fate of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Update: A few more tidbits from the poll: Brown enjoys a 57-19 favorable rating, compared to Coakley’s 49-41. A full 17% of Dems abandon ship in favor of Brown, while 64% of voters still thinking that Coakley will win. (Perhaps the reporting of polls like this one may make a dent in that number.) The poll also shows, unlike some other recent surveys, a majority of voters opposed to health care reform, although perhaps the poll’s wording (“the proposed near universal healthcare law”) may have something to do with that.

Later Update: As noted in the comments, Suffolk is determining likely voters as those who “knew the date of Tuesday’s election”. It’s possible that this is producing an unusually tight likely voter screen in Scott Brown’s favor, but I wouldn’t take that as an excuse to breathe easy.

Memo Update: The full polling memo is available here (pdf).

183 thoughts on “MA-Sen: Suffolk Shows Brown Up by 4”

  1. Im really worried about whats going on in Mass. If Borwn somehow wins I swear Im going to move to Canada because I do not want to hear Beck gloating about Brown’s win.  

  2. Worst Campaign of 2010 goes to…Martha Coakley! She had everything going for her and she still managed to turn a sure win for her into a dead heat. The GOP has already scored a victory in a sense, they’ve forced us to spend precious dollars that we need this year defending a seat that should of a been an easy win for us.

  3.   This is bad and right now Brown clearly has the momentium, But didn’t Suffork have Obama up by two in the Mass Democratic primary. And also didn’t they have Corzine up by nine points when every other poll had the race a dead heat. Just pointing out that Suffork hasn’t always had the best record when it comes to elections.  

  4. However, does this whole not wanting to ‘waste time’ shaking hands with the voters thing come off as incredibly arrogant to anyone else? Even if she feels she can get more votes assembling with leaders behind the scenes, what a dumb thing to say to the press. It certainly hasnt helped the whole cool/distant meme about her.

  5. Dems played “let’s make a deal” with Olympia Snowe over the stimulus last year, and it ended up being too small. The upshot is that the economy is still hosed and unemployment is festering. So, “throw the bums Dems out” say the weak Dems (aka, MA indys).

    Self-inflicted political injuries are the hardest to bear.


  6. At the same time, a month ago this race was Coakley’s to lose.  Just like any sport, and politics to some of us is a sick sort of sport, you have to play to win and not to lose.  Coakley has run a bad campaign TO THIS POINT, but the election is still 5 days away.  We need to reinforce Teddy’s message of his dream, and remind the level-minded folks of Mass that the “dream is still alive” if they vote for Coakley.

    I would link Coakley like crazy with Kennedy, show clips of Kennedy’s speech in 1980 at the Democratic National Convention (it still brings chills to me), show him speaking on behalf of Obama, throw the whole nine yards at the electorate.  While Health Care may not be overly popular, Obama is still popular and an asset to Coakley.  Reminding them that a vote for Coakley would be a vote for Kennedy’s legacy could go along way.

    I’m probably wrong about this approach, but I love Teddy Kennedy and I hope the people of Mass will show their love for Teddy by voting for Coakley.

  7. Because if Brown wins, I am tuning out of electoral politics for the foreseeable future.

    And that is not an empty threat.

  8. Barnstable 44%

    Berkshire 68%

    Bristol 55%

    Dukes 60%

    Essex 44%

    Franklin 64%

    Hampden 51%

    Hampshire 66%

    Middlesex 51%

    Nantucket 50%

    Norfolk 47%

    Plymouth 42%

    Suffolk 66%

    Worcestor 45%

  9. 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?  

    Note: I posted this comment on the last MA-SEN thread, but by that point today, that story was down about five spots on the roster and so I doubt many people saw it. So I am posting it again for that reason, not as a troll.

  10. If she wins by less than 10% will be ugly. Ladies and Gents, we’ll have a fight on our hands trying to call it a fluke (even though we know it’s a sign that anyone who runs a non-existent campaign can lose)

  11. If Brown wins, the GOP Senators will be forced to do something from now on instead of sit back and bask in the positive polling and be the party of no.  And once the GOP has to start participating and putting their mark on legislation, we can do a few things.

    Blame them for all the problems, “It started with George Bush and now the GOP Senate still hasnt learned what reckless tax cuts will do to our country.”

    Watch the tea baggers split off from the GOP as they cant stand the GOP being forced to work with us.  That’ll equal a lot of juicy primary challenges.

    The GOP continues to be the party of no, filibusters everything, and is then blamed in 2010 for killing every piece of legislation.  What we HAVE to be prepared for is them going on the offense and saying we send them bills they cant support and its our own fault.  This is what Pawlenty has done in MN with our budget problems and the public eats that shit up.

    They block everything so we just get rid of the filibuster and be done with it.

    My guess is the real temptation will be remain the party of No and ride that sweet victories in 2010.  My one big gripe is that I have a feeling the American people will not understand you need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything and will instead go, well the Dems have 59 so why the hell cant they get anything done?  

  12. is pretty funny:

    I think the moral of this story is that even in a strong blue state, you can’t sit around on your butt for a month, holding very few campaign events.


    Best Case Scenario:

    Democrat – 45%

    Independent – 40%

    Republican – 15%

    Coakley – 93/40/5 – 59%

    Brown – 5/55/93 – 38%

    Kennedy – 2/5/2 – 3%

    Worst Case Scenario:

    Democrat – 38%

    Independent – 37%

    Republican – 25%

    Coakley – 83/30/0 – 43%

    Brown – 17/67/98 – 56%

    Kennedy – 0/3/2 – 1%

    Likely Scenario:

    Democrat – 40%

    Independent – 40%

    Republican – 20%

    Coakley – 83/33/5 – 47%

    Brown – 15/65/95 – 51%

    Kennedy – 2/2/0 – 2%

  14. If you were ever District Attorney of Middlesex County you are no longer allowed to be a front runner and be given a chance to blow an election.  Or how about just extending that to Attorney General?

    This is Scott Harhbarger 1998 redux.  Except Paul Celucci made a pretty decent Governor.  While hopes are far far lower for Scott Brown.


    Yes, it is probably an outlier.

    Yes, we are probably still screwed. The trend lines tell the sorry tale – un-enrolled and undecided voters are splitting for Brown by a decisive margin.

    I’m making my calls today, but barring a surge in Democratic turnout practically unprecedented in a special election, I’ve pretty much written this one off.

  16. And that seems like what Ms. Coakley has done. I understand its Massachusetts. But it isn’t like the state hasn’t ever elected republicans before. Mitt Romney comes to mind. I also don’t think health care is going to be much of a winner for the democrats. It had the potential to be. But there are just too many things in this bill that people don’t like. Not republicans but independents and some democrats as well. I hear it all the time from my friends and relatives who vote democratic pretty regularly. They’re very angry about the mandates. So I can definitely believe this poll’s results about the electorate being opposed to this current health care bill.  

  17. I brought this up in the diary comments but I also wanted to point it out here–this poll has 1% undecided a week before election day. By contrast 19% of the electorate was undecided between Obama and McCain a week before Election Day 2008 according to exit polls. I realize that isn’t enough to discredit the entire poll and certainly the turnout dynamics are a part of it, but doesn’t anyone else find that just a teensy bit weird?

  18. Are the Dems trying to lose this race?

    From Politico:

    “A new ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee uses an unlikely symbol of Wall Street greed: the World Trade Center.

    The image in the attack on Scott Brown for his alleged closeness to Wall Street pictures the Trade Center and the destroyed Marriott Hotel on its western side.”

    How stupid can the DSCC be? I mean really? WTC as a symbol for Wall Street greed. Have they lost their minds?

  19. If Coakley were ahead, Obama wouldn’t be staging a single event in a Dem stronghold; he’d be spending the entire day barnstorming through the “swing” areas Kennedy/Kerry have managed to carry time and time again. This visit seems just to show face.

    1. …we all thought it was ridiculous, but for those that didn’t have an impression of Brown, this could have seeded a positive impression that we’re witnessing now.

      Also, I wonder how much of an impact the entire process following Kennedy’s passing had – that is, the immediate changing of the replacement process and the shotgun nature of Kirk’s appointment. I could easily see that leaving a bad taste in many voters’ mouths.

Comments are closed.