MA-Sen: Predictions Open Thread

We’ve got no babka to give out this time, folks, so you’re just playing for bragging rights. Let’s hear it: Dig deep and give us your best and most honest prediction of what what the end result will be in the Senate special election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.

163 thoughts on “MA-Sen: Predictions Open Thread”

  4. third parties getting 1.6 of the vote.

    Too tired from phonebanking to do the math on what that means.  

  5. Scott Brown: 60%

    Martha Coakley: 38%

    Joe Kennedy: 2%

    Brown carries every region of the state and narrowly edges out Coakley in Boston. It probably won’t be a disaster like that, but Coakley is either worst or just as bad as Deeds was.

  7. Coakley wins by 1 vote.  Brown would have won, but two Worcester County votes were disqualified because, although the voters checked the Brown box, they also wrote in “Lizard People.”

  8. If it’s close.  Coakley takes it.  And I’m going to go with close.  I’ll also predict Kennedy will take more votes than he really should by simply having the same name of a popular former Congressman who really should’ve gotten into this race.

    Coakley: 45.

    Brown: 44.

    Kennedy: 4.

  11. Coakley 49.7

    Brown 47.2

    Kennedy 3.1

    The election I’ll parallel this one to is the ’95 Quebec referendum, which began as something the Federalists couldn’t lose and had to scramble like mad at the last minute to save (they had the luxury of being able to swap their pitch guys, though). They won by about a point. That said, Brown ain’t no Lucien Bouchard, and Coakley positively makes Daniel Johnson Jr. look like Bill Clinton circa ’92.

  14. My hope is the pollsters aren’t accounting from an expanded turnout.  Phonebanking today I heard three people complain about numerous calls: I’m guessing our GOTV will be better than expected.  (That said the numerous calls will turn many people off.  There needs to be a better system in place to stop that).  So my prediction:

    Coakley 49%

    Brown 47%

    Kennedy 4%

  15. The only thing I got right was that Deeds would get absolutely crushed by McDonnell (which didn’t take a genius to figure out).

    So, I’m going to put my (now) crappy record to work:

    Brown 50.4

    Coakley 48.3

    Kennedy 1.3

  16. Whoever wins, it’ll be within 2,000 votes… won’t venture to guess whether Coakley or Brown will end up on the winning side of that.  

  18. Which I think determines it. Does Brown get as many Dems as the polls say and will independents vote in as large numbers? He is gonna win them 2-1 it seems but I have a hard time believing that they’ll vote in larger numbers than in 2008 for a special election. If the independent share is lower than expected Coakley stands a chance if this late surge of activism pays off with Dem GOTV. Obviously if he wins 20% or so of those voters it won’t matter.

  20. Doug Kahn predicts Coakley by 10:


    I think it’s quite likely that Nate Silver’s reputation (deserved or not) as a Brainiac has caused some very dishonest pollsters to try and figure out how to affect his opinion. If they can get Nate to say the race is a toss-up it helps get resources for Scott Brown, and gives him more tv coverage, gets people to the polls.

    Logically, you need some pretty firm evidence to outweigh the recent voting history of the Massachusetts electorate. Both Senators and all 10 House members are Democrats. And the governor, and both houses of the legislature. So Coakley, the Democrat, is heavily favored to win to begin with. In 2006 she was elected statewide to Attorney General, and got more votes than Ted Kennedy, who was at the top of the ballot.

    What’s the evidence against? Automated internet polling done of supposedly likely voters by provably biased organizations, namely Rasmussen, ARG, and the laughable Pajamas Media poll that has Scott Brown up by 15%. Follow the reasoning behind getting the morons in the media to believe Scott is winning: since Coakley was heavily favored, there must be a movement to the right in the country, people are really sick of Democrats, and so on and so forth.

    How dishonest are they, actually? If you can figure this out, then you can figure out what the numbers really should be.  

  23.  Firstly, I trust PPP because I looked at how their final poll is really close to the final result. I was thinking of a 5 point win for Brown.

    I had to look at other factors at the New Hampshire pri….oops, I mean Massachusetts Senate race. I read an article where someone mentioned how Coakley’s word choice and manner would appeal to elderly women. Also, I noticed how except here, Organizing for America and Martha Coakley’s website, no one mentions how many volunteers the Democrats have. We appear to have partially reignited Obama’s volunteer base. We have about 3,500 volunteers in Massachusetts for Coakley, 93,000 calls for her were made last Saturday, alot of people I spoke to said they had already been called, high turnout is predicted because of large inquiries with absentee ballots and Obama released an ad for Coakley. In New Hampshire, Hillary played quietly, doing well with the elderly to win. My gut tells me Brown will win by 5 points but due to the New Hampshire feel of this race, I predict:

    Coakley 49%

    Brown 46%

    Other 5%

  24. Brown 55%

    Coakley 42%

    Kennedy 3%

    Brace yourself for an emboldened right wing if Brown wins. This will influence ‘conventional wisdom’ far more than last November did.  

  27.    MA Senate Race: here’s hoping Mr. Brown goes to Washington…in a pick-up truck,no less!MA pls vote tomrrw & elect a hardworking independent  

  29. My head says something like:

    Brown 56

    Coakley 42

    This race has all the makings of a blowout.

    My gut says it will be closer,

    Brown 50

    Coakley 48.

  30. The reason Hillary won was because she made herself sympathetic to female voters with her crying speel. Whether it was geniune or not, it worked.

    Coakley’s done nothing of the same to appeal to those same voters. Her final ads should have focused heavily on working women, single mom’s, etc. That was her target group IMO.

    Coakley 47

    Brown 52

    Kennedy 1

  31. so much as being realistic. From what I’ve read even the president’s advisers expect her to lose at this point. I just hope the dems learn the right lessons if in fact she does lose. Not too hopeful about that though. Brown 50%, Coakley 47%.

  32. But here’s my hope:

    Coakley: 52%

    Brown: 46%

    Kennedy: 2%

    And here’s my prediction:

    Brown: 50.5%

    Coakley: 48.5%

    Kennedy: 1%

  33. 50- Brown

    45- Coakley

    Same as Romney-O’Brien. Shannon O’Brien was a better candidate than Coakley with more time to get the Democratic machine out and running before election day and still lost. Brown is polling double digit leads in communities such as Gardner and Fitchburg Romney won by only 2 or 3 points. I would say the biggest X factor is Obama and Massachusett’s intense dislike of succeding six years of Bush after 2002. On the other hand I think the Democratic machine has only deteriorated further in eight years. Note Romney lost Boston and Cambridge by almost two to one margins and still won statewide.

  35. Brown-50%

    Coakley-47%

    Kennedy-3%

    Not sure if anyone saw this on TPM, but a conservative group has been robocalling Democrats to tell them to vote for Joe Kennedy, but they’re doing it in a way that’s very confusing. I think we’ll lost a few votes based on this, and no matter how few they are, they’ll still matter:

    Hi, this is William Greene.

    Joe Kennedy is running for the US Senate and Joe Kennedy is the name you can trust.

    There is a special election on January 19th for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

    January 19th, that’s this Tuesday.

    There is not much time to spread the word about Joe Kennedy so he needs your vote for US Senate.

    Joe Kennedy might lose this election if folks like us don’t get out and vote.

    On Tuesday vote for Joe Kennedy for US Senate.

    Joe Kennedy: The name you can trust.

    Paid for by RightmarchPAC

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…

    I think could confuse some people, especially the mention of Ted’s name in there and the fact that they say Kennedy so many times. Hopefully people are smart enough to know who’s running though and won’t get tricked by this.

  36. Coakley 53%

    Brown 47%

    I think she wins by mid to low single digits.  Also think even if Coakley does win by a small margin it will still be a wake up call for Democrats.

  40. Brown – 51

    Coakley – 47

    Kennedy – 3

    I really hope I’m wrong, as this result would cause a lot of initiatives to be scaled back or grind to a halt.  

  42. Brown    49

    Coakley  48

    As I said when I accidentally posted this on the previously thread, I have to go with Nate Silver and his 75 percent chance of a Brown win  

  43. Brown            49.60

    Coakley          49.20

    Kennedy/misc      1.20

    BUT the GOP seems to have a better absentee program and they have the long delay during which they can be accepted, so they will not make a call Tuesday night. Depending on when they count the ones they already have, Coakley might even be ahead at end of the results reported on election night.

    Would be a four or five point race but Mass Ds do have a ground game and the GOP does not. Almost enough to pull it out. One less gaffe (say spell-checking the ad copy) and Coakley would have won.

    Big flaw in the polls showing Coakley moving way ahead is his big lead among under-30 voters. Anyone really think they will turn up for a special? Not in the percentages they sampled in these polls.

    Minnesota redux?

  45. Coakley 52

    Brown 47

    Kennedy 1

    I don’t see how Massachusetts voters, with the election having been nationalized over the past week, send a Republican to congress.  

  46. I just don’t trust the projections of the electorate from Rasmussen and PPP. They aren’t fixing the numbers, but I doubt that they’re getting good samples and I think they’re predicting too small an electorate.

  49. In Norway we have a right wing racist bullshit party (much like the GOP) that always does better in polls than in elections.

    Political scientist in Norway explain it this way: When asked in a poll, people that are fed up and want to protest say they will vote for this party, and actually plan to do so. But when Election Day comes, they realize that too important things are at stake and they need to vote for a serious party that will work for them.

    Because of this FRP (the party in question) looses 3-5 % support from the last poll on the day before Election Day, to the ballot box.

    I think in a liberal state like MA, a lot of folks are fed up and want to protest, but faced with the seriousness of casting a vote for US Senator, enough voters will choose not to protest but to make the sensible choice.

    Coakley 52 %

    Brown 46 %

    Kennedy 1 %

  50. I’ll opt for the former:

    Coakley (D) – 49.6

    Brown   (R) – 48.0

    Kennedy (L) –  2.4

    It’s snowing right now in Boston and it’s scheduled to mix in with rain later in the day.  Dreary weather, to say the least.  I walked by several polling stations on my way to work, and they were empty.  

    1. A Brown win is a rebuke for Obama, and a bigger Brown win is a bigger rebuke.

      It’s a given that Coakley has run a lousy campaign, that horse has been beaten to death.

      But unlike VA-Gov a couple months ago, there’s no way to say it’s entirely a function of the two campaigns.  Massachusetts is the poster child for liberal politics, and it’s well-publicized that the health care legislation’s fate rests with the outcome of this single federal race.  So losing it can’t be spun as anything but a rebuke of Obama and a rejection of the health care bill.  Indeed, I suspect opposition to the bill (and I speak as a supporter of the legislation as it stands) is helping Brown.  Reform advocates have done the worst possible job messaging on legislation over these many months, and in particular the Democratic circular firing squad has killed us.  So it’s no wonder that a solid majority of people now are against the bill, and as a result no wonder that we’re in dire straits in this Senate race.

      We’d be fine if only we could get reform done now and have time to unite and get on the same page educating the public and advocating for what’s done.  But we might never get there.

  55. I’m going to go with Coakley 49.5, Brown 48.7, Kennedy 1.8.

    Anecdotally, my 25 phone calls this morning produced 10 voter contacts, all of whom had already voted and at least nine of whom had voted for Coakley (one woman was vague and distant, could have voted Brown could have just been the suspicious type).

    I stopped when my tenth guy said he’d been called six times today, had already voted, and just wanted to watch the news in peace.  He also was angry at the Congress from the left, and glad to hear that I was too.  ðŸ˜‰

    Anyway, I’m hoping that last-minute turnout saves us.  In any case, everyone knows about the damn election now so I don’t think calling is the margin of victory anymore.  The last three days of saturation coverage and ads and calls and etc should have made a big difference.

    1. Using Canada as an example I think Brown is more a version of Stephen Harper. Someone who everyone thought couldn’t win in liberal Canada or Quebec(Harper has a dozen or so seats in Quebec). Gail Huff is a Boston version of Laureen Harper to keep the analogy going. I don’t why I always see Michelle and Barack always talking to the Harper’s at international summits. Harper’s brand of Conservatism is I think the greatest threat to Obama’s Democrats. On a side note I heard several low level Harper organizers from Quebec drove to down to attend some Brown rallies.

Comments are closed.