Suffolk (pdf) (2/21-24, registered voters, 11/4-8 in parentheses):
Deval Patrick (D-inc): 33 (36)
Charlie Baker (R): 25 (15)
Tim Cahill (I): 23 (26)
Jill Stein (G): 3 (NA)
Undecided: 16 (NA)Deval Patrick (D-inc): 34 (38)
Christy Mihos (R): 19 (20)
Tim Cahill (I): 26 (26)
Jill Stein (G): 3 (NA)
Undecided: 18 (NA)
(MoE: ±4.4%)Deval Patrick (D-inc): 59
Grace Ross (D): 15
Undecided: 26Charlie Baker (R): 47
Christy Mihos (R): 17
Undecided: 36
(MoE: ±?%)
There’s a whole lot of ZOMG! going on today associated with the new Suffolk poll of the Massachusetts’ governor’s race, most of it focused on Republican businessman Charlie Baker’s 10-point leap in the last few months as people become more familiar with the previously-little-known CEO (as his gain fits in conveniently with the narrative of the zillion Republicans-resurgent-in-Massachusetts stories spawned by Scott Brown’s surprise victory). Much of the ZOMGing is coming directly from Suffolk head David Paleologos, who’s been telling the press that it’s now a race “between [Republican] Charlie Baker and [Dem-turned-indie] Tim Cahill,” despite the fact that, y’know, Deval Patrick is leading by 8 points. Paleologos says “Whoever emerges from the Baker-Cahill race is likely to be the winner.”
Now I assume that’s just inartfully phrased and that Paleologos doesn’t think that Baker and Cahill are going to face off in some sort of weird primary, and that what he means is that there’s a race-within-a-race where Baker and Cahill try to box each other out and become the dominant non-Patrick candidate. If one of Baker and Cahill somehow does severely damage the other, then, yes, I agree, Patrick’s in deep doo-doo. But if they don’t, and the current holding pattern continues, then there is no winner of the Baker-Cahill “race,” only two losers, as they split the anti-Patrick majority right down the middle. Which is precisely how Patrick is currently leading the race, despite his unappealing 38/50 favorables and 35/54 approvals. Considering, though, that many of the I-hate-Patrick voters are specifically anti-Patrick Democrats or Dem-leaning indies who would never vote for a Republican (for whom Cahill is a safety valve), and that many of Baker’s voters are the state’s small but diehard Republican minority who’d never vote for what’s essentially a moderate Dem (again, Cahill), I suspect the consolidation of the anti-Patrick vote behind one person is easier said than done.
RaceTracker Wiki: MA-Gov
I understand the consolidation argument, but Patrick is still ahead by a noticeable amount. Saying the race is between the other two is at best empty headed contrarianism. More likely, it’s avoiding the facts to push the narrative you want.
Still, to take issue with Crisitunity’s usually spot-on analysis, I don’t think consolidation of the Cahill-Baker vote will be that difficult if one of them emerges as the leading anti-Patrick candidate. To wit: Patrick’s favorables are awful, and Scott Brown proved that there’s a lot more Mass voters willing to pull the lever for a Republican if the alternative is someone they don’t like. Also, see Corzine, Jon, for an example of how a despised incumbent can work wonders in a Dem leaning state.
Massachusetts is far more Democratic than liberal and there is signifigant dissatisfaction with Patrick. And Patrick isn’t all that well loved by the Democratic elites. There was a huge opening for a well known well funded challenger.
Though I guess Cahill is doing Patrick a favor by being a shock absorber picking up anti-Patrick votes that could potentially drift to the Republicans.
But it’s still an odd move when he could win the nomination of a state party that nominated Ronald Reagan’s “favorite” governor (Ed King) and John Silber. Two individuals FAR more conservative than he is.
Democrat – 40%
Independent – 40%
Republican – 20%
Baker – 3/30/85 = 31%
Cahill – 25/30/15 = 26%
Patrick – 70/28/0 = 41%
Stein – 2/2/0 = 2%
I think people are missing the Corzine situation here. From looking at the Memo and comments, what the pollster is saying is that the remaining undecideds are undecided between Cahill and Baker, but not between voting for Patrick or not. In effect therefore, Patrick is not trailing 51-33 among decided voters, but more like 65-33. And Patrick is likely to be unable to win that, no matter how his opponents split.
I also don’t buy there being a block of anti-republican voters in the state. Between 1990, 1994, and 1998, probably 95% of the electorate voted GOP at some point. And to the extent Cahill is dragging from anyone, it is working-class urban voters who went for O’Brien in 2002.
What has to be realized here is that Patrick’s opponents are far stronger than Scott Brown ever was. Baker’s running mate is openly Gay, and there are a ton of Coakley/Baker voters, for instance my parents who voted for every Democrat nationally since 1988. I have yet to meet a single Brown/Patrick voter. And with turnout unlikely to be higher than in the special election, its the Republicans who are mobilized.
This are good news for Patrick.
Paleologos is wrong about a hard fight between Baker and Cahill. Much republicans near to teabbager movements never would vote to Cahill and much Cahill voters never would vote to a republican. The key for this race will be not only the “anti-Patrick” vote. This can be not the alone “anti”.
And while Brown was one of five higher level elected republicans in all the state, Baker only was a nominated officer in time of republican governors. Brown was a higher level politician than Baker. That makes Brown run unopposed in republican side in his senate bid (and Christie run too with very low opposition from his side).
This are good news for Patrick.
Paleologos is wrong about a hard fight between Baker and Cahill. Much republicans near to teabbager movements never would vote to Cahill and much Cahill voters never would vote to a republican. The key for this race will be not only the “anti-Patrick” vote. This can be not the alone “anti”.
And while Brown was one of five higher level elected republicans in all the state, Baker only was a nominated officer in time of republican governors. Brown was a higher level politician than Baker. That makes Brown run unopposed in republican side in his senate bid (and Christie run too with very low opposition from his side).