It’s from Rasmussen, so take it with whatever quantity of salt you deem appropriate. Nonetheless, it’s the only real poll I know of since the primary.
Poll taken Jan. 4, 2010. 500 likely voters. Margin of error= +/- 4.5%
1* Election 2010: Massachusetts Senate Special ElectionBrown: 41%
Coakley: 50%
Some other candidate: 1%
Not sure: 7%
2* Favorable Ratings for Candidates in 2010 Senate Special Election Brown Coakley Very Favorable 26% 21% Somewhat Favorable 32% 39% Somewhat Unfavorable 20% 13% Very Unfavorable 5% 22% Not Sure 17% 4%
What this says, I think, is that Democrats should not take this for granted. Special elections are funny, and sometimes the unexpected happens. If you worked for Coakley in the primary, you need to work for her in the general. And this is important: if you voted for another Democrat in the primary, you need to vote for Coakley in the general. I don’t care if you’re dissatisfied with Coakley’s stand on something, or if you don’t think she’s progressive enough, or whatever. Brown is far, far worse on all of those issues, and if you write in Capuano or cast some other protest vote, you are effectively voting for Brown. I mean, Brown supports waterboarding, for God’s sake. Let’s keep some perspective, people.
democratis says
democratis says
Brown’s favorables being 58% vs. Coakley’s 60% and also Coakely’s 35% unfavorables vs. Brown’s 25% tells how tight the race is.
johnk says
The Weekly Standard had a post about an 11 percent margin by a “by a reputable non-partisan firm”, that means Rasmussen to the Weekly Standard for you non-conservative folks.
<
p>I still think Coakley by at least 20, we had Capuano within 7% and looked how that turned out. I’m a Capuano supporter voting for Coakley and urge all to do the same.
<
p>A vote for Brown kills health reform. He said he would vote against any plan.
somervilletom says
I want her to know that I — and many Democrats like me — are watching her very carefully. Her term expires in 2012, a scant two years from now.
<
p>There is a reason why her unfavorables are so high. Voting for Martha Coakley because Scott Brown is a lunatic is a terrible indictment of the current state of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. I hope we are all paying attention.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, the “Brown supports waterboarding” comment would have a lot more meaning if our Democrats took or will take meaningful action to hold accountable those who ordered the practice. If it’s perspective we’re talking about, let’s do keep some. We know that the torture was formal policy. We know who ordered it, we know who carried it out, we know who it was done to. We no longer have the excuse that “we don’t have the votes for an investigation” or “the GOP White House is stonewalling”.
<
p>I’m a little weary of the finger-pointing towards the big bad Republicans when we Democrats can’t find the courage to do what we all know needs to be done.
stomv says
and then send her a letter telling her you did just that — remind her that you’ll support her primary opponent in 2012 if she fails to be sufficiently progressive. That’s what I’m going to do.
<
p>Aiding and abetting the election of a senator like Brown so that hopefully! the Dems will come up with a more progressive candidate than Coakley in 2.5 years is not sound strategy. The upside isn’t big enough, and the downside is massive.
howland-lew-natick says
We’ve turned into the people we fought in WW2. In 1946 we tried and hanged war criminals. Today we ignore or support our own torturers.
<
p>The big secret is that torture isn’t used to get information. The torturer can use the pain of his victim or the victim’s loved ones to get any response he wants. Torture is for getting people in line. Who’s next? Will there be a knock on the door as you read this?
<
p>Maybe, as Democrats, we should clean our own house in the hopes of a better country.
billxi says
Martha has it wrapped up! You don’t even have to bother to vote.
democratis says
billxi says
May I quote you on that? REVIVE CAMELOT! How can a democrat resist?
christopher says
…probably means about 15 points from any other poll.
democratis says
stomv says
<
p>:)
johnk says
You really need to add the candidates name then at the end add some other candidate and not sure.
thinkingliberally says
But I’ll feel a little better when Coakley goes back up on the air.
<
p>There are a lot of good, smart and engaged progressives who got behind Coakley early. I have my very serious concerns about her stances on civil rights. And I expect I’ll be watching her very carefully and will have high expectations of her in the Senate for her to earn my primary vote in 2012. But I cannot imagine any person who believes in health care, in anything remotely Democratic, holding back their support for her in this election. If you think Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are bad as our 60th vote, imagine what it would look like if we needed Olympia Snow to be our 60th for any kind of Democratic legislation to pass.
<
p>Not good.
hoyapaul says
Finally, a poll! Of course, Rasmussen’s practice of making their crosstabs available only to “premium members” is a little annoying. Without the crosstabs, it’s hard to know whether this is a truly representative sample.
<
p>As most of you know, Rasmussen’s likely voter screen is favorable to Republicans. While it is very likely true that Republicans are more enthusiastic than Democrats, Rasmussen’s polls may be exaggerating (because of the model, not because of partisanship) the impact of this on “likely voter” status. (Also, Rasmussen’s polls in the primary consistently and considerably under-stated Coakley’s support relative to other polls, suggesting a possible problem in their likely voter screen).
<
p>Still, this poll indicates that as with most things in politics, nothing is in the bag. The real key will be whether the national committees get more heavily involved in this race (if they were getting the same numbers as Rasmussen in their private polling, they would be).
<
p>By the way, anyone who thinks that Libertarian Joe Kennedy will affect this race in a meaningful way is way off. In a low-turnout special election in the middle of January, people generally know who they’re trudging to the polls to vote for, and it won’t be a throw-away vote for a Libertarian candidate or a confused vote for the “real” Joe Kennedy. He’ll get 2% max.
bigmikek7 says
http://bostonherlad.com/news/p…
<
p>Herald Pulse
Which candidate do you plan on voting for in the Jan. 19 special election?
<
p>78% – Sen. Scott Brown
<
p>19% – Attorney General Martha Coakley
<
p>2% – Joseph L. Kennedy
Total Votes: 1,383
hoyapaul says
Looks like Brown is headed not just to an upset win, but a victory of epic proportions!
sabutai says
…but it will be over Alan Khazei, per the Globe.
af says
I’ll bet that’s scientifically balanced to the electorate. A Republican dominated paper, participate by choice, unscientific poll. I couldn’t imagine what the outcome would be. Could a Red State poll be as biased? Just saying there will be a monumental upset, followed by an exclamation point, doesn’t make it any more likely to happen. He has to find enough votes to overcome the overwhelming vote plurality that Coakley had over him in the primary. I know they weren’t in the same race. I’m just pointing out that the pool of committed Democratic votes she will be drawing from is much larger than he has.
john-from-lowell says
I was an Infantry Team Leader in Desert Storm, 2/187th Infantry, 101st Air Assualt Division. I have had POWs in my custody. I treated them as I would have wanted to be treated, if the tables had been turned.
<
p>But I’m just a grunt.
<
p>Take it from Adm. John Hutson. He has spearheaded the pushback against Bush/Cheney’s torture policies.
<
p>
howland-lew-natick says
Our enemies have won. We are what we say the Taliban is.
christopher says
There may be a handful of Dominionist Christians who wish we could emulate the Taliban, but the horrors they have committed both at home and abroad are orders of magnitude worse than any detours we have taken from our values. They belong in the league with Nazis and Pol Pot.
amicus says
Sheesh. Have you all gotten to the point (so quickly) that you need to make up a straw man whom you’d prefer to run against on January 19?!? Scott Brown was quoted as saying that he opposes torture. What he did say is that he supports all LAWFUL enhanced interrogation techniques to protect American lives. Waterboarding, which is applied to US Special Forces during their training, is prohibited by Presidential Order but not unlawful. Torture, by contrast, is unlawful. This discussion is part of the larger and very important policy difference between Martha (treat terrorists as criminal defendants in the civilian justice system) and Scott (treat terrorists as enemy combatants in the military justice system) which is important for voters to know. I don’t know about you, but I shudder at the thought of AQ operatives being housed in civilian prisons with our million person prison inmate population. Let’s engage in the policy debate, but for Chrissakes don’t make anything up!
david says
Right — he opposes torture, but he thinks waterboarding is OK because … well, “it’s not torture.”
<
p>Except that it is, according to just about everyone in the civilized world, except maybe Dick Cheney (and query whether he belongs in that category anyway). The links are too numerous to list here, though Wikipedia has several. Here’s John McCain:
<
p>
<
p>”Very exquisite torture.” Nice. This is what Scott Brown favors.
michaelbate says
is displayed by those who would torture, and deny a fair trial to, individuals such as the Christmas day bomber! Our criminal justice system has repeatedly shown that it can handle terrorists.
<
p>Our Declaration of Independence eloquently speaks of God-given rights that it is the purpose of government to defend. Nowhere does it state that these rights are only for Americans or any other group.
<
p>I wonder if amicus was equally incensed at the decision of the Bush administration, in a strikingly similar case, to try Richard Reid in civilian court and imprison him in Colorado.
jconway says
The Tories, Shays Rebels, Whiskey Rebels, and even the Barbary Pirates were all tried as criminal defendants during the early stages of the Republic. If conservatives care so much about originalism and preserving the framers intent than they should be leery of Cheney and the neo-cons creating new categories of defendant in between prisoner of war and criminal defendant to ensure the defendant has less rights. Basically they are inventing new and un-constitutional laws. Not to mention common law nor international law have any similar analogies to ‘enemy combatants’.
fdr08 says
What if we have the “Blizzard of 10” on January 19th. I bet the Brown supporters have more 4 wheel drive vehicles than the Coakley supporters.
<
p>Now a snowstorm on January 19th, that would make things interesting!
sco says
But more of Coakley’s supporters live in places with public transportation or can walk to their polling places.
pablo says
Martha’s voters are more likely to live within walking distance of their polling place. Let it snow!
jconway says
Guess I wasn’t being either a lunatic, a Brown supporter, or a sexist when I said this race was closer than it looked. You gonna eat your crow now David or later? You said this would be a cakewalk and that Brown had no chance, now you are begging us to hold our noses for Coakley.
david says
Yes, you were being a sexist.
<
p>I still think Coakley will win easily, and I’ve put my money where my mouth is.
<
p>And I still think — as I’ve said all along — that you’re a Brown supporter (or, at least, you give him aid and comfort) if you stay home, write in Capuano, or undertake some other childish protest against Coakley’s not being pure enough for your gentle soul.
<
p>No crow for me, thanks.
af says
about the disparity between the very unfavorable numbers. That sounds like the kind of thing that pops up when you ask Republicans how much they like Barack Obama vs asking Democrats. Since it’s a Rasmussen poll, it’s most likely the sample is skewed conservative Republican.
<
p>I’m a Dem. I voted for Capuano in the primary, but I’m damn certain to show up to fill in the oval for Coakley.
ruppert says
It is a bit ironic that Martha was probably the worst of the 4 we could have nominated to go against Brown.
Her strategy of hiding is a mistake too.
michaelbate says
Various recent polls have indicated that the people most likely to vote in 2010 are the wingnuts stirred up by the hate mongers on Fox “News” and Hate Radio.
<
p>Lately I’ve seen more Brown signs (in Metro West) than signs for Coakley.
<
p>Our Senate election will probably have a very low turnout.
<
p>All of this has me worried.
<
p>I am not very fond of Coakley, but the idea of Brown (who is my state senator) in the U.S. Senate is frightening. Is Brown really stupid enough to believe the things he says? He says that in order to be secure we need to “win” in Afghanistan (where no empire has ever “won”) and build up our missile defense (which will never work and which is irrelevant against the most likely threats, nuclear and otherwise). He panders to global warming deniers.
<
p>Brown has such contempt for fundamental American values that he supports waterboarding, wants alleged terrorists to be tried in military tribunals rather than civilian court, supports warrantless wiretapping and holding people indefinitely without charge. Yes, I know that, sadly, Obama also supports some of these things.
<
p>Brown claims that he will be an independent voice while Coakley will follow the Democratic party line (except when she disagrees with Obama’s troop deployment, which Brown also criticized her for). But does anyone doubt that Brown will vote in lockstep with the other Republicans to obstruct Obama’s programs?
<
p>Coakley should clearly state that Brown, if elected, will be a force for obstruction.
christopher says
…like what the Democrats in MA will demonstrate going into the 2012 Senate election if Brown manages to pull this off.
jconway says
I’ve seen more Brown signs in Cambridge than I have Coakley signs. It also seemed during my Christmas travels that Brown has an edge on the North Shore and MetroWest judging my signs alone. That said, the average Democrat doesn’t feel the need to put up a sign saying who they will vote for. My family all voted for Coakley and Obama and in neither case did they put up signs. I also saw more Ogo signs back during that race and felt that meant it was closer than the polls showed, though my prediction of a razor thin Tsongas victory proved shallow, as I am sure David will be happy to remind you of.
<
p>Actually in many ways both elections are similar. The real progressives were split between various candidates during the primary so the one woman candidate, backed by Murray and the political establishment, becomes the nominee and wins only because the Republican is so lackluster.
<
p>None of the three running are fit to even shine Ted Kennedy’s shoes let alone fill them.
<
p>That said, I suspect Brown will poll within 10% of Coakley, without an influx of out of state money she can simply continue to hide and bide her time and he can continue to use his modest funds to chip away at her lead, but the Brown surge is coming too late to make a difference. If this was a general election I could see this race becoming very close. That said, while neither candidate is appealing, Coakley’s recent flip flopping on health care has made her more amendable. I just hope a real progressive is willing to challenge her in 12′.
david says
from Nate Silver, who has forgotten more about polling than most of us will ever know.
<
p>His bottom line:
<
p>
historian says
When are they going to go on the air?
<
p>Putting it bluntly, the Coakley campaign needs to start giving the impression that they want to win.