Mysterious Poll Finds Coakley Winning by 11 in Massachusetts

By
Monday, January 04, 2010 at 6:52 pm

John McCormack reports on a “private poll conducted last week by a reputable non-partisan firm” on the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate, one that finds Democratic candidate Martha Coakley 11 points ahead, 50-39, of Republican candidate Scott Brown. That’s more mystery than you want from data that may or may not get thousands of Republicans to donate to Brown, and McCormack’s strategy for a Brown upset doesn’t make much sense:

If Brown can make his case against another Democratic vote in the U.S. Senate, or against rewarding a member of unpopular governor Deval Patrick’s administration, some voters who currently prefer Coakley might be open to voting for Brown, since they view him favorably as well.

Coakley was elected attorney general separately from Patrick; the AG is not part of the governor’s administration. And the evidence that Massachusetts wants to shrink the Democratic margin in the Senate doesn’t really exist.

It should be interesting to see how hard data on this race effect online Republican/conservative enthusiasm, which has been largely based on rumors that Brown is doing better than expected. Surely, it’s not a good sign that some conservative blogs are already rumbling with talk of Democratic voter fraud.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

12 Comments

Tweets that mention Mysterious Poll Finds Coakley Winning by 11 in Massachusetts « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted January 4, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel, WashIndependent and topsy_top20k, topsy_top20k_en. topsy_top20k_en said: Mysterious Poll Finds Coakley Winning by 11 in Massachusetts http://bit.ly/66Pqoq [...]


Phil_K
Comment posted January 4, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

“Affect”, not “effect”.


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted January 4, 2010 @ 9:15 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Mysterious Poll Finds Coakley Winning by 11 in Massachusetts http://bit.ly/66Pqoq...


aronli
Comment posted January 5, 2010 @ 4:16 am

I don't follow many blogs, but yours is of the. Please continue the great work. Regards!!!Keep up the nice blogging.blogs


obi juan
Comment posted January 5, 2010 @ 7:08 am

Ironic since it was Brown who was caught encouraging voter fraud.
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/17957/scott-…


Bandit
Comment posted January 5, 2010 @ 9:19 am

Absentee voting is fraud? Even for a blog as stupid as bmg that's stupid.


Battle of the Massachusetts Polls | TheWorldPolitics
Pingback posted January 11, 2010 @ 1:02 am

[...] also a rumor of a Boston Herald poll that shows Coakley up by just 1, a supposed leaked Republican internal poll that had Coakley up by 11, and some older polling (including one of likely voters) that showed [...]


Now there *is* a clear outlying poll in the Massachusetts Senate campaign | TheWorldPolitics
Pingback posted January 12, 2010 @ 1:03 am

[...] While yesterday I believe Nate Silver was correct in writing that every poll in this campaign was an outlier, that no longer appears to be the case.  Three of the four polls now show Coakley comfortably ahead.  Even a mysterious, internal poll that conservatives claim exist shows the campaign in this range. [...]


All you need to know about the Massachusetts Senate election | TheWorldPolitics
Pingback posted January 13, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

[...] to the public, they will stay that way.  This includes the rumor of a Republican poll showing Coakley up 11%, a Boston Herald poll showing Coakley up only 1%., and Coakley’s internal polling showing her [...]


Samm
Comment posted January 21, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

Yes she probably did win. She won the majority of HAND COUNTED votes. You will never know though because there was no exit poll. Very odd? No count of ballots scanned by optical scans-owned by Diebold, now ESS. I believe Obama won MA by 80,000 and Hillary in 06 by 40,000. So something smells fishy to me.
See www. blackboxvoting.org
www. bradblog.com

but shhhhhh….can't mention election fraud. That would mean you/me are conspiracy theorists, or nutters.


Samm
Comment posted January 22, 2010 @ 1:24 am

Yes she probably did win. She won the majority of HAND COUNTED votes. You will never know though because there was no exit poll. Very odd? No count of ballots scanned by optical scans-owned by Diebold, now ESS. I believe Obama won MA by 80,000 and Hillary in 06 by 40,000. So something smells fishy to me.
See www. blackboxvoting.org
www. bradblog.com

but shhhhhh….can't mention election fraud. That would mean you/me are conspiracy theorists, or nutters.


louis vuitton wallet
Comment posted September 29, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

Absentee voting is fraud? Even for a blog as stupid as bmg that's stupid.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.