On the other hand: The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts has a penchant for sending absolute idiots such as Teddy, Kerry and Bawney to Dee Cee. And Rats will be counting the votes. And Acorn will be running buses to the slums.
Conclusion: Despite what other polls say, and no matter how people actually vote, my money is still on the Rat.
Mine, too, but I’d like to see a comparison between the widely differing polls, the methodology, the number of those polled.
The polls are all over the place but again its Mass, so money is definitely on the Dim.
PPP surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of error is +/-3.6%.
The Globe poll:
The poll, conducted Jan. 2 to 6, sampled the views of 554 randomly selected likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.
The Brown poll is more recent, with a larger sampling, and a smaller margin of error.
Hmmmm...
Coakley is "well-liked"? First I've heard of it!
In any case, all those Coakley fans who read the Globe (must be all of them) can rest easy and not worry about getting to the polls, since she's such a shoo-in! ;-)
Not according to this Democrat Poll.
According to this group it is a tie with Brown slightly ahead.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/Poll_Scott_Brown_leading_Coakley_4847.html
Republicans have a very real chance at orchestrating a Massachusetts miracle in this month’s special Senate election to determine Ted Kennedy’s successor, at least according to a new Democratic poll out tonight.
The shocking poll from Public Policy Polling shows Republican state senator Scott Brown leading Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, which would mean the race is effectively tied.
Among independents, who make up 51 percent of the electorate in the Bay State, Brown leads Coakley 63 percent to 31 percent.
Just 50 percent of voters view Coakley favorably, while 42 percent viewing her unfavorably.
Brown, who began an advertising blitz this month, sports a strong 57 percent favorability rating, with just 25 percent viewing him unfavorably – very strong numbers for a Republican in the heavily Democratic state.
On the issue of health care, which Brown has emphasized that he would be the deciding vote against, 47 percent said they opposed the plan in Congress while 41 percent supported it.
A Rasmussen Reports survey from earlier this week had showed Coakley’s lead down to 9 points, and in last night’s debate she had questioned the accuracy of those numbers, suggesting her margin of victory would in fact be larger.
The survey of 744 likely voters was conducted January 7-9 and had a margin of error of 3.6 percent.
In his analysis, pollster Tom Jensen noted that Coakley is suffering from a less-than excited Democratic electorate, a dynamic similar to the gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia that Democrats lost last year .
“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said PPP pollster Dean Debnam.. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”
Jan 6 poll announced 4 days later?
Poll might be good, but very small sample size and how has the track record been of University of New Hampshire Survey Center, doing polls in Mass? Why go to NH, no polling places in MA?
I’m not saying I disagree with poll. The newer poll showing a dead heat may have caught some last minute movement especially from folks who only started to make up their minds after the holidays. Also, the newer poll seemed to be attentive to expected turnout while this NH pollster may have kept the same turnout figures as presidential election.
Another selection from article:
And there are other glimmers of hope for the Republican: Roughly a quarter of those surveyed have not yet made up their minds, and Brown matches Coakley - both were at 47 percent - among the roughly 1 in 4 respondents who said they were “extremely interested’’ in the race.
From the article: “Roughly a quarter of those surveyed have not yet made up their minds, and Brown matches Coakley - both were at 47 percent - among the roughly 1 in 4 respondents who said they were “extremely interested’’ in the race.”
Some of the results reported simply do not seem internally consistent. And other results, including what I quote immediately above, surely indicate that the Dems’ support is as soft in MA as it is nationwide. Even the article concedes that turnout will be low — no higher than 35% compared to 50% in a general election.
The pollster comes across as supremely confident that Coakley has an insurmountable lead. Even taken at face value, the evidence simply does NOT point to that. Ergo, the pollster has been misrepresented by the article’s author or is a hack. Anyone worth his salt would be hedging his bets a lot more than this guy has done.
I am not at all dissuaded from my own bullish sense, now weeks-old, that Brown has a real shot at taking this election. Perhaps not 50-50. But likely not all that much worse.
One other thing ... If this state is such a blue stronghold, why is such a HUGE fraction of the state’s electorate ... INDEPENDENT? Especially if the only game in the state is Democratic, wouldn’t one think that everyone would want to be registered as such?
There’s a lot I just don’t buy about the conventional wisdom that MA is overwhelmingly blue. A fair chunk of it just does NOT add up.
this, sadly, seems more realistic. Massachusetts has been sending Ds to Washington for decades. Like diarrhea in Mexico water, so is idiot federal voting in the Bsy State.
Eh...
I think we have two separate points here.
It is MA and I’ll believe the Democrat loses when it happens.
Same time I trust RAss and he had a lead that was less then 10 points for her. Plus Clinton wouldn’t be headed there if it was separated by 5 points. So while I lean Dem retention I don’t accept this poll result.
I don’t give a damn what any poll says. We are talking about America’s future here.
With apologies to Winston Churchill, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Massachusetts, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend American freedom, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if America or a large part of it is subjugated to Obama’s Marxism, then freedom-loving Americans shall carry on the struggle until, in God’s good time, a majority of Americans step forth to the rescue and the liberation of this nation.
Take the fight to the enemy. Contribute to Scott Brown.
A voter from the Boston Herald:
“J.P. Licks owner Vince Petryk said he’s drawn to Coakley’s stance on abortion rights and same-sex marriage. As a business owner, he said, he wants Coakley to become a “voice that will help cut the bureaucracy” that hinders small businesses.”
Such are the idiots and imbeciles in MA.
I hope the Dems believe the Globe poll and get lazy, stay home. I hope the Repubs & Indys believe the PPP poll, get energized, go vote.
Send Scott some financial love.
This Boston Globe poll reminds me of Newsweek’s final poll in the 2004 presidential election that showed Kerry up by 9, don’t you agree?
Here’s that Boston Globe poll we’d mentioned in another thread. Small sample polled by a newspaper that the New York Times owns.
Go ahead dems, go back to sleep, this is Uncle Teds seat we are talking about.
Time to do a little digging ...
wiki:
Controversy
Coakley has refused to investigate Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, and his office for allegedly violating laws in regards to destruction of public e-mail records.[citation needed] Coakley denies all accusations of misconduct.[21]
She also declined to reprimand the state’s District Attorneys in relation to false statements they allegedly made regarding the effects of the state’s voter approved Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative and allegations the District Attorneys misused state resources (website) and failed to file as designated ballot committee in a timely manner while receiving contributions as required by law while challenging the initiative.[22].
The statements by the District Attorneys included allegedly inaccurate and misleading warnings in an effort to defeat the law, such as that if the law passed “any person may carry and use marijuana at any time.” When declining to pursue the case Coakley’s office responded with “nothing in the proposed law explicitly forbids public use of the drug”. This basically ignores the fact that the law still levies a $100 fine and confiscation for adults, as well as additional mandatory community service for minors for the act of possession, and in order to use you would have to possess the drug.[23]
The failure to file as a ballot committee allegedly stems from the fact state records show the district attorneys began raising money as early as July 18, 2008 but did not file a statement of organization with the state until Sept. 5, 2008. [24].
Coakley was herself a member of The Coalition for Safe Streets, the political action group eventually formed by the District Attorneys to fight the ballot question but did not feel it was necessary to recuse herself from any decisions based on any possible conflict of interest grounds.[25]
//
(no links)
AG ducks Herald, sends us on wild goose chase
By Edward Mason
Friday, October 16, 2009
Martha Coakley is running - but not from a Herald reporter’s tough questions, she insists.
The attorney general, who’s campaigning for the U.S. Senate, has gone to great lengths to avoid questions about her flip-flop on the City Hall e-mail flap, leading a Herald reporter on a wild chase down a long hallway and through a gift shop at the Fairmont Copley Plaza last week.
Then at the State House yesterday, Coakley twice refused to answer the same Herald reporter’s questions about her apparent use of state money to fund federal campaign activities, even as she took queries from other media.
“I’m not going to talk to you about it,” Coakley told reporter Hillary Chabot. “Anybody else have any questions?”
(snip)
A spokesman for state Sen. Scott Brown (R.-Wrentham), who’s also running for Kennedy’s seat, agreed. “As the commonwealth’s chief law enforcement officer, Martha Coakley must be held to a higher standard,” said Felix Browne. “Legitimate questions have been put to her, and she needs to answer them.”
Beyond Coakley’s about-face on whether she would probe the destruction of City Hall e-mails, the Herald has reported that Coakley accepted an honorary law degree from Suffolk University while her office was investigating the school in a conflict-of-interest case.
//
Coakley flip-flops, probes e-mails AG steps in as mayor’s office scandal expands
Boston Herald (MA) - Thursday, October 8, 2009
Author: DAVE WEDGE and RICHARD WEIR
Flip-flopping on an issue that has hounded her on the U.S. Senate campaign trail, Attorney General Martha Coakley now says she will investigate the intensifying e-mail scandal surrounding Mayor Thomas M. Menino .
Coakley’s abrupt reversal came as the individual at the center of “e-mailgate” - Menino ‘s top aide Michael Kineavy - took an unpaid leave of absence and City Hall admitted a computer formerly used by the aide has suddenly turned up.
(snip)
BOX: WHAT SHE SAID THEN, WHAT SHE SAYS NOW:
Attorney General Martha Coakley has changed her tune since balking at taking on the City Hall e-mail scandal three weeks ago. Here’s what she has said:
Sept. 15: Asked if she would heed Boston mayoral candidate Michael Flaherty’s call to investigate the missing City Hall e-mails, Coakley said she would defer to Secretary of State William Galvin.
“Particularly understanding this is the middle of a (mayoral) campaign, we get lots of complaints from folks who are adversaries who have a particular agenda.”
“If (Galvin) feels that needs to be referred to our office for further investigation he will do that,” she added.
Yesterday: Coakley reversed course and said she is now involved in the case.
“Secretary Galvin’s office has been working on this matter to ensure, first and foremost, that all public records are preserved, and also to determine whether there have been any violations of the public records law by city officials. We are now involved in that review. ...and we remain prepared to conduct a full investigation and take all necessary steps to guarantee the preservation of evidence and full compliance with the law.
//
AG’s critics cite degree of concern Coakley takes heat over Suffolk University honor
Boston Herald (MA) - Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Author: HILLARY CHABOT
Attorney General Martha Coakley donned a cap and gown to receive an honorary law degree from Suffolk University as her office actively probed a school trustee for conflict of interest - and maintains she did not have to get ethics clearance first.
Coakley cleared the university of any legal violations just two months after she nabbed the coveted honorary Doctor of Law degree in May.
Coakley spokeswoman Emily LaGrassa said the attorney general didn’t disclose the honorary degree to the State Ethics Commission because the degree “has no monetary value.”
But Ken Boehm of the ethics watchdog agency National Legal and Policy Center blasted Coakley over the Suffolk honor: “By any ethical yardstick, that’s way over the line and it shouldn’t have happened. Anything of value received from someone under investigation is wholly inappropriate.”
(snip)
//
Brown: Coakley letting ACORN fall through cracks
Boston Herald (MA) - Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Author: HILLARY CHABOT
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown blasted his Democratic rival Attorney General Martha Coakley yesterday for failing to crack down on two local chapters of the controversial liberal group ACORN despite their repeated failure to file financial reports with her office.
“It appears as though the attorney general is looking the other way,” said state Sen. Scott Brown. “It’s her job to determine whether non-profits are properly licensed to do business, especially when they oversee state funds.”
The local office of ACORN - a grassroots organization that enrolls voters and helps secure housing for low-income families - never filed annual reports with the AG’s public charities division in 2006 and 2008, as required by law. Also, ACORN Housing - a branch of the organization which has received a $33,000 state grant - hasn’t filed a report since 2006.
The reports are supposed to detail how the nonprofits collect and spend their money.
The controversial non-profit - an acronym for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - is under renewed national scrutiny after several of its national offices were videotaped giving tips on how to cheat on taxes to two conservative activists masquerading as a pimp and a prostitute.
Coakley spokeswoman Emily Lagrassa said the AG has contacted both ACORN offices multiple times and is prepared to place ACORN and ACORN Housing on a non-compliance list. “We are going through the appropriate steps that we would with any organization to ensure they are complying with the law,” she said.
(snip)
//
Op-Ed Lack of conviction No compass to Coakley
Boston Herald (MA) - Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Author: MICHAEL GRAHAM
Does Attorney General Martha Coakley really believe in “magic rooms”? And if she does, should Bay Staters believe in her?
I realize it’s now gauche to bring up a candidate’s resume and experience. So what if we’re sending an untested leader to Washington to face war and recession? It’s not like they’re going to do something really stupid - like spend millions to “save or create” nonexistent jobs in fictional congressional districts, or give the 9/11 terrorists a trial with all the rights of U.S. citizens.
Right, Mr. President?
Still, I’m old fashioned on these matters, so I spent a few hours reviewing Coakley’s list of legislative and leadership accomplishments. Remember the pamphlet “Great Jewish Sports Legends” from the movie “Airplane”? It’s about that long.
And I ran into a name I hadn’t heard in awhile: Amirault.
The current controversy is over Coakley’s mishandling of the Rev. John Geoghan case. But her fight to keep the Amiraults in jail shows something worse than bad judgment - it shows she’s willing to put party loyalty over people’s lives.
If you lived in Massachusetts in the ‘80s, you remember the case. A grandmother and her two adult children who ran a day care were convicted of sexually assaulting very young children. The accusations were incredible in every sense of the word. As Dorothy Rabinowitz recounted in The Wall Street Journal:
“Children had supposedly been raped with knives - which miraculously failed to leave any signs of wounding or other injury - and been assaulted by a clown in a ‘magic room.’ Some children told - after interrogations by investigators - of being forced to drink urine, of watching the Amiraults slaughter blue birds, of meeting robots with flashing lights . . a child also testified he was tied naked to a tree in the schoolyard, in front of all the teachers and children, while ‘Miss Cheryl’ cut the leg off a squirrel.”
Uh-huh. Naked kids and squirrel mutilation in front of an audience, but then-Middlesex District Attorney Scott Harshbarger couldn’t find one witness. There was also no DNA evidence nor a motive. Lead prosecutor Lawrence Hardoon suggested child pornography, but nobody could find even one photo.
Hardoon’s answer: “Just because no evidence of photographs was found doesn’t mean that there were none.”
The Amirault case today is almost universally viewed as a a blot on the Massachusetts legal system. Almost. One holdout is Coakley.
In a statement to Blue Mass Group, Coakley said “I believe the conviction was sound and [Gerald Amirault] received a fair trial.”
Succeeding Harshbarger as district attorney, Coakley went even further. In 2001 when the parole board voted 5-0 to release Gerald Amirault, in part due to “the real and substantial doubt,” about his guilt, Coakley opposed it. In an unusual parole agreement with Coakley, Gerald’s sister Cheryl had to stop all challenges to her conviction and was banned from giving TV interviews.
What little courage it would have taken for Coakley to admit the error of the district attorney’s office. But she claims to believe in magic rape rooms and secret clowns.
Why? Because Coakley’s biggest resume item (other then her gender) is her party loyalty. Whether she’s protecting her fellow courthouse cronies, or letting the big fish wiggle off the Big Dig hook, Coakley is always carrying water for the Democratic establishment.
(snip)
Michael Graham hosts a talk show on 96.9 WTKK.
I agree 100 %. Conservative optimists are overlooking the massive vote fraud that will be taking place in the future. Commencing with the election of “The Divine One the far left has gained access to funding and power.” There is a good chance that no conservative will ever win another election.