Posted on 01/18/2010 5:08:27 PM PST by Arec Barrwin
What Will Happen in Massachusetts on Tuesday? An Analysis By Scott Rasmussen
Monday, January 18, 2010
Two weeks ago, Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing that Republican challenger Scott Brown had closed the gap in Massachusetts to single digits. Prior to that release, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties… was that Martha Coakley was a lock,” writes The Politico’s Ben Smith, adding, “It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.”
A week later, the shock continued as our final poll in the race showed that Brown had pulled to within two points of Coakley. In fact, among those who were certain they would vote, Brown was up by two.
At that time, Brown was leading among political moderates, middle-income voters and those over 40. He enjoyed a dominant lead among unaffiliated voters and even picked up a modest number of Democrats. By every measure, Brown supporters were more engaged in the race and more excited about their candidate. Nothing that we have seen over the past week appears to have changed those dynamics.
The health care issue is front and center as the reason Brown has gained traction. While the plan enjoys more support in Massachusetts than it does nationwide, those with strong opinions on the subject are more likely to oppose the bill than support it. Perhaps the single most shocking thing about the Massachusetts race is the fact that a Republican is running against the president’s health care effort and winning in the Kennedys' home state.
Brown’s position on health care has been supplemented by his positions on national security issues, including the Christmas Day terrorist bomber. Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly want the man who tried to blow up a U.S. airliner tried in a military setting as a terrorist.
Over the past week, the battle in Massachusetts has been fully engaged by both parties. Brown raised over a million dollars in a single day last week and has reportedly continued to raise large amounts of money every day. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, labor unions and other Democratic organizations are pouring money into the race. A handful of polls came out over the weekend suggesting that Brown was in the lead, and news reports indicate that both campaigns' internal polls are showing the same thing.
Since the last Rasmussen Reports poll, the Coakley campaign has had to endure a number of missteps ranging from the candidate’s debate performance and comments about Afghanistan to her mistaken assertion that Boston Red Sox hero Curt Schilling was a Yankees' fan.
While those items may have hurt, the Coakley team got some good news as well. First, the heightened interest in the race may serve to increase turnout among Democrats who have been fairly apathetic about their candidate and the campaign. Second, President Obama himself showed up in Boston to rally the base on Sunday.
Where does that leave us? On Intrade, Brown begins Monday morning as the slight favorite in the race. However, nobody really knows who will win because it all comes down to turnout. Clearly, Brown has the more enthusiastic support and has run a better campaign. If turnout remains low, he is likely to win. That’s why the president went to Boston. If his appearance boosts turnout among Democrats, the Democrat will win.
That’s a long way around saying that we’re right back where we were a week ago - at the time of the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Brown is leading slightly among those certain to vote, and Coakley will do better if more Democrats show up.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
Particularly if the ratio was extreme....Let those close know but keep it close uncase it has been invalidated for some reason. Like Twenty percent lead for Brown.
This ain't just any ol' poll. It's historic, and Rasmussen, being one of the major polling outfits in the nation, ought to have done one just prior to the vote. Just like every other well-respected polling firm in the country.
Don't think that only us Freepers have noticed this huge no-show on Ras' part. Savvy political watchers all over the country are probably scratching their heads and asking the same questions we are tonight.
It's just too strange for a polling company of their stature to simply not poll Massachusetts just before the election.
If I recall the conversation correctly, Zogby told Hannity that he didn't have recent polling data, either. Like Ras, he also went out on a limb to predict tomorrow's outcome based on stale data.
Too weird for coincidence.
I tend to over analyze. My thoughts are going to the dark side. Pray and pray some more.
In cases of voter fraud, it's not the polling that's inaccurate, it's the vote tallies.
If every respected polling firm does their job in an important race, and the vote totals vary significantly from the average polling results, then there is a basis for investigation for vote fraud, and eventual prosecution of the perpetrators.
Good (and widespread) polling can even discourage vote fraud. The more well-done polling that is published, the less likelihood that political operatives will take a chance on messing with the vote.
He may be smarter than we know, if some people's theories are correct.
I pray you’re wrong but think you may be right.
Whoever wrote this article is clueless. Brown is going to win by a landslide. I live thirty miles north of Boston. I've lived here all my life and I've never seen anything, like what is going on right now. Obama's appearance will boost turnout among Democrats, but not in the way he hoped for...especially when calls her his "ally."
People are fed up, and this is going to be a spark for the rest of the country.
If I were a Liberal, I'd be very afraid right now because surely, they know what's coming.
As polling accuracy gets better, at some point polling reports will be equivalent to calling the election before it is over -- and that is exactly what infuriated Republicans when the networks called Florida in 2000 before Florida's western Panhandle polls closed an hour later than eastern Florida.
At some point, increased polling accuracy could predict elections before they happen. When that becomes possible, should polling companies voluntarily restrain from polling in the last few days before an election?
On a local radio show...WEEI, I think...someone called in and used the phrase, "Browns rebellion." The host liked it...and so do I. Has a nice ring to it that seems tailored to the moment.
Are you just throwing that question out for discussion, or are you suggesting that this is what motivated Rasmussen to forgo a last round of polling in Massachusetts?
I will submit that this isn't the reason for Rasmussen's curious withdrawal from the Massachusetts Senatorial race, just days before the vote. If it were, then the business model would be broken, and no one would be polling at this point.
What's your theory as to why Ras didn't poll just before the vote?
My theory for the present is that he is afraid that election fraud will be over 10% of the vote. The strength of the Democrat media will convince people and his customers that his polling was faulty. He does not have the strength to win against that level of power--the power that gave us 0bama and lost us Congress--the power which has successfully stolen other Congressional elections.
The voting has already started and the ballot boxes are being stuffed this very moment in some backroom.
I think that's a fairly strong theory. Makes sense, and has weight.
So, if the Democrat fraud machine is able to somehow manufacture enough votes to pull Martha over the top, how will they explain all of the other polls which showed Scott Brown with a commanding lead going into Tuesday?
And, even if they were somehow able to pull that off with the comatose Massachusetts machine, would they even try? It's not just polls that are showing a Brown win. News stories and commentary all over the country are now in solid agreement that Coakley has lost this race. And by a healthy margin.
How could the Democrats possibly explain such a miraculous turn of events? I say that they couldn't, and that they'd risk not only dozens of legal challenges, but investigations for vote fraud, and even social unrest, if they tried this.
The backlash against them stealing this election could well ignite riots and violence across the country. Personally, I don't think they're brave enough to risk their very necks for this Senate seat.
I'm also afraid that would happen if the election is stolen. I'm also afraid that the Democrats will take advantage of such a crisis by stomping hard on Tea Party movements and us bitter radical right wing extremists with guns, religion and anti-government attitudes.
“Weird .. the ‘poll’ that isn’t a poll.”
Disturbing.
Thank-you God!
Thank-you God!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen!
“I’m sure the Obama/SEIU/Acorn poll will have it 60/35 Coakley/Brown by the time this is over.”
WRONG!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.