Posted on 01/16/2010 4:39:18 PM PST by cdchik123
Republican Scott Brown leads Democrat Martha Coakley 48% to 45% in the special Massachusetts US Senate race to replace Senator Ted Kennedy in a telephone survey conducted January 12-14 among 600 likely voters in Massachusetts saying they will definitely vote in the special election on January 19.
Brown leads Coakley 94% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 58% to 37% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 71% to 20% among registered Democrats. A total of 8% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans remain undecided.
Brown leads 54% to 39% among men while Coakley leads 50% to 44% among women.
Brown leads 52% to 42% among likely voters age 18 to 49 and Coakley leads 47% to 46% among voters 50 and older.
A total of 9% of likely voters say they have already voted by absentee ballot, with Brown leading Coakley 58% to 42%.
He/she thinks the Dems will “arrange” a big win for Coakley.
As I’ve posted before, the “fix” in MN resulted in a swing of just 1000 votes. Coleman was up by 300 before the recount; Franken ended up “winning” by 700.
The latest polls show Brown winning by approx. 30,000.
If the polls are accurate, some massive fraud would be necessary to turn that around. Has there ever been an example of such a thing in MA? I’ve checked and was unable to find any election fraud in MA remotely like that.
In Massachusetts, it has been a given that pretty much anybody with a (D) next to their name will win so I really doubt they have the infrastructure or experience to commit voter fraud on a large scale.
I'm pretty sure there are going to be some "dead" people voting and likely some ballot stuffing going on but if Brown is a few percentage points up (30,000+ votes), I don't think he (Brown) has anything to worry about.
BTW, Brown is going to absolutely clobber Coakley in the Boston suburbs and points west. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brown get 70% of the vote in some of the western towns (and out on the Cape). I believe that in order for Martha to pull it out, she's going to need at least 70% of the Boston vote and that's the reason Obama is there today.
We are a small state so Boston cannot be written off by the Brown campaign. If Brown can get 30% or better in Boston, I think it will be pretty much impossible for him to lose.
I think that’s the only logical way to look at it which makes me wonder about all the whiners and blues shouters we have on this forum who want to accuse every Dhimmi election supervisor and every poll watchers and volunteer of being part of Organized Crime.
I’m sure that some of them are but what they are facing right now looks so vast that any of their sneaky machinations would be like shoveling shiite against the tide.
Hugh Hewitt has the best quote on the subject: “If it’s not close, they can’t steal it.”
Dave Matthews’s leg ?
OK! OK! I wasn’t on top of my game yesterday! Yes, “Chris!” :P
It’s called being able to realistically see what’s ahead, my FRiend.
Hey sweetheart....Brown’s 11 point lead evaporated overnight.
oh, so you can be positive... when the news is negative... you must be thrilled about the quake in Haiti...
In a one party state like Mass. and especially with it being a Union state, I think the Democrats that are going to vote for Brown would lie about it in the polls. Especially the union members. If the Democrats or Union members feels their party is out of touch they either will not show up at the polls or they vote opposite of what they were polled.
I have a couple of questions
The likely voters - there is no where that kept track of the unlikely voters by affiliation or at all? Is the ending sample after kicking out unlikely voters based on the % of total registered voters by affiliation? Or did they select the list based on % of affiliation and just kick out the unlikely voters.
In other words does their sampling take into consideration the number of unlikely voters that are registered by affiliation?
If you start with a list of registered voters and make calls based on % of affiliation and one party is not as engaged as the other party, you would end up with a higher % of likely voters being from the other affiliations. Maybe starting with 1500 people to get 1000 likely voters.
If you keep replacing the unlikely voters with likely voters from the same affiliation so that your 1000 reflects the % of affiliated voters, you would end up overstating the party that was not engaged.
Prayer Thread for the Massachusetts Election:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2430467/posts
*************
How “Voter Fraud” is committed in Boston!!
A young man from SouthEnd Boston (Southie) said he & his groups check the voter registration records & separate out the “Good voters” from the “Registered” voters.
They go to 10 different pools early in morning & using the names of “registered voters who do not vote”. They are able to vote in 10 different polling places & vote illegally in other peoples names!!!
Valid ID should be required!!********************
Want to see the template for voter fraud? Check out the Washington Gubernatorial race of 2004. The folks who orchestrated that are goose-stepping Democrats who are intimately invloved in every close race, and in EVERY instance the Dim candidate, after coming out short at the conclusion of the voting, miraculously “found” votes to “take away” from the victor and votes to “give to” the Dim, thus assuring a Dim victory. To say I hate the left is a profound understatement.
“They have a horrible track record. But I’ll take it.”
++++++++++++++++
Well take Rasmussen and Suffolk U polls in conjunction...:)
Go Scottie Brown!
Want to see the template for voter fraud? Check out the Washington Gubernatorial race of 2004.
+++++++++++++++
Both WA and MN races stolen had razor thin margins. Let’s really hope, give, call and work for a 3% plus margin for Scott Brown.
We NEED to deal with vote fraud broadly, as a central topic of the nation’s cleansing of the RAT infestation.
They go to 10 different pools early in morning & using the names of “registered voters who do not vote”. They are able to vote in 10 different polling places & vote illegally in other peoples names!!!
++++++++++++++++++
This is unconscienable.
Hey sweetheart....Brown’s 11 point lead evaporated overnight.
++++++++++++++
Ya think? Says who?
I tactfully asked him WHY he was going to vote for Brown and his answer was: “Because of the healthcare bill Obama is trying to pass.” I carefully agreed with him and reinforced the fact that Obama wants to gut Medicare/Medicaid by taking away 500 BILLION DOLLARS from the system and that if he adds 40 million people to the rolls, especially illegal aliens the health care system would collapse… I told him that Brown is an honorable man and that he is totally opposed to the “healthcare” bill and would vote against it… MY DAD AGREED! I was flabbergasted!
If my own father; a life-long Massachusetts FDR Democrat who has voted for EVERY Kennedy, Kerry/democrat to ever come down the pike, is going to vote for Scott Brown, a REPUBLICAN, BECAUSE OF HIS OPPOSITION TO Obama and his evil healthcare debacle then things are looking VERY promising for Scott Brown and we could all be in for an incredible victory on Tuesday. To this end I am fervently praying.
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.