That was the prediction of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and most other pollsters prior to the primary. In fact, Hillary Clinton won the primary, causing much hand wringing. This shows us that we need to be cautious with polling data. It is just part of the picture.
The UNH poll released this morning by The Boston Globe, showing a safe 15% lead by Coakley among likely voters, does not ring true to me. UNH started polling on January 2 and finished January 6. Rasmussen, which polled during that same time period, showed Coakley up by 9% among likely voters but only 2% among definite voters. PPP polled more recently and showed Brown up by 1%. The Boston Herald is to release a poll which reportedly will show Coakley with a 1% lead among likely voters. [Note added: Jules Crittenden disputes that there is a pending Boston Herald poll.]
The UNH-Globe poll is an outlier, by far. The three other polls show this as a single digit race among likely voters, with Brown's voters far more highly motivated. [Added] Even the UNH-Globe polls shows that among the voters who are listed as "extremely interested in election" it is an even race, at 47% each.
All the polls could be wrong, as they were in New Hampshire, but we have what we have, and it appears to show a close race with a small advantage to Coakley.
I doubt many people, including Democratic political operatives, believe the UNH-Globe numbers of a sweeping Coakley lead reflect reality on the ground. I certainly don't.
This is a tight race. Brown and his supporters need to finish strong to win.
Update: TPM has a reasonable assessment of how the UNH-Globe poll could differ so widely from the PPP poll:
I particularly agree with that last sentence, which is true for both parties. Brown can win this, but only by continuing his surge.So what explains this crazy spread? One thing to note is that the PPP poll is a bit more recent, though seemingly not enough to explain the huge spread. At least not all of it. Another interesting thing about the two polls is that they're not that far off on Coakley's number: PPP has her at 47% and the Globe has her at 53%. The difference is in Brown's number -- 48% vs. 36%. As I said, I think the whole story here is that screen the two pollsters are using to see who's is going to vote.
Now PPP is actually a Democrat-associated firm. So while I think I think they're top-notch, no one who's inclined to be suspicious should have any thought that they're somehow biased in favor of Republican candidates.
How have they done recently? Well, we have two races to look at. PPP came out with a raft of polls just before the November special election and noted that they were seeing a much more Republican electorate than other pollsters were. They picked up the fact that Christie was starting to surge in the last couple days in New Jersey -- they had Christie up by 6 points. But they also had Doug Hoffman clobbering Bill Owens by 17 points in their final poll, even though Owens won.
All of which tells me there's some reason to think that PPP is oversampling Republican voters. But I wouldn't bet money on it. If Dems won't avoid a very, very bad day on January 19th, they need to really get in gear on this race.
And HotAir has a good post which hits on the same sampling and screening issues, What’s up with the Mass. Senate polls?
And Nate Silver's analysis "any of them could be right."
--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Brown HQ Report #2
Brown HQ Report #1
The Death of Feminism: "Save Us Martha!"
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
The UNH poll published by the Boston Globe (owned by the Leftist New York Times Co) is obviously a statistical outlier, a false fat rabbit, thus a socialist ploy to print false manipulating poll results.
ReplyDeleteThat tactic could likely backfire and result instead in unmotivated and/or jaded progressive DEM voters staying home on election day thinking it is in the bag while progressive-rejecting motivated voters redouble their efforts to get out the vote amongst themselves.
I will publish a new blogpost on this election this morning.
It may be an outlier statistically speaking but it is really par the course for the Liberal Establishment.
ReplyDeleteI'm watching Fox News Sunday where a very defensive Michael Steele claimed personal credit for among other things, Brown's surge in MA. Unbelievable. This guy is such a useless boob.
ReplyDeleteAll this hand wringing is useless. Mass is not going to elect a Repub to replace a Kennedy. No I will give a so call professor more credit if him and his readers will use their time, energy, and money to fight against social justice, health care (for those who lack it, because it is simply immoral to live in a country where curable people, even if it is just one person, die because of lack of access to health care), or criminal justice i.e, why are we constantly convicting innocent folks or crimes and incarcerate them for years.
ReplyDeleteCoakley will win by double digits, could be in the 20 percent.
It's the Boston Globe. The front page lead story was Coakley up by 15 points. The other big front page story was about an illegal immigrant who needs a heart transplant and may not get it because he is illegal and poor. This is a city where there are no qualms having your illegal immigrant face plastered on the front page in hopes of getting people to sympathize and send you money.
ReplyDeleteThe two front stories in section B were about Brown leaning conservative, and coverage of the funeral of a local man who was one of the CIA agents killed in Afghanistan. Could anyone with more than half a brain read the CIA agent's story and not realize how important electing Scott Brown is?
It was certainly an interesting set of articles today for those recognizing the underlying issues behind the "tear jerker" articles.
Would you consider another viewpoint?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rightcondition.com/2010/01/voting-for-scott-brown-and-big.html
Arkady,
ReplyDeleteEeyore.. Your worse than the Dems who like to dishearten voters to try to stop them from voting.
You actually want Coakely to win? You think she would be closer to what you want? Your insane.
There is no alternative. He is the only one tha thas a chance of winning against Coakely
Buckjohnson,
ReplyDeleteWho is going to pay for all this care for everyone. Once we are all poor there will be no healthcare for anyone. Sure we want everyone to have healthcare. Hey, here is an idea. Why doesn't the illegal go back to his country for it? There must be some reason he is here? Oh maybe it is because he is a freeloader trying to take what isn't his. Maybe if that person went back to his own country and tried to make it more like america he could get the healthcare he needs. Why should we make our country a 3rd world country and have our people have to leave the US to find a country with good healthcare after our system is destroyed.
Both polls could easily be wrong since zeroing in on who is likely to vote in a special election is a neat trick. That said, I'm inclined to think PPP is closer to the reality if for no other reason than the Globe's 15-point spread is so much bigger than the 9 points (2 among definites) picked up in the same timeframe as the Globe survey by Rasmussen. It seems more likley that Brown is headed up than down - at least to date.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, look at the upside, Professor. If reliable Dem voters in the Boston area think Coakley's a walk in, they'll miss the election. Meanwhile, the more pissed off GOPers and independents wil turn out.
Troll Troll go away.... Bucko we are on to you we know that you are nothing more than a paid concern troll who has been sent here to try and cause those who support Scott Brown to be dispirited.
ReplyDeleteWell it is not going to work.
Martha Coakley has been responsible for some really gross injustices to innocent people. In particular I speak of the young English nanny who is trying to get her life back together, and of the people who were alleged to have committed acts of Satanism as well as atrocities against young children. Those children in that case were being coached. None of it happened. An innocent man and two innocent women stayed in prison for a very long period of time and Martha Coakley was in part responsible for that injustice.
You are wasting your time here.... so get lost.
As an outsider I will look at a few of the furphies being spread by far-left wing (as distinct from moderately conservative) Dhimmicrats.
ReplyDeleteFirst is the issue of social justice. As Attorney General Coakley is in a very unique position of making sure that there is justice. However what is her real record? A few cases should remind people that Coakley is not a champion of justice. The first example is the successful prosecution of the English nanny - the girl was 19 at the time and had only just arrived from England when tragedy struck. She was charged with shaking the baby and causing the damage that killed him. However, crucial evidence was either not given in her trial or was ignored by the jury - that the baby had been injured in the head prior to her arrival in the household, and that there was evidence of a healing head wound (which was the most likely reason that he died). This young woman was seen to be the suspect, and was charged with the murder of the infant. Perhaps the mother of the dead child might like to explain that previous head injury. However the DA was not interested in ensuring that all facts were uncovered before charges were laid against this young woman for "shaken baby syndrome", when she was innocent.
In the second case where there was a lack of justice for an innocent man is that of the family who ran a childcare centre. They were accused of all sorts of acts and none of them were true. The children knew that these acts were not true, but the prosecutors kept on asking questions until the children ended agreeing to all sorts of gross accusations. An innocent family were found guilty of crimes that they did not commit. The warden of the prison sought clemency for the man in the case and it was Coakley who moved against the request encouraging the governor at the time to turn down the request. That was an injustice for an innocent man.
There are more recent cases where Coakley has not acted in a timely fashion.... try the Gates Affair for yet more evidence of a lack of justice....
The other concern is that of healthcare. The Marxists scream and rant about health care claiming that it is a right.... well.... poor people will be seen by a doctor... it is called pro bono work and it is real social justice. When government interferes in the system then that system becomes overloaded with paperwork and regulation that eats into scarce resources i.e. time and money. The Marxists pull out their "45000" per year are dying because they do not have medical insurance... but they provide no proof that this is in fact true.
Transplants are not a right of the populace. Transplants cost a lot of money and afterwards people who have them require anti-rejection drugs. What is truly ironic is that govt under Medicare limits how long kidney transplant patients can have the anti-rejection drugs; it is silly because the alternative is costly dialysis and another kidney transplant. Thus it is govt. regulation that in fact helps bring about some of those deaths.
However, more to the point is the fact that many more who have health insurance die every year. Some procedures just do not produce the required life-prolonging results. Chemotherapy and radiation do not stop the growth of some cancers. Children from wealthy homes die from cancer including brain tumors.... in fact cancer specialists can die from the same form of tumor. Cancer is non-discriminatory.
If a person from a third world country requires a special operation, usually there is a charity that will foot the bill, but why should an illegal alien receive a heart transplant? It is simply not a right for one individual above others who are also on the list waiting for a suitable donor heart.
There is no need to panic over fear-mongering global warming scenarios, since most of the scenarios are over the top nonsense. However, there is plenty of evidence of lack of social justice in the world - try countries like Saudi Arabia where Christians are not allowed to possess a Bible - now that is injustice.
Arkady...
ReplyDeleteYour mindset is one of the biggest problems we face right now in the conservative movement. You take something that's a good idea... standing on principles...and distort it to mean something else.
Look. I'm all for purity...but there's a time and a place. And that time and place is called a "GOP primary".
Once we have a candidate who's going up against a hard leftist, then we support that candidate even if they are not the rebirth of Reagan. The purist fight is BEFOREHAND. Put it to the people...and let them have a choice between a solid conservative and a RINO.
But if they choose the RINO, we have to stand by that choice in order to blunt the disastrous effect of a full on socialist leftist.
Get it?
And now, here we are in a special election...where Scott Brown is the ONLY chance we have to prevent Harry Reid from retaining a 60 seat majority.
Now more than ever we have to stand together and work together to help Scott Brown win.
The Globe never lies or spins left. This poll is gospel. Obviously, no need to go vote for Martha at all.
ReplyDelete(does this make me an "unconcerned troll"?)
The Boston Globe poll undersampled "unenrolled" voters. Also look at Globe question p.3.
ReplyDeleteh/t to jbjd at:
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/brown-v-coakley-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/