On the Wall St. Journal Online, Zogby has new numbers with Patrick up with 56% to Healeys 33.6% and Mihos 6.4%.
The poll was taken between 10/10 and 10/16. I guess being completely negative and not offering any new ideas doesn’t always work.
Here is a link to a WSJ report.
Discuss
29 Comments . Leave a comment below.Two years ago, Severin always pushed Zogby as the best pollster in the business. I note that several senate races (where other polls are showing trends toward Democrats) are called by Zogby for the GOP. If Zogby's methodology tends to amplify GOP opinions, then the Massachusetts results are particulary sweet.
...realize that Zogby got many things right in the 2002 mid-terms election, but he was banging the drum the loudest that Kerry was a shoe-in in '04.
Agreed, but it seems the reason was that they were trying to interpolate a 'trend'. Kerry gained a point or two in Florida and Ohio in the last couple days, or something, and depsite being behind by another point or two, Zogby felt that it was 'trending Kerry' and made that prediction.
Which was kinda stupid it seems, but it doesn't mean the poll numbres were wrong - they were quite good.
Listen to the data, ignore the spin.
...and read the headline of my comment.
At the same time, Zogby has never been off by anything like 22 points. And note that Zogby had Healey at 34, the top of the range established by the last several polls on the race. Other than the Suffolk blip that had Patrick down to 46, all these numbers are consistent with the earlier ones.
With 19 days to go and millions of dollars spent on viscious TV, Kerry Healey has been Lt. Gov. for four years and no post-primary poll has shown her with more than one-third of the electorate.
Congratulations, Kerry. You used to be just the talentless, clueless pawn of Mitt Romney. Now you've shown yourself to be a sleazebag too. And it hasn't helped.
HA HA HA.
Will the MSM now stop writing that Patrick is slipping in the polls?
The Globe cites the polls with a caveat that the Republicans don't like the methodology. (or the numbers)
Tell them to complain to the Wall Street Journal, that noted left wing organization!
In similar news, the Republicans have announced that they don't like the methodology or the numbers used to account for American deaths in Iraq, damage done by Hurricane Katrina, stagnation of middle class incomes, or Bush's IQ test results.
"Will the MSM now stop writing that Patrick is slipping in the polls?"
No, because the MSM has a conservative bias. When Deval wins they will first say he does not have a mandate to lead. Then they will proceed to badger him for the next four years.
We shouldn't have been surprised that the negative ads aren't working here. Dukakis still carried Massachusetts despite the Willie Horton campaign and Kerry still carried this state despite the swift boat ads. So why would the Healey campaign think the Laguer ads would push them over the top?
I believe it's called "hope over experience."
An aversion to negative advertising had very, very little if anything to do with Kerry and Dukakis winning in MA.
Voting for the Presidential candidate who lives in your own state is a no-brainer. In 1984, Regan won 49 states but Mondale still won his home state of Minnesota. Gore (TN) and G.W. Bush (CT) both lost their "home states" but easily won where they lived (D.C. and TX). Similarly, Kerry lost Colorado but won in MA.
Voting in a Governor's race is a completely different entity. Both candidates live in the state after all. How Massachusetts (definitely a blue state) can keep electing Republican Governors is pretty amazing but it shows that the GOP campaign strategy (including negative advertising) does work here. Romney ran plenty of negative ads.
Neagative ads do work and they are working this year. They may not be enough to overcome a huge lead but they can and will help those not subject to the attacks.
Romney wasn't particularly negative. It's more like he outrightly lied about many of his far-right positions.
And Romney, really, was the first post-Weld Republican: It's not like the others really got straight-up elected. If you go all the way back to 1990, Weld (the Republican) was viewed as moderate and, in the minds of many voters, more liberal than the Democratic nominee, John Silber. As boredom set in he tried, and failed, in a Senate run and then just sort of drifted away. Cellucci coasted in on the Weld incumbency, faced a lackluster campaign by Scott Harshberger and had a lot of help from the Clinton economy. He moved on to Canada and left Jane Swift, who finally closed the book on the Weld administration to make way for Romney. I really consider the voters of Massachusetts voting for Weld, and then Romney.
Negative adds only work inosofar as they provoke a reaction: panic in your opposition, disgust in the voters, reinforcing apathy... none of which, as I can see, is in play here. Deval Patrick doesn't panic. The voters are disgusted with Healey and they are decidedly not apathetic.
Romney's campaign didn't have the nasty tone of the Healey race.
Even the Romney negative ads were light-hearted. Remember Duncan the Watchdog? The cute dog that slept as the evil Beacon Hill crowd raided Shannon O'Brien's truckload of cash? Or the Darth Vader like evil trio ads, and Finneran was such a good villain. People liked Romney's negative ads, because they had a touch of humor.
Meanwhile, Romney was pretty much 100% content free. Romney the hero of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Romney on photo-ops doing real jobs. Romney smiling. Has Muffy smiled once in this campaign?
Meanwhile, the Democrats were inept, and the only real negative they could bring against Romney was his questionable residency. But Mitt went to Utah to be a hero.
Healey smiles during her "I'm exactly the same as Deval Patrick except he likes illegal aliens and rapists" ad.
Or a smirk? Or a sneer?
Quick, another poll. What was that?
It was Sean behind her pulling the puppet strings attached to the mouth to make her talk...
You note that Gore lost his home state of Tennesse. So voting for the presidential candidate who lives in your own state isn't a no-brainer. It's true that negative advertising will hurt the candidate who's the target. But the intensely personal negative ads that dogged Dukakis and Kerry elsewhere didn't appear to affect them here. It may have just been that they were favorite sons. But it may also have been that the voters in Massachusetts saw through the race-baiting and deceptive pitches.
He differentiated the so-called "home state" and the state that they actually lived in at the time.
But they can't be the only weapon in your arsenal. Healey's attack ads were effective, but once the initial shock wears off, people who were leaning towards Deval will gravitate back to him because there's no compelling reason to stay in the Healey camp. You use attack ads to dislodge voters from your opponent, but you must give them a reason to stay with you once they've been dislodged. If you can do that, attack ads work.
But Deval is a more charismatic candidate running in a blue state as a Democrat in a political atmosphere which is both anti-incumbent and anti-GOP. He's holding a royal flush.
I think we need to differentiate between "negative" and "attack" ads.
To me, "negative" ads involve any non-positive mention of your opponent. In this sense, Deval's full of it when he says he doesn't run negative ads.
But he, like I think most people, think "negative" when they should be thinking "attack." To me, you've reached attack ad territory when you have to hire actors to reenact old crimes, or to lurk around empty garages, or whatever Healey's latest is.
I agree that there are negative ads, and there are attack ads (which is what Healey is mostly running), but I think there are two kinds of negative ads.
I don't consider an ad that highlights a relevant fact about an opponent to be necessarily negative.
I think the difference is how the fact is used, and whether it is used, as some other poster said here, as a "crystal ball", predicting what their opponent might (but probably wouldn't) do.
Healey's "Soft on crime" campaign, is negative, because Healey is attempting to define Patrick's position, and the position is essentially false. I haven't seen the immigrant ad yet; Deval Patrick has never said he is in favor of illegal immigration -- but I suspect the ad tries to assign that position to him too.
There's an even bigger nuance going on, where the ad or campaign stops short of defining a very negative position, but pretty much leads voters to that position without being explicit. Healey is doing a lot of that, and by the likes of the Howie Carr callers, she's being very successful at it (how about all the callers talking in a Black voice talking about Deval and crime)?
That said, I think that Deval's "Seniors" ad is a negative ad, because Kerry Healey has not explicitly said that it is her policy to move seniors out of their houses, nor has she even proposed a plan that would indirectly do so. Patrick is the one defining Healey's position in this ad.
I think that the issue of tax breaks for seniors is very important, but it is an exaggeration to show seniors moving out of their houses, even though that would be the consequence of a tax policy that favors low income taxes and high property taxes.
But it sure feels good to see her getting hammered like that, because she's been doing it since the primary.
The "really vicious attack that everyone loves because she so badly deserves it" ad.
- Dan
Healey rapped on senior tax issue
That doesn't sound to me like she was planning to have them move into to Beverly Farms with her....?
Patrick said in the Democratic debate before the primary to Bob Oakes, "Bob, before this is over I will be called everything but a Child of God." Well add Governor to that and we set.
Thanks for the diary, I've been so apprehensive and worried about the onslaught of ads. I think it is backfiring and it couldn't happen to a nicer gal. Enjoy your retirement in Beverly, dah-link! You've earned all that time off.
Martha Coakley is certainly a credible voice on crime and her ad attacking Kerry's record is excellant. We need more people like Martha Coakley taking to the airwaves.
Can unopposed politicians with huge bank accounts advertise for Patrick or against Healey.
Why aren't the Congressional Delegation and Senators jumping in?
Have they been donating huge sums to the State Party???
Held a fundraiser for Deval at Hyannis and sang his praises. I was there!
COAKLEY HAS REFUSED TO PROSECUTE CHILD MOLESTERS OR TO INVESTRIGATE NAMBLA. LARRY FRISOLI HAS DONE BOTH. FRISLI HAD TOO BRING CHARGES AGAISN KIETH WINFIELD THE PEDIFILE COP FROM SOMMERVILLE WHO RAPED HIS NIECE OF ONLY 2 YEARS OF AGE. COAKLEY TOUGH ON CRIME PLEASE. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. LARRY FRISOLI IS A DECENT HARD WORKING KIND MAN WHO HAS A THRIVING LAW PRACTICE. WE ARE FORTUANATE TO GET A SUCCESS STORY LIKE HIM TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. IF WE DO NOT DO OUR HOMEWORK WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET. DON'T LET FRISLI GO. IT IS NOT OFTEN WE GET A CHANCE TO PULL A GUY LIKE THIS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO HELP THE STATE. HE OWES NO ONE AND IS NOT A HARD LINER REPUBLICAN AND IN FACT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NOT GIVEN HIM A DIME BECAUSE HE CAN THINK FOR HIMSELF. IF YOU ARE NOT VOTING FOR HIM BECAUSE HE IS RUNNING AS A REPUBLICAN THAN THAT IS PREJUDICE AND IGNORANT. I HOPE YOU WILL LOOK AT THE FACTS AND GIVE EACH CANDIDATE A CAREFUL REVIEW. WHO WOULD YOU WANT TO DEFEND YOU IN COURT?
MARTHA IS NOT UNOPPOSSED SHE IS RUNNING AGAINST LARRY FRISOLI. YOU CAN CHECK HIM OUT AT WWW.LARRYFRISOLI.COM MARTHA DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUES OF HER OWN RACE SO SHE IS TRYING TO SIDE STEP IT AND GET SOME HELP FROM THE MOMMENTUM OF THE PATRICK CAMPAIGNE. SHE IS NOT A NICE PERSON AND CHECK OUT KIETH WINFIELD AND HER RECORD THERE. CHECK OUT WHO IS GIVING HER MONEY. BIG DIG CONTRACTORS AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY SHE WILL BE REGULATING. WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO OUR INSURANCE IF SHE IS ELECTED. GET A CLUE PEOPLE COAKLEY IS OUT FOR COAKLEY AND NEVER ANSWERS QUESTIONS JUST SIDE STEPS THE ISSUES. FRISOLI IS THE SON OF SCHOOL TEACHERS, HIS FATHER FRANK FRISOLI, WAS THE SUPERINTENDANT OF SCHOOLS IN CAMBRIDGE. LARRY WORKED HIS WAY THROUGH COLLEGE AND LAW SCHOOL DRIVING A CAB. THE FRISOLI'S ARE MOSTLY DEMOCRATS AND HAVE DONE GREAT WORKS OF CHARITY IN THE COMMUNITY. FRISOLI FATHER HAD 3 BROTHERS A FORMER FBI AGENT WHO WORKED AND HELPED BREAK THE BRINKS CASE, A FRANCISCAN PRIEST WHO DID MISSIONARY WORK IN SOUTH AMERICA AND THE VATICAN. AND A TAXI CAB OWNER IN SOMERVILLE AND CAMBRIDGE. THESE ARE BLUE COLLARE HARD WORKING PEOPLE. LARRY IS A GENEROUS CARING FATHER OF 2 BOYS. COAKLEY HAS NO CHILDREN AND NO CLUE WHAT BEING A PARENT IS. LOOK AT WHAT FRISOLI HAS DONE AND WHY HE WANTS TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE WANTS TWO TERMS TO SET INSURANCE STRAIGHT BY BRINGING IN 26 MORE COMPANIES AND DOING AWAY WITH TERRITORIALISM ASPECTS OF THE INDUSTRY AND TO PROTECT ELDERLY AND CHILDREN FROM PEDIFILES. HE HAS FILED A LAW SUIT AGAINST NAMBLA WITH HSI OWN MONEY AND FOUGHT FOR THE FAMILY OF JEFFERY CURLEY THE 10 YEAR OLD BOY WHO WAS MOLESTED AND MURDERED BY TWO MEMBERS OF NAMBLA. MARTHA COAKLEY HAS NEVER EVEN OFFERED TO INVESTIGATE NAMBLA DESPITE THE HELP SHE WAS OFFFERED BY FRISOLI. JOHN BISH THE FATHER OF MOLLY BISH AND ROBERT CURLEY BOTH HAVE ENDORSEED LARRY FRISOLI AND MARTHA WELL KIETH WINFIELD THE CHILD MOLESTER COP FROM SOMMERVILLE I GUESS HE ENDORSES COAKLEY. COMPARE IF YOU DARE AND CHECK OUT THE FACTS. YOU WILL WANT TO VOTE FOR FRISOLI TOO, ONCE YOU DO. WWWLARRYFRISOLI.COM
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 23 May 5:09 AM