Boston Globe poll conducted by University of NH shows Elizabeth Warren leading Scott Brown 43 to 38. Survey was conducted Sept. 21-27, so this was post-debate for all respondents but NOT post Tomahawk chop video for all respondents.
Oddly, the story on Boston.com calls this within the +/- 4.4% margin of error, even though they’re reporting a 5 percentage point difference.
Story also says she leads among women by 12 points and trails among men by only 3 points. That’s a huge change from the yawning gender advantage PPP reported that Scott Brown had with male voters.
Looks like the same include 36.4% registered Democrats, 48.4% unenrolled (i.e. “Independents”) and 14.3% Republicans. Geographically, the biggest group was 128 to 495 at 31.6% followed by inside 128 at 26.5%, 16.7% central Mass., 12.7% western Mass. and 12.4% southern MA/Cape/Islands.
From the link:
Warren needs to get the votes of that 20% of Obama voters who are still undecided – if she does, it’s over, and Brown will have a one-way ticket to irrelevance.
A.) You support President Obama and you like most of his ideas and you would like to see Congress pass legislation he backs.
B.) You vote for a guy who wants to obstruct and block most of the legislation at the top of the President’s agenda.
So you want your Senator to work to nullify the good stuff the President that you support wants to pass? W.T.F. is the point?
There may be people who would prefer that the government do very little, and that nothing much changes. As in, no unexpected foreign adventures nor major domestic policy changes. No alarms an
The UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald outlier poll — the one that arguably undersampled Democratic voters and was the only one in the past half dozen to show Brown with a lead — claimed a Brown lead of 4 points, 49-45. Margin of error was +/-4.4. The Globe reported results with this headline:
New poll shows Brown ahead of Warren in Senate race
There was no specific mention in the story that this lead was within margin of error, although it’s clear to anyone who does the math themselves.
Their own poll shows Elizabeth Warren with a 5-point lead, margin of error at +/- 4.4. This lead is higher, yet the headline is:
Poll shows Elizabeth Warren taking slim lead
Why is a 5-point Warren lead “slim” in the headline but a 4-point Brown lead doesn’t require a “slim” or “small” modifer?
And it’s not just the headline. The story about Warren’s 5-point lead takes pains to point out that
”
First of all, anything within twice the margin of error cannot be defined as a “statistical dead heat” (although It is arguable that within twice the margin of error may not be statistically significant). I’m not going to go into the statistical theory of why that’s simply inaccurate, but please do click the link and read the 2-page explainer if you’re interested in the topic.
But if this is the guideline that Globe is using to report poll results, why did they not use it when reporting on a poll that showed Brown ahead by a smaller margin?
Both articles were written by Noah Bierman. He is certainly not an objective reporter. He clearly shows his preference for Brown in everything that is printed under his name.
but I don’t think he’s responsible for the headline, which I agree is silly. There seems to be a general policy at the Globe of bending over backward not to seem biased toward liberals. None of which keeps most regular Herald readers from considering the Globe the local subsidiary of Pravda.
The article itself I have a hard time justifying, except since it’s their own poll they may be more cautious about its findings, in case the election turns out differently, and are playing things down.
For me, the takeaway is (1) things are going pretty well and (2) this is still close, so let’s get to work.
Reporters do not write headlines.
Without thinking it through some voters seem to have a “balance” fetish. They deliberately split their tickets because they consider themselves moderate because they fear our government will lurch too far to the left or right if Democrats or Republicans respectively hold all the power. Unfortunately, recent experience seems to show they might be right about Republicans, but Democrats tend to balance themselves out just fine. This theory of voting also assumes, erroneously these days, that both parties are interested in working together in good faith. Senator Brown has not proven himself to be the cure for this as he is too much a follower and not enough leader. His ad featuring Worcester Councilor Connie Lukes has her saying, “We need more Scott Browns” and theoretically that might work and voters I think long for that. Maybe things would be different if Scott Brown rather than Mitch McConnell were Senate Republican Leader, but alas for better or worse that is not the case.
I am going to say basically what you said but in a different way.
People so strongly want to believe that they are politically “independent” and look down on people who tend to vote across party lines.
“I am an independent” > Scott Brown is an independent (his commercials and campaign repeatedly tell me so > I will vote for Scott Brown to prove my independence! > I will vote for both President Obama and Scott Brown to further reinforce in my own mind that I am independent.
The funny thing is that these types of “independent” voters seem to the same affect heuristic method that many people who identify as “Democratic” or “Conservative” use to pick their preferred candidates.
all you are is officially undeclared in registration, is less important than your history of voting. I have been independent for most of my 40 year voting life, but aside for a few local races, I have mostly voted Democratic. So was I really independent, or a Democrat in independent clothing? My answer was that I was a Democrat, and am now registered as such.
There are certainly unenrolled Democrats and Republicans, but the independents I talk about are the chronic “undecided” unenrolled.
I have a friend who is basically in denial about being a Democrat, because if you ask him what he believes without assigning that view to a party, he lines up overwhelmingly as a Democrat. But he has such a distaste for political parties, he identifies as a an independent and claims to evaluate each race individually and gives each candidate a fair consideration. Unfortunately, the reality is that if any candidate repeats the term “fiscally conservative” and “independent” frequently enough, my friend will eat it up – even when the evidence shows the opposite to be true.
of the current statewide registration? How does it compare to other polls, such as the recent UMassLowell/Herald, and the raft of polls finding a lead for Warren?