Blue Mass Group commissioned the excellent folks at Research 2000 (the same ones who do Daily Kos’s polling) to poll likely Democratic voters a couple of days after Monday night’s televised debate to see where things stand in the MA Senate race. The results show that Martha Coakley has an impressive lead over all three of her rivals. So the debate doesn’t seem to have moved the race significantly — if anything, our poll shows that Coakley’s lead has grown a bit since the last pre-debate poll.
400 likely Democratic primary voters polled Oct 28-29. Margin of error = +/- 5%
“If the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for?”
Coakley: 42%
Capuano: 16%
Pagliuca: 15%
Khazei: 5%
Undecided: 22%
Note that, if these numbers hold up, even if Capuano picks up every single undecided voter, Coakley still wins.
We also wanted to know how firmly people are committed to their candidates at this time. So the 78% of respondents who gave a preference were asked:
“Is that a firm choice, or could you change your mind?” [Firm (could change)]
Coakley: 53% (47%)
Capuano: 58% (42%)
Pagliuca: 60% (40%)
Khazei: 62% (38%)
Coakley’s lead holds up across all racial, gender, age, and geographic groups (although, unsurprisingly, she’s a bit stronger among women than men). Check out all the crosstabs here (PDF).
Clearly, the three guys have their work cut out for them — remember, this poll is of likely Democratic primary voters, and was taken post-debate. The good news for them, if there is any, is that only slightly more than half of Coakley’s voters are “firmly committed,” whereas that number rises as you move down the list, so that nearly 2/3 of Khazei’s voters are solid.
You should have a graphic with the BMG/Research 2000 poll box on the front page somewhere. Don’t know the investment in doing the poll or if you are planning on doing any more. But this is great.
It’s not cheap, so there’s a limit to how much we can do. But when we happen to have the cash at key points in interesting races, we’ll do it.
when I saw the sample size was only 400. As it turns out, it didn’t take a smaller MoE to show that Coakley is in a strong first place, so in this particular case I’m impressed that you guys knew enough to not spend more!
1st place is 1st place. Period. Shows that Martha has great name recognition, not much else at this point.
<
p>I speak with candid bias, as a Khazei supporter! An outta state friend of mine asked me why I was supporting a guy polling, as he put it, DFL!
<
p>Well, with less than 6 weeks to go, no doubt it’s a formidable challenge, but people will start noticing Alan.
<
p>See Teddy’s Rightful Heir in Newsweek, e.g.
am I right here? I’m actually very curious.
Capuano needs momentum and to make this a two man race. He’s got to make Pags at peak right now… start siphoning off Pags supporters, and as Pags falls more supporters will jump-ship. As for Khazei’s supporters, Capuano might gain a point or two but that’s about it.
<
p>I’d bet that for every point Capuano gains from Pagliuca supporters, he also gets a point of undecided. If he can get 8 from each quickly, you’re looking at:
<
p>Coakley: 42%
Capuano: 32%
Pagliuca: 7%
Khazei: 5%
Undecided: 14%
<
p>And then he’d be within striking distance. If it’s going to happen, it better happen quickly though.
Esp since Pags’ ad blitz will only intensify in the next few weeks.
…assuming he can drop a million or two on TV in the last 2 weeks. As stated many times before, unless Coakley croaks, she wins. Given the amount of TV he’s done, MAYBE Pags has peaked (he really needs sharper messaging if he wants to increase share), but Khazei hasn’t even been introduced to the “TV ad voter”. Nope Cappy has his work cut out for him.
Watch for Khazei to roll out soon and continuously, not just in the last 2 weeks. Pags may have already shot his wad (in terms of impact, not dollars!), judging from the media and mailing blitz he’s already done.
<
p>The common wisdom is that this is Martha’s race to lose. I’m not so sure. The same thing could have been said (and, I think was) about Tom Reilly. I rest my case. Well, not quite — I admit the timeframe is quite different, but then, so is the public’s attention. This is a much higher-profile campaign (even if only to the cogniscenti!).
Mike Capuano’s track record of his own congressional voting (standing up to the Patriot Act— the windsock act, that is— and against the Iraq War) will secure his share of the voters. Rather than wasting precious time in gimmicks, i.e. whittling away at Pagliuca, say, for blocking Larry Bird’s earnest bid to own our Boston Celtics (in great part, at least) a few years ago, his campaign perhaps should lay down a plan for Mike’s growth in public service. Capuano’s supporters have already established him as a U.S. congressman who votes on the floor the right way. In the greater role as our possible junior U.S. Senator, can Mike win other already-seated senators to vote on the floor the right way? Can he work together with South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham? Does Mike have a staff with enough attack donkeys (not blue dogs) to strong-arm Connecticut’s Joe Liebermann? Before bolting with our Democratic Party, Liebermann had already taken the un-Capuanic position of bending to Wolfowitz-Cheney-Bush’s pursuit of death in Iraq. Now, Joe refuses to accordingly represent his pro-public health insurance option constituents. Is Mike going to author a health bill that does away with Baucus’ tomfoolery? Can Mike help Speaker Harry Reid secure the democratic caucus against filibusters? Will Capuano grow as a stronger legislative voice beyond conscientious dissension and help our Senate withdraw our U.S. troops from Iraq?
<
p>Martha got the jump on the field and has largely kept her lead. She did so staking out a gender identity position, thereby positioning attacks and implied attacks on her status as de facto best candidate, as attacks on her gender. The is great politics. It is divisive and decidedly not liberal but it great political instinct and execution.
<
p>Martha’s base is voting women. You will hear her talk about defending the rights of children and the elderly. As a liberal, I’m more interested in a Senator who wants to protects the rights of all classes of classes of people – young, old, middle age, male, female, black, white, Mulsim, etc wherever their rights are threatened – not preordained groups favored by Martha for political reasons.
<
p>She carries the weight and gravitas of top law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth, and yet has not run anything bigger than that executive office. It is a big job but it is not the same job as member of Us Congress. She has no experience as a legislature at the state level or the Federal level. Her argument says that she’ll be a great Senator becuase she’s liberal smart and aggressive. I contend she is not as liberal as she would have us believe and she has no experience in her background that gives voters a record to assess.
<
p>Martha has nimbly portrayed herself as a liberal equal to her closest competitor and it stands up but only if you don’t look too closely. Take a closer look at her preferred application of sixth amendment rights of an individual being tried for possession of cocaine, or her zealous prosecution of Woodward which the court corrected on appeal or her decidedly illiberal position on the death penalty that came three years after Gov. Ryan suspended executions in Illinois. Before that time Martha was for a limited death penalty. Name one other liberal candidate for US Senator from Massachusetts who believed in the death penalty, limited or otherwise.
Not just women, children and the elderly- although collectively those groups are already a large portion of the population.
<
p>She has been a forceful advocate for the glbt community, as attested by the vote to endorse her at the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian political caucus meeting this week.
<
p>And she has been a fighter for worker protections, earning her the backing of SEIU and other unions.
<
p>Capuano’s attempt to portray himself as the true liberal in the race was an interesting strategy, but hasn’t appeared to have given him traction in the race to date. Perhaps one conclusion to draw is that voters statewide know Coakley, trust her progressive values and commitment to fairness and equality, and aren’t buying the Capuano camp’s characterization of her.
The best predictor of future behavior is passed behavior. Here is a good resource to examine Mike’s voting record, Votesmart, over his decade plus in Congress.
<
p>The voting record ratings are summarized by topic and by year. Each group that scores Mike, scores him for his votes in a year. Mike got the top scores from his voting record from the following notable organizations.
<
p>
None of the other three candidates have anything resembling a voting record for your examination. You have their word on the issues they have thought about and decided upon.
<
p>None of them have experience taking a tough vote against he prevailing winds, like those votes taken on the Patriot Act and Iraq War Authorization. Mike does and he’s been right consistently.
<
p>When I saw that Mike received the highest rating from The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, and recalled Amber Paw’s recent diary about how Romney’s budget and funding model for Commonwealth Courts has tilted the scales of justice against from poor Commonwealth citizens I wondered, did Martha Coakley step up to the plate and try to right this injustice? As the chief executive of justice in the Commonwealth, doesn’t this issue fall squarely on her plate?
Than taking a legislative vote. If this is the only measure of a candidate for you, than it’s understandable why you are backing who you are. But of course the history of the US Senate is filled with candidates who came to the role from other experiences and did well by their constituencies. And let’s be honest: given Mike’s district, his voting record is less a history of tough votes against prevailing political winds, than a correct reading of his district’s political proclivities. He hasn’t been serving under the same winds as a Representative from a more conservative district.
“If this is the only measure of a candidate for you…“
<
p>It isn’t.
<
p>But Mike he is the only candidate that offers this measure.
<
p>Coakley’s positions are untested. So are her skills as a legislator.
He doesn’t have much in the way of legislative achievements. He appears to have been a good liberal vote, but largely a backbencher. The only exception I see is the OCE, which he was responsible for, but for which he also came under some criticism for leaving too weak.
<
p>Coakley’s positions are evident from her 20+ career in public service, working through the legal system for fairness and equality, public safety, environmental protection and against exploitation of workers, seniors, and children.
<
p>As one of the speakers said at the MGLPC meeting the other night, Coakley hasn’t just been a friend, but a real fighter for the glbt community and other constituencies.
When I cite his legislative experience I’m not refering to particular achievements such as bills sponsored. I’m just saying he knows the rules, the process, the players and won’t have to learn from scratch how to be a legislator, plus he already has a staff to move across the Hill. As I’ve suggested previously the winner of this race won’t benefit from a transition period and formal orientation.
<
p>How hard is it to do research and find out if you want to?
<
p>
<
p>Which death penalty position is more evident, the position she’s held for the first 49 years of her life or the one she’s held for the last seven?
<
p>What do you make of her take on the sixth amendment rights of the accused?
<
p>What do you make of her recent claim justice was served by denying Gerald Amirault’s sentence commutation while not opposing the release of his sister for the same alleged crimes?
<
p>The Woodward case helped put her in the AGs office. What does she say when asked how the charge of second degree murder was supported by the facts?
<
p>If there was a LawEnforceSmart website we’d have interested third party evaluation of Coakley performance as DA and AG but we don’t.
<
p>We do have VoteSmart and access to third party evaluations of Mike Capuano’s voting record over his decade plus in Congress. Since it’s not hard, take a look and see what the ,Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and a hundred other third party organizations think of Mike Capuano’s voting record.
about the death penalty is not a bad thing. I appreciate a public servant who can reexamine her positions and change them for good reason. It’s not like she’s made wholesale reversals of a lot of her positions like Governor Haircut did.
<
p>I do think Capuano is more consistently progressive n his outlook and positions, and therefore more deserving of my vote.
If you had any achievements of Capuano’s to trumpet, wouldn’t you, since you to appear to have made a fulltime position out of pumping him on BMG? I well recall the set of links you had provided in a previous post, which I read, and which included a proclamation for the Red Sox victory and an amendment to a highway bill. If you were an honest supporter, I would think you could admit, “yes, the guy has been a backbencher but not a leading legislator, but I’ll support him despite this because he has been a liberal vote and I like that record.” But no, instead we get a rehash of Coakley on the death penalty.
<
p>Coakley opposes it due the risk of injustice. I hold the same view, and I don’t see what traction you hope to gain from evolution in the AG’s views almost a decade ago. My opposition to the death penalty is pragmatic, not religious or philosophical. It makes sense to me that a person of conscience would have increased concerns about the death penalty as deficiencies in death row convictions came to light. If we could have perfect assurance of guilt under our system, I would not oppose it for heinous crimes. I would not hold against any candidate similar views.
<
p>Re Capuano voting records, I note merely that the organizations that you cite have not endorsed Capuano in this race. SEIU endorsed Coakley. PFLAG is a nonprofit and will not endorse individuals, but I sat next to a board member at the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political caucus meeting last week, the one at which Coakley won a 2/3 endorsement on the first ballot. He got up and spoke for Coakley. And Coakley’s strong fundraising owes much to her overwhelming backing from the prochoice community.
Which death penalty position is more evident, the position she’s held for the first 49 years of her life or the one she’s held for the last seven?
<
p>What do you make of her take on the sixth amendment rights of the accused?
<
p>What do you make of her recent claim justice was served by denying Gerald Amirault’s sentence commutation while not opposing the release of his sister for the same alleged crimes?
<
p>The Woodward case helped put her in the AGs office. What does she say when asked how the charge of second degree murder was supported by the facts?
I don’t know if Mike can do those things, but I know Alan can!
I think this bastard can beat Deval next September.
<
p>And I don’t think I’d mind.
During this round of cuts. Would hate to see him replaced with a guy who gave money to Bush, Romney and the other idiots who gave us this mess.
Like the profoundly developmentally disabled, physically handicapped people at Fernald that the Governor is evicting, ably supported by his CorporateCare vendor department head, Elin Howe? Please.
She’s done so for two decades. She’s taken me to see what bad shape many of the buildings are at Fernald. And she’s educated me about how, with the right supports, even profoundly disabled individuals can live full lives in their communities. She’s developed the programs to serve some of these individuals – she’d say they were liberated from Fernald.
<
p>So, no, I don’t think keeping Fernald open is equivalent to protecting the most vulnerable; I think Fernald represents an outdated modality of care that segregates disabled people from their communities.
<
p>Disability services were largely spared in this round of cuts – something for which we’re grateful at our house.
with one time money. So you are right to be grateful for keeping programs going for a while. Other houses where folks work to prevent homelessness, shelter domestic violence victims, do gang violence prevention, do environmental protection, ensure public safety are closing down programs as of January 1.
<
p>Fair warning to start right away to protect your accounts in the FY 11 budget due to come out in January. The Administration is already meeting with department heads asking for further suggestions for cuts and consolidation.
<
p>And start tomorrow to urge your legislator to vote to approve the bill expanding the Governors 9C powers so he can find $75 million from the judiciary, legislative and other constituional offiucers accounts. If he can’t its back to the accounts that were spared in this round. Or maybe local aid.
<
p>unless of course they find some new revenue streams. 🙂
At least in the Governor, we have a leader who recognizes the problem – the other three stooges running all say they would have opposed new revenues to mitigate the impact of this downturn on programs and would rollback even the relatively modest steps that were taken.
<
p>My spouse thinks we need an advocacy organization for ‘Rational Revenue’ to get people onboard and give legislators cover to look at income taxes instead. Of course those collections would also fall during a severe recession. But at least they would impact people who are earning, unlike sales taxes, property taxes, and fees, which hit everyone, and the poor and unemployed hardest.
organizing to “look at income taxes” is a great idea.
<
p>To date our Governor, after looking at the potential of raising the rate of our relatively progressive income tax many times, has decided now is not the time to offer any leadership on proposing any “broad based tax increases”. Here he participates in his own long thoughtful diary about tax policy.
<
p>
<
p>The Governor is not alone, many other of our state leaders point out “there is no appetite for taxes ” meaning public support.
<
p>So, let’s get together and organize ourselves into a Rational Revenue Campaign and make the time come around where our Governor and our legislators do not think that proposing a tax increase is their political suicide.
<
p>We can make the time right if some of the statewide and local community activists and organizations who already recognize that the most effective solution to the problem of declining revenues work together to systematically build public support for our Governor, and our legislative leaders find and tap other sources of revenue like might be found in the Tax Expenditure Budgetlike closing some out dated corporate loopholes — maybe 140 million or so — or imposing a sales tax on some professional services used by corporations or higher income people (like accountants skilled at finding tax shelters, or (hold my breath lobbyists)– maybe a billion or so–or even just restoring the rate to 2001 levels (5.75) would raise 800 million and has has been discussed many times on these pages. Here’s just one.
<
p>Won’t happen in time to forestall the inevitable devastating round of cuts that are sure to be in the FY 11 budget, but we can lay the groundwork for the FY 12 budget.
<
p>I think it’s time I made a diary out of this. Maybe after ONE Massachusetts finishes collecting all the impact reports of the Governor’s value based 9C cuts.
because your wife gets her paycheck from “CorporateCare” – the Commonwealth’s vendors, you’re biased. If you are willing to intellectually accept that high functioning people need centralized service delivery in a residential setting, via nursing homes and other congregate living settings…then it’s only reasonable to accept that people with developmental disabilities. I used to think it was just ideology, until I realized that the ARC wasn’t screaming about private institutions, only state-funded ones. It’s all about the contracts, dude.
I’ve seen enough Bain Capital governors to last me awhile. My ideal is that Capuano gets Senate, and Coakley retrains her sights.
IMHO
As Alan said in one of the debates, both Mike and Martha are great in their current roles. Let’s keep them both there!
It was funny once, but when on repetition it just makes him seem desperate. If you want me to vote for you, tell me why you will do the best job, don’t waste my time with jokes.
You want the man who donated to Romney and Bush, and who worked in the same business as Romney to be the next governor? I don’t think so.
I get the sense that Coakley is the “bandwagon” candidate (not necessarily a bad thing, but worth pointing out) while supporters of the others are more likely to have a very specific reason or set of reasons for supporting them.
ya mean, this ain’t rocket science, Coakley wins, yep.
<
p>As a veteran, I was happy to see this in the last e-mail:
<
p>I e-mailed this over to a friend of mine, a vet activist, who supports Cappy. Not to sway him, but to let him know that vets are part of the discussion.
<
p>I’ll support whoever wins. I’ve got many political chums over their in Cappyville. And Khazei is a hopemonger.
<
p>Maybe not Pags. The friend of W. thing still stings. This won’t be an issue, him winning. I digress.
…she was first out the gate and started with statewide name recognition. She was also quietly laying groundwork before the seat opened. I just got the sense that there’s been an assumption for awhile that she would be our next Senator. Personally, I often shy away from default candidates.
I think a lot of Coakley’s support comes from the assumption that her victory is a foregone conclusion. I don’t think any of Capuano’s base is with him because they think he’s the front runner. They’re with him because they’re impressed with his record and experience. He might be the underdog, but he has the progressive credentials. I think the more people start following the race, the more support Capuano will gain. I just wonder if he has enough time to do it.
A BMG PAC, and now BMG polls! It’s the big time. Love those numbers for Coakley.
I’m not knocking the poll, but I don’t buy that two-thirds of Khazei voters and almost two-thirds of Pags voters won’t change.
<
p>If a candidate firmly represents one point of view (think Kucinich in 2004, or Ron Paul in 2008), then their numbers won’t move, because their people will stick with them. But this is an open seat, so if Pagliuca doesn’t emerge as number two (this poll makes it look like he could), then Capuano holds that spot, drawing undecideds and Khazei/Pagliuca voters who won’t want to “waste” their vote.
<
p>It’s a narrow path — and I don’t mean to discount Coakley’s lead, it’s formidable — but Capuano could still take this.
<
p>If Pags pulls an upset — WOW.
that capuano is scuffling in the teens. he’s done a pretty good job in a very auspicious seat, and has moved up near the fringes of the leadership of the house.
<
p>i’m not saying that he should be the nominee, but you’d think his numbers would be higher considering his position and record.
<
p>any ideas of why he’s collecting dust with the also-rans?
Granted, I wasn’t buying the Cap koolaid going in to the debate. But, boy, did he come across as arrogant and unlikeable on TV.
I didn’t see the debate so can’t judge how he might have come across, but your comments are starting to develop a bit of an edge that I don’t think is helpful.
Read: I didn’t go in as a supporter, so I didn’t have that forgiving lens on his pugnacity that supporters had.
I didn’t find that to be the case at all. While I could come up with a few choice adjectives for Coakley, I won’t.
Her facade and innerself contradict. If you drink the Koolaid, it blinds you.
over the years as ADA, DA, AG, and now candidate. What you see now is what she has been doing all along. This is Martha Coakley. You have to look past the public persona and see if her job performance indicates that you want her as your next Senator. As for me, I don’t want her, I much prefer Capuano, but should she win the primary, make no mistake about it, it will be her, not Brown or staying home for me.
I do not want her to be our next Senator. We are looking at another lifer here folks. We need to be very careful about who we decide to vote in. The one I am comfortable with is Mike Capuano. He will be our voice, a strong determined voice and a man who cares about the people he represents. A man who gets it.
PS, I don’t normally do the “koolaid” thing. But if others are going to be spewing it, I will do my best to offset it by giving it right back. I think arrogant and unlikeable do not fit Mike Capuano either. He is far from arrogant and unlikeable. I find him to be humble and very likeable. What he really has is conviction. He is comfortable with who he his, he doesn’t have to be one person here, and one person there. He is what he is and he’s proud of it.
Kudos to him for that.
and I lived there, not supporting him now.
<
p>I do find him arrogant and not possessing the right soft skills for the Senate.
no thanks, and we don’t need two of them.
nonsense first and then “3” me for it.
Two of my friends who are as big political junkies as I am went into the debate strongly supporting Capuano and he lost them with his performance. (I went in supporting Coakley but willing to be persuaded because I respect Capuano’s record and his supporters. I was not won over, and am considering Khazei.)
“political junkies” strongly supporting a candidate would not be swayed by one debate performance. To me, there was no clear winner in this debate. There were other factors that swayed these junkies, or perhaps they were already on the edge. Let me guess, were these supporters woman?
I think the day after the debate I received an email blast from each of the four candidates explaining how that candidate was clearly the strongest and outshone the rest.
but you are mistaken about each of your assumptions, including which candidate impressed them.
Martha “won” the debate because she was expected to, and didn’t screw up. I have utmost respect for her and her accomplishments, and I am still backing Alan!
It’s actually a fairly steady rate… the question has always been if he’d have the time to get his message out fast enough to convince enough people in the space of a Special Election.
<
p>Pags being in there is drowning out a lot of the time Caps has to deliver his message, too. There’s only so much capacity for regular people to pay attention to political races — I don’t think Pags is going to convince very many people, even with all the money he’s going to spend, but I do think he runs the danger of sucking up a lot of the time people are willing to spend considering this race. I can’t get why he wants to be Senator, seems like such a vanity campaign, but I do wish he’d get out so the serious candidates can really go at each other.
especially since he is, based on novelty polls here at BMG, the consistent favorite.
…I would have thought he would be a strong second.
Coakley has already firmed up 22% of the vote (42% total * 53% firm). That is 13 points better than her closest competitors’ (Capuano’s & Pagliuca’s) 9% firm and 6 points better than her closest competitor’s (Capuano’s) 16% total (firm & could change).
<
p>With only 5 weeks to go before the primary, those kind of numbers mean Coakley’s going to win easily — that is, unless she:
(1) commits a major self-inflicted error;
(2) has a major error forced on her by a competitor; or
(3) one of her competitors combines most of the anti-Coakley vote.
<
p>(1) I don’t think her competitors should count on her making a self-inflicted mistake. She doesn’t seem the type to make unforced errors.
<
p>(2) I also don’t think her competitors will succeed in forcing Coakley into an error. Two of them (Pagliuca and Khazei) seem to be positioning themselves to run for another office in the future. So, I doubt Pagliuca and Khazei are willing to unleash a negative campaign. That leaves Capuano. If Capuano hasn’t unleashed his best shot by now, what has he been waiting for? Anyway, it’s probably too late now. Ideally, the timing for a political hit so that it can be absorbed by the electorate is at least 6 weeks before the election. Was Capuano’s best shot September’s death penalty dust-up? I hope not, because that went nowhere politically.
<
p>(3) That leaves combining the anti-Coakley vote. Is that even possible? It could happen, but I doubt it. Coakley’s candidacy just doesn’t seem to stir the passions that would garner an anti-vote.
<
p>There is one small hope. One of the candidates could recognize their cause is hopeless, drop out around Thanksgiving, and endorse another. Khazei is running ideologically to the left of Capuano and seems to be energized by campaigning. He could drop out, but I doubt he would — particularly given his performance in Monday’s debate. I predict Khazei will continue to siphon liberal votes away from Capuano. That leaves Pagliuca. Pagliuca seems to be unconcerned about how much money he’s spending, so his vote is unlikely to fade. But Pagliuca might also recognize a lost cause at the end of November. Venture capitalists like Pagliuca often know when to get out of a venture and stop throwing good money after bad. So, there you have it. My reading of the tea leaves is that Capuano’s only fading hope is to get Pags to endorse him.
<
p>
Huh. If you compare the BMG poll to this one, Coakley’s dropped 5 points. (I’m not putting any stock in the WNEC poll because only half of the respondents were likely voters.) That’s to be expected, as the first poll was taken before the race really had any chance to take off.
<
p>What’s interesting to me is that the number of undecideds has dropped significantly (36% in the first poll down to 22% in this one). That mean’s the 5% that switched from Coakley didn’t just become undecided after the debate…they went firmly to another candidate. To me, that suggests that the more exposure the race gets, fewer Coakley supporters will decide to stay that way. Makes sense–she had the early advantage of widespread name recognition and the first announcement. At the start of the race, her wide base of support probably included a number of people who weren’t firmly pro-Coakley, but weren’t familiar with the alternatives. You’d think that after those people found at more about the candidates and their stances, a number of them would become undecideds.
But looking at the shrinking undecided pool, it seems like her base is eroding in favor of the other candidates.
<
p>
An important thing you’re not considering in that analysis is the margin of error. So your assumption that 5% of voters have changed their minds from Coakley to someone else is quite problematic. In our poll, Coakley could actually be as high as 47%, while in the one you cite, she could actually be as low as 43.5% — i.e., she might well actually have gained strength. The only outside-the-MOE difference between our poll and that one is Pagliuca’s jump from 4% to 15%, which is unsurprising because that one dates from well before he started blanketing the airwaves. Also, that one’s an internal — always suspect IMHO.
unless you know that the sampling assumptions were the same and we don’t know that.
but the conclusions aren’t likely to be very strong, due to MoE (see David’s comment) and other issues.
Nice work, BMG! While not much has changed since the last public polling, these are still very informative poll results at this point.
<
p>I would just add to some of the responses so far that I highly doubt either the debates or indeed the campaigns themselves have has much effect on the numbers. Simply put, VERY few people are paying close attention to this race. Thus, I would not criticize Capuano’s debate performance (for example) as a reason why he’s trailing. Simply put, Coakley had superior name recognition from the start thanks to her state-wide office, and in a very short campaign such as this, it will be enough to propel her to the nomination. That doesn’t mean that the other candidates have been running poor campaigns — it simply means that the advantages of name recognition in short campaign special elections are tremendously difficult to overcome.
<
p>I would expect that Pagliuca will come in second when the votes are cast, given the large amount of advertising he’s put up and is sure to continue putting up throughout November. I would also expect the numbers to be a little closer than the current poll results, but not much closer. The other candidates really can’t rely too much on the undecideds all going in one direction — undecideds typically aren’t really “undecided” as much as they simply haven’t thought about the race much when they participated in the poll…and if anything, these voters, if they vote, are more likely to support the name they know in Coakley.
Is there a reason you guys didn’t include a question on whether the respondent watched the debate? is the subset that did was large enough, it could have been interesting to see.
Every question adds cost.
The BMG poll demonstrates AG Coakley’s name recogination but also her strength with voters statewide.
<
p>Pags has spent close to $3 milion and Congressman Capuano at least $600,000 on TV/radio. And Pags and Congressman Capuano have also done statewide direct mail.
<
p>AG Coakley has not spent a dime on radio, TV or statewide mail. She has the Herald targeting her with negative press as the Democratic frontrunner and she easily survived Congressman Capuano’s ill-advised death penalty attack. Yet she leads in all polls to date.
<
p>There is a reason that Martha Coakley was unchallenged in the Democratic Priamry for AG and it wasn’t that no other elected official in Massachusetts was not interested in the open AG’s seat. No one thought they could beat her statewide. To me that indicates Coakley was a strong political force in 2008 and has only grown that base since.
<
p>Coakley has a strong base in Middlesex County. Western Mass roots and an active grassroots campaign. Without a dime spent on media, she is 26 points ahead. She is fundraising and holding her powder for the final 4-weeks when voters will focus after the November 3rd elections.
<
p>If Congressman Capuano was one-on-one with the AG, this has the potential to be a different race. But Pags and Kkazei have proven to be creditable candidates in their own right.
<
p>Martha Coakley is using her political strengths as she should and has a warchest in reserve for the final 30 days.
<
p>To those who post and compare Congressman Capuano’s experience in Congress vs AG Coakley’s lack of legislative experience as an issue, it’s fair to point out that Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry and President Obama never served legislatively in Washington DC prior to their election to the U.S. Senate.
The reason it’s such a decisive factor for me in the context of this particular race is that there will be no transition period or orientation sessions. Of the three you list only Kennedy had a comparable situation, but he was still elected between Congresses and he had family advantages. Middlesex DA’s generally are formidable AG candidates. You may be correct about why others didn’t seek AG in 2006, but it is speculation without evidence. No doubt she was always going to be a strong candidate, but inevitability sometimes bites back, just ask President Hillary Clinton. I’m also impressed that Capuano has held “Open Mike” sessions around the state, which is a pretty inexpensive way to give lots of people a chance to meet and converse with you.
Intercative Map here
Support seems soft across the board. Curious to know what “likely voter” screen was used. In a special election like this, it is hard to know which good voters are likely to turn out.
<
p>I am a Capuano supporter. I respect his progressive record and give him extra points for experience and tenacity.
<
p>Curious about those who dismiss him for debate “style points”. Lots of progressives who care about their issues do not get great style points – is there anybody more pugnacious than Barney Frank?
<
p>Don’t we want to elect someone who is a great fighter for the issues we consider most important. Isn’t that what we had in Ted Kennedy? Even he didn’t get a lot of points for debate style.
<
p>Sounds to me like a lot of people looking for a reason to be with other people notwithstanding their lack of record standing up for us.
After 12 years in the Congress it’s fine to say “I didn’t vote for the war in Iraq” but honestly- 8 years into it- we’re still there. I think the country is all about change- I read today that more people believe in UFO’s than in members of Congress. We know he votes progressive but his constituents are progressive- no brainer- Didn’t Caps hire one of the top opposition research folks in July ( he still has no opponent for his congressional seat)? Didn’t he also say at the debate that he only thought of running for the Senate a few weeks after Kennedy died? As if-there wasn’t a politician in this state that didn’t hear about Kennedy’s terminal cancer and have the thought cross their minds- Only Coakley took heat- perhaps women aren’t allowed the same luxury?
<
p>What happened to the transportation earmark that Caps got for Silverline II-seems it never got off the ground in a timely fashion so the feds pulled the plug on it? Gets things done? If you want to exaggerate issues-there are plenty to go around here. Lobbyist conflicts etc. OpResearch galore.
<
p>Capuano’s not a bad guy- he’s got seniority in Congress- let him stay where he can be most effective.
<
p>Khazei is a good guy-no question. He said at the debate- the country voted for change and we never got it. Does he think he can go to DC and do a better job than Obama? Great guy- lots of big $$$ donors from out of state (Tisch NYC etc. easy not to take PAC money when you’re connected) All fine but he hasn’t put his state time in- great community organizer- major kudos- again
good guyReady for the Senate?<
p>Pags is Pags- no one will cry when he has to buy the Globe or whatever his next option will be.
<
p>Martha Coakley has been so unfairly targeted by everyone-Lots of bottom feeding- I suppose when you are the front runner it’s to be expected. But this is a cum laude graduate of Williams who gave up the big bucks at high end law firms to work for 23 years for the citizens of MA. If she were just a regular, not so smart, slacker that would be one thing. But she is in fact a hard working public servant who has put her time in for the people of Massachusetts.
<
p>No matter how good a woman is- she has to be better to prove folks aren’t voting because of her sex- the backwards and in high heels school of thought.
Martha has done it and done it well- It time for Massachusetts to let go of the old boys club and get into the 21st century.
<
p>17% representation isn’t even close- There are good people in this field-some running for future name recognition but none who know the state as well as Martha. We will be proud to have her as our next Senator and our first woman.
<
p>Can’t wait to get the incoming on this one- but there is nothing wrong with wanting to level the playing field- with an intelligent, hard working and well qualified candidate.
the playing field is stacked against woman in this race and that Martha has to be twice as good as Mike to win?
<
p>I don’t agree with the assumption, that the deck is stacked against Martha because she’s a woman not a man, or the premise that Martha has to be twice as good to win. I think the opposite is true, that because Martha is a woman, she doesn’t have to be as good as Mike to win.
<
p>When Martha announced, she went directly to “first woman senator of Massachusetts.” I’d say she was the one who put both gender identity politics and inevitability into play.
<
p>If you told me Martha graduated summa cum laude, I’d say she was one of the top student in her class at Williams College graduating with highest honors.
<
p>If you said she graduated magna cum laude I’d still be impressed that she graduated with high honors.
<
p>But you said she graduated cum laude so now I’m thinking she wrote a thesis and defended it but attained only the lowest form of honors.
<
p>That said, at least she didn’t have her friend take her Spanish exam for her. ahem ahem Teddie. (Do you know what her major and thesis topic were?)
<
p>You also imply that the playing field would be leveled by electing Martha. I disagree. This is not a cause for equality, it is a cause for picking a Senator. If Martha matches the competition or exceeds it, she should be the Senator. If she does not, she should not be.
<
p>How dare you really. I am a woman and am supporting Mike Capuano. If Martha Coakley had the qualities I was looking for I would be supporting her. It has nothing to do with gender, and you need to stop making it about gender.
<
p>I supported Hillary Clinton for president. She is an excellent person who has served our country very well. As President, she probably would have been a little more forceful in getting the job done, in comparison to Obama. She may have been more likely to disregard the bipartisan thing to bring our country back to a working society for all of it’s citizens. Hillary Clinton is an excellent public servant, who consistently fights for the rights, values, and well being of all of us. I would fight for her again if I had an opportunity. The fact that she is woman was not why I supported her.
<
p>I am supporting Mike Capuano for the same reasons. He will work for his constituency, that is what we need. The more you blame gender bias for other people not supporting Coakley, the more you make gender bias an issue in America. If you keep up with this gender bias thing, you will ruin her, and you will slow the progress of woman candidates in America.
<
p>I’m saying that you will hurt Coakley because you are crying gender bias where none exists. If gender bias was occurring, I would be one of the firsts ones shouting out about it, whether I supported her or not. So you are diminishing her candidacy and all women by crying gender bias for no reason.
I think the polls show that if the two vanity candidates got out of the race that Capuano would have a real shot. I am confident that once we have another debate, and the truth comes out about Michael’s overwhelming political experience and courage, the anti-Martha vote should swing to him. Some people choose to vote for the person with the most experience and the most guts to make a great Senator. I see no rationale for Pags or Khazei. I would be happy to support Martha if she were to win, I just think she would make a better Governor or continue as the ‘states top cop’. I dont think someone used to being the boss will be able to adjust as easily to the Senate, and for these reasons as well, Pags and Khazei just aren’t cut out for the job. Khazei because he is too idealistic and used to getting his way, Pags because he is an arrogant CEO running as a lark. Out of all the executives I think Martha would have the easiest transition-but I am far more confident that an experienced legislator will continue to make a great legislator in the Senate and thats where my vote will go in the primary.
<
p>Also for the Governors race, I am starting to think that if God had wanted us to vote he would have given us candidates. There is a part of me that might just register out here in IL and vote for Pat Quinn who is at least a committed progressive unlike our lame duck.
<
p>You just generalized about an entire population of people you know nothing about. There are plenty of men and women on this site (and, indeed, in the Commonwealth) who are supporting Capuano for reasons having nothing to do sexism. Your comment reveals a calcified thinking that is better suited to some period of time when women were still wearing high heels in the home.
<
p>Martha Coakley has not been “targeted,” either. She has been questioned and criticized for some of her record, which is entirely reasonable, unless you are suggesting no candidate’s record is to be questioned or criticized. The fact that Coakley is so far ahead in the polls, too, is prima facie evidence that your entire sexist premise is bogus.
<
p>
This is Capuano country on this site-
<
p>I predicted the incoming would be fierce. Given a candidate that I believe to be not only qualified but more than qualified and has state wide experience-it is an added bonus that she is a woman, not the only but another one of her merits, as it should be.
If you don’t feel that the Herald’s “Ice Queen” and “mean girl” attitude and Joan Vennochi’s piece today quoting Pags spokesperson explaining why AG’s aren’t good material for higher office- then saying that IF Martha wins it will because she is a woman-not in spite of- it becomes obvious that merely being a woman is used as a weapon- Martha is either “using and abusing it” or she’s too cold and calculating- non-feminine traits-
<
p>I will never understand the anger of women supporting other candidates towards those of us who truly feel Martha is the best qualified and that it will be historic. It was perfectly fine for approx. 97% of African Americans to vote for Obama- The soon to be shown documentary on the election has a scene during election night when Axelrod got off the elevator and all of the AA security guards broke into applause- Why is it not as thrilling and historic to have a first woman? Considering that in the world-the number one (according to the World Health Org) thing we can do to change the level of poverty and disease is to educate and liberate women. Why then wouldn’t it have been even more extraordinarily earth changing to have elected a woman then and why can’t we feel some excitement about attempting to reach parity in leadership in DC? Stanford University recently published a study that found women legislators more productive than their male counterparts. It is a fact that for a woman to reach beyond “her place” she has to be extraordinary. I believe that Martha Coakley is that person. No matter how much twisting of truth and dirt that will be thrown throughout the next few weeks- and there is no doubt she is the target-those here, the media and her 3 opponents. Martha is tough (headed the Justice Department’s Boston Organized Crime Task Force for a year) and she’s smart(so Neil Sagan- I assume you must have graduated summa?- gee must be swell to be you) She will win on her merits, not because she is a woman but unfortunately, in spite of. We saw what happened to Hillary. Women do not support other women they have to prove themselves and do it backwards in high heels.
I am not a woman.
<
p>However, I have voted for Martha Coakley in her previous races for DA and AG because she has been the most qualified person for the job.
<
p>I supported Hillary Clinton for President. Again, not because she was a woman, but because I believed she was the best qualified.
<
p>In this field, Martha is not the best qualified. Michael Capuano is.
<
p>The frustration of the Coakley supporters seems vested in villifying those who will not go along with the coronation. We believe that we have a true progressive in Mike Capuano who knows how to get the job done for us in Washington.
<
p>For those who want to push Ted Kennedy’s lack of experience, remember that he was running against other candidates who had no experience either. That is not the case this year, and that is why Martha does not stack up against a candidate who has Mike Capuano’s record.
Mike is your hero and so fabulous that Martha will win only because she is being coronated and is a women- fine- believe what you will-
<
p>It wouldn’t matter what is said here- Martha is the “milk carton candidate”- she isn’t so smart- she’s a slacker- she hates justice and everything she has ever done is political hackery. She can handle it-
<
p>Good luck
<
p>p.s. The only frustration we have is when we have to listen to convoluted excuses as to why Martha’s poll numbers remain high- guess we just shouldn’t believe our lyin’ eyes.
as a barometer for the voters’ attitudes of the Commonwealth? The Herald? As I said before, polls suggest otherwise. Coakley’s holding a commanding lead, so I’m not entirely sure what your problem is. Yes, there are people, activists, in many respects, who contribute to this site who aren’t enamored of Martha Coakley. Men and women alike. So what? There are plenty of Coakley supporters here, men and women alike, who support her vociferously. Again, so what? Seems to me you are trying to twist a preference as evidenced by a poll on this site into some larger societal metaphor that suits your sensibiltiies.
<
p>I don’t understand your defensiveness. Who is angry at Martha Coakley? I’m a woman and I’m not supporting her for reasons exhaustively debated on this site. The upshot is I don’t like her prosecutorial record, and I do like Capuano’s voting record. As an individual, though, I’ve Coakley several times. She’s an impressive individual, but she’s not my preferred candidate for the U.S. Senate. Pretty simple stuff. Seems to me my take on this is shared by a few people posting here. Why is that such a problem?
<
p>Lastly, you’re still talking a woman’s “place”? I’ll stand by my observation that your thinking vis a vis contemporary American women is calcified and dated. Your insistence on using shoes as some sort of metaphor for women’s status is dated and trite. I’m 50 years old, and I don’t recognize the society you describe. High heels indeed.
<
p>What is meritorious about being a woman that makes her candidacy a plus as compared to a candidate who is not a women?
<
p>Or do you mean merit as in additional benefit? So how would her gender render an additional benefit for citizens of the Commonwealth?
<
p>I am having a hard time identifying the value proposition that would one of my Senators have a vagina rather than a penis.
<
p>Coakley also says her gender is “a plus.” How is it a plus?
Martha Coakley crosstabs:
total 42%
men 38%
women 45%
<
p>But, consider this:
Male-candidate crosstabs:
total 36-42 (22 undecided)
men 42-38 (20 undecided)
women 45-31 (24 undecided)
<
p>It turns out that men prefer a male candidate, while women prefer the female candidate. I think that’s pretty interesting in and of itself, and it also undermines your “Coakley … ahead in the polls is prima facie evidence that [the] sexist premise is bogus.” (apologies for slicing and dicing your statement)