From the CBS4boston.com website:
(CBS4) BOSTON An exclusive new poll in the Massachusetts governorâs race, shows a statistical tie between the three Democratic candidates.
The poll of 421 likely Democratic voters found Tom Reilly just barely out in front with 32%, followed by Chris Gabrieli at 29% and Deval Patrick at 28%. The poll has a margin of error of 4.9%, putting all three candidates very much in the running.
This is the first poll in the Democratic race since the candidates held their very first debate, here in our CBS4 studios.
Since an identical poll released 24 days ago, Gabrieli has picked up 10 points, Reilly has lost 1 point, and Patrick has lost 8 points â falling from first place into last.
Patrick has seen the most dramatic losses among those who earn less than $40,000 a year. He also suffered 8 points of erosion among self-described independents, whereas Gabrieli has picked up 9 points among independents.
Gabrieli’s gains are likely tied in large part to his recent buy of tv advertising time.
You can check the complete detailed breakdown of the poll by party affiliation, gender, race and income by clicking here.
The poll was conducted for CBS4 by SurveyUSA.
Gabrieli has been carpet-bombing the TV a.m. news; nothing from any other candidate. Seems to be working.
People are figuring out that voting for Patrick will mean higher — or at least, not lower — taxes, and they don’t like that … especially not people earning less than $40,000.
Gabrieli has the same postion on the income tax as Patrick does so if voters don’t like Patrick they can’t like Gabrieli either. Also, it is interesting that the quesiton was framed in a negative way for Patrick. Certainly the poll is best for Reilly because he is on top but this poll has Patrick doing 9 points better than the Suffolk poll. Reilly loses a few but still very similar to what he was at in the Suffolk poll. I think all the polls are showing one thing: Reilly is clearly in the lead but that Patrick and Gabrieli are still being “figured out” by the voters and hence their ever changing numbers.
I don’t think so. Gabrieli says he’s for the rollback as long as it’s tied to an as-yet-unspecified economic growth formula. Patrick says that the rollback is irresponsible, and has given no indication (that I’m aware of) that he would support a rollback no matter how terrific the state’s economy was. Big difference.
During the debate I thought I remember Gab saying that he supported the rollback as you say but I also remembered Patrick coming out against the rollback until we can afford it. So I do believe Patrick would rollback the taxes if the economy is booming. Looking at Gab’s website he now says he supports the roll back pretty much not matter what.
<
p>
From the Gabrieli site:
Q: Do you support rolling the income tax back from 5.3% to 5.0%?
<
p>
A: I support rolling taxes back to 5.0%. The people voted for it, and middle class families need the relief. Over the course of this campaign, I’ll be laying out a plan that shows how we can do this responsibly, and without overburdening our local communities
It seems that Gabrieli is now chipping into Deval’s numbers as an anti-Reilly.
<
p>
It seems to me that Deval’s support is half die-hard enthusiasts and half people who want an alternative to Reilly.
<
p>
Look at it through the prism of the caucuses. Deval did amazingly well propelled by two things:
<
p>
1) Worcester was mad at Reilly for snubbing Murray for Lt. Gov.
2) Many of the other caucus-goers thought he was an awful politician, as the caucuses were literally just a couple days after the St. Fleur debacle.
<
p>
Some of Deval’s support is die-hard. Some is just anti-Reilly.
<
p>
Now Gabrieli is presenting himself as a more seasoned progressive alternative to Deval. He has run statewide, winning the Dem nomination in ’02 for Lt. Gov. Deval has never run statewide. Gabrieli has debated Kerry Healey before; Deval hasn’t. Gabrieli been around the state more than Deval (previous to last summer). Gabrieli has worked on issues in MA (stem cells, workforce development, education); Deval hasn’t previous to the campaign.
<
p>
Both Gabrieli and Deval are progressives. But Gabrieli is more battle-tested, more seasoned, and is willing to use more personal resources.
<
p>
Either would be good, but to an increasing number, Gabrieli would be better – both a better Governor and a more electable candidate.
<
p>
That’s why I think Gabrieli is chipping in to Deval’s moderate/independent numbers?
<
p>
Other thoughts?
BrightonGuy says “Now Gabrieli is presenting himself as a more seasoned progressive alternative to Deval. “
<
p>
I don’t know if you’ve seen the same debates and public speeches I have, but sometimes I wonder if Gabrielli even wants to win. His thoughts seem to wander but only within the bubble of “we need better education”. While I agree with that belief there is a whole heck of a lot more that the state needs than just education.
<
p>
When I see Gabrielli I leave thinking ‘maybe debate class should be part of that education, it sure would help your campaign.’
Deval won the caucuses because we did the work.
<
p>
Plain. And. Simple.
<
p>
That really freaked some people out. I say that based on how increasingly focused the attacks are against Deval here and in the media at large.
<
p>
This poll is all very nice and interesting, but the only poll that really matters at this point in this process will be the vote at the convention. Note that this poll is of likely Democratic voters NOT delegates to the convention.
<
p>
Chris can buy all the media he wants now, but unless he gets his 15%, he’s done. Not having a good field campaign is hurting him so he has to blast his message over airwaves.
<
p>
Deval is right to keep his powder dry and wait to spend on media later. When it actually matters.
By more “battle-tested,” surely you don’t mean to be complimenting him for being a 2-time loser? Surely?
I believe he also holds the record for the most dollars per vote spent on an election for his congressional campaign.
And he didn’t even win.
In a post below you bemoan all the spinning done one this blog. Can you practice what you preach? Gabrieli is one for one in elections he ran as a stand alone candidate. Yes, he totally sucked as a ’98 congressional candidate. He did win the state-wide Dem nomination for LG in ’02. I think it’s unfair to suggest he lost the general election, that label belongs to Shannon. Would you suggest the John Edwards lost the ’04 general election?
Is it just me or is anyone else starting to feel the same stomach churning sickness that we feel every four years in the MA Democratic party? I am sensing yet another very messy convetion, brutal primary campaign, followed by a lot of hurt feelings and finally another rethughlican victory in November. The tone here of late has be extremely confrontational and I think it bodes poorly for our parties chances this year. I think this pattern started just after the caucuses and has amplified since Gabrielli offically entered the races. What can the campaigns or, more importly, we as democratic activists do to prevent this destructive cycle from continuing and actually get a Democratic Governor for the first time in my adult life!?!?!
<
p>
Depressed and Angry,
Cephme
Instead of taking these polls of 420 people and spinning them to be anti-one particular candidate – avoid the spin completely. It’s too early for the vicious spin that has been going as of late and – quite frankly – it’s making me question the advisability of regularly reading BMG at all. I don’t want to think of losing in September, but with the confrontational actions going around here as of late, it really could happen.
a few things come to mind:
<
p>
1 – Are we really to believe that Reilly is beating Patrick in the 18-34 age group? From 4/6 to now Patrick lost 8 points in the group and Reilly lost 3. Gabrielly went up 8 and undecided went up 3. Maybe Gabrielli’s appealing to young voters, but Since 18-34 is usually underrepresented in polls (they don’t answer surveys as much), this just feels anomalistic. Additionally, I can’t tell if the results are adjusted for expected turnout. Seniors 65+ only represent 22% of the sample but their percentage of turnout should be higher in the end.
<
p>
1a – We can’t actually draw too many comparisons between the 4/6 poll and this one because the 4/6 poll is of all registered voters while the 5/4 poll is of likely voters. So much for looking at trends.
<
p>
2 – Why are conservatives flocking to Gabrielli? The arguments seem to be that Gabrielli is now pulling from Patrick as much or more as he’s pulling from Reilly, so why then is he most popular among self-described conservatives? (Also, conservatives only make up 10% of the sample, which is 42 people. The margin of error on that subgroup is actually around 15.1%)
<
p>
3 – I find it odd that, geographically, Patrick is strongest in SE Mass. He’s the only one who’s come out in support of Cape Wind and yet he’s more popular on the Cape than anywhere else.
<
p>
4 – I wonder what they consider “Urban” and “Suburban.” Only 20% of respondents were urban voters, yet Patrick actually won that group. Will only 20% of the primary vote be “urban”?
<
p>
5 – None of this means anything. I’d be much more interested in seeing a poll that had favorability (and familiarity) ratings.
Your comment under 1(a) is incorrect. Today’s poll and the April poll both use a sampling of “Likely Democratic Primary Voters,” so it is like comparing apples to apples. People may draw as many or as few comparisons as they like.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
I was looking at a different poll on that site. There was one on 4/6 that is just of registered voters.
421 people may be enough to get a basic number on how things stand at the Massachusetts level – but not any cross tabulations.
<
p>
You can’t pull from 421 people just how 18-30 year olds really stand: there’s probably only 30-40 of them who were polled.
<
p>
Stop focusing on the polls and FOCUS ON POSITIONS.
<
p>
If Reilly and Gabrieli are so great, why do their supporters insist on mentioning everything but ideas and positions… except broken record issues that may just make Sean Hannity proud.
<
p>
I’m sick of it. I’ve denounced Patrick supporters frequently in the past when I thought they deserved it (those who want to bitterly keep others off the ticket, for example). I don’t see why Reilly and Gabrieli supporters don’t denounce those who are willing to consume all their effort into propagandizing this campaign, instead of making it about honest debates.
<
p>
Aren’t we sick of politics as usual? God, I hope so.
While I agree that the true value of these polls won’t be known until the Primary, they do provide a barometer of what is happening beyond the blogosphere and outside of insulated campaign environments, which is where this election actually will be decided. Candidates and their volunteers are working hard. They (and the politically interested) like to know if their message is getting out, if it is reaching people, and if it is resonating. Depending on the results and our personal preferences, we may love polls or we may hate polls, but they do have a place in the political discourse.
<
p>
In fact, you devoted an entire column on your own blog to the last CBS4/Survey USA poll. It was entitled “Reilly Who?” and engaged in the same kind of analysis that other bloggers are undertaking in this post. At that time, you endorsed Survey USA:
<
p>
<
p>
On the basis of that poll, you noted that Gabrieli has “taken far more votes away from Reilly.” The general theme of your column was “Patrick is looking really good. . .Reilly’s support is hollow.” (direct quotes)
<
p>
This month’s poll paints a very different picture. Over the past four weeks, Gabrieli’s ad blitz has paid dividends, but it has clearly come at Patrick’s expense. Meanwhile, Reilly’s support has held rock solid. Yet somehow, this month’s discussion is an “effort in propoganda,” while last month’s survey was a “good poll.” The only thing that has changed is the poll results.
<
p>
As you know, I am a Reilly supporter and I have gone out of my way to post his policy proposals. Ideas are important, no doubt. But it is also important to know what real people are thinking. “People are talking,” but what are they saying? It appears that they are telling us something different in this poll than the one that you covered last month. I suspect next month’s poll might bring a new message. It certainly makes for interesting discussion.
However, I wasn’t intentionally spinning and “Reilly Who” was a joke – a tone that is easily read when reading my peice.
<
p>
Furthermore, while I find SurveyUSA reputable, you can’t take a survey of 421 people and create cross tabs with it. It isn’t ethical – not with SurveyUSA, not with Zogby, not with Rassmussan, not with any of the big polling companies. You just can’t do it: 40 people as the sample for “African American voters” or 35 for “Evangelicals” etc just aren’t enough to really analyze individual segments of the population: and that’s my point about this poll.
<
p>
Is it a valid measure to use statewide? Sure. I’ve already said so, on these very comments.
<
p>
In any event – you’ll also notice in my column wasn’t all spin like your diary. For example,
<
p>
“There are a few things we can quickly learn from this poll:
<
p>
1. There’s only 11% of the electorate who describe themselves as “undecided.” That doesn’t mean that the other 89% of the population won’t change their mind, but it does mean that it will be at least a little harder to get them to do so.
<
p>
2. This race is very, very close. The debates will be very meaningful.”
<
p>
I attempted to really hit upon the numbes in my blog… you seem content to smear a particular candidate in a way that is far removed from joking. Maybe that’s a fine line, but for the interest of keeping these primaries peaceful I intend to stay further away from that line in future blogs. I won’t let my name – which is actually out there and known (as opposed to hiding behind a tag) – be compared to stuff like this.
I see nothing inconsistent with what I, or anyone else on this thread, has written and what you wrote in your own column about the same poll last month. I think anyone who compares the material will come to the same conclusion.
<
p>
I also do not purport to be presenting independent coverage of the campaign while openly supporting a candidate because the conflicts are untenable. I would only be fooling myself if I believed otherwise because it is certainly clear to BMG readers where my allegiance lies.
<
p>
When Tom Reilly was down, I didn’t blame (some, certainly not all) Patrick supporters for revelling in his misfortune, nor did I blame Chris Gabrieli for suddenly finding reason to enter a race that he had previously opted out of. What was I going to do, shoot the messengers? Instead, I crossed my fingers and hoped that Tom Reilly would fight his way back, which he has done.
<
p>
This is a forum for people to “comment on politics and policy in Massachuetts.” That I choose to do so in support of Tom Reilly is my own choice. Apparently, one month ago it was OK to write “Reilly Who?” and “Reilly’s support is hollow,” but this month it is a “smear” to point out that Reilly has held his ground, Gabrieli has gained, and Patrick has slipped based on the most recent in the same series of polls.
<
p>
I think the only difference is pretty obvious and I leave it at that.
Not to start a thing, but going from assumed nominee and front-runner to dead heat with two other candidates is not exactly holding his ground.
<
p>
Personally, what I see reflected in these polls is that the Democrats have three amazing candidates – there is a great case to make for all of them. I prefer to think of almost a dead split three ways as an indicator that reasonable people can make a case for any one of the three candidates, so it is best to vote for who you really believe in.
<
p>
I know, I know, rosy glasses etc.
I wouldn’t phrase it as “hurting” Patrick, but as not just hurting Reilly anymore. If you look back at the 3 most recent SurveyUSA polls (who I assume used similar methods each time and thus are really comparable) the trend has been:
<
p>
March: Reilly 47%, Patrick 37%
April: Reilly 33%, Patrick 36%, Gabrieli 19%
May: Reilly 32%, Patrick 28%, Gabrieli 29%
<
p>
So it looks like, immediately after Gabrieli joined the race, Reilly drops 14 and Patrick drops 1, with Gabrieli’s other 4 coming from undecideds. This could probably be attributed to the St Fleur incident, so you probably saw people who didn’t like Patrick but weren’t that into Reilly either move to Gabrieli. Then the next month, Reilly loses 1 and Patrick loses 8, easily to do with similar scenarios as a result of Ameriquest and Gabrieli’s advertising flood. So that looks like Gabrieli’s support is 52% ex-Reilly and 31% ex-Patrick. They lost 32% and 24% of their previous support (based on this series of polls). If the delegates go the same pattern, and assuming 67% Patrick and 22% Reilly before, you’d see 51% Patrick, 22% Reilly, and 27% Gabrieli.
<
p>
Sorry, I’m a physicist and thus a math geek 🙂
alexwill, I would have had to bust out a calculator to come up with that! In fact, I will have to. One thing that your analysis misses, however, is a new trend suggested by the most recent poll.
<
p>
Under your anlysis, Gabrieli has taken 32% of Reilly’s March support. However, Gabrieli took almost all of that figure in April, immediately after Reilly’s miscues and Gabrieli’s entry into the race. Deval Patrick, meanwhile, actually lost 1% during that period.
<
p>
Over the past month, however, Gabrieli has gained almost all of his support at Deval Patrick’s expense. This has come after a few debates and, more importantly, Gabrieli’s enormous ad buy. According to this series of polls, Deval Patrick has been in decent since March, with 88% of his losses occurring within the last month.
<
p>
If these polls are to be believed, the trend suggests that Reilly is now having far greater success in maintaining his base and mitigating his losses to Gabrieli than Deval Patrick. It also shows that Reilly has stopped the bleeding and is holding his ground in the wake of Gabrieli’s ad blitz.
I’m not trying to claim that Deval isn’t losing out right now, but I think it mostly looks like the entrance of the moderate between the two has taken from both sides quite a lot, and even things out. I think things will probably settle like this for a few months at this point. (Also, my guesses about the delegate numbers were obviously quite unrealistic, which shows a lot of the limitations of reading too much into polls)
The purpose of the Ad buy for Gabrielli the past few weeks was to create name recognition only in order to have credibility in the convention. Although we are all astute political observers, I argue that very few respondents saw the debate and most had a vague idea about the names of the candidates before the Gabrielli buy, except for maybe Reilly.
<
p>
Note that only 30% of the poll respondents are likely voters. So to conclude that when the poll taker called the respondent answered based on some intellectual political analysis or anything other than name recognition is not convincing
<
p>
Patrick didn’t really lose anything except to those who never heard of him. The respondent in the poll needed a name to answer when the poll taker called. Gab happened to be on the TV that morning, hence the response. If Patrick spent the same money as Gab he would of possibly washed out the numbers. This poll means nothing other than the power of TV advertising .
RML, according the crosstab, 2400 were interviewed, but the poll is based on the 421 respondents who were “Likely Democratic Primary Voters.” Therefore, 100% of those included in the poll are “Likely Democratic Primary Voters.” I agree with you that the debate had far less of an impact than Gabrieli’s ad buy. The impact of his ad blitz is undeniable, although it is interesting to note that almost all of his gains over the past month have come at Parick’s expense, while Reilly’s numbers have held. The debate, while less influential, may have helped Reilly hold his base, since the media coverage was favorable to him.
but I sense that this is a meaningless poll. If you look at the Suffolk poll… Favs vs. Unfav’s ..you see how much Gab spiked. I argue that it only spiked because of the name recognition, not because they see him in as more favorable. Until 2 weeks before the primary there is no real meaning in these polls and nobody should either claim victory or get depressed..
One of the take-home lessons I’ve gotten in speaking to pollsters is that polls are rarely useful as a horse race to determine who is winning or losing unless it’s a blowout race. There are a couple of things that polls do well, though:
<
p>
1) They show which voters are susceptible to having their minds changed.
<
p>
2) They show whether candidates are getting out some sort of message to the general public.
<
p>
A poll like this seems to show that both Reilly and Patrick have had a hard time sending out any sort of message to the general public recently, so that Gabrieli can come in with a quick ad campaign and get similar support.
<
p>
If I were a Reilly supporter, I’d feel better about this because this seems to be a base level of support for Reilly. The problem there is that Reilly hasn’t really done anything to prove that he can raise his level of support and has had a couple of screwups. If the Reilly campaign can ever get on track and run a normal political campaign instead of relying on insiders (which I’m still doubtful of), they’ve got this sewn up.
<
p>
If I were a Patrick supporter (which I am), I’d take this as a sign that the general populace hasn’t seen anything new or exciting from Deval in a couple of months. It might just be that the campaign is saving its powder. Or it might be that the campaign’s strategy has reached a plateau for gaining general support. Their campaign has to start figuring out how to get mainstream name-brand support if the average voter is going to vote for him.
<
p>
If I were Gabrieli, I’d realize that the general vote is going to be pretty easy to gain and work like hell to get any sort of support from the insiders/delegates. And I think he’s legitimately doing that. He knows that it’s a relatively open field, kinda like the ’92 presidential primaries that Clinton ended up winning. Gabrieli’s no Clinton, but he is a solid candidate for practically any state-wide office and he hasn’t been beat up over the last nine months. And any dirt on Gabrieli has come out by now.
I could have said that any dirt on O’Brien had come out by May 2002, and that any dirt on Harshabarger had come out by May 1998, but you ain’t seen nothing til you see what the GOP will throw at you. Wait until Gabrieli’s venture cap enemies – surely GOP supporters – start to throw dirt at him.