LG Poll – Inside the Numbers

The Globe’s Political Intelligence blog points to the cross-tabs can be found here at the UNH website.

What do these numbers tell us and what do they mean?

A couple things.

First, and most obviously, this race is too low of a priority for voters to be able to predict who will win.

Second, Deb Goldberg’s purported lead is not as large as it seems, and her support is not as solid as it ought to be given the money she’s spent.

And now the deeper findings based on the numbers:

Casual Voters: Goldberg and Silbert Way Ahead: Although the Globe reported the “likely voter” and “definite voter” number, they didn’t report the “may vote” voter numbers.  These aren’t anything to hang a hat on, but it’s interesting that there the numbers are 22% Silbert, 21% Goldberg, 8% Murray.  I could rationalize how this could help any of the three, but there are too many factors that could affect these voters (weather, mood, busy day, etc…).  That said, if they come out, that bodes well for the ladies.

Deval’s Voters Favor Silbert: Of the 224 people who responded to the poll who said they were voting for Deval, 24% said they’ll vote for Silbert, 24% for Goldberg and 22% for Murray.  But if you look at the favorability ratings for the LG candidates amongst the 227 Deval voters, the spread widens, with 32% having a favorable rating of Silbert, 27% see Murray favorably, 26% see Goldberg favorably.

What does this mean?  Well, if Deval’s voters come out in higher numbers, Silbert’s chances go up.

Fav/Unfav: Deb’s unfavorables are twice Silbert’s or Murray’s, which is likely a result of people seeing her more on TV and more people having the opportunity to decide they don’t like her.  He favorables are also higher, but that’s probably for the same reason – more exposure.  Another interesting note is the Silbert’s favorability rating is slightly higher than Murray’s, although is within the margin of error.

Goldberg v. Silbert In “Voter Belt”:  In the 128 to 495 belt, the race is essentially tied between Goldberg (28%) and Silbert (25%) with Murray at 18% there.  This area includes, I presume everything from Woburn all the way around to Framingham, Franklin and Walpole.  As people move out of the Boston area and as the commuter suburbs extend north, west and south, these are the towns where the race will be won or lost.  Interesting that Murray isn’t doing well here, although the margin of error is certainly in play.

Murray Cleaning Up in CMass, Low Interest in WMass; Silbert leads on Cape: In the area identified as “Central Mass”, Murray gets 36%, Silbert 24%, Goldberg 17%.  In Western Mass, it’s only 15% Murray, 14% Goldberg and 5% Silbert.  On the Cape and Islands, Silbert is at 21%, Goldberg 18% and Murray 14%.

Interestingly, the sample included the same amount of respondents from WMass (61) as from the Cape and Islands (63).  Anyone know why?  Are the population numbers that similar?  CMass had a sample of 84, 128-495 had 144, inside 128 was 158.

As for winners and losers coming out of this poll, after looking deeper at these numbers, I’d have to say again that Goldberg’s failure to seal the deal is the biggest surprise.  Murray’s and Silbert’s field operations may just be able to trump the millions.

But none of us really knows what’s going to happen.