Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

      • until you pointed it out.  The text doesn’t contain the info, but the title does.

        <

        p>Is 500 enough?  It’s not great, but it’s not terrible.  Certainly possible to get bad results.  “Voters” and not “Registered voters” is a bit troubling too, although it’s early to start trying to differentiate.

        • Questions here

          <

          p>More interesting to me is their analysis.  Rasmussen’s conclusion is quite different from Fox’s:

          <

          p>

          An early look at the 2010 election cycle finds that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has some work to do if he wants to win reelection.

          When matched against Christy Mihos, the Democratic governor picks up 40% of the vote and trails the potential GOP nominee by a single point.

          If Charlie Baker is the Republican nominee, Patrick’s support is little changed at 41% while Baker is favored by 36%. Baker is a health care chief executive officer who has not yet formally decided if he is entering the race.

          In both match-ups, the number preferring “some other candidate” is in double digits, and roughly one-out-of-10 voters is undecided.

          The fact that the numbers are so similar regardless of which Republican is mentioned suggest that the race so far is viewed as a referendum on the incumbent rather than a choice between competing alternatives.

  3. Patrick’s approval ratings are better than the “Governor” approval ratings.  I guess the questioned was worded differently, perhaps favorable impression verses approve of job performance.

  4. but I call bull on this poll.

    <

    p>1.  No crosstabs.  How many D/R/U did they poll?

    <

    p>2.  This poll has Obama’s net approval at +27% in MA.  Nationally Obama somewhere between +25% (Gallup) and +34% (ABC).  The thing is, New England is far more liberal than the rest of the country.  In fact, generally speaking, Dems like Obama 90/10, mods 60/40, and GOPs 10/90.  Since we have so few GOPs in New England, we should see higher numbers.  Obama is +30% in Research 2000 with a huge sample size, and in the Northeast Obama is at +75%.

    <

    p>So Obama only +27% in Massachusetts?  Horsepuckey.  Without crosstabs it’s impossible to know (a) their sample size, (b) their sample distribution, and (c) the actual questions asked.  My guess is that (a) is too low, but more importantly that (b) is way off, exacerbated because of a large population of “unenrolled voters” in MA.

    <

    p>I don’t care that Fox commissioned it just like I don’t care that kos commissions his poll.  In both cases the polling firm makes far more money elsewhere so they have no incentive to skew the results intentionally.  But look — Fox could commission this poll every week and only release the ones which are aberrations.  Ras might just be doing a poor job on sample distribution, and it very well could be exacerbated by Fox not wanting to pay for a high enough sample size.

    <

    p>Bottom line: Obama’s numbers in this poll don’t make sense.  My hunch is that there is a positive correlation between supporting Obama and supporting Patrick.  Ergo, I believe that this poll is under-representing Deval Patrick’s support.

    <

    p>3.  The poll was conducted on June 24.  A one day poll is bad form and likely too small.  Even if that date data point is misreported and is really something like June 22-June 24, it’s still a week old.  What happened last week?   Hmmm…. anything at the State House?  Something about reform?  I can’t quite put my finger on it.  Oh, that’s right.  Reform.  Is it the end all-be all?  Nope.  Is it reasonable to expect a slight bump in the near term?  Yip.  Is it reasonable to expect future dividends when Patrick runs on pension reform, transportation reform, and an ethics bill (in addition to strong environmental work, local options taxes to help cities and towns, etc).  Will it work?  Dunno.  But, I’m sure Mihos et al were hoping that the lege wouldn’t get some of Patrick’s 3 done to allow for a showdown.  Instead, Patrick will be able to say he put his foot down and got the lege to pass reform, something no Republican governor has been able to do for 16 years prior.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>P.S. I’m not claiming that Deval Patrick is smooth sailing to another four years, or that there is willful misconduct on the part of Ras.  I’m not even claiming I’ll vote for him.  I am suggesting that the poll has questionable results for Obama and it’s reasonable to question it’s Patrick results for the same reason, since the two are surely positively correlated.

    • … at least we’ve got a link to an actual poll this time instead of claiming something about ‘all the polls I’ve seen’ with no links or even attribution.  This is a step forward.

    • You fall into the common conservative trap of assuming that Brookline liberals (no offense intended) make up a majority of the population in Massachusetts. And that’s simply not true.

      <

      p>In reality, Massachusetts is dominated by “Reagan Democrats.”

      <

      p>The reason Democrats dominate Beacon Hill has more to do — I think — with the union/Catholic alliance than us all being a bunch of pinko Commie liberals. This state is very Catholic, and very pro-union. And both groups tend to vote Democrat.

      <

      p>Yes, we also tend to be more progressive than the rest of the nation. But that doesn’t automatically translate into knee-jerk support for a president  presiding over the biggest economic restructuring in 70 years.  

      <

      p>Remember, Clinton was huge in Massachusetts. But he was also very much a centrist. There’s not much love amongst the average voter for Dukakis.  

      • Stomv isn’t making assumptions about Democrats as you are. Stomv is comparing this poll to other polls.

      • 30 years is a long time to clutch on to something.  The fact of the matter there is a very small number of that population left.  

        <

        p>There is a some called a Obama Republican now.

      • as KBusch points out quite well, my comparison is on other polls, both national and from New England as a whole.  I use no anecdotes.

        <

        p>If you want to claim that MA is more Obama-hatin’ than New England as a whole, or that New England is more Obama-hatin’ than the nation, have at it.  I don’t think that’s the case — and so when national polls seem to show more net approval for Obama than this state poll and when his regional net approval is way higher than this poll suggests, I doubt this poll.

        <

        p>Not saying it’s wrong, just highly skeptical, especially since cross tabs aren’t available but are for other polls I cite.

          • However, the discrepancy is large. Not off by three points but by a factor of three. For the purposes of classification, the Research 2000 poll counts the following states as part of the Northeast: DC, ME, VT, NY, MD, PA, CT, DE, MA, NH, RI, WV, NJ. It’d seem odd to me if MA is less fond of Obama than Maine, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. Why, some of those states (did you know this?) still have Republicans!

        • I don’t think you can just assume that because Obama is +75 in the region but only +27 in Massachusetts that the numbers are wonky.

          <

          p>Perhaps there are different situations…perhaps Massachusetts is more down on elected officials overall..  

          • and it’s not assume, it’s prove.

            <

            p>+75 translates to 87% approval, 13% disapproval.
            +25 translates to 62% approval, 38% disapproval.

            <

            p>MA = 6/140.62
            NE-MA = 8/14            x
            NE = 14/14*.87

            <

            p>Solve for x, and you find that x is 108%.  108% of the people in New England minus Massachusetts must approve of Obama for both sets of numbers to be correct.  That’s clearly not possible.

            <

            p>Therefore at least one poll must be wrong.  QED.

            • I used New England, when in fact the poll is Northeast.

              <

              p>Therefore the calculations are wrong and there has been no QED.

              <

              p>Corrected numbers coming.

              • MA = 6/63.60.62
                NE-MA = 57.6/63.6                x
                NE = 63.6/63.6X0.87

                <

                p>Solve for x and you find that x is 89.6%.  89.6% of the Northeast minus MA must approve of Obama for both sets to be correct.

                <

                p>That’s clearly possible, and therefore I have not mathematically proven that at least one set is incorrect.

                <

                p>Still, given that the Northeast includes states clearly less liberal than MA (PA, WV, NH) with a combined population of 15.5 million) bringing the +75 down, it’s hard to imagine that MA is 20 net points below the aggregation of NY, VT, ME, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC.

                <

                p>Back to the initial question: do you really think MA substantially outlies the rest of liberal New England by 20 points net, or do you believe that at least one poll is wrong, or is it something else?

      • Remember, Clinton was huge in Massachusetts…

        <

        p>Pick favorite quip.

        <

        p>1: It was the fried clams

        <

        p>or

        <

        p>2: That’s what she said

    • It’s only crazy old billxi posting. Ignore it! EVERYTHING IS WONDERFUL IN MASSACHUSETTS! We all love higher taxes! Give us more! Exactly what reforms did Gov. Patrick propose? None? Um, that’s like the inmates running the jail. Oh, they are.

    • Do you honestly think the numbers will get better your way? Speaking as a formerly unenrolled voter, I/WE CAN’T TAKE THIS ANYMORE. If you don’t participate, it’s more of the same. It is time to get off my butt and WORK for change, unlike Governor Patrick who can’t get his hands dirty. Well Governor, I have worked for a living and gotten my hands dirty. Nothing some soap and water won’t fix. Sorry to my detractors, I really tried this time.

      • since the last poll?  No bad news, and ethics reform passed.  I don’t think the ethics reform is enough, but it will play positively in the press.

        <

        p>I don’t know what it means for a governor to get his hands dirty, but it seems to me that duking out reforms and taxes with the legislature in the press is about as (legally) dirty as his hands could get.

        <

        p>He did it, and looks good for doing it.

        <

        p>

        <

        p>As for the first bit, we felt that way in the past, and this past election cycle we won — and it hasn’t been more of the same.  We joined RGGI, we’ve got stronger renewable energy and environmental laws, DCR is fixing dozens of bridges after decades of neglect, we’ve got local options taxes coming, transportation reform, and more.  Am I happy with 100%?  Nope (see casinos, which I oppose).  But, I do think we’ve gotten more positive out of Patrick than we got out of that stream of Republican governors who just left infrastructure to rot.

        • Gas tax is not dead yet. Legislators passing their own reforms, the inmates running the jail. You’re right, I’m wrong. Keep your head up. Everything is wonderful. Keep your head in the clouds, there are plenty of them. Not a slam, crappy weather reference.

          • that Patrick has enough to work with to mount a credible re-election campaign.  With good message, a motivated base, and money, he’s certainly got a strong chance at reelection.  40%?  50%?  60%?  Dunno.  Strong enough that your simple dismissing of his chances seems foolish.

  5. REALLY high, even in a bad poll.

    <

    p>I think the story here, if this can be trusted at all, is that Baker has a fight on his hands.

    <

    p>And the governor’s negaties. Ouch.

  6. …now the Legislature is full time apparently. Does that mean Richard Tisei has to give us hid real eastate business?

  7. Patrick has to hope this is the floor.

    <

    p>Mihos faded fast in the last campaign–can he run a disciplined campaign over many months?  Baker is probably a far more dangerous candidate if he runs.

Archives