Last night I was polled by the Rasmussen Report (1st time ever) about 7:30 PM.
The questions centered on the US Senate race but also included job performance on the MA Governor and US President.
It also asked numerous questions about Curt Schilling’s qualifications to be Senator.
Today Rasmussen released just the parts that focused on Democratic candidates for US Senate. http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
Although they asked favorable/unfavorable on each candidate
as well as the horse race question, they reported Meehan’s results in the horse race as “some other candidate”,
probably because he had announced his decision by then.
Poll results:
Coakley 38%, Capuano 7%, Lynch 11%, Markey 10%, Tierney, 3%, Some other candidate 5%, Not Sure 25%.
Favorable/Unfavorables (totals)
Coakley Favorables: 67% Unfavorables 17% Not Sure 17%
Capuano Favorables: 27% Unfavorables 25% Not Sure 47%
Lynch Favorables: 38% Unfavorables 26% Not Sure 36%
Meehan Favorables: 36% Unfavorables 30% Not Sure 34%
Markey Favorables: 42% Unfavorables 29% Not Sure 29%
Tierney Favorables: 27% Unfavorables 29% Not Sure 44%
Margin of Sampling Error+/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Interesting…
* Having run statewide and serving in a statewide office definitely helps
* Marty Meehan surely can read poll numbers
* Given that Tierney is the only candidate who has unfavorables higher than his favorables, he should probably worry about re-election next year more than getting his name in the mix of Senate speculators (which was laughable)
* If Markey-Meehan and Capuano really did put their heads together to decide which would run (as someone from MMA asserted to the MMA Board meeting) it looks like they picked the wrong one….Markey was the better bet…there’s still time Ed.)
Disclosure: 100% for Martha Coakley for US Senate
higher than 26 %.
<
p>Or just wait till the rest of the state gets to know “Little dab will do ya.” One slick dude.
Rasmussen is notoriously unreliable and tends to skew Republican/conservative.
<
p>Also I suspect what methods they used to find out who is a ‘likely’ democratic voter. Also I suspect this race will attract a lot of crossover votes from independents as well since this will likely be the more influential election between the primaries and the special. So I am suspect of how accurate this depicts the spread of the actual primary voters.
<
p>That said the poll is useful in confirming what we already know. The Congressmen are not particularly well known state-wide although Markey seems to have the most name recognition out of them. Coakley is a known quantity and most people like her-certainly a benefit going in.
<
p>I wish this poll had a geographic breakdown so we could see where support was strongest. If Lynch has an advantage in the Boston area it might prove useful, also if the election turns to issues and debates then Lynch might be helped by standing out.
<
p>If not Coakley with the only statewide organization, name recognition, warchest and the only female in the race would be benefitted by more candidates jumping in.
<
p>I’m not quite sure why this keeps getting repeated, because Rasmussen is one of the most accurate pollsters available. In 2008 they were much more reliable than nearly all other pollsters (courtesy of 538.com).
<
p>It would be interesting to see their likely voter model, however, since this is a special election in which turnout is likely to be relatively small (certainly at least compared to a presidential election year).
<
p>That said, this poll does confirm that Coakley is way out in front to start. In a longer campaign, there would be more possiblity for other candidates to raise their profiles statewide and start raising Coakley’s negatives. But in a race where 38% could be enough to win the primary, Coakley’s sitting on an awfully nice base of support.
To see the top line numbers, just use the link in the original post. However, the crosstabs and analysis are only available to people that subscribe to Rasmussen Reports…which i don’t, so i do not know the geographic breakdowns. But, when they determined the sample for the poll and the number of respondents that would be taken from each region, i am sure geography was factored in…otherwise the margin of error would not be as low as 4 +/-
In 2008 they were much more reliable than nearly all other pollsters
<
p>That’s actually completely meaningless, in context.
<
p>What 538.com is measuring, is how close the poll numbers shortly before an election were to that actual election results. What we’re trying to use polls here for are to suss out some fuzzy information long before an election. There’s really no reason at all to assume that a pollster who gets better “who would you vote for if the election were held today?” numbers just before an election, is also better at earlier predictions. And in fact, most pollsters actually change their methodology and/or tweak their parameters in the final week before an election, further messing up that already-unreliable assumption.
These polls are useful at showing in a general sense that Coakley has early positive name-ID. I disagree with you Hoyapaul that those numbers will remain static or go up, frankly the only choice her opponents have is to go negative, early, to define her and destroy her chances.
<
p>Also I completely disagree with your assumption this will be a low turn out election. Its the first open Senate seat in over 25 years, I am sure it will be a huge turnout, even if its a special. Especially becuase its the only thing thats going to be on the local news for quite awhile and its not competing with municipal or gubernatorial elections for coverage.
<
p>Furthermore I still am skeptical of the ‘likely’ voter model since only subscribers are allowed to understand their methodology. Does that include independents who can also vote in the primary?
Mixed Martial Arts
Mobile Marketing Association
Mennonite Mutual Aid
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
Modified Motorcycles Association
Michigan Manufacturers Association
Maine Municipal Association
Marketing Management Analytics
I’d take that with a grain of salt.
<
p>A bigger consideration for Markey (who gets a big “favorable” from me) is what he’d be giving up if he won.
You don’t beat 67% favorables without getting deep down in the mud. Someone is going to have to attack, and hard to get past Coakley. Sure, those numbers will go down a bit as people learn about her, but they won’t go down that much. It’s gonna get dirty.
<
p>Here’s a nutty theory: two Congressmen work out a strategy. Congressman One attacks, attacks, attacks — he doesn’t win but he was never supposed to. He drags Coakley down far enough so that Congressman Two wins. Congressman One is the odd man out in re-districting, and Congressman Two (now Senator Two) finds a wonderful sinecure for Congressman One.
<
p>If you think I’m crazy, replace “C1” with Gephardt, C2 with Kerry, Coakley with Dean. It happens.
and difficult to overcome.
<
p>Most came out at the health care rally and gave their position on the issue. It would be nice to believe you are wrong and they will continue thoughtful debate on the issues. But the front runner will be attacked by all the opponents. No one bothers to attack the bottom of the pack.
<
p>What has Tierney done to have a higher unfavorable than favorable?
Oh that Martha Coakely. Wait until the new voters get a load of her prosecutorial misconduct—–!
Wow, in her quiet way she’s made a name for herself. Good for her! I have to say, I’m excited. I’ve always thought Martha would go places–she’s bright, personable, and, well, telegenic, the latest video notwithstanding.
<
p>Capuano is hugely attractive given his track record and he’s easily replaceable with another liberal Democrat in that district, but boy, Martha’s going to be tough to beat.
…but Martha Coakley is way ahead and every day that passes closer to sewing this up. This is only a couple month thing so little time to spare. The members of Congress all have about the same unfavorables (+-) and my guess is that is alot of anti-incumbent stuff and women who are favorable to Martha.
<
p>In fact the favorables seem to be scewed toward name recognition (Markey is the dean and this case longevity = name recognition) and proximity to Boston. Happily I love Martha too.
Tierney unfavorables outpace favorables for a reason, but it’s not because of “anti-incumbent stuff and women” as you suggest. And the numbers are not slanted toward name recognition, either. People who recognized the name and had an opinion are reflected in the favs/unfavs, people who never heard of the person are reflected in the Not Sure category. If all of the Not Sures broke in proportion to the favs/unfavs, Tierney would still have an unfavorable result.
<
p>I am supporting Martha Coakley, but I still have a favorable view of Markey and Capuano and Lynch (on labor issues)…they are doing a good job for the people they represent. (And I hope they will continue to do so in the House!)
<
p>On the political courage meter, Tierney does not register with the likes of Coakley, Jim McGovern, Frank, Capuano and Lynch. Tierney may spend too much time weighing his own advantage or disadvantage in each situation rather than showing political courage by taking a risk. He waits until a question is just about mute before taking a stand. The ability (and willingness) to take a stand without regard to the personal political consequences is the difference between a good public official and a great one.
…he was great on the war, Patriot Act, Single Payer, Labor Issues…I have no idea where he was slow? Barney Frank has a special status…but Tierney has shown more political courage and judgement than Capuano and Lynch and every bit as much as McGovern.
This poll reflects a combination of name recognition and the fact that she’s the only announced (I think?) candidate. I’d take it with a grain of salt.