August numbers:
Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor
Christy Mihos (R) 40%
Deval Patrick (D) 35%
Some other candidate 11%
Not sure 15%
Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor
Charlie Baker (R) 39%
Deval Patrick (D) 40%
Some other candidate 7%
Not sure 15%
Please share widely!
Looks like I’m no longer mad at Cahill, keep on trucking buddy, you may just be our best friend yet!
They’re not going to post internals and crosstabs until Wednesday night, so a bit early to tell what this means.
<
p>If you like Deval, this is first-glance good news for him because he’s leading. If you don’t like Deval, this is first-glance bad news because after three years he’s the top choice of 1/3 of the electorate.
because 34% isn’t enough to win a 3 man race unless a 34-33-33 outcome prevails, which is incredibly unlikely.
<
p>If the Governor can get his number up to 40, he’ll be in pretty good shape so long as (I) and (R) both get votes. It’s entirely possible… GOP anti-DP voters will insist on voting for the Republican, and non-GOP anti-DP voters will insist on not voting for the Republican, given how toxic their national brand is right now.
<
p>If the Governor can get to 42 or 43, it’ll be real tough to beat him with a non-total-screwup from Cahill and (R).
It will be pretty difficult for the governor to not reach that 40% threshold if his 34% holds.
<
p>Considering:
<
p>-This is an independent poll
-A poll with three NAMED and actively campaigning candidates
-An economy in the tank
-I’d imagine the unknowns are somewhat high for both Cahill and Patrick, giving them an even bigger boost from the “anyone but Patrick” crowd
<
p>I would say that 34% is pretty damn good. Peeling 1/4 of the undecides shouldn’t be that difficult as the economy improves.
Peeling 1/4 of the undecides shouldn’t be that difficult
asif theeconomyunemployment rate improves.tend to come back home in the end. If Patrick gets half of them, he’s at around 40. I think he’ll be in the low 40s by the time all is said and done, which is honestly right around where he was in his resounding victory against Healey and Mihos back in ’06. I expect things to be equally overwhelming this time around, because Cahill is just that much stronger than Mihos was back in ’06. Baker, though a credible opponent, won’t be able to gain any traction so long as Cahill stays credible in this race. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Cahill best Baker in the end, with Patrick up by more than 10%. It’s not a traditional election — and Patrick’s certainly not as popular as he was in late 2005 — but this is what happens when there was a national economic collapse and there’s a serious three-way race for Governor.
The key is to look at the partisan breakdown of the undecideds (I guess 7News is releasing the crosstabs tonight)? Because of the obvious partisan tilt of the MA electorate, it’s not a stretch to suspect that far more of the undecideds are Democrats than Republicans (with the highest number likely indpendents who will either not vote or split relatively evenly). For that reason, I think it is exactly right that Patrick shouldn’t have a problem surpassing 40%.
<
p>I’m interested to see some of the fundraising numbers, especially to gauge how Cahill is doing at this early stage.
haven’t heard a peep about the Cahill campaign since his not so graceful coming out party.
He only gathers 34%? A sitting governor? The way I see this is that he is very vulnerable. I think he has alienated a significant portion of his base with his very questionable decisions of the last few months. Perhaps he doesn’t want to be governor anymore.
it would be a problem were he to only have one credible challenger. Since we vote first past the post and not with an IRV system, it may or may not prove to be a problem.
<
p>As for the suggestion that “[p]erhaps he doesn’t want to be governor anymore”… it seems to me that running for governor should be considered a strong indicator of a desire to be governor.
during the Christmas break or my first year in college my father asked me to come into the den. He sat me down and asked why I didn’t want to go to college any more. I told him that I did want to go to college and that I had had a great time and had really learned a lot. He then showed me my report card that had come in the day’s mail. I had done miserably due to my failure to use my time productively. Every time I was studying for a test I would find a reason to go back and drink with my new found pals. I wanted to be a student but I was close to being placed on academic probation.
<
p>I feel the same about Governor Patrick. He may say he wants to be governor and he may enjoy being governor but his actions sure indicate that he does not want to be governor.
I agree he’s made some poor decisions and the tin-ear critiques are right on the money, I would heavily argue against your conclusion. The state is being managed far more competently than it would be if, say, Romney were in charge. Patrick and the legislature have thus far tried to make the deep cuts in the system hurt as little as possible, and finally raised taxes at least a little to act as a balance to all the cuts — and protect a few core services, if even only temporarily. Romney never would have agreed to any sort of balance between increased taxes and cuts — whilst simultaneously making the cuts as painful and dumb as possible. We know this because we saw it before.
<
p>Patrick’s made some grown-up, responsible choices in terms of policy to pursue, but has had his knees capped by a legislature that doesn’t want to go along with him and wants to remain the force in power. The critiques that can be made against him rarely, if ever, are anything remotely close to being irresponsible — which is precisely what partying instead of studying is in college, so your metaphor doesn’t really work.
<
p>Am I thrilled with the leadership Patrick’s provided? No, but aside from casinos, I don’t think he’s been seriously wrong on any policy idea. In fact, some of his ideas were a downright genius — free community college education would have vastly expanded opportunity for everyone in the Commonwealth, while simultaneously not breaking the bank. His reform efforts on transportation were important and he helped pass fantastic environmental reforms not long after he was one of the most important forces in protecting civil rights in this state. I can understand the cynicism — the tin ear bothers me, too, but it’s hard to find very many areas in which he’s been wrong, and it’s hard to find fault in the fact that he hasn’t gotten along well with the legislature. I’m not sure it’s possible for a Democratic Governor to be popular in the legislature so long as the House Speaker wields so much power and there’s no second or third parties to challenge Democrats.
I think Deval likes being governor well enough, and he’s okay at it. However, the process of becoming governor isn’t one of his favorites. The whole drawn-out steps of explaining decisions to the electorate, explaining why he is a better decision-maker than available alternatives, nurturing a support group…it’s a big part of the job.
<
p>Most people in elected office love that sort of thing…at his best Deval seems to tolerate it. He may enjoy policy exchanges, but the hustle of getting people to like you and support you doesn’t seem to be his bag.
I actually think that he is better at campaigning than governing.
at establishing a vibrant organizing and being energetic enough to reach voters all across Massachusetts. He was excellent speaking to voters 1 on 1 and in small groups, like town hall meetings. He was never good at getting his message across to the media — which has been much more of what his campaign’s been about whilst being in office.
<
p>He’s going to have to get that army out again if he wants to be confident in victory in the reelection bid, but he’s turned off a lot of key supporters on the casino decision and several others and his response to some of the mistakes has created that (somewhat valid) tin-ear critique. I’m not sure you can look at 2006 and say he’ll be great at campaigning for 2010, that was the last war. I hope it’s the case and I’m confident in victory, but he’s going to have to reach out to his base better than he has so far if he wants to stomp the competition like he did last time — which will ultimately take him listening to their concerns and acting on them.
Deval’s been an excellent campaigner, and a pretty good Governor. But he seems to have an impatience or unwillingness with the need to manage the political aspects of his job: selling his administration’s decisions through the media and managing criticism or fallout from decisions in the media. He needs a better, more proactive media game, particularly when he’s taking a decision that is going to irritate a key constituency.
he is leading even though he has yet to spend a dime telling his story of successful reforms – ethics, transportation, pensions, etc. while dealing with the largest financial meltdown in recent history created by who? President Obama may own the economy at the federal level in 2010, but the Republicans will still own the fiscal crisis at the state level.
It sounded like you said that “the Republicans will still own the fiscal crisis at the state level.” Hello? Which party has been in power (at least in the Great and General Court) for the better part of the last 50 years? Which party is pulling all of the levers in the Commonwealth at this point in time?
<
p>Yeah, that’s what I thought. 😉
is asserting that Rasmussen is a “good” polling firm because the governor is leading in their poll. That’s the strawman you dragged into the room.
<
p>The point was simply that Rasumussen’s data was in line with that of 7news-suffolk, providing some validity to both polls.
<
p>This doesn’t take away from their track record of producing outlier data.
…if a polling firm with a reputation for over-polling Republicans lists a Democrat as leading that does seem like a good thing.
You cannot critique the use of Rasmussen as an “outlier” polling company but include them in a group of polls which support something you want to be true. This is disingenuous, plain and simple. If you are saying they are correst this time then please at least say they are in the “broken clock being right twice a day” category.
A statistic cannot be a critique. Critiques have motives and intentions. Regardless of whether a survey methodology is bias, the bias is irrelevant when considering the results within the context of other results. (The exception being if all other polls are flawed or bias, which has been quite rare).
<
p>Samples have shown that Rasmussen’s data stands out as an outlier.
<
p>Macro – Rasmussen has a history of outlier results.
<
p>Micro – This poll has validity within the context of the only other poll, 7 News-Suffolk.
<
p>Without knowing the methodology of the two polls, they help corroborate one another. Now if we find that they have gross undercoverage with Republicans or Independents, more polling data will be needed to further evaluate these two.
<
p>While the Macro and Micro exist at the same time, they exist separately as well. To suggest that the critique of the macro invalidates every micro situation is a gross misunderstanding of social science research.
I did note that it had similar results as another poll to provide perspective.
<
p>In addition, I put out August numbers as a comparison. If you use the same pollster, I do think you can provide trending. What you cannot do it trend one poll against the other. If Suffolk and Rasmussen came out completely different, kind of like the BS 19% approval one a few months back then it would have been highlighted as such.
<
p>So what are you saying, since it’s Rasmussen then it leans Republican so Patrick really has 44%?
or, at least, not completely right.
<
p>
<
p>Not necessarily — was the same question asked, was there a “newsflash” on one day that skewed data? Was the sample covering the same percent of D/R/I? Same days of week? Etc.
<
p>
<
p>Sure you can. You just need lots of datapoints. Check out Pollster.com for example.