The Channel 7/Suffolk poll out today (though if you can find it on Suffolk’s website you’re doing better than I am finally, it’s up – press release; crosstabs) shows that not much has happened since we released our poll almost two weeks ago. Piecing together reports about the Suffolk poll from WHDH and the Herald, here’s what we seem to have. Note that the Suffolk poll was taken Nov. 4-7, so it does not take into account the recent health care/abortion controversy.
Now (two weeks ago) net change
Coakley: 44% (42%) +2
Pagliuca: 17% (15%) +2
Capuano: 16% (16%) 0
Khazei: 3% (5%) -2
Undecided: 20% (22%) -2
All of those changes are well within the polls’ margins of error, so basically, nothing has happened. Which is of course great news for Martha Coakley, and terrible news for everyone else.
In other news from the poll, Christy Mihos is actually leading Charlie Baker among Republican primary voters 33%-30%, with 37% undecided. Great news for Christy, obviously, though that race remains largely below radar. And Deval Patrick continues to look like a winner as long as it’s a three-way race:
whomever carries the GOP nomination will have a tough time fending off Patrick, who handily surmounts Baker and Cahill with 38 percent of the vote compared to Baker’s 15 percent and Cahill’s 26 percent. The remaining voters surveyed were undecided.
With Mihos in the mix, Patrick takes 36 percent, while Cahill comes in second with 26 percent and Mihos third with 20 percent.
The Democratic primary is under the radar too, based on the Herald and Channel Seven coverage of the poll.
<
p>My concern is that the Democrats lucked out in an environment that is steadily becoming less hospitable to government expenditures of any sort.
<
p>What is obvious from the coverage is that the special Senate primary is purely an inter-activist dynamic, with next to no grassroots resonance.
<
p>The battle in the final election (assuming that the trend continues) will be crappy field against no field.
Especially now. I had my Martha Coakley button on and someone stopped me in line at the super market to say how proud she was of Martha’s stand. She furthered that she had even called the campaign to see what she could do to help thinking that if Martha could stand up for an issue important to her than she could stand up for Martha.
<
p> With Nancy Pelosi’s weirdly timed endorsement of Capuano it makes us wonder if a deal had been made. A little of what Mike calls “horse trading.”? Not sure Ms. Pelosi, first woman speaker of the house, highest woman office holder in the land, understands what she’s done. If she likes Mike so much why does she want him out of the House??? Just asking.
I gave her a call as are many from groups all around the country. Good thing her poll numbers are in the 20’s I think she’ll hurt Capuano and herself far more than Martha. Pity.
It’s somewhat disingenuous to compare head to head two polls from different polling firms and show trend lines, since any differences in the results are as likely to be due different sampling methods, rather than any actual change in voters opinions.
It’s almost, but not quite apples to oranges. Similar results aren’t uncommon with well-constructed polls. While problems exist in polling referenda, candidate polling is generally pretty accurate within the polls’ margins of error.
<
p>In the best of possible worlds, the polls could be compared and contrasted as in the Pollster.com graphics. The problem is the absence of tracking polling outside of those done in-house for the candidates.
<
p>The Suffolk polls, for what it’s worth, are pretty much gold standard for Massachusetts races.
…at least from their pollster rating page – Research 2000 ranks better than Suffolk (I’m assuming there isn’t another “Suffolk” polling firm that 538 is referencing).
<
p>http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
<
p>Be interesting to see what effect this recent flap over the Stupak amendment will have, though I doubt it’s enough to make any significant changes in the data (from either pollster!)
…because this is an almost purely activist dynamic. If the general public were engaged, it would work to Capuano’s advantage (given the economic and access issues re: health care).
<
p>However the general public ain’t engaged…
http://bostonherald.com/news/p…
<
p>
<
p>To me that’s the bigger story. Obviosuly that number will go up with time but I can’t imagine it will climb that much higher. There’s turkey’s to carve and presents to buy. Who care about the U.S Senate race when we have eggnog to drink!
Wow, you really think that when this is someone who can impact our nation in a great way?! we need to ensure that we elect a great leader
I was working the municipal election in Somerville and we had voters coming in all day asking where the Senate race was on the ballot. We even made little signs telling voters the Senate primary is December 8th, since we kept getting so many questions.
… for the campaigns’ field operations not doing their jobs. Other than televised spots nothing is coming from the campaigns to the electorate.
<
p>Thus nothing but crickets chirping at the grassroots.
I have to disagree.
<
p>The Capuano campaign has held almost 50 Open Mike events across the state. These are great events where anyone can ask Mike anything and get a direct, straight answer.
<
p>Also, the Capuano campaign has held almost 20 teletown halls reaching out to hundreds of thousands of voters.
<
p>You can see where the Capuano’s have been here and you can listen to some of the clips from the teletown halls here.
No one at the neighborhood level knew about them. Outside of the activist community and folks on the Democratic web, there was no notification.
<
p>Most civilians don’t follow (and have no intention of following) cyber-politics, and don’t download audio and video clips.
<
p>Netroots are important, but it’s a tactical error to conflate them with grassroots. The “teletown halls” were an attempt to “reach out to hundreds out to hundreds of thousands of voters”.
<
p>From a field perspective, the teletownhalls were worthless (except as spin); and the open mikes were limited where the rubber meets the road.
“‘reach out to hundreds of thousands of voters'”.
when you do a teletown hall, I believe the campaign sends out an autocall asking if you want to participate in it.
<
p>Even if they don’t participate or they are not home a message is left (My grandmother got one, I of course do not have a land line) which is a positive voter contact in my mind.
<
p>The participation level on these types of things is probably low, but why not if you get that voter contact in.
<
p>What are other campaigns doing? Nothing other than holding a sign at a street corner in my estimation. These direct voter contacts are better than the rest of the campaigns combined efforts.
<
p>
You asked (I assume rhetorically):
<
p>
<
p>My criticism was not about teletown halls per se, it was about the lack of personal contact to voters. Robocalls, for example have very low response rates, except arguably when they’re used in polling for ballot questions.
<
p>As a general rule people react best to folk they know or can relate to. I was not criticizing the Capuano effort in isolation. The same applies to all the Democratic candidates. At present there are only astroturf efforts going on; that works best for Coakley, who has the most to gain from an activist-driven, low-turnout race.
does Coakley have the most to gain from an “activist-driven, low-turnout race”?
<
p>All three other candidates gain substantially more from there being a low voter turnout. Currently Coakley is riding on her high name recognition and the fact that she is the only candidate to win statewide (among other things of course, but these two factors are most pertinent when considering the effect of voter turn out IMO). These advantages significantly decrease when the voting body is made up of (usually) very well educated voters who will almost entirely disregard the factors of name recognition and having won statewide.
<
p>Also supporters of the front-runner, especially when they perceive the lead to be insurmountable by opponents, are much less likely to turn out vs. underdog supporters.
<
p>Also in low turnout elections campaign organization is key, especially your election day gotv efforts. I think this race will be drastically closer than polls indicate precicely because of low voter turnout, while your analysis seems to suggest (if I read you correctly) that low turnout = Coakley landlside (i.e. even larger than the currently suspected landslide). I’m interested why you think this is so?
In a larger turnout race a more populist electoral dynamic would come into play, to Capuano’s advantage. Coakley’s advantage lies in the upper-middle class dynamic that separates progressives from (culturally blue-collar) liberal populists in this state. Negate that dynamic and Capuano benefits.
<
p>Coakley has more structural advantages than name recognition alone. She has the a pre-existing statewide organization, the support of Thomas Menino (arguably the best field politician of his generation), the trade unions, and pro-choice activists. In short the structural necessities for a short-cycle Senate campaign were all in place, funding excepted.
<
p>Low-turnout elections are heavenly bliss for the frontrunner’s GOTV because the contact universe is small. Contrawise, insurgencies like increased turnout because (presuming competent voter ID and field) they can swamp their opponents.
<
p>For this reason, campaign organization is important, proportional to turnout. A presumed winner in a low turnout race needs less GOTV because of the inevetability factor.
<
p>You said:
<
p>
<
p>While frontrunner support diminishes to a degree, demoralized supporters of other candidates are much less likely to go to the polls. On balance this disproportionately benefits the frontruner.
<
p>I think that you are conflating a strength (name recognition) with an effect (results of low voter turnout) and drawing suspect conclusions from such conflation. Name recognition is almost always a strength. You might wish to argue that the strength is diminished under lower voter turnout (although I wouldn’t argue such) but you cannot turn it into a weakness.
<
p>Nor are you cognizant of the processes that may underly a strong name recognition: people talking about your candidate. It’s not “people are talking about her because she’s famous” but rather, “She’s famous because people are talking about her.” You’re underlying premise is that she’s merely famous because she’s in the news alot… The distinction is subtle, but crucial: famous people get some votes, but talked about people get even more.
<
p>
<
p>This is true only for the case where a lead is truly sizable and exists to the point of near-insurmountability.
<
p>But this is an election where there are no coattails, riders, pet issues, referenda or, generally speaking, much of a ‘ticket’. Those who will turn out, are not turning out because the POTUS is on the ticket, and BTW, while they are there, they might as well vote the straight dem ticket or whomever it is that has a name they recognize. You can pretty safely assume that a vote for Coakley is a vote for Coakley in this instance. Likewise, a vote for Capuano is a clear vote for Capuano. etcetera… And any votes undertaken will have been influenced not at all by any other issue facing the state.
<
p>
<
p>Those who do turnout will do so for the sake of one name on one ballot. Every vote will be thought out. There is absolutely no reason to think the present polling on this issue reflects anything other than what people are thinking in advance of their vote. Nor is it logical to conclude that Coakley’s lead as it stands today is mere vapor backed by an insubstantial and fickle electorate. Those who’re paying attention today are those who will vote in Dec.
<
p>And, as has been mentioned prior, Martha Coakley has been in this position before. She’s got the statewide rolodex and has adroitly put it to use so far. It is her race to lose. Coakley landslide whatever the turnou
I wonder if this will change anything: http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta…
The effects on the ground will be limited, alas.
<
p>FYI, the Suffolk Poll is finally online.
Really stepping into an out-of-state primary….how common is that?
<
p>I’m waiting to see what Palin does…
🙂
“Basically unchanged”?? But I’m blogging as furiously as I can!
someone’s wrong on the Internet.
Since this race began, we’ve had essentially the same distribution of support and candidate name recognition, other that Steve Pagliuca whose flooded the air with ads.
<
p>Personally, I’ve been very frustrated with Khazei campaign so far since getting off the a strong start with rapid fundraising and building a volunteer base. Since then, I’ve seen nothing to show that the campaign is taking serious action to rapidly raise their public visibility: if people don’t know you, they won’t vote for you. They seem to running a campaing that work really well if the election was in September 2010, but it’s not.
<
p>I want a reason to take the time to go all out to campaign for Khazei, as I think he would be the best senator of the field, especially given he has the strongest record of moving major bipartisan legislation through congress. (Especially now that my former second choice Coakley has shown her willingness to the throw health reform under the bus, and Capuano hasn’t really moved up due to his bungling response.)
<
p>Endorsements are good, but they rarely move voters and almost never change media dynamics. I hope to see something soon.