A new WBUR/MassINC poll confirms that Marty Walsh has closed whatever gap existed between him and John Connolly.
Conducted over the weekend among 503 likely voters, Connolly led 35-34 among who-would-you-vote-for-todays, and 41-39 when you include leaners, a “toss-up” that confirms Walsh’s momentum in October, according to the pollster.
More good news for Walsh: even Connolly’s slight numerical edge depends on voters who did not vote in the preliminary, i.e. voters who are probably less likely to make it to the polls on Nov. 5. Without them, there’s a four-point swing to Walsh. And Walsh leads among voters for all the previous candidates except Conley and Ross. Further, the reputed gender gap is non-existent—the dead heat holds among both men and women. Education doesn’t make much difference, and the only age bracket where there’s a gap is 20-29, a small group among whom Connolly has a sizable lead.
More good news for Connolly: he is still preferred among voters who rate education the most important issue, by 40%-25%, and that is the highest-rated issue (30% put it at #1). But together, the next two highest concerns – economy/jobs (22%) and crime (17%) – outweigh education, and voters who rate each of these highest go to Walsh (24-18 and 18-15). No other issue made a blip.
Connolly also has maintained a small lead among black voters and, interestingly, white voters too. But Walsh makes up that gap with a large lead among voters who identify as neither white nor black. I expect the combined field organizations of Golar Richie, Arroyo, Barros, and Dorcena Forry to shift all of the nonwhite numbers in Walsh’s direction.
From the “They are who we thought they were” department: Walsh leads big (54-31) among those who make between $25k-$75k, while Connolly leads 46-35 among those who make $75k-$150k. And both these guys are well liked. Favorable/unfavorable are very positive and almost identical, at 60-17 for Connolly and 61-18 for Walsh.
Some quirks of the poll: voters were asked (albeit after being asked their candidate preference) whether union influence is a concern, but not about corporate or other types of influence. And they were asked the impact on their vote of four kinds of endorsement: minority prelim candidates; the Globe; “business leaders in Boston”; and Stand for Children. To me that is one pro-Walsh camp and three pro-Connolly—and without the context of its hugely divisive, hedge-fund-funded role in ed reform, the name of the group “Stand for Children” is very misleading.
Get into the weeds and tell me what I missed!
