From today’s Boston Globe Poll:
Coakley gaining ground against Baker, ceding in primary race
As it does every week, the poll also tracked the governor’s race, where Attorney General Martha Coakley continues to enjoy a gaping lead in the three-way Democratic primary, despite ceding some ground to Treasurer Steve Grossman recently. Coakley garnered 45 percent support among people who intend to participate in the Democratic primary, down from 50 percent from two weeks ago, while Grossman climbed from 16 percent to 20 percent during that time, meaning that Coakley’s lead had fallen by 9 percentage points.
Former federal health care administrator Don Berwick continued to trail, with 5 percent support, essentially unchanged over two weeks.
There was better news for Coakley in the general election matchup. After Charlie Baker, the leading Republican candidate, pulled within 3 points of her two weeks ago, Coakley has since widened her lead, opening up a 42 percent to 32 percent advantage over Baker
Baker still leads Grossman, 34 percent to 29 percent, in a head-to-head matchup, and Berwick, 37 percent to 24 percent, but his advantage over both has declined over the past two weeks
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/07/31/massachusetts-even-more-liberal-than-you-thought/HCk5j2MZ7b64zmi3SZiKzH/story.html
Somebody better call Carnival and make sure she hasn’t booked a cruise!
you’ve posted essentially the same lame snark on two different threads now. Well done.
If i were going to respond in kind I might note that your Doctor, having stalled at 5% for the last two weeks, can book his golf trip beginning September 10th.
However, I think I’ll be content to note that AG Coakley’s record for campaign victories stands at 5-2 including a large margin win for AG in 2010 just months after the special election. That speaks to a candidate who is capable, committed and good on at retail campaigning . . . and more than willing to do what needs to be done to win.
Oh wait, you can’t. Proving that she is good at keeping her day job against non existent opponents isn’t impressive.
Am I happy Berwick is going to lose no? Do I need it rubbed into my face every time I get passionate about his ideas? Or every time I critique the lack of bold leadership, new ideas, or respect for civil liberties from the Coakley camp? I don’t think so. You will need that 5% to beat Baker, let alone the 20% for Grossman, and too many of you seem to be forgetting that.
and you want a pass because your guy isn’t going to win? Really? Let’s say Berwick pulled out the upset. You’s need Coakley’s voters to beat Baker. You think you’re going to woo them like this?
But I think there is an arrogance that comes with being a front runner and I am getting the same sense of complacency from her campaign that I got in 2010. I emailed , called, and even got non MA friends at U Chicago to call their friends in MA for her. And she took a vacation, and she made errors she shouldn’t have made and she took that race for granted until it was too late. All I’ve been getting is we have to vote for her since Baker is worse, and the polls show she is going to cruise. Lay out a positive rationale for her candidacy. Throw a bone to the base.
I think he was referring to Coakley taking time off BEFORE voters went to the polls in her race against Brown.
She didn’t campaign on Christmas or the couple of days between Christmas and New Years. This is not what lost her the election.
This campaign and in her campaign for AG she has worked as any other candidate.
NT
It had better make me laugh too or it was down to the vice principals office for them. Sorry young man but off you go.
I don’t find Governor Baker funny at all, but that is what we are going to get.
And Striker, those other 5 elections were about as competitive as a Generals-Globetrotters game. The arrogance and presumption of Coakley supporters is astounding, with the exception of Kate, and until recently you and Judy, I would say they are going out of their way to make Berwick supporters tune out and stay home.
That you’re not even planning on voting here in MA this gubernatorial cycle, so this particular point falls a bit flat, coming from you.
Guess you don’t want me to donate, phone and, or call my friends and relatives like I did for Coakley against Brown. Pretty sure my ballot didn’t get there in time, but damn well sure I got five friends to promise to go the polls. Nope. She doesn’t need me, Tom, Harmony Wu, or any other berwick backer in the general. Or Christopher or Fenway either. You’re Baker boogeyman will fail to win over the grassroots.
Actually campaigning. You know, running canvasses, phone banks, recruiting volunteers. Not debating on BMG.
I’m a Democrat, belong to my town committee, hold a caucus seat on the state committee. Although I don’t favor a state single payer program for healthcare, I’d even support Berwick if he managed to win the primary, over any of the Republicans. Because they will all support the basic values and worldview that I share, while Charlie Baker is the kind of guy who turned people out of state institutions with no place to go and who trashed the state’s finances for a generation so his boss could run on a tax-cutting platform.
I find it hard to take you (or any one claiming to be be a bold progressive or saying they favor one) very seriously if your effort or your vote is contingent on anything anyone says on BMG.
I canvassed for Deval in. 2005, was on my student school committee and have stated active in MA politics as beat I can while I’ve been stuck here in IL. I didn’t choose to live here-I’m stuck here and have came damn close to landing jobs out here only to be the runner up several times.
My point is-don’t mock us as wide eyes idealists when we knock on doors too.
Which reminds me …..back to the call sheets. BMG during breaks keeps my juices going.
Given that Baker has lost his only statewide campaign and Coakley has won 3 statewide races, I find your conviction that Baker will be governor at least somewhat humorous.
As for competitive elections. Then first candidate Coakley lost a Democratic State Rep Primary in Dorchester (late 1990s) to a fellow named Marty Walsh. You may have heard of him recently. No disgrace in that and it set the table for her 1998 run for Middlesex DA.
Coakley defeated two good candidates – Michael Sullivan (now running for DA) and Tim Flaherty (who ran two strong races for State Senate afterwards) – in a tough primary. She then won a general walking away.
In 2006 Coakley ran statewide for the first time. She won the final election with 73% of the vote against an relatively unknown Republican. Unlike Baker, Coakley won her first statewide race becoming the first woman ever elected Massachusetts Attorney General.
In 2009, AG Coakley ran in the Special Democratic Primary for US Senate taking 47% of the vote in a four candidate field. I suspect Congressman Capuano would be surprised to be told he was a Washington General in that race. And then yes she lost to Brown in a combination of a poor campaign plan, mistakes by the candidate and a national uproar over the passage of the ACA.
Just months later, AG Coakley announced doe re-election, had no primary opponent (even with the grumblings of some Dems who blamed her for losing the Kennedy seat). She faced the voters 10 months after losing the Senate race and won handily.
The first DA’s race and the US Senate Primary were competitive races where candidate Coakley won with hard work. The fact that she was lightly challenged for re-election as DA and AG speaks to her strength as an elected official as opposed to being a flawed candidate who skated.
I’ve never written a bad work about Don Berwick nor Steve Grossman. I find Berwicks supporters to be smart, dedicated and carrying a grassroots campaign against the odds. I’m unclear on anywhere I’ve discouraged Berwick folks from supporting him or coming out to vote. Nor am I aware of anyone having the power to get another candidates voters to tune out.
Nor am I arrogant and presumptous about a Coakley Primary win. I’m working my rear end off for her. You have to win the playoffs to get to the Super Bowl. And you have to be at the top of your game to win the big prize. No one knows that better than AG Coakley.
What I won’t do is let inane snark and outright misinformation go unchallenged. Coakley never went on a cruise. She took a few days off during the holidays after a tough primary. She’s a proven vote getter, she’s a tested candidate. She has shown she can rebound after a loss and the voters have shown they will vote for her.
You and I are on the same side with Tolman and Sullivan, and my snark was counter productive. I just don’t like this feeling of inevitability I keep getting from the Coakley side and she will have a lot of fences to continue to mend. I look forward to her seriously considering Berwick’s issues and running a campaign based on a strong purist of truly progressive values and politics. Outside of social issues-I haven’t seen that from her yet.
I also said she has my support as the nominee. Sadly, I didn’t land the jobs I wanted to be starting now and lost my right to vote in MA. But I will root for her against Baker if she wins-in the meantime-it’s still a contest and these polls shouldn’t stop Berwick supporters from voting their conscience.
No feelings required. One merely has to look at the numbers.
Now about Mark Begich….
He is running better than expected, though he definitely drew a bad card with his opponent. Ditto Nunn in GA on that front.
I agree though-we should be discussing the national picture a bit more here.
I’d also like to see some more Tierney-Tisei polling. Lawn signs weren’t particularly encouraging over the weekend, but he also seems to be campaigning incredibly hard.
generally have a conservative bias, I notice.
Where Tisei has roots, generally has a conservative bias as well. Tisei won it 63-34 in 2012.
But yeah, most of them were in the more conservative sections of the district. Tierney has been very present in Salem according to those relatives.
I was in Salem and Beverly last week and saw plenty of Tierney signs.
but he will need the cities to turn out. And he needs to work Peabody (West Peabody in particular). Gloucester and the new part of the district hard. I don’t believe, regardless of best efforts, that Lynn will turnout in the final the way it did 2 years ago so other cities are key to a Tierney victory in November.
We have agreed, and do agree, on a number of candidates and issues. And we have had spirited discussions around those candidates and issues we don’t agree on. That’s all good by me.
I never let polls decide my vote. I doubt Berwick voters will. They strike me as committed to their candidate and the issues he’s making priorities. However, polls give us snapshots for elections in the moment – to that end they drive fundraising and public perception. I believe that Martha Coakley is the best Democratic candidate for Governor and has the best possibility of defeating Bake in November. At the least for the moment the polls confirm the later of my beliefs.
Here’s hoping you get back to MA sooner as opposed to later.
And when I do get back, first rounds on me.
I suggest that Ms. Coakley’s popularity has more to do with name recognition and her very effective management of the power-brokers of the Massachusetts Democratic Party than with her job performance. I grant you that the Boston Globe and mainstream media have sold her well. I do not view that as evidence that she’s actually done her job well.
While I applaud the respect and restraint you’ve shown here, several (even many) other members of the Martha Coakley fan club have not shown such restraint.
If we’re going to talk of “history lessons”, I find the history of Ms. Coakley’s performance as AG to be more informative than yet another play-by-play of her past elections.
What I find striking is the long list of increasingly severe scandals that have erupted on her watch, the equally long list of tepid or non-responses from her about those scandals, and the parallel rise of her political star.
I suggest that Martha Coakley has been very accomplished at making sure that those who can help the rise of her political star are shielded as much as possible from public pressure, while those who are impediments are left “dangling in the wind”.
It was a federal investigation, after a Boston Globe spotlight series, that finally blew open the Democratic Party’s wholesale patronage racket (otherwise known as the Probation Department). I suggest that Martha Coakley was careful to ensure that she, as AG, retained “plausible deniability” about the massive and criminal operation. I suggest that she made sure that she didn’t know, and I suggest that her fellow Democrats are eager to reward her loyalty.
I suggest that the interests of the Massachusetts voters come dead last in that cynical political calculus.
is responsible for the Probation Department mess. Some elected Democrats on the House and Senate recommended people to positions. So did some Republicans. No one has suggested / accused Patrick, Coakley Galvin, Bump, Grossman or State Party Chairs John Walsh and now Tom McGee, of any involvement.
I know we disagree on Coakley’s time as AG. I view the work she has done on predatory mortgages and banks, utilities, labor law, reproductive rights and banking issues as pluses in her run for Governor. While I am concerned about NSA and privacy issues, I view those as federal rather than state responsibilities. I understand we differ there.
You posted that Coakley could have shown real concern for women by standing up in some way for Annie Dookhan during the lab scandal. I believe she prosecuted a public employee committing fraud to collect a paycheck.
Returning millions of dollars to homeowners, utility customers, workers and taxpayers is dealing with fraud and criminal operations.
Cog? Not so much. Democratic Party leader? Yes. Running as a Democrat? Yes. As are Treasurer Grossman and Dr. Berwick.
I suggest the interests of Massachusetts voters (as workers, taxpayers, immigrants, low-income families, women) have been well served by AG Coakley.
I am a 14 year member of my Town Democratic Committee, and have been to every caucus (and most conventions) over the past 16 years. I have been a delegate committed to Harshbarger, Reich, and Patrick, elected due to my commitment to progressive candidates who organized early and packed large auditoriums to support their candidates.
Let’s be honest. Nobody was able to organize and control our caucus this year. I was not able to make a decision on a candidate before the caucus, and I was elected as an uncommitted delegate. Our delegation was split between uncommitted and Coakley. At the convention, most of our uncommitted delegates went to Berwick, but I decided in May to support Martha Coakley, because I think she is the best candidate and will be the better governor.
I know we are one of those progressive communities that routinely fly on the party’s left wing, so it is difficult to make definitive statements about the rest of the commonwealth based on the view from my town. That said, I want to say that I did not find any of the candidates who made the ballot to be objectionable. I like them all. I could happily and enthusiastically support Grossman or Berwick in the general election. I don’t think they are bad candidates, but I think Martha Coakley is better.
While I have been active in local politics for many years, I don’t consider myself to be a party insider. I have never met the speaker or senate president; i care more about my relationship with my local representatives and senators, and have supported their campaigns. The party insiders seem to have lined up behind Steve Grossman, and that’s understandable. He has earned their support over the years of close and honorable working relationships. He’s a good man. I like him. I talked to him on several occasions, but one of the reasons for supporting Martha Coakley was that I was able to have better and deeper conversations about local issues with her than any other candidate.
I like Don Berwick, and my progressive heartstrings are tugged by his rhetoric, but I also found him to lack depth beyond his core issue of single payer health care. I like the idea of single payer, I think it is the right thing to do as a nation, but I don’t think that’s the first priority in the Commonwealth. We have near-universal coverage, and if we need to engage in significant fights for change, I think our efforts would be better served by tackling education and our transportation infrastructure. While Don Berwick says the right things on education, my quick probe with follow-up questions just didn’t show a depth of understanding to support his position.
I wish everyone well, but I really find Charlie Baker to be a toxic alternative to any of the Democrats. He is more than just aligned with the Pioneer Institute, and a Charlie Baker administration would be devoted to the continued, aggressive privatization of public education. It would be an instant train wreck for public schools.
Let’s all praise and support our candidates in the primary. If one of the men can make an effective argument in the next month that eclipses Martha Coakley, I will be quick to join their team after the primary. To that end, I also ask those who support one of the men to make the same pledge to support Martha Coakley if she wins the primary, and that we should not be spending the next month damaging our primary candidates or our chance to beat Charlie Baker in November.
N/t
The difference between Coakley, Berwick and Grossman is that Coakley has a lot of very public, very hard decisions behind her, many of which have been directly adjudicated and judged by others. You have, in affect, license to dislike her because she’s come down on a wide a variety of decisions, some of which you might agree with, others of which you don’t, some vehemently. Others, forthrightly, agree with you and say so loudly. The sheer number of decisions an AG makes gives us a canvas to view her intent, actions and compromises. Without agreeing to everything she’s ever done, I will say I’m impressed with her work ethic, acumen, intelligence, thickness of skin and sheer willingness to, again and again, wade into the fray.
Berwick and Grossman are ‘pure’. They don’t have the public history of hard decision making behind them. They’ve never actually made the sausage, nor tried to cook and serve it… Nobody has adjudicated their decisions to a fare-the-well beyond the amorphous confines of partisan politics, freeing you to dismiss any criticism. You are free to believe their untested statements about themselves and about their intentions aligning with their actions. You are free, therefore, to project your fantasies of continued purity upon them: they expect to do as they expect to do… even though no Democrat in all the history of all Democrats ever ‘scaped the sullying compromise. This was true of Obama. This is true of Elizabeth Warren. It was true of Bill Clinton, JFK, LBJ and FDR. It will be true for whomever is the next Governor. It will be true for whomever is the next new Jesus that comes along. It will be forever and always true: democracies advance at a crawl with many missteps, wrong-turns and steps back… because all Democrats everywhere advance at a crawl with many missteps, wrong-turns and steps back. The test isn’t whether someone is perfect — because no one is or can be– but whether they are willing to be perfected though hard work and many decisions and outcomes, good and bad.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that Berwick is so willing, he seems like a nice guy, but Coakley is so much further along that path that it really is no contest… if what you want is the best interest of the CommonWealth.
Your assertion that Berwick and Grossman lack the “sausage” history of Coakley is simply bologna. Both men have a public history of hard decisions behind them and paper trails that I am certain the Baker team is scouring for misdeeds and mistakes. At this point in the campaign polls, it’s nothing more than name recognition for most voters. I’ve been out canvassing and few people are aware of the three people running, but they do recognize the name “Coakley” but name recognition is a double edged sword. If you doubt me, ask people to “name a British trans-Atlantic cruise ship of the early 1900’s”.
… I’ll wait.
The mere fact that anybody, much less the Baker campaign, has to ‘scour’ anything proves my point. With Coakley, no “scouring’ is necessary: it’s all out there.
The fact that you will yet dismiss the results of any such ‘scouring’ of Berwick and/or Grossman as mere political gamesmanship further concretizes the point.
Meanwhile, you take the SJC’s judgements on Martha Coakleys actions as wholly legitimate and rationalizing criticism. Maybe they are exactly that… but that just makes comparisons between Coakley and Berwick like apples and oranges…
Actually, Coakley has yet to lose a statewide primary.
Yeah, well, that’s not reality, is it?
Again, the big guns of the Baker campaign have yet to fire. You think that Coakley is above any connection to anything negative, real or imagined or circumstantial? Ask John Kerry how the Swift Boat deal worked out.
I’m trying to view this from perspective of an independent, half informed voter. That’s who will decide this election, the same demographic that elected Scott Brown and then elected Elizabeth Warren. Both championed the outsider, the bold, the unique.
On the Democratic option list, I see Don Berwick and Don Berwick alone fitting that paradigm.
was petr point. Coakley is a known quantity to Massachusetts voters. Grossman less so and Berwick hardly at all. Big money can do more to define Grossman and Berwick with negatives than it can with Coakley. She goes into a final election with a large segment of Massachusetts voters (Dem, Repub and I’s) knowing who she is and having an opinion about her record.
On September 10, the Republicans can start a negative campaign against the Democratic nominee, with an attempt to define their opponent. That’s exactly what Mitt Romney did to Shannon O’Brien, and Paul Cellucci did to Scott Harshbarger.
The reality is that Martha Coakley is well liked and respected by a large enough portion of Massachusetts voters, so that a GOP effort would need to redefine Martha and reverse a generally favorable opinion. Berwick, and to a lesser extent Grossman, are not well defined in the minds of voters and an intense mid-September media buy can do some significant damage.
“Martha Coakley is well liked and respected by a large enough portion of Massachusetts voters”-but failed to get more than 25% of the delegates to “like” her. Those two things don’t add up for me. Then again, Don Berwick fared much the same at the convention. So, how are we measuring “like”. I think you are confusing “know” with “like”.
“Berwick, and to a lesser extent Grossman, are not well defined in the minds of voters and an intense mid-September media buy can do some significant damage.” Damage to what? How does the Baker campaign do damage to what you describe as an undefined character?
I see this whole probation deal as an albatross that the Republicans would love to hang on the Democrats. Of the three, Coakley, Grossman, and Berwick, who is the easier target regardless of any plausible deny-ability any one may have?
I suspect that Berwick will give more red meat to the far right Republicans to chew on, but that demographic is never voting for a Democrat. If the three Democrats, which one appeals to the independent voter?
I keep seeing this race in November won by the candidate that is the revolutionary outsider. That’s how Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren won.
Voters ≠ Delegates. If the delegates were representative of primary voters, Steve Grossman would have the big lead in the polls. Scroll up to the top of the thread.
The recent Globe poll asked for favorable : unfavorable : not well enough known for the three Democrats. Here’s the results:
Coakley: 54 : 37 : 9.
Grossman: 33 : 14 : 52.
Berwick: 10 : 5 : 85.
It’s the “not well enough known” cohort that is the target efforts to define a candidate. Lots of room to define Berwick, not as much for Grossman but still a majority of voters. Coakley? Just 9% undefined. For Baker to beat Coakley, he has to do more than just persuade the folks in the “not well enough known” category. He needs to convert folks with a favorable opinion. That’s a much more difficult task.
Our best information about how Bay Staters regard Coakley is from polling. It is not from introspection or pulling things from body parts. Pablo above provides the data. By objective criteria, Coakley remains popular.
Based on the polls provided from the Globe, what explains Coakley’s poor performance at the recent convention? Coakley was almost beaten by a virtual unknown.
Berwick has immense appeal to activists, but man, he’s still at freaking 5% in the polls.
the reverse, or something nearly the reverse, is also true.
Coakley will bring some serious baggage with her to the general campaign. It won’t matter that some of the themes on which she is vulnerable are not fair.
Between the ballot questions and the Probation scandal this is shaping up to be an election that really motivates the GOP base. GOP-base arguments apply.
I’m not saying that G or B would fare any better against Baker. It’s not possible to know that. But C has her own liabilities, if you are going to raise this as an issue.
Bill Clinton, LBJ, and FDR had lengthy histories for voters to evaluate. So does MC. In my view, she comes up short on virtually every issue of substance available from her record.
I’ve already had years to taste the sausage Martha Coakley makes and I want no part of it.
n/t
We agree that those figures had lengthy histories.
I think they won because voters liked them. I think MC will lose because voters will reject hers.
I doubt that I’m the only Massachusetts voter who will choose a different brand of sausage — or, in my case, eat vegetarian in November.
… that you couldn’t get back to it with a nickel if it took a quarter to go round the world…
All well and good for you to evaluate Coakley and say she’s lacking. Perhaps she is. So don’t vote for her.
My point is simple: you cannot apply the same analysis to either Berwick or Grossman. They don’t have the record; they haven’t been in the arena; they are not better by comparison because you don’t (I don’t, they don’t, nobody does…) have the wherewithal to make valid comparisons. You are, essentially, “taking a flyer” on them. I have no objection to that, and, absent Coakley from the race, I’d probably take a flyer on Berwick also. To some extent that’s sometimes the nature of politics. You hope and you cast your vote. So go ahead and take that flyer. That’s fine. Just don’t tell me you’re certain, because you cannot be. You can’t tell me that Berwick would be a better Governor: I have a good idea about what kind of Governor Coakley will be and nothing whatsoever, besides wishful thinking, about what kind of Governor Berwick would be… You contend that Coakley would be so bad that even Charlie Baker would be better, but Baker has much the same problem as Berwick: no real record to evaluate him upon… And we’re back from whence we started. (His tenure in the Weld Administration being so opaque and in the distance as to effectively nullify it…)
What I do object to is the surety that the demonstrated abilities and choices of Coakley are somehow character defects in comparison to YOUR PROJECTED beaux ideal, a la Grossman or Berwick or even Baker. If you don’t like Coakley’s cooking, that doesn’t make Berwicks’ talk about his cooking, by default, better cooking. The proof is in the pudding.
I was bitterly bitterly disappointed in both Barack Obama and Deval Patrick… perhaps as disappointed in them as you are in Coakley. But I voted for them both a second time because I knew, to a certainty, what exactly to expect from Mitt Rmoney in one instance and Charlie Baker in the other. I voted for them a second time, also, because they were not the first politicians to disappoint me…. and I know they won’t be the last. Indeed, no politician has ever fulfilled promise… to the point that I distrust warm-fuzzies about politicians. Berwick, should he become Governor, will disappoint you. Perhaps not as much as Coakley or Patrick have. Perhaps far greater than… but let us not pretend you aren’t taking that chance
I never claimed certainty, especially about Dan Berwick. I agree that his performance in “the kitchen” of state government is untested. I share your disappointment in (even betrayal by) Barack Obama. I am less disappointed by Deval Patrick. If casino gambling comes to us, I will view that as his most important legacy — it will make him, overall, a disappointment to me.
I’m simply saying that I know what Martha Coakley’s sausage tastes like, and Charlie Baker’s is no worse.
I won’t vote for Charlie Baker. I also won’t vote for Martha Coakley. My only hope, and it is quickly vanishing, is that I will instead get to choose between Charlie Baker and Dan Berwick.
That, for me, is an easy choice — Don Berwick.
Can anyone give us insight as to the criteria used for these polls? Based on the outcome of the convention and relative lack of any news/campaigning on the public level, what we are seeing here amounts to name recognition.
Mind you, if my preferred candidate were doing better, I might not want to ask this question!
I think the Capital section is an interesting addition to the Globe, but since these polls are so new, we have no way to assess their credibility. I also remember that a few weeks back one of their polls suggested that 14% percent of respondents would like someone MORE if they learned that they had smoked marijuana. After that statistic was batted about the twittershpere for a while, the Globe’s pollster Della Volpe came back and said “Whoopsie! We meant LESS.” Makes me wonder about the Globe polls & wish their were some others.
As I’ve been canvassing, one thing that strikes me the most is the number of people who are completely unaware that there is a primary vote in September. So how does that affect these “polls”?
Polling is not some brand new thing just invented in 2014 where professional pollsters “forget” to take into account the fact that lots of people don’t show up at primaries.
I’ve linked multiple times to the 2006 governor’s race article on Wikipedia. The polls there weren’t far off. You’re welcome to check out what actual polling has predicted. You’re sounding like an election night Republican in 2012 where they all believed, according to their “unskewed” polls that Romney would win. You might bring a bit of skepticism to your belief in your own, non-professional ability to unskew.
The polls are bad, I’m not gonna pretend they aren’t, but I strongly agree that we should canvass everyone and let the voters decide. Coakleys blown big leads before in a shorter amount of time.
One day at a time, my friends. One day at a time.
Supposing Grossman gets within striking distance of Coakley, which I think likely, will any Berwick voters who dislike C switch to G?
(Oh for a better voting system!)
And I would encourage others to do so.
At present: Coakley 45%, Grossman 20%, Berwick 5%. This means 30% are up for grabs. Berwick is the only one without name recognition. This campaign starts in August. If we get to August 21 and it’s Coakley 35%, Grossman 30% and Berwick 20% with 15% undecided, that could lead to enough of the “I’d Vote For Berwick if I thought he could win” to change bandwagons. Anecdotal, I know but “I’d Vote For Berwick if I thought he could win” was the most common comment I heard at the convention.
I have a vague recollection of a WBUR poll showing that Steve’s name recognition is pretty low.