The Herald just released the results of its most recent polling on the gubernatorial race and statewide races. It shows a troubling dead heat, one that is largely unchanged by the ‘Sweetheart’ gaffe or Coakley’s ads about womens issues or being a Beacon Hill outsider. The casino repeal and bottle bill seem to be losing badly as well, though fortunately the gas tax repeal is also trailing at this point.
Some specifics:
- The Governor’s Race Still a Dead Heat
Baker and Democrat Martha Coakley are in a virtual tie, with the Attorney General at 44 percent with Baker at 43 percent, according to the Suffolk-Herald poll of 500 very likely voters. The poll shows eight percent are undecided, indicating voters are starting to make up their minds.
- “Sweetheart gaffe’ has had little effect
The poll shows even though 39 percent of voters say Baker’s “sweetheart” comment to a reporter was condescending, just 34 percent say they don’t trust Baker on women’s issues. Nearly half of voters say they do trust Baker to stand up for women, the poll shows.
- Parallel gender gaps:
Coakley holds an 11 point lead among women voters over Baker, a solid but not overwhelming number. Baker leads by 11 points among men, the poll shows
- Voters believe Coakley is an insider:
Coakley’s effort to portray herself as a Beacon Hill outsider also doesn’t appear to be sticking with voters, with about half of voters saying they think she is a Beacon Hill insider.
My take:
These are troubling signs of a troubled candidacy. Coakley had a wide lead going into this race at the start of the campaign, had her favorability ratings and approval ratings largely stay intact during a rather tame primary, and Baker has made a number of gaffes that should appeal to her core constituency and issues. Bungled responses to Hobby Lobby and the Ray Rice case, and the infamous sweetheart gaffe, and yet he is only trailing Coakley by 11 points among women while holding a similar lead among male voters. Women, young persons, and people of color are key to winning statewide elections in Massachusetts. They were a key component of both of Deval Patrick’s victories, and a key component of Sen. Warren’s election.
Low turnout among two of those three groups (young people and minorities), led in part, to the election of Scott Brown. If women aren’t showing up to vote against Baker, or are unconvinced by Coakley’s line of attacks, than its time to focus on other issues.
I have long argued that if Coakley sticks to social issues she loses, like it or not, most people are soundly convinced that Baker is a social liberal/moderate Republican in the Weld/Cellucci mold and not a Michelle Bachman clone. Going after him on paid leave, his flop flopping on the minimum wage, and his aversion to needed transit, education, or health care spending is the way to bring our base back without alienating too many independents or moderate Dems.
And the anti-casino campaign has to get on the air and make the persuasive economic case that this is a boondoggle of corruption and taxpayers will get stuck with the bill. No other argument will resonate as strongly as that one.
I think that would be a great slogan for Coakley.
Coakley’s $225,000 to Baker’s $1.25 million. Say what you want about primaries, but Coakley is certainly worse off for having spent on one
I finally saw an ad for her this morning, but until she has enough money, she’s in trouble.
Coakley is a lousy candidate. Really lousy. She doesn’t seem to improve at all. She’s dull and when she doesn’t say the wrong thing, she says something obvious or expresses important things without passion. I’ve worked for/with a few candidates, and they all had a learning curve that Coakley seems to lack.
The biggest irony is that Baker, in spite of looking good on paper, also sucks. He’s sort of white, middle-aged guy good looking, but he’s also dull and uninspiring. And a lousy speaker as well. Anyone else notice when he made a gesture at this week’s debate that looked vaguely pornographic?