Democratic heir to Ted Kennedy leads Republican challenger by … nine points?
posted at 10:55 am on January 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Massachusetts elects Democrats to the US Senate. Actually, to be entirely accurate, they elect two kinds of Democrats to the US Senate — Kennedys and Kennedy wannabes, which is why Ted Kennedy held his seat for over 45 years and why John Kerry keeps his despite his lackluster career. When a Kennedy-anointed candidate runs for this office, Bay State voters fall into line — or at least they did in the past. The latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Massachusetts doesn’t quite show a break with history yet, but it does show that it’s possible:
State Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
The special Senate election will be held on January 19 and special elections typically feature low turnout. That’s one reason the race appears to be a bit closer than might typically be expected for a Senate race in Massachusetts. Kennedy carried 69% of the vote when he was reelected in 2006.
Last month, I speculated that a campaign by Brown against ObamaCare could shake loose some support and energy and allow him to score an upset. E.J. Dionne disagreed, saying that ObamaCare and its Massachusetts antecedent were more popular than I presumed. In this case, Dionne was right; Rasmussen finds that ObamaCare has a majority supporting it, 53%/45%, although the numbers reverse for those strongly favoring or opposing it, 27%/36% — which could still generate some heat for Brown.
The internals for Rasmussen show that Coakley does well among women and among most of the age demographics; Brown wins 60% of the thirtysomethings, but doesn’t score 40% among any of the others. There is significant partisan crossover going both directions; 24% of Republicans support Coakley, while 17% of Democrats support Brown. Since there are far more Democrats than Republicans in Massachusetts, that seems like no worse than a wash for Brown.
Meanwhile, Democrats have a problem with independents in Massachusetts as well as nationally. Independents sharply favor Brown, 65%/21%, and they oppose ObamaCare by a wide margin, 68%/30%. Fifty-five percent of all MA independents strongly oppose the plan. They also view Coakley unfavorable, 36%/59%, while giving Brown excellent favorability at 81%/9%. For Obama, that number goes to 31%/69% despite having an overall approval rating in the state of 57%/42%.
If Brown is to win this race, he needs to do a better job of reaching Republicans and dissident Democrats in the last two weeks of the election. With a big enough push, he could eat into that nine-point lead, especially if the GOP deliver an efficient GOTV effort in a special election. Even a close call would send a big signal to Democrats about the tough road ahead in 2010.
Update: Jules Crittenden has more.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Would be sweet if the RINO won the swimmers seat.
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM
All in.
mad saint jack on January 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Go Brown! I’ll be smiling for days if this happens. Hell, I may even break down and watch a chick flick with my wife just to show her how happy I am.
darwin on January 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
My question is, why is there an independent Tea Party person in the race… (was there not a primary?) and how much are they going to take from 1) the Republican and 2) the Democrat because their name is Kennedy.
Enoxo on January 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Brown should consider driving off a bridge.
OhioCoastie on January 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
You’d think the people of Massachusetts would be a little tired of being treated as subjects whose sole reason for existence is to vote corrupt Kennedy’s and their parasites into office.
darwin on January 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM
I’m not sure why everyone’s going bonkers over this. It’s a 9 point lead with less than 2 weeks before the election and the RNC isn’t even making an attempt at helping this guy out.
A close call doesn’t mean squat to the DNC because they’re running on the belief, stated by Bill Clinton, that once the plans are passed they’ll be welcomed as conquering heroes by the Iraqis… er… us. At the very least, this will all be forgotten by the Democrats.
And, unfortunately, I think he’s right. The Democrats will step in line, and the RNC doesn’t have any opposing wave/strategy to build up support of the masses who are feeling VERY disenfranchised right now.
Skywise on January 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM
(I AM SPEECHLESS !)
They also view Coakley unfavorable, 36%/59%, while giving Brown excellent favorability at 81%/9%.
HAS ANYONE SEEN THE GOP ANYWHERE LATELY?
Interesting article. DONATE, PRAY, DONATE, PRAY repeat !!!!
stenwin77 on January 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Then we can hope they elect this one too:
http://joekennedyforsenate.com/
Rae on January 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM
I don’t believe the numbers. The race is MUCH closer than 9 points.
I’m in Massachusetts and the ground sense is a far stronger backing for Scott Brown.
I was in a stand-out last night, holding Brown signs in downtown Concord, MA – a liberal stronghold – during the evening rush hour and we got a lot of support from people driving by – honks, thumbs-up, shouts of encouragement, even a few requests for signs.
If we got that kind of reaction from Concord, it speaks volumes about how the rest of the state feels.
Scott said at a fundraiser later on that his election would send a thunderclap across the country.
That’s what we need to do – send a shot across the bow of the SS Harry Reid and TAKE AWAY HIS MAJORITY.
Visit http://www.brownforussenate.com and add your support!
This is an election of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. Every vote is crucial.
sultanp on January 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM
But with only 2 weeks left, will it be enough???
Abby Adams on January 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM
he should promise to build better guardrails on chappaquiddick bridge as a means of saving young ladies’ lives…./s
ted c on January 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM
This would be such an amazing get for us – there are no words.
I think if Brown wins I’d fall off my recliner at home
gophergirl on January 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM
I refuse to get my hopes up after the Dede Fatso Fiasco. He’s got 2 weeks to close the gap, and I just don’t see it happening.
But then again, Rasmussen is a racist shill for the Republican party, so what do I know?
Knucklehead on January 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Coakley has the closest thing to God’s personal stamp of approval that there is in Ma.
Meanwhile, Scott Brown has no state Republican machinary to speek of, and ZERO support from the RNC. With limited turnout who knows what could happen?
This was winnable. But without Republican watchdogs on the ballot boxes, it’s probably a lost cause. As Ann Coulter said: If the RNC can’t even keep Stuart Smally from stealing an election, then why do we even HAVE an RNC?
logis on January 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Close, indeed.
Jeff2161 on January 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM
This is some positive news for the Brown camp. Our state is divided 50% ind, 30% dem, and 12.5% gop.
Brown needs to focus on jobs and maintain a positive campaign. The last thing he needs to do is talk about the national healthcare debate. Talking about it would place him in lock step with DC republicans, whose image is very very poor in MA.
This is a special election meaning low turnout. Brown has an outside chance.
SED on January 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Ted Kennedy was unavailable for comment.
Jeff2161 on January 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Why is the national GOP abandoning this race? Are they refusing to spend money on anything that isn’t a surefire win?
I realize they got burned by the Scuzzy-flavor fiasco, but that was a disaster from the beginning when that idiot was nominated. Brown is a quality nominee and actually has a shot here. And it’s not like there isn’t a lot at stake with this Senate seat.
Doughboy on January 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Moving over to this thread…
9 points is symbolic, but in practical terms… in MA… it’s almost certainly insurmountable… particularly with such a relatively small number of undecideds and Coakley already at 50%.
But, good golly, I’d dance an Irish jig if he was able to win.
mankai on January 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Jobs / Spending / Domestic Energy
marklmail on January 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Does anyone really believe Axel Snob and Dead Fish would ever allow this to happen??
BigWyo on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Never underestimate the lemming-like stupidity and cult-like Kennedy worship of the Mass voter. If the Tea Party guy does any damage it’ll be to Coakley because of people swooning over the Kennedy name and pulling the lever for him without knowing a thing about him.
crazy_legs on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM
It’ll be interesting to see what Public Policy Polling comes out with next. They are polling up in Massachusetts this weekend, and we all know that weekends are generally much more favorable to democrats. If they have Brown within 10 points, you can be sure it’s more like 5-7 points.
SouthernGent on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM
RNC…MIA
New York, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, New Jersey, they don’t get it…the RNC is missing huge opportunities.
right2bright on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM
I just donated $25 to Brown, if we all do this it will add up.
sebis on January 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Man, that’s scary. *shiver*
MassVictim on January 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
This is good for Brown. In Massachusetts, 17% of Democrats is roughly twice as many people as 24% of Republicans.
Emperor Norton on January 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
That’s what it appears…but they have elected Republicans (or sort), like Romney…
right2bright on January 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Scott Brown will be live on Laura Ingraham shortly.
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Once again, it is far more accurate to say that “right-leaning people are more likely to identify themselves as independent than they were even in 2008″ than to say that “independents have moved to the right.”
(Sadly, this means that ‘independents tending Republican’ is not really as surprising, nor hopeful, as it sounds.)
notropis on January 5, 2010 at 11:19 AM
when is this election?
ted c on January 5, 2010 at 11:19 AM
..saw Mike Steele’s pic on a milk carton at Stater Bros. yesterday. That help?
VoyskaPVO on January 5, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Don’t be too surprised if a republican wins that Patrick will call the election null and void. then will put in a governor picked communist in to fill the swimmer’s term.
Rules mean nothing to the communists.
jukin on January 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM
January 19.
MassVictim on January 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Repugnicans should legally and formally change their names to Kennedy and run for office . It would be easy enough to promote the rumor the reason for the change was to hinor you biological father , then refuse further comment on the same griounds as obambi keeps his records closed .
borntoraisehogs on January 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM
I wouldn’t go that far. But if Brown wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes a good long time to officially certify the election — at least until after the health care bill is voted on. If Coakley wins, she’ll be in DC the next day.
MassVictim on January 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Laura is sounding very encouraged about this race.
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM
I Saw Michael Steele on Hannity last night plugging his upcoming book.
/sad and annoyed, and I was for Steele as Chairman.
Enoxo on January 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Not gonna happen, folks, as long as motor voter and Acorn are alive and well. But, just for grins and giggles, lets say Brown gets elected, do you really think the dems won’t just buy off a few R’s to keep the 60 votes.
Kissmygrits on January 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Jan 19th! whoa, every day counts big. These guys need to get on the stick and bury teddy once and for all.
ted c on January 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Brown is a 30 year vet.
http://www.brownforussenate.com
Send money.
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Michael Steele was on Hannity last night. Good grief, I thought the video would be posted here after some of the crap and the drooling he was saying about the Maine sisters and the RINO’s,
Knucklehead on January 5, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Well to be fair he was the last in a line of Republican governers here. The reason that first one won (IE Weld) is he ran again John “Slots” Silber who blew the election by saying stuff about how granny should know when it’s her time to die and getting PO’d at a TV reporter during an interview. (No, I’m not making that up either. Even given that the election was 50% to 47% for Weld so the people here still almost voted for the Democrat. (Then it became a thing of voting for the incumbent party for gov. That lasted until the people here decided they wanted to do a trial run of the Obama experiment by voting for Barry-Lite for governer. At this point I wish when they say governer Patrick it meant Patrick from Sponge Bob was our governer.)
Dave_d on January 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Anyone have a link?
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM
If he wins ObamaCare is DOA. Why not turn this in a referendum. All this talk about, “Don’t talk about Healthcare, it’s divisive” is why the Republican party is a minority party. Enough with the big tent thinking and more magnet thinking. If ObamaCare is really that unpopular then I say make it an issue. Remind people that if Brown wins the Dem Super majority is gone and they must negotiate
wiseprince on January 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM
I’m not sure the votes are there among the usual gaggle of RINOs. They see what the Dems do not and (so far) have ensured that Obama owns this debacle.
Healthcare is going to be passed by extraordinary means that circumvent the legislative process as Dems hammer out a compromise in the shadows thwarting public opinion and all the hallmarks of honest legislation. Browns victory would mean one thing only- an awful lot of Dems requiring a new set of underwear as they contemplate their chances for November. A Kennedy-free MA delegation would be a wonderful warning shot to the election that is to come.
highhopes on January 5, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Of course it should be noted that the voters of MA may be held somewhat responsible for the outcome of the Obamacare vote.
royzer on January 5, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Martha Coakley is a loathsome troll – probably the most uninspiring candidate the democrats could have come up with in this race. She is all prose and no poetry, all politics and no feeling. I have a lot of family in Massachusetts, all liberal Democrats, and they can’t stand her. Democratic voters are not motivated at all to come out and vote for her.
I can also say from personal experience that Coakley has been among the worst attention-grabbing state AGs in the country. She is Andrew Cuomo in a skirt. The regulations she tried to shove through on mortgage lending in 2006 would have caused every lender in the country to leave the state and would have led to a serious credit crisis in the state. She didn’t care, she just wanted to score political points.
rockmom on January 5, 2010 at 11:32 AM
“Ripe? Time to go?” That was classic.
But let’s face it, Silber was years ahead of his Democratic party’s death panels.
MassVictim on January 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM
People in Massachusetts don’t give a crap about the Kennedys. It’s all media hype. It’s just a matter of the Democratic machine delivering or manufacturing enough votes to get this mess over the finish line.
The “do it for Teddy” blather has an easy antidote: “Do it for Mary Jo.” That other Axelrod puppet (their governor) is unpopular enough, along with the stinky-poo healthcare lesislation, that Brown should hang this all on his opponent.
This is 2010. Our year.
EMD on January 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Mr. Brown was just on Laura’s show. Seems impressive but someone (not mentioning any names) might have allowed him to talk more then giving campaign advice. Of well, I am sure it will net him some bucks and that will be good.
Cindy Munford on January 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
I’m still dreaming of the guy who will promise to repeal the Porkulus and Obamacare, but maybe I’ll have to wait until Brown is elected president.
Good luck to him. Break that stranglehold!
PattyJ on January 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM
I always wish Laura would let her guests have more talk time.
OmahaConservative on January 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM
At times it seems that her relationship (professional) w/ BOR affects her interviewing style.
thomasaur on January 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM
***
I lived in Taxachusetts in 1969. I visited on business from 1967–2006. This is a very liberal, very union state. I don’t think this 9 percent gap will be closed. Most of the people I know there think the democRATs will do a much better job for them than the evil republicans will.
***
They seem to like high taxes and big government, and like to overtax their industries to pay for this corrupt state government. And the industries are bailing out for more business friendly states.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on January 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM
They would do this if only for payback for Pawlenty refusing to certify the MN senate election while the contest was going through the courts.
Wethal on January 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Won’t happen.
RNC is AWOL.
Libs will make sure they stuff enough ballots to keep Brown out. Whatever it takes.
Midas on January 5, 2010 at 11:46 AM
+One Trillion.
Knucklehead on January 5, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Ignore the polls and vote!
Hening on January 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM
RNC gave millions to Scuzzy but has given squat to Brown. And they wonder why nobody is donating money.
angryed on January 5, 2010 at 12:00 PM
I think you answered your own question there.
It’s not just socialized medicine though, a win in MA would be an early referendum on the entire collectivist agenda.
Based on everything we’ve seen, does anyone really believe the RNC want to end the American Welfare state? Of course not. It’s all part of the Kabuki; at any given time, half of the dancers are leading and half are following. But they’re all heading in the same direction.
Even if the RNC magically grew a pair tomorrow, we (conservatives) can’t possibly hope to get a 2/3d’s majority in Congress this November. 2010 is all about cleaning house; getting people in there who will make more noise than Newt Gingrich did in his prime; and paving the way for 2012.
logis on January 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Look, I’ll be happy too, but let’s not get carried away. My wife and I agreed to alternate movie selections. I sat through “27 Dresses” (hated it) and then I rented “The Untouchables” and she flat-out refused to watch it. Two words: Never again.
Oh yeah. Go Scott Brown.
Oh yeah,
JohnInCA on January 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Hard to believe that Massachusetts was once the home to Concord, Lexington and the original Tea Party. It’s been a long fall.
MainelyRight on January 5, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Kerry, Kennedy, Frank, Markey, and a solid blue delegation… the voters have an awful lot of shameful behavior to make up for before they are off the hook.
highhopes on January 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM
I really hope that posts like this do not get everyone’s hopes up too much, or cause conservatives to blame Michael Steele or the RNC if Brown does not win this election.
Martha Coakley is a weak candidate and Scott Brown is attractive. But Brown actually winning this election is an extremely tall order. Massachusetts has not had a Republican Senator since Edward Brooke, and nobody here would ever claim him as a real Republican. In other words, this state has NEVER elected a conservative Senator. The Republicans who served as Governors in receent years were not conservative either. You guys are smoking crack if you think Scott Brown can win an election in Massachusetts by running as a conservative, or that winning this election is simply a matter of getting the RNC to throw a few thousand bucks into it. This is NOT the same situation as the NY-23 special was.
rockmom on January 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Dream on people, it’s Massachusetts. These nitwits re-elected Ted the drunk murderer seven times.
fogw on January 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Brown has nothing to hide anymore
Falz on January 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Technically they are still home to Concord, Lexington, and one of the original tea parties (other colonies also reacted to the tea tax). The borders of the state did not move.
As a practical matter the spirit behind those events and others in the pre-revolutionary period have died within Mass.
highhopes on January 5, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Wouldn’t it be loverly.
jeanie on January 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM
The reason Brown has a chance:
That’s an amazing stat, and combined with Coakley’s higher negatives, there’s some very interesting potential for Jan. 19th.
Brown needs money and he needs to get on TV.
Robert_Paulson on January 5, 2010 at 12:16 PM
The Hillbuzz blog (written by Chicago Democrats) asks, “Question of the Day: Will Republicans get off their butts and do something for once in Massachusetts?”
afone2 on January 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Brown’s pro-choice and seems somewhat fiscally conservative. How does that differ from Bill Weld or Romney pre-2006?
TimTebowSavesAmerica on January 5, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Giving his daughters more face time in his ads certainly wouldn’t hurt his campaign…
Added bonus – the older one, Ayla, was a top ten finalist on American Idol. ;)
racecar05 on January 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Watch the 2 newest ads from the Brown campaign at http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/04/tv-ad-scott-brown-and-his-trusty-aide/
dnlchisholm on January 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Ed,
You are spot on with your comment about the need for the GOP to concentrate it’s efforts on an efficient GOTV effort, especially in a special election like this one, where turn-out is traditionally quite low.
As Rasmussen also notes, this poll suggests it is now a TWO POINT RACE among voters who say they will definitely vote!
The stories it will generate, will now almost automatically guarantee that turnout will be larger than if would have been had it been a 15 or 20 point spread.
That is NOT what the Democrats wanted, even though Rasmussen suggests that a higher turnout in the end could possibly favor her. The Democrats originally wanted a low turn-out race, with Coakley seen as a big favorite with an insurmountable lead.
They have definitely been thrown off their game plan, and will now scramble for traction.
The White House and other Coakley supporters will no doubt now revisit their attack on Rasmussen as partisan players. But you can also be certain that she will suddenly have a host of visitors from elsewhere — including one or two from The One, and, no doubt, a few Hollywood celebrities.
The point is, however, that even a few appearances by The One didn’t work so well for Corzine in New Jersey!
This race is not about energizing the Democrat base; it is about the utter dissonance between the basic political views of independents, and the current national Democrat agenda.
Water, meet oil!
People simply do not like to vote for a loser, even when they do not particularly care for the projected winner. But the fact that Brown is now within striking distance will bring more voters right out of the woodwork — some for and some against. His best shot is simply hitting the gas, and being perceived as the candidate with the momentum.
And he should try and paint her as the putative rubber stamp Reid/Pelosi candidate, one who took the voters for granted — even trotting off (as pointed out by Prof. Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion for a six day vacation (out of State) with just a few weeks to go.
Trochilus on January 5, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Rather than debate Brown’s stand, here is the text from his web site:
In other words, Brown at least qualifies his support for the right to abort. (Weld was unabashedly pro-abortion.) Given that Brown is running against Coakley, this is enough to earn the support of Mass Citizens For Life. Perhaps Brown is the lesser of two evils on this issue; but he also can help defeat the health care bill, which will use taxpayer funds for abortions if it passes.
MassVictim on January 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM
That’s good enough for ACORN.
chunderroad on January 5, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Mr. Brown was on the Laura Ingraham radio show this morning. He’s a guard member, and in his 3rd term in the state senate, a family man, well-spoken. He said that the itnernal polls are way closer than 9.
He can save our country, in addition to saving Mass. All who can must help him.
One item which stood out from what he said “if they catch Bin Laden, will the read him the Miranda rights and bring him to NY to be tried, or can they just shoot him?”.
I have hope that an upset in Mass. is still possible. If only the GOP were not so moronic and be more on top of things, if only. He can still pull it off.
Aside from topic – where the he*l are the GOP ‘leaders’ on the non-transparency by Pelos/Reid? If they don’t speak up, throw them out in Nov. too.
Schadenfreude on January 5, 2010 at 1:12 PM
I’m guessing most conservatives don’t know he is pro-choice, or for some reason are giving him a pass that they still will not give to Mitt Romney. Most of them are, in my opinion, jumping on the Brown bandwagon mostly to stick it in the eye of the RNC for being insufficiently supportive. Surfing around the conservative blogs, I am seeing a lot more “where is the RNC” whining than I am actual organizing of support for Scott Brown.
rockmom on January 5, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Probably the best you can get out of MA statewide. This is more about killing health care, though.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on January 5, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Good Scott Brown web ad here, quoting Martha Coaxley as saying, We need to get people back to work, we need to get taxes up…”
These former prosecutors are just magicians with math and economics.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM
It seems to me a lot can happen in two weeks. What happens if a major storm hits the Northeast around the 19th and cousin Pookie never gets off the couch to vote – it seems our side would be much more motivated to get out and vote now matter what, particularly in a special election.
PatMac on January 5, 2010 at 1:32 PM
What if Mr Brown wins the seat…hmmmmm….in the face of the grinchy eyes!.
hawkman on January 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Massachusettians, or whatever they’re called, are detached from reality.
I find it interesting that the original 13 colonies are now some of the worst and most liberal states to live.
madmonkphotog on January 5, 2010 at 1:48 PM
I find it hard to believe that 24% of Republicans in MA actually support Coakley. That just seems so bizarre to me.
Terrye on January 5, 2010 at 2:00 PM
It could have been worse.
He could have been on Hannity.
VelvetElvis on January 5, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Laughed out loud. Thanks.
Blacksmith8 on January 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
RNC is too busy funding the Fiorina fiasco. You know the one where they won’t have to spend on her because she is “self-funding”.
Blacksmith8 on January 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Massachusetts residents have a certain tendency to lie to pollsters if they intend to vote Republican, because of the hostility they face from the some of the crazy lefties around here. As a result, I would guess that Brown is actually within 5% of Coakley, who is a very uninspiring candidate even if you are a Democrat.
Please give generously to Brown if you are able. He has more of a shot than the polls appear to indicate.
cool breeze on January 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Curt Schilling has endorsed Scott Brown.
AJsDaddie on January 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Pro-lifers and groups like MCFL have endorsed Scott Brown because he’s a) much better than Coakley, who wants to repeal parental notification laws, and b) at least thinks that abortion is a bad thing.
More importantly, if he votes against the health care bill (and abortion funding), he would have done all taxpaying, pro-life Americans a great service.
Still wondering why anyone thinks that Joe Kennedy has squat to do with the Tea Party. No one I know remembers him ever showing up.
Roxeanne de Luca on January 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM
It’s not surprising that most MA voters would favor ObamaCare considering how popular MassCare was when it passed. I would be curious to know if MassCare still has overwhelming support now that it’s been in effect for several years and is starting to fray around the edges. If it’s not, then I have to question the sanity of MA voters that they would favor another go at the same thing offered to them at the federal level. Can any MA residents weigh in? Do people still favor MassCare in high numbers or are they starting to sour on it?
Considering this is Massachusetts, ground zero for liberalism on the East Coast, and considering the guy is getting zero from the RNSC, and considering the Democrats are beating the hell out of the “Teddy’s legacy” meme, I think trailing by just 9 points with 7% undecided is not so bad.
NoLeftTurn on January 5, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Good point . . . happens here in NJ too. It may not be as much as four points, but it is a factor.
A related phenomenon is the fact that people simply do not like to vote for someone who they are certain is going to lose. But with this poll much closer than expected, Scott has a good chance to keep, and maybe even increase the momentum.
Trochilus on January 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM
I sent Brown some money the other day and just today returned the latest come-on from the GOP with the words “Scott Brown for US Senate” scrawled across it.
Kafir on January 5, 2010 at 7:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »