Rasmussen: Brown cuts Coakley’s lead from nine points to two — in a week; Update: Dem private poll shows Coakley by five

posted at 5:29 pm on January 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Too sweet to be buried as an update to the last post. In fact, if you exclude leaners, Brown actually leads by one — which syncs perfectly with that PPP poll over the weekend.

I’m starting to believe. A little. Maybe.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley attracting 49% of the vote while her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, picks up 47%.

Three percent (3%) say they’ll vote for independent candidate Joe Kennedy, and two percent (2%) are undecided. The independent is no relation to the late Edward M. Kennedy, whose Senate seat the candidates are battling to fill in next Tuesday’s election.

Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%. To be clear, this lead is among unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the special election.

71-23. Any reason to think any of those numbers are true, incidentally? Remember, the left would have you believe that all Rasmussen polls come straight from Satan’s statistics department.

Yeah, there’s a reason:

In a sign of serious worry about the increasingly tense battle for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the Democratic National Committee and the Martha Coakley campaign have blasted a private memo to top national Dem donors claiming internal polling shows the race is “very tight” and making an “urgent” appeal for donations.

The memo, which was sent over by a source, is the latest sign that the campaign surge of GOPer Scott Brown has caught the Dem establishment off guard. It admits that the mobilization by big national conservative groups for Brown is “working” and acknowledges that the Dem camaign is “having trouble moving independents.”…

“We have a battle on our hands,” the memo continues, beseeching donors to “max out” with a contribution of $2400. “We cannot win this race unless everyone comes together and gives this race everything they can.”

AP’s pessimism meter level: 2.5, indicating a mere likely chance of defeat, down last week from 9.5, a.k.a. catastrophic seppuku-inducing humiliation.

Update: Whoops, typo in the headline. Coakley’s lead was nine, not seven. Now corrected.

Update: Good news and bad news from Taegan Goddard. The bad? Democratic private polls reportedly show Coakley by five. The good? Last week, Democratic private polls showed Coakley by 14.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

For those asking when this poll was done………taken from the Rasmussen article, right near the end………..

The survey was conducted on Monday night, the night of a televised debate between the candidates.

Knucklehead on January 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

If the race is close, the Democrats will make up the difference with dead people, double votes, etc. They always do.

I think ACORN has put its efforts into purple states where it could swing close elections. And teh Democrats in places like hicago and Louisiana are clealry skilled at raising the dead to vote.

But in in Massachusetts, elections usualy aren’t that close. I’m not sure that the Democrats here have the infrastructure for stealing elections because it’s never been necessary.

SwampYankee on January 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM

The survey was conducted on Monday night, the night of a televised debate between the candidates.

Knucklehead on January 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Can’t wait to see the post-debate numbers.

TXUS on January 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM

It’s a shame that a candidate like Brown does not have a chance to win. That’s the problem with the Dems taking over all the powerful Northeast states….all the Republicans have left is Huckabees.

jay12 on January 12, 2010 at 6:20 PM

If the race is close, the Democrats will make up the difference with dead people, double votes, etc. They always do.

crosspatch on January 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I don’t get why this is accepted as fact. Where is the GOP, the RNC, perhaps they should get their act together and close the open primaries so Dems and Liberal elites don’t pick our candidates and put together a ground game to fight every closely contested election.
How about a few undercover Dem poll watchers like the Pimp and Ho couple to capture the crooks in the act!

dhunter on January 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM

ALLAH!

Did you know, btw, the left is going CRAZY over photos of scott in cosmo in the 80s — semi-naked?!?!

for real. they think it will sink him, but in focus groups so far, the women actually like the picture, sez cnn.

check it out:

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo

picklesgap on January 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM

After close examination of the evidence provided by such a woman’s-oriented magazine that pays close attention to the sexual perversion of women, I come to the conclusion that Mr. Brown looks good overall, and is a well-endowed candidate to WIN the state of MA.

Positive thinking people!

ProudPalinFan on January 12, 2010 at 6:29 PM

People, let’s do the math. Rasmussen says:

Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%.

Now, on previous threads, I’ve seen the Massachusetts voter registration breakdown given as

Democrats 37%
Republicans 12%
Independents 51%

If that breakdown is right, then applying Rasmussen’s percentages, I get

Brown 55%
Coakley 42%
Undecided 3%

What am I missing?

Emperor Norton on January 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Allah don’t even think this will happen. They are just probing to see how many votes they need to manufacture.

tetriskid on January 12, 2010 at 6:36 PM

What am I missing?

Emperor Norton on January 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

178% of ACORN voters will pull the lever for Coakley twice.

angryed on January 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Emperor Norton on January 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Well for starters Rasmussen polls likely voters not registered voters.

clement on January 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM

What am I missing?

Emperor Norton on January 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

The spin of the MSM… and those who hold power…

Its like the Unemployment numbers, where we loose more jobs every week… but the unemployment rate does not go up?

Or the Electric car meme, where it will take 130% MORE electricity to be generated nationwide to change to an Electric powered transportation system…

Numbers are fun… and can sure blow a hole through a political meme…

Romeo13 on January 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM

What am I missing?

Emperor Norton on January 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

I agree anecdotally–without checking your math. I’ve seen that voter-registration breakdown elsewhere, and it seems to me that with so many independents, the race has to be wide open. Also, in a state with such traditional Democratic Party strength, I wonder how strong their election-stealing capacity is. They may be out of practice.

BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM

So let me see if I get this straight.

We raise $1.3 million in a DAY for Brown.

He kicks Coakleys butt in the debate.

The Dems crap themselves and immediately dump probably $500,000 into attack ads.
That are misspelled.

They have to retract them.

Reissue new ads for a blitz for another $560,000.

They just blew $1.06 million because schmucks like us sent in our beer money?

Even if he loses, that loss of funds to them ALONE was worth my $20.

theoneandonlyfinn on January 12, 2010 at 6:44 PM

The momentum is clearly in Mr. Browns favor and as news of the debate makes the rounds, he will be ahead by next week.

I don’t see how she recovers from last night. YouTube FTW!

“No terrorists in Afghanistan”

dogsoldier on January 12, 2010 at 6:45 PM

This is going to turn into Florida 2000. Some of the upcoming quotes we are likely to see next week:

“I thought I was voting for Kennedy. I always for Kennedy. He’s always in the number one spot on the ballot. I always punch the number one spot on the ballot.”

“I knew it!! I knew Obamacare would make Teddy Kennedy all better again. I voted for him, but he only got 2%.”

ConservativeTony on January 12, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I’d like to know what the writer of this post has done with Allahpundit. All this optimism and breathless joy…you expect us to believe AP wrote this?

hardy har har.

this story wouldn’t get the real AP below a 9.1 on the pess-o-meter

DrW on January 12, 2010 at 6:48 PM

They are mad that he has a bigger Stimulus Package.

Holger on January 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM

And here I am having butterscotch candy. Thank God I didn’t choke!!!! ;)

ProudPalinFan on January 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Intrade:

Coakley – 80

Brown – 21

Only poll that counts udner than Election Day.

patch on January 12, 2010 at 6:55 PM

If the race is close, the Democrats will make up the difference with dead people, double votes, etc. They always do.

crosspatch on January 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM

..oh well then, what’s the use? Let’s just throw in the towel and resign ourselves to seven more years of servitude under the Pantload-in-Chief and his wicked henchmen.

Don’t you get it? It’s a vote for one year. If the Scuba-diver had lived, he would have been up for re-coronation. But he pranged out and Coakley, if she wins, will only be there for a short time before she faces re-election.

VoyskaPVO on January 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Dems hit the panic swith for Coakley: http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=YmExNjIxZjU1MTIyZDI1N2E4M2JkMmJjOGY4MGFiYTU=&p=1

Fairly up-to-date roundup of news.

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Er, “switch”

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Gergen admits he was “stuffed” by Brown during the debate… ahem… good and hard… ahem…

But there’s one more thing to notice here:

Gergen added that the importance of the Kennedy legacy in this race is quickly fading. “While he remains a beloved figure, especially to Massachusetts Democrats, he’s certainly not at the center of the dynamics shaping this race. This campaign has become much more of a referendum on Washington . . . That’s the real issue here. The trend lines in Washington on issues such as health care could be souring the moods not only of conservatives, moderate Republicans, and right-leaning independents, but spreading into the views of both left-leaning independents and Democrats themselves.” [Emphasis mine]

newton on January 12, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Please, Lord, we don’t want this to end up like ny23.

Kissmygrits on January 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM

PalmettoPatriot on January 12, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Mass Democrats and independents have a long history of supporting Republicans who are anti-corruption and run good campaigns against mediocre party hacks like Coakley. They prefer to vote for Repubs as governor, but party that’s because there’s only really been one Senate seat in Mass since 1962

To rid themselves of Kennedy Sleaze, a lot of them will vote for Brown next week.

Janos Hunyadi on January 12, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Special elections hinge on turnout.

Democrats are coming face to face with a lackluster President who has given every promise an expiration date, and gone against each thing he said he would do. The Senate Obamacare version hits ‘Cadillac Plans’ which have Union members. Unions have NOT come out for Coakley in this election and their members are deciding on their own, and there is a self-preservation phenomena kicking in.

Democrats thus face: depressed Democratic turnout from the base (not the fanatic Leftists but the moderate base) and as Unions are not doing GOTV for Democrats, and Union members would see their healthcare costs skyrocket under Obamacare there are more than a few hints that there will be a defection by them on election day. Legal Insurrection has had numerous accounts of working class bars being the home of Brown supporters who are Union members.

The Democratic Party is about to take a major hole below the waterline if Union members vote their pocketbook… because pocketbook voters DO show up on election night. Even with good Democratic turnout there is a faint suspicion that it will be a divided turnout between the few and frantic Left and the Union members, and my guess is Union members stick together a lot better than those that froth at the mouth.

For the first time in decades a Senate race in MA will NOT have Union support thrown behind the Democratic Party. Union members ARE showing up at Brown phone banks as friends and groups. This is unheard-of in MA. You have a better chance of an asteroid hitting the place.

And then there are the Democrats fed up with the Obama agenda… how they will play out is anyone’s guess, but it will not be pretty. There is also that feeling that some Democrats are just not telling the truth on the polling calls, but that is only a feeling and can’t be pinned down save by anecdotal evidence.

I discount Democrats voting for a Kennedy, putting that at something like 1% and Libertarians not voting for Brown for 2%.

So if you can figure out just how enthused Democrats are to vote, and which way they will vote, you have a good shot at guessing the outcome of the election. Percentage by population does not tell this story as something is happening in MA as the enthusiasm is differential with Independents and Republicans enthused to vote, and angry Union members enthused to vote. As for counting the dead… well they usually employ Union workers for that…hmmm… where will the dead show up in this race?

Brown will easily cover the spread from the beginning of the month. Covering the spread is not, necessarily, winning the race, but it puts him in contention for the race. That is why the Democrats are rushing in people and money: this shouldn’t be happening in MA of all places. There is something rotten in the Leftistani portion of Incumbistan.

ajacksonian on January 12, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Wow

KittyLowrey on January 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM

I don’t know where to park this OT tidbit, but the politicization of the Holder DoJ frosts me to no end. At issue is how the National Voting Rights Act has been perverted through the Civil Rights Division, leading to the transfer of a career attorney because he pursued the Philadelphis case and one in Mississippi.

The piece is long, but it should infuriate anyone who believes that justice should be blind and that voting rights belong to all Americans, not just minorities.

Not only are voting rights being perverted, but the enforcement of scrubbing voting lists of registered voters who have died or moved away is being ignored.

Issues like this will affect all elections. I hope that they do not negatively affect Brown’s bid for the US Senate seat.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGExODhjOWY2NTMyN2M3ZGFjNjY0MzhhZTEyMjU5NmY=

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2010 at 7:51 PM

What am I missing?

Emperor Norton on January 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

As “clement” pointed out (January 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM), Rasmussen uses likely voters as opposed to registered voters. That’s one factor.

A bigger factor may be this: Registration is a pretty useless stat in Massachusetts. Although Massachusetts doesn’t have open primaries, voters who are “unenrolled” in any party (usually reported as “Independents”) can vote in any primary. Because of the Democratic dominance, many Republicans register as Democrats or as “unenrolled” so they can vote in the Democratic primaries. But, once you vote in a party’s primary, you are automatically enrolled in that party, and have to make an extra effort to get “unenrolled” again. As a result, a lot of Republicans are registered as Democrats (because that’s the last primary they voted in) or Independents (because they stay unenrolled to have the option of voting in either primary). (I honestly can’t remember how I’m currently registered. I may be listed as a Democrat because I voted for Hillary over Obama and didn’t bother to switch back to unenrolled.)

So, the percentage of Republicans in Massachusetts is surely higher than 12%, and many of the “Independents” are actually unenrolled Republicans.

If I had to guess, I would say the state is closer to 37% D, 25% R and 38% I, which is why the Commonwealth has recently had moderate Republican governors like Bill Weld and Mitt Romney.

That said, when Rasmussen conducts his polls, the likely voters self-identify by party, and registration doesn’t matter. So he’s identifying a lot more than 12% Republicans in his sample (because he’s counting the “unenrolled” Republicans as Republicans rather than Independents).

SwampYankee on January 12, 2010 at 7:55 PM

ajacksonian on January 12, 2010 at 7:33 PM

I like the cut of your jib.

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Uh oh

Intrade

Coakley – 77

Brown – 35

Yeh, I know the trades are unbalanced but the fun is about to begin!

patch on January 12, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Peaking too soon? I say he’s starting to peak and will tsunami next Tuesday.

SouthernGent on January 12, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Coakley looks and acts and almost talks like the insipidly vacuous Caroline Kennedy. Coakley has almost the same uber-shy demeanor and miniscule grasp of domestic and foreign affairs. Coakley even has that vacant, ‘why don’t you think everything I say is golden?’ kind of look about her.

And the Dems like to tell us that Palin is an airhead? Please!

marybel on January 12, 2010 at 8:26 PM

But, once you vote in a party’s primary, you are automatically enrolled in that party, and have to make an extra effort to get “unenrolled” again.

SwampYankee on January 12, 2010 at 7:55 PM

This is no longer true. They changed the law a few years ago, so that when you vote in the primary as unenrolled, regardless of which ballot you choose, you now walk out of the polling station still unenrolled.

MassVictim on January 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM

ProudPalinFan on January 12, 2010 at 6:29 PM

They are idiots. In Massachusetts it’s a huge positive. It shows he’s not some socially conservative extremist like Coakley wants people to think. Women already seem to really dislike Coakley so this well known spread does nothing but help big-time here.

TheBigOldDog on January 12, 2010 at 8:35 PM

This is no longer true. They changed the law a few years ago, so that when you vote in the primary as unenrolled, regardless of which ballot you choose, you now walk out of the polling station still unenrolled.

MassVictim on January 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM

I can confirm this. I am unenrolled and vite mainly in the Dem primaries to pick either the weakest candidate in a contested election or the lesser evil in one that is uncontested.

TheBigOldDog on January 12, 2010 at 8:38 PM

This is no longer true. They changed the law a few years ago, so that when you vote in the primary as unenrolled, regardless of which ballot you choose, you now walk out of the polling station still unenrolled.

Changed in 2004, here is the law on the state’s web site.

MassVictim on January 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Even if he loses, that loss of funds to them ALONE was worth my $20.

theoneandonlyfinn on January 12, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Well Worth every penny I donated! I hope they have to use all of George Soros’ money and that none of them win next November!!!!!

huskerdiva on January 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM

This is no longer true. They changed the law a few years ago, so that when you vote in the primary as unenrolled, regardless of which ballot you choose, you now walk out of the polling station still unenrolled.
Changed in 2004, here is the law on the state’s web site.

MassVictim on January 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM

I stand corrected. Thank you.

It remains the case, however, that many Massachusetts Republicans stay unenrolled so that they can vote in the Democratic primary which, in most cases, decides the general election. Therefore I believe the 51% “Independents” represents a significant number of Republicans.

SwampYankee on January 12, 2010 at 9:13 PM

I’ll bet a lot of union guys will be voting for Brown given that Coakley has sided with Reid’s plan to tax health care plans.

pearson on January 12, 2010 at 9:17 PM

In a sign of serious worry about the increasingly tense battle for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the Democratic National Committee and the Martha Coakley campaign have blasted a private memo to top national Dem donors claiming internal polling shows the race is “very tight” “tighter than Ted Kennedy on the night of ChapPaquiddick” and making an “urgent” appeal for donations.

ya2daup on January 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM

ajacksonian on January 12, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Nice post. I had the union thought earlier regarding the health plans. If they vote for Coakley, they are clearly voting to increase their taxes, unless the “Cadillac” plan tax is quietly scrubbed. It will be a truly interesting night next Tuesday. The Dem’s have to be scared that Toddy Kennedy’s throne is even remotely in jeopardy. I’ll pray for a political earthquake on the 19th for the good of MA & the USA.

With the way Scott Brown has surged in the past week, it may just be doable. Rasmussen does have it down to a 2 pt. spread as of today. I’m just afraid the dirty tricksters haven’t arrived on a bus caravan yet. lest we forget the ballots found in someone’s truck in the Coleman-Franken race. This will get very dirty from the leftists side the more desparate they feel. They will show themselves again to the country even clearer if Scott Brown continues to take the higher road.

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Unfortunately because so many people wanted changed & were so enraptured by warm, fuzzy speeches, we have a mobster & his ilk running the nation. I only hope there’s enough left of our great nation to salvage after 2012. God help us against these crooks and God help our nation.

I just hope Brown beats his opponent by a clear 1 or 2% margin to not open up a recount to allow for corruption in the count. Throw Nanny Pelosi, Reid, Soros, and any other socialist crooks to the gators & start draining Democrat Swamp.

My guess is there will be dancing in the streets by many across the nation if he is victorious next week. I suppose y’all will hear me hoopin’ & hollerin’ down in SC if he does. haha

Does anyone know if the MA Secretary of State is part of Soros’ Secretaries of State project?

PalmettoPatriot on January 13, 2010 at 1:29 AM

What the heck is wrong with MA voters? Why is Coakley even close to Brown in the polls?

SC.Charlie on January 13, 2010 at 9:56 AM