PPP poll is out - Brown 51 Coakley 46

[democrattotheend]

Within the margin of error but still looks bad. But don't give up, people...I still believe we can win this thing! I made calls today and got really good responses. Almost everyone I talked to was for Coakley and they all sounded committed to voting for her. Only a few people I talked to were undecided, and only one Brown supporter. I still think we can win this thing...we've just got to keep plugging away. I also had an e-mail exchange with one of Coakley's internal pollsters, and she said it all hinged on turnout.

Here's the poll: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/massach...

[Teaser]

1. Could be worse

I guess. But still annoying.

[smalll]

18. In what respect, Charlie? /nt

[jefferson_dem]

2. Within reach for Coakley but she'll need a huge push from today's rally...

and a sick GOTV operation on Tuesday.

Work/Hope for the best but be prepared for "Plan B".

[elocs]

3. Why exactly is this in the Presidency forum though?

[Teaser]

4. everything is

.

[Thrill]

5. I haven't followed this race. I'm just shocked. SHOCKED

This is happening

[HillGal]

46. If your shocked now, read this

http://lezgetreal.com/?p=25030

That website is telling LGBT’s to stay home instead of voting to send a message.

[Arkana]

6. Oh my God. Fuck this state, and fuck everyone who...just fuck.

[democrattotheend]

9. What's your sense on the ground?

How does it look from inside Massachusetts? Do you know any Obama voters who are planning on voting for Brown or staying home? Do you have a bad feeling from what you are seeing on the ground?

[Arkana]

13. No. I see a shitload of Brown signs everywhere, but yard signs don't win elections.

All the Democrats I know are firmly in Coakley's camp.

Seriously, fuck ANY "Democrat" who votes for that prick.

[JVS]

16. That's some nice blind rage there, Mr. B.

</wiggum>

[Ildem09]

76. Fuck MA?

please sir, I am not a citizen of the great state of Massachusetts I am of the Land of Lincoln. However, I do hold your state in the highest regard. my favorite state after my own of course. Shouldn't the anger be directed more towards the coakley campaign or failure thereof?

[treestar]

86. It should be directed at the voters

who let this happen.

Voters should not be considered helpless in the face of a slick campaign. They can still make the right choice.

[CoffeeCat]

7. I'm sorry, but if that poll is true--it's over.

If that poll is accurate, Brown has won.

Every political consultant working on both campaigns knows it too.

You just can't overcome a 5-point gap this close to the election.

I also think that the turnout factor works to the advantage of Republicans. They're pissed and motivated--practically rabid.
Democrats are demoralized and disappointed.

It sucks, and I can't believe it is happening. But I guess it is.

[democrattotheend]

8. It's within the margin of error

And the pollsters themselves said they think it's too close to call.

[MadBadger]

11. However, the pollsters are Democrats so that could be wishful thinking.

Brown is building his lead off of their last poll.

[pnwmom]

15. No, it's not wishful thinking, it's statistical thinking.

Since it's within the margin of error, the true result could be either way. Either candidate could be ahead. We just don't know.

[SpencerS]

42. Recount.

That would be funny if it was too close to call, and Martha Coakley asked for a recount, like the republicans did to Al Franken in Minnesota.

[pnwmom]

12. It's just a poll. And it's a tie, statistically speaking, since it's in the margin of error.

[SpencerS]

19. They Left Out Joe Kennedy, Again

Again, the PPP poll does not include the independent candidate Joe Kennedy in their poll. I've heard other pollsters ay that when Joe Kennedy is included in the poll it cuts into Scott Brown's lead. So far, all the polls have either over-sampled independents, old white people, or have been right-wing polls with terrible records, (like the ARG poll) or they left out Joe Kennedy. Besides, this poll was done over a few days. The poll did say Martha Coakley could still win. PPP did say if the current momentum of Martha Caokley's campaign continues, it could still pull her across the finish line.

[Jennicut]

23. I have read that Kennedy's support could be as much as 2%, so if it is down to 3%

between Coakley and Brown, then that is definitely a toss up right there. Too close to call.

[wisteria]

39. Thank you for pointing these things out. How can a poll be accurate when they don't factor in a

and important factor like the independent candidate?

[quiller4]

68. That troubled me about the PPP poll, too. The other thing that

bothers me is the percentage of males and females in the sample. Coakley is doing better with female voters--no surprise. Women are more reliable voters than men and they make up an even larger percentage of the election in special elections. That percentage tends to be even higher when a female candidate is on the ballot but in the PPP poll women make up a smaller percentage of the sample than the percentage of female voters in the last general election.


Pollsters haven't seemed to account for that in their samples.

[treestar]

87. It may be tough to poll an election like this

It's got special circumstances.

[pnwmom]

10. Within the margin of error means IT'S STILL A TIE.

With another representative sample, the results were as likely to be Coakley 51, Brown 46.

But yes, everyone needs to keep working hard.

[Teaser]

14. That isn't what MOE means

It just means that they can't say with 95% certainty that one is ahead. However, with 80 or 90% certainty they can say that Brown is ahead.

Don't take comfort in a false understanding of statistics.

[pnwmom]

17. It means that another representative sample could have gotten the

opposite results -- as long as the two results were within the margin of error.

And yes, with a 95% certainty.

[Teaser]

22. it means that 1 out of every 20

samples would flip the order.

That doesn't make me feel good.

[MadBadger]

24. It would make me feel good (better), if it was 48-47 Brown

a 5 point lead while "technically" within the MOE, doesnt make me wanna call it a tie.

[pnwmom]

30. But different polls have her ahead. This race is too close to call. n/t

[wisteria]

41. Your right, this is just one poll of many and apparently it didn't include all varibles. n/t

[pnwmom]

29. No, it means that there is a 1/20 chance that the results would not fall somewhere

inside the margin of error for both of the candidates. There is a 95% likelihood that each of the candidates results would fall within their margin of error.

[Teaser]

34. If we have a 5 point CI around our lower estimate

then 1/20 estimates will be outside that CI, and thus higher than the other reference number.

I'm not seeing the difference here.

[wisteria]

40. Yeah, without factoring in the independant candidate. n/t

[Cha]

20. Isn't that what it always

depends on? Turnout.

We saw posted today that this was going to be a larger turnout than usual for an off year election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Turn out for Teddy, Mass~

~STAND WITH MARTHA~
http://www.marthacoakley.com/

[Kdillard]

21. Sucks but hopefully Coakley will be able to squeak it out.

I read the poll and it appears the Independents are doing her in and Brown is pulling more support from peeople who voted for Obama than those who voted for McCain.

[SpencerS]

28. Democrats Need To Come Out To Vote

Just because Scott Brown is winning with independent voters by a long shot, does not mean that they will show up to vote in droves. Histortically, independent voters stay home in these type of elections. I remember the election between John Corzine, and that Christie guy. The republican (Christie) was leading John Corzine with independent voters by like 58% to 34%, or something like that. But, the election was real close. The republican barely beat the very unpopular John Corzine. They said the reason John Corzine lost was because of low turn-out from democratic voters. Not because of the independent voters. If this election is really as close as they say it is, Martha Coakely will win if there is high turnout from democratic voters. Plus, special elections are hard to poll, because they don't know who is going to turnout to vote.

[Blaukraut]

25. Pollster.com has a ray of hope for the Dems

One thing is certain about the polling in the last days before Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat: Someone's going to end up being very, very wrong.

snip

I will try to provide a little perspective as someone on the ground in Massachusetts who also knows a thing or two about polls.

My hypothesis: While Brown supporters clearly are more enthusiastic than Coakley backers, that may serve him relatively better in the pre-election telephone polls than it will Tuesday.

there's more at the link

Are MA Senate Polls Prone to Non Response Bias?

[Arkana]

26. This may have some truth to it.

Massachusetts Dems are traditionally older and don't get as enthused about casting a ballot every election--but they still do it.

That might mean they're hanging up on pollsters. Couple that with dishonest Brown supporters posing as Democrats and you could have a recipe for a surprise Coakley win.

[democrattotheend]

32. I don't know why, but I am feeling a New Hampshire 2008 redux here

I feel like we're seeing similar dynamics in the sense that the polls are just changing too quickly. In New Hampshire, Hillary had a solid lead before Iowa that just completely evaporated overnight after Obama won the Iowa caucuses. Yet the fundamentals of the electorate stayed the same and the pundits misjudged it because they saw all the momentum and enthusiasm going Obama's way. I know the situation is different here, but New Hampshire 2008 taught me to be skeptical of polls that show such a big shift so fast absent a major scandal or bombshell. Hours ago I had a really bad gut feeling but somehow I have a feeling that this could be New Hampshire 2008 all over again. Maybe I'm just in better spirits because the season premiere of '24' cheered me up and took my mind off the election for a couple hours, but I wouldn't rule it out.

[Grand Taurean]

45. I am with you.

Coakley was ahead 55% to 24% a week after the primary election.

[wisteria]

52. You mention how quickly the numbers shifted without ascandal or a bombschell

that is a very good point. What made the numbers change so rapidly from strong support for Coakley to Brown-besides the media of course.

[Grand Taurean]

70. That is my question to.

[Jennicut]

27. I find this very interesting....lack of enthusiasm vs enthusiasm for taking part in a robopoll

* Republicans are excited Brown might win and thus more likely to answer their phone and listen to political messages -possibly be invited to take a survey - when the phone is practically ringing off the hook with such calls. I suspect they'd be particularly enthused to participate in a poll and tell the world they're voting for Brown, to help build the sense he has unstoppable momentum. These folks certainly will vote but there's no upside in Brown's election-day numbers compared to the pre-election poll estimates.

* Democrats may be demoralized and scared after several weeks of Coakley campaign missteps and bad headlines. They may not be all that eager to pick up the phone for political calls. They also might be more skeptical of or angry about polls since they've been such downers for Coakley and President Obama lately, and thus, I would speculate, more likely to take a pass if invited to participate in one. None of that means these folks are less likely to vote, though - by now any sentient Democratic-leaning voter will know Coakley needs all their votes, and what's at stake. They might not be happy about how Coakley has run her campaign but they'll still be motivated to vote by a desire to deny a Republican the chance to do serious harm to Obama's agenda from Ted Kennedy's old seat. Obama is in Massachusetts today to remind them of exactly that (not that they're necessarily all that enthused about him at this point, either).

Of course, truly independent or "swing" voters are another vital factor, and if Brown wins enough of them he could overcome the inherent Democratic advantage in Massachusetts. But I'd think enthusiasm, or lack of it, would be more of an issue among stronger partisans.

In pollster speak, what this boils down to is "differential non-response," where one candidate's supporters are more likely than the other's to take a survey. It's suspected to be a big reason why exit polls in recent years have tended to overstate support for Democratic candidates. In the Massachusetts special Senate election I suspect it's inflating the Republican's poll numbers. Coakley has room to outperform the polls Tuesday even if her natural base is motivated by nothing more than fear of what would happen if her opponent pulls off an historic upset.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mokrzycki_are_ma_senate_p...

[jezebel]

31. I hope this is true. I just cannot even fathom what is going to happen if Brown wins. nt

[wisteria]

50. Interesting to read.

But, I tell you what,I refuse to believe any poll at this point. This one I just found out is missing the independant candidate-which seems to indicate it was either done sloppy or purposely done to lean Brown.

[SpencerS]

58. Plus,

The independent candidate Joe Kennedy could get more than 2% of the vote further cutting into Scott Brown's lead, (if he really has one) from the uninformed voters who think he is related to the famous Kennedy family.

[SKKY]

33. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Blaukraut]

35. Settle down, Beavis. It's not over til the naked guy's daughter sings

GOTV tomorrow and Tuesday. I for one will not admit defeat until the polls are closed and the results are in.

[jefferson_dem]

49. Think in terms of William Hurt's character in "History of Violence"

"How do you fuck that up?"

If you haven't seen it, here's the bit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA11gnz9eBA

[Blaukraut]

36. Their internals are all kinds of fucked up

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_1...

Q14 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of the Republicans in Congress? If favorable,
press 1. If unfavorable, press 2. If you’re not
sure, press 3.
Favorable........................................................ 22%
Unfavorable .................................................... 63%
Not Sure.......................................................... 15%


but then...

Q15 Do you think that Congressional Democrats
are too liberal, too conservative, or about right?
If too liberal, press 1. If too conservative, press
2. If about right, press 3.
Too Liberal...................................................... 53%
Too Conservative............................................ 14%
About Right ..................................................... 33%


And those are just two examples that make no sense, unless they interviewed only wingnuts who disapprove of repubs because they're not conservative enough and Dems because they're too liberal.

This question seems to confirm that they may be oversampling conservatives:

Q4 How excited are you about casting your vote in
the Senate election? If you are very excited,
press 1. If somewhat excited, press 2. If not
very excited, press 3. If you’re not sure, press
4.
Very Excited.................................................... 70%
Somewhat Excited .......................................... 18%
Not Very Excited............................................. 10%
Not Sure.......................................................... 2%


On Edit: the people polled must have been on crack. Most of their responses contradict each other.

[andym]

48. Cognitive dissonance

voters are confused.

[DFLforever]

56. Sounds like the typical independent voter

In my experience independents are generally confused about politics.

And supposedly 51% of Mass voters are independent.

[wisteria]

53. That last one is a doozie. n/t

[Blasphemer]

63. Some very odd ones indeed

63% approved of Ted Kennedy's work in the Senate and yet only 47% want the next Senator to continue his legacy? That is a strange sentiment. Coakley's unfavorables are very high compared to Brown's. I really don't understand this guy's appeal. As far as the nuts and bolts, Independents are not happy with what is going on in D.C. That's not surprising, but I still would have expected apathy to prevail as opposed to a willingness to vote for a Republican. Republicans is Congress have extremely high unfavorables. Brown wouldn't be any different than that gang.

[wisteria]

37. I refuse to believe this polling. And, I think by posting it you are doing nothing more than trying

to discourage Coakley voters from bothering to vote.

[HillGal]

38. You say that to everybody who posts something you don't like. You said it to me too. NT

NT

[wisteria]

43. I don't believe in polls, they all can be manipulated to get the results they want

and many have their own personal agendas.

[HillGal]

47. I didn't believe the polls either when they said Hillary was losing, sometimes they're wrong but

sometimes they're right.

[wisteria]

55. Well this time they are very wrong. n/t

[MadBadger]

51. PPP are Democrats. So what kind of manipulation are they doing?

[wisteria]

57. For one, they forget to poll the independant.

And, perhaps they have an agenda similar to some others who post here. Just saying, I know nothing for sure. But, there seems to much eagerness on their part to promote Brown by shoving all the independants his way.
And, polls have been very wrong in the past.

[SpencerS]

61. Yup,

If they included the independent Joe Kennedy, the poll would not have Scott Brown leading by 5%. Every other pollster says that Joe Kennedy Being in the race cuts into Scott Brown's "lead." And Joe Kennedy could get more than 2% of the vote, because of uninformed voters who think he is related to the famous Kennedys. I read about the impact that Joe Kennedy could have on the election. Not good for Scott Brown. If it actually is this close, the democrats need to come out and vote, to help Martha Coakley win. Plus, I'm a little wary of PPP after they predicted the tea-bagger candidate would win in a landslide in the NY-23 special election.

[democrattotheend]

54. Did you read the text of my post?

I specifically said that the poll was within the margin of error, and that it should NOT discourage anyone from voting or making calls (which I spent several hours today doing, btw) or doing whatever they could. I said that I thought it was still very winnable. So please do not accuse me of discouraging Coakley voters from trying to vote. I have been saying for days that it's pretty much the end of the world if we lose this thing.

[wisteria]

59. I don't think you should have posted it at all. Why not just post the race is tied within

the margin of error?

[cali]

81. pathetic. you're like a child sticking her fingers in her ears and chanting loudly.

[inthebrain]

64. You go Keyboard Warrior

EVERYONE reads whats posted here and makes real world decisions based off of that.

DU INFLUENCES THE WORLD!!!!!!

[TexasObserver]

44. I think Coakley will pull this out.

[wisteria]

60. I am with you. n/t

[TexasObserver]

72. Voters tend to come home on election day.

They may grouse about their party, but most will show up and vote on election day. I've held my nose many times.

[democrattotheend]

62. For some reason, I do too

I don't know why. A few hours ago I was feeing pretty doom and gloom, despite a very positive phone-banking session. But now for some reason my gut says she might pull it out. I feel like the tide could be turning and we could see a repeat of the NH primary in 2008 (or Massachusetts, for that matter) where Obama was thought to have all the momentum and polls started showing him ahead but in the end it wasn't enough to overcome Hillary's structural advantage.

I'm probably just feeling better because the season premiere of '24' cheered me up, but my gut is often right about these things.

[TexasObserver]

71. Polls can be off quite a bit, and they can miss late movements.

I suspect that if we could get behind those numbers, we'd find the same thing we see here: some real unhappiness with our nominee over an important issue, and some that might say it's a deal breaker. But in reality, there are probably many Dems who will gut it up and vote for her. The exposure of her opponent's unsavory side recently in the news of same should help her win.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Perhaps the Independents are going the way of the GOP because they don't want that ...

IMO, Gawd Awful Health Insurance Give-away Bill to pass the Senate?

The lovers of the Insurance Cartel won't have their 60 votes if Brown wins.

[SpencerS]

66. Same Thing, Over, And Over...

Did you ever stop to think that not everything is about that "Gawd Awful Health Insurance Give-away Bill?" (A lot of people don't even understand what it is.) How about high unemployment, or racists who hate the president and want him to fail, etc.

[ShortnFiery]

67. Oh stop throwing those lame canards our way. This horrible MANDATED bill is

the reason that Coakley will lose. You know that, hell - Everyone KNOWS that.

Nobody who's not wealthy and pulling in a large paycheck wants to be MANDATED to buy crappy, insurance that will send you into bankruptcy if you get a major illness.

[SpencerS]

69. Blah, Blah, Blah.

They are not lame, and it's true. Most people are pissed because of the overall bad economy, and they don't see things getting any better, and they take it out on the incumbent party. And, yes, some of them are racist, and sexist, and Martha Coakley ran a shitty campaign. The whole world does not revolve around pissy the regressive "progressives," who are bummed about a crappy healthcare bill! It's even worse for people who don't get a paycheck, because they don't have a job! Most people right now are not worried about insurance give-aways. Most want a damn job!

[grahamhgreen]

75. Even if Coakley loses, I imagine big insurance will manage to buy one Republican senator.

But she's losing because of Obama's HCR, Iraqistan, and the bailout for banksters

[quakerboy]

79. I want to win

If there was a way to leave it empty, I might root for that, but seeing a Repub take Teddys seat would be bitter indeed, even if not for a full term.

That said, If it does go that way, it will be interesting. Do the insurance companies like this bill enough to toss a few R's on the bus? I could easily see Snowe and Collins suddenly becoming supporters to make it pass.

[backscatter712]

73. 538.com updated, Nate crunched this poll and the other polls. Result: Toss-up.

He crunched the numbers several different ways, with different assumptions, and without making the assumptions borderline-ridiculous, he couldn't get anything very far from 50/50.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-mo...

It is very, very, very close. Turnout matters, and I don't think any of the polling firms have a firm enough grasp of this election to make their polls even slightly accurate.

[grahamhgreen]

74. If Obama dumps the mandate, I'll get back on the phone!

[FrenchieCat]

77. Is this the same PPP poll showing MA approves of Obama by 43/44%?

cause if it is, there's something not quite right. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Jennicut]

78. It is because they are looking at and polling the so called likely voters

No one can totally predict who will come out but this poll and some others think it will be Brown's supporters and right leaning indies who show up.

[wisteria]

80. Go Martha!!! Beat the slick packaged empty suit, with the empy promises and lies. n/t

[Mass]

82. So, a majority of people in this poll want to continue Kennedy's legacy, but will elect Brown to do

that?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_1...

Q11 Do you approve or disapprove of the work Ted
Kennedy did during his time in the US Senate?
If you approve, press 1. If you disapprove,
press 2. If you’re not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 63%
Disapprove...................................................... 24%
Not Sure.......................................................... 13%
Q12 Would you like to see the next Senator from
Massachusetts carry on Ted Kennedy’s
legacy? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If
you’re not sure, press 3.
Yes ................................................................. 47%
No ................................................................... 41%
Not Sure.......................................................... 12%

Talk about confused.

And why is there a question about ACORN in this poll.

[flpoljunkie]

83. Dems outnumber R's 3 to 1 in MA. Look under the hood! R's are not working for you!

Republicans made this mess. Now Dems are having to clean it up! Don't let them back in charge again!

[DCBob]

84. Disturbing but not surprising considering the circumstances this country is in..

Its easy to blame the party in power for all our problems even though they mostly stem from the previous administration. And people are afraid and confused about healthcare reform due to the non-stop disinformation campaign from right-wingnut media.. but clearly it all depends on turnout because registered Dems far outnumber the Repubs.

[DCBob]

85. BTW, its not the end of the world even if Coakley loses..

The 60 vote thing wasn't working that great anyway considering everything needed to be watered down to get Lieberman and other conserva-Dems votes. Just have to find other ways of getting things done.