It certainly wasn't unexpected if you read my projection yesterday, but Scott Brown has defeated Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by the death of incumbent Ted Kennedy.
The latest results have the margin at 5.4%, slightly larger than my final projection. We'll see where the final results come in and then scorecard the projection, but it looks like I was within 2% on the margin.
Congratulations to Scott Brown. He ran a fantastic campaign in a state with uphill demographics at just the right moment in hitory.
The spinning has already begun -- if you asked Republicans, this is the end of the world for the Democrats. If you ask the Democrats, this was a local race with a lousy candidate.
As I said yesterday, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween, but this does feel like a pretty strong repudiation of the Democratic agenda. If Massachusetts votes against giving the Democrats 60 votes in the Senate, and trust me, voters there understand the implications, then who DOES want them to have 60?
So, the $900 billion question is...where does all of this leave health care reform?
We'll have to see the next few weeks play out, but I'll simply say for now -- it doesn't help the DEMs. The options going forward are well documented, but I'll rehash them here with my own assessment:
1. Ramrod a bill through before Brown takes office. It will take approximately 15 days to certify the election, because state law requires waiting 10 days for overseas absentee ballots to come in, followed by 5 days for the cities to validate vote totals. So, the theory goes, for the next 15 days Senator Kirk can still vote in the Senate while Democrats slow-walk the certification.
Odds of this happening: Absolutely zero unless Democrats decide to commit political suicide. Ignoring the vote of the people of Massachusetts to ram through a bill, while it may technically be legal, would toss gasoline on the flames of populist revolt fomenting in this country. Simply put, this scenario will NOT happen.
2. House passes the Senate bill as passed in the Senate. This option averts the need for the Senate to do anything to move the bill forward -- if the House passes an identical bill, the President can simply sign it and be done.
Odds of this happening: Low to moderate, but not impossible. House Democrats don't like the Senate bill and particularly don't like the thought of having to accept it with no input. But there may be no other way to get a bill and they may decide something is better than nothing.
3. Use Reconciliation. Use the rules of the Senate to pass a bill with 51 votes. The problem is that only budgetary issues are elgibile to use the reconciliation process which leaves out big parts of the legislation such as eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions or creating national health care exchanges.
Odds of this happening: Very Low. You just can't get enough of the bill done this way.
4. Go After Senator Snowe. She voted for the bill in committee. Give in to her demands, whatever those may be and make her vote number 60.
Odds of this happening: Low. Why, after seeing the bloodbath in Massachusetts, would Senator Snowe even consider playing ball? I think she is a woman of principle, but I don't think she is crazy.
5. Scale back. WAY back. Build a bi-partisan consensus.
Odds of this happening: Moderate. Dems may have to swallow hard and pass an incremental bill that does the things the GOP has agreed to. It would be better for them than getting nothing, but not much better.
6. Fail. Pass Nothing.
Odds of this happening: Moderate. This truly would be Waterloo for the Dems, but if you can't make one of the above 5 options, this happens by default.
One thing you can say about American politics, it is never boring.
I think it's safe to say Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter and Harry Reid are shaking in their boots tonight. They probably should be. But it is also amazing how much things can change in 10 months. Think of how much they've changed in the past 10.
Thanks for tuning in. Full post-election scorecarding in my next post.
Congratulations again to Scott Brown. As always, I'll take a moment to recognize the wonder that is our republic with peaceful elections and transitions of power. Let's never stop being awe-inspired by what we have in this country. God bless America.
If you like this site tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Martha Coakley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martha Coakley. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
New Averages with Insider Advantage Poll
I told you I thought there would be at least one more poll release today and it is in. The Insider Advantage poll, with a sample size of 804 gives Republican Scott Brown a 52%-43%-2% (3% undecided) lead over Martha Coakley.
Recasting our non-partisan poll averages from earlier today, we now have:
Sample Weighted Average: Brown +3.7%
Unweighted Average: Brown +3.5%
Median Result: Brown +3.5%
Our New Statistical Projection: Brown 50.8%, Coakley 47.1%, Kennedy 2.1%
In all of the polls, Brown has been between 48% and 52% and Coakley has been between 41% and 49%.
While it is still certainly possible that Coakley could win (my projections have missed by 4 percentage points on occasion, although it is rare, and this is particularly dicey race to call, given the special election circumstances.)
Bettors are reacting to the poll numbers by betting hard on Brown, making him a 7:3 favorite in betting. Honestly, with the bevy of polls released in the past few days and none of them showing Coakley leading, I think these odds are probably over generous to Coakley. I would rate her chances of surviving tomorrow at 15 to 20%.
Honestly, who thought a year ago that the Republican comeback would start in Massachusetts? Certainly not me. A few weeks ago, I was saying that if the GOP could keep the margin under 15, it would be a moral victory.
Assuming Coakley loses, there will be a lot of post-mortem. Democrats will talk about how bad a candidate she was, failing to campaign hard early, showing no personality in the debates, etc. Republicans will call it a referendum on the Obama administration.
The truth is somewhere in between. Coakley HAS been a below-average candidate for Senate. She has inspired not at all, was extremely wooden in the debates and has, frankly, run a nasty, divisive, negative campaign. But, none of this would even matter in an ordinary year. In an ordinary rule those attributes would cause her to win by 15 points instead of 30, not lose.
Nor is distrust of the Obama administration the whole story. Sure Obama's approval is down. But it is still around 60% in Massachusetts, meaning that Brown is getting a fairly good sized chunk of people who actually like what the President is doing.
This is partly a proud American tradition of reigning in one-party rule. We, as a country, frankly don't like it very much when either party gets their way unfettered. And this instinct has proved healthy in most cases.
Of course, there is still a chance Coakley will win. Not much left to do but get out to the polls and count votes.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Recasting our non-partisan poll averages from earlier today, we now have:
Sample Weighted Average: Brown +3.7%
Unweighted Average: Brown +3.5%
Median Result: Brown +3.5%
Our New Statistical Projection: Brown 50.8%, Coakley 47.1%, Kennedy 2.1%
In all of the polls, Brown has been between 48% and 52% and Coakley has been between 41% and 49%.
While it is still certainly possible that Coakley could win (my projections have missed by 4 percentage points on occasion, although it is rare, and this is particularly dicey race to call, given the special election circumstances.)
Bettors are reacting to the poll numbers by betting hard on Brown, making him a 7:3 favorite in betting. Honestly, with the bevy of polls released in the past few days and none of them showing Coakley leading, I think these odds are probably over generous to Coakley. I would rate her chances of surviving tomorrow at 15 to 20%.
Honestly, who thought a year ago that the Republican comeback would start in Massachusetts? Certainly not me. A few weeks ago, I was saying that if the GOP could keep the margin under 15, it would be a moral victory.
Assuming Coakley loses, there will be a lot of post-mortem. Democrats will talk about how bad a candidate she was, failing to campaign hard early, showing no personality in the debates, etc. Republicans will call it a referendum on the Obama administration.
The truth is somewhere in between. Coakley HAS been a below-average candidate for Senate. She has inspired not at all, was extremely wooden in the debates and has, frankly, run a nasty, divisive, negative campaign. But, none of this would even matter in an ordinary year. In an ordinary rule those attributes would cause her to win by 15 points instead of 30, not lose.
Nor is distrust of the Obama administration the whole story. Sure Obama's approval is down. But it is still around 60% in Massachusetts, meaning that Brown is getting a fairly good sized chunk of people who actually like what the President is doing.
This is partly a proud American tradition of reigning in one-party rule. We, as a country, frankly don't like it very much when either party gets their way unfettered. And this instinct has proved healthy in most cases.
Of course, there is still a chance Coakley will win. Not much left to do but get out to the polls and count votes.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Massachusetts Update
A few new pieces of polling data have come in today, so I thought I'd update my projections. The two new polls are as follows:
(1) Research 2000 has conducted a Sample Size 500 poll that shows the race dead even at 48%-48%-3% with 1% undecided.
(2) Management Research Group has conducted a Sample Size 565 poll that shows a solid Brown lead at 51%-41%-2% with 6% undecided.
It is worth noting that Management Research Group has significantly less experience doing political polling than the big firms and universities (Gallup, Rasmussen, Research 2000, Quinnipiac), although that certainly doesn't mean that they are wrong. It is odd that they still show 6% undecideds in a race that is happening tomorrow.
At any rate, the aggregation of all the data now looks as follows for all non-partisan polls:
Sample-Weighted Poll Average: Brown +2.3%
Unweighted Average: Brown +2.9%
Median Poll Margin: Brown +3.0%
Our Statistical Projection: Brown 50.3%, Coakley 47.2%, Kennedy 2.1%
I don't personally believe that in a race this close, that 2.1% of voters will case a protest vote for Kennedy. History shows that independents tend to underperform their polling data, but I have no way to estimate how much, so I'm not going to attempt it. It would seem logical that Kennedy bleed-offs would break disproportionately for Brown.
There are three scenarios that I can envision:
(1) A Coakley squeaker -- all the undecideds break for Coakley, turnout is on the high end and the Kennedy voters stick with the Libertarian rather than reverting to Brown. Margin: Coakley 49.3%, Brown 48.6%, Kennedy 2.1%
(2) Brown wins close -- the numbers fall more or less as we project
(3) Brown rally continues -- the undecideds all break for him and he peels off half the Kennedy voters. Margin: Brown 53.2%, Coakley 45.8%, Kennedy 1.0%
I actually view these three scenarios as fairly equally likely, although obviously I think scenario #2 is the central scenario, which is why I'm projecting it.
The intrade odds on the race have moved from even-money mid-day yesterday to favoring Brown by almost 2:1 odds. This kind of supports my three equally-likely scenarios theory -- in 2 of my 3 scenarios Brown wins, giving him the same 2:1 advantage.
I'm expecting one more poll to be released today and if it is, I will update my projection, but for now, this race remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up, by a slightly better margin than yesterday.
Regrettably, I will be traveling tomorrow night and may not be able to publish a post until later in the evening. It appears unlikely that we will know a winner for several hours after the polls close regardless, unless it turns out to be an unexpected blowout.
(1) Research 2000 has conducted a Sample Size 500 poll that shows the race dead even at 48%-48%-3% with 1% undecided.
(2) Management Research Group has conducted a Sample Size 565 poll that shows a solid Brown lead at 51%-41%-2% with 6% undecided.
It is worth noting that Management Research Group has significantly less experience doing political polling than the big firms and universities (Gallup, Rasmussen, Research 2000, Quinnipiac), although that certainly doesn't mean that they are wrong. It is odd that they still show 6% undecideds in a race that is happening tomorrow.
At any rate, the aggregation of all the data now looks as follows for all non-partisan polls:
Sample-Weighted Poll Average: Brown +2.3%
Unweighted Average: Brown +2.9%
Median Poll Margin: Brown +3.0%
Our Statistical Projection: Brown 50.3%, Coakley 47.2%, Kennedy 2.1%
I don't personally believe that in a race this close, that 2.1% of voters will case a protest vote for Kennedy. History shows that independents tend to underperform their polling data, but I have no way to estimate how much, so I'm not going to attempt it. It would seem logical that Kennedy bleed-offs would break disproportionately for Brown.
There are three scenarios that I can envision:
(1) A Coakley squeaker -- all the undecideds break for Coakley, turnout is on the high end and the Kennedy voters stick with the Libertarian rather than reverting to Brown. Margin: Coakley 49.3%, Brown 48.6%, Kennedy 2.1%
(2) Brown wins close -- the numbers fall more or less as we project
(3) Brown rally continues -- the undecideds all break for him and he peels off half the Kennedy voters. Margin: Brown 53.2%, Coakley 45.8%, Kennedy 1.0%
I actually view these three scenarios as fairly equally likely, although obviously I think scenario #2 is the central scenario, which is why I'm projecting it.
The intrade odds on the race have moved from even-money mid-day yesterday to favoring Brown by almost 2:1 odds. This kind of supports my three equally-likely scenarios theory -- in 2 of my 3 scenarios Brown wins, giving him the same 2:1 advantage.
I'm expecting one more poll to be released today and if it is, I will update my projection, but for now, this race remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up, by a slightly better margin than yesterday.
Regrettably, I will be traveling tomorrow night and may not be able to publish a post until later in the evening. It appears unlikely that we will know a winner for several hours after the polls close regardless, unless it turns out to be an unexpected blowout.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Massachusetts Preliminary Projection
It's two days before the election, therefore I no longer afford myself the luxury of calling the Massachusetts Senate special election a "toss-up". Let's analyze the data we have.
Polling and Statistical Data
We have three polls available to us that were:
(1) Taken in the past week
(2) Non-partisan in nature
These polls break down as follows:
Polling Firm Sample Size Coakley Brown
ARG 600 45% 48%
Suffolk 500 46% 50%
Rasmussen 1,000 49% 47%
So, here are the averages:
Sample-Weighted Average: Brown +0.9%
Pure Average: Brown +1.7%
Median: Brown +3.0%
Average of Averages: 1.9%
Statistical Projection: Lean GOP Pick-Up, Brown +1.9%
It is worth noting that Coakley's range is 45% to 49%, with an average of averages of 46.6%, while Browns range is from 47% to 50% with an average of averages of 48.5%. Since neither candidate appears to be over the 50% threshold, this election could very much be decided in the last two days as undecideds (estimated in this average at 4.9% of the vote) break one way or another. If these statistical projections are correct, Coakley would need 70% of the remaining undecideds.
It is also worth noting that there is a third-party Libertarian candidate in the race. It seems highly unlikely, despite the fact that he has an unrelated "Kennedy" last name, that he will garner a significant number of votes in such a close race, but different polls have treated his candidacy differently (some listing his name among the possible candidates in the poll, some not.) As we frequently see (most recently in New Jersey), third party candidates tend to underperform their polling on election day. And one would have to consider that Kennedy voters would largely swing to Brown. On the flip side, purely undecided voters, one would suspect, might break more than 50% for Coakley, given the state demographics.
So, all in all, I believe that this polling indicates, based on the data available today, that Scott Brown has a 70% chance of winning on Tuesday.
Of course, lots of variables will be important, from the impact of final-weekend spending, to the impact of President Obama (who is still popular in Massachusetts) stumping for Coakley, to, most importantly, the turnout on Tuesday (less is good for Brown, more is good for Coakley), especially relative to the polling assumptions.
I will update this statistical projection tomorrow, if, as I suspect, at least some new polling data are available.
The Betting Public
Intrade betting odds peg the race (as of this moment) at even odds. This reflects the close polls and also some disbelief that Massachusetts will actually elect a Republican. We'll see if that skepticism is warranted.
The Buzz in Washington
The inside buzz in Washington is that Brown is going to win. The GOP is already prepping a celebration dance, the DEMs already pitching talking points about how this is a unique race, not a vote on the Democratic agenda. When you start hearing these points, you know who they think is going to win. There are also several inside reports that internal polling by the Democrats shows Coakley in big trouble.
What to Make of It All
My overall conclusion: this is an extremely close race that is extremely hard to project, not only because of the closeness of the polling, but also because of the dynamics of a special election and the difficulty in estimating turnout.
Brown appears, at least at this point, to be more likely ahead than not. But he is not far ahead, if he is ahead.
So, if you live in Massachusetts, whether you support Coakley or Brown, you should make sure to vote. This may be the closest statewide race in the state for some time and voting in this type of election is far more critical than in a Presidential race (where the state is typically a slam-dunk for the DEMs.) So, get out and vote. And we'll all stay tuned Tuesday to see how you did.
I will publish an update on Monday if there is any new information to report on.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Polling and Statistical Data
We have three polls available to us that were:
(1) Taken in the past week
(2) Non-partisan in nature
These polls break down as follows:
Polling Firm Sample Size Coakley Brown
ARG 600 45% 48%
Suffolk 500 46% 50%
Rasmussen 1,000 49% 47%
So, here are the averages:
Sample-Weighted Average: Brown +0.9%
Pure Average: Brown +1.7%
Median: Brown +3.0%
Average of Averages: 1.9%
Statistical Projection: Lean GOP Pick-Up, Brown +1.9%
It is worth noting that Coakley's range is 45% to 49%, with an average of averages of 46.6%, while Browns range is from 47% to 50% with an average of averages of 48.5%. Since neither candidate appears to be over the 50% threshold, this election could very much be decided in the last two days as undecideds (estimated in this average at 4.9% of the vote) break one way or another. If these statistical projections are correct, Coakley would need 70% of the remaining undecideds.
It is also worth noting that there is a third-party Libertarian candidate in the race. It seems highly unlikely, despite the fact that he has an unrelated "Kennedy" last name, that he will garner a significant number of votes in such a close race, but different polls have treated his candidacy differently (some listing his name among the possible candidates in the poll, some not.) As we frequently see (most recently in New Jersey), third party candidates tend to underperform their polling on election day. And one would have to consider that Kennedy voters would largely swing to Brown. On the flip side, purely undecided voters, one would suspect, might break more than 50% for Coakley, given the state demographics.
So, all in all, I believe that this polling indicates, based on the data available today, that Scott Brown has a 70% chance of winning on Tuesday.
Of course, lots of variables will be important, from the impact of final-weekend spending, to the impact of President Obama (who is still popular in Massachusetts) stumping for Coakley, to, most importantly, the turnout on Tuesday (less is good for Brown, more is good for Coakley), especially relative to the polling assumptions.
I will update this statistical projection tomorrow, if, as I suspect, at least some new polling data are available.
The Betting Public
Intrade betting odds peg the race (as of this moment) at even odds. This reflects the close polls and also some disbelief that Massachusetts will actually elect a Republican. We'll see if that skepticism is warranted.
The Buzz in Washington
The inside buzz in Washington is that Brown is going to win. The GOP is already prepping a celebration dance, the DEMs already pitching talking points about how this is a unique race, not a vote on the Democratic agenda. When you start hearing these points, you know who they think is going to win. There are also several inside reports that internal polling by the Democrats shows Coakley in big trouble.
What to Make of It All
My overall conclusion: this is an extremely close race that is extremely hard to project, not only because of the closeness of the polling, but also because of the dynamics of a special election and the difficulty in estimating turnout.
Brown appears, at least at this point, to be more likely ahead than not. But he is not far ahead, if he is ahead.
So, if you live in Massachusetts, whether you support Coakley or Brown, you should make sure to vote. This may be the closest statewide race in the state for some time and voting in this type of election is far more critical than in a Presidential race (where the state is typically a slam-dunk for the DEMs.) So, get out and vote. And we'll all stay tuned Tuesday to see how you did.
I will publish an update on Monday if there is any new information to report on.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Massachusetts and Beyond, Presidential Approval Continues Slow Slide, Health Care Slogs Along, Haiti Relief - A Donation Worth Making
2010 Updates - A Very Unusual Year
Is the Senate race in Massachusetts a DEM blow-out, a GOP blow-out or a pick 'em race headed into next Tuesday? It all depends who you believe.
There have been two conflicting polls released in recent days that illustrate the danger of using numbers from partisan oriented polling firms in projecting races. A poll released yesterday by PJM/Cross Target, a Republican-affiliated polling firm, showed Republican Scott Brown with a shockingly large 15 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The same day, a Democrat-afilliated Blue Mass Group poll shoed Coakley with an 8 point lead in the same race. A 23 points spread on two polls trying to measure the same race on the same day? And it just happens that the Democratic poll has the Dem leading big and the GOP poll has the Republican leading even bigger? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
Back in the real world of neutral polls, this is a pick 'em race. The two last credible polls that we have are a Suffolk poll showing Brown at +4% and a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley at +2%, both released this week. Both Suffolk and Rasmussen are legitimate, neutral polling firms. The Rasmussen poll has a 1,000 voter sample size, with the Suffolk poll having a 500 voter sample size, which gives more weight to the Rasmussen poll in our aggregation method. I typically like to have at least 3 recent polls to make a good statistical projection, but going with what we have, Brown would have the slimmest of leads.
This is clearly a pick 'em race, not a blow-out in my books.
Massachusetts moves from Lean Democratic Hold to Toss-up.
I don't project toss-ups going into election night, so I WILL be making a projection soon as to the final outcome of the race, based on whatever data I have at that point.
In the November Senate races, there are multiple changes, most of them bad for the DEMs. Let's review the states with new polls.
California -- a new Rasmussen poll shows incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer leading business woman Carly Fiorna by only 3%, in what would've been a walk for the DEMs a year ago. California moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold.
Nevada -- Harry Reid is in big, big trouble bag home. A January 14th Rasmussen poll shows Reid down by 12 to 14% versus likely GOP challengers and a January 8th Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing by 8 to 10% against the same challengers. Nevada moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
North Dakota -- with incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan retiring, it appears the Democrats will lose his seat. Hoeven leads by 21 to 25% against likely Democratic opponents, according to a January 15th Research 2000 poll. Based on those numbers, this is starting to look like a safe bet for the GOP, but we'll hold it one notch short until we see another poll. North Dakota moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
Connecticut -- the one piece of good news for the Democrats is that with Chris Dodd out of the way, his seat is probably the safest in the Senate for Demcorats to retain. A January 14th Quinnipac poll shows Blumenthal with amazing leads of 35 to 42% against likely GOPers. This race stays a Safe Democratic Hold.
New Hampshire -- more confirmation that Ayotte has a small-to-moderate lead. A January 12 Rasmussen poll shows her at +9%, largely agreeing with a January 7th ARG poll that showed her at +7%. This one stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Ohio -- continued evidence of a narrow GOP lead here. Portman is up 3% in a January 12 Rasmussen poll. This stays Lean GOP Hold.
We don't have new polls yet in Missouri and Pennsylvania, so they stay where they are, but I would say my current ratings, particularly in Missouri are probably suspect, given the national trend since the last polls we have.
All of which leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Hold (6)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Likely Democratic Hold (3)
Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii
Lean Democratic Hold (3)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois, California
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-Up -- Democratic Controlled (3)
Massachusetts*, Delaware, Pennsylvania
* Special Election, January 19th
Likely GOP Pick-Up (2)
Nevada, North Dakota
Lean GOP Pick-Up (2)
Colorado, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +3 to 6 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners): GOP +10 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) DEM +4 Seats
We still have a wide range of possible scenarios that could happen by November. And as it should be with ten months to go before the election. But it definitely continues to trend GOP as the President's numbers slip and Democrats keep falling all over themselves.
The GOP needs a gain of 11 seats, assuming Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the DEMs, in order to regain control, so we still don't have a scenario for GOP control of the Senate, although we are getting closer.
In the House, polls continue to show varying scenarios, but my aggregate number has actually been relatively stable.
The latest read: GOP +4.0% on the generic ballot
Projection: GOP +44 Seats
The GOP needs 40 seats to regain control, so for the third time in a row, I'm projected a GOP takeover of the House, at least at this point.
President Obama -- A New Low in Poll Numbers
President Obama's numbers have slipped a little over a point since the new year as you can see from the poll trend below, bringing him to a new low for his Presidency. There were a slew of new polls released this past week, so the averages are pretty strong, based on a very broad sample.
The trend shows up in the President's monthly numbers, which now stand at +3.6% approve minus disapprove for the month of January, also a new low. The President's numbers have declined every month but one in his Presidency.
So is there any good news for Democratic enthusiasts in these numbers? A little. The President, while at a low for his Presidency, is still modestly above the zero line, which means there are still slightly more people who approve of his performance than disapprove. And when you run for re-election, you don't need to win by much, you just need to win.
Secondly, there is some reason to be optimistic that likely improvement in the economy between now and November will bolster his numbers. Still, these numbers are bad for this stage in the Presidency.
While there has been an ongoing debate between the competing schools of thought that "all politics are national" and "all politics are local", the truth is that all politics are BOTH and that weakening numbers for Obama are no doubt having an impact on Senate races, including the Massachusetts toss-up that was considered a walk by everyone just a few months ago.
Health Care - Everything is Complicated Again
As negotiations continue between the White House and Congressional leaders to come up with a consolidated health care bill that can pass both Houses, a deal has been struck on the tax on high benefit plans that was a part of the Senate bill, but was opposed by some House Democrats, who feared it would impact benefits of union workers. The compromise? Exempt union plans from the tax.
This is a bad compromise, an agreement that is both fundamentally unfair (why should union members get tax treatment that is different from non-union members with the same benefits?) and also takes the teeth out of what was probably the one good piece of cost containment in the bill. These types of bad deals seem like par for course lately in a divided Democratic party.
The Coakley/Brown race further complicates things. If Brown wins, he is Republican #41 in the Senate, which shatters the fragile 60 vote coalition that the Democrats had put together to get the first bill passed. This upset, if it happens, would leave the Democrats with several options:
#1 Just have the House pass the Senate bill -- this appears to be a non-starter according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, since the Senate bill contains the Caddy Tax we discussed above. But if the Brown upset happens, perhaps her stance will soften and she will push the bill through with the agreement that a later bill would deal with provisions that House members don't like.
#2 Hurry up and pass something before Brown is seated -- it will likely take at least 10 days to certify Brown the winner, possibly more if the race is extremely close and a recount is needed (recall the months it took to seat Al Franken in the bitterly contested Minnesota race last year) and the Democrats could try to pass something before Brown takes office. This would open them up to brutal criticism -- after all Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow a temporary appointment in the Senate and using that vote to circumvent the will of the Massachusetts people to ram through a bill that is unpopular in the polls would make for some easy GOP ads in November. It would, however, be a legal move and Democrats might just bite the bullet to pass a bill, but it would be a dangerous move for sure.
#3 Recruit Olympia Snowe -- Senator Snowe voted the bill out of committee and it would be hard to argue that the bill isn't more conservative now than it was then. Senator Snowe voted against the bill on the floor the first time around, complaining the Democrats were moving too fast, but she should have had plenty of time to think and read by now. Still, will Senator Snowe really want to be the deciding vote for such a massive Democratic accomplishment?
#4 Use Reconciliation -- this option is very messy as only portions of the bill could be attached to a process requiring only 51 votes in the Senate and could lead to an incomplete bill taking effect, but if all else fails, Democrats may seek this nuclear option. Of course, they still need 218 votes in the House, which is no slam dunk, but they may consider this to avoid the disaster of nothing passing.
This bill obviously isn't a done deal yet and we will all have to stay tuned.
Haiti -- Worth Our Giving
If you have a heartbeat, you can't help but be touched by the awful destruction in Port au Prince, Haiti, following a massive earthquake that may have killed as many as 100,000 people.
One of the most inspiring features of American culture has always been our willingness to give in times of need. Americans give more money to charity, in absolute dollars, in percent of income, by any measure you like, of any people in the world.
An aid is needed. Economic times back home are tough. But what we face is nothing compared to the grisly mess faced in Haiti. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help.
I urge all readers to give. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have teamed up to organize aid efforts. The unity these two are showing in the face of the crisis should tell you that this relief effort has nothing to do with politics. What is needed is money to help dying, starving, threatened people.
Please, please, go to:
http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/
and give whatever you can to the Clinton/Bush Haiti Fund. If all you can afford is $10, still give it, that $10 could be the difference between a Haitian living and dying.
I have no affiliation with the fund.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for your generosity.
Is the Senate race in Massachusetts a DEM blow-out, a GOP blow-out or a pick 'em race headed into next Tuesday? It all depends who you believe.
There have been two conflicting polls released in recent days that illustrate the danger of using numbers from partisan oriented polling firms in projecting races. A poll released yesterday by PJM/Cross Target, a Republican-affiliated polling firm, showed Republican Scott Brown with a shockingly large 15 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The same day, a Democrat-afilliated Blue Mass Group poll shoed Coakley with an 8 point lead in the same race. A 23 points spread on two polls trying to measure the same race on the same day? And it just happens that the Democratic poll has the Dem leading big and the GOP poll has the Republican leading even bigger? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
Back in the real world of neutral polls, this is a pick 'em race. The two last credible polls that we have are a Suffolk poll showing Brown at +4% and a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley at +2%, both released this week. Both Suffolk and Rasmussen are legitimate, neutral polling firms. The Rasmussen poll has a 1,000 voter sample size, with the Suffolk poll having a 500 voter sample size, which gives more weight to the Rasmussen poll in our aggregation method. I typically like to have at least 3 recent polls to make a good statistical projection, but going with what we have, Brown would have the slimmest of leads.
This is clearly a pick 'em race, not a blow-out in my books.
Massachusetts moves from Lean Democratic Hold to Toss-up.
I don't project toss-ups going into election night, so I WILL be making a projection soon as to the final outcome of the race, based on whatever data I have at that point.
In the November Senate races, there are multiple changes, most of them bad for the DEMs. Let's review the states with new polls.
California -- a new Rasmussen poll shows incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer leading business woman Carly Fiorna by only 3%, in what would've been a walk for the DEMs a year ago. California moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold.
Nevada -- Harry Reid is in big, big trouble bag home. A January 14th Rasmussen poll shows Reid down by 12 to 14% versus likely GOP challengers and a January 8th Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing by 8 to 10% against the same challengers. Nevada moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
North Dakota -- with incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan retiring, it appears the Democrats will lose his seat. Hoeven leads by 21 to 25% against likely Democratic opponents, according to a January 15th Research 2000 poll. Based on those numbers, this is starting to look like a safe bet for the GOP, but we'll hold it one notch short until we see another poll. North Dakota moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
Connecticut -- the one piece of good news for the Democrats is that with Chris Dodd out of the way, his seat is probably the safest in the Senate for Demcorats to retain. A January 14th Quinnipac poll shows Blumenthal with amazing leads of 35 to 42% against likely GOPers. This race stays a Safe Democratic Hold.
New Hampshire -- more confirmation that Ayotte has a small-to-moderate lead. A January 12 Rasmussen poll shows her at +9%, largely agreeing with a January 7th ARG poll that showed her at +7%. This one stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Ohio -- continued evidence of a narrow GOP lead here. Portman is up 3% in a January 12 Rasmussen poll. This stays Lean GOP Hold.
We don't have new polls yet in Missouri and Pennsylvania, so they stay where they are, but I would say my current ratings, particularly in Missouri are probably suspect, given the national trend since the last polls we have.
All of which leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Hold (6)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Likely Democratic Hold (3)
Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii
Lean Democratic Hold (3)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois, California
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-Up -- Democratic Controlled (3)
Massachusetts*, Delaware, Pennsylvania
* Special Election, January 19th
Likely GOP Pick-Up (2)
Nevada, North Dakota
Lean GOP Pick-Up (2)
Colorado, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +3 to 6 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners): GOP +10 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) DEM +4 Seats
We still have a wide range of possible scenarios that could happen by November. And as it should be with ten months to go before the election. But it definitely continues to trend GOP as the President's numbers slip and Democrats keep falling all over themselves.
The GOP needs a gain of 11 seats, assuming Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the DEMs, in order to regain control, so we still don't have a scenario for GOP control of the Senate, although we are getting closer.
In the House, polls continue to show varying scenarios, but my aggregate number has actually been relatively stable.
The latest read: GOP +4.0% on the generic ballot
Projection: GOP +44 Seats
The GOP needs 40 seats to regain control, so for the third time in a row, I'm projected a GOP takeover of the House, at least at this point.
President Obama -- A New Low in Poll Numbers
President Obama's numbers have slipped a little over a point since the new year as you can see from the poll trend below, bringing him to a new low for his Presidency. There were a slew of new polls released this past week, so the averages are pretty strong, based on a very broad sample.
The trend shows up in the President's monthly numbers, which now stand at +3.6% approve minus disapprove for the month of January, also a new low. The President's numbers have declined every month but one in his Presidency.
So is there any good news for Democratic enthusiasts in these numbers? A little. The President, while at a low for his Presidency, is still modestly above the zero line, which means there are still slightly more people who approve of his performance than disapprove. And when you run for re-election, you don't need to win by much, you just need to win.
Secondly, there is some reason to be optimistic that likely improvement in the economy between now and November will bolster his numbers. Still, these numbers are bad for this stage in the Presidency.
While there has been an ongoing debate between the competing schools of thought that "all politics are national" and "all politics are local", the truth is that all politics are BOTH and that weakening numbers for Obama are no doubt having an impact on Senate races, including the Massachusetts toss-up that was considered a walk by everyone just a few months ago.
Health Care - Everything is Complicated Again
As negotiations continue between the White House and Congressional leaders to come up with a consolidated health care bill that can pass both Houses, a deal has been struck on the tax on high benefit plans that was a part of the Senate bill, but was opposed by some House Democrats, who feared it would impact benefits of union workers. The compromise? Exempt union plans from the tax.
This is a bad compromise, an agreement that is both fundamentally unfair (why should union members get tax treatment that is different from non-union members with the same benefits?) and also takes the teeth out of what was probably the one good piece of cost containment in the bill. These types of bad deals seem like par for course lately in a divided Democratic party.
The Coakley/Brown race further complicates things. If Brown wins, he is Republican #41 in the Senate, which shatters the fragile 60 vote coalition that the Democrats had put together to get the first bill passed. This upset, if it happens, would leave the Democrats with several options:
#1 Just have the House pass the Senate bill -- this appears to be a non-starter according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, since the Senate bill contains the Caddy Tax we discussed above. But if the Brown upset happens, perhaps her stance will soften and she will push the bill through with the agreement that a later bill would deal with provisions that House members don't like.
#2 Hurry up and pass something before Brown is seated -- it will likely take at least 10 days to certify Brown the winner, possibly more if the race is extremely close and a recount is needed (recall the months it took to seat Al Franken in the bitterly contested Minnesota race last year) and the Democrats could try to pass something before Brown takes office. This would open them up to brutal criticism -- after all Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow a temporary appointment in the Senate and using that vote to circumvent the will of the Massachusetts people to ram through a bill that is unpopular in the polls would make for some easy GOP ads in November. It would, however, be a legal move and Democrats might just bite the bullet to pass a bill, but it would be a dangerous move for sure.
#3 Recruit Olympia Snowe -- Senator Snowe voted the bill out of committee and it would be hard to argue that the bill isn't more conservative now than it was then. Senator Snowe voted against the bill on the floor the first time around, complaining the Democrats were moving too fast, but she should have had plenty of time to think and read by now. Still, will Senator Snowe really want to be the deciding vote for such a massive Democratic accomplishment?
#4 Use Reconciliation -- this option is very messy as only portions of the bill could be attached to a process requiring only 51 votes in the Senate and could lead to an incomplete bill taking effect, but if all else fails, Democrats may seek this nuclear option. Of course, they still need 218 votes in the House, which is no slam dunk, but they may consider this to avoid the disaster of nothing passing.
This bill obviously isn't a done deal yet and we will all have to stay tuned.
Haiti -- Worth Our Giving
If you have a heartbeat, you can't help but be touched by the awful destruction in Port au Prince, Haiti, following a massive earthquake that may have killed as many as 100,000 people.
One of the most inspiring features of American culture has always been our willingness to give in times of need. Americans give more money to charity, in absolute dollars, in percent of income, by any measure you like, of any people in the world.
An aid is needed. Economic times back home are tough. But what we face is nothing compared to the grisly mess faced in Haiti. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help.
I urge all readers to give. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have teamed up to organize aid efforts. The unity these two are showing in the face of the crisis should tell you that this relief effort has nothing to do with politics. What is needed is money to help dying, starving, threatened people.
Please, please, go to:
http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/
and give whatever you can to the Clinton/Bush Haiti Fund. If all you can afford is $10, still give it, that $10 could be the difference between a Haitian living and dying.
I have no affiliation with the fund.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for your generosity.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Breaking Down Massachusetts -- TIme to Take Upset Talk Seriously
A new Rasmussen poll released today shows Democrat Martha Coakley with a slim, 2 point lead over Republican Scott Brown in the special election race for the Massachusetts Senate. Unlike the PPP poll released early in the week, Rasmussen is a non-partisan polling firm, albeit one that has come under fire from the left for having polling data this year favorable to Republicans. Scott Rasmussen, in my view, has several things enhancing his credibility:
(1) His polling was above average in its state-by-state accuracy in November 2008
(2) He was also above average in the accuracy of his polls in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races
(3) The primary source of Democratic criticism has been that his approval figures for President Obama have consistently run 5 to 10% behind the consensus of the rest. But a public opinion poll is not the same as an election projection poll. The Rasmussen poll has differed from many other public opinion polls in that he has attempted to target likely voters, whereas many other polls target the general public or registered voters. But all election projection polls (at least all the ones worth anything) target likely voters.
In short, I have no statistical evidence in actual elections that would cause me to question the methodology behind Scott Rasmussen's polls, and absent that and especially given his track record of accuracy, I consider his polling credible.
So, lending the Rasmussen poll some credence and noting that the polling has tightened 7 points over the past week in that poll, I'm left to conclude that we now have a horse race.
Massachusetts moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold
So, let's break down the things that will make the difference:
(1) Momentum in the closing week -- advantage Brown -- clearly he is gaining and if you were to draw a trend line from a few weeks ago to election day, Coakley is in big trouble
(2) Bank account -- big advantage Coakley -- she can spend, spend, spend in the closing week in a way Brown can't match. Both her own campaign and the DNC are far better funded in the home stretch than Brown and the RNC. Her wisest move would be to hit hard in the closing week to move social moderates and rally the base.
(3) Base turnout -- advantage Brown -- the GOP base is fired up and tends to turn out higher in off-year elections to begin with (social conservatives ALWAYS make it to the polls.) The DEMs are pretty beaten down and it's hard to imagine 19-year-olds and African-American voters turning out for Martha Coakley in the same numbers that they did for Obama.
(4) State demographics -- advantage Coakley -- let's face it, Massachusetts doesn't really want a Republican, not a real Republican anyway. It's among the bluest states. Brown's surge reflects a lot of frustration with the Obama administration, the state of the economy and the sense that things aren't getting any better in this country (take a look at the right track / wrong track poll numbers if you doubt me.) Plus, Americans like to check power. But will those socially liberal, economically moderate independents really pull the lever for Brown in the end?
Can #1 and #3 overcome #2 and #4?
The betting public on intrade presently pegs the odds in the race with Coakley as a 10 : 3 favorite. That seems about right to me heading into the home stretch. Brown really could legitimately win, but the odds are still stacked against him. But if he pulls this off, it will be an amazing rallying cry for the GOP and an amazing hit to the DEMs.
I expect a number of new polls in this race in the next few days, which should help lend us some clarity heading into next Tuesday. Bear in mind that special elections are notoriously hard to poll for, as it is hard to tell who will actually show up to vote the Tuesday after a holiday weekend.
But it's going to be a fun ride, and quite possibly a late night next Tuesday
(1) His polling was above average in its state-by-state accuracy in November 2008
(2) He was also above average in the accuracy of his polls in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races
(3) The primary source of Democratic criticism has been that his approval figures for President Obama have consistently run 5 to 10% behind the consensus of the rest. But a public opinion poll is not the same as an election projection poll. The Rasmussen poll has differed from many other public opinion polls in that he has attempted to target likely voters, whereas many other polls target the general public or registered voters. But all election projection polls (at least all the ones worth anything) target likely voters.
In short, I have no statistical evidence in actual elections that would cause me to question the methodology behind Scott Rasmussen's polls, and absent that and especially given his track record of accuracy, I consider his polling credible.
So, lending the Rasmussen poll some credence and noting that the polling has tightened 7 points over the past week in that poll, I'm left to conclude that we now have a horse race.
Massachusetts moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold
So, let's break down the things that will make the difference:
(1) Momentum in the closing week -- advantage Brown -- clearly he is gaining and if you were to draw a trend line from a few weeks ago to election day, Coakley is in big trouble
(2) Bank account -- big advantage Coakley -- she can spend, spend, spend in the closing week in a way Brown can't match. Both her own campaign and the DNC are far better funded in the home stretch than Brown and the RNC. Her wisest move would be to hit hard in the closing week to move social moderates and rally the base.
(3) Base turnout -- advantage Brown -- the GOP base is fired up and tends to turn out higher in off-year elections to begin with (social conservatives ALWAYS make it to the polls.) The DEMs are pretty beaten down and it's hard to imagine 19-year-olds and African-American voters turning out for Martha Coakley in the same numbers that they did for Obama.
(4) State demographics -- advantage Coakley -- let's face it, Massachusetts doesn't really want a Republican, not a real Republican anyway. It's among the bluest states. Brown's surge reflects a lot of frustration with the Obama administration, the state of the economy and the sense that things aren't getting any better in this country (take a look at the right track / wrong track poll numbers if you doubt me.) Plus, Americans like to check power. But will those socially liberal, economically moderate independents really pull the lever for Brown in the end?
Can #1 and #3 overcome #2 and #4?
The betting public on intrade presently pegs the odds in the race with Coakley as a 10 : 3 favorite. That seems about right to me heading into the home stretch. Brown really could legitimately win, but the odds are still stacked against him. But if he pulls this off, it will be an amazing rallying cry for the GOP and an amazing hit to the DEMs.
I expect a number of new polls in this race in the next few days, which should help lend us some clarity heading into next Tuesday. Bear in mind that special elections are notoriously hard to poll for, as it is hard to tell who will actually show up to vote the Tuesday after a holiday weekend.
But it's going to be a fun ride, and quite possibly a late night next Tuesday
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Harry Reid: Shame On You, Big MA Upset Brewing?
If you have been living in a cave the past 24 hours, perhaps you missed Senator Harry Reid's revealed words about President Obama from the campaign trail in 2008. To be specific, Senator Reid said that then-candidate had a real opportunity to win because he was "light-skinned" and "had no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to".
You could certainly make an intellectual argument that America was more ready to accept a bi-racial President than a dark-skinned black President. You could similarly argue that if the President did not have strong command of proper language skills, he would not have been a viable candidate. Neither of these are the point.
The subtext of Senator Reid's remarks reveal a clear racism. First, the choice of the word "Negro", a word broadly considered offensive in the African-Ameican community for well over 40 years. Second, the notion that somehow President Obama's ability to speak without "Negro dialect" in some way set him apart from most African-Americans is simply wrong and deeply racist. Cory Booker can't speak to white people? How about Deval Patrick? David Patterson? Heck, Jesse Jackson speaks perfect English and he ran for President 22 years ago. What does Senator Reid think, that 95% of African-Americans go to work every day and talk like 50 Cent?
Perhaps Senator Reid's problem is that he doesn't actually know that many black people. At the time he made those remarks, there was but one African-American Senator, Senator Barack Obama. There is still only one African-American Senator, the embattled Roland Burris, and there will likely be none come December.
Michael Steele made the point on the Sunday talk circuit that there is a double-standard in play here, that if a Republican had made similar remarks, he would have been run out of town. And he has a point. The eagerness to forgive and forget on the left in this case in extremely inconsistent. When Senator Trent Lott made the remark that if Strom Thurmond had become President, "maybe we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today", a reference which those of us familiar with Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for President assumed referred to civil rights legislation, but which Lott never explicitly said, seem downright mild compared with Reid's verbal offense.
President Obama has issued a statement of forgiveness and support for Senator Reid. I do not grant the President the right to make a determination of forgiveness on behalf of anyone beyond himself. If he wants to forgive Senator Reid, that is certainly his right. And I might forgive Senator Reid, who is clearly sorry, personally. But words have meaning and statements have consequences. Senator Harry Reid cannot lead the Democratic Party in the Senate after making such a deeply racist statement. He should step down immediately from his post.
No need to call for his resignation -- voters in Nevada have the opportunity to make their own judgement in November. And I suspect that this is just a nail in the coffin.
Coakley and Brown in a Dead Heat??? Not So Fast.
There was a poll that lit up the political internet yesterday, a Public Policy Polling look at the Massachusetts Special Election, taken from January 7th to January 9th that showed Coakley and Brown in a dead heat for the seat (actually Brown was up by a point.) The storyline was a familiar one -- candidate B (in this case Brown) is surging and candidate A will soon be toast.
Not so fast.
First of all, Public Policy Polling is a partisan-affiliated polling firm. The thing that is a little odd in this case is that they are affiliated with the Democratic party. Nevertheless, their release of polls can be politically motivated and the numbers can be shaded to serve a particular purpose. This wouldn't be an issue if the poll wasn't squarely at odds with the other available data. But it is.
The Rasmussen poll released three days earlier showed Coakley with a 9 point lead, 50% to 41%. Certainly Scott Rasmussen has been accused of a lot of things in the polling world, but being overly favorable to Democrats is not one of them.
Secondly, a Boston Globe poll that run through January 6th shows Coakley with a 17 point lead. This is consistent with the trend of Rasmussen polls showing somewhat closer races than other polls that we have seen in recent months.
The PPP poll appears, at least at this point, to be an anomaly. I have no doubt there will be several more polls released in the coming days to give us a better understanding of the state of the race.
For now, I'm leaving this a Likely Democratic Hold.
You could certainly make an intellectual argument that America was more ready to accept a bi-racial President than a dark-skinned black President. You could similarly argue that if the President did not have strong command of proper language skills, he would not have been a viable candidate. Neither of these are the point.
The subtext of Senator Reid's remarks reveal a clear racism. First, the choice of the word "Negro", a word broadly considered offensive in the African-Ameican community for well over 40 years. Second, the notion that somehow President Obama's ability to speak without "Negro dialect" in some way set him apart from most African-Americans is simply wrong and deeply racist. Cory Booker can't speak to white people? How about Deval Patrick? David Patterson? Heck, Jesse Jackson speaks perfect English and he ran for President 22 years ago. What does Senator Reid think, that 95% of African-Americans go to work every day and talk like 50 Cent?
Perhaps Senator Reid's problem is that he doesn't actually know that many black people. At the time he made those remarks, there was but one African-American Senator, Senator Barack Obama. There is still only one African-American Senator, the embattled Roland Burris, and there will likely be none come December.
Michael Steele made the point on the Sunday talk circuit that there is a double-standard in play here, that if a Republican had made similar remarks, he would have been run out of town. And he has a point. The eagerness to forgive and forget on the left in this case in extremely inconsistent. When Senator Trent Lott made the remark that if Strom Thurmond had become President, "maybe we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today", a reference which those of us familiar with Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for President assumed referred to civil rights legislation, but which Lott never explicitly said, seem downright mild compared with Reid's verbal offense.
President Obama has issued a statement of forgiveness and support for Senator Reid. I do not grant the President the right to make a determination of forgiveness on behalf of anyone beyond himself. If he wants to forgive Senator Reid, that is certainly his right. And I might forgive Senator Reid, who is clearly sorry, personally. But words have meaning and statements have consequences. Senator Harry Reid cannot lead the Democratic Party in the Senate after making such a deeply racist statement. He should step down immediately from his post.
No need to call for his resignation -- voters in Nevada have the opportunity to make their own judgement in November. And I suspect that this is just a nail in the coffin.
Coakley and Brown in a Dead Heat??? Not So Fast.
There was a poll that lit up the political internet yesterday, a Public Policy Polling look at the Massachusetts Special Election, taken from January 7th to January 9th that showed Coakley and Brown in a dead heat for the seat (actually Brown was up by a point.) The storyline was a familiar one -- candidate B (in this case Brown) is surging and candidate A will soon be toast.
Not so fast.
First of all, Public Policy Polling is a partisan-affiliated polling firm. The thing that is a little odd in this case is that they are affiliated with the Democratic party. Nevertheless, their release of polls can be politically motivated and the numbers can be shaded to serve a particular purpose. This wouldn't be an issue if the poll wasn't squarely at odds with the other available data. But it is.
The Rasmussen poll released three days earlier showed Coakley with a 9 point lead, 50% to 41%. Certainly Scott Rasmussen has been accused of a lot of things in the polling world, but being overly favorable to Democrats is not one of them.
Secondly, a Boston Globe poll that run through January 6th shows Coakley with a 17 point lead. This is consistent with the trend of Rasmussen polls showing somewhat closer races than other polls that we have seen in recent months.
The PPP poll appears, at least at this point, to be an anomaly. I have no doubt there will be several more polls released in the coming days to give us a better understanding of the state of the race.
For now, I'm leaving this a Likely Democratic Hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
