Scorecarding the MA Senate Race -- How'd I Do?, Did the Whole Game Just Change?

Results Versus Projections
So, the votes are counted, other than a few stray overseas absentee ballot and we have a clear picture of how well I projected the Massachusetts Senate result.

First, the obvious, I got the ultimate outcome right. Unlike many political sites, such as the highly reputed Cook Report, which simply rated the race a "toss-up" going into Tuesday, I always make a projection, regardless of the closeness of the margin. And we were right again. Combine that with getting the end result right in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races this past November and going 48 for 50 in calling state results in the Presidential race, as well as nailing dead on the popular vote margin in 2008 and I think this site has a track record that rivals any political expert in terms of projecting elections over the past two years.

Now, on to the specifics of Massachusetts. Below are the actual (unofficial, but verified) vote percentages from Massachusetts versus my final projections:
Scott Brown: Actual 51.9%, Projected 50.8%, Error = 1.1%
Martha Coakley: Actual 47.1%, Projected 47.1%, Error = 0.0%
Joe Kennedy: Actual 1.0%, Projected 2.1%, Error = 1.1%

Note that the projection was exactly correct on Martha Coakley's vote percentage and that the error on the other two candidates was entirely due to Joe Kennedy receiving less than half of the statistical projection and those votes going to Scott Brown. If you re-read my blogs leading up to the election, I noted that minor independent candidates almost always poll better than they actually do...I even reasoned that Kennedy might lose about half of his support on election day. I also noted that it stood to reason that late departures from the Kennedy camp would favor the Republican over the Democrat. You can't statistically project that type of phenomenon, but I've seen enough of these elections to detect the pattern.

So, all told, I think I did extremely well in projecting an extremely difficult race to call, given all the rapid-moving dynamics and the inherent difficulty in projecting a special election.

I feel much better about these results than I do in the New Jersey and Virginia Governor's races, where the results were correctly projected, but the margin in both was off by just over 3%.

Time to Rethink the Whole Agenda?
While the result in Massachusetts was not unanticipated in most political circles, you could feel the ground shift as the results were called.

Democrats were calling for starting over on health care. Republicans possessed a swagger that they haven't had since early last decade. Centrist commentator Mort Zuckerman, who supported President Obama last November, blasted the President for the lack of openness, the ugly deals cut on health care and the general tone of his administration.

I'm reminded of a frequently used phrase in Washington: elections have consequences. And this election appears to be having broad-reacihng consequences.

Democrats have wisely ruled out ramming a bill through congress before Brown takes office. House Democrats have ruled out passing the Senate bill. This means, effectively, back to the drawing board. Are they even going to try for a bill? If so, what will it take to win over Olympia Snowe? Will they go just far enough to get to 60 or go much smaller and hope to win 70 or 75 Senate votes? What of the rest of the President's agenda? Will the Senate even debate Cap and Trade? Is immigration reform anywhere on the horizon? What of the budget for next year?

The direction of debate will largely be shaped by the President's State of the Union address next week. For a man who rose to power in large measure on the prowess of his powers of communication, this is THE most important speech of his career. Bigger than his 2004 DNC speech. Bigger than his speech on race. This speech will set the course for the next year of his Presidency and beyond.

In that vein, here is my unsolicited advice:
(1) Talk about deficit reduction
I've harped on this for months...the administration has not, as of yet, presented a credible deficit reduction program in any way shape or form. It has been accurately noted that Independents, who Obama won big with in November 2008 but who turned to a little-known State Senator named Scott Brown yesterday, tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. They want stem cell research, abortion rights and don't so much mind gays in the military, but they detest runaway spending and deficits. Also, more than anything, they despise harsh partisan rhetoric and backroom deals.

The President can't solve the deficit in a speech. And the solutions are ugly...raise taxes, reform entitlements, cut social programs, cut the military, etc. But the President CAN support Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) sensible proposal for a non-partisan deficit reduction commission that would come back with a proposal to curb the deficit that Congress would be required to give an up or down vote to, as a whole. This process worked when military bases needed to be closed in the 1980s and 90s, and if you recall that era, there was no more contentious issue then. Giving full visible support to such a proposal would be a big win with independents and would garner bi-partisan support in Congress.

(2) Move quickly on the easy, bipartisan parts of health care. A bill to prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines and to set up exchanges for the uninsured, that allowed reimportation of perscription drugs and that provided some modest tort reform could pass with big GOP support. The President could finally get the bipartisanship that he has been promising but utterly failed to deliver on.

(3) Refocus on jobs and fast. The elements are in place to drop unemployment. The problem is, Mr. President, people don't think you are working on it. Talk about what you are doing. Talk about the green energy economy. Talk about productivity investments. Make people believe that you #1 care and #2 are competent to do something about it.

(4) Advertise a little. Tell people about the 4 million kids who have health insurance that didn't when you administration took office. Talk about the troops coming home from Iraq. Talk about the credit card protections for consumers that you have put into place.

Have we entered a new era of gridlock or the dawning of a new age of bipartisanship?

I fear the former but hold out hope for the later. The President must take the first step, but the GOP will have to be willing to play ball as well.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

President Obama, Meet Senator Scott Brown

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.