Scott Brown: 50%
Martha Coakley: 46%
Suffolk University/7News | The poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday and surveyed 500 registered likely voters.
From the Boston Herald:
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
Scott Brown has also released a new ad hitting Coakley for her strong lobbiest connections:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUUmKY7TxME[/youtube]
Internet data also paints a grim picture for Coakley.
From: New Social Media Polling Data Suggests Republican Scott Brown Will Defeat Democrat Martha Coakley
– A 10:1 advantage over Coakley in terms of video content viewership on
YouTube
– A 4:1 edge in terms of number of fans on Facebook
– More followers, more list appearances and far more buzz overall on
—————————————————————————————
David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter
January 14th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Yeah!
January 14th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
And yet watch she’ll win.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
January 14th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Heath is ever the optimist. It is MA afterall, so yeah, she will probably win the election. But just the fact that the Dems have to spend time, money, and resources to defend a seat that should EASILY be theirs is a sign that nationally, Dems are going to go down in flames this November. The (R)s will not win either chamber (in my opinion); however, at least they will be better equipped to slow down some of Obama’s more dangerous legislation. I’m generally pessimistic, but Heath definitely has me beat!
January 14th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
That’s a defeatist attitude, Scott Brown certainly doesn’t think that way, it’s about something more than a single election, Maybe they’ll win, but it makes them doubt that any seat is safe. Same for Conneticut, just because Blumenthal is populat now, doesn’t mean he will be that way eight months from now.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Anyone knows about Suffolk’s accuracy? I’ve seen their polling in the 2008 election, but I don’t if they panned out.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
This is showing that this will be close. No one can turn a campaign around in 4 days, NO ONE!
January 14th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Praying for the big upset.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Scott Brown clearly has the momentum. The Democrat rallying cry of “save Teddy’s seat” is just not as potent as “bring change to Washington D.C.” Also, the idea that the Dem’s have floated about delaying the certification of the winner (if it is Brown) until after the healthcare vote has probably turned-off the independent and undecided voters.
Come on Massachusetts, you’ve sent Republican giants to the Senate before; Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson, Henry Cabot Lodge (both), and Edward Brooke. Send another one down to D.C.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I live here in Mass. the airwaves are filled with Brown and Coakley ads. Coakley’s are all extremely negative and only seek to trash Brown, whereas Brown’s are all upbeat and positive and tell the voters who he really is. Coakley and the dems are getting very desperate.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I should revise my comment after thinking it over. The MA Senate race really says very little on a national scale. Afterall, Coakley is a HORRIBLE candidate. I thought Joe Biden made a lot of gaffes, but Coakley has him beat by a mile. Wow. And Brown is, overall, a very GOOD candidate. So, in regard to national implications, the race means next to nothing. However, it is still nice to see the Dems forced to throw beaucoup dollars on a Senate seat in Massachusetts.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Shane,
“So, in regard to national implications, the race means next to nothing.”
Are you kidding? Never mind the filibuster, or ObamaCare. The last time MA sent a Republican to the Senate was 1972, during Nixon’s 49 state landslide (MA was the only state he lost, btw).
A Republican winning a Senate seat- Teddy’s seat- in MA would send shockwaves through Washington. We would see more retirements, more party switching, and predictions of a tsunamai bigger than 1994.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Martha is gruesome. In 2002, she prevented a heart transplant. H/t from Ace: http://minx.cc/?post=297044
…”Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley blocked the donation of Costin’s heart after he was diagnosed clinically brain-dead,” writes Sean P Murphy of the Globe, “to preclude any possibility that his assailant’s lawyer might contend at the trial that Costin died of a pre-existing heart condition rather than the beating.”…
She’s gone from annoying hapless toady to me, to an example of an abusive prosecutor. Yuck.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Anyone else reading the comments on the article? I’m ten pages in and almost all the comments are favoring Brown. In Massachusetts? Weird to say the least. Unless the Boston Herald is available only to republicans, I am stunned.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Right,
If you think that’s bad, read this:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=345
January 15th, 2010 at 12:07 am
OK, It’s a Toss-Up
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ok-its-toss-up.html#comments
January 15th, 2010 at 12:35 am
MWS,
I’m not sure I phrased what I was trying to say very well. What I mean is, the fact that Brown is surging and Coakley falling has more to do with the fact that Coakley is a horrendous candidate, and Brown a great candidate than it does to the fact that the national mood itself has swung that widely.
I mean, in just a few short weeks, Coakley has gone from being up 20-30 points, to now being in a relative tie. What I was trying to say was that the country ITSELF has not swung 20-30 points towards Republicans in just two months, but rather than in this particular race, it has tightened precisely because of the respective campaigns, and not due to some “national mood” swing.
I think I’ll just shut up for the night, because I’m really not coming across very well in anything I’m saying this evening. Heh.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:43 am
I just want you guys to be more realistic.
Most of you thought Hoffman would win.
You do realise if Brown wins he’ll have to legislate like a democrat to have any chance in 2012 (assume like election still goes ahead?).
January 15th, 2010 at 1:27 am
Tex,
The Herald is a smaller, fairly conservative paper (not so different from the Washington Times), so I would expect almost exclusively Republicans/ conservatives to read it, while the larger Globe attracts mainstream readers in addition to the liberals it caters to.
January 15th, 2010 at 2:45 am
Oops. I accidentally posted this one thread up instead of in the poll thread. Mea culpa.
Has anyone heard of this polling company before? This seems like a massive outlier, but could at least bolster the trendline that Brown is on the up-swing:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/14/massachusetts-shocker-brown-up-15-in-pajamas-mediacrosstarget-poll/
January 15th, 2010 at 2:46 am
I understand what you mean, Shane.
Coakley really should, if she were not such a big idiot, have this one packed away. Myself, I think that regardless the Democrat, Scott Brown and national trends would make this a great race and a shot over the Dems bow. Even if he did lose, it would be less than the polls forecasted thanks to turnout and would scare Dems going into this year and drop their team’s morale considerably.
However, thanks to Coakley, we can not only send that shot over the bow, we can send it right into the ship itself. She’s put herself squarely in the line of fire, and a moral victory can become here a real victory. She’s doing almost everything in her power it seems to be elitist, corrupt, complacent, and negative. And Brown is just throwing it all on the bonfire with his appeal to reform and to average voters.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Shane,
Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I think it’s both. Most years, the Democrats could run a three legged rhinoceros with rabies and win in Massachusetts. So the national mood is a big part of what makes it even remotely competitive. But I agree that if Brown wins, it will be in no small measure a reflection of the fact that Coakley is worse than a rabid rhinoceros.
But since perception is to reality as 9 is to 1 in politics, the message will be a national mood shift I think. Most people outside of New England probably won’t appreciate what a horrible candidate Coakley is, and the sheer improbability of a Republican win is going to be the overwhelming narrative.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:50 am
“But just the fact that the Dems have to spend time, money, and resources to defend a seat that should EASILY be theirs is a sign that nationally, Dems are going to go down in flames this November.” BINGO, in a way, it does not matter if Mr. Brown wins because among other things, the Dems are not going to seat him anyway. However, I am enjoying sitting back, watching the fun and watching the Dems throw good money after bad money to save this ‘liberal seat.’
“Most people outside of New England probably won’t appreciate what a horrible candidate Coakley is, and the sheer improbability of a Republican win is going to be the overwhelming narrative.” True, that is why, even though the Dems are in trouble nationally, this local contest has little to do with national politics per se even though it would be nice to eventually have a 41st GOP Senator when they get around to sitting him.