« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Conflicting polls in the Massachusetts Senate Race

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  March 20th, 2012 at 02:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Warren Brown

I’m happiest when all the polls in a race match up. It means we have a very good idea of how a race is going for the candidates in it.

So, naturally, I’m not happy about the Massachusetts Senate race right now. Seeing a 10 point swing from poll to poll, giving both candidates opposing 5 point leads, means we have to dig deeper to figure out what’s going on.

I’m reminded of March of 2010 here. Here we go again with Rasmussen’s likely voter polling (500 LVs, MoE 4.5) putting Republican Scott Brown ahead 49-44, while PPP’s registered voter polling (936 RVs, MoE 3.2) has Elizabeth Warren up 46-41.

Rasmussen’s details are behind a paywall, but that’s the older poll anyway (2/29 vs PPP’s 3/16-3/18). So I’ll focus on the PPP’s specifics to see what we can make of it. First, the poll asked about the voter’s 2008 Presidential vote. A whopping 11% claim they don’t remember or voted for someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama. That’s a rather high number when the actual fraction that voted for someone else was just over 2%.

Between Obama and McCain, the actual two party vote was Obama 63.2, McCain 36.8. In the poll, the two party vote is Obama 64, McCain 36. So the poll favors Obama voters slightly more than the actual 2008 electorate did, but it’s very close. Which is odd, as turnout was far from 100%, with 3 million votes cast of 4.2 million registered voters, for a registered voter turnout of about 71%. PPP seems to project that the 30% who don’t vote have no particular lean.

Further, in 2008 the partisan registraion went 1.6 million Democrats, 0.5 million Republicans, and the rest other or independent, a split of 38 D/12 R/50 other. The poll shows 41 D/14 R/45 other or independent. That’s outside of the Margin of Error for the Democrats. PPP seems to project that Massachusetts has grown more partisan and leans more toward the Democrats now than 4 years ago.

So if we believe PPP’s projections of the partisan make up to hold true, and that there’s no partisan lean in who votes or who doesn’t vote, then Warren could be ahead in this race, despite the three previous polls all putting Brown ahead.

But right now PPP looks like the odd man out.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Change Jar Conservative

    RV is almost always skewed to the Democrat so I would say that it’s probably lean more towards Brown.

  • adamd

    I know Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union. However, I find it unbelievable there has been no effort from Republicans to register more voters. Only 12% of the state is registered Republican? Scott Brown and the Republicans Party should put forth a major effort to improve that figure.

  • mbauer

    I’m a realist about Brown, and have no problem with him holding that seat.

    The Left’s has the same enthusiasm for Warren that we had for Rubio last time around. It’s tough to beat that passion with the hope that uninformed moderates will vote for the moderate candidate.

  • unclefred

    as much as they really hate the fact that a Republican is in “Ted Kennedy’s seat”. A better comparison would be to how most of us here feel about ousting Obama.

    It is very likely that Brown is ahead in the polling. Warren’s self association with the OWS crowd doesn’t sit well with independents, but in a strong sense that doesn’t matter. The Democratic machine in Mass is very real and very effective. Despite favorable polling for various Republican challengers in 2010, the Republicans scored no upsets. The Democrats ran well ahead of their polling.

    Brown will have a very very tough fight to hold his seat. The good news is that the left is spending a LOT of money in Mass that they won’t have for other seats.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • Viet71

    She’s an empty suit, so I’m betting indies will side with Brown.

    Massachusetts indie voters are much less susceptible to propaganda than the state’s liberal voters.

  • naraht

    With Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats more or less cleared the primary, There are still two people running against Warren in the Democratic Primary, but they aren’t getting any publicity at all, and Warren can focus on Brown.

    Warren seems to be generating more excitement in the Liberal Blogosphere. She was already a celebrity on the Left nationwide before she got in the race.

    It seems like Scott Brown is sort of the flip side of Matheson(D) in UT-2. You want his vote at the beginning of the session when control of the chamber is decided and any other votes for your side are gravy. But the comparison would be better if Mike Lee died and Matheson grabbed his seat in the Senate…

  • YnotNOW

    So I wonder if there are many who are ideological Democrats, but what to appear “fair and balanced” and just register independent? Or perhaps they are so liberal that the Dem party is too conservative for their allegiance, and they just don’t feel comfortable declaring their fidelity to the Green, Progressive, or Communist Party?

    Just my speculation. Would be interested to hear any data on this, if you have it.

  • swami7774

    …most MA voters registered as unenrolled(that’s the term here, not “independent”) are really Dems who won’t say so publicly.
    I’d say the true partisan breakdown of the electorate is something like 45D-15R-40U.

  • swami7774

    Here in the People’s Republic, unenrolled (a.k.a. “independent”) voters can vote in either primary, but voters enrolled as Dems or Repubs can vote only on those primaries.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Republicans, being an oppressed minority, have more to gain by being independent.

  • renl57

    More MA residents (16%) identify as Republicans than have registered (12%) as Republicans. That means that more folks would register as Republicans if the MA GOP ever bothered to ask them.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Not in a one party state it doesn’t.

  • renl57

    If you travel outside Route 128, you find Scott Brown’s strengths in the exurbs: Patriotic blue-collar guys

    The problem with Elizabeth Warren is that as a Harvard intellectual and Berkenstock liberal right out of Central Casting, she just doesn’t reach that group well.

    Warren is the choice of the young wealthy liberal college crowd from Harvard, Wellesley and Cambridge, as well as the yuppie playground of the Berkshires. If the Dems had nominated Mike Capuano instead of Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown would have a tougher time.

    This electoral map of the 2010 special election shows how this cultural divide played out across MA. Blue-collar Dems vs. Berkenstock Dems:

    http://tinyurl.com/82puokt

  • jakeofalltrades
  • swami7774

    I know many unenrolled voters who claim to “vote the person, not the party”, and who almost always vote Democrat.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ..

  • YnotNOW

    to register as “independent” even if their true loyalties are with liberals. that way they have the flexibility to vote for whichever primary will make the most impact.

    (p.s. – full disclosure – my parents live in Maryland, and are registered as Democrat, even though they vote Republican, because there is effectively no primary for Republicans, if they can even find some sacrificial lamb to run at all!)

  • 1stRichard

    You will find established Republicans in the MA GOP are almost the same as the Socialist Democrats here. Being in the local Tea Party here my in box is flooded, some times over a hundred a day from news of so-called Republicans giving financial aid to voting on policy for the Socialist Democrats here. You will also find the Socialist Democrats here also supporting this to disenfranchise possible Republican supporters. The first thing the MA GOP must do is to distance its self from the left, it is too difficult to tell the left from the right.

  • 1stRichard

    There is only ideology and how does this affect me, full of different directions and contrasts. For an ardent Union Democrat, just so happens to be my neighbor that voted for Brown41, he wanted a real Classic Democrat so I had to prove to him Coakley was a Communist, not a real Democrat and relatively easy considering Coakley?s policies. If you try to lump this voting block as one you will fail as each and every one is different and you cannot speak moderately or meekly or you will not get threw to them.

  • btrb

    Another resident here–a couple of points.

    1. Most conservatives I know are also registered as unenrolled, because the Republican party in MA is so pathetic that in every election several legislative seats–and even state-wide offices–will go without a Republican candidate. In these cases conservatives can vote in the Democratic primary (tantamount to the general election) so as to vote for the “least bad” Dem.

    2. In large part this is because Weld, Celucci, and alas Romney had no interest in building the party, even to get a large enough minority to sustain their vetoes.

    3. Granny Warren is even more of a liberal scold than Coakley. Martha Coakley could at least claim (at least plausibly) a law-and-order record as AG. But Brown caught the Dems off-guard, and Warren will have plenty of out-of-state money.

    4. At the risk of further flames, Brown is worth re-electing. I’d rather have a guy that is with me 75% of the time–and perhaps helps to give us a Senate majority and all that goes with it–than one who is with me 0% of the time. Call me crazy.

    5. Though solidly liberal, MA went for Reagan twice and elected a succession of Republican governors. Brown is well-liked. A miracle could happen.