In the past two days two wildly differing polls have been released, one showing Scott Brown up 2, the other showing Elizabeth Warren up by 7. Polling from last week showed Warren ahead by 5.
AP via Boston Globe reports:
A new poll is giving an edge to Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren in the state’s volatile U.S. Senate race.
The Suffolk University and WHDH-TV poll released Tuesday shows Warren favored by 53 percent of likely general election voters compared with 46 percent for Brown. That’s outside the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
The survey of 600 likely Massachusetts general election voters was conducted Oct. 25-28.
On Monday The Boston Globe released a poll showing Brown and Warren in a dead heat. That poll showed each candidate receiving the support of 47 percent of those polled, including voters who are undecided but said which candidate they are leaning toward. Among the poll’s likely voters Brown received 45 percent compared with 43 percent for Warren, well within the poll’s margin of error.
It could be that the Boston Globe poll showing Brown ahead is just an outlier, and Brown is in big trouble.
So how to figure out the reality? Here’s one possible clue.
The fourth and final debate scheduled for tonight was cancelled at the request of both candidates, although Brown was first. Now Warren wants to reschedule, and Brown says it’s not needed:
Senator Scott Brown said today that there was no need for a final debate with Elizabeth Warren, his Democratic opponent, while she said she would be willing to participate in a rescheduled match-up on Thursday night.
Brown did not rule out rescheduling the debate, which had been slated for tonight, but made clear that he had little interest in doing so.
Hmmm. If the campaigns’ internal polling was as most of the public polls have indicated, with Warren solidly ahead, you would expect the opposite.
Warren’s campaign has been extremely cautious to date, so you would expect it to sit on the lead. Why risk a game changer at another debate? Conversely, if Brown’s internal polling told him he needed a Hail Mary pass, he should be demanding the final debate be rescheduled.
Warren is acting as if she needs the Hail Mary pass, while Brown is in a prevent defense.
Maybe the candidates are acting irrationally, or maybe they know something we don’t.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Pro-Romney article today by Mass. feminist Wendy Murphy “Romney’s mention of binders should have won points“.
Ted Kennedy rarely did “debates,” knowing that they were opportunities (i) for him to look bad (he preferred braying in very controlled settings), (ii) for him to do/say something stupid (done often when he was unscripted), (iii) that would help the public learn that his opponent was a reasonable person.
When forced by public image to do a “debate” TK limited it to one.
I was curious why Brown would pass on a chance to slap her around some more, but this analysis makes sense and I didn’t consider it. I hope you’re right 🙂
It is all about CHARACTER. The Pravda of Boston says Lizzie has got deep character:
Warren sells herself short with her big applause line: “I don’t care about Scott Brown’s truck; I care how he votes.” Yes, her vote would be more reliably in line with Massachusetts’ traditional liberalism. But the real promise in her candidacy lies deeper in her character. She’s a relentless striver whose life story represents the best of American upward mobility. As a young mother, she worked her way through community colleges and state universities to become the nation’s top expert on financial consumer protection.
The Globe is a propaganda tool for progressives. So, if they say it is a tie, Brown must be ahead by a mile
Kirsten Gillibrand would only agree to one debate with Wendy Long.
I just can’t believe that one poll shows Romney cutting into Obama’s lead in MA by 14 points and the other one has Obama way, way, way up.
I so hope you are right about Brown.
Because Lizzy Warren took an ax,
Gave the truth forty wacks,
When she saw what she had done,
She gave the truth forty one.
Perhaps they are looking at turnout indicators and seeing that Republicans are MUCH more likely to turn out than dispirited Dems.
Republicans are focused, Dems are trudging.
I think, along with internals, the candidates know where their base is and how much they need to get out to win. The public polls are for entertainment.
Not being familiar with Massachusetts politics, I can only point out that defeating sitting Senators is very difficult. The best chance to unseat a Senator is at their first reelection attempt, although incumbents still have a 90% reelection rate in their first attempt.
After that, it gets close to 99%. Very hard to unseat. So if Brown can pull it off, he may be in for a nice long service.
But we have to accept that he will be forced to cast a fair number of RINO votes along the way to keep the home folks content. That’s just the way it is. So please, my conservative brethren, before you start blasting away at his votes, visualize Warren in his seat.
Slightly O/T:
Nate Silver’s model momentarily had Obama’s reelection chances at 114%.
Speaking of knowing something about polling, I think this statement in the Globe articale is wrong:
“The Suffolk University and WHDH-TV poll released Tuesday shows Warren favored by 53 percent of likely general election voters compared with 46 percent for Brown. That’s outside the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a MOE of 4 points would mean that, to a 95% degree of certainty, Warren’s actual support is between 49% and 57% and Brown’s is between 42% and 50%. Therefore, while the poll would suggest it’s LIKELY that Warren is ahead, her apparent lead is NOT outside the MOE. Brown could actually be up 50%-49%, for example, and the poll would still be “correct.”
I think each Warren should debate each other: Super Warren vs. Princess Runfromthetruth vs. Joan of Travelers.
That’s true. Campaign actions speak louder than any polls. The side that’s behind ALWAYS wants more debates. The side that’s ahead doesn’t.
This poll result from Rasmussen has me worried:
“Friday, October 26, 2012
Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren has now moved to a five-point lead over Republican incumbent Scott Brown in Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate race.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Massachusetts Voters finds Warren with 52% support to Brown’s 47%. (To see survey question wording, click here.
This race now moves from a Toss-Up to Leans Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Senate Balance of Power rankings.”
I can tell you from personal experience that the notion that Massachusetts is overflowing with Moonbats is entirely overblown.
On my street alone, there are plenty of Brown signs, nary a Warren sign to be found.
In fact, the place you’re most likely to find a Warren sign is on the bumper of a Prius.
We’re overwhelmingly represented by Democrats, that is for certain, but it is also as a measure of fraud. Gerrymandering is a political term invented in Massachusetts, it’s how Barney Frank was able to stay in Congress for as long as he did, disenfranchising people far away from his political base who were entirely his ideological opposite.
Brown is the archetypical Massachusetts politician who understands his constituents and knows where to come down on the important issues.
Is he perfect? Hell, no. Is he good enough? Hell, yes.
I predict that this election will come down within a point of Brown’s victory over Marsha, Marsha, Marsha a couple of winters ago.
And I further think that Mr. Obama will not do anywhere near as well here as anyone is now predicting.
For voting analysis purposes, I view MA as a mini US.
The right coast (Boston area) is heavily populated and liberal
The left coast (berkshires) is filled with moonbats and very liberal
The southeast (Cape, toward Cape) is relatively conservative by Mass standards
The rest – the silent middle – is very much like the Midwest and fairly conservative.
THe islands (Nantucket, MV) is like Hawaii – out of touch and very liberal
Just a reminder from January 10, 2010 (nine days before the election):
“Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters….”
The only pollster who came at all close was, I hate to say – PPP. Of course, that was with a large sample taken the weekend before the election. Nothing else was very close at all. I just don’t think public pollsters do Massachusetts well at all. And, frankly, if you look back at Celinda Lake’s comments from 2010 when she was advising the Coakley campaign, she didn’t either. I suppose you could attribute that to a special election electorate. I wouldn’t. With two exceptions (both small and brief), there’s been no challenge to any House or Senate seat in decades. So, if all the votes are always blue, it’s not so difficult to see how pollsters can’t accurately judge when enthusiasm may let a little red slip through. It’s different with MA governor races. Those have been more dynamic.
Heh! Point. Taken.
Alas, there were two polls that predicted a Brown win last time:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31621.html
You need to review what I said, but you’ve helped illustrate my point. I didn’t say that no one picked Brown to win because that would be silly. Polling isn’t about picking winners and losers, it’s about quantifying support. As I said: the only pollster who really came close was PPP, which predicted a 5-point Brown win by polling 1000 likely voters the weekend before election day. The article you posted confirms just what I’m talking about – public pollster have a weak grasp on the Massachusetts electorate.
You Politico piece, dated the day just before the election, tells us of: an Insider Advantage poll with Brown up by 9; a Suffolk poll that had Brown up “by double digits”; a DailyKos poll tied at 48-48. These polls were all done the weekend just before the election. Two days later, Brown won by less than 5 percentage points. Query how they all could have been so wrong so late in the game?
In the Nebraska Senate race, Kerrey (D) claims he’s surging in the polls and demands another debate (in the final week).
Hmmmmmm…that don’t sound confident of him.
Go Fischer!!!!
One point stuck in my mind is that, from what I understand, Granny opted to “resign” from the NJ Bar on Sept. 11th of this year. Aside from the fact that few attorneys would ever actually resign, vice requesting a temporary license suspension, from any Bar (a resignation thus requiring re-taking the bar exam) is why she chose that specific date to do so. Was her intent to attempt to quietly cloak the resignation in the greater media coverage of the 9-11 anniversary ? Yes, I’m a cynic. And, doesn’t her resignation action effectively close out her Bar licensing file, and thus terminate the possibility of interested persons gaining access to whatever may be in that file ? And, since she’s never been admitted in Mass, and her Texas bar status is iffy (right ?), why would she jump ship from NJ, apparently leaving her no professional lifeboat ?
Brown says no to fourth debate: http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061171424&format=comments#CommentsArea
I honestly have no clue. I hope, really hope Brown gets reelected. I’ve donated what I can to him.
I’m pro-choice, I do lean left, but not that far left like that commie Warren, and oh yes she is one crazy lady.
I liked her at the beginning, but when she started giving a pass to Jon Corzine, I knew she had sold out, which means she will sell out to anyone for power again.
I’m fiscally very conservative and believe in capitalism, not the crony kind, Scott Brown I like, I think he will at least try to work with both sides.
Warren is a liar and a fraud and I supported her at a time, she is a liar.
Frankly, more and more I’m leaning towards Ron Paul.
But I will of course be voting for Romney and every other repub just to evict these socialists who have completely taken over my former party. I used to be a dem, they are radical nutjobs now, all the crazies are in charge.
rooting for scott brown.