Scott Brown: Nothing to see here
By Frank Hagan | Related entries in 2010 ElectionThere’s nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Democratic apologists have been telling us that the surprising results in Virginia and New Jersey were not repudiations of the Democrats in Congress, but regional results that really don’t reflect on the wonderful 27% approval rating of the Congress. There is nothing to see here, really.
But the Jedi Mind Trick wears thin with the recent polling in the special election to replace Sen. Kennedy in that bluest of blue states, Massachusetts. Scott Brown, the Republican challenger for the open seat, has vowed to block health care reform if elected, and his poll numbers are surging. The Bay State’s voters are evidently familiar with government health care schemes.
Real Clear Politics shows the polling results. Public Policy Polling conducted the latest poll, and shows Brown a point ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley. As Political Wire reports:
A new Public Policy Polling survey in Massachusetts finds Scott Brown (R) leads Martha Coakley (D), 48% to 47%, and is “buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state.”
“Here’s the reality: the Republicans and GOP leaning independents are going to come out and vote for Scott Brown. There’s no doubt about that. But there’s also a much larger pool of potential Democratic voters in the state. If Coakley can get them out, she wins. But this race is well past the stage where Democrats can take it for granted that will happen. It will be fascinating to see what happens the final ten days and we’ll do a second poll on the race next weekend.”
This table of poll results from Real Clear Politics shows a steady erosion in support for Coakley:
Massachusetts Senate – Special Election
| Poll | Date | Sample | Coakley (D) | Brown (R) | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPP (D) | 1/7 – 1/9 | 744 LV | 47 | 48 | Brown +1 |
| Rasmussen | 1/4 – 1/4 | 500 LV | 50 | 41 | Coakley +9 |
| Boston Globe | 1/2 – 1/6 | 554 LV | 53 | 36 | Coakley +17 |
| Suffolk | 11/4 – 11/8 | 600 RV | 58 | 27 | Coakley +31 |
| Western NE College | 10/18 – 10/22 | 342 LV | 58 | 32 | Coakley +26 |
| Suffolk | 9/12 – 9/15 | 500 RV | 54 | 24 | Coakley +30 |
Public Policy Polling points to several reasons for the surprising narrowing in this race, with one key factor for both parties to take into account:
-Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama’s plan with 59% opposed.
Everyone start practicing now. Wave your hand like a Jedi and say “Nothing to see here, move along, move along.”
Cross posted to FrankHagan.com
This entry was posted on Sunday, January 10th, 2010 and is filed under 2010 Election. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
[...] Cross posted to Donklephant [...]
January 10th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Look at those dates a little more closely. The Boston Globe poll was still taking responses on the 5th and 6th. Rasmusen’s poll was done entirely on the 4th.
What is actually going on is pretty simple. All the tea partiers are extremely enthusiastic, whereas the Dem base is blah at best. This means pollsters with tight likely-voter screens will show lots more support for the GOP candidate. And right now Rasmusen and PPP are using tighter voter screens then anyone else.
If those two firms are right, and voter turnout is truly anemic, Brown will win a close race. If the Boston Globe is right about turnout Coakley wins by double digits.
Special elections aren’t so much about the mood of the people as they are about getting your quarter of the people to show up at a higher rate then the other guy’s quarter of the people.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
If it looks like Brown will win and block the vote in the Senate, then Reid will just schedule a vote before the election to prevent the 60 votes from evaporating.
Even more astonishing is the Democrats rushing over the cliff when they see Ted Kennedys seat going to a REPUBLICAN.
Lands sakes alive. In November the GOP might take 50 house seats and 15 senate seats up for grabs if they keep up with this rush to destruction.
Just depends on how annoyed people really become with them once the bill is out there for everyone to see just what will really happen in the next 100 years with this shoddy bill.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Two interesting articles of note — from actual polling experts — about these polls: here and here.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
The irony is that people are SO disgusted with Democrats not acting like Democrats that they’ll allow the certifiably insane to get elected.
I hope the system REALLY crashes and burns soon so we can get on with rebuilding from scratch – knowing what DOESN’T work.
There must be something REALLY good in that Frankenstein / Humpty Dumpty “health reform” bill for these Dinocrats…for them to risk not getting elected ever again.
A Republican in Massachusetts? That would be a first – LITERALLY I think.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Tim D
I think you point out the seriousness to which the Democrats have thrown themselves under the bus.
However the public option seems to be coming as the legislative branch is ceeding medicare powers to the executive branch. At the passing of this health care bill Obama simply can wave his hand and poof……
The Democrats attitude on this kept me believing their was something else. Something under the table that made this all worthwhile and would bring back the base.
Remember the progressive movement is designed to LIE to you….to pretend to be moderate, no matter what the costs….to convince them you are moderate while passing rather radical reforms and laws.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I am a lifelong MA resident. IMO Coakley will win comfortably. Brown won’t win because liberals won’t let a republican take Ted Kennedy’s seat, and they’ll turn out in droves. And he won’t win because he will get totally creamed by the female vote, even if he manages to score a slight majority among men.
I encourage people who have talked themselves into Scott Brown to watch a few of his commercials where he talks to supporters outside a Patriots game (of all places) and brags about driving his “old” truck around the state to talk to regla folks. I’m sorry, but he comes a cross as a wide-eyed dope chanting simple party-line talking points.
If Coakley doesn’t win comfortably, it will only be because of the publicity being pumped up by instapundit and others. Inevitably, a national spotlight narrows the race in instances like these. People who wouldn’t have bothered to vote now will.
I beseech anyone who really thinks Brown can win to make it interesting. Put your money where your mouth is, Make a $100 bet with the democrat of your choice. Unless you need that money. Because Brown won’t win. The media loves this story because of all the angles, and now Brown is becoming the great white hope for the GOP. Maybe there is something to see, but a Brown win is not going to happen. The only people who really think it might are people not from around here.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:35 am
I think it’s fair to point out that S.1110 and H.R.2718 would establish MedPAC as an independent exec branch agency, in the same way NASA and NLRB and NTSB are independent exec branch agencies. The main difference between an independent agency and an executive branch department is that an independent agency has a commission that shares power over the agency. While the president appoints people to the commission, the Senate confirms them and the terms are staggered and generally overlap the president’s term. There are, of course, disadvantages to this. But the main benefit is that the regulatory functions the agency administers are more stable because they’re less affected by the legislative branch’s partisanship.
And, no, the President cannot simply wave his hand and *poof* these bills are law. Both are still in committee and have little to no co-sponsorship at present… and they still have to go through the legislative process like any other bill. As we all know, lots can happen between now and the time these bills get to their respective floors for a vote (assuming they ever do).
January 11th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Although there is a wide variations in these polls, there is definitely a huge anti-incumbent mood that the Republicans are set to take advantage of. In the end Massachusetts will likely go to the Democrats, but just the fact it is being talked about shows that independent support is eroding quickly.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:33 am
@Doomed:
The clauses you mention are there for a simple reason: to kill pork.
MedPAC exists to cut costs. That’s the whole idea. However Congress is full of 535 people whose job is to make sure that costs in his district are high. It’s called pork, and while everyone claims to hate it, nonetheless they bitch to high heaven if you try to consolidate their local expensive military base into a more efficient, out-district, base.
In MedPAC’s what happens is simple. It tells Congress to cut payments to, say, Oxygen suppliers. Congress says no because the Representative from the biggest Oxygen supplier’s district gets ornery. This makes cost control in the US Congress somewhat tricky.
The idea is that a strengthened MedPAC, whose proposals are subject to an up-or-down vote will help fix this. It’s the same concept as the Base Closings Commission.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:39 am
@kk
I’d say the attention is actually good for Coakley in this race. Almost everybody who is a die-hard Tea Partier would have voted anyway, as this is their last chance to stop health care reform, but the majority of MA residents seem to be kinda blah about this election.
The polls bear me out. Robo-polls are easy to ignore if you’re not fired up, and both Rasmussen and PPP are robo-polls. Real person polls have Coakley ahead by double-digits.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
AS to the power grab by Obama. We shall see.
As to the MA senate seat of Kennedy. The fact that its not 65-35 or 70-30 for Coakley is the issue.
This is MA. The bluest of blue states. This is a state in which a GOP candidate in normal times should garner 30-35 percent of the vote. The fact this might come down to a 55-45 vote is whats such a surprise.
Its not really in the cards that Brown will win Ted Kennedys seat….its the fact that its even contested that is the story here.
The Democrats however will do what the GOP does…talk it away, spin it and then wonder why they were massacred at the polls in 2010.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Meh. People want something to talk about, and the prospect of an underdog republican beating out a democrat for Kennedy’s old seat makes for interesting speculation. Plus. even if Brown is a bit of a dope, his angle that he’ll be the deciding vote to stop healthcare reform is a really good angle.
But the notion that it’s a bellwether for where the nation is headed is IMO quite overstated. MA managed to elect a skein of republican governors, and Romney once gave Ted Kennedy a decent run for his money. So we can go conservative near the top of the ticket, unless its President. One close poll done by a lesser known outfit does not qualify as a surprise given that Brown is getting national plumping.
Each sideclaimsthe other deserves to be rejected for its recent behaviors and policies. But we all know that the 2010 midterms will swing on the economy. If the economy trends up, democratic losses will be small. If it doesn’t, they’ll get crucified for misguided overspending.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I have to agree. Right now the Democrats are ponying up so many new taxes and regulations that the economy is afraid to hire anyone.
In November the Democrats I predict will be slaughtered in the polls.
Im predicting as many as 40+ house seats and 7 senate seats go GOP.
Because I do believe we take on a double dipper and unemployment hits 11 percent by august.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Im predicting as many as 40+ house seats and 7 senate seats go GOP.
Because I do believe we take on a double dipper and unemployment hits 11 percent by august.
If that’s the case Doomed, it’s like 2008 again, only O. will be in McCain’s shoes
January 13th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Scott Brown in Massachusetts: Hope or Delusion?…
Comments by a Massachusetts resident on a Donklephant post sum up my view on the race. Like NY Congressional District 23, the Democrats may get a scare, but on election night Martha Coakley will prevail. All this national attention and tightening polls…
January 13th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Rasmussen has Coakley at 49%, +2 to Brown.
She is in trouble. It could go to Brown. But of course, there’s nothing to see here.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
@Frank:
Who is actually saying “nothing to see here”?
Libs aren’t. We want to win, and it could be close, so we’re damn well paying attention. Last time I checked the Daily Kos Diaries half of them were about making sure MA leftists paid attention to the race.
January 16th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
[...] Filed under: Uncategorized — polisnark @ 5:36 pm Democrats may be in denial with the belief that they can hold on to power in spite of repeatedly doing exactly what the public [...]
January 16th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Everyone is in denial in politics: http://polisnark.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/denial/