Where Did All The Women Go? Why the Senate Race Is A Dead Heat

Where did all the women go?  No, that’s not a reference to Bill Clinton’s post-presidential memoirs.  It’s the key, I think, to explaining why Coakley’s lead evaporated.  While you were sleeping, I’ve been crunching the polling numbers and checking sources, trying to determine how her polling numbers dropped roughly 10% in a matter of weeks.  The answer, I think, is an erosion in her support among women.

As evidence, let’s look at the very latest polling data.  There were two more polls with results reported yesterday.   Actually, they weren’t reported everywhere – Nate Silver was so disgusted with the results of one that showed Brown up by 15% that he refused to link to it.  Silver, of course, has a rooting interest in this race, so his decision to banish results he finds objectionable is perhaps predictable. But here you get treated as big boys and girls and get to see everything.

That first poll, by Crosstalk, has Brown up by 54%-39%.  Nothing stands out as obviously wrong about the  survey (a sample of almost 1,000 people, polled using IVR [interactive voice technology]) except perhaps for a slightly higher proportion of Republicans (20.3%) than I’ve seen in other polls. But the results are not consistent with those other polls or with what I’m hearing from those who are familiar with the internal poll results.  Most notably, Coakley’s favorable/unfavorable rating  in the Crosstalk poll is 38.5%-50.5% – by far the worst I’ve seen anywhere.  That suggests to me that the voter screen may have disproportionately dropped likely Coakley voters.  In any case, you can check the poll here, and see for yourself.  But I’m going to treat it as an outlier to be ignored.

The second poll, in the field last Tuesday through Thursday, is from American Research Group (ARG), and its results are in line with what I’ve been reporting the last two days:  Brown is up over Coakley among likely voters by 3%, 48%-45% which means the race remains essentially a dead heat.  For what it is worth, this is also consistent with what I am told the candidates are seeing in their own internal polling as of Thursday: Brown up by 4%, still within the margin of error.

Unfortunately, ARG does not reveal crosstabs.  But there are three interesting results they do show.  First – and this surprises me – Brown leads among younger likely voters (aged 18-49) while they are essentially tied among those aged 50 or more.  Why does this matter?  My guess is that older voters are more strongly committed to keeping Ted’s seat Democratic.   Younger voters, by contrast, may be more willing to see a change.  Note, however, that the Globe poll taken earlier this month had Coakley winning the under-35 vote, while Brown was ahead even then among the 35-49 age group. Interestingly, (and I hope to do a separate post on this), Brown is dominating internet-based metrics of support, such as Facebook hits and Twitter references.

Second,  9% of likely voters say they have already voted by absentee ballot, with Brown leading Coakley 58% to 42% in this group.  This may – I say may – be an indicator of voter intensity.  Anecdotal evidence from those in Massachusetts say absentee ballot requests have skyrocketed in the last two weeks.

Most interesting to me, however, is that Coakley’s lead among women is only 50%-44%.  That’s the lowest I’ve seen in any poll so far.  Here’s a table that shows poll results for the women’s vote, in reverse chronological order (most recent on top.)

In short, we see a net swing among women toward Brown of about 10% during the course of two weeks, although Coakley continues to win a plurality of this vote. Nonetheless, it raises the question: how can the woman candidate be shedding women’s support?  In an earlier post I wrote:   “In thinking about why the race might have tightened, however, I remain convinced that Brown has capitalized on the Christmas day crotch bomber incident which has enabled him to portray Coakley as soft on terrorism. Coakley has tried to shift the debate to issues, such as abortion, that she feels will attract women’s support.  But there is a real risk in this strategy.  If we look back to the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush’s victory was primarily due to his ability to attract the support of “security moms” who typically voted Democratic, but who shifted to Republican because they thought Bush was stronger on security issues.  I wonder whether Coakley, in her focus on so-called women’s issues, is in danger of losing the security mom vote.”

The latest polling data is consistent with this claim, although it certainly isn’t conclusive proof, and there may be other factors at play here as well.   Probably the controversy regarding Coakley’s comments about abortion services and health care providers hasn’t helped.  For whatever reason, however, Coakley seems to be losing support among women supporters (something that those with access to internal campaign polls are confirming.)    That’s an important part of the reason she’s in a dead heat with Brown.  This is even more worrisome because she’s a) the female candidate b) the Democrat and c) staked much of her campaign on reaching out to women voters.

PPP will be announcing their survey results tomorrow night.  In the meantime, I’ll be on with periodic updates and analysis.  Several of you have emailed regarding whether the Democrats can pass health care before Brown is officially seated (assuming he wins – a big assumption!)  I’ll try to address this in a later post.   Meanwhile, if any of you in Massachusetts can explain why Coakley seems to be losing support among women, I’d welcome your thoughts.