Better Red than Ted? The Latest Polling on the Massachusetts Senate Race

I admit I had not been paying much attention to the Massachusetts’ special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.  As a long time resident who covered Massachusetts politics for a year for a local paper there, I felt I had a pretty good read on the state’s politics.  And that experience told me that Democrat and current Attorney General Martha Coakley, by virtue of winning the Democratic primary, would win Kennedy’s seat pretty handedly over her Republican opponent Scott Brown.

But two polls released since my last post on this topic have caught my attention.  Both are bad news for Coakley.  First, a poll covering Jan. 8-10 by the Mellman group was released yesterday and it shows Coakley beating  Brown by 14%, 50%-36%, (with 6% going to 3^rd party candidate Joe Kennedy).  Why is this potentially bad news for Coakley?  Because this was an internal poll, commissioned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  When candidates begin releasing internal polls, two things are clear: the poll is probably the most favorable internal poll the candidate has, and it is being released because Democrats are worried about the race and are trying to influence the media coverage.

Today, a second poll came out, this one by Rasmussen – and it has Coakley up by 2%, 49%-47%, with Kennedy at 3% and 2% undecided.  In short, the race is essentially a dead heat, given the poll’s margin of error. One week ago Rasmussen had Coakley up by 9%, 50-41, with 7% undecided.   However, that poll didn’t include Kennedy as a survey option – this one does, which makes it somewhat difficult to compare the two.

In trying to project the outcome of the election a week from today, keep in mind the following points:

1. Every poll has Coakley at about 50% of the vote – the variation comes in trying to estimate Brown’s support.  This is good for Coakley because it suggests she has strong, stable and almost majority support.  But it also indicates that she has hit her ceiling, leaving Brown with the greater upside, particularly if he begins attracting the Joe Kennedy voters.  And it reminds us that turnout is the key to winning this race.

2. Both candidates are generally well liked, but voters seem to like Brown as much or more than Coakley; his unfavorables in the last two polls are actually lower than her’s, and he gets higher favorable ratings in the latest Rasmussen poll.  In fact, her unfavorables are almost twice his in the Rasmussen poll.

3. Obama’s coattails are, predictably, quite short in Massachusetts (a strong Clinton state, if you’ll recall).  Although 57% of those polled in Massachusetts by Rasmussen either strongly approve (37%) or somewhat approve (20%) of his performance, evidently that’s not translating into increased support for Coakley.

4. As an indication of the increasing concern by the Coakley camp, they made the decision to go negative with this ad that has drawn criticism (and not only because it spells Massachusetts wrong in the closing credits!) for misrepresenting Brown’s views. Brown wasted no time in running his own negative ad in response.

5. Both parties have suddenly realized there’s a race here, and money is now pouring in.  To the degree that this leads to increased turnout, I have to think this favors Coakley for reasons I discussed in my last post.

6. The polling trends don’t seem to be favoring Coakley, as the link to this pollster.com chart shows.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/ma/10-ma-gov-ge-bvco.php

But keep in mind that there has been relatively few polls to date since everyone expected a Coakley cakewalk.   I expect this race to be polled much more frequently during the last week.

The bottom line is that this race is much closer than anyone expected – if the polls can be trusted.  I remind you of my caveat regarding voting screens and predicting special elections.  Many pundits are suggesting that this race should be viewed in part as a referendum on the health care debate at the national level; Coakley supports the Senate bill, while Brown opposes it.  In looking at the polling data, however, I don’t think that’s the key issue. Instead, I think security issues are what’s driving the surprising support for Brown. Consider this bit of polling data from Rasmussen:

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

65% By the military as a terrorist act
21% By civilian authorities as a criminal act
14% Not sure

Do you favor or oppose the use of full-body scanners at airports in the United States?

77% Favor
11% Oppose
12% Not sure

As I review the transcripts of the debates between Coakley and Brown, and the polling data, I wonder whether Brown has made this race competitive by seizing the high ground on the terrorist issue in the wake of the crotch-bomber incident and revelations regarding the number of released Gitmo prisoners who have rejoined the terrorist campaign against the U.S.  I wonder whether Coakley helped her cause by breaking with the President on how to deal with Afghanistan – here are her comments in the most recent debate with Brown:

DAVID GERGEN (moderator): Miss Coakley, how do you think we then succeed in Afghanistan?

COAKLEY: In Afghanistan?

GERGEN: Yes, and Pakistan.

COAKLEY: I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan.

GERGEN: You think we should come home?

COAKLEY: I think we should plan an exit strategy. Yes.

GERGEN: And — then how would we succeed?

COAKLEY: I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was — and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore. They’re in, apparently Yemen, they’re in Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is and not always decide that we need to —

GERGEN: Would you then send troops into Yemen where Al Qaeda is?

COAKLEY: No, I — that’s exactly the point. This is not about sending troops everywhere we think Al Qaeda may be, or where they’re training. We have all kinds of resources at our disposal, including CIA, our allies who work with us. And the focus should be getting the appropriate information on individuals who are trained, who represent a threat to us, and use the force necessary to go after those individuals.

I’m not sure, but I wonder whether this is viewed by some voters as perhaps a bit weak on the antiterrorism battle in light of the crotch bomber incident.

Will this be enough to swing the election to Brown?  I remain skeptical – the demographic and partisan leanings of Massachusetts voters still lead me to believe that Coakley will pull this out particularly since it is now clear that she’s in a real dogfight and Democrats are pouring resources into this state to prevent a monumental upset.  But Brown has shown that he is a potent fundraiser as well, and a lot can happen in a week.

In the meantime, I’m eager to hear from you – many of the regular readers of this blog are Massachusetts residents who have a keen ear for the local political scene there. What are you hearing?  Does Brown really have a chance?  If so, why?

Send me your comments!