Final Massachusetts Poll Chart

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

A big shout out to Chris Bowers at Open Left for putting together this polling chart of what is probably the final Massachusetts snapshot of the smackdown between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown.

Unless you believe in the power of a Higher Authority or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Scott Brown will be the next U.S. senator from Massachusetts.

Let this be a cautionary tale for Democrats. Despite the fact that Coakley is dreadful candidate, the outcome of this race isn’t ideological — it’s economic. If the Obama administration doesn’t begin to create jobs, look for more Democratic losses in the November midterm election.

At the end of the day, Bill Clinton was correct after all. It’s the economy, stupid.

Pollster Poll Mid-date Coakley Brown
Insider Advantage Jan 17 43 52
Cross Target Jan 17 42 52
ARG Jan 16 45 52
Research 2000 Jan 16 48 48
PPP Jan 16 46 51
InsideMedford Jan 15 41 51
Cross Target Jan 14 39 54
ARG Jan 13 45 48
Research 2000 Jan 13 49 41
Suffolk Jan 12 46 50
Rasmussen Jan 11 49 47
Mellman Jan 09 50 36
PPP Jan 08 47 48
UNH Jan 04 53 36
Rasmussen Jan 04 50 41
Mean Brown +0.9 46.20 47.13


This entry was posted in Jobs, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts, News, Politics, Polls, Scott Brown, Senate, U.S. Economy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Final Massachusetts Poll Chart

  1. Brigadoon says:

    This election is all about missed opportunities. I can’t believe Martha Coakley is the best the Democrats had to offer the voters. Her malapropisms are now the stuff of legend and as a Massachusetts resident, what on earth made her go after Curt Schilling? Boston is a huge sports town. They love the Red Sox. Her lack of impulse control suggests she’s not ready for primetime.

  2. feminazi says:

    I’ve followed this race fairly closely. The thing that I have been the most troubled by is how Scott Brown painted himself as a populist. He’s anything but a populist. Martha Coakley, on the other hand, seems to be truth-challenged. She claimed she campaigned across the state but no one recalls ever seeing her? These are two, very different but equally horrible candidates who are an insult to the legacy of Edward Kennedy.

  3. VicoDANIEL says:

    Jon Stewart had the best comment detailing how he reached the breaking point with the Democrats:

    “If this lady loses, the health care reform bill that the beloved late senator considered his legacy, will die. And the reason it will die… is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when did whatever the fuck he wanted to.”

    Interesting how it takes a cable comic to tell it like it is?

  4. Harry says:

    Two words: Rahm Emanuel.

  5. Rachel says:

    Polls are often only as good as the paper they’re printed on. Remember Hillary and New Hampshire? In any event, things don’t looks good for Coakley and things looks very good for Brown. He’s a slick, snake oil salesman and an excellent deceiver.

  6. Walk on Socks says:

    Maybe this loss with force Obama to stop “reaching out to his friends across the aisle,” and begin to act less like a senator and more like a president?

    George W. Bush was able to get his legislation passed with less than sixty votes, but Obama with a super majority cannot?

    Sorry, but I’m not buying it.

  7. libhomo says:

    This race is a lot about ideology. Obama and Reid have governed so much like Republicans that many liberals don’t care about the Democratic politicians.

  8. Capt. Wysocki says:

    Independents are 51% of the electorate and they are breaking 3-1 for Scott Brown.

    Whether Brown is full of shit or not (I happen to think he is), the fact is, Obama needs to stop blaming Bush and start creating good, well-paying jobs for the 18 to 20 million unemployed Americans or Rahm Inc. can’t realistically expect people to come out in the cold and snow and rain and vote for their candidates.

  9. Jim says:

    Time to focus on real and immediate concerns, Obama.

  10. Fran says:

    Polls Schmolls! Brown publicly announced he would defend Wall Street’s big bonus billions (record $145 billion)…. I’m hoping that will be the nail in his political coffin.

  11. Ron Kubik says:

    You liberals really crack me up!

    Democrats better crank up those over-sized superior brains, and figure out how in the world can they possibly get any legislation passed with those overwhelming majorities they will still have in Congress, even after Coakley loses you will still have 59 senate seats!

    How about pushing some policies that that public actually WANTS ? Remember that you have to answer to the people, whether you like it or not you serve the people and must yield to public opinion or be replaced. That is the essence of a representative democracy.

  12. DMason says:

    Ron – Liberals “crack me up” too. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that liberals — whom I consider myself, can be our own worst enemies. At this point in history, I’m beginning to think the people in the DNC and the DLC are trying to defeat President Obama.

  13. Mets Fan says:

    The Democrats squandered all of 2009 on healthcare reform while Americans were losing their jobs in vast numbers, sometimes as much as 600,000 job loses per month.

    When the story of this midterm year is written, I think people will point to what they perceive as no focus by the Obama administration to create jobs.

    Whoever talks about jobs, will win their election.

  14. ultragreen says:

    This is just another indication of the continued decline of the American Empire. In the long run, it doesn’t make any difference whether Coakley or Brown win the race because America will continue to bleed high-paying jobs as a result of free trade. Thus, neither major political party will be able to please members of the job-hungry public, in spite of what conventional ideologues like to think. The corporate conglomerates will continue their deadly stranglehold on our system of government.

    Thus speaks one of those super-sized liberal brains.

  15. Estacada says:


    Scott Brown: 60
    Martha Coakley: 19

    Yet, we’re surprised when Massachusetts voters say they don’t know exactly why they’re being asked to vote for Coakley instead of Brown?

    Brown worked for their support.
    Coakley expected it.

    At the end of the day, politicians are supposed to ask for voter support and tell potential voters what they will do for them.

    Candidates who forget this have their asses handed to them. Even in Massachusetts.

  16. I hope that this loss–and it’s looking like a loss–is a wake up call to the white house. I fear that Rahm et al. will claim that the blame lies entirely with Coakley. Until the democrats start leading like democrats, they had better expect the same or worse in 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s