Poll: Brown Only Trails Coakley by 11%, 50% to 39%

Monday, January 4th at 7:55PM EST

13 Comments

A non-partisan poll obtained by The Weekly Standard shows Scott Brown doing surprisingly well considering the Democratic lean of the state. He trails AG Martha Coakley by 11 points, 50% to 39%. There is some good news for Brown. He has a favorability rating of +30, 56% favorable to 26% unfavorable. For those most likely to vote, the lead is described as a “low single digits margin for Coakley”.
Link

13 Comments Leave a comment

Beat Me

Swamp_Yankee (Diary) Monday, January 4th at 9:32PM EST (link)

Beat me to it, took mine down and post my thoughts here:

http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2010/01/04/breaking-the-first-somewhat-legitimate-poll-results/

It funny that some of the people who pushed so hard for a poll almost seem disappointed. I think its a great number. I didnt really want a poll becasue I was afraid that it might come in between 15+ and that would have sucked the wind out of his sailes.

A static eleven, without considering motivating variables, puts this race well into the singel digits and that alone would be shocking to the nation.

Dems will crap their pants if Brown gets within five points.

I think this is the best result

redtillimdead (Diary) Monday, January 4th at 9:46PM EST (link)

Its not close enough to alert the Democrats, but its close enough to energize us some more, and bring in some people who liked him but thought the race was leaning 20 points in favor of Coakley. I had began to agree with you, as I thought the polls would show it Coakley +15, but in reality, it would be much closer because of turn out. I think the best result we could hope to see from Rasmussen would be 9-12, but no closer than 8. Any closer, and they become alert. Then again, we could just tell them “Its only Rasmussen…”

Nancy Pelosi can kiss my asstroturf.

The NRSC ought to call in a million-dollar airstrike on...

MacAoidh (Diary) Monday, January 4th at 10:56PM EST (link)

..this race TOMORROW.

Ambushing Coakley would do more to stop Obama’s legislative agenda dead in its tracks than anything else they could do. Getting Brown elected is money far better spent than trying to get Carly Fiorina elected.

Check out MacAoidh’s commentary on Louisiana and national politics at TheHayride.com

Why? It'd Be a Waste of Money

IJB Monday, January 4th at 11:22PM EST (link)

And we have a bunch more important races to spend money on, this Fall.

That was the mistake the NRCC made in NY-23 – they spent a lot of wasted money that should have been saved for this year.

The best result that can likely be hoped for out of this MA race is a 51-48 loss. (And it’ll more likely be 54-45…)

If the MA folks are going to win this one, they’re going to have to do it themselves, intra-state.

Because Defeating ObamaCare

Swamp_Yankee (Diary) Monday, January 4th at 11:32PM EST (link)

… is more important than sitting around for ten months and waiting for next year’s elections. We will do great next year regardless. And we have plenty of time to refill the coffers.

What is the basis for saying that the best is 51-48.? Is there some analysis behind that statement?

Also, do you know what a 51-48 loss would do for the party and nation. It would do the same as McDonnell an Christie’s vistories. There are moral victories here.

To Answer Your Question...

IJB Tuesday, January 5th at 12:31AM EST (link)

See this.

I don’t always put much stock in RCP, but I believe that one (and I also suspect that a 51-48 loss is probably the ceiling for a GOP candidate for Senate in MA, not the floor (even this year)).

And, no, a 51-48 loss will do *nothing* – there are no “moral victories” in this one: the Dems will pass Obamacare no matter how close their squeaker election wins are. As far as they’re concerned, a win is a win is a win.

It doesn’t matter if it’s close – if we can’t win (and I’m very dubious that we can win in MA), spending money there is a fool’s errand, that will only deplete vital resources we *will* need for winnable races in the Fall.

There Always Been A Group

Swamp_Yankee (Diary) Tuesday, January 5th at 12:45AM EST (link)

… of defeatists around here who insist that the Dems will pass health care no matter what. They preach that Blue Dogs always fall in line. That attempts to fight health care are futile.

But here we are, 01.04.10 and there is no bill, even though they wanted a bill before the August recess in July.

Six months later and all the political capital that we made them drain has shelved cap and trade, its made amnesty that much more difficult to pass and it puts the issue on calender for the summer, where it will be an albatross for the Dems in Nov. Card Check is all but dead.

And the health care bill has been gutted of its most dangerous beaurocratic provision. And weve made the bill so poisoness to the Dems that their poll numbers are diving because they are not listening to the public,. …. all because we fight, even if this bill passes.

There are proxy wars. Just as there are moral victories. A three point loss for Teddy Kennedy’s seat is a bit smack, a big rebuke. Blue Dogs will recoil from Pelosi and Reid on any further radical legislation.

Furthermore, it will boost the local party and all New Enlgand conservatives and creates a momentum for 2010.

I'm one of those defeatists...

MacAoidh (Diary) Tuesday, January 5th at 9:08PM EST (link)

…but if Brown is within nine points of Coakley, per Rasmussen, and if he’s within the margin of error on likely voters and has Coakley 2-to-1 on independent voters, then this is the opportunity to kill Obamacare right here and right now.

You put every resource into this fight that you can. You win this race and kill Obamacare, and you have now destroyed, discredited and dispirited the Democrats for a decade. Not only that, you have removed health care from the table for a generation; when they see that socialized medicine was such a disaster for them that they couldn’t even hold Ted Kennedy’s seat they will NEVER try it again.

And you know what? You fight and win on Brown, and all of a sudden you’ll find that you can raise money a lot easier than you used to. At least then you could say the money they give you will produce RESULTS; you certainly can’t say that now.

Check out MacAoidh’s commentary on Louisiana and national politics at TheHayride.com

I agree too

proudgop (Diary) Tuesday, January 5th at 12:03AM EST (link)

Sorry the NRSC is better off spending even 250,000 in NV, CO, IL, DE, PA, ND, CT ahead of Mass

I wish Brown well but its tough road

Not really

redtillimdead (Diary) Tuesday, January 5th at 12:30AM EST (link)

Depressed (and lazy) Dems + MA January weather= low Dem turnout.
Republicans are crazy over Brown from what I’m told in MA, They will turnout for anything. The polling is much closer than it should be. Brown is outraising Coakley it seems like. He already has 2 TV ads on air, with 5 more filmed and ready to go. Coakley has 0 on air. She is being investigated by the Feds and has lots of other hints of corruption in her office. The left is angry with her over abortion and the public option and threatening to a) not vote at all or b) vote Brown so the current HCR bill, which they would rather see defeated, be defeated.
The makings of a perfect storm

Nancy Pelosi can kiss my asstroturf.

Maybe, But It's a Long-Shot

IJB Tuesday, January 5th at 12:35AM EST (link)

And it’s the job (or should be the job) of the national committees to not spend money on local races just because the locals are convinced in *might* be a ‘perfect storm’ in a deep Blue state.

(And, look, I agree – if it’s going to happen in MA, it’ll be this year. I just don’t think it’s going to happen: MA is just too Blue…)

You mean local races,...

ceili_dancer (Diary) Tuesday, January 5th at 12:42AM EST (link)

Like the STATE of California, the STATE of New York, the STATE of Nevada? Yeah, just local races.

Buzz of Rasmussen Poll: MA

Swamp_Yankee (Diary) Tuesday, January 5th at 8:54AM EST (link)

Coakley leads by nine, but Brown voters support their candidate more strongly than Coakley voters support theirs.