Real Clear Politics: Coakley 51.06% Brown 48.9%

hmmmm (1.67 / 3)

a blogger did some calculations based on 2008 presidential stats mixed with the averages of 2009 gubernatorial election stats (both of which were full length, not special elections) from different states to predict the outcome of a Senate race.

The fact that this is on the front page with the title "Real Clear Politics: Coakley 51.06% Brown 48.9%" is a complete farce.

Also not a developing story. There is no poll, there is nothing that is going to change with these numbers, it is merely a blog post with some number crunching, and he lays out very specifically how he came up with them. What exactly is developing? That this is a bullshit story?

---

by: fellowv @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 15:06:50 PM CST

Deceptive (0.00 / 0)

Cant believe that you would throw something up here like this with a straight face and that is coming from someone who thinks Brown has a shot at it

---

by: red&blue @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 22:15:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Add in the (Joe) Kennedy Factor (5.00 / 2)

Of pulling a net of 2 points from Martha and this is a horse race.  Of course, as noted above, this is a completely BS story since Martha has this election in the bag.  Absolutely no need for any Democrats to bother showing up to vote on January 19.  Nothing to see here.

---

by: amicus @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 15:17:04 PM CST

its BS (0.00 / 0)

because its not based on anything relevant to the race. Its not a poll, doesn't consider voter turnout, or nature of the race, or the specific candidates.

If i get this correctly a RCP blogger thinks that voter turnout/results for a Mid-winter special election will mirror that of a PRESIDENTIAL election, but will swing by the average margin of two gubernatorial elections that occurred in different states in a different year and had about 10,000% (I sight this number with the same confidence as I have in the RCP #, therefore it is rock solid by RMG standars) more media attention. Not to mention the R candidates had like 10 times as much money. But its not like any of those things matter, right?

---

by: fellowv @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 15:40:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Real Clear Politics (0.00 / 0)

Is one of the premier political analysis sites in the nation. They did a statistical analysis. Since nobody is polling this race this is as good as we have. Hey your people want to use statistics in the Census.  I thought Statistics were good, no?

Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 15:54:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am aware (0.00 / 0)

of what Real Clear Politics is. I'm not sure what you mean by "your people want to use statistics in the census," but it is an irrelevant statement anyway.

I have no issue with "statistical analysis", actually I'm a big fan. But as with all forms of analysis it must stand up to scrutiny. I criticized what I felt were flaws in the argument and why I don't think the result of the analysis is correct. I don't think the math is wrong, just the methodology.

I would like to see a real poll, but alas polls are expensive and I don't think MA media thinks that the investment will pay off (I believe RMG came to that conclusion, no?). I guess that's the free market for you.

Anyway, if you would like to challenge any of my arguments as to why the methodology of the analysis is flawed, and therefore the result should be ignored, I would love to debate it, however "this is as good as we have" is flawed and naive stance.

You are an engineer correct? I'm sure you have taken enough math classes to know that numbers are easily manipulated, I would think you would look at something like this with more criticism. Or do you not criticize things that show what you want to see, even if its based on flawed premise?

---

by: fellowv @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:25:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No one claimed it was a poll, the first sentence says "statistical analysis"... (5.00 / 1)

...RCP did a algorithm.  The results where similar to analysis of previous special election races in Massachusetts done by Mike on this blog.   That being, the race between Brown and Coakley will be closer than some on the Left expect.

They're not saying that Brown will even WIN, just that it's close.

You seem awful rattled by something you think is BS.

This is a well respected non-partisan political website that created an election projection they didn't even expect, and you're upset.  Get over it.

Everyone else, please donate to Scott Brown Today!



They like me, they really, really like me!

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:50:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sad thing (0.00 / 0)

Is that many people I've spoken with who are centrists or lean right are not planning on voting because they believe that only a DEM can ever win in MA.  They believe that their vote is not enough to overcome the support of organized labor.  I've literally had to beg a few people.

The upside is some of the people who always pull the lever for a DEM (because that's what they've always done) don't even seem to know there is an election.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:56:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How do you figure he will take points away from Martha? (0.00 / 0)

The media has profiled him and made clear that he is not that Joe Kennedy.  In all likelihood he will appear in any upcoming debates, further lessening any confusion people may have with that other Kennedy.  And the ballot will list his party as "Liberty."

Also, the blogosphere may be catching on that Scott Brown is not the Tea Party candidate.
http://www.rightcondition.com/...

---
Kamal Jain for State Auditor
http://www.kamaljain.com

---

by: Patrick @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:32:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yup (0.00 / 0)

If this were a normal senate election or a presidential election and their was much higher turnout projected I think there would be a measurable number of people who are uninformed and just voted for him because of his name.  

Given that this is a special election it's only the party faithful who will make the effort.  I think JK has the potential to siphon off two distinct types of voters....those who lean more conservative/liberterian than Brown, and those who don't want to vote Coakley, and can't bear the thought of voting for an (R).  Sadly I think the former is a larger segment and only stands to hurt Brown more than Coakley.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:41:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I also think Romney's vocal support may throw a wrench into the works. (5.00 / 1)

On the healthcare stuff, Romney is loathed.  Whenever healthcare comes up on FreeRepublic a good portion of the comments bash Romneycare.

---
Kamal Jain for State Auditor
http://www.kamaljain.com

---

by: Patrick @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:52:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On BMG (0.00 / 0)

 There are what they consider well respected bloggers such as "NeilSagan" who don't even know who the candidates are. Bring out the number of zombies who vote for a D, and they'll see the Kennedy name and swoon right after pulling the lever marked "Kennedy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: billxi @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 19:28:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Even the Kennedy thing... (0.00 / 0)

I think it's a myth.  Sure, at one time people would swoon at the Kennedy name (mostly JFk if any), but not today.  Ted's funeral alone was a big push.  People passed out signs so that there would be people with signs to hold.  No one cared much for the man himself.

---
Kamal Jain for State Auditor
http://www.kamaljain.com

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 00:44:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Believe Me (0.00 / 0)

They're dumb enough. Ted's nephew is well known.

---

by: billxi @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 17:06:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Marginal, not average (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, most people are smart enough.  Anyone who watches the debates are reads a newspaper is smart enough.  That isn't everybody.  There will be some marginal defection from name confusion.  My guess is maybe 1%.

"the Federal deficit is about ethics and morality, and it is, by far, the biggest problem we face. It weakens the country and exerts a creeping, negative influence on everything we do." - Charlie Baker.  HT:  Brent041

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 20:08:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The (Joe) Kennedy factor... (0.00 / 0)

... is likely to be a lot more than 2%. It's a three-way, so all he needs is more than the other two (not 51%). He's actually campaigning. And I'm willing to be a HUGE number of Dems don't realize he's not THAT Joe Kennedy, and vote for him.

I'd love to see THIS guy as "Senator Kennedy". :-)

http://JoeKennedyForSenate.com/

---

by: profg @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:33:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Think people rating this misread it. (5.00 / 1)

This was the part you missed.

Absolutely no need for any Democrats to bother showing up to vote on January 19.

Get it now?

---
Kamal Jain for State Auditor
http://www.kamaljain.com

---

by: Patrick @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:46:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I read it correctly (0.00 / 0)

And wondering what was up with the 'nil' rating.
Please by all means...let them stay home.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:50:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wish (0.00 / 0)

I like RCP, and I don't doubt the guys there spent a lot of time on this, but considering nothing is relevant to this race and their math seems pretty convoluted I withhold my judgement

Everyone's a liberal until they get their first paycheck.

---

by: HLSoCon @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:23:23 PM CST

But the moon is in the Seventh House. (0.00 / 0)

And Jupiter aligns with Mars.  It's a sure thing.

Bank on it.

---
Kamal Jain for State Auditor
http://www.kamaljain.com

---

by: Patrick @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 16:34:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, last ngiht was a blue moon (0.00 / 0)

no joke.

"the Federal deficit is about ethics and morality, and it is, by far, the biggest problem we face. It weakens the country and exerts a creeping, negative influence on everything we do." - Charlie Baker.  HT:  Brent041

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 06:30:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Elaborate statistical analysis? (0.00 / 0)

My elaborate statistical analysis, forget the polls, talking to the people here in W/Mass I can honestly say they are fed-up with the taxes, lack of good paying jobs and looking ridicules. The liberal democrats have too many concerns over Martha Coakley abuse of power and are not enthused. The far left wants a stronger message supporting full socialized healthcare "Single Payer" and not the versions Martha Coakley is supporting. All the unions except SEIU are upset over the tax increases in healthcare Martha Coakley is supporting now. According to some in the Ron Paul camp that seem to have some infiltrators in to Martha Coakley's camp they are seeing a lot of frustration over Martha Coakley on vacation. Based on the number of stories and mostly unconfirmed reports Martha Coakley has lost touch with her base and needs to do too much campaigning there. Good part for Brown is that Martha Coakley is out of time and could never catch up in time to win. Martha Coakley would have to put every effort into here base and I do not see that happening.      

This is a win for Scot Brown  

---

by: 1stRichard @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 11:15:01 AM CST

Unfortunately... (0.00 / 0)

...all those people you talk to in Western Mass, are outnumbered by one district in the city of Boston.

...and they vote according to the union of the recipient.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 10:36:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Revolt! (0.00 / 0)

You had better tell them that we have muskets and a lot of tar and feathers. Wow, there goes a whole truckload....

---

by: 1stRichard @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 13:41:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice to see this (0.00 / 0)

Redstate.com has been chatting up Scott Brown more and more these days...might explain the boost in Brown's fundaraising numbers.  Here they point out that while Martha raised tons of cash, she spent a great deal of it during the primary.

You see, most of that money Coakley raised got spent fighting for the nomination.  William Jacobson's all over this topic: while he and I both think that she's got more money in the bank right now than Brown, it's not the 5-to-1 advantage she's hyping.  At best, it's 3-to-2. She's also facing the problem that her public retreat on abortion language in the bill is going to depress enthusiasm in the progressive netroots; and that Republican activists at least have noted that flipping Massachusetts could - could! - possibly derail the health care rationing bill, and are contributing accordingly*.

The the RNC and and other National GOP groups won't do it, someone has got to.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 16:20:59 PM CST