Rasmussen Reports Polling Mass Special Election Race – Citizens Poll Shows Brown in Lead over Coakley – Science and Grass Roots Polling

The Washington Independentreleased a short article last night noting that independent pollster Rasmussen, was polling the Bay State for the January 19th, Special Senate Election. Rasmussen had confirmed to this blog that there would be a poll, but did not give a date. It should be noted that there are very few polls conducted by national pollsters in Massachusetts races – races in the Commonwealth are normally considered “safe Democrat” – as in “why bother wasting resources” (See CQ Politics article here regarding Scott Brown’s newest television ad which began running yesterday. (Ad below) The logic used by CQ Politics is that Coakley is heavily favored in the race, yet there has been no known data to back this up, with the exception of Coakley’s FEC report being slightly higher than Browns.

Money can’t buy votes.

Brown has been highly visible, crisscrossing the state, and doing one bang up job on the ground, while Coakley has been – non-existent. Other than one web ad, rebutting Brown’s first televised ad little has come from the alleged CQ Politics frontrunner.

The next debate is set for February 8th in Springfield, MA on WGBY Television. WGBY is a public television station, which has the smallest market share in the DMA, that said, there has been a growing interest in the race, on the “ground” so to speak in MA, therefore, one might expect an increase in their rankings for the 8th .

To date, there has been one unscientific poll, a citizens poll taken by a husband and wife team blogging out of Buzzards Bay. the poll was conducted using a phone book, calling all corners of the Bay State, over what appears to be several days (or weeks) – the results available here have Brown up by 11 plus points. Although of interest, the poll was conducted based on one question, regarding who one would support in the special election – Brown or Coakley. Understanding that these individuals were motivated by a lack of polling, and had no prior polling experience, one has to give them credit for putting in those hours, and at least presenting results – results that can be used to compare with other polling data released by Rasmussen. That said, they did not include the third party candidate: Joe Kennedy, and did not ask party affiliation.

In Monday morning quarterbacking (guilty), had they asked both, they may have found that putting Kennedy in the “mix” would yield a different picture. The reasoning: most Massachusetts voters are just beginning to be aware of the race, via Browns advertising. Asking a Democrat to choose between Republican, Brown, Democrat Coakley, or Libertarian Kennedy, may see those Democrats who would not vote for Coakley under any circumstances, voting for Kennedy based on name recognition alone. Additionally, asking party affiliation, would have given insight into which the Unenrolleds are choosing, as well as who the Democrats will ultimately choose. That’s the information that is gleaned during internal polling, which may be why Martha has been so silent as of late. Knowing you’re within the margin of error in Massachusetts and a Democrat means that the race might be tight, but the chances of victory slim.

Trolling for votes

Another reason that Coakley may feel she has an edge – corruption in the State Party’s get out the vote. The Blog SISU on the Brown/Coakley race, suggests that Coakley’s will be aided by an inordinate amount of “dead people” in order to get her over the top. Although one would think that might not be necessary in the Bluest State, it is not uncommon for activists to troll nursing homes in order to get a vote for the Democrat candidate. (Personal experience, mother with dementia, in a nursing home in Western Mass, was about to “vote” for Al Gore, although she had no idea of who Gore was, or who I was – resulting: volunteer was summarily shown the door – letter to Secretary of State – result ignored.)

Therefore, based on the theory of corruption put forth by the SISU blog, and the alleged corruption that may be employed – one would have to assume that ACORN, the SEIU, (who cannot control their membership when it comes to the voting booth), and a plethora of nursing homes and mortuaries (or cemeteries) in the state, are polled and vote for Coakley, will it be enough to get her over the top? One also has to ask would the State’s Attorney General knowingly stoop to such a crime?

The most likely scenario at this point: should the poll come within the margin of error, or be within 10 points (either way), the race is going to be tight. Brown, who has the edge on Coakley in experience (MA Senate) as well, getting his message out to every nook and cranny in the State (which is resonating with voters). In addition, it is which candidate can actually inspire to get out the vote – Brown’s grassroots organization is tight, Coakley does not have a grassroots organization, and will have to rely on the same old “machine”. Turnout is critical and the grassroots is motivated. Should the above-mentioned hold – Scott Brown will be going to Washington.

Note: Rasmussen polling, although an independent pollsters, has come under fire from DNC activist as being in the RNC’s pocket (so to speak), due to the fact that polls taken show a rejection of both programs and candidates. That said, the methodology used in the polling, random phone calls in a given area, (much the same as the non-scientific poll mentioned above) and automated polling (key in an answer), make that claim fallacious to say the least.) What to watch for in the Rasmussen Poll: the marginal – voters’ polled, political affiliation, and the inclusion of the third party candidate.

The result of the Rasmussen poll will be published once available.

New Scott Brown Television Ad