2010 Mid-Terms – The MA 4th and 10th - Polls and Pollsters – Guessing Games and Statistics versus the Ground Game and Enthusiasm

The Boston Globe has released new polling data showing the 4th District incumbent, Democrat Barney Frank, leading his Republican Challenger, Sean Bielat by 13 points, while in the 10th District, Democrat Bill Keating leads Republican Jeff Perry by 4 points, however how accurate is this polling data? The Globes polling on the 4th District mirrors polling recently released by a Rhode Island’s WPRI which has Frank with a 10 point advantage. Both pollsters used samples of approximately 400 likely voters, with the WPIR poll showing 12 percent undecided, while the Boston Globe poll shows 11% undecided in the 4th and 23% undecided in the 10th race.

In the case of the Globe, the poll also factors enthusiasm, with those committed to voting for the Republican candidate leading those intending to vote for the Democrat. The Globe article also brings the Brown-Coakley race into the factor – which, past polling in the Bay State has used President Obama’s popularity as indicative of which way the outcome is likely to lean.

That said it is difficult, with large numbers of undecided’s, small samples, and reliance on previous statistics to indicate the outcome of any race – as it is also easy to pull apart a poll and argue the outcome will be different – what it boils down to is, is the ground game, and to be contradictory, voter enthusiasm.

Back to the Brown/Coakley race: During the early stages of that particular race through the final days, a variety of pollsters and pundits weighed in on the fact that Massachusetts was reliably Democrat, and that Brown’s attempt to upend a Democrat would either fail completely based on Globe polling data, or come “close”. Alternately, after Brown’s 5 point victory, (the only pollster that called this race correctly was Public Policy Polling a Democrat leaning pollster.) pundits began to call the outcome an anomaly, one that could not possibly be indicative of the coming races in Massachusetts.

The single most important factors in the Brown – Coakley race was the ground game and voter enthusiasm, which, those relying on most polls at the time, would have consider Coakley a shoe-in, however, what was happening on the ground in Massachusetts told a different story – which, in every corner of this state, has not changed since the January 19th election. Therefore, to those who call Massachusetts lost for eternity – and malign voters from a variety of districts for continually reelecting certain incumbents, one has to say, it’s not over until the votes have been cast. Historically, Massachusetts has been reliably “Democrat”, with the exceptions being when the economy hits the skids – and it has, in Aces.

Interest in Massachusetts races has climbed to the point where Public Policy polling is considering polling the Bay State again. What that tells us, if anything, is that the races are of interest, or more to the point, outcomes that are one the line, and that the notion of “Safe Incumbent” is, probably somewhat misleading. It will be those who are committed to voting that will determine the outcome as always, and regardless of party, and of advertising dollars spent, or the notion that “nothing ever changes”, those races where there is either no polling (or alleged internals which have been duly noted), or where polls can be examined and reversed by questioning statistics employed, the candidate that has the best ground game now, and the unenrolled in Massachusetts (specifically) in sync, will win, regardless of party. Massachusetts has experience a significant change in collective political think over the past two years, and to deny that in the face of polls with large margins, undecideds and/or are not indicative of the voter registration either in the state or the district, and pundits, is, in a word ludicrous.