Professor Brad's Political Pulse

Topsy Turvey!

2012-02-11T09:54:00.000-08:00

Here we are again..the Republican electorate simply cannot settle on any one candidate thus far...

After the debacle in South Carolina, Mitt Romney convincingly wins Florida (although loses many rural counties, a danger sign in some respects) and rolls as expected in Nevada. The Mittster is back on track for a day.

However two days later, Rick Santorum wins a stunning trifecta in Colorado (where a Romney win was expected), Missouri (55% of the vote, alas no delegates as it was just a "beauty contest") and Minnesota (you betcha!) where Mitt end up third behind Ron Paul. Mitt is back on his heals once again as he just can't close the deal with social conservatives who now appear to be flocking to the very culturally conservative (but probably unelectable) Santorum.

Oops, almost forgot about Newt. His campaign is nearly out of money and he placed badly in the last four contests. Does he have another resurrection? We shall see.

At the end of the day the delegate count is what matters. To win the GOP nomination a candidate must amass at least 1,144 delegates for a simple majority. To date, this is where the delegate count stands (courtesy of the Washington Post: Feb. 11, 2012).

Mitt              112
Santorum       72
Newt              32
Paul                 9

Maine (24 del) is going to releasing its caucus results later today. On February 28 Michigan (30 del) and Arizona (29 del) are voting. Michigan has proportional delegate allocation and Arizona is winner-take all. On March 3 the Washington State Caucus (43 del) will occur. And then ten states (438 delegates at stake) (including the Prof's home state of Massachusetts) are voting on March 6 aka Super Tuesday.

So...this race is still Romney's to lose. He has more money and a much stronger organization than either Santorum of Newt. But he keeps stumbling and literally can't go for more than 48 hours without a gaffe of some sort. Mitt should win in the large state like NY and CA and accumulate many delegates in April. He will likely limp across the finish line at some point, but unless he cleans up his act will have a divided party to contend with (much to President Obama's advantage).

Santorum seems to have found new life and made a connection with social conservatives who make up a large block of voters especially in the Midwest and South where he may win if Newt continues to fade. His problem is going to be a lack of appeal to moderate voters who don't go to primaries, but who will vote in November. This issue with electability will be difficult for him to overcome. But he has a chance, albeit a slight one to at least gain enough delegates to deny a majority to Mitt.

Newt has had a bad...no, terrible few weeks, but vows to stay in until the bitter end. His hope now is to do well in states like the southern states that vote on Super Tuesday. Too bad he failed to make the ballot in Virginia (thus conceding it to Romney). Poor organization strikes yet again!

Ron Paul continues to excite young folks and will go to the convention with enough delegates to have some influence. And may announce for 2016 while he is at it...

There is now a break until February 28 - in the next few weeks I will post about the general election and where things may stand come November. Additionally, we will look at the likely reelection strategy of the President and watch closely as things evolve.

Onwards!

The Prof

Mitt's terrible horrible very bad no good week...

2012-01-22T05:44:00.000-08:00

South Carolina Shocker!

Mitt Romney's humiliating 13 point loss to Newt Gingrich last night has zero, count 'em zero silver linings for the former front runner.

Newt on the other hand has now fully emerged at the anti-establishment challenger to the Romney coronation, a coronation gone oh so wrong. Furthermore, Newt now leads Mitt in the delegate count - 25 to 14 with 1,119 needed to secure the nomination.

Santorum may sink into irreverentcy due to his disappointing finish and his voters could well be up for grabs. Although he did end up winning Iowa by 34 votes...yet another demerit against Mitt, Sant must be upset over the misreported results as it could have charted a different path for him had he been the winner in Iowa three weeks ago.

So, what happened in the Palmetto State last night??

Mitt

Romney effectively blew up his campaign in SC with the tax issue (he is getting TERRIBLE advice on this matter) and with sub par debate performances. He has played perfectly into the stereotype that he is the wealthy robber-baron with offshore money in the Cayman Islands. All we need is the Snidely Whiplash moustache.

More ominously, a majority of SC voters saw Newt as more electable. This is an advantage that Mitt has heretofore enjoyed in every survey.

Unfortunately his Mormonism also may have been a factor with some evangelical voters who made up 65% of the GOP primary vote.

Newt

He benefited from tremendous debate performances where he put the media on trial - this is red meat for conservative voters.

His feisty style overall resonated with SC voters...and they appear to have forgiven his many er, past moral transgressions. He is showing heart and passion, something conservatives are longing for in contrast with the buttoned-up Romney.

Newt won just about every GOP subgroup. If he can continue to do so he is very viable.

On to Florida and beyond...

Gingrich is now the real deal. Florida is voting in nine days. Expect Newt to raise a lot of money (he needs to, Mitt is flush with cash). Newt also has to organize quickly in order to turn the insurgent campaign into a truly national campaign. He also needs to show discipline and avoid going off track is he often does.

Mitt needs to show some passion and defend himself as a businessman. Oh yes, he must resolve the tax return issue, otherwise it may continue to hurt him. Expect him to be much more aggressive.

Florida is absolutely critical for both these candidates. If Romney loses here, the national Republican establishment will begin whispers of a new person to save the party (Newt has few fans in the inner circle). If he wins, he can breathe as the next contests in Nevada, Maine, and Missouri will have friendlier terrain for him - but only if he wins. Perception is reality. As I tell my students winning begets winning in politics and right now Newt is winning.

I am quite certain that President Obama and the Democrats are keeping close tabs on this and are enjoying the GOP split...however, the primary fight may make the eventual nominee stronger in the long run.

Onwards!

The Prof

NH post mortem

2012-01-14T07:09:00.000-08:00

I did pretty darn well!!

                       Prediction        Actual

Romney             38%                  39%
Paul                   24%                  23%
Huntsman          17%                  17%
Newt                 10%                    9%
Santorum           10%                    9%
Perry                    1%                   1%

Decent win for Romney, even with his late gaffes and Bain Capital being raised as a campaign issue. Paul held his own and is looking for influence at the GOP convention. Newt and Sant are looking for a much-need breakthrough in SC a week from today. Perry is on life support...

Romney did well among almost all voters except for younger voters who went to Paul. Ironically conservative and tea party self identifiers still gave more votes to Mitt who continues to benefit from a split field.
More on the impending South Carolina Primary in a few days. Newt is going nuclear simply because he has to in order to have any viability. Super-Pacs galore...

Onwards!

The Prof

NH 2012 Primary Predictions!

2012-01-10T02:49:00.000-08:00

Here Goes!

Romney      38%
Paul            24%
Huntsman    17%
Newt           10%
Santorum     10%
Perry            1%

Expectations are very high for Mitt Romney. He has made a couple of notable gaffes (open mouth, insert foot, fuel perspectives that you are an out of touch robber-baron CEO...) over the past day and there has been a relentless attack on him from the other candidates. Mitt would like to win by 20 points, but that will be a challenge as multiple polls are showing him losing some ground this week.

NH's strong libertarian/contrarian streak will help Ron Paul. He has a very dedicated core of supporters and crossover Independent votes will give Paul a strong showing. Paul will do well and I would be very surprised if he is not a strong second.

Huntsman has been practically living in NH over the past year and will come in third, but this is likely his personal Waterloo. Ironic, as he may be the most electable Republican in terms of appealing to moderates and independents, but the primary system works against him in almost all states. Most of his voters are interchangeable with Romney ideologically .

Newt and Santorum will be in a fight for fourth place. My guess is that Newt barely pulls it out. Newt is really looking at SC in several days to reignite his campaign, but placing in the top four is critical for him.

Santorum's numbers did bounce up earlier this week, but have settled back down. He will have trouble doing well in socially moderate NH and like Newt is focused on SC. But he may surprise...

The unknown factor of course is how Independent voters go to - especially as there is no competitive Democratic primary to compete.

Do Romney's late gaffes hurt him badly or are they lost in the plethora of soundbites?

Will the negative ads on Romney and Bain Capital make his soft support wither?

Does the anti-Mitt vote continue to split four ways or does it start to coalesce? If the vote ends up being close Romney could well suffer a collapse elsewhere. Romney's organization is powerful in NH and will win, but the expectations game is what is important going forward.

Stay tuned! The Prof will be tuned to the results all evening...

Onwards!

The Prof

Iowa 2012 wrap-up

2012-01-07T03:24:00.000-08:00

Lets see how I did...

The Prof's Prediction       Actual 2012 IA Results

Mitt 24%                                  Mitt 24%

Paul 22%                                  Santorum 24%

Santorum 15%                         Paul 22%

Newt 12%                                Newt 13%

Perry 11%                               Perry 10%

Bachman 7%                           Bachman 5%

Not too bad in terms of order, however I greatly underestimated Santorum's surge during the last week of the campaign. It seems that he may end up as the anti-Mitt simply because there are not any alternatives left.

Bear in mind that the Iowa Caucuses are really a statewide straw poll and that delegates (which really matters) will not be allocated for several weeks.

Romney's landslide 8-vote victory is both an over and under performance depending on your perspective and spin. He had a ceiling in Iowa and was not able to exceed it. However a win is a win however narrow and Mitt is glad to have escaped with one. Much of his win is due to organization, $$, and being perceived as the candidate most able to beat President Obama in November. Additionally campaigning for the presidency since 2007 didn't hurt...

Rick Santorum was the real story out of Iowa. Evangelical Christians (a powerful block in Iowa) appeared to have rallied around him over the last few days. His strong finish has yielded strong post-Iowa fundraising and has also focused media attention on him. However, with attention comes increased scrutiny and it is unclear as to how he handles this.

Ron Paul finished strongly, but as stated before may have had his high water mark. He will not be nominated and was the "protest" candidate, drawing many independents. However, his supporters will be critical for the eventual nominee. His candidacy clearly has appeal to libertarian-minded voters - socially liberal, economically conservative and non-interventionist.

Newt had a most disappointing evening and seems to have embarked on a mission to take Mitt down. There has been some speculation that he may try to reach some sort of alliance with Santorum although I have a hard time seeing how this would work logistically.

Rick Perry underperformed and there is continuing speculation that his candidacy is on life support, but he has the money to continue for some time.

Adios Michelle Bachman...a rapid fall from grace and the Ames straw poll victory a few months ago.

Romney needs lower tier candidates, especially Perry to stay in the race when it moves to SC and FL later this month. A continued split in the anti-Romney vote is crucial to him wrapping up the nomination by early March. If Santorum establishes himself as the chief conservative competitor this race may go far deeper into the year.

My money is still on Romney to win this, but he need to do well in SC and win FL for this to wrap up. Otherwise we may see a repeat of the Obama-Hillary contest which was not truly decided until June of 2008. A weak Romney performance will funnel money and support to Santorum (who I think will emerge as the chief competitor.)

NH predictions will be posted in the next day.

Onwards!

The Prof

Merry New Year - Iowa Eve

2012-01-01T06:24:00.000-08:00

Ok, here goes - The final Des Moines Register Poll results are as follows:

Mitt            24%
Paul            22%
Santorum    15%
Newt          12%
Perry          11%
Bachman      7%

Remember, the margin of error is almost 5% so this can mean that Mitt, Paul, and Santorum all have a shot at this.

Key things to watch:

Organization: key in Iowa as caucus turnout is relatively low. This benefits Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Even several hundred votes can make a difference.
Do social conservatives rally around a "Mitt alternative"? This explains much of Santorum's rise in the past week. Mitt's advantage is that conservatives have yet to gravitate to one candidate. In this scenario, one can win and have media momentum with a quarter of the vote. Remember, Obama only beat Hillary by a few pints in Iowa in 2008.
Is there a barrage of negative advertising, a verbal slip, or other unforeseen event that can change this very fluid race?
Weather - the better the weather the higher the turnout. Could be an opening for candidates with poorer organization.

Iowa provides good press and momentum for the next stop in NH a week hence. However it has a very conservative electorate which in the past has not been very predictive of producing GOP nominees from its caucus. Remember Mike Huckabee in 2008...

The Prof's final prediction based on polling, insight and (mostly) gut feel:

Romney    26%
Paul          23%
Santorum  20%
Perry        11%
Newt          9%
Bachman   9%
Huntsman   2%

Onwards!

The Prof

Merry New Year - Quick Recap

2012-01-01T05:52:00.000-08:00

Well, finals are over, grades are in, and holidays are over - so back to some long-overdue writing about my favorite topic...

Lots going on, a quick recap and some lessons:

The demise of Cain and 9-9-9. Personal life "affairs" do matter!
The rise and apparent fall of Newt. Negative attacks coupled with old baggage and likely un-electability will usually sink a campaign. Newts also made several controversial statements about the Executive and Legislative branches being able to veto Court decisions (contrary to Civics 101) and saying his nomination was inevitable was seen as arrogant by many. Also, the GOP Establishment worked overtime to deflate him as suburban independent female voters simply will not vote for him in November.
Ron Paul - he will never be nominated, but is an effective protest vehicle for many. Neo-isolationism will not play over the long haul though and the Party will pull strings to stop him if he is seen as upsetting the apple cart. Worst case scenario for the GOP: Does Paul mount an independent run in November...
Rick Perry - looking good on paper does not translate into an effective campaign or a particularly attractive candidate outside of the Texas Republic.
Michelle Bachman - just not ready for prime time, core of supporters is too narrow and high profile misstatements have damaged her campaign. May be really running for Veep at this point.
Ric Santorum - may well surprise in Iowa (more on this in the following post) and could emerge as the anti-Mitt flavor of the week.
Mitt - slow, steady, controlled, and professional. Can't get over 25%, but this may be enough for the long haul. Finacial advantage and organization is huge!

Onwards - all jacked up for 2012!!

The Prof

To Mitt or Not To Mitt...oops!

2011-11-12T02:33:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

After a far too long hiatus (busy teaching my classes this fall) it is time for an update on the Republican primary.

When we last looked at the race, Rick Perry had just jumped in and Herman Cain's candidacy was seen as not meriting much media time. How things have changed...and stayed the same!

First Governor Perry: He has consistently failed to impress many in the Republican electorate who initially had high hopes for his candidacy. After all, he is a long serving governor of a state which seems to have suffered less during the recession and is a true conservative (oh, except for immigration).

Perry's 52 second "oops moment" of a couple of nights ago apart from providing great fodder for late night comics may well be a political death knell. His stock was already falling based upon poor debate performance and a number of misstatements. The style and demeanor of Perry, while positive for Tea Party activists leaves a lot of voters in the cold. When I saw him speak in NH back in August, I simply was not impressed with him and nothing has occurred to change my perceptions. We all have "oops moments" (my students can attest to that!) but having one on a national stage like this does raise legitimate questions about his preparedness and thus his electability.

What Perry does have going for him is a significant amount of money banked and he is launching a widespread TV/radio ad campaign in early caucus and primary states. Although I see his chances for the nomination as poor, he can still recover if the electorate coalesces around him as the "anti-Mitt" and forgives his sins on immigration and his err, "speaking skills". However, most voters will likely see him as a regional and weak general election candidate who may win traditional Republican groups against President Obama, but won't turn on suburban independents in the Midwest.

Herman Cain has been a shooting star. His folksy style and simple 9-9-9 (say that five times fast) plan has attracted a lot of support and many conservatives in the party have unwaveringly defended his lapses on foreign policy and the recent sexual harassment allegations. Cain seems to be surviving this tempest so far (polling is still strong) but the momentum has stalled.

As a candidate, Cain is very likable, contrasts sharply with frontrunner Romney, and is a down-the-line conservative who is attractive to Tea Party folks. However, questions regarding of his lack of depth on foreign policy and his very poor handling of the harassment allegations (regardless of if the charges have merit) has placed a tremendous weight on his campaign. I see him staying in the race as his core supporters don't seemed particularly troubled and the new strategy of attacking the media energies his fans as many don't trust the dreaded main-stream media anyway. Will he leave the race over these allegations? As Herman says "Ain't gonna happen!"

Newt Gingrich has truly surprised me. As Speaker of the House he resigned under a cloud of uncertainly in 1998 and his political career seemed finished. He has since been writing and traveling in conservative circles and announced a very long-shot campaign about a year ago. Much of his campaign staff quit last spring (many joined with Perry), but in the past two weeks buoyed by solid debate performances and with the withering of Perry and Cain, Newt may be the anti-Mitt flavor of the month... Or perhaps much longer as there are few other candidates left who have the ability and money to run a nationwide campaign. Gingrich is probably the smartest man on the stage and has been described as having many ideas, but some of them can be "really out there."

On the negative side of the ledger, Gingrich has had many past issues with his family life that social conservatives may have issues with. Additionally, he has been criticized for taking money as a lobbyist over the past few years and opposition research will have a ball with his record. I do not see him as an electable nominee next year, but he may well emerge as Romney's most serious rival as party activists like most of what he says. We shall see if this contiunes in the next few weeks.

This leaves Mitt Romney who continues to chug along. He can't seem to break 25% in national polls, but maintains a wide lead in New Hampshire. National polls do not mean a lot at this stage in the race; remember this nomination will be won state by state.

Mitt's problem is that a lot of Republicans, especially conservatives continue to look for some alternative. After all, he did sign the health reform law in Massachusetts as governor. And yes, much of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is based off of this law - see the individual mandate for starters. Additionally, he has a history of "evolving" on issues which is heresy for many conservatives. He is the establishment candidate in a very anti-establishment year. Rush Limbaugh seems to truly despise him and that is a problem for him in the primaries, although this could be an asset in November. Being tied to the Tea Party is probably a negative in the general election.

What Romney has going for him are continued solid debate performances, a lot of money on hand, organization, and he appears the most "presidential" of the candidates on the stage. He is never going to excite conservatives which may be detrimental as intensity matters in ginning up the turnout next November, but at this point I believe is still the likely nominee. Romney continues to benefit as Perry, Cain, Bachman, and Newt are all scrambling for the same voters.

The anti-Mitt, anti-establishment sentiment has yet to coalesce around any one candidate and as long as no plausible alternative candidate can capture these party activists, Romney's appeal to Independents who can vote in the NH Primary should be enough to give him an early lead one the voting begins. He needs to be concerned with South Carolina and other Southern states that may give a boost to Cain or Perry. I anticipate him trying to win big victories in the more "moderate" primary states and hoping that the Tea Party vote continues to split in states where he would fare poorly in a one on one contest.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 3. The NH Primary is January 10. We are now in the end run of the invisible primary which began in November 2008.

By the way, only 361 Days until Election 2012...Onwards!!

The Prof

Rick Perry - Early Take

2011-09-04T11:46:00.000-07:00

With a Texas-sized splash, Lone Star State Governor Rick Perry has officially jumped into the primary race and has vaulted to the top position if you believe the early polls (BTW polling at this stage is directional, but don't read too much into them yet).

Pros: Ability to connect with party faithful, appeal in socially conservative Iowa and South Carolina, executive experience, Texas has record of job creation during the recession, very charismatic, good at throwing "red meat" to tea party activists, will raise boku $$, has played the election game without losing for 20 years

Cons: close your eyes and he sounds like George W. Bush, gaffe-prone, evangelical religious conservatism may not play well outside of socially conservative states, statements alluding to state secession and extremism libertarian view of government makes electability an issue, Texas has multiple issues with poverty, education, and poor access to healthcare

Odds for the nomination: Actually quite good if he avoids gaffes and can show electability. Romney will be his main competition, although he has to guard his flank against Bachmann.

Perry has a real shot at this and if he polishes his act and appears presidential (as opposed to simply rhetorical and theatrical) he may well outlast Romney. He will do poorly in NH, but should do very well in delegate-rich southern and midwestern states. What he needs to watch are statements that get him in trouble (Ben Bernake take note) and an image of a good 'ol boy. His campaign skills will serve him well if he can remake his image.

Onwards!

The Prof

September 2011 - Brief Assessment

2011-09-04T11:24:00.000-07:00

Well, September 2011 is here and a lot has been happening with the Republican presidential candidates.

Right now, conventional wisdom says that it looks like a Rick Perry vs. Mitt Romney race with Michele Bachmann being a possible dark horse. This is a correct assessment to some extent, but a lot can happen to rearrange candidate positions going into Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond.

Emergence of Additional Candidates

Obviously Sarah Palin comes to mind. Her entry would create a huge splash and ironically, would help Romney by splitting conservative support three ways with Bachmann and Perry. She would be an instant celebrity candidate with the ability to raise a lot of money. However, my instinct says that she does not run in 2012. (I though Hillary was going to win in 2008 as well, so my instinct can be very wrong!)

Other candidates who are considering jumping in at this late state are former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani. NJ Governor Chris Christi is under pressure to run as well, although this is unlikely.

Recent polls have shown that Republican primary voters are by and large satisfied with the current crop of candidates. However, there is still room for another candidate or two.

Self Destruction of Existing Candidates

Both Perry and Bachmann are running into issues with high profile media gaffes. Perry's book has a number of politically controversial positions that could maim his candidacy as well. With so many microphones and video cameras tracking their every waking move candidates are bound to make mistakes. They need to avoid major gaffes that will come to define them.

Candidates Emerging From the Back of the Pack

A candidate like Huntsman (I happened to see him speak last week) could conceivably make a run if frontrunners begin to self destruct., However this is an unlikely to happen. Newt Gingrich simply ain't going to happen either!

One thing that may decide what happens in next year's primaries is that Republicans need a candidate who can beat President Obama. I foresee electability of becoming a larger issue as time draws closer. This would likely help Romney, but is he too radioactive among conservatives who dominate the primaries? Can Perry win over middle class northern suburbanites in a general election?

But remember that polling several months before the primaries is an inexact science at best. Just ask presidents Rudy Giuliani, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton...

Onwards!

The Prof

Ames IA, Bye T-Paw, Welcome Gov Perry

2011-08-14T07:34:00.000-07:00

Wow - lots happening so let's get down to business...

The traditional (since 1979) Ames IA Straw Poll was a resounding victory for Michele Bachmann cementing her as a legit top-tier candidate for the Republican nomination. She has excited the party grassroots and is the real deal, at least in Iowa, although I suspect that she will have more trouble in NH as her socially conservative supporters do not hold the sway in NH as they do in Iowa. But yesterday was a triumph of her organization and message to Iowa Republicans. Charisma matters!

Ron Paul also did well (as expected) with a second place finish as the Paulists were out in force.
However, don't look for him to go very far once the primaries begin next year. More on this in a later post.

Tim Pawlenty came in a distant third after sinking much money and political capital into the Ames poll and decided to withdraw from the race today as a result of his poor showing. The effects of the invisible primary are clear - T-Paw's fundraising was apt to disappear as contributors generally want to wager on a candidate who shows some likelihood of doing well. Good bye Governor Pawlenty- you looked great on paper, but just didn't have the organization and frankly the passion necessary for a run like this. Ironically, he would probably be a strong general election candidate as he is a moderate and would have appealed to suburban independents.

Mitt Romney wisely decided not to openly participate in Ames and benefited by not having high expectations. Iowa has not been kind to Mitt in the past and methinks he has his focus on NH anyway. Buy he now has a new worry (hint: it involves a cowboy hat)

This week's other big story was Gov. Rick Perry of Texas throwing his ten gallon hat into the fray. He brings lot of assets and liabilities; much more on him in my next posting.

The Prof is going to see Perry speak in NH next week and will be able to relate an up-close assessment on his strategy before genuine NH voters.

Onwards!

The Prof

Tim Pawlenty - Early Take

2011-07-17T08:21:00.000-07:00

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at one time looked like a very good general election candidate...on paper. He set up a strong primary campaign organization in Iowa, was seen as a conservative, but effective governor of a liberal-leaning state, and was generally drama-free with blue-collar roots.

What has happened to cause his campaign to now be in guarded condition if not life support?

From my perspective, Pawlenty has several flaws/issues that are undermining his campaign.

1. He is not terribly well known or charismatic. Being "drama-free" can come across as boring or technocratic. A successful candidate needs some gravitas to energize supporters.

2. Michele Bachmann. She has energized social conservatives and has taken the momentum in the early state of Iowa where Pawlenty had hoped to springboard himself to the Republican nomination.

3. Poor early debate performance. Pawlenty hurt himself in the early going with last month's wishy-washy performance on the debate stage. He had a chance to go after Romney on healthcare and failed to do so. Minnesota nice did not serve him well.

These issues are creating some doubt over his long-term viability. This hurts him among donors, groups from whom early support is key, and creates the perception that he cannot win over the long haul.

A major test of Pawlenty's strength will be the Ames Iowa straw poll in August. He needs to do well to maintain his credibility going into the fall.

The good news for Pawlenty is that he can still be a credible alternative who may do well in a general election. Pragmatic primary voters faced with the prospects of a too conservative Bachman or a damaged Romney being the party nominee may well give "T-Paw" a second look.

Next week: second tier candidates Gingrich, Cain, and Huntsman - and why they have little chance of lasting. And remember, we still have to look at undeclared candidates Rick Perry and Sarah Palin!

Onwards!

The Prof

Michele Bachmann - Early Take

2011-07-05T17:32:00.000-07:00

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann seems to have taken the number two spot among Republican primary voters in the early polling. Following her mid June announcement, Bachmann has been on a meteoric rise in native (until age 12) state Iowa and among many tea party adherents, Evangelical Christians, and social conservatives.

Pros: Ability to connect with party faithful, appeal in socially conservative Iowa and South Carolina (both early states), seen as outsider in contrast to mainstream Mitt Romney, loyalty of followers, female candidate in a white male dominated field, fund raising rapidly, support from conservative talk radio.

Cons: Extremely gaffe-prone, extreme conservatism may not play well outside of socially conservative states, lack of executive experience, not well-regarded in the House, reminds some of Sarah Palin, has made a number of statements in the past that some would consider to be out of the political mainstream.

Odds for the nomination: Bachmann really needs a win in Iowa and is placing a lot of effort in doing just that. Follow that with a strong showing in NH, wins in the deep South, and then slugging it out for the nomination. Her best chance is to make this a two-person race between her and Romney (with Huntsman splitting the moderate vote with Romney) and to count on tea party and an insurgent wave. However, my bet (with six months to go, very much out on a limb) is that she will fizzle in the end done in by numerous gaffes and her low chances of electability against President Obama.

However, I can certainly see her being on the VP short-list of a Romney or Pawlenty especially if there a need to unify the party.

Next Up - Tim Pawlenty.

Onwards!

The Prof

Mitt Romney - early take

2011-06-29T15:25:00.000-07:00

The Prof is ginned up on politics and ready to roll over the next year and a half!

Now that things are heating up, it is time to begin outlining my initial 2.5 cents on the presidential candidates vying to take on President Obama 16 months hence. My next several posts will focus on each of the major candidates running for the Republican nomination. First up - Willard "Mitt" Romney.

Mitt Romney - the former Massachusetts Governor continues to lead most early polls due to name recognition. It must be said that he has been spending the past three years of the "invisible primary" raising money, building an organization, and trying to secure support among key Republican constituencies. All of this is essential to running a legitimate national campaign.

Additionally, it is traditional among Republicans to nominate candidates when it is "their turn"; in fact in recent history the only Republican outsider to secure the party nomination was Barry Goldwater in 1964. However, recent polling suggests a lack of enthusiasm for him with many Republican voters wishing there was another candidate in the race. Could his support be a mile wide, but an inch deep...

Romney will have a target on his back as long as he is the perceived front runner. Expect a lot of fire directed toward him in upcoming debates.

Pros: General weakness of other Republican candidates, fairly well spoken, squeaky clean personal life and image, rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics, raising a lot of $$, field organization, experience from running in 2008, establishment candidate who is "next in line", not a rhetorical bomb thrower, has a house and is known in critical NH, relatively moderate stances...and yes, looks like a president!

Cons: Flip-flops on key issues, Romneycare in Massachusetts (really hurts him among core Republican primary voters), relatively dull style, big business background may not play well among small government tea partiers, socially moderate positions won't play well in Iowa and in the South, Mormonism may hurt in the South as well.

Odds for the nomination: At this early stage he is best positioned among the Republican candidates to win a grueling year-long campaign and primary battle...but time may show that he has feet of clay. He acquitted himself well in this month's debate in first in the nation primary New Hampshire. My initial take is that he is going to try to run a competent and gaffe-free campaign and simply outlast his opponents.

Next up - Michele Bachman...

Onwards!

The Prof

Political Ecumenicalism

2011-06-02T15:10:00.000-07:00

Hi all.

A non-political post for today...

Nice to see a great example of political ecumenicalism today. With the tornadoes and resulting human disaster in Springfield and the other communities, politicians of both parties are putting aside their ideology and petty differences to focus on people who are truly hurting.

Hats off to Governor Patrick for taking charge in a calm and reassuring way. Kudos to Senators Brown and Kerry and local officials of all political stripes for helping folks who had their lives changed forever. It would be nice to see some similar goodwill during election season.

I will be getting back to presidential primary analysis in short order, but it is important to come together as Americans regardless of politics in times like this.

Onwards!

The Prof

Senator Patrick??

2011-02-08T14:49:00.000-08:00

Hi all - I am back from a far too long blogging hiatus...

I am going to open 2011 with a far-out, but plausible prediction - newly reelected Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick challenges Senator Scott Brown in 2012.

Below is my reasoning; hopefully in a coherent manner!

Governor Patrick can put together the best statewide "ground game" of any possible candidate - as evidenced by his successful reelection last November. This will also serve to give other possible Democratic contenders (especially a pair of congressmen named Capuano and Lynch) pause as they will have trouble establishing anything on this scale
Patrick would have no trouble raising money for this race. Big advantage as Senator Brown has over $7 million banked and he will raise a lot more by next year.
Patrick is not acting like a lamb duck governor who has pledged not to run for a third term. Quite the contrary, he is very active and engaged.
The local press, notably the Boston Globe has been running a number of very positive pieces on the Governor over the past few weeks. Praise for the sake of praise or laying the groundwork for a future endorsement?
Patrick's role model (or is it the other way around) President Obama will easily carry Massachusetts in 2012. Democratic enthusiasm and high urban turnout will benefit a Patrick candidacy
Some on the far right are not happy about Senator Brown' Massachusetts brand of Republicanism. Does a conservative launch an independent candidacy in 2012 thus siphoning off 5% of voters who may have otherwise supported Brown?
Vicki Kennedy is not running.
Governor Patrick is an ambitious fellow as evidenced by his past campaigns. Is he really content to serve until 2014 and leave or is this his chance for national office...

Some or all of the above observations may be correct. That does not guarantee a Patrick run, but the conditions for him to give it a shot do exist. Massachusetts voters are fairly used at this point to having sitting governors aspire to other offices.

Even is Patrick does run, Brown remains generally popular and will be a favorite for reelection. But I think that Patrick has a very legitimate shot at this if he decides to jump in.

Stay tuned...

Onwards!

The Prof

Post-Mortem on 2010 races

2010-11-06T04:01:00.000-07:00

Professor Brad; M.E. Report and observations on the aftermath of the 2010 elections

The Political Pulse was correct on the vast majority of pre-election predictions.

The two MA races that I got wrong were Mary Z. for Auditor and Question 1 losing. Some of my percentages were off as I underestimated the strength of the Democrat's ground game (more on this below). Many of my Republican friends were objecting to my predictions, but having studied politics in Massachusetts for a looong time, I saw things trending otherwise.

On the US Senate side, I got most of the tossup races correct as well, with the exception of Nevada (looks like the polling underestimated Hispanic turnout for Reid)

I will grade myself a B+/A- on these predictions. Nice to grade oneself, my students must wish they could do the same!

Ground game beats air game

The vaunted Democratic machine was caught napping in last January's special election, coupled with a most uninspiring candidate in Coakley. Scott Brown demonstrated that for a Republican to win (especially statewide) that they need to field almost the "perfect" candidate who can generate enthusiasm and draw out all possible Republican votes. In short, the Republicans enthusiasm this time around was not where it was in January and the Dems over-performed.

I had the fortune to attend MassInc's electoral wrap-up yesterday at Suffolk University. What was most interesting was the inside story of the Democrat's GOTV effort. In short, in the weeks leading up to the election nearly every registered Democrat in the state got a phone call and/or knock on the door urging them to vote. Additionally on election day itself, party organizers were checking to see who had and who had not voted and turning out folks in the afternoon who had not shown up in the morning., This was probably the best ground game that I have ever seen and it contributed to Patrick's seven point victory. Only the Suffolk poll saw this gap (Rasmussen had it a two point race). The Democrat's machine got voters out who never would have shown up without this urging.

Unfortunately for Baker and the Republicans, they just don't have the resources to turn out votes. Baker was nowhere near as inspiring as Brown and while Baker did win where he needed to, his wins were far less impressive than Brown's (averaging about 10 points below where Brown was in each community). Western Mass and the urban areas came out very strong for the democrats. The Republicans did win in areas where they needed to, but again not by the margins necessary to win a statewide race.

Another result of this was the Democrats capturing every other major office in the state. This is why I was wrong on Mary Z. (who did come within two points of Suzanne Bump). The strength of the Dems turnout swamped all Republican statewide and congressional candidates.

Kudos to Democratic Party Chair John Walsh for showing that the old-fashioned ground war beats the air war almost every time. Republicans need to hustle like that.

Limited split-ticket voting

Many of these new voters who the Democratic machine brought out voted for Patrick...and then for every other candidate with a "D" after their name. As stated before, this contributed to the losses by Mary Z. and Karyn Polito.

The Gender Gap was real and pronounced

MassInc's post-election polling showed a 24 point gender gap for Patrick among women and a
13 point gap for Baker among male voters. Female voters were also more likely to be optimistic about the Commonwealth's direction and Patrick's generally upbeat campaign likely appealed to these voters. Interestingly 50% of voters saw Massachusetts as on the "right track" so maybe the fact that we are slightly better off than much of the nation helped incumbent Democrats here.

Polling models varied and were often incorrect

Rasmussen who has had a previously impeccable track record seems to have slipped this cycle and overestimated Republican vote totals. Turnout models will need tweaking. Additionally as cell phones continue to replace home phones especially among younger (and more liberal) folks, this makes gathering a true stratified sample all the more challenging. Kudos to Suffolk for getting it right!

Question 3 drove Democratic intensity

Opposition to Question 3 brought the ire of unions, state employees, and progressives and helped "gin up" turnout buoyed by a massive "No on 3" ad campaign over the final weeks. Republicans would be wise to steer clear of over-reach on questions that can directly threaten the livelihood of those who can turn out many voters. A cut to 5% would have been most advisable as it would have passed and would not have awoken the twin sleeping giants of organized labor and public employees...

Tim Cahill hurt Baker, but can't be blamed for Baker's loss

Cahill's candidacy certainly forced Baker to spend money and resources to knock him out of the top tier which he was able to successfully do. However, the presence of Cahill and Jill Stein in all of the debates limited Baker's one on one match-up against Patrick and distracted him throughout. The Loscocco fiasco was handled VERY poorly by Baker's team and contributed to the notion that it was a backroom deal. This really undercut Baker's argument that he was a reformer.

Optimism trumps pessimism

Patrick's upbeat campaign contrasted with Baker's campaign that focused on what was wrong with the state. Brown demonstrated how an optimistic approach can work with the right message and Patrick accomplished the same thing.

Voter anger cannot push sub-par candidates to victory in most cases

The Republicans had a real shot at capturing one or two congressional seats, but lost in large part to less than stellar candidates. Quality candidates are a must to unseat an incumbent.

Bright spots for Republicans in Massachusetts

Tough to see at first glance, but...wining (depending on recounts) 16 new House seats in the State Legislature which double their numbers is certainly a victory and serves to build a grassroots organization to capture more offices down the line (yes - a farm team). Capturing two seats on the Governor's Council and the Sheriff's seat of Worcester County also were big wins for a party looking for any good news on Tuesday.

However they are now down to 4 (count 'em 4) Senators in the State Senate. Being down 36 to 4 is simply embarassing.

Notice that the Republicans continue to win on the North and South Shores and seem to really be establishing a real base in Worcester County. This may be the launching pad to some semblance of a two-party system in time.

And Finally...

Nationwide the Republicans swept over 60 seats to capture the House and picked up seven in the US Senate where the margin narrows to 53-47. The Tea Party had mixed results in terms of candidates it ran (Paul win in KY, Angle loses in NV). For the President, this was a real "shellacking" and it remains to be seen if he becomes Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton/Harry Truman in his run for re-election. More on this in my next post as we turn to the national results.

Only 456 days until the 2012 Iowa Caucuses...Onwards!

The Prof

Final Fearless Predictions

2010-11-01T13:26:00.000-07:00

The count is down to precious hours - so time for The Prof to issue his final airtight predictions on the races in Massachusetts and a few nationwide for good measure...I may be dead on or end up with an omelet on my face Wednesday morning.

These are my best educated guesses. I wanted to flip a coin on a couple of these, but went with my gut and instinct.

Statewide Offices

Governor - Patrick

Patrick 48

Baker 46

Cahill 5

Stein 1

Patrick takes this in a late night squeaker. However, I am not terribly confident in my prediction as Baker seems to have the more enthusiastic supporters, but I simply don't see the same enthusiasm that Scott Brown built up in January. Remember that Brown only won by a few points with everything breaking his way. Massachusetts is still as Jon Keller has said, the Bluest State.

That being said, I believe that Baker (if he loses) could have taken this race, but a mostly sub-par campaign and Cahill bleeding anti-Patrick votes mark this as an opportunity missed.

Turnout matters most as I have often said. Watch the early returns from bellweather communities. If they are close we will be in a for a late evening.

Attorney General - Coakley
Coakley 61
McKenna 39

McKenna surprised many by getting on the ballot as a write-in, but he doesn't get more than the core Republican vote. Martha wins a number of ticket-splitters.

Treasurer - Grossman
Grossman 51
Polito 49

This race really is a toss-up and I debated the coin toss here. I think Grossman pulls this out due to again this being such a blue state with Polito's license plate controversy of last week tipping the race his way. However, I would not be shocked whatsoever if Polito pulls this out with strong support from Central Mass.

Auditor - Mary Z. Connaughton
Mary Z. 53
Bump 47

One bright spot for Republicans is this real chance to win one statewide office. Mary Z. has campaigned as an competent accountant and long-timepol Suzanne Bump has had several stumbles, especially the one about her principal (or was it her primary) residence.

Secretary of State - Galvin
Galvin 63
Campbell 37

Yawn...The Prince of Darkness (Galvin's nickname when he was in the State Legislature) gets elected yet again...

Congressional Districts

Dems likely to sweep all races...

3rd District
McGovern 56
Lamb 44

Jim McGovern is well-liked and machine-backed. Though much more liberal than the district, he fends off a challenge from newcomer Marty Lamb.

4th District
Frank 54
Beilat 46

Although Frank will have a much-closer race than has has since elected in 1982, having strong support in Newton, Brookline, and Fall River should be enough. But watch Sean Bielat to have a career in font of him as he has run a very spirited campaign and has thrown a real scare into the long-time incumbent.

5th District (Prof's home district)
Tsongas 55
Golnick 45

This is a textbook case in a vulnerable, yet well-financed incumbent winning in part due to a challenger with just too little financing and organization.

6th District (Prof''s old home district)
Tierney 53
Hudack 47

Closest race for John Tierney since 1996. If Hudack had not had so many "issues" the scandal-linked Tierney would have been ripe for the pickin'...this really was missed GOP opportunity. Kerry Healy or Bruce Tarr would have won.

10th District
Keating 48
Perry 46
Independents 6

This open seat was leaning toward Perry until old, but significant scandals from the 1990s were brought to the forefront. Keating is a relatively weak challenger, but may back into this seat due to female votes bleeding from Perry due to the nature of the strip-search incidents in his past. However, Perry does have a shot at winning this if turnout on the Cape is high and low in the Democratic stronghold of Quincy.

Ballot Questions

All three ballot questions go down. Typically many voter's default position is to vote no on ballot questions unless strongly convinced otherwise.

#1 on repealing the sales tax on alcohol loses 58-42

#2 on repealing Chapter 40B dealing with low-income housing fails 57-43.

#3 on rolling the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3% loses 54-46. This has generated the most interest and advertising. If the supporters of this question had not over-reached and rolled it back to 5%, it would have passed easily.

State Legislature

In the Statehouse, Republicans make modest gains in the House (5-10 net seats) and break even in the Senate. In other words - still a tiny minority.

And Finally - some national races

The Republicans (needing 39 seats) take the House, handily winning between 55 and 60 seats. This is not quite a Tsunami, but a very large wave none-the-less.

In the Senate the Democrats hold on to their majority - barely. Republicans almost run the table...some of the closely watched ones.

NV - Angle beats Reid by more than expected. The Tea Party is the real deal, now let them govern and see if it doesn't splinter. Governing is a whole different game than campaigning.

PA - Toomey beats Sestack, but may require a recount.

WA - This could be another recount in the making , but Murray barely holds on against Rossi.

FL - Hello Senator Rubio - a rising star in the GOP. Meeks comes in 3d place. Crist made no friends though all this and is unwelcome at all cocktail parties after Tuesday...

WI - Johnson beats Finegold; sometimes being a maverick, just ain't enough when there is a wave...

CA - Boxer holds on in true blue CA against Fiorina. This is an example of a bad challenger losing to a bad incumbent...bonus call- CA Governor: Jerry "Moonbeam :)" Brown win election as well - wasn't he the around in the 1870's...

WV - Governor Manchin created enough space between him and the President to barely prevail against Raese.

KY - The Tea Party wins again with Paul handily beating Conway.

DE - Coons beats O'Donnell where the Tea Party should have been more pragmatic and ended up sacrificing a gimme pickup on the alter of ideological purity. Is she a witch...now I want to go into the infamous Monty Python Routine - which I can recite verbatim!

We will see how I do in a few short hours...

Onwards!

The Prof

New polling - Gov. Race closing...

2010-10-30T03:35:00.000-07:00

The last Rasmussen poll of 750 likely voters shows some possible momentum for Baker over the past week.

Patrick 46%
Baker 44
Cahill 6
Stein 2

A StateHouse News poll of likely voters conducted last week also showed a three point Patrick advantage.

Below is the updated chart of the Rasmussen polling since last March.

All of the polls have shown the race to be tied factoring in the margin of error. However, bear in mind that Patrick has had a consistent lead throughout, but also that the polls have also showed some tightening over the past week. Baker may have a bit of momentum as his final debate performance was better, although Patrick has remained nearly mistake-free throughout this campaign.

Patrick has been running very well among his base of liberals, voters with post-graduate educations, urban voters, younger voters, and is doing well among females where has holds a ten point lead. Baker is faring well among Independents (a 15 point lead, but he needs to get more of them to win), has a substantial lead among male voters, and is doing well in regions where Scott Brown did back in January.

However, in recent days Patrick has mentioned that he is open to considering tax increases which Baker has pounced on with new ads that will be running all weekend. I would think Patrick's handlers must have been beside themselves that Patrick would talk of this during the final week of a close campaign.

Typical of third party candidates such as Cahill is that they usually fade as many voters who may have been initially sympathetic want to vote for candidates who have a realistic chance of winning at the end of the day. Cahill may do well in his hometown of Quincy (where some speculate that he may run for Mayor), but I doubt if he will end with more than 5% of the total vote.

My assessment (for today) is that this is a very close race, but Patrick retains a slight advantage. I will post my final predictions on Monday.

Things to expect over the next 72 hours...

This is now a pure turnout game with the campaigns working to motivating their base vote and getting them to show up on Tuesday. Both candidates will be running advertising, placing calls to individual voters, and crisscross the state holding rallies in their key areas.

Baker will be focusing on areas that went big for Scott Brown in the 495 suburbs along with Worcester County, the North and South Shores, and the Cape. He is also going to be working on blue collar communities (Lowell, Worcester) to try to attract conservative Democrats. His challenge is that his campaign has not been exactly "inspiring". He has to keep framing this as a discussion of continuing the status quo (Patrick) or to embrace change (Baker) and to motivate and convince voters who are upset with the current direction of the state, tax increases, and the frustrating lack of reform. He has to show himself as the only alternative.

Patrick will focus in his urban bases of Boston, Fall River/New Bedford, Middlesex County, and liberal Western Massachusetts. Much of his pitch will be to motivate progressives in the leafy suburbs along with female voters who are favorably inclined to his reelection. Patrick needs to continue capitalizing on the perceptions that he is a calm and reasonable leader and that Baker would be the wrong direction to go for those who value human services and a compassionate government.

72 hours and counting...

The Prof

Patrick maintains lead going into the final stretch

2010-10-21T18:51:00.000-07:00

Just a short post this evening - the latest Rasmussen survey of 750 likely voters (taken Oct. 16-17) shows the following:

Patrick 47%
Baker 42
Cahill 6
Stein 1
Undecided 3

Yes, I know that this is within the margin of error BUT...after seeing a slew of polls all showing Patrick with a 4-6 point leads, I believe that this is pretty close to where the actual electorate would vote, providing the election was held today. Baker can still turn this around (look for some Hail Mary's to shake up the race) over the next 12 day, but he needs to turn the momentum around. Note that only a few voters are still undecided, but the soft supporters for any candidate can still be turned.

Patrick looks to be on his way to a close reelection - provided he goes mistake free over the next several days and has a decent GOTV program. He has run a positive and professional campaign and this aided by Baker's not defining himself early (like last spring) and the Cahill/Baker squabble has enabled him to run as the happy reformer and stay out of the muck. His numbers are still poor in terms of overall approval, but Baker needs to give folks a reason to vote for him. Being the anti-Patrick is not going to be enough.

Baker is finally running some good contrast ads - we'll see if they are enough to keep Patrick from sealing the deal.

In his latest ads Patrick continues to instill doubts regarding Baker's stewardship of Harvard-Pilgrim. This may be effective as HMOs are not well regarded by the voting public and I am sure Patrick's campaign has data that backs this up.

A lot can happen and this is far from over - but I am upping the odds for Patrick from 60% to 65% likelihood for reelection.

Onwards (to Nov.2)!!

The Prof

Polling models - why do they vary?

2010-10-17T07:07:00.001-07:00

More polling data is out in the wake of the Cahill debacle of the past two weeks.

Suffolk University poll - October 14
Patrick 46
Baker 39
Cahill 10
Stein 1

The results suggest that Patrick has indeed helped his own position by remaining above the Baker-Cahill fray. Patrick is enjoying an 11 point lead over Baker among female voters (male voters are essentially splitting between them) and has amassed a large lead in the urban core around Boston and liberal Western Massachusetts.

The bad news for Baker is that he simply is not getting much momentum and the polling suggests that Patrick is drawing enough of former Cahill adherents to maintain his lead.

Patrick continues to struggle though with high (44%) disapproval ratings. I think that he is heading toward a narrow victory due to him being a good campaigner with strong base support and Charlie Baker just hasn't caught fire.

Interestingly, there is an Opinion Dynamics poll out last week as well that is showing Baker with a five point lead. (37% to 32%) over Patrick However, I am waiting for the next Rasmussen poll as I find their methodology to be closest to the actual vote. They use a model that seems to be very reflective of reality and really gets at voter intensity and motivation as those are key turnout components.

One thing that all (except for the Opinion Dynamics poll) of these polls are showing is a consistent Patrick lead of 4 to 7 points. Consistency over time is an indication that the polling is indeed correct.

Any reputable poll has a model for turnout - in other words, an educated guess as to what the voter demographics and turnout rate will be on election day. This is drawn from past elections and current trends and is very open to different interpretations. For example if a pollster believes that rural and suburban independents will turn out in high numbers and urban voters will have an average turnout - advantage Republicans. If the model shows a high big city turnout the Democratic candidates will benefit. The polling reflects the assumptions that pollsters make. They do make mistakes of course as in a close race like this one, just a little turnout variation can produce results that are contradictory to the polls.

Who shows up on Nov. 2 in Massachusetts? Will it be the Tea Party activists looking to kick out incumbents or are public employee unions showing up to uphold the Democratic Party dominance? This is why the advertising is so intense along with phone banks. It's all about GOTV (get out the vote) at this stage of the game. Who has a better ground game in a close race like this will likely remain victorious.

My money is still on Patrick and I give him 60/40 odds on winning on Nov. 2- but Baker still has a window to catch him. However, it is closing by the day and Baker needs to get the Cahill distraction behind him and get back on track and on message. The endorsement he received from former Democratic AG Tom Reilly may be the start of this.

16 days to go - time is short!!

Onwards!

The Prof

Wild week!!

2010-10-09T15:26:00.000-07:00

This past week has been one of the most intense that I ever seen in my years of analyzing Massachusetts politics. Lets re-visit this ongoing train wreck:

Reacting to Lt. Gov. candidate's Paul Loscocco's switch (defection) to the Baker camp along with other top operatives, Tim Cahill in addition to publicly calling this a "backroom deal" filed a lawsuit against his former allies last week. The suit alleges that they had divulged confidential material to Baker from Cahill's campaign. In reaction Cahill's former chief consultant, John Weaver is counter-charging that the Massachusetts State Lottery (run by Cahill as the sitting State Treasurer) is running ads designed to boost Cahill's standing which runs afoul of campaign laws.

In a further twist, on Friday Loscocco alleged collusion between Cahill's and Governor Patrick's media people to coordinate negative attack ads on the Baker campaign. Thus far the allegations are unsubstantiated.

OK, my head is spinning too! Conventional wisdom has been stood on its head and it is hard to determine right now how all of this affects the eventual outcome, 24 days hence. Who knows what next week will bring as allegations and counter-charges are likely to continue flying.

As for the two candidates who have any business thinking that they can win it is certainly a distraction at best and a crippling blow at worst for Baker. This sucks the oxygen out of his message of reform and lower taxes as he has to react to Cahill's broadsides. As I predicted last week, Cahill now appears to be concentrating on playing a spoiler and seems to be singularly focused on preventing Baker from winning.

Governor Patrick thus far has remained above this fray and is benefiting as seeming to be above this destructive Baker-Cahill battle which will not endear either of them to increasingly disgruntled and cynical electorate. The danger for Patrick is that if any documentation comes to light that there was any coordination between his campaign and Cahill's that it may result in political rigor mortis for the already unpopular incumbent. His strategy rests on the anti-Patrick vote (around 55% to 60%) being split.

What happens here remains to be seen. I still think the physics of this campaign continue to favor Patrick. Rasmussen should have new polling out this week which will establish any new trends. When it is published there will be some idea of what affects the last couple of weeks have yielded.

Onwards!

The Prof

Camp Cahill's Chaos Continues

2010-10-01T16:22:00.000-07:00

hmmm - the title of this post sounds like something Howard Cosell may have said...

Tim Cahill's campaign continues its implosion. This is like an accident where the cars continue to pile up - even when you think it can't get much worse.

This morning Lt. Gubernatorial candidate and Cahill running mate Paul Loscocco unexpectedly withdrew from the race and very publicly endorsed Charlie Baker. Loscocco emphasized that Cahill's candidacy was only helping Deval Patrick by splitting the considerable anti-Patrick sentiment.

Cahill dashed any speculation that he was leaving the race and vowed to fight it out until the end. The $750,000 in state matching campaign funds that he received this week will help him stick around for the next 31 days.

I think it is interesting gaming the motivation that compels Cahill to stay in the race after the departure of Loscocco, Cahill's campaign manager, and a top campaign strategist. I see several possible scenarios unfolding:

Scenario I - Cahill fights to the bitter end and runs equally hard at both Patrick and Baker in terms of advertising and message. This keeps him viable if he decides to launch another statewide run in 2012 or 2014. 40%

Scenario II - Cahill runs almost exclusively against Baker reprising Christy Mihos' campaign in 2006. This would be payback for the Republican Governors Association's ad campaign that has raised Cahill's negatives. However, it would damage his credibility as a truly independent outsider. 50%

Scenario III - Cahill drops out of the race prior to Nov. 2 possibly endorsing Patrick. Republicans would then be able to yell "I told you he was a straw - the fix is in!" 10%

Scenario IV - Cahill drops out and endorses Baker (NOT Happenin'!) 0%

The not-so-stealth attempt by Baker and his allies to knock Cahill out of this race has not succeeded, but it has seriously compromised his candidacy. Today may be seen as one of those moments where even the most optimistic Cahill supporters became convinced that it simply is not going to happen this year.

This is truly a shot in the arm for the somewhat underperforming Baker candidacy and will be keeping Patrick's advisers up at night since this may turn it into the two-person race that could be devastating to Deval's hopes of a second term. I have noted that Patrick's campaign is calling this a backroom deal and is openly courting Cahill voters - which included the Governor doing some impromptu bar tending in Cahill's hometown of Quincy today.

The most recent Rasmussen poll has Patrick up by about six points in the three way race (sorry Jill Stein, but you won't get any more than 2 or 3 points at the end of the day). Cahill supporters seem evenly divided among the top two candidates if asked what they would do if they had to choose Patrick or Baker.

However, my political instincts tell me that Charlie would benefit more than Deval from any drop in Cahill's support. These are disillusioned voters who are not happy with the status quo and Baker would be the only other candidate representing change. Of course some are die-hard Democrats who would not vote for a Republican and some will not vote at all without Cahill as an option. But it seems that both Baker and Patrick are viewing it this way - at least their campaigns are behaving as such.

Fasten your seat belts and if the campaign keeps up like this, tighten your straitjacket!

Onwards!

The Prof

Cahill in Chaos

2010-09-24T14:39:00.000-07:00

Stop press!

Tim Cahill's campaign manager and another senior advisor have resigned over the past 24 hours. Campaign consultant Tom Weaver resigned citing that Cahill could not realistically win and was aiding Governor Patrick by staying in the race.

This may well result in further bleeding of both voters and fundraising potential for Cahill. I think he will stay in the race, but will diminish as a factor. The recent polling suggests that Cahill's voters, if pushed are splitting slightly in Baker's favor so at least the conventional wisdom would suggest this would be a plus for Baker.

We shall see...stay tuned.

The Prof

Fearless Predictions!

2010-09-16T17:18:00.000-07:00

46 days to e-day and after gazing into my crystal ball...it must be noted that University of Virginia's Larry Sabato says that those who live by the crystal ball end up eating ground glass. Nonetheless, my initial predictions for the statewide and congressional offices are going up.

Tuesday's Primary turnout was a little over 14% which was quite low by Massachusetts standards. The lack of a contested gubernatorial race for either party likely depressed voter interest and intensity. However, turnout was higher in areas like the 10th Congressional District where there were spirited primaries for both parties.

*Note on the predictions for the below races - the likely victorious candidate's party will be indicated by Republican Red or Democratic Blue.

State Constitutional Offices

Governor - I will write more on this in the next few days, but suffice to say the latest Rasmussen poll published today indicate that it is neck and neck between Baker and Patrick (Patrick is up by 4 points, well within the margin of error) and that Cahill's support is beginning to fade. However, I still have to give Deval the edge as he has consistently led in pre-election polling, but this can go either way and will be fought bitterly down to the wire.

Prediction - 53% chance of a Patrick victory (Cahill is officially at 0% viability now)

Treasurer - This race lines up Shrewsbury Rep Karyn Polito against long-time Democratic party activist Steve Grossman. Grossman will have a considerable financial edge, but Polito is an attractive outsider in what is gearing up to be an outsider year.

Prediction 55% chance of a Polito victory

Secretary of State - Long-time incumbent William Galvin should have little difficulty dispatching Woburn Republican William Campbell.

State Auditor - Suzanne Bump dispatched Guy Glodis rather easily in the Democratic Primary drawing upon the liberals who typically dominate these affairs. She won by large margins in the "Happy Valley" and leafy Boston suburbs and by decent margins in most communities outside of Worcester County. Glodis did win many of the communities in his Worcester County base, but underperformed on his own "turf" and only won his hometown of Worcester by a dozen points.

She will face off against Republican Mary Z. Connaughton on November 2. I see this being a slight advantage for the Republican with her outsider status (Bump has a long history on Beacon Hill). I also think that some disgruntled Glodis supporters in Central Mass may throw Connaughton their vote.

Prediction: 60% chance of a Connaughton victory

Congressional Seats

1st District - This liberal Western Massachusetts district will send John Olver back for another term.

2nd District - Democrat Richard Neal will defeat newcomer Tom Wesley, but it may be a closer race than usual for the longtime incumbent

3rd District - Incumbent Jim McGovern will beat Marty Lamb (a Tea Party favorite), but like Neal he will have to work at it. Without his base of Worcester and Fall River securely in his pocket, McGovern would have a real fight on his hands.

4th district - Barney Frank, longtime bane of conservatives will beat newcomer Sean Bielet, but may be held under 60% of the vote for the first time since 1982 when he was first elected.

5th District (The Prof's home district) -This could be a competitive race. Incumbent Niki Tsongas has the edge, but the Merrimack and Nashoba Valleys are conservative (by Massachusetts standards) regions. This may provide hope for Republican Jon Golnick who will have some national party backing.

Prediction: 65% chance of a Tsongas victory

6th District (The Prof's former home district) - like the 5th, Essex County is one of the more "conservative" regions of the commonwealth. Incumbent John Tierny has not had a serious race for some time, but will have one this year against Bill Hudack.

Prediction: 60% chance of a Tierney victory

7th District - The Dean of the Delegation, Ed Markey will have no problem winning re-election against Gerry Dembrowski.

8th District - Mike Capuano is unopposed.

9th District - Steven Lynch survived a primary challenge from the Left and will defeat Vernon Harrison.

10th District -This is where the fireworks will be! This wide-open district (incumbent William Dellahunt is retiring) will be a true barn burner. Republican State Rep Jeff Perry of Sandwich brings a populist conservative message and some personal baggage that is already being raised as a campaign issue by Democratic nominee Norfolk County DA William Keating. Republican and Democratic turn out was almost even in the primary which tells me that South Shore and Cape Republicans are highly energized and the national Republican Party will pour money into this race to try and steal a Massachusetts seat. It just may work too..

Prediction: 51% chance of a Perry victory. (This is really a toss-up, but felt like using red font)

Onwards to November!

The Prof

Massachusetts 2010 Primary Results

2010-09-14T09:38:00.000-07:00

PlaceHolder posting... to be updated shortly...

Primary results will be in this evening along with my take on how the night unfolded. Additionally, I will go out on a wire and make some predictions for many of the "down the ballot races" in November.

Vote early and often (just kidding - often is all that counts)

The Prof

Debate #1 - grades

2010-09-07T16:47:00.000-07:00

And it's a wrap on the first gubernatorial debate!

First off, John Keller gets an A for moderating and keeping the contestants under a modicum of control.

The debate ranged from carefully planned and delivered sound bytes to a wideranging and spirited discussion. No major mistakes were evident and all four candidates were prepared.

Deval Patrick ended up with a B plus bordering on A minus. He is an experienced debater and for the most part was in command of the facts. He was able to avoid many (but not all) of Charlie's jabs. He clearly was talking up accomplishments (as he sees it) of his administration. He was under attack from the Left courtesy of Jill Stein and constantly attempted to remain the "reasonable" one in the room. Patrick is very skilled at this and acquited himself well. He may be losing some of the more left-wing Democrats to Stein, but most will come home by November.

Charlie Baker positioned himself as the only major candidate not currently on Beacon Hill. He took heat from all the others on his tenure at Harvard-Pilgrim and rising health insurance premium costs along with his ties to the Big Dig. However, he was able to parry those for the most part and tried to keep the debate framed as a race between him and Patrick whilst trying to either ignore Cahill or tie him to the power machine of Beacon Hill. He fired numerous jabs at Patrick and showed more spirit than I had anticipated. Solid B Plus.

Tim Cahill had me thinking that he was trying to channel Ronald Reagan on fiscal policy and certainly positioned himself as Mr. Conservative. How successful he was at this remains to be seen. He was not as aggressive as Baker or Patrick and directed more of his fire at Baker as they are going after the same type of voters. Overall he may have captured some of the more disillusioned voters, but I am not sure that he catapulted himself as a truly viable candidate. The Prof gives him a gentleman's B minus (almost a C plus, but I am in a good mood) for committing no major gaffes, but it also reflects a lack of aggressiveness and the jury remains out on whether or not he really wants the job.

Jill Stein gets a well deserved A minus, not due to any ideological lean (The Prof is oh so boringly non-partisan in this blog) but due to command of issues (Green Energy being overstated a bit after an hour) and the passion of a true believer. She likely earned some points among true liberals and she forced Patrick to cover his left flank.

I will be attending next week's debate as it is open to the public. 'Tis the season...

Onwards!

The Prof

61 days to E-Day

2010-09-01T17:17:00.000-07:00

Just a short update for today...back to teaching for the semester but will have a lot to share over the next several weeks regarding "E-Day" on November 2. My plan is to keep following the local Massachusetts races and also to take a detailed look at the nationwide races for the Senate and House.

What happens in November will directly impact how the Obama Administration finishes the final years of its initial term. Partisan control of Congress switching in one or both houses will impact what the President can - and cannot do going into his own reelection in 2012.

Will "Tea" be on the menu after November? Methinks it is a distinct possibility...

Onwards!

The Prof

45% in November should be enough

2010-07-29T16:39:00.000-07:00

94 days until November 2 and "E-Day" in the Commonwealth and across the nation...

Joan Venochi had a insightful column in today's Boston Globe asking what "vote percentage" does Patrick need to win in November. Professor Brad says garnering 42% should likely do it - assuming Cahill remains in the race of course.

This 45% number would also apply to Baker and is what I would consider the magic over/under figure. Cahill should poll slightly better in November than Christy Mihos did in 2006 as he has statewide name recognition and enough money to run and organize a statewide campaign - this is not an insurgency. That said, third party candidates typically end up doing worse then they are showing in the polls due to many voters who may be sympathetic to that candidate not wanting to waste their vote whilst in the booth. Many of them ending up holding their nose and voting for the lesser of evils of the candidates who they believe can actually win. Yes that last sentence was full of cliches, but it is true!

Mihos ended up with 7% in 2006 after polling between 10-15% during the summer of 2006. I suspect Cahill can end up with 9% at the least (he is polling somewhat better than Mihos at the same stage of the campaign). Although none of the current polling reflects Green-Rainbow candidate Jill Stein, she will likely draw a percentage or two from Patrick's left flank. Thus if Cahill and Stein combined can take 11% of the vote (and this is a floor, not a ceiling) Baker and Patrick will fight over the 89% remaining - quick division tells me that 45% would be the threshold to win.

Scenario I (Likely worst case for Cahill)

Patrick 45
Baker 44
Cahill 9
Stein 2

Scenario II (Cahill Overperforms)

Patrick 42
Baker 38
Cahill 18
Stein 2

Scenario III (let's give one to Charlie)

Patrick 42
Baker 44
Cahill 12
Stein 2

On the polling front...Rasmussen released another poll last week in a series of polls that will run once a month and then every two weeks by late October. Below is a chart of the Rasmussen results thus far (Got a bit Excel happy today!)

Deval Patrick's numbers are in a bit of a slide from his May highs. In a normal year an incumbent polling under 40% would be in the political morgue, but this ain't a normal year.

Charlie Baker remains stuck in neutral. This must be frustrating as he gets 30% for having the R next to his name, but can't build on it. He is simply running a mediocre campaign thus far and has a problem with his unfavorables - we will get to this shortly.

Cahill continues to poll in the mid to high teens peeling potential Baker voters away - something that Governor Patrick must be VERY thankful for!

Curiously, those who are in the "not sure" category have jumped a bit in the past month. It may that people are simply not paying attention during the hot New England summer, but I wonder if this coupled with the less than stellar candidate favorability numbers mean that voters simply are not enthusiastic about any of these candidates.

Bear in mind that there is nearly a 5% margin of error so there is also statistical noise here as well. However, I would feel safe saying that Patrick has a small, but meaningful lead.

Favorables/Unfavorables

As we can see, Cahill has been likely hurt by the barrage of negative ads; doubtless to knock him out of the race. However, I think that this may give him a reason to stay in and see it through to the (probably) bitter end.

Baker's negatives are also uncomfortably inching up. Unfortunately for him, Patrick has yet to launch the attack ads that he has in the can. Baker still has time to turn this around and will begin in earnest after Labor Day. The question is - is this enough time to build a positive perception among voters or have opinions solidified to the point where Baker can't break the 40% barrier which he needs to do.

Patrick's negatives are very high and as mentioned previously, should be a stake through his political heart, but the sheer physics of this race allow him to keep a lead. Although he has higher negatives than either Baker or Cahill, ironically Patrick remains the favorite with a little over three months to go.

Onwards!

The Prof

John Henning - RIP

2010-07-08T11:54:00.001-07:00

Veteran political reporter John Henning passed away on Wednesday. This is very sad news for anyone who grew up in New England and followed his reporting, newscasts, and must-watch election night coverage.

I always thought that his read on the local and national political scene was both thoughtful and spot on. He will be missed.

Footsteps...new poll shows race tightening

2010-06-27T04:36:00.000-07:00

Hot of the presses...the Boston Globe through the UNH Survey Center released a poll showing better news for Charlie Baker, caution for Deval Patrick, and troubling results for Tim Cahill.
Baker is holding in the low thirties which is not bad for a candidate with nearly half of the public still not knowing who he is (message to Charlie, keep spending on those ad buys). Being a relatively unknown commodity can cut both ways. The danger for Baker as I have been stating all along is that if Patrick succeeds in defining him and driving up his negatives than he will lose. Amazingly, 40% of registered Republicans said they did not know enough about him to form a favorable opinion.

Baker's best news is the steep drop for Cahill. This is also reflected in the Rasmussen polling and many of these anti-establishment voters will more likely than not turn to Baker. Cahill's support is cratering and is approaching what third party candidates typically garner come election time which is less than 10% of the vote. Evidently, the barrage of negative ads targeting Cahill had an effect (yes, negative ads are very effective if done the right way). I don't see how Cahill can recover as his negatives are heading up and his loss of support will enforce the perception that he can't win and that a vote for him will be a wasted vote. He needs to act immediately to counter this - waiting until September will be too late!

MA is on the:
Right Track 40%
Wrong Track 49%

Deval Patrick continues to rely on committed Democrats and liberals to maintain a base in the high 30s/low 40s. He needs Cahill to rebound, otherwise he will likely lose if this becomes a two person race. Any incumbent with negatives outweighing approval has to have some outside factors intervening if they hope to win. If this is an up or down referendum on Patrick, he is more likely than not to come out on the losing end of this. The right track/wrong track numbers are scary indeed for Patrick supporters.

Independents, the KEY swing voter bloc in Massachusetts are currently breaking 35% to Baker, 30% to Patrick, and 12% to Cahill. Baker needs to garner at least 50% of these voters. Patrick has to continue to pull in liberal voters who consider themselves to be independents.

Regionally, Baker is showing strength in the areas of the state where Republicans typically have a base of support in the outer suburbs, Central, and Southeastern pats of Massachusetts. As expected, Patrick is doing well in the Metro Boston area and in Western Massachusetts.

I don't expect either candidate to win by more than a few points. Patrick can't get to 50% (at least not yet) and Baker can't either - especially as long as Cahill in the race. One other note - will Green Parity candidate Jill Stein be able to siphon off a percent or two of liberals who would otherwise vote for Patrick and hand the election to Baker? Baker still needs to perform and find his inner Scott Brown to close this deal. He has four months to do so.

Let the games continue - Onwards!

The Prof

T Minus Four Months (and a little more)

2010-06-26T09:52:00.000-07:00

New Rasmussen polling shows some positives for Charlie Baker, but he is still the underdog in this race. While he has crept closer to Patrick over the past month, bear in mind that the movement in the numbers since May are still within the 4.5% margin of error. While this makes for a good headline for Baker it does not signify (yet) any significant movement.

One positive for Baker is that his recent positive ads showing his "non-corporate" side may be contributing to his upward trend in favorability. It is a good start, but he has to keep it up throughout the summer.

Patrick remains stuck in the low 40s. If I were Patrick, I would begin each day by thanking Tim Cahill for being in this race. Is Christy Mihos from 2006 being channeled here?

The fact that Tim Cahill is at 16% and Patrick's negatives are at 50% show that Cahill is likely draining some of the anti-Patrick sentiment that Baker desperately needs. I think the key to this race is Cahill's final vote tally. If he takes 8% of the vote with Patrick topping out around 43% (probably Patrick's ceiling baring unforeseen events down the road)...it would leave Baker with 42%. Note that I am not including Green party candidate Jill Stein in this analysis - when we do get some polling numbers with her in the race it will likely take a bit off of Patrick's numbers.

Bottom line - until Labor Day, any polls taken now are directional at best. I think that the outcome in November will rest with the state of Massachusetts' economic conditions as the Governor's approval is tied in large part to the perceptions of the status of the economy.

Onwards!

The Prof

Strategery...

2010-06-05T12:38:00.001-07:00

Full apologies to former President Bush on the title of this posting...

With five months remaining to the November fireworks, here is some some unsolicited advice for each of the campaigns. All of this is strategic - I will offer tactical advice closer to election day.

Governor Patrick, you have nailed down your base of liberals in the leafy suburbs, Cambridge, and the Happy Valley. The trouble is that around 55% of voters wish that there would be a governor without the surname of Patrick taking the corner office in January of 2011. Your unwavering voter base is probably 30-35% of the electorate and that is too close for comfort in a three way race. You need to bump your totals into the low to mid 40s (all of this assumes that Cahill remains in the race of course) to win with enough of a margin for comfort and any claim of a mandate (mandate will be a stretch for any of these candidates) to take into your second term.

You need to do three things:

Actuate the minority vote in the cities of Boston, Lowell, Brockton, Fall River, Worcester, Springfield, etc. Call you friend Barrack to do a campaign swing at the end of October (it didn't help Martha Coakley, but should help Patrick).

Try to persuade some moderate Democrats and suburban independents - many of these folks voted for Scott Brown, but Charlie Baker does not (at least not yet) have the charisma or appeal that Brown had for these folks. Cahill may have some appeal as a perceived outsider (who is really an insider) with this group, but Patrick may be able to get some of these folks to (grudgingly) vote for him - if only for the D next to his name.

Define Charlie Baker as an elite and out of touch health insurance executive (already well underway). A prime benefit of all the contention with insurance premium capping for small group employers is that it doubly serves Patrick as a political cudgel to beat Baker along with portraying the Governor as fighting for the little guy. This has been and continues to be a smart strategy. Baker is still not known by half of the electorate. Patrick will be happy to introduce Baker by slamming him in the press at every opportunity and creating a negative perception for those who do not know Baker. Negative campaigning works folks, otherwise candidates would not spend gobs of money to produce negative ads. Instill enough doubt about Baker so that he does not become a reasonable alternative...

Oh yes, hope and pray that the economy improves so you can claim credit!

Charlie Baker, you start with the advantage of having a lot of money banked to counter Patrick's anticipated negative campaign and have a window to define yourself. Additionally you have the advantage of having experience in both the government and private sectors. Also, you can be personally engaging and the Republican voters in the state seem to like you and will show up in November. The trouble is that you have been stuck around 30% in the polls and need to start moving before Patrick defines you. This is what the Prof suggests you ought to do:

Define yourself - now! I am mystified by the seeming passivity of the Baker campaign thus far. Baker needs to tell his story and become known to the voters if he has a hope of winning this. Of course he is going to do this, but I am puzzled by why the campaign is waiting to do this in earnest. If he waits too long, he will lose the opportunity.

Show some fight. Voters who are upset with the status of the state (a majority) will respond much better to a candidate who shows outward passion and grit. I think Baker is concerned about being portrayed as negative, but he can show some fight without being negative or "unbecoming" (apologies to Governor Romney). Give voters a reason to support you - you have to show some fight to also demonstrate that you will stand up to the state legislature.

Go after Patrick - ignore Cahill. Taking him down was a smart strategy, but you need to start wooing his voters (ironically the former Democrat is running to your right). Go after the support of conservative Democrats who have been flirting with Cahill, but if he is not seen as viable these folks may be up for grabs.

Tim Cahill, you have the toughest job of the three candidates. The attack ads form the Republican Governors Association and some negative press in the Globe has cut your poll numbers nearly in half. Worse yet, while you have a couple of million dollars in the bank, raising more funds is going to be next to impossible unless you can show some viability immediately.

Make some buzz now! Traditionally third party candidates fade and actually draw fewer votes than they poll (the wasted vote syndrome). Cahill needs to get back in the game right now and can do so by creating buzz of some sort that will get him press attention. Announce something big that would radically reform state government - maybe pension reform as many voters can see this problem with the current pension system in pretty stark terms.

Go after Governor Patrick, ignore Baker. If Patrick can be taken down to 35% and this becomes a three-way race again you have a fighting chance to claw your way back in. Let Patrick and Baker destroy each other with attack ads - stay above the fray. If you can get back into this race and raise money there is a path to victory, albeit a very tenuous one.

Hopefully my advice is sage (at least it is free!)

Onwards!

The Prof

Govs. race - Stuck in the middle with Charlie...

2010-05-30T16:51:00.000-07:00

The Prof returns after a busy semester of scaring students and himself in the process...

The Massachusetts Governor's race continues. As we are now well into 2010 with a bit more than five months to the election, let's reassess.

Governor Patrick has climbed out of the basement to the third step up the cellar stairs. The two most recent polls (Rasmussen and Suffolk) show him climbing from the low 30s to the low 40s. He reelect figures remain under 50% which typically is death for an incumbent, but since this continues to be a three-way race, 40% is probably enough to win. He is not particularly well-liked by the broad electorate, but the political left - a potent force in the Bay State remains loyal to him and gives him a floor of around 35%. Peel off some Democratic-leaning independents and he is bumped into the low 40s. Patrick is not running a particularly good campaign, but has benefited from positive media exposure during the floods and water main break in April. Can his support slip again - absolutely and although he is in the best position of the three candidates now; by no means should he think he can cruise.

Republican Charlie Baker remains "stuck in the middle" and is currently polling in the low 30s. One constant thorn for Baker is the continuing presence of Tim Cahill siphoning potential support from the "anybody but Patrick" voters in November.

The Prof (beware of people who refer to themselves in the third person!) thinks that Baker has been running too much of a "nice guy" campaign and unfortunately being a nice guy does not usually win in the rough and tumble of Massachusetts politics. Fire in the belly and hitting back at Lt. Governor Murray's potshots may do him good. He needs to show more passion, which I am just not seeing in his interviews...maybe this will manifest in time. On the plus side, he is still the most viable alternative to Patrick and certainly can pull this out, but he needs to shake up this race.

Tim Cahill's support has plummeted from the mid 20s down to about 14% over the past couple of months. His door (and fundraising potential) seems to be rapidly closing. The flurry of negative ads from the Republican Governor's Association has probably contributed to this. Like Baker, he needs to do something major to try to shake up the race or he will continue to float down to a floor of around 10% - a 10% that Baker desperately needs.

As of today, Patrick remains a slight favorite to win reelection. I believe I pegged his re-election chances at 55% last fall and would up that to 60% based on what I have seen over the past few months.

It is still quite early and typically the public won't really focus on the race until after Labor Day. There will be millions of dollars spent on both sides on campaign advertising - by November most people will be truly sick of the saturation advertising.

I expect that Cahill is unlikely to make any sort of real recovery (it is rare for Independent candidates to gain traction over the long term) and that this will be a Patrick vs. Baker race. This is where the 10-15% who continue to support Cahill will really matter. As most of them would probably support Baker, I would not be surprised to see Baker try to cut some sort of deal from Cahill to drop out. Stay tuned...

Category Six Political Storm in Massachusetts

2010-01-30T06:15:00.000-08:00

What a week!

First, the Prof is pleased to say that his final prediction (after a lot of editing as conditions changed) was awfully close.

My prediction on January 17

Brown 50
Coakley 48
Kennedy 2

Actual results on January 19

Brown 52
Coakley 47
Kennedy 1

There have been a plethora of news and analysis so I will keep my commentary on the brief side...

Campaign
Classic "tortoise vs. hare" scenario. Brown simply ran a exemplary campaign whilst Coakley ran one of thew worst ones I have ever seen. Brown was able to portray himself as the populist outsider while Coakley behaved as the consummate insider. Coakley believed that she had a huge advantage due to being a Democrat in Massachusetts. This proved unwise as Brown attracted massive support form independents and conservative Democrats. Brown won the communities of Lowell and Quincy - these are not Republican towns!

Issues
Healthcare, terrorism, and President Obama's popularity falling back to earth all broke in favor of Brown. Brown was able to take advantage of sentiment that was seething beneath the surface and tap into it.

Advertising
Coakley's negative saturation advertising while bringing liberals into the fold likely alienated many independents. Brown ran a generally positive and upbeat race. He did run negative ads, but placed them much more strategically.

Consequences
Ted Kennedy's seat flipping to a Republican is indeed a Category Six storm. This is generally good news for beleaguered Massachusetts Republicans. However, they need to be careful that much of the momentum for Brown's win was not a vote for Republicans (Brown rarely even used the label) but a victory for outsiders in the insider-dominated Massachusetts political culture.

This does mean that Republicans will be able to recruit many more candidates in legislative elections this fall. Having candidates does not guarantee election, but it is a necessary start.

What does this mean for the governor's race? I will hit that in my next posting.

Onwards!

The Prof

Things to watch for on Tuesday

2010-01-17T05:34:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday these are the things to look for...

Turnout
Conventional wisdom is the low turnout benefits Brown and high turnout helps Coakley. What is really important is who turns out and where that turnout is coming from. If there is high turnout in the towns in the Merrimack Valley, the 495 belt (watch Marlborough and Shrewsbury) and the South Shore/Cape, it may be a good night for Brown. If turnout is high in the urban centers, inner suburbs, and liberal communities west of Boston (Newton, Concord, Brookline, etc) Coakley may be on the road to victory.

Early Results
If Chelmsford reports results and Brown is not leading by a substantial margin, he is likely to have a bad night. Conversely, if Coakley is winning Somerville, but by only ten points, she will likely need to work on the concession speech. The anecdotal evidence based on absentee ballot submissions seems to be favorable for Brown as the raw number of absentee ballots in communities where he should do well have been higher than in areas where Coakley is expected to perform well.

Exit Polls
These will be released as soon as polls close by 8:00 pm. Watch for the vote margin among Independents, the extent of the gender gap (Coakley needs to win women by a wide margin) what issues motivated voters (advertising, healthcare, abortion, etc). Also watch for the proportion of Independents who show up. If Independents outnumber Democrats, Brown benefits. if Democratic turnout exceeds Independents, score one for Coakley. Republicans (only 12% of voters) are expected to turn out in very high numbers.

One wildcard that the Obama visit may yield is higher than expected turnout among minority groups. Stay tuned...

Final Prediction for Mass Senate Seat

2010-01-17T04:34:00.000-08:00

No more waffling...yes I know this is an extremely close race (unless the polls have utterly missed some dynamic which is very possible) and all depends on turnout, the energy of voters and any last day surprises that may occur. The situation is very fluid - that statement is not exactly rocket science, but is an apt one for this situation.

Out on a limb...ok, jump!

Brown 50
Coakley 48
Kennedy 2

It is also possible, but less likely that either of these candidates wins by a margin of five or more points. Explanation for all scenarios below...

Why Brown wins

Brown has campaigned as an outsider vs. Coakley's insider status. This has energized many independents (quite of few of whom were Obama voters in 2008). Outsider status during a recession with a sizable portion of the electorate angry at Beacon Hill and disappointment with the Obama administration (though not him personally) is a huge plus. Coakley is the defacto "incumbent" in this race and Brown has been able to capture the mantel of the fresh-faced challenger.

Brown also has run a generally positive campaign. He has done a decent job in defining himself and that has helped make this a competitive race. Likeabilty matters.

Voter anger at Beacon Hill and Washington DC - 'nuff said. Running against the "machine" was a smart strategy. The way health care has been debated in DC also has energized his voters. Even in Massachusetts, the current proposals on Capitol Hill are not very popular.

Brown has been able to appeal to lunch bucket Democrats. He won't come close to winning Democrats, but if he can win 20% of them and rack up big margins among independents, it will carry him over the line.

Momentum - he has it. His voters are extremely energized and passionate about his candidacy. Coakley's voters simply are not as energized.

Money - although at a slight financial disadvantage, Brown has been able to remain very competitive and has run a very good GOTV (get out the vote) operation and has been able to advertise on TV, radio, and via robo-calls.

Many folks who may prefer the Libertarian Kennedy may in the booth go for Brown. Third party candidacies typically do much better in opinion polls than in the actual results.

Coakley's mistakes

Coakley has run literally one of the worst campaigns that I have ever seen. She is now relying on party unity to carry her over the finish line and is making few as possible media appearances due to her numerous gaffes over the past week. Her campaign really imploded and allowed Brown to climb into this by her not actively campaigning during the month of December. This allowed Brown to define himself instead of her using her considerable financial resources to define him as he was an unknown quantity to most voters.

Coakley's final crash began with the last debate where her rather mundane performance reinforced why she has been avoiding many public forums. Her answers on terrorism (no Taliban in Afghanistan) were interpreted as as being both woefully out of touch and uninformed. I know what she "meant" by her answer - that we needed to redirect our focus to Pakistan and Yemen. However, she created a perception of not being engaged in reality - especially two weeks after a near disaster in the skies over Detroit.

She simply is not a good "politician" although that has nothing to do with her potential performance as senator. But you need to win voters on the ground and little things like being perceived to be surrounding herself with insiders is not the way to win independents. She needed to campaign as a populist and as the heir to Ted Kennedy. She really failed on that account.

Coakley's negative firestorm may attract hard-line Democrats, but I think may alienate independents. Her ads are giving no reason why people should vote for her - they are about portraying Brown in as negative a light as possible. negative ads can and do work, but the saturation bombing smacks of desperation.

How Coakley can win

Turnout turnout turnout! Did I mention turnout? She needs to energize her base. The Democrats enjoy a huge advantage (37% of the electorate are registered Democrats). Labor and human services/advocacy groups have a considerable presence in Massachusetts and they do vote in high numbers.

The negative ad campaign may drive away suburban women from Brown over the abortion issue. It also "gins up" turnout among base Democrats who may have had less reason to vote if they thought Coakley had a comfortable lead.

President Obama's visit (he has to come; if he doesn't and Coakley loses he will share the blame for not helping). This will likely energize minority and urban voters who otherwise may not have shown up.

If all of these things come together, she can win and by a margin that is relatively comfortable. But I think the endemic weakness of her candidacy simply may be too big a drag to pull this off.

Onwards to Tuesday!

The Prof

Last set of polls on the Mass Senate Race

2010-01-17T04:08:00.000-08:00

Quick update on polling - looks like Brown may hold a small lead with 2 days to go, but all of these polls are within the margin of error - this is a statistical tie folks! Below are the polls that have been released since Monday of last week. The trends are that Brown is leading nearly 2 to 1 among independents and seems to have the most energized voters.

Much of the issues that pollsters have is how to model the breakdown of the electorate, i.e. who actually turns out to vote. Some of the variation is partially due to different samples in term sof the partisan affiliation of who shows up. Right now though, the best we can do is to make educated guesses.

All the below surevys are of likely voters.

American Research Group
Brown 48
Coakley 45

Research 2000
Coakley 48
Brown 41

Rasmussen
Coakley 47
Brown 45

Suffolk University
Brown 50
Coakley 46
Kennedy 3
Undecided 1

Statistical breakdown (Courtesy of Suffolk University)
Among men, Brown led Coakley 55% to 41% but trailed among women 50 % to 45%.

78 % of registered Democrats preferred Coakley, while 91% of registered Republicans and 65% of independents favored Brown.

Brown led in most areas of the state, except Suffolk County, where Coakley crushed Brown 69%to 31%.

Brown (57% favorable to 19% unfavorable) was viewed more positively than Coakley (49%favorable to 41% unfavorable).

Polls are all over the place

2010-01-10T08:07:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

What a difference a month makes...

Three polls have been released over the past week. All three survey likely voters.

Rasmussen: Coakley 51; Brown 40

Globe/UNH: Coakley 50; Brown 35

Public Policy Polling (PPP): Brown 48; Coakley 47

All of these show how hard it is to forecast a special election. The Rasmussen and PPP polls show Brown with a big lead among independents, while the globe shows independents slightly in favor of Coakley. Both candidates have relatively high positives. Likewise the Globe poll shows more support for health reform legislation than either Rasmussen or PPP.

Which one is closest? Hard to tell as WHO turns out (in terms of demographics) will matter most. Republicans and Brown supporters appear to be more motivated in this race, but Massachusetts is still overwhelmingly blue.

For now, I am going to stick with my earlier prediction of a Coakley victory. My first assessment was a 57-43 margin which is a 14 point win. It may well end up less than 10 points, but until I get a better sense of the data, it is hard to tell. The Prof's instinct tells him that Coakley should pull this out easily with major ad buys for the last ten day and a concentrated ground effort. However, this race is taking place with an angry electorate and a rather uninspired campaign by Coakley. Massachusetts Republicans (all 14 of them) appear to be very fired up about the race so unpredictability is the watchword for any sane pundit.

But...I will go out on a limb (with the caveat that this may change by the day) and predict an 8 point Coakley victory (which is the average of the three polls out today)

Coakley 53

Brown 45

Kennedy 2

My next post will center on a possible Brown path to victory.

Onwards!

The Prof

Brown vs. Coakley

2009-12-13T04:35:00.000-08:00

Although the Prof plans to support Brown in this race, I always call them as I see them without the lens of ideology clouding my vision...

Coakley should win the general election on January 19 with little difficulty. Her advantages are tremendous and Brown has a very high hill to climb.

The Republican brand name in Massachusetts is somewhere between sharks and grave robbers. Although Brown is a moderate by Republican standards (in fact the Massachusetts Republican party would be considered quite liberal on social issues by national Republicans) the "R" after his name conjures up images of Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, and Rush Limbaugh for many voters. Massachusetts is as deep blue as they come and while Republicans occasionally have success running for state office based on fiscal issues, Massachusetts has not elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972 and none to the House since 1994. No real surprise that Scott Brown's website does not say the word Republican on it...

The voter numbers are simply unfavorable. With just 11% of voters registered as Republicans, Scott Brown has to attract the lion's share of independents and some conservative Democrats into his column. The problem for Brown is that turnout will likely be low and consist of partisans on both sides. Coakley simply has the advantage here.

Name recognition heavily favors Coakley. The majority of the media focus was on the Democrats for the primary. Brown is still relatively unknown and has the challenge of crafting a message during the Christmas and New Year holidays.

Coakley has the fundraising advantage and will benefit from many national groups running issue ads supportive of her. Brown has benefited from not tapping into his resources during the primary, but 'tis interesting to note that the national Republican Party has yet to pony up any funds for this race.

Can Brown make this a race? I think he can make it a competitive race if several things happen - however they are unlikely to fall into place for him.

Force Coakley to debate several times and hope she makes a mistake or misstatement. Coakley (smartly) is lobbying to get libertarian-leaning candidate Joe Kennedy (not one of THE Kennedys) included in the debates to take the focus off of her. Brown needs to get Coakley one on one to draw a contrast. With a third person on the stage that is a tougher thing to accomplish.
Brown needs to go after her on specific issues and on her tenure as AG. He needs to give voters pause before automatically supporting the Democratic nominee.
Brown is well advised not to focus on the social issues and to keep the focus on fiscal issues. Coakley is going to go after him on women's issues and abortion which is designed to keep his campaign on the defensive.
Brown needs to run as an outsider and not beholden to any interest, although as a sitting state senator he may have trouble making this case.

In the end I think that it should be a fairly easy win for Coakley. Her strategy is going to be appearing senatorial, motivating her base voters, and minimizing the debates (she will have to agree to a couple, but one may be on a Sunday Morning or perhaps on New Years Day). She is the front runner and has to avoid coughing up the football at the end of the game. Given her discipline over the past few months, I don't see a high likelihood of her making any mistakes.

Her only real potential problem (baring a major mistake) will be the appearance her appearing like she is coasting and the anointed Senator in Waiting. This would play into Brown's strategy of painting her as an insider.

I have not seen any recent head to head polling yet, but some ought to be out shortly. Based on my "gut perspective" without the benefit of recent data I will make an early forecast. Yeah, yeah we ended up with 6 inches of partly cloudy... :)

Prediction

Statewide voter turnout is about 35%. Coakley wins heavily in the cities of Boston, Worcester, New Bedford, and Fall River along with the inner suburbs surrounding Boston. She also pulls impressive margins in the Berkshires and the Pioneer Valley. Much of Middlessex County and the Route 128 belt of communities should also come in for her. She also should do quite well in socially liberal Metrowest.

Brown should win many of the communities in the more conservative Merrimack Valley region. I also think he performs well in Worcester County with solid wins in the communities along the 495 belt. Brown will win some of the medium and smaller towns on Cape Cod and in Plymouth, Norfolk, and Essex Counties. But it simply will not be enough do overcome the vote totals that Coakley can amass in her base regions.

Coakley 57
Brown 43

Onwards!

The Prof

Primary Postscript

2009-12-12T05:21:00.000-08:00

The primary race ended pretty much as the punditry though it would with a landslide win for Martha Coakley. She had multiple advantages over her rivals...advantages good for any person seeking office.

Name recognition - critical in any race, especially a short race where her opponents simply could not distinguish themselves.

Money - she was well funded and drew a lot of money from left-leaning liberal groups (Emily's List) across the nation.

A committed organization - having run statewide in the past, Coakley had an apparatus in place whilst her opponents had to build them in many cases from scratch.

The Sisterhood - being a woman running against three men certainly distinguished her further and helped her in terms of the voters who vote in Massachusetts Democratic primaries.

Additionally, Coakley benefited from being on message, making very few mistakes, and being able to remain above the fray as her opponents fired shots at each other. It is very hard for an opponent to pick on a female candidate (Rick Lazio vs. Hillary Clinton in the 2000 NY Senate race comes to mind).

A few thoughts on her vanquished opponents...

Capuano - played the tough city kid a bit too much and potentially turned off certain voters. He played Mr. Insider who brings home the bacon - this plays well in certain areas, but also reinforces perceptions of the "old boy network" Capuano has a lifetime US Rep seat (although he did really underperformed in his own district).

Khazie - ran as the idealistic reforming outsider and nudged Pagliuca into last place in the process. He did surprisingly well in the wealthy liberal areas in the immediate Boston suburbs and I think may have laid the groundwork for a future run, perhaps for a statewide office as there may be a number of open seats this upcoming November.

Pagliuca - someone has calculated that he spent about $150 per vote in his last place finish. Classic story that money does not always buy happiness - or a Senate seat. He was hurt by past support for Mitt Romney which did not endear him to liberal primary voters. Additionally, he took many liberal positions that seemed it bit like "me-tooism".

Wonder if Steven Lynch is regretting his decision not to run. As the only conservative Democrat in this race he may have made it more interesting...

Bottom line is that Coakley's advantages were going to be hard to overcome by anyone in this type of primary. She racked up large victories in the voter-rich suburbs around Boston and in Western Massachusetts. If it had been a two-way race between her and Capuano, it may have been closer as there would have been a different dynamic in place.

Onwards to the final election!

The Prof

Primary Results

2009-12-08T19:14:00.000-08:00

Results are in - no surprises except that Coakley really outdid what many were thinking. Capouano, although winning some urban strongholds (Boston, Cambridge, Somerville) did not win by enough to offset massive Coakley wins nearly everywhere else in the state. Lets also congratulate Khazei for winning the thriving metropolis of Alford out in the Berkshire Mountains.

I will post on the Brown/Coakley race in the next couple of days and have a more extensive post-mortem on tonight's results.

Results (and my final predictions)

Democrats
Coakley 47% (42)
Capuano 28% (34)
Khazei 13% (14)
Pagliuca 12% (10)

Republicans
Brown 89% (77)
Robinson 11% (23)

Onwards!

The Prof

Final Predictions for MA Senate Primary

2009-12-06T15:05:00.000-08:00

Just a short note here - if I nail these numbers exactly, I will kick myself for not playing Megabucks this week...

Final Predictions
Coakley 42%
Capuano 34%
Khazei 14%
Pagliuca 10%

And lets not forget the Republicans...they are having a primary too.

Brown 77%
Robinson 23%

Prediction of results from my October 18 post
Coakley 49%
Capuano 32%
Pagliuca 11%
Khazei 8%

I see Coakley winning by a comfortable margin - however, if turnout is low it will be a bit reduced since the most committed liberal voters may skew slightly toward Capuano. Her opponents have been trying to make her fumble, but she has maintained possession and is ready to put the game away.

Some in the Capuano camp have been pointing to internal campaign polls showing a tightening race. These races typically do tighten a bit prior to the election, but I think the Capuanao folks are touting this to try to gin up their supporters prior to election day. I would be very surprised if this race goes much past 9:00 PM without a winner being called.

Turnout will be very light. Special election primaries typically don't generate high turnout, especially when there are two weeks of Christmas shopping left.

Watch for the post mortem later this week. I will be working on it Tuesday evening as the results roll in!

Onwards!

The Prof

Coakley in Cruise Control

2009-11-22T02:37:00.000-08:00

There is a new Globe poll out of likely Democratic Primary Voters. Nothing much has changed and I anticipate unless a major bombshell drops in the next two weeks, that Attorney General Martha Coakley will win by a considerable margin.

Coakley 43%
Capuano 22%
Pagliuca 15%
Khazei 6%
Undecided 14%

Coakley's approval is in the stratosphere with a 71% favorability rating. The only real danger for Coakley is that 50% of voters have yet to firmly settle on a candidate (although many of them indicated a preference, it may yet change). She has run a nearly flawless, if boring campaign and has the ball with a two touchdown lead and about two minutes left in the game. One or two more runs up the middle without a fumble and game over.

At the risk of writing a premature post-mortem on the others in the field...

Capuano who seems to be solidifying a firm grip on second place is handicapped by this not being a two-person race. He simply has not been able to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack. Capuano also badly flubbed his one chance a couple of weeks ago when Coakley announced that she wouldn't vote for a national health reform bill that had the much-discussed abortion language in it. Capuano pounced on this and hammered Coakley for not knowing how to play the inside Washington game...and then reversed himself 24 hours later and for all intensive purposes adopted Coakley's position. The fear these candidates have of incurring the wrath of certain segments of the primary electorate is mind-boggling. Capuano ended-up laming himself in his eagerness to get to the Left as much as possible on this issue and dropping what would have been a good opportunity to play on his perceived strength as a DC insider and knowing how to move legislation.

Capuano does have a lifetime seat in the House, but there are few opportunities to "move up" to the US Senate. John Kerry is in his early sixties, may be another 15 more years before there is another open seat...

Pagliuca's spending may amount to a record number of dollars expended per each vote at the end of the day. I still think he is doing this mainly to prep for a statewide run at some point in the future or to be noticed for an appointed position in the Obama Administration.

I think Kahzei has a future in politics, but he was thinking a bit too big for his initial run at public office.

The nagging issue that nearly half of these voters are not terribly excited by any one candidate speaks to initial name recognition having a major impact in this race much to Coakley's benefit. Primary Day is on December 8...I would camp out and wait the night before, but something tells me turnout is going to be mighty low.

Onwards!

The Prof

2009 Results

2009-11-04T17:55:00.000-08:00

Lets see how I did on the predictions...

Boston Mayor
Prediction: Menino: 61 Flaherty: 39
Actual: Menino 57, Flaherty 43

Not too far off, though Flaherty ran a closer race than I thought...if Flaherty had more money to advertise who knows....Actually, Menino just was not beatable, but this may well be his last term. He will be 70 in 2013 and Flaherty may make another run at this. Bostonians just like their mayors and were not ready to change things up.

Virginia Governor
Prediction: McDonnell (R) 54 Deeds (D) 46
Actual: McDonnell 59 Deeds 41

Big win for the Republicans and more ominously for President Obama who had campaigned for Deeds; Independents swung back toward the Republican Candidates in The Old Dominion and counties that went for Obama in 2008 did not support Deeds in 2009. Of course this was not a referendum on the president, but it could be an early sign of discontent with his perceived "overreaching" on a number of issues..

NJ Governor
Prediction: Corzine (D) 45 Christi (R) 43 Daggett (I) 12
Actual: Christi 49, Corzine 45, Daggett 6

I was wrong, but I did call it a toss-up...Bigger win for Republicans as NJ is a pretty deep shade of blue. The general loathing of Corzine by many voters and the fading of Daggett's independent run propelled Christi to the Governor's mansion. The economy and corruption were major issues and Christi won big among men and independents. Another warning bell for the president as he campaigned heavily for Corzine.

NY, 23rd District
Prediction: Hoffman (C) 44 Owens (D) 38 Scozzafava (R) 18
Actual: Owens 49 Hoffman 45 (D) 38 Scozzafava 5

I missed this one. The intra-party warfare of the local Republicans enabled the Democrats to pick up a long-time Republican seat. Also, credit Owens and his organization for getting out their voters. The battle between the Conservatives and Moderates in the Republican Party was openly waged here. I always tell my classes that a party has to have a "big tent" to be successful in the long run. In the Northeast, strict conservative Republicans simply do not play as well as they may in other parts of the nation. This district was Republican, but was not fertile hard-core conservative territory as far as I can tell.

So what does all this mean?

Incumbents did not fare particularly well with Corzine (who spent ridiculous amounts of money) going down. Mayor Bloomberg in NYC barely held on - someone calculated that he spend $166 on every vote he received. Even in Massachusetts, several incumbent mayors (Worcester, Lynn, Brockton) lost their seats. Could this be bad news for Governor Patrick...

Voters are very concerned with the state of the economy. If it does not turnaround there may well be a lot of political bloodletting with an angry electorate one year from now.

Turnout is key, many young voters who came out for Obama in VA and NJ did not come out this time around. Involved people are motivated voters.

Was this a referendum on President Obama? No, local issues and candidates typically dominate these elections, but the White House cannot be pleased with the turnout of events here. These results may force some course corrections in the administration as vulnerable Democrats (especially in red states) may not want to be tied to closely to the president in 2010.

Onwards to 2010...

The Prof

Election Day 2009 Predictions

2009-11-02T02:06:00.000-08:00

Ok - lets go out on a limb and see if I can nail the races that are coming up for tomorrow...

Boston Mayor
Menino wins over Flaherty/Yoon by a decent margin. Boston just likes him and he does have the job for life. His opponents are hoping for a Frank Skeffington Last Hurrah moment, but not this time.

Menino: 61
Flaherty: 39

Virginia Governor
This should be a relatively easy Republican pickup.

McDonnel (R) 54
Deeds (D) 46

NJ Governor
A very bitter race with an unpopular incumbent in Corzine, but a rather inept campaign by his opponent, The Republicans should have won this one, but an independent candidate siphoning nominally Republican votes and Democratic money flowing to this race should win it for Corzine. The polls have shown a dead heat all along so this is a bit of a coin toss...

Corzine (D) 45
Christi (R) 43
Daggett (I) 12

NY, 23rd District
Perhaps the most drama of any race, this was shaping up as a three-way race with the NY Conservative Party nominating a - well a conservative candidate in Hoffman against a very liberal Republican candidate in Scozzafava, with Owens carrying the Democratic banner. As the Republican candidate is quite liberal on a number of issues, many national conservatives urged support for Hoffman creating an intra-Republican split. On Friday of last week Scozzafava withdrew from the race and endorsed the the Democrat Owens. My sense on this is that Hoffman who has been ahead in the polls still wins this though.

Hoffman (C) 44
Owens (D) 38
Scozzafava (R) 18

Senate Candidate's Strategy

2009-10-18T02:57:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to post a quick update - no breaking news on either the governor or senator front. But I do want to give a quick word on what I see as the strategies of the contending candidates for this office.

Martha Coakley
So far I am sticking with my prediction that the sitting AG should win both the primary and general election. She is picking up the endorsements of the Democratic establishment - sitting members of the legislature and organized labor. She is raising funds at a decent clip. She is way ahead in the early polls. In terms of campaign strategy she is doing what any conventional front runner should do - play it safe. If this were a football game, it is the fourth quarter with 3 minutes left. Coakley has the ball and is up by two touchdowns. She is trying to run out the clock. This makes sense - unless she makes a metaphoric fumble and either says or does something controversial and damaging to her campaign. This is unlikely to happen since she has been in a number of campaigns for elective office and knows how to play the game. Luckily for Coakley, she also has three primary opponents which divides the opposition. Her rather icy personality and her active avoidance of some elements of the news media may not help her, but her political organization, support from women's groups, and her high name recognition should make this a relatively smooth cruise to the US Senate.

Odds of winning the primary - 80%.

Michael Capuano
The former Sommerville mayor and current 8th District US Representative is trying like heck to pump up his name recognition outside of the immediate Boston area. He is also trying to be a "Democrat's Democrat" by running as far to the left as he can in the hopes that the liberal activists who typically dominate these primaries will swing to him. This would be a decent approach if it was a two person race, but it isn't. I expect that Alan Khazei will siphon off some of that liberal support and the Coakley juggernaut is simply to large to stop. Capuano is going to continue to throw political haymakers and show his fiery passion in the hopes of forcing a Coakley "fumble". However I place his odds at no more than 20% to win the primary and these odds will slowly diminish unless Coakley makes a major mistake over the next few weeks and gives him an opening.

Steve Pagliuca
As part-owner of the Boston Celtics, Pagliuca is spending a LOT of money to advertise everywhere under the sun. His background as a venture capitalist and former Republican (he became a Democrat about 10 years ago) will not be helpful in winning the primary. He is targeting Independent voters and the more conservative Democrats, although his most recent ads show him running to the left on almost all the issues - his research must show that those positions poll well. However, he will need massive numbers of independents to show up for the December 8 primary (unlikely to happen for a special election - unlikelier on a potentially cold and snowy December day) and I just can't see him pulling this off. I think this run for him is about getting experience in the wild Massachusetts political arena and raising his name recognition for a future statewide race.

Odds of winning the primary - 0% (yes, he really has no chance this time around)

Alan Khazei
As founder of the successful City Year program 20 years ago, Kazei has a good reputation and has been able to raise more money than expected. He will do relatively well in ultra-liberal areas (Amherst, Cambridge, Brookline, etc) thus taking votes that likely would have gone to Capuano. Expect him to run a poitive and clean campaign for third place. As with Palgliuca, this race is a way for Khazei to gain experience in running a campaign and setting up for a future run.

Odds of winning the primary - 2%

Prediction of results for the December 8 primary (ok - really out on a limb, but here goes...)

Coakley 49%
Capuano 32%
Pagliuca 11%
Khazei 8%

Scott Brown
(Full disclosure, the Prof plans to vote for Brown in the general election)
The sitting Republican State Senator will face the winner of the Democratic primary on January 19, 2010 and should be able to pull 35-40% of the vote against Coakley (some Capuano voters may end up voting for Brown as a protest). He is going to try to run as a moderate-conservative and pick up independent votes. However, the "R" next to his name in this deep blue state (and the knowledge that he would not support a still-popular President Obama) makes it very unlikely for him to win this. If Capuano upsets Coakley, Brown may do a bit better and win some disgruntled Coakley voters, but I just can't see him taking this. I will give him odds of 10% for the general election as there is always the chance for a major upset - but I just don't see it happening.

Stay tuned as this race is likely to get more lively as the primary date draws near.

Onwards!

The Prof

New poll on the Governor's race

2009-09-26T03:45:00.000-07:00

Suffolk University released a new poll of 500 registered voters regarding the 2010 gubernatorial race this week. The news continues to be bad for Deval Patrick in terms of favorability, but the three-way race keeps him in front.

Favorability for Governor Patrick - 42% favorable; 54% unfavorable

Does Governor Patrick deserve another term - 29% yes; 56% no

Hypothetical match-up:
Patrick 36%
Cahill 23%
Baker 14%
Undecided 26%

Baker's low support is mainly due to the nearly 50% of the sample who don't know enough of him to form an opinion. His numbers should rise as the campaign progresses. However the following "gut feeling" question does not bode well for Baker.

Would the state would be better off with a Republican governor?
Yes 39%
No 54%

This indicates the continuing deep blue bias in Massachusetts as the Republican Party continues to be viewed unfavorably by many residents of the state. Baker has an uphill climb, even with Patrick being viewed so poorly.

The surprise here is the continuing strength of Democrat turned Independent Tim Cahill. Regardless of who voters indicated as their first choice, a strong majority chose Cahill as a second choice. Cahill voters would choose Baker as their backup. This hurts Baker who really needs a two way race. It is not inconceivable that the is becomes a Cahill vs. Patrick race as the anti-Patrick vote may end up with who is perceived to be the strongest horse.

There is a block of loyal Patrick supporters composing between 35 and 40 percent of voters. In a conventional two-way race (undecideds usually break to the challenger) it would be bad news. However, in this three-way race it may be all he needs to win a second term. I maintain my prediction that he has a 55% chance of winning another term in November 2010. I also think that unless Baker can start stepping up his campaign that many independent voters may really consider supporting Cahill. This will be much clearer as time progresses, but Baker needs to find a message that can out-compete Cahill as the alternative to the second Patrick administration.

Onwards!

The Prof

Curiouser and Curiouser

2009-09-17T18:20:00.000-07:00

OK- lots happening....

Let's see, looks like the state legislature is going to grant the Governor the power to appoint a "temporary" replacement for the open MA senate seat. This should be wrapped up in a few days. Can you say Senator Michael Dukakis...

With Lynch taking a pass on the race (my guess is that his own internal polling showed few paths to victory), a new face enters the race. Venture capitalist and part owner of the Boston Celtics Stephen Pagliuca is launching a bid for the seat. He describes himself as a progressive Democrat and has enough money to buy quick name recognition. However, I still really think Martha Coakley will take this race. Yes I know its early - but I give her a 65% chance of winning the primary and the election.

Pagliuca's entrance may hurt Mike Capuano somewhat as he really needs a one on one race to increase his low name recognition (see new poll below). A three way race benefits Coakley because she has a large portion of the electorate in her corner due to her high name recognition. She also has a 53% favorability rating in the latest Suffolk University poll. Contrast this with Capuano having a 16% favorability rating and 33% having never heard of him. He has work to do. Barney Frank's endorsement and his announcement yesterday has him entering as the darling of liberal wing of the party. This is a smart strategy as liberal activists (and in Massachusetts there are lots of them in vote-rich areas) will be the most actuated to show up on December 8.

It is too early to estimate Pagliuca's impact on the race. My initial guess is that although he has a lot of money a race like this will be very tough for him. The major groups especially labor are already lining up behind Coakley and they can deliver votes. If he ran as an independent in the general election, it could make things more interesting. However, if either of the other two candidates make any serious mistakes, voters may give Pagliuca another look.

With the primary is less than three months away this is how the early race is shaping up through the recent Suffolk University poll:

Coakley - 47%

Capuano - 9%

Undecided 33%

Suffolk polling on the General Election in January also shows Coakley in the catbird seat against likely Republican candidate Scott Brown.

Coakley - 54%

Brown - 24%

Undecided - 20%

Scott Brown (who I am planning to support) has maybe a 5% chance of pulling a spectacular upset. Massachusetts truly is the bluest state and the R next to his name alienates nearly half of the voters immediately. I think it won't be 30 point blowout and he will do better against a Capuano, but he is in this race to increase his name recognition in my opinion. Look for him to run for another statewide office in the future.

Onwards!

The Prof

First poll on special Senate election

2009-09-10T01:28:00.000-07:00

Rasmussen has released the first poll on the upcoming Senate race.

These numbers are very early and really gauge basic name recognition as the real campaign has yet to start. Martha Coakley's statewide name recognition is serving her very well. Moreover, her overall favorability is at 67%. If she does not stumble, she is going to be the one to beat. This also means that she will have a target on her back and will be the subject of political broadside hurled by opponents.

Since this poll was run, Marty Meehan has taken himself out of the race. I think it is unlikely that John Tierney and Ed Markey run. We should know the final field within a week as jumping in late has no real benefit with such a short campaign. But if I had to predict today, I think the field is Coakley, Capuano, and Lynch with Coakley looking very formidable - at least at this early point. However, if another liberal candidate jumps into the race, Lynch should benefit as the sole moderate candidate.

On the Republican side, State Senator Scott Brown had a scare with Christy Mihos apparently weighing a jump to this race for about an hour (nice publicity for Mihos' gubernatorial run, I think that was the intent all along). Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card is said to be seriously considering a run at this point as well. A Republican primary battle hurts Lynch as Republican-leaning independents will be less likely to jump to the Democratic primary where (presumably) Lynch would benefit.

Expect many more posts on this race over the next several weeks. The Prof is in the zone!

Onwards!

The Prof

Handicapping the Senate race...

2009-09-07T04:44:00.000-07:00

With the now-open US Senate seat scheduled to be filled by a special election on January 19, it is time to try some early handicapping of what will be a crowded field...primary elections for the parties are scheduled for December 8 - three short months away!

The early odds for each candidate that I am posting assume that Joe Kennedy is not in the race...if he is they will be reworked in my next posting. Update: I stand by the odds I published - for now!

One thing to bear in mind is that special elections have historically low turnout and candidates with excellent fundraising ability and GOTV (get out the vote) operations will fare well.

Democrats

Breaking News - Kennedy not running!

Of course this news breaks a few hours after I post this... I need to find a Matt Drudge style siren for breaking news!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/joseph_kennedy.html

Joe Kennedy:
If he throws his hat into the ring he will benefit through instant name recognition and Kennedy nostalgia. He has experience as a former Congressman and would be able to raise a large amount of money in a short time. My instinct tells me that he would be the odds on favorite, but would not be a lock for the nomination. If he does run, he will have a smaller field to run against however, as his presence would make some potential candidates think twice about running. I see the race between him and Martha Coakley
Odds: (if he runs) 60% of winning the nomination
Odds of running: less than even, lets say 60-40 he does not get into the race (I was right!!)

Attorney General Martha Coakley:
The sitting State Attorney General has already formerly declared for the seat and has made it no secret that her ambition has been the US Senate for some time. She has the experience of having run and won a statewide election and will be able to raise money from liberal advocacy and women's groups. Although technocratic in approach and temperament, nevertheless I think she will be a formidable force in this race. She has had a meteoric political rise and if Joe K. decides not to run, she has the best shot at winning with a crowded primary field. This primary is one where organization and political savvy will benefit her greatly. Remember, winning 35% of the vote in a crowded race wins you the nomination...
Odds: 55% shot at winning the nomination

Congressman Steven Lynch:
Steve Lynch has filed papers to run and will be in this race regardless of what Joe K. does. He is the most conservative Massachusetts member of Congress and can potentially do well among blue collar voters and Republican-leaning independents (more on this in a minute). He has a substantial financial war chest that he can put to use for this race. However, he is on the conservative side of the Democratic Party and I think he will have trouble beating a more liberal opponent - unless several liberal candidates run and split the vote.
Odds: 30%

Congressman Michael Capuano:
This liberal Congressman from Tip O'Neil's old 8th District seat has the ability to raise money and is a fiery and passionate liberal on the issues which will help him in a primary battle. His problem is lack of name recognition outside his district and a primary race with at least two other liberal candidates. He could catch fire though if Coakley stumbles.
Odds: 20%

Congressman Ed Markey:
The long-term Congressman from Malden is said to be eyeing a run (if Joe does not of course). I think he has the same issues the Capuano has - a crowded field with ideologically similar candidates. Also, he does not have the personal charisma of a Capuano.
Odds: 10%

UMass Lowell Chancellor Marty Meehan:
Marty retired from Congress in 2007 and has a few million dollars sitting in his campaign account that he may put to use. Opportunities like this arise rarely and he is seriously considering this race. He is a moderate Democrat and does have significant name recognition. However, he is not well-liked by many party activists and did retire from a safe seat in The House. I think he will pull the trigger on this race though and may surprise with a decent showing as he is well regarded in the Merrimack Valley.
Odds: 20%

I don't think Congressman Barney Frank will run as he he a plum House Committee Chairmanship where he wields more power than he would as a junior senator. If he does surprise us and run, I think he may have the chance at pulling an upset as he is very politically gifted ands would be the liberal darling in this race.

Republicans

I am not going to spend too much time here as there is virtually no chance for a Republican to win this seat in heavily Democratic Massachusetts. Raising money and frankly finding credible candidates continue to be the bane of the Massachusetts GOP.

Former Lt. Governor Kerry Healy took herself out of the running over the weekend. State Senator Scott Brown and former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card are said to be eyeing runs. Registered Independent Curt Schilling may have to run as an independent candidate if he does get into the race (I don't think he will, by the way) as state election laws require him to be registered in a major party in order to run for a party nomination.

However, I am about 95% certain that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the elected Senator with at least 60% of the overall vote come January.

Oh yes...almost forgot! The role of independents who can vote in party primaries may help a candidate like Lynch as we can safely assume that turnout for the Republican primary will be very low and that most independents will go into the Democratic primary. (Full disclosure, I plan to pull the lever for Lynch in the primary as I am a conservative-leaning independent) Again turnout is key and that hinges on a candidate's ability to organize and raise raise money during a very short campaign season. This is promising to be an exciting fall...

Onwards!

The Prof

Ted Kennedy RIP

2009-08-26T16:55:00.000-07:00

Today was a day that we know would come with the knowledge that Senator Kennedy had a particularly aggressive and terminal brain tumor. I think it is fitting to reflect a bit on the passing of a political and cultural icon. I will post in the next few days about the upcoming special election, but reserve today as a day free of politics and want to say a few words about the person who Edward Moore Kennedy was.

Senator Kennedy was first elected to the Senate in 1962, four years before I was born so for my entire life he has been the senior senator from Massachusetts. Personally, I shared little of his political ideology, but he is and will be reckoned amongst the greats of American public life. Massachusetts has lost an advocate and political giant.

Politically, he was a true old-fashioned liberal who never wavered in his beliefs (there is much to be admired in that trait) yet he would compromise and take half a loaf whenever possible. His mark was on a great deal of the legislation that has passed over the last 40 years. Bill Bennett, a prominent conservative writer, referred to him as the "bane of conservatives" in a tribute published today and that is a very apt statement. He practiced politics in an old-fashioned way, yet his endorsement of Barrack Obama helped vault his candidacy past Hillary Clinton last year. The torch was indeed passed.

He had a well-deserved reputation for constituent services as he was a very accessible senator with an excellent staff to cut red tape and speed people through bureaucracy. I have heard numerous stories today on how he was able to help ordinary people. That is something that truly has impact on the lives of people, many of whom who were not of means.

To me, the most important aspect of Ted Kennedy was acting as a father figure to his nephews and nieces and being the glue throughout the tragedies that has defined the Kennedy Family for over half a century. That says a lot about Ted the person and his heart.

God Speed and Good Rest...ye will be missed.

Massachusetts Governor's race update

2009-08-18T03:50:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

New Opinion Dynamics survey of 445 registered voters in late July/early August

General Election Matchup (w/leaners)
Cahill (I) 27%
Patrick (D) 25%
Baker (R) 23%

General Election Matchup (w/leaners)
Patrick (D) 32%
Baker (R) 35%

Governor Patrick's Approval ratings:
19% favorable
77% Unfavorable

Poor numbers continue to plague Patrick. However, he remains competitive...could this be either take the "devil we know" or is it a testament to many Massachusetts voters reflexively voting Democratic?

Cahill continues to show remarkably well. He is to officially enter the race in early September.

Again, these numbers are very early in the process and are at best directional and not truly predictive. There are still quite a few voters who are not expressing a preference. I still give Patrick the edge even with the dismal approval numbers as his base should shore up during next year's campaign and with the increasing likelihood that the anti-Patrick vote may be split. There are rumors that Baker is trying to negotiate Cahill out of the race with the possibility of running as Baker's Lt. Governor. I think those are only rumors and that Cahill may have a shot if he can define himself as the most electable "anti-Patrick" candidate.

This promises to be a fun election year - but aren't they all?!

Onwards!

The Prof

Norman Rockwell Is Back!

2009-08-12T03:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I decided to test my faith in civil decorum one more time and went to another Town hall meeting on health reform. This was in Hudson Massachusetts and was hosted by Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas as was the one I attended last Saturday in Chelmsford. I was somewhat concerned that the bad behavior and all around rudeness that I saw in Chelmsford would repeat itself.

I was pleasantly surprised. There were probably 175 people or so at the Hudson High School auditorium (thankfully air conditioned) and this was the mirror opposite of the experience at Chelmsford. Although there were some of the LaRouche protesters outside with their conspiratorial message, the audience was nearly 100% polite and respectful of both the Congresswoman and one another.

To be sure there were strong passions on both sides of the debate. I would estimate it ran about 70-30 against the current reform proposals in Congress. But each person who asked a question or who made a point was able to do so without being shouted down or heckled. This is a what democracy in practice ought to be.
_
If anything, disrupting meetings like this and heckling people actually makes the side that engages in that behavior less appealing to ordinary people. These town meetings have been getting a lot of press and neither side is well served by such tactics. It does energize the far right and far left bases, but debates and elections are won in the center.
_
I am not sure why the experiences were so vastly different. It could be that a different sort of crowd was attracted on a Tuesday after work than on a Saturday morning. Whatever the reason, I am feeling better about the process. Norman Rockwell lives on!

Norman Rockwell it ain't!

2009-08-08T16:17:00.000-07:00

This morning I attended Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas' "town hall meeting" on healthcare reform in Chelmsford. I have been studying and working on analyzing the current health reform legislation in Congress with great personal and professional interest and was hoping to hear a lively discussion about the pros and cons of HR 3200 (the current House bill) between Representative Tsongas and her constituents as I am a constituent myself.

Personally, there are several provisions of the reform legislation that I find troubling, but this post is really about the actions of many of the attendees.

Outside of the building were several groups both pro and con on reform - one group in particular had posters of President Obama depicted as Adolph Hitler. I am not sure who they were trying to impress. Luckily, most people were snickering at them.

Of the close to 250 people packed in the Chelmsford Town Hall it ran about 60-40 against reform. However, the biggest takeaway for me was the utter lack of respect for the opinion of others and the general lack of civility.

Healthcare is a very personal issue to people and does arouse strong passions. Unfortunately, it seems to me that some "fringe elements" were attempting to hijack this discussion.

I was ashamed that many of my fellow citizens resorted to shouting down the Congresswomen and the people who were trying to ask questions. There were a couple of dozen very loud and animated folks there who were bent on rudeness and chaos, not discussion. Some resorted to name calling and swearing. Several of these "brave" folks did this from the back of the auditorium where they were well positioned to make a lot of noise and then fade away.

There were several good questions and discussion points, but the yahoos heckling from the crowd made it very hard to focus on the discussion. I give Nikki Tsongas a lot of credit for keeping her composure in the face of so much blatant hostility. I don't want to give the impression that everyone was rude at this event, but a sizable minority were.

In terms of the points that really aroused the audience was anything dealing with a public insurance plan option, why single-payer was not a part of the reform bill, end of life decisions, and the rationing of care to control costs. Many who were there had their minds already made up and did not want to listen to any opposing viewpoints.

I was utterly disgusted at the tactics of these people on both the left and the right. As an American I relish a good passionate discussion, but when civility is left behind for screaming and name-calling, it leaves me quite cold. As someone who professionally studies politics and political tactics I do know why loud protest and "in your face" tactics are utilized. They can be disruptive and help a given group achieve it's political goals. But as a citizen, I am discouraged at the state of things and wonder how we as a society has come to accept this.

To end on a good point, a real positive was the opportunity to chat with a couple of folks outside as I was leaving the venue (there were a bunch of people who couldn't get in as the building was at capacity). We had a nice back and forth chat in a civil and respectful way. One was pro-reform and one was a skeptic, but the three of us had a good discussion and left on friendly terms. I was also able to play professor a bit as neither one was intimately familiar with the bills before Congress.

In my mind I have the vision of the famous Norman Rockwell painting "Freedom of Speech" (posted above) as what a town hall meeting should look like. Sadly, today was not one of those days...

New Globe Poll on 2010 Race

2009-07-26T06:50:00.000-07:00

Ok - doldromus interuptus...

Today's Sunday Globe headlines a new poll featuring a lot of bad news for Governor Patrick. A few highlights...

Patrick's unfavorable rating is 52% with 36% viewing him positively. A sizable minority of registered Democrats disapprove as well. Approval among Independents who propelled him to his post in 2006 is only 28%.
61% of respondents agree that Massachusetts is on the wrong track - bad news for any incumbent.
In a hypothetical three way race with Cahill, Baker, and Patrick it is essentially a tie between Cahill and Patrick with baker running a few points behind. The Cahill factor looms large as a head to head race between Baker and Patrick show Baker winning by 6 points. If this holds, it tells me that Cahill is hurting Baker more than hurting Patrick. The internals show Independents breaking to Cahill in a three way race and to Baker in a two way race.
63% of the sample don't know who Baker is - he needs to put a lot of effort into defining himself. In this case, the contested primary with Mihos should help do that. Mihos is better known, but has rather high unfavorables.
Cahill starts with relatively good name recognition and high personal approvals. If this were a head on head challenge to Patrick in the Democratic Primary, Patrick would have a fight on his hands. I don't see this as likely right now, but possibly Cahill does really catch fiore and becomes the "anti-Patrick" in this race.
Patrick has substantial support among those with graduate degrees and suburban liberals. This will be the base he needs to hang on to the governorship.

The Mihos/Baker race is polled as well but there were only 147 respondents for that question. The numbers show a statistical ties, but people are not paying any attention to this race...yet!

The poll, conducted among 545 respondents statewide from July 15 to 21, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. It is a poll of adults and not voters. That coupled with the large margin of error makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the actual race in terms of candidate support, but it does indicate mounting problems for the governor. The hypothetical matches are a fun exercise, but really don't tell us much at this point except that there is a lot of antipathy toward the governor and that nobody knows who Charlie Baker is yet.

Last month I gave Governor Patrick a 65% chance of winning reelection. Based on this poll and other ongoing political factors, I am dropping that to 55%. Cahill may end up being the governor's political savior in the end - if he was not in the race, I would give Baker a slightly better then even chance to take Patrick out.

Onwards!

The Prof

Summer Doldrums

2009-07-22T16:29:00.001-07:00

Hi all,

All quiet on the political front - at least in terms of the governor's race. Hot summer in DC with health reform - something that I track on a daily basis...

The Pulse will feature an upcoming piece on what is happening with that most complicated of topics. We will need a scorecard to get thru the competing proposals and intense politics surrounding this.

Please stay tuned...same bat time - same batty Prof...

Onwards!

The Prof

Charlie Baker joins the race

2009-07-08T18:51:00.000-07:00

Wow - the news is coming fast and furious this week! First Tim Cahill (he has not officially announced, but is very likely to do so in the next few weeks) and now Harvard-Pilgrim CEO Charlie Baker has jumped into the gubernatorial pool.

I am a little surprised at the timing of his announcement during one of the slowest news weeks of the year. It may have been in reaction to Cahill (see my previous posting) but was likely planned in advance to allow him maximum time to raise money (and to resign from Harvard-Pilgrim). Charlie needs to raise money fast to up his name recognition and to take on the well-funded Christy Mihos for the Republican nomination.

The Republican establishment seems to be very happy and relieved that he is running as Christy has never held much appeal for them. That feeling is mutual as Mihos was quoted today as running as an outsider and anti-establishment candidate. Also, it looks like state senator Scott Brown won't be a candidate as he was enthusiastically touting Baker on the evening news.

How will Baker play? His detractors will undoubtedly paint him as privileged, the head of an "evil" HMO (watch for people to come out of the woodwork complaining about being denied benefits), and overseeing the big dig as Secretary of Administration and Finance under William Weld and Paul Cellucci.

His advocates will tout the success story of Harvard-Pilgrim which will resonate during these dire economic times. It appears that Baker is positioning himself as a social moderate and fiscal conservative much in the model of former governor Weld. The contrasts between him and Governor Patrick will be very distinct. As I mentioned in a previous posting, this election will ultimately be a referendum on the sitting Governor.

My early read on him is that he is the real deal and will play well, although he will make his share of rookie mistakes. His previous electoral experience was a stint as a member of the Board of Selectmen in the Town of Swampscott. This lack of experience means that he will need to rapidly assemble a professional team around him to hone his political skills and crank up his organization.

Baker vs. Mihos promises to make for a fun 14 months until the September 2010 primary - they are both businessmen, but have very different personalities and messages.

Once we can digest all this news along with new polls that will be released in the next several weeks, I will revisit my odds on the governor's race. My initial read gave Deval Patrick a 65% chance of reelection. Cahill promises to be a real wildcard as he could split the anti-Patrick vote or may deny Patrick the Democratic votes that he will need to win. Baker and Mihos do need to be careful about beating each other up too badly in their battle for the good of the party.

Remember, in a three way race, the winning percentage is 34%. The math gets a lot trickier with a trifecta of major candidates.

This is potent candy for us political junkies! Onwards!

The Prof

Wildcard...

2009-07-06T15:54:00.000-07:00

Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill is leaving the Democratic Party and is re-registering as unenrolled (independent). This is big news as Cahill is now better poised to make a gubernatorial run as an independent. Governor Patrick controls most of the levers of power in the State Democratic Party and the speculation is that Cahill would have trouble getting enough support at the party convention to secure a spot on next year's primary ballot.

This is mixed news for Republicans Charlie Baker and Christy Mihos If Cahill does make an independent run, the danger for Patrick is that conservative Democrats throw their support to Cahill and he loses critical blue-collar votes. The danger for Republicans is that Cahill siphons conservative Democrats and independents that would support a Republican candidate and splits the anti-Patrick vote.

Can Cahill win the election itself? My initial reaction is that it is unlikely, but if the Republicans nominate Mihos, I think he would have a better chance in winning independent votes. It also depends on how well he can raise money and build a political apparatus to win a fiercely contested race.

My gut tells me that this is more likely to split the anti-Patrick vote and won't hurt Patrick as badly as some may think...time will tell.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/cahill_to_leave.html

New Poll on 2010 MA Gubernatorial Race

2009-07-01T03:37:00.000-07:00

Pollster Scott Rasmussen released a new poll on the 2010 race of 500 likely voters on Monday.

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_governor

1. How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

40% Strongly approve
23% Somewhat approve
12% Somewhat disapprove
24% Strongly disapprove
2% Not sure

2. How would you rate the job Deval Patrick has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

11% Strongly approve
31% Somewhat approve
25% Somewhat disapprove
32% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure

3. In thinking about the 2010 Election for Massachusetts Governor suppose you had a choice between Republican Christy Mihos and Democrat Deval Patrick? If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Christy Mihos or Democrat Deval Patrick?

41% Mihos
40% Patrick
10% Some other candidate
9% Not sure

4. Okay suppose the Republicans nominated Charlie Baker. If the 2010 Election for Massachusetts Governor were held today would you vote for Republican Charlie Baker or Democrat Deval Patrick?
36% Baker
41% Patrick
12% Some other candidate
11% Not sure

5. Favorable Ratings for Candidates in 2010 Governor’s Race

Patrick

17% Very Favorable
31% Somewhat Favorable
27% Somewhat Unfavorable
24% Very Unfavorable
1% Not Sure

Mihos

8% Very Favorable
38% Somewhat Favorable
26% Somewhat Unfavorable
9% Very Unfavorable
19% Not Sure

Baker

10% Very Favorable
27% Somewhat Favorable
19% Somewhat Unfavorable
8% Very Unfavorable
35% Not Sure

In short, Governor Patrick continues to have high overall disapproval ratings with 51% overall disapproval. Much of the strength in the hypothetical races shown by Mihos and Baker is indeed disappointment with Patrick and the overall bad news coming from Beacon Hill. However, I would caution Republicans in interpreting this early poll with support for their nominee. Patrick has vulnerabilities, but so do Mihos and Baker. I don't think that Baker's name recognition is as high as this survey shows and he will need to announce fairly soon in order to promote his candidacy (Mihos announced several weeks ago).

Again this is an early poll and Republicans ought to be encouraged. Polls taken after Labor Day will be more meaningful as the media will devote more coverage to the race and the public will pay more attention the closer we get to the September 2010 primaries - which may see a knockdown fight on the Republican side (get the beer and chips). As of now Patrick does not have a challenger in his own party, but if his woes continue Cahill or persons unknown may try to knock him off (get more beer and chips) in the Democratic primary.

And there is always the possibility that the President calls Patrick to DC for an important job on the Potomac...if this happens fasten your seatbelts and prepare for turbulence!

Massachusetts Republicans - irrelevant or ready for a comeback - Part III

2009-06-27T05:59:00.000-07:00

OK - can the Massachusetts Republican Party begin to make some sort of comeback in the 2010 election? The short answer (uncharacteristic for me to have a short answer) is maybe.

Yes, I know that is waffling, but we are still too far out from the 2010 election to go with anything more definitive than a 'maybe'. However, I will make some predictions that I reserve the right to amend at any point as conditions warrant.

Governor - I am sticking (so far) with my earlier posting's prediction that Governor Patrick has about a 70% chance for reelection assuming that he indeed runs. Late word is that he is signing the sales tax and other tax increases that he opposed a few short weeks ago. He has publicly changed his position given that the legislature has passed ethics and other reform legislation. Whether the voting public is convinced of this remains to be seen. This can break either way for him, but the Governor needs to be mindful that he is treading a knife's edge by signing a tax increase that his opponents are sure to use against him.

This leaves an opening for the Republican nominee - whomever he or she may be. Bottom line: if 2010 is a "change" election the Republican nominee has a shot at this. Gubernatorial reelections are usually referendums on the incumbent - this election will mostly be about Governor Patrick and whether or not the voters will hire him for another term.

The Republicans are likely going to have a primary fight. How contentious that fight is and whether the Mihos, Baker, and Brown supporters can unify after the primary remains to be seen. The danger is that a core of supporters of one candidate (yes I am thinking Mihos) may well sit out the election if their candidate is not the nominee. Mihos' independent run in 2006 certainly took votes away from Kerry Healy. I believe that state Republicans are holding their breath and are concerned that Mihos may do the same thing in 2010 if he does not win the nomination.

The wildcard as always are the independent voters. The Republican nominee needs to pick up over half of them and also some of the more conservative blue-collar Democrats to win. Patrick will likely receive the support of suburban liberals, minorities, human services advocates, and labor unions - all major political heavyweights in Massachusetts. The Republican nominee will need to be able to craft a coalition of support that will counter that powerful base that Patrick can count on.

If I were to advise the Republicans, I would say that Charlie Baker is probably the best candidate they can put forth. I would still bet against him winning given the nature of the Commonwealth, but he may be able to assemble a winning coalition if the conditions are just right. Senator Brown may have a chance as well. I simply cannot see Christy Mihos winning a general election, but if the wheels fall off of Patrick who knows?

Governor Patrick needs to play the anti-establishment outsider as much as he can, stay on message, and use the bully pulpit of his office. He has immense political skills and remains a very formidable force with very committed supporters.

State Legislature - there will probably be small gains for the Republicans, but I don't see a repeat of 1990 when there was substantial turnover unless state fiscal conditions deteriorate or more legislative scandals erupt. As I mentioned in my earlier posting it is just very difficult to unseat an incumbent legislator even under the best of circumstances so small gains would be the best Republicans can do this year. They need to be able to recruit candidates and also focus on winning local offices (Board of Selectman, Mayors, City Councilors, Dogcatcher, etc.) to build up a rooster of candidates with some political seasoning instead of putting up inexperienced candidates against entrenched incumbents as they too often do.

One last factor - will the state legislature approve additional tax increases in the next year? Usually legislative bodies are loathe to raise additional revenues in an election year, but the left wing of the Democratic Party continues to float an income tax increase to restore state funding deficiencies. There is still muted talk of a gas tax increase as well. If the Democrats overreach, it could blow up for them politically.

I plan to revisit these predictions on the 2010 elections in a few months. It is highly likely that I will look back on this post and think "Brad - I can't believe you missed this factor, it was so obvious!"

The next 16 months and five days promise to be a fun political ride! Onwards...

The Prof

Massachusetts Republicans - irrelevant or ready for a comeback - Part II

2009-06-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

The above is an image of the original "Gerrymander" from 1812. I like this one especially as my hometown of Lynnfield is on it!

As discussed in the last posting, Massachusetts Republicans do not have a large presence in the Massachusetts political environment. There are a number of factors that continue to hinder the resurgence of the Massachusetts Republican Party.

Historical Democratic Party Identification

Ever since newly arriving Irish immigrants gravitated to the Democrats in the early 1900s, there has been a very strong affinity with many immigrant groups withe Democratic party. The election of Jack Kennedy served to solidify this loyalty. Today, new immigrant groups are quickly politically organized and for the most part are loyal Democratic voters. Traditional immigrant communities (Irish, Italian) continue a strong cultural affinity for Democrats especially in urban areas and blue collar suburbs.

Educational Attainment

Massachusetts has a very high proportion of residents over age 25 with at Bachelors Degree or higher (33% in MA versus the US average of 24% - 2000 US Census data). There have been a number of research studies that suggest that as one's educational attainment increases (especially with post-graduate work) that one tends to become more tolerant and socially liberal. The plethora of institutions of higher education attract many academics who (again demonstrated through numerous polls and surveys) lean to the left and toward the Democratic Party.

Conservatism of the National Republican Party

As discussed in the last post, Massachusetts voters lean decidedly toward the liberal side of the spectrum. This is especially true on social issues. Although many Republicans and Republican officeholders in the state are fiscal conservatives, yet socially moderate the perception (which is relatively accurate) that Republicans are socially beholdent to the Christian Right, makes many voters in Massachusetts have second thoughts about voting Republican. Having the Republican label can be a drag one a candidacy due to generally poor perceptions of the party as a whole.

Advantage of Incumbency

Incumbent officeholders enjoy many advantages over their challengers (when there are challengers which is all too rare!). Superior fundraising, name recognition, media exposure, organization, and experience in winning elections all contribute to the nearly 100% reelection rate of incumbents in Massachusetts.

Lack of a strong "Farm Team"

With all of the hurdles that Republicans face winning election in Massachusetts, talented individuals who aspire to higher office may well run as Democrats (there is a sizable conservative branch of the Massachusetts Democratic Party). Winning candidates need to have appeal, political skills, and a background consummate with filling a legislative or executive seat. All too often the Massachusetts Republicans have run candidates who simply are lacking some of these key elements. One upside for Republican candidates is that it is not difficult to secure a spot on the November ballot since there simply are not many others coveting the same office.

Gerrymandering of Legislative and Congressional Districts

In most states, legislative and congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature every ten years to reflect populations shifts with each US Census. In non-competitive states, it is relatively easy to draw the physical boundaries of these districts to advantage the political party that holds sway in the legislature. This is accomplished by splitting up areas where the opposition party is strong into two or more districts - classic divide and conquer strategy. Areas of strength of the party in power are kept together and consolidated to ensure a majority in as many districts as possible.

Both major parties will do this (Republicans gerrymandered the Democrats out of a number of seats in Texas after the 2000 census) and Massachusetts is no exception. Gerrymandering was born in Massachusetts in 1812 - the term's namesake is Governor Eldridge Gerry who drew a congressional district that looked like a salamander. (The Prof rarely makes editorial comments, but for the record supports the drawing of distictcs via an independent commission and removing partisan legislators from the process)

Conclusion

All of these factors are considerable hurdles for any party to overcome. However 2010 may be one of those rare years where the conditions are ripe for a political comeback of the long down-trodden Massachusetts Republicans. More on this in my next and last posting on this topic.

The Prof

Massachusetts Republicans - irrelevant or ready for a comeback - Part I

2009-06-07T06:06:00.000-07:00

Part I of this planned three-part post will examine the current state of the Massachusetts Republican Party which may soon have a DNR order if it does not show some signs of life.

Massachusetts is currently one of the bluest states in the nation (note - Jon Keller's excellent book, The Bluest State is a must read for Massachusetts political enthusiasts). The remnants of of the once-competitive state Republican Party is at a low ebb. Democrats have dominated state politics since the 1960s and increasingly so in more recent years.

Common polling questions measures political party affiliation and ideology. Below are results from the 2008 presidential election exit poll in Massachusetts and Minnesota for comparison purposes. Massachusetts is the least politically competitive state in the nation (as measured by incumbent officeholders facing challenges) whilst Minnesota is the most competitive. (Exit poll results courtesy of CNN)

Minnesota

By Party Identification

Democrats 40%
Independents 25%
Republicans 36%

By Ideology

Liberal 26%
Moderate 44%
Conservative 30%

Minnesota has a relatively balanced political environment and social/cultural factors that foster a sense of duty in citizens running for political office. Although one of the more educated and liberal-leaning states in the nation, Minnesota remains remarkably independent and competitive.

Massachusetts

By Party Identification

Democrats 43%
Independents 40%
Republicans 17%

By Ideology

Liberal 32%
Moderate 46%
Conservative 21%

By Registered Voters
(Voter data is from The Secretary of the Commonwealth - October 2008)

Democrats 37%
Independents 50%
Republicans 13%

Massachusetts Officeholders
Federal Elected Offices

US Senators: Both Democrats
US House Members: 10 Democrats, no Republicans

Statewide Elected Offices

Governor: Democrat
Attorney General: Democrat
Treasurer: Democrat
Auditor: Democrat
Secretary of State: Democrat

State Legislature (just 17% of these seats were contested in 2008 - Minnesota had 100% of its legislative seats contested in 2008)

State Senate: 35 Democrats; 5 Republicans
State House of Reps: 144 Democrats; 16 Republicans

Yes, Massachusetts is indeed as one-sided as it appears!

As is clearly shown by party affiliation, ideology, and elected officeholders the Massachusetts Republican Party has a LOT of ground to make up if it is going to be even moderately competitive. 2010 may well be a year where voter frustration amid the economic crisis produce one of those rare moments where a minority party can get a second look from voters. A very similar thing happened in 1990, but the state has changed demographically and is arguably more politically liberal today than it was in 1990.

There have been a number of factors that have contributed the decline of Massachusetts Republicans and the current Democratic lock on power. More on this in the next post...

The Prof

Massachusetts Gubenatorial race - 2010

2009-05-24T06:08:00.000-07:00

As promised, the Prof. is going to take a very early stab at the 2010 Massachusetts race for governor, a mere 17 months and 8 days away...

The Players (can't tell the players without a scorecard!)

Deval Patrick - incumbent Governor (Democrat)

Patrick who easily won election in 2006 is publicly running for reelection after a decidedly mixed first term. After some early mishaps regarding cars and draperies, Patrick has seen a number of his initiatives stalled by a recalcitrant legislature which in reality is more powerful than the governor in Massachusetts.

There continues to be speculation that Patrick is not going to stand for reelection in the face of a fiscal crisis, poor relations with the state legislature, mediocre public approval, and the possibility of a Potomac River view working for the Obama Administration. I place the odds at about 60/40 that he does run, but the Prof. would place little money on that bet.

If he does not run, this opens up a wide-open Democratic Primary with Lt. Governor Timothy Murray being the early favorite.

Strengths

Strong support from liberals would make him difficult to beat in a primary election.
Great campaigner, many (including the Prof.) did not see him becoming the phenom that he did in 2006.
The Power of incumbency - incumbent governors rarely lose reelection unless they have really fouled things up.
Being a Democrat in Massachusetts! This gives him about a 40 to 45% base vote to start with. The weakness of the Republican brand here would make it very difficult to take out even given his current problems.
Patrick is attempting to position himself as an outsider doing battle with an out of touch legislature (note his public pronouncement to veto the sales tax increase) - we shall see if this works.

Weaknesses

The current economic malaise. Although he is not responsible, he may get blamed by voters wanting some change at the top. The Massachusetts fiscal crisis may produce an anti-incumbent voter surge in 2010.
Possible perception that he really does not want to be governor anymore and is using it for a stepping stone to higher office.

Tim Cahill - Treasurer of the Commonwealth (Democrat)

The current State Treasurer (you may remember the Tim for Treasurer ads from a few years back) seems to be weighing a primary challenge. I think he will hold off for a bit as unseating an incumbent governor is never easy (although Dukakis did this in 1982 to Ed King) until he is sure that Patrick is politically wounded enough to be vulnerable in a primary challenge. He has the Treasurer's position as long as he wants to keep it and a failed run for governor may jeopardize that.

Strengths

Ability to raise money and generally viewed positively.
May be seen as the anti-Patrick and able to pick up independent voters in the Democratic primary.

Weaknesses

Relatively low name recognition.
Moderate-conservative Democrat, but Democratic primary voters skew quite liberal.

Charlie Baker - CEO of Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care (Republican)

Probably the best bet that the moribund Massachusetts Republicans have. Baker served in both the Weld and Celluci administrations and generally receive high marks as a cabinety secretary. Lately, he has been credited with helping Harvard-Pilgrim come out of state receivership and maintaining its current rating as the nation's #1 HMO (US News Health Insurer rankings, 2008) If he runs, he will announce shortly.

Strengths

Ability to raise money .
Telegenic and well spoken. His moderate stances and business background may appeal to independents.

Weaknesses

Relatively low name recognition.
Heads up an HMO - his opponents will paint him as the a leader of an industry that ranks less favorably than lawyers (sorry cousin Jim) in terms of public perception.
Republican in Massachusetts.

Scott Brown - Sitting State Senator (Republican)

Strengths

Well spoken and an active member in the Senate. Liked by the Republican establishment and has a track record of beating Democratic challengers for his Senate seat.

Weaknesses:

Relatively low name recognition.
Republican in Massachusetts.

Christy Mihos (Republican - for now anyway)

Mihos ran as an independent in 2006 and won 7% of the vote. Always unpredictable and outspoken, he is the only declared Republican in the race. He is quite a character (that is meant as a compliment :)

Strengths

Personal fortune allows him to self-finance.
Outspokenness is admired by many in this day of packaged politicians.
High name recognition.

Weaknesses

Reputation for not sticking to script and speaking a little too off the cuff.
Not liked by Republican establishment - he needs to build an organization on his own.
Caters to the "angry voter", but that may not be enough to win.
Republican in Massachusetts.

Right now I would give Governor Patrick despite low approval ratings (see polling info below) a decent chance of winning re-election at this early stage of the game. He is a Democratic incumbent in the most Democratic and liberal state in the nation (except for possibly RI). Patrick is an excellent campaigner with a very loyal following among Democratic party activists who propelled him to the governorship in 2006.

His biggest risk is being blamed for the state's fiscal crisis. He is clearly positioning himself as an outsider populist (especially viv-a-vis the state legislature). We shall see if this works in the long run.

The continuing weakness of the Republican Party in Massachusetts is Patrick's other asset. The Political Pulse's next posting will deal with this very topic.

It is very difficult to beat a sitting governor with the the Republican Party's brand is as toxic as it is. This will be a obstacle for Baker, Brown, Mihos, or any other Republican candidate to overcome. The eventual Republican nominee is likely to run as an independently-minded candidate. No visits from Rush please!

The Prof gives Patrick a 70% shot at reelection at this early stage. But of course I reserve the right to reverse myself as new info becomes available!

Early Polling

There have been a couple of early polls. Bear in mind that it is very early and voters have yet to focus on this race.

Rasmussen Poll - April 21, 2009 (500 Likely Voters, Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence)

Not good news for Patrick...his overall approval is only 34% which is poor for an incumbent seeking re-election.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/massachusetts/only_33_in_massachusetts_favor_incumbent_governor_in_2010

Gov. Patrick's Approval rating

8% Strongly approve
26% Somewhat approve
26% Somewhat disapprove
39% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure

How likely is it that you will vote for Deval Patrick for Governor in next year’s gubernatorial election?

13% Very likely
20% Somewhat likely
19% Not very likely
38% Not at all likely
9% Not sure

Suffolk University Poll March 26, 2009 (400 registered voters)

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/edited.FINAL.Suffolk.Marginals.March.20.2009.pdf

Patrick has a 44% favorable and 43% unfavorable rating

34% said Patrick deserves reelection, 47% time to elect someone else

Patrick vs. Cahill

Deval Patrick 30%, Tim Cahill 35%

(Editor's note: text identified Cahill as State Treasurer but did not identify Patrick as a Democrat or Cahill as a Republican)

Updates

2009-05-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

I am planning to post several pieces over the next few weeks. My next one (hopefully it will be done by Memorial Day weekend) will be a very early handicapping of the 2010 Massachusetts Governor's race. Gentlemen (and ladies) place your bets...

As the season progresses and as the news warrants, expect also to see a piece on the state's fiscal problems and the appetite for the (almost certain) tax increases that Massachusetts will be facing in the coming months.

The Prof

Public opinion - good vs bad polls

2009-05-11T19:13:00.000-07:00

Opinion Polling - lauded by pundits and politicians (especially if they are leading in a given survey) alike, is nonetheless an inexact science. Some polls are certainly better than others though in terms of accuracy and thus predictability.

The key of understanding a good versus a "not so good" poll is to read the small print explaining the methodology at the bottom of the results. The most important things to consider are the sample size and who (in terms of respondents) is actually surveyed.

Initially any sample needs to be weighted to ensure that it is demographically representative of the overall population. If it ain't representative, its no good - sort of like polling Cambridge or Amherst on the presidential race and concluding that we are are indeed a two-party country: Democrats and Greens! (the same hold true for polling in places like the Texas panhandle, rural Pennsylvania, and Lynnfield MA). All demographics groups need an equal chance to be selected, otherwise the results will be biased.

For any nationwide poll, the sample size should be at least 1,100 respondents. Anything much smaller and the margin of error (the statistical wiggle room that is a measure of how far off the sample response is from what the response would be if all the millions of potential voters were polled) begins increasing to the point where there is so much potential variation of the sample results from the entire population's results that the value of the poll is lessened. 1,100 respondents comes out to a 3% margin of error which is close enough to have decent predictive value.

Larger samples do cost more money, but will yield much more value. Personally, my eyes really open when I see sample sizes of 2,000 or greater (gets the margin of error within 2%)

A quick example of how the margin of error (we'll use 3%) is used based upon the following results:

Moe: poll result is 45% (range w/ error factored in is 42% to 48%)
Larry: poll result is 40% (range is 37% to 43%)
Curly: poll result is 15% (range is 12% to 18%)

The range consists of adding and subtracting the error (3% in this case) from the actual poll result. Statistically, there is a 95% chance that the actual election results if we polled everyone would be within those percentage ranges.

Bonus question - who is ahead in this example? If you answered Moe, better luck next time. Statistically speaking, Moe and Larry are tied as Moe's low end of 42% overlaps Larry's upper end of 43%. Curly is still bonked in the head as usual... Yes, the Prof. is a huge Stooges fan and I use this example in class.

The most important factor however, is WHO exactly is being polled. Usually this falls into the following four categories.

Adults - this is the simplest poll - as long as the respondent is an adult over the age of 18 they qualify as a respondent. The bad news is that it is the least accurate way to poll. Remember that about 40% of American Adults did not vote in the 2008 elections (which was a high turnout election) and that number is higher for state and local elections. Beware of polls of just Adults as a large proportion will end up not voting and therefore really don't matter unless and until they become voters.

Some media outfits publish (cheaply run) polls that have nationwide samples of 800 or 900 adults as respondents and tout these surveys as breaking news (usually in papers distributed nationally with a large blue logo and lots of color photos and a great weather page on the back of the first section). This is a nice way to fill column inches, but is not terribly meaningful in terms predictability.

Registered Voters - ahh, getting better! The respondent is asked if they are a registered voter. That tells the pollster if they are on the voter rolls (we will assume people are not lying to the pollster, although this can and does happen). This gets rid of the 25% of adults who are not registered to vote. Better than polling just adults, but not as good as screening for...

Likely Voters - this is the best method, since potential respondents are asked follow-up questions on how likely they are to trudge to the polls and vote on election day. If an individual indicates they are registered to vote, but has not voted since 1968, they would probably not be considered a likely voter. If they get someone like me who counts down the days to the next election (and will trudge thru four feet of snow to participate on election day), it is a pretty good bet that person will show up and cast a vote. Distinguishing a likely voter can be hit or miss, but for pre-election polls they are the most meaningful and therefore deserve the most attention.

Exit Polls - the ultimate poll! This does not ask just likely voters - it asks real voters as they are leaving a polling place on election day. They can' t change their mind as a voter can do in a pre-election survey and assuming they are honest in how they voted, this is the best measure of how a race will turn out. On election night, races are often called by the media based on exit polls, even before many actual results have trickled in. In 2006, Governor Patrick was declared the winner at about 8:02 PM based on his 20 pont lead in the exit polling.

Remember - no poll is perfect! There are many examples of how pollsters blew it and were dead wrong. The national exit polls were off in 2000 and 2004. In fact the 2004 exit polls overstated Kerry's vote to the point where he was competitive in several states (South Carolina and Virginia come to mind)he ended up losing by 10 points. The polls were pretty close in 2008 as better sampling techniques were implemented.

One more thing - the timing of a survey. In my previous posting regarding the Boston mayoral race, the poll was run six months prior to the election when most people (Lovoi excepted of course!) are not paying close attention. As the big day draws near, polls become more predictive.

Now that we know all about polls and how to read them...what? you want me to go over this again?? Ok, polling is...

Mayor Menino set to cruise in Boston

2009-05-10T03:23:00.000-07:00

The Boston Globe has a poll out this morning showing Mayor Menino in an extremely strong position to win a fifth term. I am not an expert on Boston politics by any stretch, but the Mayor's strength in these poll numbers (he is up 63-23 over Councilor Flaherty and 63-21 over Councilor Yoon)are the type that indicate an easy cruise to reelection for him this November. His support is widespread though all demographic groups.

Globe story and results from the NH Survey Center are below:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/10/city_still_smitten_with_its_mayor/

Usually there has to be some prevailing reason for voters to toss an incumbent out of office. According to this poll, Mayor Menino is not being blamed for the poor economic conditions and is seen as a generally effective mayor. The challengers also have the unenviable position of running against a Mayor with an extremely powerful organization and a large and loyal support base.

A couple of other things - with this being a local race and six months out to the election, most voters are not paying any attention to this race yet and won't until the fall. Additionally, this poll was conducted of 504 adults in Boston. They were not screened as voters (remember turnout in these elections is typically under 40 percent) so the numbers are somewhat "squishy" at this point, but my instincts tell me they are probably pretty accurate. I will blog more about polling and how to seperate the good (thuis accurate) ones in the near future.

The last time an incumbent mayor of Boston lost a race for reelection was James Michael Curley in 1949...unless some unknown scandal rocks this race, I see the 60 year record for Boston reelecting its mayors continuing.

Welcome

2009-05-08T17:52:00.000-07:00

Welcome all political junkies and those who have a casual interest in the machine that powers our republic! I am brand new at blogging so please pardon any growing pains that may be experienced as it moves forward.

A little background - I have resided in Massachusetts my entire life. From about the age of nine I have had a keen interest in politics/history/geography (all those geeky subjects). I remember having semi-serious 4th grade discussions over the 1976 election on the school bus - I was for Ford and my friend Jon was a Carter devote. (As I recall Ford did win the mock Huckleberry Hill School election in the Republican town of Lynnfield 210 to 155).

Throughout grammar school and Lynnfield High I always gravitated to classes in history and social studies. Thank goodness I was able to weasel out of physics!

After making the mistake during my first year at Nichols College of declaring as an Accounting major (I quickly learned the error of my ways after my well-deserved D in Intro to Accounting) I switched my major to Public Administration. I was fortunate enough to meet the late Professor Bob Fischer, the Director of The Institute For American Values, (now The Fischer Institute), who enabled me to get very involved in the fabric of public policy that had always engrossed me. I had the opportunity to go on class trips to Washington DC and hit some of the "think tanks" for various seminars and also Michigan where I got the chance to meet former President Ford in 1988.

After completing my graduate work in Political Science, I began teaching as an adjunct in 1993 and have been teaching two courses a year at Bentley University since 1998. I have taught course in many areas ranging from American Politics to Political Parties to International Relations. Less hair these days, but I still learn a great deal during each semester I teach.

I have a "regular job" in market intelligence outside of academia as well (where my political background is an asset), but my teaching lets me fulfill a deeply rooted passion of mine and is immensely satisfying. It is important in our democratic system that people are involved and understand it so I hope that my teaching does some good in that respect.

Although I lean more to the conservative side of the spectrum combined with some liberal leanings in certain areas (sort of libertarian, but not completely), my intention is that this blog serves as an educational forum where we can follow and discuss the issues of the day (2010 elections are just 18 months away!!) and have some fun handicapping the races as they come together. I play it down the middle as a good analyst should, but will not always completely nail it as evidenced by my opening post on the 2008 election where I somewhat underestimated the extent of Obama's win. Onwards!

Election 2008

2009-05-08T16:38:00.000-07:00

Below is an analysis/prediction that I wrote the day before last November's election. Although I was not off by a whole lot (many of the swing states were relatively close), I underestimated Obama's margin of victory. I have added some commentary today in red text to bring things up to date.

Goes to show that us profs aren't always as wicked smaht as we think we are!

Published on Nov. 3, 2008
Ok - T minus one day and counting. Time for Professor Lovoi's amazingly accurate prediction for Nov. 4, 2008

The Professor's Prediction: (270 electoral votes needed for victory)
Electoral College: Obama 311 McCain 227 Actual was 365 to 173
National popular vote (two party): Obama 52% McCain 48% not too far off - it was 53% to 47%

All of this is mapped out and can be accessed at the following address - note the red and blue colors on US Election Atlas are reversed with blue for Republicans and red for Democrats
http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=indpred&id=9529

Looking at the electoral college math, it is a decidedly uphill climb for McCain and a relatively easy path for Obama to the White House. Lets look at the swing states and the latest Real Clear Politics polling averages…

Battleground States Obama McCain Spread

Florida 48.6 to 46.8 Obama +1.8
McCain is a squeaker (echoes of 2000?), the Jewish vote in South Florida won't be as Democratic as it usually is, although this may easily go the other way as the Cuban vote is less Republican - Mac by 2. Missed this one as Obama cleaned up with the Hispanic vote and won FL by 3

North Carolina 47.7 to 48.3 McCain +0.6
Ditto McCain - Obama will make it very close, but will fall 3-4 points short. However, he has forced Mac to spend resources in a state that should have been safe Mac by 4 points. Obama squeaked it by a point , the Tar Heel state is slowly changing politically and this is evidenced by Obama's strong showing in what should have been a gimme state for McCain.

Virginia 49.8 to 45.5 Obama +4.3
Obama wins - demographics have changed too much - Mac's only hope is that there is a huge turnout in Newport News (military vets), and in the rural southwest, but O's advantage in the DC suburbs should cement it for him by at least 4 points. got this one, Obama won by 6

Ohio 49.0 to 45.8 Obama +3.2
Obama hanging on by a thread, but it will be razor this as the Republican party is well organized and will get its voters out. However I would not at all be surprised to see Mac win either, a real tossup state Obama by 1. Obama won by 5, much like Clinton's victory in 1996.

Missouri 47.5 to 48.0 McCain +0.5
McCain hangs on, but high black turnout in St. Louis and Kansas City may make it a late night in this bellwether state Mac by 2. McCain won this by 0.1% -by only 6,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast!

Colorado 50.8 to 45.3 Obama +5.5
Obama - young people and Hispanics put him over the top and the state is skewing more Democratic at the local level, Obama by at 5. Obama won by 9, CO is turning bluer than I thought, again Hispanic voters were key

Nevada 49.6 to 43.4 Obama +6.2
Ditto Obama - organization and turnout should have him winning by at least 4. Obama took NV by 13 - I really was off on this one. Shows conventional wisdom can be very wrong

Other swing states
PA - (Otherwise known as Pennsyltucky) Essential for McCain if he is to have any hope of victory - if this goes blue lights out for Mac, if not, 'twill be a long evening. I think Obama will win PA by a couple, his turnout machine in Philly will put him over the top... Obama won by 10 as this state continues its Blue trend. Senator Specter's recent party switch is largely driven by him reading the political tea leaves in PA astutely.

NH - The four electoral votes out of NH should have been McCain's to lose, but the millstone around his neck named GW Bush will drown him is a sea of blue in the southeastern part of the state and the more liberal Ct Valley region And lose he did, by 10 points. NH is not the rock-ribbed Republican state of old.

IN - Surprise!! Indiana is a swing state where W. won by 20 points in 2004. McCain pulls it out by about 5, but again Obama has forced him to defend turf that he should have owned. Obama took this reliably red state by 1 point. The minority turnout in Gary and McCain under performing in the rural areas made this a sweet victory for the Dems.

Iowa - Obama by at least 5, I wonder why McCain sent Palin there over the weekend, unless his internal polls showed tightening…or he wanted the SNL appearance all to himself! Obama wins by 9 going away - the early organizing for the primary paid off in the general.

New Mexico - Obama easily (by at least 7) although W won this in 2004. And Obama won by 15 - again propelled by the Hispanic vote.

Outstanding questions we can ponder this evening…

Keys to Obama's Victory I think I was pretty darn close on these!

Change - the watchword for the Obama campaign. He has become the personification for what many voters want, a young, intelligent, and very new breed pf politician. This is also a chance to start putting America's racial issues to rest and that has immense appeal. McCain has run a poor campaign and unfortunately is not the guy he was in 2000 when he was the change candidate.
Money - he has raised a ton and by bypassing the spending restrictions has carried the fight to McCain' turf. McCain only has outside shots in the blue states of PA and NH. Without money he has been handicapped and abandoned states like MI, WI, and MN which could have been Republican pickups if not for...

The Economy - the Wall street meltdown hit as voters were making decisions and has acted calm and collected whilst McCain has lurched from idea to idea with no consistent message.

The Debates - Obama performed well in the debates and has run an incredibly disciplined campaign. He came across very well and was able to look and act presidential. McCain's debate performance was mediocre although it did improve in the last one, but he never got the knockout blow he needed.

New voters - minority voters are going to be a tsunami that will help that will help Obama in former Bush states such as NV, NM, VA, and OH. Young voters are enthusiastic as well - but will they turn out…I think so looking at the impressive organization that Obama has created.

Palin - which at first had seemed a positive tactical move to woo blue collar voters in the heartland, I think Palin has hurt Mac among women and suburban independents, although she did shore up the party's evangelical base. What if he had picked Ridge and put PA into play…or Romney who may (or may not as he is associated with Wall St!) have helped McCain's economic credentials? Palin's obvious inexperience and poor interviews with Gibson and Couric is outweighing her populist and reformer persona.

McCain's Age - see above. If he was 55 with no health issues, Palin would not be a drag she is now.

Biden - as with the Hippocratic Oath, rule #1 with a VP pick is do no harm. With Joe Biden, Obama helped calm concerns that he would be untested In foreign policy - he would only be tested by Mr. Biden's many gaffes!

George W Bush - with abysmal 25% public approval ratings, Obama has skillfully hung him around McCain's neck like a millstone and it has worked. Voters are looking for a way to punish him on the way out. The Republican brand image has suffered severe damage and they will lose at least six if not up to ten Senate seats along with thirty House seats. Thanks George!!

Can McCain win?
Yes, but his path runs thru PA and hanging onto OH, FL, and NC. Some argue that the polls have been wrong this year by over sampling, there may be a lot of undecideds breaking a the last minute…at least these are the McCain campaign's talking points over the weekend. The polls have tightened over the past few days and many of the swing states are within the margin of error. If he does score an upset by making the electoral college math work (I think he has about a 10% chance of doing this) there is the real possibility of 2000 all over again with the electoral college winner losing the nationwide popular vote. In hindsight given the dynamics of the campaign there was little chance he had any path to victory. I do think he made it closer than a Romney or Huckabee would have, but Obama is an absolute phenom who took this election by storm.

A blowout?
If certain things such as turnout and organization for Obama skew more his way than I think, he could well run up the total upwards of 375 electoral votes. This means the swing states all go his way and he picks off states like Louisiana and Georgia due to extraordinary African-American turnout. Even Arizona could go blue if some of the national polls showing Obama up by over 10 are indeed correct. Not quite a blowout, but a good decisive victory for Obama. McCain did hold the South and actually out-performed Bush in some of these states (WV and AR come to mind), but fared poorly in many traditionally Republican regions elsewhere. Obama's freshness, incredibly disciplined campaign, and organization served him well!

Massachusetts Results

Obama wins Massachusetts 62-38 (will be one Obama's top states behind VT, NY,and IL)
No incumbents lose in the state legislature - 100% reelection rate yet again (yes, it was a 100% reelection rate as always) …(I am hoping Diane Wilkerson wins the sticker campaign even though she has dropped out - it will just be funny if she does!) It was Obama 61-36 so I almost nailed it, Nader and Barr took the remainder

Massachusetts Ballot Questions
Question 1 to eliminate the income tax fails 60-40 Question 2 to decriminalize marijuana passes 55-45 Question 3 to ban greyhound racing passes 51-49 I was pretty close on these!