Footsteps...new poll shows race tightening

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)

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...

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...

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

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

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

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