Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who will win on Tuesday in Massachusetts?

With the entire political world engaged in a guessing game about what is going to happen in the Massachusetts Senate special election between state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) and state Sen. Scott Brown (R).

So, we thought we'd give Fixistas a chance to sound off about where the race will end up when all the money is spent (hopefully), all the hands are shaken and all the babies are kissed.

(Check out the Boston Globe's Senate race page for the latest developments in a race that is changing minute by minute.)

And, regular readers need not fear: on Tuesday morning, you will have your chance to make your own fearless prediction -- down to the percentage point -- of who will win (and why). Closest to the actual result will win the coveted official Fix t-shirt!

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 14, 2010; 10:40 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Poll  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic groups outspending GOP 2-1 in Mass. Senate special election
Next: Can nationalizing the special election save Martha Coakley?

Comments

Brown wins with exactly 50 percent of the vote.

Posted by: Simon23p | January 15, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Coakley will win. The Kennedy family crime machine owns the state of Massachusetts ... the government, the courts, the newspapers, the labor unions, the schools, etc ... and the Kennedy goon squad is working overtime cracking skulls and breaking kneecaps.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | January 15, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The 17th Amendment states:


When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.


___________________________________-


Once the "people fill the vancancy" that is it - no more shenanigans.


The temporary apppointment of Kirk is OVER NEXT WEEK ON TUESDAY WITH THE ELECTION.


The democrats do not have the vote of Kirk after Tuesday - anything else would create a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WHICH WOULD WARRANT MARCHES ON WASHINGTON.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

First of all, I am a proud conservative. Having said that, this is Massachusetts, not a battleground state and there is not a Rudy Giuliani-type candidate who has favorables that transcend party affiliation. Scott Brown has run a superb race, but this is the People's Republic of Massachusetts. It takes a deeply flawed Democratic candidate to lose a statewide race. Coakley, for all over hubris, has been a successful statewide candidate. Saying all of this, I am satisfied knowing that this Senate seat, which should be the safest Dem seat possible, is in enough perceived danger that the DNC, DSCC, and all of the expected union-affiliated groups are dumping millions of dollars worth of resources that won't be available in NV, CO, AR, PA, OH, NH, MO, KY, FL, ND, IL, DE, NY, etc. Special elections are a crapshoot. If this was on the same day as the midterms, I would say Coakley by 12-15%, but I would say she wins by 8-10%, which is still incredibly impressive feat.

Posted by: TexasProud1 | January 14, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Coakley 49, Brown 43, Kennedy 8

Lots of ambitious Democratic pols in MA will take that result as an invitation to primary Coakley for the full term.

Posted by: michaelriccardi62 | January 14, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse


Coakley shot back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election."


----------


Coakley doesn't even know she has to go to the Boston Garden to find a crowd this time of year.


Someone cut this chick loose, please.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Page 21 of the Boston Globe Poll shows that only 27% of those who plan to vote for Brown think Brown will win.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Reason5, you really have to look at the Boston Globe poll. The ONLY demographic Coakley loses with is Republican voters. And even there, Brown's numbers with Democrats are no better. Every other demographic group votes for Coakley, many of them overwhelmingly.

Cillizza tries to create some suspense by highlighting Coakley's slim, 6%, margin with the "very interested" voters, but that's about the only good news for Brown. The PDF is very interesting to look over: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2010/senate_race/0108010_poll_senate_race/

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The knocking down and pushing of the reporter that tried to ask Coakley a question is the defining moment in this campaign. For every voter that sees the video showing Coakley just standing there watching with her hands in her pockets doing nothing, they will say: this is exactly the way I've been treated by Obama and his democrats. They just push me around trying to shove garbage down my throat while looking on with an attitude of "who cares."

Posted by: privacy3 | January 14, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Mr Cillizza, this is the wrong poll. Brown will easily win it by 5 points. The real poll should be asking how many democrats will announce their retirement next week.

Posted by: privacy3 | January 14, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

reason5 writes
"I think the election will be decided by less than 5% points, which definately favors Brown. If there was gonna be a blowout, it would be Coakley winning with one. Since she's an awful candidate, there will be no blowout. I voted that Brown will win by less than 5%. I guess this based on momentum and the fact that the majority of Mass. voters do not support the healthcare bill's currently in congress."

Check the next thread, where the fix digs into the crosstabs a bit. Brown is close ONLY in the group 'extremely interested' in the race. The 'very interested' lean strongly towards Coakley. The somewhat and not very enthused support Coakley enormously. Projecting the outcome based on the 'extremely' group while ignoring the 'very' group will project inaccurately high support for Brown. Coakley wins, perhaps by a smaller margin than was predicted two weeks ago, but by enough that Brown concedes Tuesday night.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I think that Joe Kennedy (no relation) is actually going to get some votes from people thinking he is Bobby's son ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

reason5: So you believe that the Libertarian candidate (Joe Kennedy, no relation) won't get a single vote? He's polling at 3-6% when the polls include him. And from what I saw in the debate, he came off better than Brown or Coakley.

Posted by: Blarg | January 14, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

reason5:

I already beat you to 52% for Brown at 11:11 AM (estuartj took my actual prediction of 51%). You can have 53% or higher. It doesn't matter, though, because we are all simply "rightwingers" to think there's any chance he could win ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse


Coakley has a horrible dilemma - every commercial only drives out the other side.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

A combined 43% believes either Coakley or Brown will win by more than 5%. This is crazy to me. I think the election will be decided by less than 5% points, which definately favors Brown. If there was gonna be a blowout, it would be Coakley winning with one. Since she's an awful candidate, there will be no blowout. I voted that Brown will win by less than 5%. I guess this based on momentum and the fact that the majority of Mass. voters do not support the healthcare bill's currently in congress. Coakley is running commercials saying Brown want's to kill the healthcare bill to an electorate that is against the bill. That commercial may help Brown more than Coakley at her expense. I do think this will be an incredibly close race.
Scott Brown wins: Brown 52%-Coakley 48%.
Headline: Brown wins in Mass. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat killed the healthcare bill.

Posted by: reason5 | January 14, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

let's hope so, bsimon, or this blog is ruined for good. it's just not worth it to wade through the bile.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Many of the new visitors will not be back on Wednesday, or after.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I see now, blarg. The poll on this page is Fixed. Hence the name. I am guessing that every winger on here is refreshing the page and revoting frantically.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

You can see that this board has been overrun by rightwingers for the last week at least - so the poll results are completely skewed.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The only question that remains is: will President Obama be so badly damaged that he decides not to seek re-election in 2012?

Posted by: fugitivenyc | January 14, 2010 11:40 AM

Absolutely! Hillary is waiting in the wings hoping his approval rating continues to tank (it will).

Posted by: privacy3 | January 14, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Brown's greatest support comes from the highly interested. I've lived here in Mass. all my life and I've never seen more interest in any election.

Posted by: bradfordhjohnson | January 14, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"Turnout in the December Senate primary was about 15%. 4 times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as the Republican."

That could mean that independent voters who are extremely interested didn't vote in the primary. But it could also mean that likely voter models that only include self-identified 'extremely interested' voters are going to be way off & Coakley's lead is large.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

fugitivenyc


Very good points on the Massachusetts health care reform.


Massachusetts already has health care reform and it costs the middle class more.


People in Massachusetts understand that.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"don't you think though that this is more than just your ordinary special election?"

Its hard to call it from MN. Or from the beltway, I'd wager.

In the next thread, el Fix cites a Globe poll with a little more detail. Brown's support is strong only amongst extremely interested voters. So low turnout - i.e. limited to extremely interested voters - is Brown's best chance. If the very interested voters show up, Coakley wins. If the somewhat interested voters show up too, its a blowout.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I think the Democratic political machine just got turned on in the last week. I think they were snoozing but have come alive. I am expecting Coakley to win by 7.

Posted by: bradcpa | January 14, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

This election is really difficult for Scott Brown - who has a chance of winning


Barack Obama (D) 1,891,083 62%


John McCain (R) 1,104,284 36%

Obama won every county and every congressional district - Obama only dipped below 55% in one county.

Brown certainly has a difficult, difficult road ahead of him.


However, Brown has all the enthusiasm on his side and Coakley is a horrible candidate.

Remember Romeny was elected to Governor in Massachusetts.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

By the way, this poll is useless. Every time I refresh the page, I get to vote again. So partisans can easily vote multiple times.

Does anyone seriously believe that Scott Brown will win by more than 5%? His best polls show him tied, and they don't include the Libertarian candidate. (Who polls around 5% when he's included.) Even the trolls can't be stupid enough to think Brown will win in a blowout.

Posted by: Blarg | January 14, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

It would be world altering for the center of communism to send a repub to Washington. Not going to happen, even if the corrupt system must guarantee it.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

What a fiasco. I am a distraught Democrat, and we all see the bad news coming next Tuesday. Coakley is such a bad candidate -- almost as bad as Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine. She's just joyless, and voters just don't like her.

In addition, Massachusetts voters are unhappy with the health reform that was shoved down their throats several years ago by then-Governor Mitt Romney. They also know that the U.S. Senate's current healthcare plan is nearly identical to the Romney reform. They don't want health care "reform" if it means the middle class pays more while insurance companies add to their huge profits. Most average people want a low-cost public option or Medicare buy-in if they're going to be required to carry health insurance.

Massachusetts voters are unhappy with the results of healthcare reform, and they are unhappy with Democrats like Deval Patrick. They know Scott Brown opposes both, and they just like him more than Coakley because he's a better politician. That's why the Democrats will learn a painful lesson. The Democrats will lose Ted Kennedy's seat, and the healthcare reform legislation in Congress will die. This will set off a chain of events leading to catastrophic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The only question that remains is: will President Obama be so badly damaged that he decides not to seek re-election in 2012?

Posted by: fugitivenyc | January 14, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Turnout in the December Senate primary was about 15%. 4 times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as the Republican. And I doubt there are too many Republican party diehards in MA, because there aren't many Republicans in MA in general. So low turnout might actually be better for the Democrats. Brown's only chance is to appeal to unaffiliated voters, who are more likely to stay home on Election Day.

Posted by: Blarg | January 14, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1, don't you think though that this is more than just your ordinary special election?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"how do you think low turnout would affect this race? If turnout was suppressed by the weather, which candidate does that benefit?"

Nationally the repubs tend to benefit from low turnout. If MA matches that trend, Brown benefits. Theoretically for atypical elections only party diehards & retirees vote. Do MA retirees support Coakley or Brown?

Theoretically, your employer has to allow time for you to vote. In practice, a lot of people won't go very far out of their way to cast a ballot; i.e. they won't ask work to come in late or leave early in order to vote.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link to the Boston Globe's Senate race page. The slide show for Scott brown is amazing, and I am not being snarky here. Beautiful man marries beautiful woman, beautiful children ensue as part of beautiful life. Props to Mr and Mrs Brown: the girls are beautiful *and* accomplished.

Looking at the pictures also reminded me (and again, I am saying this in a nice way) how much extra being really attractive gets you in this world.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

This is nearly impossible to predict - this is Massachusetts we are talking about.


The additional commercials for Coakley is bound to drive up the turn-out on both sides.


I don't know if the additional commercials are a good idea. Coakley has an interest in the lowest turn-out possible.

Last year, there were some crazy polls showing McCain moving up on Obama in Massachusetts - so the the electorate does have a history of at least flirting with other candidates, at least to pollsters on the phone.


The original Tea Party was in Massachusetts, there is a history of rebellion in the state. However, this race is basically the hard core democrats who want to back up the democratic party v. those who do not want Obamacare.

One factor which has not really been considered this week: Massachusetts has already put into effect its own version of health care reform, and the word is that costs are extremely high.


This election is taking place in a state in which many people are unhappy with the state law they have in health care reform, but voting against a national health care reform will not necessarily affect what is happening in Massachusetts on health care.

The bottom line is turn-out - WHO IS SHOWING UP ON TUESDAY.

There is an electorate which suddenly will see a blitz of tv commercials and be motivated to go out and vote.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Scott Brown 52%

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

weather.com has snow showers on Monday and mostly sunny on Tuesday. Temperatures above freezing the entire weekend. About the best weather you can expect for Boston in January.

bsimon, how do you think low turnout would affect this race? If turnout was suppressed by the weather, which candidate does that benefit?

Posted by: Blarg | January 14, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

so do mass. voters really want to elect someone from the party that still is pushing that whole crazy birther issue? fellow repulican Nathan Deal, congressman from Georgia, has sent a letter to the WH, as he promised to do in November, asking for a REAL birth certificate from the Prez. You all really want this whacked out party to have power again? I wonder if this was a question on these so-called polls how much support Brown would really get. Even alot of conservative leaders and pundits have dissed this so-called "issue", but I seem to remember CC saying when talking about Palin, whether the birther statement would hurt her or not was yet to be seen. How could it possibly help her? How can it possibly help any GOPer? all it does is remind voters that the GOP will say and do anything to get back in power, even whacked out conspiracies.

Posted by: katem1 | January 14, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Brown wins 51-48. Dems will blame Coakley for basically taking off all but the last 2 weeks of the general election, but exit polls (if anyone is even doing them) would show that opposition to Health Care Reform (thus the success of Brown's "41st Vote" campaign) and Governor Patrick as primer drivers of the electorate.

Posted by: estuartj | January 14, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Coakely, by somewhere between 5 and 12, mostly due to her own lousy campaign. Next full election I think she'll be taken out in the primary.

Posted by: EricS2 | January 14, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

NWS doesn't show Tuesday's forecast yet. Sunday night & MLK day are currently projected to be a mix of rain & snow. If that holds to Tuesday & with the holiday throwing people's schedules off, what does that say for turnout?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company