The InsiderAdvantage Poll (updated)

[ProSense]

The latest poll from InsiderAdvantage/Politico really gives Brown some suspect numbers:

18-29..........61.0
30-44..........55.7
45-64..........49.1
65+.............47.8
White..........53.6
Black...........26.8
Hispanic........76.9
Other............46.4
Male.............54.9
Female.........49.5
Republican......85.5
Democrat.......24.1
Independent....68.7


A teabagger in Mass?



Updated to add: Barack Obama got 78 percent of the 18-29 vote.

[Ian David]

1. Politico buries fact that pollster predicting Coakley's demise is a former Gingrich staffer

Politico buries fact that pollster predicting Coakley's demise is a former Gingrich staffer

by John Aravosis (DC) on 1/18/2010 05:16:00 PM

Nice of Politico to let us know, in the sixth paragraph of the story, that a pollster who is claiming that Coakley is in a "free fall" just happens to have worked for Newt Gingrich.

Mind you, we're not talking just that he's a Republican.

We're talking he worked for a rabid, no holds barred, take no prisoners Republican who would do pretty much anything to win. Nope, no bias there.

More:
http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/politico-buries-fact-that-pollster.html

!!!!! NEW RULE !!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7498975


What can we DO!?!?!

Make at least five calls from your own home for Martha Coakley, RIGHT NOW: http://www.my.barackobama.com/coakleyn2n

Donate to Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate RIGHT NOW: https://coakley.zissousecure.com/contribute/PFP/iandavidb

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. SEVENTY SIX percent of Hispanics?

WTF?

[Drunken Irishman]

It depends...

Hispanics make up only 7% of the population in Massachusetts. That's an extremely small number (to compare, in Utah it's almost 9%). That means a very small sample size for a poll.

It's possible they could have only polled three or four Hispanic voters.

If two of those three said they would vote for Brown, you get a skewed number.

[Mass]

7. The sample is 800 people. They should have polled 50 people.

Certainly, it would make a very small percentage, but it makes it extremely unlikely to get these results (no other poll has more than 25 %).

Same for women and young people. This polls internals are all over the place, but so are many other polls in different directions. It is difficult to know where the truth is. However, there is no poll looking good.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Right now the best polls are the ones that show her within the MOE.

If that's the case, it will come down to turnout.

I do not believe he's going to blow her out, tho.

[KingFlorez]

3. 26% of Blacks and 76% of Hispanics? Oh, heck no

That's some dodgy polling.

[WeDidIt]

4. VERY suspect numbers

That looks more in line with the Pajamas Media poll.

[Imajika]

6. Are all the polls dodgy?

Because virtually every single one of them shows Brown pulling away.

Even 538 is pretty much calling this election for Brown (74% likely that Brown wins according to Nate).

[Drunken Irishman]

9. I wouldn't say they show him pulling away.

PPP shows it within the MOE. Research 2000 shows it within the MOE.

[Grand Taurean]

10. You are very optimistic.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. No. I'm realistic.

I think Brown wins. However, the polls still suggest a tight race. It will come down to who gets their supporters out.

There I am nervous because Democrats just aren't showing interest in Coakley.

[Grand Taurean]

12. That is where Democrats are plain stupid.

Republicans come out to vote for anyone/thing to ensure the Democrats stay out of power or at least keep their power at a minimum.
I am tired of being of the few Dems who vote in every election only to be disappointed when the results come it.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. I hear you.

Democrats have had a history of sitting elections out for whatever reason. It cost them in 1994.

It might cost them tomorrow.

[Grand Taurean]

14. I am young and I'm already tired of this.

[impik]

5. 1 of 4 Democrats??? Yea, okay.

[Avalux]

15. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but....

There is NO explanation for why Coakley, who had been so far ahead, would be so far behind now, especially among Democrats. Even if she is a mediocre candidate.

The media and a lot of other groups are telling us Coakley will lose because they want it to happen; want to discourage voters. It would be huge news and cause quite an uproar.

I think we should ignore the news and the polls.

[ShadowLiberal]

16. The age numbers are the exact opposite of what you'd expect

Seriously, 65+ is the GOP's base age group, and 18-29 is our base age group, yet Coakley is winning the 65+ vote by a few points, and losing the youth vote by the same kind of margins that the GOP usually does.

Though you don't highlight it I also think the republican polling numbers are a bit odd, I mean 15% of them are voting for Coakley the democrat? That seems a bit high for an election where the republican is supposedly doing so well with independents and democrats? Remember the earlier NY house race in which Gillbrand's seat was vacant? The democrat in that race was winning nearly all the democrats in polls, as well as a sizable amount of republicans (I forget the exact number, but it was large for a democrat to be winning that much), that's why I find the GOP numbers a bit odd to.

The Hispanic numbers aren't as big of a problem as you might think, it's probably so wrong because of such a small sample size. Also Black support for republicans has polled at around 25% before when the democrat wins a normal amount of blacks (9/10's), this is actually normal, the reason for that to is because of too small of a sample size of blacks.

On the other hand, you can't explain the odd numbers for age groups & political parties with that same explanation, because their sample sizes are much larger.