Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Boston Globe) Senate poll: Coakley up 15 points
Boston Globe ^ | January 10, 2010 | Matt Viser and Frank Phillips

Posted on 01/10/2010 2:37:37 AM PST by Zakeet

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

Coakley’s lead grows to 17 points - 53 percent to 36 percent - when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally. The results indicate that Brown has a steep hill to climb to pull off an upset in the Jan. 19 election. Indeed, the poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win.

“She’s simply better known and better liked than Brown,’’ said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the poll for the Globe.

“If there ever was a time for a Republican to win here, now is the time,’’ Smith added. “The problem is you’ve got a special election and a relatively unknown Republican going up against a well-liked Demo crat.’’

The poll, conducted Jan. 2 to 6, sampled the views of 554 randomly selected likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: 2010polls; brown; coakley; election; ma2010; scottbrown; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
On one hand: The Boston Glob is owned by the New York Times, and we all know how truthful that bunch of libtards is in general and when running a push poll in particular.

On the other hand: The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts has a penchant for sending absolute idiots such as Teddy, Kerry and Bawney to Dee Cee. And Rats will be counting the votes. And Acorn will be running buses to the slums.

Conclusion: Despite what other polls say, and no matter how people actually vote, my money is still on the Rat.

1 posted on 01/10/2010 2:37:40 AM PST by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Mine, too, but I’d like to see a comparison between the widely differing polls, the methodology, the number of those polled.


2 posted on 01/10/2010 2:42:30 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The polls are all over the place but again its Mass, so money is definitely on the Dim.


3 posted on 01/10/2010 2:42:44 AM PST by sunmars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The poll with Brown up:

PPP surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of error is +/-3.6%.

The Globe poll:

The poll, conducted Jan. 2 to 6, sampled the views of 554 randomly selected likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

The Brown poll is more recent, with a larger sampling, and a smaller margin of error.

Hmmmm...

4 posted on 01/10/2010 2:45:14 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Bubba wouldn't be getting involved if Coakley were actually up 15 points.
5 posted on 01/10/2010 2:47:29 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin - For such a time as this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
Good point.

I can't wait to vote. I live in a lib neighborhood and will be wearing a Scott Brown button when I go to the polling place. :D

6 posted on 01/10/2010 3:15:35 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
a relatively unknown Republican going up against a well-liked Democrat.

Coakley is "well-liked"? First I've heard of it!

In any case, all those Coakley fans who read the Globe (must be all of them) can rest easy and not worry about getting to the polls, since she's such a shoo-in! ;-)

7 posted on 01/10/2010 3:20:54 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

“Sample Size: 554 randomly selected Massachusetts adults
The data have been weighted by the number of adults in a household and the number of telephone numbers at
which a household can be reached in order to equalize the chances of an individual MA adult being selected.
The data have also been weighted by the sex and race of the respondent and the region of the state based on
the American Community Survey conducted by the US Census.”


8 posted on 01/10/2010 3:25:19 AM PST by Josh Painter ("We cannot spare this woman. She fights" - David Karki re: Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Exactly, even crazy people in Tennessee are giving money to Brown’s campaign.


9 posted on 01/10/2010 3:26:56 AM PST by eyedigress ( now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Not according to this Democrat Poll.

According to this group it is a tie with Brown slightly ahead.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/Poll_Scott_Brown_leading_Coakley_4847.html

Republicans have a very real chance at orchestrating a Massachusetts miracle in this month’s special Senate election to determine Ted Kennedy’s successor, at least according to a new Democratic poll out tonight.

The shocking poll from Public Policy Polling shows Republican state senator Scott Brown leading Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, which would mean the race is effectively tied.

Among independents, who make up 51 percent of the electorate in the Bay State, Brown leads Coakley 63 percent to 31 percent.

Just 50 percent of voters view Coakley favorably, while 42 percent viewing her unfavorably.

Brown, who began an advertising blitz this month, sports a strong 57 percent favorability rating, with just 25 percent viewing him unfavorably – very strong numbers for a Republican in the heavily Democratic state.

On the issue of health care, which Brown has emphasized that he would be the deciding vote against, 47 percent said they opposed the plan in Congress while 41 percent supported it.

A Rasmussen Reports survey from earlier this week had showed Coakley’s lead down to 9 points, and in last night’s debate she had questioned the accuracy of those numbers, suggesting her margin of victory would in fact be larger.

The survey of 744 likely voters was conducted January 7-9 and had a margin of error of 3.6 percent.

In his analysis, pollster Tom Jensen noted that Coakley is suffering from a less-than excited Democratic electorate, a dynamic similar to the gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia that Democrats lost last year .

“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said PPP pollster Dean Debnam.. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”


10 posted on 01/10/2010 3:34:33 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Demand Constitutionality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
When you read the pdf of the poll look at the section marked education level it is most revealing. This section shows(and I am no expert so please experts chime in), less then high school within 3 points, some college within 6 points, college graduated 1 point, post college 50 point advantage to Dem. What does this mean? TO me it looks like they surveyed to many pointed head liberals to get the result they wanted. I ask the polling people on this board to please confirm what I am guessing at.
11 posted on 01/10/2010 4:39:20 AM PST by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Jan 6 poll announced 4 days later?

Poll might be good, but very small sample size and how has the track record been of University of New Hampshire Survey Center, doing polls in Mass? Why go to NH, no polling places in MA?

I’m not saying I disagree with poll. The newer poll showing a dead heat may have caught some last minute movement especially from folks who only started to make up their minds after the holidays. Also, the newer poll seemed to be attentive to expected turnout while this NH pollster may have kept the same turnout figures as presidential election.

Another selection from article:

And there are other glimmers of hope for the Republican: Roughly a quarter of those surveyed have not yet made up their minds, and Brown matches Coakley - both were at 47 percent - among the roughly 1 in 4 respondents who said they were “extremely interested’’ in the race.


12 posted on 01/10/2010 5:02:18 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Clinton is involved? When was the last time his support helped win?


13 posted on 01/10/2010 5:04:02 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Alas, we know the bias of the average poli sci prof/university. One thing I note is the UNH poll says it is of ‘likely’ voters, yet it includes those who simply say they ‘may’ vote, only excludes who outright say they won’t.

On the other hand, the PPP poll doesn’t say that it rotates the order of names, instead always listing Brown first, and it doesn’t identify the independent candidate by name at all.

I’d almost say each poll is reaching for its relative result.


14 posted on 01/10/2010 5:06:38 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
It has been a while. That is why I think this election has become a lose/lose for Obama. It Coakley pulls it out Clinton will get the credit. If she loses Obama gets the blame. In either case Obie looks impotent.
15 posted on 01/10/2010 5:07:35 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin - For such a time as this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/bg_2010-jan10.pdf

Poll


16 posted on 01/10/2010 5:08:45 AM PST by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

From the article: “Roughly a quarter of those surveyed have not yet made up their minds, and Brown matches Coakley - both were at 47 percent - among the roughly 1 in 4 respondents who said they were “extremely interested’’ in the race.”

Some of the results reported simply do not seem internally consistent. And other results, including what I quote immediately above, surely indicate that the Dems’ support is as soft in MA as it is nationwide. Even the article concedes that turnout will be low — no higher than 35% compared to 50% in a general election.

The pollster comes across as supremely confident that Coakley has an insurmountable lead. Even taken at face value, the evidence simply does NOT point to that. Ergo, the pollster has been misrepresented by the article’s author or is a hack. Anyone worth his salt would be hedging his bets a lot more than this guy has done.

I am not at all dissuaded from my own bullish sense, now weeks-old, that Brown has a real shot at taking this election. Perhaps not 50-50. But likely not all that much worse.


17 posted on 01/10/2010 5:11:04 AM PST by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

One other thing ... If this state is such a blue stronghold, why is such a HUGE fraction of the state’s electorate ... INDEPENDENT? Especially if the only game in the state is Democratic, wouldn’t one think that everyone would want to be registered as such?

There’s a lot I just don’t buy about the conventional wisdom that MA is overwhelmingly blue. A fair chunk of it just does NOT add up.


18 posted on 01/10/2010 5:14:33 AM PST by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

More on this poll shows that “likely voters” was self selected. They simply asked. Gallup article says that is not enough:

The simplest example of such a “likely voter” question is the most straightforward: “Are you going to vote on Election Day?” A pollster could simply accept the respondents at their own word, and include in the final likely voter sample those who say yes, and eliminate those who say no. The major problem with this procedure is the natural inclination of the majority of registered voters who are interviewed before an election to say that they are going to vote — without giving it much thought. In fact, Gallup research indicates that, on a routine basis, about 90% of registered voters will tell an interviewer that they are very likely to vote on Election Day.

But, variants on the idea of asking individuals questions in order to determine their probability of falling into the sample of likely Election Day voters can be quite effective. Over the years, Gallup has developed a series of questions that provide a good prediction of the probability that an individual will end up voting. These questions include asking whether or not the individual knows the location of his or her voting place, whether or not the individual voted in the past election, how closely the person is following the election, and so forth.

Based on more than 65 years of experience predicting “likely voters,” Gallup’s analysts have developed computer programs which give each person interviewed a score based on how they answer these questions. Those with the highest score have the highest probability of voting. These people have voted in the past, know where to vote, and have a high degree of interest in the election. Those with low scores have a low probability of voting. Despite what they say they are going to do, they don’t know where to vote, they hadn’t voted in the past, and they have a lower level of interest in the election. Thus, the computer program judges them to have a lower probability of actually voting.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4636/how-define-likely-voters.aspx


19 posted on 01/10/2010 5:22:28 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

this, sadly, seems more realistic. Massachusetts has been sending Ds to Washington for decades. Like diarrhea in Mexico water, so is idiot federal voting in the Bsy State.


20 posted on 01/10/2010 5:24:12 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
why is such a HUGE fraction of the state’s electorate ... INDEPENDENT?

Because "independent" means "even the democrats are too conservative for me".

21 posted on 01/10/2010 5:27:46 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I don’t care what a boston glob poll says.i saw that poll and started to laugh. What a fraud.
They had a survey last nite from boston.com on who you would vote for senator with Coakley listed first (must be the new alphabet).
Anyway with over 8000 sampled Brown was leading 54-46%. That was last night.


22 posted on 01/10/2010 5:38:46 AM PST by TShaunK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Eh...

I think we have two separate points here.

It is MA and I’ll believe the Democrat loses when it happens.

Same time I trust RAss and he had a lead that was less then 10 points for her. Plus Clinton wouldn’t be headed there if it was separated by 5 points. So while I lean Dem retention I don’t accept this poll result.


23 posted on 01/10/2010 5:44:13 AM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TShaunK

I don’t believe either the Globe poll or the PPP poll. I believe Coakley win by about 5-7% because of ACORN.


24 posted on 01/10/2010 5:46:36 AM PST by techno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: drellberg

From an online survey from last nite Boston globe. (boston.com)
They are making the 15 point lie up so it goes national to discourage donaters.

Republican state Senator Scott Brown will face off against Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Jan. 19 special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s US Senate seat. If the election were held today, whom would you vote for?

Scott Brown
54.1%
Martha Coakley
45.9%
Total votes: 8782

Boston.com’s surveys are not scientifically valid. They reflect the opinions of only those who vote. More


25 posted on 01/10/2010 5:48:25 AM PST by TShaunK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I can't wait to vote. I live in a lib neighborhood and will be wearing a Scott Brown button when I go to the polling place. :D

I'd recommend not doing that. Some rat working the polling station may "accidentally" spoil your ballot or find some lame excuse for not letting you vote.

26 posted on 01/10/2010 5:51:04 AM PST by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Republican state Senator Scott Brown will face off against Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Jan. 19 special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s US Senate seat. If the election were held today, whom would you vote for?
Martha Coakley
Scott Brown

[ View results ]

Boston.com’s surveys are not scientifically valid. They reflect the opinions of only those who vote. More

(The results are Brown up 54-46% with close to 9000 surveyed)


27 posted on 01/10/2010 5:57:40 AM PST by TShaunK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

That is very funny, and too likley true in too many cases!


28 posted on 01/10/2010 5:59:43 AM PST by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TShaunK

.......They reflect the opinions of only those who vote.......

All those cubbyholes are meaningless if large portions of the previous vote don’t turn out. The desire for status quo may be high but not motivate voters to get out. The desire for change might be a stronger motivater


29 posted on 01/10/2010 6:00:26 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . What ever I do is what shall bean the production line than to operate the equipm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: drellberg

It’s because they feel less bad about being knee-jerk followers if they can flatter themselves about being ‘independent’.

But they have voted for a number of Republican governors over the past couple of decades, so there is hope.


30 posted on 01/10/2010 6:00:34 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TShaunK

The most important part of a poll is the random selection. Polls which request participation are not random.


31 posted on 01/10/2010 6:01:04 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Dems are in a cold sweat over this race.

Much closer that 15 points, but she may be still ahead.

That it is this close is extraordinary in itself.

Pray for a miracle. It may happen.

32 posted on 01/10/2010 6:06:03 AM PST by Col Frank Slade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

Take a look at the party affiliation of the sample.

More than half say they are RATS and the proportion of self-described independents is miniscule when you consider that indies are supposed to be the plurality in MA.

I dont know what is going to happen, but at first glance this poll appears to me to have been manipulated by oversampling RATS.


33 posted on 01/10/2010 6:22:09 AM PST by freespirited (People talk about "too big to fail." Our government is too big to succeed. --Chris Chocola)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
They always oversample to spin the results.

Let's see what Rasmussen and other professional polling outfits show later this week. I'd like to see a sample of at least 5000 MA residents that is weighted correctly.

34 posted on 01/10/2010 6:27:50 AM PST by Col Frank Slade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Rep 11%
Dem approx 35%
Unenrolled 50+%


35 posted on 01/10/2010 7:08:32 AM PST by GQuagmire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

If Dems are having to swing out Bill Clinton to cheerlead for her, that means they are very worried, they shouldnt have to campaign in Mass, its like Dem Heaven for Dem politicians.


36 posted on 01/10/2010 7:11:10 AM PST by sunmars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
If Dems are having to swing out Bill Clinton to cheerlead for her, that means they are very worried, they shouldnt have to campaign in Mass, its like Dem Heaven for Dem politicians.

Yes, look at the actions being taken. MSM polls are too often skewed to help drive public opinion via bandwagon effect. The campaigns' internal polls are the truly accurate ones, and they drive how the campaigns' behave.

Case in point: during the California gubernatorial recall, the final set of LA Times polls the week before the vote showed the public voting "no" on the recall by a good margin and Bustamante beating Ahnold by something like 13 points. IOW, Davis should have stayed governor. If that set of polls were wrong and he was recalled, Bustamate should have been governor. Didn't quite work out that way ...
37 posted on 01/10/2010 7:17:24 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I don’t give a damn what any poll says. We are talking about America’s future here.

With apologies to Winston Churchill, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Massachusetts, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend American freedom, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if America or a large part of it is subjugated to Obama’s Marxism, then freedom-loving Americans shall carry on the struggle until, in God’s good time, a majority of Americans step forth to the rescue and the liberation of this nation.

Take the fight to the enemy. Contribute to Scott Brown.


38 posted on 01/10/2010 7:18:01 AM PST by olrtex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

A voter from the Boston Herald:

“J.P. Licks owner Vince Petryk said he’s drawn to Coakley’s stance on abortion rights and same-sex marriage. As a business owner, he said, he wants Coakley to become a “voice that will help cut the bureaucracy” that hinders small businesses.”

Such are the idiots and imbeciles in MA.


39 posted on 01/10/2010 8:40:11 AM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I hope the Dems believe the Globe poll and get lazy, stay home. I hope the Repubs & Indys believe the PPP poll, get energized, go vote.

Send Scott some financial love.


40 posted on 01/10/2010 9:15:55 AM PST by BAW (I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Such are the idiots and imbeciles in MA.

Sigh, we had a Brown thread the other day and I got trolled pretty hard for saying the same thing. My state has its pockets of morons as do most states. Mass though...marone! From border to border, utterly brain dead, at least 65% of the population. When did that state go off the rails so much, why are so many Mass folks so utterly corrupt, ignorant and covetous.

41 posted on 01/10/2010 9:22:10 AM PST by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

“Bubba wouldn’t be getting involved if Coakley were actually up 15 points.”

And neither would Massachusetts Dem political operative, former Ted Kennedy staffer and Kennedy family cronie Mary Anne Marsh if Coakley weren’t in deep doo doo. Go Scott Go!!!


42 posted on 01/10/2010 9:42:20 AM PST by moose2004 (Stand up, speak out and stop Obamacare and GE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet; Darkwolf377; sunmars

This Boston Globe poll reminds me of Newsweek’s final poll in the 2004 presidential election that showed Kerry up by 9, don’t you agree?


43 posted on 01/10/2010 9:45:09 AM PST by moose2004 (Stand up, speak out and stop Obamacare and GE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; Norman Bates; LdSentinal; ExTexasRedhead; ...

Here’s that Boston Globe poll we’d mentioned in another thread. Small sample polled by a newspaper that the New York Times owns.


44 posted on 01/10/2010 9:48:26 AM PST by Clintonfatigued (Liberal sacred cows make great hamburger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

“..and it doesn’t identify the independent candidate by name at all”

Rasmussen (Coakley 50 - Brown 41) didn’t name the Libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy either simply because he is polling extremely low. Do you remember NJ’s gov race last year and all the hype about the Libertarian candidate polling between 12 and 18 points? When it was all said and done on election night the 3rd party candidate got 5%.


45 posted on 01/10/2010 9:52:54 AM PST by moose2004 (Stand up, speak out and stop Obamacare and GE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

This is going to be a close race either way. I still think SB pulls it off. Rasmussen and PPP polls seem to be the ones that are most accurate, IIRC.

Did you see his new TV ad? The one with him and his truck with 199,000+ miles on it? The ad ends with him walking in the front door at his house and someone saying “Hi Dad”.

Great ad- shows he’s a “regular guy”, not a pseudo-aristocrat like Maaaarth!


46 posted on 01/10/2010 9:57:07 AM PST by GOPsterinMA (Never bring a snowball to a gun fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
IF 2010 is another 1994 for Republicans it will be elections like Brown-Coakley that offer an indication. In 1994, well entrenched Democrats lost. These were races that no one could have imagined Dems losing. But it happened. Well, no one can conceive of Teddy's bar stool seat being filled by a Republican, but if it happens, we're gonna party like it's 1994.
47 posted on 01/10/2010 10:04:04 AM PST by vamoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Go ahead dems, go back to sleep, this is Uncle Teds seat we are talking about.


48 posted on 01/10/2010 10:15:40 AM PST by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moose2004

Chances are that adds a couple of points to Brown’s total, however—because that’s where more of Kennedy’s voters are coming from.

Hey, I think the momentum is still swinging his way and he could pull it off. The Globe poll is clear propaganda, I’m just thinking the other poll might have been reaching a bit on the other side as well.


49 posted on 01/10/2010 10:18:00 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Sssh, dont wke the dems from their sleep.

Only us political junkies know this.

I like the fact that you are taking UNH to task by providing cold hard evidence!!!

Posts like yours are what make FReeping great!!!


50 posted on 01/10/2010 10:28:22 AM PST by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson