New poll shows Coakley still way out in front, Pagliuca rising.

The Western New England College Polling Institute has released results of a poll on the Senate race conducted last week that continues to show a comfortable lead for Attorney General Martha Coakley. The poll was conducted from October 18-22, and included surveys of 468 registered voters. (Margin of error +/- 4.5 percent.)

According to a press release on the poll results, Coakley leads the Democratic field with 37% of registered Dems and unenrolled voters, followed by Pagliuca at 14% (I guess those commercials are having an impact), Capuano at 13%, and Khazei at 4%. The poll found 26% of voters are still undecided.

Coakley continued to win the name recognition battle, maintaining 43% favorables over 19% unfavorables.  Capuano and Pagliuca both had 27% favorables over 13% and 12% unfavorables, respectively, and 60% of respondents had not heard of either candidate.  The release does not include Khazei name recognition numbers.

On the Republican side, the poll found that only 18% of voters had heard of Scott Brown, and he posted a 13% favorable/6% unfavorable result.  Both Coakley and Capuano handily beat Brown in a potential matchup.  Coakley leads Brown 58% to 32% among likely voters, and Capuano leads him 49% to 33%.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hope you will reconsider your thoughts on the ON The Record Herald dust up- Please check out David from BMG's story on it- It's tricky but Martha's been tarnished by a non-story-
Would love to have you comment after you read and re-listen to this
Thanks!
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/17433/the-heralds-bizarre-hit-job-on-martha-coakley

Anonymous said...

Sorry- posted my comment on wrong story- you probably guessed that!

The Senator said...

I don't know that I had thoughts on it, I just noted that I failed to mention it.

Whether or not it's a non-story, it WAS worth noting.

The Senator said...

As an aside, Khazei was both correct and gracious on this issue today: “I give her a pass on that. All of us make mistakes. We get distracted by these silly comments,” said City Year founder Alan Khazei, who is political novice. “I’m going to make silly comments too. We jump on her and say it’s a big faux pas. Look, I’ve never been a candidate. I’ve already made mistakes so I don’t think it’s a big issue in this race.”

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20091026coakley_few_go_to_senate_with_foreign_policy_experience/

Anonymous said...

Hate to beat a dead horse but when your candidate is consistently lied about and denigrated by a newspaper you get a little grumpy.

I didn't think her sister comment was at all notable in the context of Wu's weird question about Martha's international travel- Mentioning you had a sister living in the middle east was just an obvious answer- Did you get a chance to read David's piece and listen to the clip again?
Here's a part with the audio following on BMG-
David is one of the original founders of BMG-he's pretty reliable and fair.

"And, as it turns out, the Herald's "interpretation" is a total hatchet job. Coakley did mention her sister who lives overseas -- but that was in response to Janet Wu's overly long, multipart question. Here's the actual Q&A. Wu seemed most interested not in "foreign policy experience," but rather in overseas travel. And in that context, I think you'll agree that Coakley's response was entirely appropriate and not even remotely "Palin-esque."

The Senator said...

The problem with me responding in comments is that I can't edit them if I forget to add context. For me, the comment about her sister WAS worth noting, but for jokes and humor, not anything serious.

As I mentioned yesterday, I thought Coakley was stellar in the interview. I didn't think the comment about her sister took away from her performance, and far too much has been made about it.

Still, it was something different that was said, and it was worth noting.

PS - I am trying to figure out how to move these comments to the appropriate post.

KJ said...

Wait a minute...why are we putting any stock in the results of this poll? Only 52% of those polled said they were likely to vote in December. Over 25% pretty seemed sure they wouldn't vote at all! How valuable is a poll of people who won't be voting in the actual election?

Anonymous said...

Are these candidates using Massachusetts firms for all those ads my husband and I see all day, everyday? I would hope so, but I somehow doubt it.

Post a Comment