Sunday, January 10, 2010

More on Massachusetts Polls

As is pretty predictable I see a lot of folks writing off our poll because the Boston Globe poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, has to be more accurate than ours because it was paid for by a newspaper and conducted by a college. It's certainly possible that we're wrong but let's look at how the university/newspaper polls did compared to the IVR polls a week and a half out in New Jersey:


Numbers 10 Days Out

Suffolk University

Corzine +9

Quinnipiac University

Corzine +5

Fairleigh Dickinson University

Corzine +1

Survey USA



Christie +3


Christie +4

Final Result

Christie +4

Doesn't mean the IVR polls are right and the college polls are wrong again, but we have a recent example where that proved to be the case. I still expect Martha Coakley to win but I'm pretty certain it's a low single digit race right now and if she does end up victorious it will be because she closed strongly.


Brandon K said...

SurveyUSA's final poll was Christie +3

Anonymous said...

Tom Jensen,

Do you have Gov Numbers in MA also or do you have only done the Senate Poll?

Unknown said...

PPP, Rasmussen and Survey USA all use automated calls for polling, don't they? How do universities do it? Just a question, I wonder if that makes a difference. People adjusting their answer based on live vs. automated voice. Just seems like the few points difference may have a very real source.

I enjoy your tweets and your blog, btw!

Brandon K said...

Oops, my bad, you were talking about polls 10 days out.

Alex S. said...

That still leaves the question of the difference between Rasmussen's poll and yours, being both automated polls. And actually, the picture works well with Rasmussen showing the race a little closer than the Globe poll.
I believe the race will go to Coakley by about 10-15 pts. And actually, if I was Obama or a democratic strategist I would be extremely happy about your poll because it will wake up the base and create the prospect of losing the supermajority. That could be a very good motivation for the midterm elections.

John Hood said...

Good job, Tom. Data speak louder than words.

Simple thoughts said...

Can you guys please do a GOP 2012 Primary poll. of just Republicans/Republican leaning independents.

I want to see where Huck,Romney,Palin,Pawlenty are at in a head to head race.

thx :)

Anonymous said...

Your polls should never be written off, even if you are an (admittedly) partisan company, because you have a demonstrable record for accuracy - or as close to it as honest polling can get.

The Boston Globe poll does Coakley no favors. As you said in your Friday analysis: "Complacency is the Democrats' biggest enemy at this point and something that needs to be overcome to avoid a potential disaster."
The BG "results" may have the effect of discouraging Democratic turnout if voters think it's in the bag.

Covenant60 said...

In this political environment (toxic to Dems), what makes you think that Coakely, rather than Brown, will close strong?

Anonymous said...

I'd be really interested to know if your polling hits cell phones or not.

Anonymous said...

If im not wrong, the last poll of PPP for New Jersey was Christie +6 not Christie +4.

The result of PPP poll was:

47% Christie
41% Corzine
11% Daggett

And the final results:

49% Christie
45% Corzine
6% Daggett

Is not the same.

I can not understand well the results of this poll for MA-Sen. Not sense.

MA-Sen -1% for dems and NC-Sen -5%?

Anonymous said...

your New Jersey numbers are all fine and well but let us not forget Hoffman +17.

Anonymous said...

We took a ride with the wife, to Ipswich and back, saw many Brown signs, not one Coakley. That's a good indicator, innit? Looks like North Shore is solidly Republican today. That's the concentration - not on every house by any means. Yet - nothing Coakley.

Web Statistics