Premium Sponsor

Featured Sponsor

Our Sponsors

Ad Networks

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

MA-Gov: Patrick Looks Better, Thanks to Cahill

by: Crisitunity

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM EST

Suffolk University (pdf) (11/4-8, likely voters, 9/12-15 in parentheses):

Deval Patrick (D-inc): 38 (36)
Christy Mihos (R): 20 (17)
Tim Cahill (I): 26 (24)
Deval Patrick (D-inc): 36 (36)
Charlie Baker (R): 15 (14)
Tim Cahill (I): 26 (23)
(MoE: 4%)

This poor poll has been getting kicked down the road behind the scenes here at SSP for half a week now, but let's give it its due. It sees incumbent Democratic governor Deval Patrick in a weird position: his approvals are upside-down, at 42/51 -- worse than many governors currently seen as losing their 2010 races -- and he has an even-worse re-elect of 32/55. Nevertheless, he's somehow still thumping his opposition, winning three-way matchups by 10 points.

Patrick is one of the few endangered Dem governors who seems to be improving his position as the year wears on, and it seems to be all thanks to the presence of Tim Cahill, the Dem-turned-independent state Treasurer who seems to split the anti-Patrick vote, which, if added up, is the plurality of the vote. The state's few Republicans are sticking with the full-on Rs, while Cahill seems to pick up the Dems who can't stomach voting for Patrick or a Republican. This can be seen in the polls before Cahill got in, where Patrick trailed his Republican opponents, versus the ones after Cahill's entry -- the most recent of which, Suffolk's previous poll and Rasmussen, have Patrick up by double digits.

RaceTracker Wiki: MA-Gov

Crisitunity :: MA-Gov: Patrick Looks Better, Thanks to Cahill

Tags: Christy Mihos, Charlie Baker, Tim Cahill, Deval Patrick, MA-Gov, Suffolk, Polls, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

MA-Gov: Patrick Looks Better, Thanks to Cahill | 34 comments

This is a result of the Democratic brand in the Northeast

It's been said before, but the recent movement to Republicans is happening almost exclusively in the South and maybe in Midwestern rural areas. Democrats will do fine in New England in 2010. I expect us to gain a monopoly on governorships pretty easily. The only Dems who do poorly up here from now on will be those viewed as completely ineffective or corporate shrills like Corzine, Paterson, and Dodd.

by: xcave @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:22:54 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Okay, but...

Since you brought up Dodd -- SENATE seats in New England look a lot trickier than governorships, and frankly, they are more consequential as well in the short term.

Dems are not "fine" if Dodd loses. The national Senate map is biased enough toward Republicans as it is -- we can't afford to lose Senate seats in New England. Also, I think Paul Hodes' race is a real question mark. Between those two races, 2010 is going to be a huge year for close & important U.S. Senate races in this region. I hope you're right that the Democratic brand hasn't taken a serious hit in New England.

by: JR12 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:02:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

He gets by with a little help from his frenemies.

by: SC @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:23:12 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Tim Cahill's no Chris Daggett

I suspect if the political climate remains as anti-incumbent as it currently is, Cahill could pull a massive upset. After all, isn't party registation in MA something along the lines of 40/40/20 Dem/Indie/GOP?

by: andyroo312 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:33:35 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It's 34-36/16-20/50

According to SUSA and the Sec State's office as of 2006.

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:45:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Indies are overrated

Independents almost always have a strong preference for republicans or democrats. And in the northeast they usually break for democrats. Corzine was sort of an exception to the rule.

by: ChadInFL @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:56:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Take this with a grain of salt

but an RNC poll said that Christie got a whopping 38% of the Jewish vote during the election.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

by: ehstronghold @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:28:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

That's impossible

I don't believe that. No was does a Jewish incumbent only get 38% of the vote in NJ. He had to have gotten 60% minimum.

by: ChadInFL @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:53:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Actually, Corzine's religion is United Church of Christ.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)

by: californianintexas @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:15:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Wow... never knew that

I thought for sure he was Jewish.

by: ChadInFL @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:19:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't buy it

First, I think most Jews assume that he's Jewish. Second Loretta Weinberg. Third, Christie pressed a lot of the wrong buttons for Jews.

by: andgarden @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:21:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Also, "Jon" without an H

by: andgarden @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:23:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't think so...

Corzine's not really a Jewish last name. And a good number of New Jersey Jews are Orthodox and hence more willing to vote for Republicans.

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:32:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Your first point is debatable, because

there's really no index of Jewish names. But your second point is absurd. John Kerry won 75% in NJ in 2004, for example. (2008 Figures are unavailable, but presumably about the same).

by: andgarden @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:24:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

There may be no index of Jewish names

but being a Jew from the Northeast I can say that most of us can tell when a last name is Jewish or not. That's not to say that every Jewish person has a last name like Goldstein or Bloom or whatever, but a name like Corzine definitely does not register on the Jewdar.

I'm not saying that NJ's Jewish population is normally conservative but going off anecdotal evidence I feel like the Orthodox population in NJ is more open to voting Republican, at least outside of national races.

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:39:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Honestly, I can buy Christie getting 38%...

If Kerry was getting 75% of the Jewish vote while he won with 53% statewide, Corzine garnering 62% while losing 45% statewide is not only plausible, but actually makes sense.

by: andyroo312 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:43:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Not if you understand anything about how

Jews and other minorities tend to vote. Honestly, go back and compare the percentage of the black vote Corzine got.

Christie won by running up the margin with white christians. If he had won by ten points, you might have a point.

by: andgarden @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:53:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, as another Jew from the northeast

I can tell you that Corzine could or could not be Jewish, but the spelling of Jon would indicate that it probably is. Of course, anyone who investigated would find out differently. But voters just don't tend to do that.

by: andgarden @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:51:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I know plenty of goyim named Jon

at any rate, given how Corzine overperformed in Bergen County I'm sure he did fine with the Jewish vote, but I doubt he did as well as Kerry or Obama.

by: sapelcovits @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:49:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hardly any guts to the poll

I was looking for Conservative/Moderate/Liberal internals and didn't find any. Are there a lot of Mass Dems who don't love what Patrick is doing but are just weary of Cahill's centrism? Also, for those from Mass., do you see any ideological difference between Coakley and Capuano. I loved Capuano's anti-death penalty commercial. Has he out-liberaled Coakley?

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:39:43 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Reminds me of TX-Gov '06

Perry looked weak all cycle, narrowly avoided a competitive primary to a same party Comptroller (i.e. Treasurer) who went indy, then won with a small plurality (39%). All that's missing is your Kinky.

by: omarka @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:31:21 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Interesting

how two Democrats running actually hurts the Republican.

by: skaje @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:12:12 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

As I've said before

the state is less divided among partisan lines and more along pro-Patrick/anti-Patrick lines. With two anti-Patrick candidates on the ballot, they split the vote.

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:03:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Patrick seems to have a die-hard base

that will vote for him no matter what judging by the recent numbers. It looks like a chunk of D's, almost all R's, and most I's want him gone, but as long as he has that diehard base and Cahill in the mix Patrick will still be Governor come January 2011. This is very similar to Corzine/Christie/Daggett. Folks hate the incumbent, but the GOP challengers Mihos and Baker are pretty generic and aren't offering much in the way of concrete alternatives, creating space for an Independent candidate to make a run. Unlike Daggett though, I don't see Cahill fading fast - he's already a statewide elected official and he's within reaching distance of Patrick. The reason why Daggett fell was because most voters came to the conclusion that he wasn't going to win and a vote for him would be wasted, so they went for Christie. As long as Cahill stays competitive Patrick has a fighting chance as those anti-incumbent voters will be split, but if his campaign collapses in any way than Patrick will have to pack his bags.

As a side note, it's become pretty apparent that we had a lot of weaker gubernatorial candidates in 2006 that were largely elected due to the anti-GOP wave (Ritter, Culver, Patrick) and now we're paying the price in a diametrically opposite environment.

by: DFLer @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:24:12 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't think it is so much that

But simply being the head of state government in bad economic times. Lots of GOP governors have bad numbers too. The seats on the table look to me something like they pick up ten and the Dems pick up roughly the same, maybe a bit less.

by: conspiracy @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:28:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Meaning

Repubs likely win KS, OK, TN and WY while Dems win CA, HI, VT and RI (including Chafee). They have work to do holding AL, SD, SC, GA and particularly AZ, NV, FL, MN and CT.

Dems have their work cutout in MA, OH, IA, CO, MI, PA, WI and maybe NY. ME, OR, MD, IL and NM will probably be ok but are worth watching.

All in all I think a big turnaround but not vastly in either direction.

by: conspiracy @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:40:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

VT is a bit worrisome

since Dubie has been elected in his own right. But I agree about the others.

by: sapelcovits @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:46:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

LG has zero duties in Vermont

like most states, really. Dubie is going to actually have to take positions on issues now.

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 17:49:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't see how Dubie wins

It looks like the left will finally unify around one candidate this time around and VT is one state Obama still extremely popular in.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 20:40:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Sounds about right

Right now I'd say:
Leaning D Pickup - CA,HI,VT,RI,CT
Leaning R Pickup - WY,TN,OK,KS
Tossup(R seats) - FL,MN,NV,AZ (close to lean D)
Tossup (D seats) - IA,CO,MI,PA,WI,MI

Lean D Hold - MA,OH,ME
Lean R Hold - GA,AL,SC

Probably a wash with no more than a net pickup of 2 states either direction. However picking up CA more than makes up for losing several states redistricting-wise. Florida is another critical one to avoid another GOP gerrymander.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:07:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

But those guys are underperforming

A guy like Strickland I left out precisely because of the bad economy, but Ritter, Culver, and Patrick have all pissed off their base and have made some bad gaffes locally. And it could be argued that had 2006 been a neutral year they would have lost.

by: DFLer @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:10:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Remember

The Dem base didn't love Ritter in 2006 either. In fact, many progressives at the State Convention were actively holding anti-Ritter signs. His pick of Barbara O'Brien appeased most, but he won despite not being loved by much of anyone. Of course, Beauprez's campaign was an epic fail, but I don't see much talent in the GOP contest this year, either. Yeah, McInnis will poll well on the Western Slope and, maybe, in the traditionally-Democratic San Luis Valley, but he'll need more than that, and I just don't see him making inroads into the Front Range.

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:23:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Exactly

Had 2006 not been such an easy year for some Democrats, we'd be talking about unseating a lot more GOP Governors. I don't think Colorado would be nearly as much of a heartburn if Hickenlooper were Governor right now.

by: DFLer @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:12:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yeah

But my point is that he really can't be more unloved now than he was in 2006. I think he'll survive just because Colorado is becoming bluer. Now, if the GOP had picked a moderate from the Front Range (and I'm stretching the term to include all of Larimer County--Steve Johnson, I'm lookin' at you), we'd have a dog-fight. Or, even, if they'd gone with a State Rep. or Sen. from the burgeoning south Denver suburbs (Nancy Spence? Balmer?), I might be more worried.

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 20:08:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

MA-Gov: Patrick Looks Better, Thanks to Cahill | 34 comments