Coakley vs. Baker

?
All I found was this one asking for pay to read:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8477941.html

Because nothing whatever has changed in the line up of state government types in the ensuing 16 years.

..for teahadists.

Now it'll be a race to see which sides zealots ditch their purity horseshit and make a working consensus of it.

Coakley was defeated by purity last time and not a truck as some might wish. It turned out for the best after Warren crushed the truck having built consensus skillfully.

Even fishy is getting a bit tired of purity on his side as he figures out how to use those opposable thumbs to keep his nostrils pinched. See,.. I knew he was something of a mouth breather.

And those immigrants were just telling you what they figure you wanted to hear. They are shrewd that way.

If recycled ad hominem Herald garbage like that is the best you can do, maybe you should move to New Hampshire so you can vote for Scott Brown.

Herald/talk radio, GOP Coordinator , "We Lose on Tuesday Associates" Holly Robichaud's crop of mental patients got spanked by the institutional republicans. Shauna and Geoff, how's that working out for ya?

I voted for someone.

Not that I could expect you to understand how voting works.

I like her and I think she was an extremely effective Middlesex DA but when I think of her as Governor, I think of the Peter Principle.

The rest of the ballot was a hoot. I also loved voting for Maura Healey. Even though he's usually running unopposed, I always fill in the little circle next the Steve Lynch's name.

FWIW: I LOVE VOTING! I'm usually the only person in my polling place and have a grand old time talking to the old ladies about turnout and other community issues. I got there last night at 7:15 pm and thanked them profusely for being open to 8 pm. My enthusiasm even made the policeman on duty smile.

More like three times the number of votes once you include Berwick, but it doesn't mean much. Keep in mind that the Democrats had a fairly competitive primary for governor (and very competitive primaries for attorney general and other downballot races), whereas Baker faced only token opposition and elections had only one or zero republican candidates. So Baker didn't invest much effort in turnout for the primary, and there are plenty of Republican-leaning voters who just didn't have any reason to vote in the primary.

(Yes, points = percentages in this context.) You're correct that the Democratic primary tightened considerably (possibly because Grossman voters were better organized or more enthusiastic than Coakley voters). However, primary polling is much more fickle than general election polling, because most people have already made up their mind about whether they agree with Democratic or Republican party positions, but primaries often come down to arbitrary feelings about whose experience and life story are more relatable. We'll have to wait and see whether the surprisingly close primary represents dissatisfaction with Coakley or not.

Turnout was low overall. We don't know how many people are out there who will only vote in November but not in September, nor which way they will go.

R turnout could also have been further depressed by the lack of interesting primary races.

And there are "no party" independent voters, in this state, who are allowed to pick a primary ballot at will. Many of them may have chosen the D ballot because the R ballot had no interesting races. Or it is possible that in the general election they split their ballot and go one way for governor and another way for downballot races, and again, the D was more relevant to them this time.

You can also imagine that there might be some D voters who picked Grossman or Berwick but would rather have Baker over Coakley. That sounds a bit far-fetched, but who knows, it might be true of some folks.

So, basically, you really can't draw any conclusions about the general election from the primary.

Coakley got nearly twice as many votes as Baker. As the two of them go head to head, as other candidates drop away, does Coakley presently actually have a two-to-one lead over Baker?

Primaries stratify on Democratic/Republican. This means that Coakley has a solid base in her own party, as does Baker, but it doesn't reflect the unenrolled voters who didn't vote in the primary but may vote in the general election. In MA, the fraction of total voters who do not belong to a party is a considerable number of people - one that has bit Coakley in the arse at least once before.

Furthermore, it doesn't reflect the Democratic party primary voters who didn't vote for Coakley, and whether they will vote for her or jump the line for Baker.

If you are a worry-wart in a campaign, you look at the figures differently. The undecideds can break all sorts of ways, or they could walk away. Also, people could see the gov race as decided, didn't care about the AG race, (and come on, the lt. gov?!) and decide to stay home. All sorts of things can happen. The basic prediction- a Coakley win- was a given, but the numbers were the issue.

Also, is the WBUR poll the best one? What about the Globe? Or the Herald/Suffolk University? I like the new thing the Herald is hyping- if you want to know the winner, look at the results in Hull and Randolph.

Of course, if you are going to figure out who the next governor will be based on a poll that comes out in September, just remember to always wager responsibly.

Statisticians say that getting a sample is better than trying for a complete set (this is the Census claim.) I dunno.