TPMDC

Pajamas Media Poll Puts Scott Brown Ahead By 15

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

State Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)

Read More

MA-SEN, Polls, Scott Brown

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

A new poll sponsored by Pajamas Media -- and conducted by a Republican pollster -- shows Scott Brown (R) with a commanding lead in the race to replace Ted Kennedy. According to the poll out today, Brown leads Martha Coakley (D) by 15 points, 54-39.

The poll was conducted yesterday by the Republican firm CrossTarget, which used automated phone calls (the preferred method of pollsters like PPP and Rasmussen) to contact what the firm said were 946 likely voters.

The poll is dramatically different from other recent numbers, which have shown the race as essentially a dead heat. Other polls have shown one candidate or the other ahead, but not by much -- Brown had a four point lead in a Boston Herald poll out this morning, while Coakley led a Reseach2000 poll sponsored by a left-leaning Massachusetts blog this week by eight.

Comments (18) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 15, 2010 6:21 PM   

You should be absolutely ASHAMED to publish this nonsense.

Even Nate Silver refused to do so.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/one-massachusetts-poll-that-democrats.html

WHy not give a headline to the "WeAdoreScottBrown.org" poll?

Geeze - my respect for TPM as a source for real information of relevance just nosedived about 75%.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 6:33 PM    in reply to GayIthacan

Really!

Marshall actually pays this moron a wage?
On its face a ridculous poll begging for a bit of research at the very least

I read Silver's post 6 hours ago!!!!

One Massachusetts Poll That Democrats Shouldn't Panic About by Nate Silver @ 11:24 AM Bookmark and Share Share This Content

Worry about Suffolk. Worry about what PPP and Rasmussen are going to have to say over the weekend. But for the love of God, don't worry about the Pajamas Media poll which reports a 15 point lead for Scott Brown, which I'm not going to do the favor of posting a link to.
The poll was conducted by a firm connected with the Black Rock Group, which bills itself as a "strategic communications and public affairs firm" and whose chief spokesman/strategist, Carl Forti, just so happens to be the spokesman for this polling firm that nobody has ever heard of and just so happens (as David Dayen dutifully reports) to be the spokesman for a big pharma lobbying group that's pushed the death panels meme and just so happens to be the lead PR flak for Pajamas Media.

The polling firm also has almost no track record and the one poll they did issue showed New Hampshire Governor John Lynch with just a 44/38 (+6) approval rating whereas every other pollster in that state shows Lynch at between a +20 and a +43. So, if you account for their roughly 25-point GOP house effect, a poll showing Martha Coakley only 15 points down might be just about the best news she's gotten all week.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 6:45 PM   

Great way to energize the base OR leave them with a false sense of security.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 6:50 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

So - manipulation of the public through the use of worthless and paid-for 'polls' is a legitimate tactic?

Wouldn't that be - let me see now - election rigging? Or illegal influence? Or some other violation of election law?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 9:35 PM    in reply to GayIthacan

Did I say it was a legitimate tactic?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 6:45 PM   

At least Nate did the necessary research before posting anything about it........

How nice it would be if sites like TOM and HuffPo practiced the same caution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:27 PM    in reply to GayIthacan

Unfortunately, it's become increasingly appropriate to lump together "TPM and HuffPo" in recent months. Soon we'll be seeing gossip items and celeb "nip slips."

Wait, there WAS that phase when Josh was posting a lot of Tiger Woods updates (when the scandal first broke). Zoiks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:30 PM   

With "Zoiks!" and the 'Ruh Ro!" currently on the page, TPM is apparently forging new lexicon! :D

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:56 PM   

Wow, so much nonsense piled into so few comments.

I know there's a great temptation to not report news we don't like. But we're not really in a position to do that. If you looked a little closer you'll notice that this post was not linked in the blog or from the front page news section. And that was precisely because we didn't think it was a particularly credible poll -- because of a mix of the result, the sponsor and the organization that conducted the poll. That's also why the post emphasizes that it was conducted by a Republican firm and that the results are at odds with all the other polls out there. In our afternoon editorial meeting, we discussed how to treat this poll -- whether to put it in TPMPolltracker and whether to report it. I made the decision that we *would* put it in Polltracker and that we'd write a piece but not give it much attention, etc. In other words, we covered it this as I decided we should. And I think that was the right balance.

I know tensions are running high. And it's painful to see how the national Dems got themselves into this situation. But please don't use that as a reason to say stupid things and act out like this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 9:11 PM    in reply to Josh Marshall

Josh, now is not the time to pretend that TPM is like the rest of the wet pants just-the-facts MSM. Just reporting that the poll was done by a Republican firm and doesn't match with others just makes them look like a right-leaning equivalent of Research 2000. It misses a big part of the context — namely, as Nate Silver points out, that the poll firm also has almost no track record and has been associated with the death panel nonsense.

You may notice people don't rag on TPM for reporting what Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin or Orly Taitz say even though their statements are even more divorced from reality than this poll. Why? Because you have made it clear that they have no credibility — something your reporter failed to do here.

Don't make us quote Rachel Maddow's journalism manifesto to TPM of all places.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 11:55 PM    in reply to Josh Marshall

Josh:

While I understand your position and desire to defend your employee, there is no reason he could not have included the very same information that would completely undercut the poll that Nate did.

If you are going to not only publish - but TRUMPET the results of polls from organizations that are so unreliable and most likely completely biased for individual candidates, you could at least make clear in the article itself that said poll is not to be taken seriously - instead of crafting blaring headlines and treating it as the equivalent of a poll from a reputable organization with a history of accuracy and objectivity.

To do otherwise smacks of sensationalism and the manipulation of information to generate hits and clicks, not journalism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:00 PM   

If polls like this had the unintentional benefit of striking terror into the hearts of the dems in MA and getting them off their asses and working for their candidate, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:24 PM   

This guy is an attractive candidate. He's good-looking (and that counts for something in politics) communicates well and has a charming personality. His ads have also been very effective.

He comes across as moderate and has sponsored health-care legislation in Mass. as well as cap-and-trade. He compares himself to John Kennedy and even uses him in commercials. He's hardly the stuff that teabagger dreams are made of.

Coakley doesn't come off well. She reminds me of Geraldine Ferraro, smart and competent, but not very personable or attractive to voters. She obviously doesn't understand retail politics, and she doesn't have the Kennedy charm or mystique which captivated Mass. voters for generations.

Besides, any candidate who takes six days off to go on vacation with just five weeks before the election does not deserve to win, nor will she.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:28 PM    in reply to Solomon Drek

Keep hope alive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 12:18 AM   

Omama is going to Boston this weekend to give the 'Kiss of Death" to Martha Coakley. When to the reason she is getting her booty wacked is his unpopular health care bill with absolutly no C-SPAN coverage saddled with a the securtiy of our Nation as an after thought.
She does not have her wagon hitched to a Star.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 1:47 AM   

The GOTV machine in the bay state, especially in the greater Boston area is in good shape. Once the voters start to think about how we got into the mess were in they will take a second look at Scott Brown.

It is indeed ironic that George W. Bush campaigned as a moderate too...you know "a uniter not a divider", and look what that got us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 1:44 PM   

Wow! Talk about shooting the messenger!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 2:36 PM   

When the 'messenger' fails to deliver any actual information regarding the background and content of the 'message', then Yes - the messenger deserves to be shot.

TPM is supposed to be the gold standard of journalism - not sink to the level of World News Daily. Or TMZ.

The information regarding the background of this 'poll' and the company that ran it is nowhere in the article. And it has been available for several days. So I can only assume it made the story more 'clickable' and 'scary' to omit said relevant information.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on