Please chime in on this if you spend any time observing Scott Rasmussen’s polling methods, because it’s of critical importance to the Massachusetts Senate special election: why did Rasmussen deliberately not mention “Joe Kennedy” when polling the race?
Joe Kennedy is running as the Libertarian candidate.
He is not one of the horse-toothed, entitled, would-be “American royalty” Kennedys, though with a name like “Joe Kennedy”, absolutely NO ONE we know believes he’s NOT one of the Hyannis Port crowd. Everyone who we’ve spoken to in Massachusetts believes Joe Kennedy is either Ted Kennedy’s son, grandson, or nephew.
We believe there’s going to be a lot of muscle-memory voting for “Joe Kennedy” from older Democrats who are so used to pulling the Kennedy lever for “the Kennedy seat” all these years. Great Merciful Zeus, it is a struck of fortuitous dumb luck a man named Joe Kennedy is running in this race and on the ballot. Even though he is a Republican, we believe he will take more votes away from Democrat Martha Coakley than he will from Republican Scott Brown. The votes he’ll get from Coakley are from the elderly, the confused, and the low-information voters who believe they’re just voting for Kennedy again.
Well, they will be, but it’s not THOSE Kennedys.
We are truly stumped as to why Rasmussen phrased their Massachusetts poll this way:
“Who do you favor for U.S. Senate? Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, Some other candidate, or Not Sure?”
Rasmussen chose not to include “Joe Kennedy” in that mix, but instead phrased it as “some other candidate”. Why?
Martha Coakley refused to do any debates with Scott Brown unless Joe Kennedy was on the dais too — we think because she wanted the opportunity to reiterate that Joe Kennedy is not one of the cover-up-murder-and-rape-Kennedys. Coakley is beginning to realize, perhaps too late, that many Democrats are going to vote “Kennedy” and not for her, not because they want a Libertarian to win, but because voting “Kennedy” is the thing we were trained to do for years by the unions, and there isn’t enough time to undo this now.
We can’t think of a single valid reason Rasmussen chose to go the “some other candidate route”. It’s a big head-scratcher.
We think that if Kennedy was polled by name, that Scott Brown (aka, Hottie McAwesome) would have actually won the poll. He’s just 9 points behind Coakley in this race now, and we think a “Kennedy” on the ballot will snatch at least a good 6 points more from Coakley than “some other candidate” would. A point or two would also be won by Brown in that instance, because there are those in Massachusetts who would probably vote Republican instead of Democrat in an attempt to keep a third-party Kennedy from somehow winning the race (since, despite the Kennedys best efforts to the contrary, the people of Massachusetts do not wish to remain forever serfs in “Camelot”).
Did Rasmussen do this on purpose for some reason?
We know we asked this yesterday, but what impact do you think “Joe Kennedy” on the ballot will really have, especially since so few in Massachusetts seem aware an actual election is happening on January 19th?
Our logic is this: if they are so ill-informed that they don’t even know there’s voting to be had, the people who wander into polling places that day won’t have any idea “Joe Kennedy” is not who they think he is, and we bet a great many of them will blind Kennedy-vote as usual, throwing the race to Scott Brown, whose supporters ARE highly informed and motivated to vote in this race (because he is, as we’ve repeatedly noted, HOTTIE McAWESOME).
What think you?
January 5, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Rasmussen, in my observation, normally does head-to-head matchups. If there are more than one potential head-to-head then he often runs multiple scenarios.
In the case of Independents, I have definitely seen him run a three-way matchup, but usually only AFTER the “some other candidate” polls high enough.
I think this is consistent with Rasmussen’s usual polling behavior, but I think that BECAUSE that candidate’s name in Kennedy, it should be included, because the “muscle memory” is a valid consideration.
We should all write him an email.
January 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Probably because said Kennedy would have come out the winner in the poll, if the usual crowd was polled – due to a blind “Kennedy of course!” response. Kennedy has been good enough for MA for how many years now? Why change things? This is pure genius. The people who will vote for Brown are voting for him because they want to. The ones voting for Coakley are in majority likely voting D. A Kennedy on the ballot would throw a lot of them off. I predict some sort of Hanging Chads scandal when it does – a la Palm Beach county FL, and also after Reno lost her bid. But how should Kennedy be presented on the ballot? “Kennedy (but not THE Kenndedys!)”?? Please.
This is delicious!
January 5, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Hi guys,
I live in MA. I have no idea why Kennedy would not be mentioned in the polls b/c Rasmussen is pretty fair. One thing I heard on the airwaves, however, was that out of the people asked by the pollster, the majority or definite voters were for Scott Brown. WTKK 96.9 FM Boston has a Podcast of a debate b/w Brown, Coakley, and Kennedy. Follow this link and find “podcasts” on the main page. The titles are Senate debate 1 and Senate debate 2. Pretty interesting stuff. There is also a poll for voters to decide who did better in todays debate – overwhelmingly Hottie McAwesome did. For fun, go vote!
January 5, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Oops – here is the link:
http://www.969bostontalks.com/index.aspx
January 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm
WOW!
78.8% for Hottie McAwesome…. So good.
January 5, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I think leaving Joe Kennedy out of the poll helps Scott Brown. Had Kennedy picked up 15% of the poll, you could have expected a concerted media effort to inform people there that this Joe ain’t related to that Joe. (Ironically, that would make me more likely to vote for him, but whatever.)
January 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
This election is finally getting some media attention. In today’s WSJ opinion page Fund wrote a great article.
Check it out:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703580904574638383072290664-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwNTEwNDUyWj.html
January 5, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Besides being the 41st vote against healthcare (which they seem to want to do at warp speed in DC), he’s easy on the eyes. Now, normally, that’s a stupid reason to vote for someone, but in this case, meh, not so much.
January 5, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Honestly, I think part of the reason he’s so sexy is he’s a really nice guy.
Funny how that works.
January 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I think Kennedy might actually win the election. Not only does he share names with the original mobster Kennedy, but is a Lib…ertarian.
I think that the word “Libertarian” is close enough to the word “Liberal” that the voters that are dumb enough to be confused by his name will be confused by his party as well.
And really, I wouldn’t mind it if he won, because if he’s a legit libertarian, there’s no way in hell he’ll vote pro-healthcare.
January 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm
What is is position on the HC bill?
January 5, 2010 at 10:28 pm
http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=109
Firmly against.
January 5, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I see this as possibly a way for Rasmussen to hide Brown’s strength in this race. And that can only be a good thing for Brown. Lull the other side into complacency and inertia.
Meanwhile our little red wagon is picking up speed. GO BROWN!
January 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Are they going to be using the new voting machines used in NY23, From Chavez controlled company?
January 5, 2010 at 3:38 pm
My take is that Rasmussen is attempting to cover up the fact that Joe Kennedy is not the normal Kennedy. Like one of the above posters mentioned, if a major poll indicated that Joe will gain a sizable vote, then the MSM will launch a campaign to take him out. Keeping everyone in the dark only helps our cause since those who will vote for Brown are informed, and those who would vote for Croakly are stupid and uninformed enough to vote for a Kennedy accidently.
January 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Thanks for the peptalk! You are correct! We need to act more like Democrats in our fierceness. Yeah, we’re too busy earning a living, trucking our kids to activities and trying to enjoy what little money and time is left over. But, yes, since liberty and freedom are worth going to war over, it is worth getting up off my butt over.
January 5, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Sean Hannity was talking about Scott Brown today, and I think he had him on his radio show this afternoon, but I didn’t hear the entire thing and, of course, it was interrupted by Dr Utopia’s speech.
January 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Read this and watch the video. Is this true that Joe Kennedy will not run for his uncles Senate seat?
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/joe-kennedy-wont-seek-senate-seat/3738823300?flv=1
January 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm
HillBuzz,
I think Kennedy’s name in the Rass. poll would have hurt Brown more on election day, and here is why. So, I am happy Rass. did not include it in the polling done yesterday.
People in MA don’t realise that he is not only of THOSE Kennedy’s. If Rass. includes him in the polls right now, attention will be brought to that fact and people will vote for Coakley.
But by Rass. not including him in the poll, people will see the name “Kennedy” and vote for him OVER Coakley, so in the end it hurts Coakley on election day and draw votes from her.
and this will only work if Rass. had kept Joe Kennedy;s name off the polling, which he did.
If he had included all 2 candidates, I have no doubt its a 2 – 3 point race, not b/c Joe K. pulls votes from Scott Brown, but instead he pulls votes from Coakley.
Better to keep all this under wraps for another 2 1/2 weeks until election day.
January 5, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I agree with the above commenters – by leaving Kennedy’s name out of the poll, the low-info voters are likely to resort to muscle-memory voting when they see “Kennedy” on the ballot. Those voters are mostly democrats, so will take votes away from Coakley. The lower the profile for Kennedy until just before the election the better.
If I were working on this campaign, I’d be getting a mailer ready to send out about three days before the election to every likely DEMOCRAT voter that just said something to the effect of “Joe Kennedy – Keeping a Tradition Alive” and I’d have soft-focus pictures of JFK, RFK, and Teddy in the background. No really active verbs or anything that urges the voter to go to the polls. I promise that will take votes away from Martha – her support is weak at best.
The real challenge is GOTV for Brown. Well-informed, enthusiastic voters WILL make the difference.
January 6, 2010 at 7:11 pm
That is genius, Auntie Lib