Coakley on a Slippery Slope

Take a look at this analysis of the polls in the Massachusetts Senate race:

For a larger image click here. For a quick interpretation, the mid line would represent a 50%-50% race. Above the line would be a Coakley lead, below a Brown lead. The polls right now show anywhere from a 4% to 11% Brown lead.

Pollster.com does some other analysis for those who only trust certain polls:

So what might you believe about these data? You could refuse to cherry pick the polls. That has long been our view here at Pollster.com. Our job is to summarize the trends as best we can, without partisan favor. If you do that, we get a 8.8 point Brown lead.

Perhaps you only trust non-partisan polls. Then the Brown lead is 6.8 points.

Maybe you are a Dem, who doesn't trust the Republican pollsters. Then Brown leads by 6.5 points.

Or you are a Dem who doesn't trust the non-partisan pollsters either and who does believe in the leaks from the Coakley campaign. Then Brown's lead is 3.8 points. (This is the only estimate that includes the leaks.)

Or you are a Rep who trusts GOP and nonpartisan polls only. Then Brown leads by 11.3. (There aren't enough Rep polls to run a Rep only estimate to parallel the Dem only, but I'd think an 11 point lead would be satisfying enough for Reps.)

As I've said many times, you can't take any of this for granted. Turnout models for special elections are wickedly hard to predict. The weather forecast for much of Massachusetts tomorrow is rather ugly. That will tend to keep the uninspired voters home and right now more of them are Democrats for Coakley.

The absence of any late hit pieces on Brown by the Boston Globe is interesting. Either they truly can't find anything on him, or they realize the race is too far gone to risk the blowback they'd get from an unfair hit. I tend to believe it's the former.

This morning Coakley made a campaign speech at a non-partisan Martin Luther King Jr. event. Brown was in the audience but not invited to speak. He rightfully slammed her for politicizing this event. She's a walking gaffe and I think the folks in Massachusetts realize that.

And then there's this:

As reported by CNS News, "In Massachusetts, 116,483 registered voters are dead, 3.38 percent of the state's total of registered voters. Another 538,567, or 15.6 percent, had moved to an area outside of where they are registered to vote."

Americans for Limited Government Foundation's project leader, Dan Tripp, is on the ground in Massachusetts monitoring the special election, and said that "for fraudsters, it's a numbers game. It only takes a few hundred people voting at multiple locations to change the outcome of any statewide election, including Massachusetts' special senatorial election."

Still lots of reasons to be concerned.