MA Senate - Special Election Results thread

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

[Sam Spade]

Al - with 6/14 precincts in, Coakley only leads by six in Holyoke (just to give something you might miss).

With those types of margins from working-class Mass and what's already been noted from suburban Mass, Coakley better have some magic tricks somwhere - otherwise...

[ajc0918]

Western Mass is going heavily for Coakley

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al pays attention to it because, well... you know.

64% in and Coakley leads by around 6. She's done for, I think.

[cinyc]

20% Data:

[Lief 🗽]

Western Mass is going heavily for Coakley

No one lives in western Mass. unfortunately.

[perdedor]

It's really early, but Coakleys numbers in Boston are a very bad sign for her. If this pattern continues, the race will be called for Brown with 40% in.

[Alcon]

If there's a Coakley overperformance in Boston, it must somehow be limited only to Boston.

So far, Coakley is underperforming by 33.45%, translating into a loss of around eight points.

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

[ag]

Well, yes, at this point it does start looking much worse for D. Still, I'd wait for bigger cities to show: little from Boston, Worcester, etc. Though, of course, it does start looking like R pick-up

[muon2]

Western Mass is going heavily for Coakley

The demographics and voting are similar to VT.

[Meeker]

Oh my aching heart...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Coakley is from Western Mass, fwiw.

Al - with 6/14 precincts in, Coakley only leads by six in Holyoke (just to give something you might miss).

Ouch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With 30% in, she's only on 56% in Fall River...

[Alcon]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

maybe?  those are the results.  what are you talking about?  what are you ever talking about?

I wouldn't read into Boston right now -- there is so much more to read into.  And 95% of it says Coakley is screwed.

[J. J.]

Well, yes, at this point it does start looking much worse for D. Still, I'd wait for bigger cities to show: little from Boston, Worcester, etc. Though, of course, it does start looking like R pick-up

2% of Worcester is in, C at 75%

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't see any of Scott Brown's State Senate district in.  He should get some crazy numbers out of there.

[Sam Spade]

Holyoke - Coakley won by 12 Al.  May still be some hope for her, though that is worse than any Dem ever.

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

maybe?  those are the results.  what are you talking about?  what are you ever talking about?

I wouldn't read into Boston right now -- there is so much more to read into.  And 95% of it says Coakley is screwed.

The cities are out, Worcester is bad for B.  I'll hold.

[Phony Moderate]

Brown, Scott GOP 3,947 55%
Coakley, Martha Dem 3,214 44%
Kennedy, Joseph Oth 64 1%

[Sam Spade]

My preliminary guess is Brown by 5-8, but I need to see more cities before solidifying.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Currently Brown has 43% in Boston.

[cinyc]

CRAP.  The Boston Globe has Aquinnah listed with the Gs for Gay Head (which it used to be) - that makes my tables wrong.  I need to fix the spreadsheet.

[ajc0918]

Howie Carr calls it for Brown

[J. J.]

4% of Boston is in.  Coakley has 51.3% to 47.8%.

8% C at 53.3% to 45.7%

[/i]Maybe[/i]

maybe?  those are the results.  what are you talking about?  what are you ever talking about?

I wouldn't read into Boston right now -- there is so much more to read into.  And 95% of it says Coakley is screwed.

The cities are out, Worcester is bad for B.  I'll hold.

At 40% Worcester is 57% for C.  It's over.

[Dan the Roman]

The Republican areas of Springfield and Worcester tend to come in later.