MA Senate - Special Election Results thread

[Alcon]

Bolton, the first town of any notable size in, is a 28.8% swing to the GOP

Gosnold (tiny) 55.9% GOPward

[Alcon]

Coakley from Obama:

Ashland: -31.14%

Holland town: -36.75%

Monroe town (tiny): -33.09%

Middleton: -31.28%

Oxford: -39.52%

These are not sustainable numbers.  The only caveat is that we have nothing from the Boston metro yet.  They are consistent with a win of 5% to 10%, maybe a tick more.

[Alcon]

I don't think these are absentees, no, although they may include some absentees.  MA may be one of those states where absentees must be there by Election Day.

Princeton: -31.87%

Southampton: -32.88%

West Newbury: -28.12%

The numbers for Lowell are incorrect, no way that's 31/33 precincts.

[Alcon]

In the City of Lowell Obama won 66% in 2008 and with 95 percent in Coakley is at 69% .

It's wrong, look how few votes there are.

[Alcon]

Bernardston: -32.06%

Concord: -18.23% (this is a good number from a not-tiny town)

Mendon: -33.45% (this isn't)

[Alcon]

By town (not precinct): http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2010/by_county/MA_US_Senate_0119.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

Just for reference, Coakley's magical number -- assuming all towns are proportionally represented to 2008 -- is -25.81%.  She will probably need more than that because Democrats turn out less in special elections.

This election is over unless Coakley pulls off a strong Boston performance; so far the evidence against that is fairly overwhelming.

[Alcon]

Coakley margin versus Obama margin.  Now with votes cast in parentheses.  Note that the magic number is -25.81%.

Avon (2k): -24.43%

Danvers (10k): -37.21%

Hopkinton (7k): -30.93%

Leicester (4k): -39.40%

ag: I'm seeing bigger swings than that, and for all intents and purposes, an election that is probably over.

[Alcon]

Burlington (9k): -29.95%

Eastham (3k): -22.16%

Grafton (7k): -35.48%

Granby (3k): -31.16%

Newbury (3k): -28.42%

Orleans (4k): -24.43%

Rockland (7k): -34.05%

Sandisfield (tiny): -27.95%

etc.

There's really no realistic way Coakley pulls this out, unless I completely understand how Boston works versus its suburbs.

[Alcon]

If Coakley is relying on the Boston area, that's a pretty lame margin out of Everett...

[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.

[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.

[Alcon]

Chelsea -26.45%, marking like the third remotely semi-promising sign for Coakley tonight, and not nearly enough of one.

It's too young to know whether black voters stayed home or not -- and considering that the precincts before have had lots of Brown votes, it's pretty obvious that black areas probably are largely not in yet.  J. J., man, seriously.

I'm agreeing with Howie Brown (whoever that is) in calling this for Brown.  I mean, waiting until we had enough Boston to make it an appropriate call wouldn't be fun.

[Alcon]

If we're waiting for the truth mathematical bellwethers in this race, it'll be Westport (D+0.32) and Chicopee (R+0.40).  

Meanwhile, Brown turns in another somewhat underwhelming Boston-area swing in Everett (-27.22%) but it's still better than he needs (-25.81%).  But if Coakley can't even turn in an adequate showing in Everett, for the third or fourth time tonight: Brown wins.

Edit: Hey M!

[Alcon]

Chelsea -26.45%, marking like the third remotely semi-promising sign for Coakley tonight, and not nearly enough of one.

It's too young to know whether black voters stayed home or not -- and considering that the precincts before have had lots of Brown votes, it's pretty obvious that black areas probably are largely not in yet.  J. J., man, seriously.

I'm agreeing with Howie Brown (whoever that is) in calling this for Brown.  I mean, waiting until we had enough Boston to make it an appropriate call wouldn't be fun.

Alcon, Fox reported that the was low African American turnout.  

Ok, that's cool, but inferring that from the precinct results is stupid and anecdotal turnout reports suck.  I'm 19 and I've watched politics long enough to know that.

[Alcon]

Ok, that's cool, but inferring that from the precinct results is stupid and anecdotal turnout reports suck.  I'm 19 and I've watched politics long enough to know that.

I'm relaying a report on Black turnout.  

Boston 37% in, C at 60.7%.  There are additional reports of lower turnout there.

I don't think it was unreasonable to assume from your lack of sources or "reports of..." that you were inferring that from the Boston numbers.  But, thanks for your confusing anecdotal evidence presented as fact I guess?

(Re: Torie) Brown is also short in Great Barrington, Medford, Lawrence, and a scattering of less significant towns.

[Alcon]

Yes, cinyc, thank you for the turnout charts.   It could have rendered all the swing stuff useless if this election would have been closer.  Did you make it beforehand?  In any case, awesome.