Baker pulls ahead in Massachusetts

[IceSpear]

Although not quite as bad as UNH, this poll has also been pretty volatile. What exactly in the past few months has caused Coakley to go from a double digit lead, to a margin of error lead, back to a double digit lead, and now trailing?

[IceSpear]

Why would Massachusetts Democrats nominate a centrist proven loser?

Why did Democrats decide to go with a proven loser?

Why would Massachusetts Republicans nominate a centrist proven loser?

Why did Republicans decide to go with a proven loser?

Baker lost to a popular incumbent governor. Coakley lost to a little-known state senator. Huge difference.

Patrick wasn't popular back then, IIRC.

Yeah, his ratings were mediocre at best.

[IceSpear]

lol

They are polling Massachusetts, right?

Masschusetts is no stranger to electing republicans. Of the last five governors, only 1 (Deval Patrick) was a democrat.

Still leaving this at Lean D. I'd like to see Suffolk, Purple Strategies, or PPP.

I realize that. But considering the republican types of governors that the Northeast used to elect are gone, they should be going overwhelmingly D, even if Baker is a good candidate and Coakley is a bad one.

I know it's treated as gospel, but those types of Republicans are NOT gone.  Period.

Would be good if they could emerge from their exile and save the GOP from itself.

But on topic... it's a weird poll. While I could believe that Coakley could lose, there is a lot that makes very little sense to me. 18% undecided? C'mon.

While I agree (with your first part), every Republican nominee in New England (besides a few exceptions) seems to be an authentic moderate.  Scott Brown held a Senate seat in MA less than two years ago, and if people aren't willing to call him moderate, then they're extremists!

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/scott-brown-pulls-rare-climate-reversal

It's pretty obvious he was just faking being a moderate to try to get re-elected. Now that he's running in a redder state he feels no need to do so.