SSP Daily Digest: 10/25 (Morning Edition)

  • Site News: Holy moly. We just passed ten million all-time visitors yesterday. Wow. Just really have to take a step back for a moment. When I started this site almost exactly seven years ago, I never, ever imagined we’d achieve anything like this. Just a huge thank you to every reader who has checked in since Oct. 19, 2003 to today – and beyond.
  • AR-Gov (Mason-Dixon): Mike Beebe (D-inc) 59, Jim Keet (R) 26
  • CA-Sen, CA-Gov (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner & American Viewpoint for the LA Times/USC): Barbara Boxer (D-inc) 50, Carly Fiorina (R) 42; Jerry Brown (D) 52, Meg Whitman (R) 39
  • CA-Gov (John McLaughlin & David Hill (R) for Meg Whitman): Jerry Brown (D) 46, Meg Whitman (R) 43
  • CO-Sen, CO-Gov (SurveyUSA for 9News/Denver Post): Michael Bennet (D-inc) 47, Ken Buck (R) 47; John Hickenlooper (D) 46, Dan Maes (R) 15, Tom Tancredo (ACP) 34
  • Bonus: SUSA also tested the state AG, SoS, and Treasurer races.

  • CO-Gov (Magellan): John Hickenlooper (D) 44, Dan Maes (R) 9, Tom Tancredo (ACP) 43
  • FL-Sen, FL-Gov (Ipsos for Florida media): Kendrick Meek (D) 20, Marco Rubio (R) 41, Charlie Crist (I) 26; Alex Sink (D) 41, Rick Scott (R) 44
  • Bonus: Ipsos also tested the AG, Ag Comm’r, and CFO races.

  • FL-Gov (Susquehanna for Sunshine State News): Alex Sink (D) 45, Rick Scott (R) 45
  • IL-Sen, IL-Gov (Mason-Dixon for St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV-TV): Pat Quinn (D-inc) 40, Bill Brady (R) 44; Alexi Giannoulias (D) 41, Mark Kirk (R) 43
  • Note: The poll apparently asked respondents about “Alex Giannoulias.”

  • IL-Sen (Market Shares Corp. for the Chicago Tribune): Alexi Giannoulias (D) 41, Mark Kirk (R) 44
  • LA-Sen (Anzalone-Liszt (D) for Charlie Melancon): Charlie Melancon (D) 45, David Vitter (R-inc) 48
  • MA-Gov (Western New England College): Deval Patrick (D-inc) 44, Charlie Baker (R) 36, Tim Cahill (I) 8
  • MA-Gov (UNH): Deval Patrick (D-inc) 43, Charlie Baker (R) 39, Tim Cahill (I) 8
  • MD-Gov (OpinionWorks for the Baltimore Sun): Martin O’Malley (D-inc) 52, Bob Ehrlich (R) 38
  • ME-Gov (Critical Insights): Libby Mitchell (D) 20, Paul LePage (R) 32, Eliot Cutler 19
  • MN-Gov (Princeton Survey Research for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune): Mark Dayton (D) 41, Tom Emmer (R) 34, Tom Horner (I) 13
  • MO-Sen (Mason-Dixon for St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV-TV): Robin Carnahan (D) 40, Roy Blunt (R) 49
  • NY-Gov (Marist): Andrew Cuomo (D) 60, Carl Paladino (R) 37
  • PA-Gov (Quinnipiac): Dan Onorato (D) 44, Tom Corbett (R) 49
  • WV-Sen (Global Strategy Group (D) for Joe Manchin): Joe Manchin (D) 48, John Raese (R) 43
  • Margins & Errors: On Sunday, Pat Toomey moved out to a 3-point lead in the Muhlenberg tracker, while Tom Corbett is +9… some sketchy details of IN-02 internals from Brian Howey: “Howard County Republican Chairman Craig Dunn said internal polling has shown Walorski chipping a 9-point Donnelly lead to “at the margin of error” around 4 percent.” … CNN sources tell them that Harry Reid’s internals have him up 6 over Sharron Angle in NV-Sen… PPP will have polls out for CA, CO, KY & WV this week

    229 thoughts on “SSP Daily Digest: 10/25 (Morning Edition)”

    1. the NRSC is confident in its polling — they’re investing another $3 million in California. I’m somewhat surprised, given public polling shows Boxer with a consistent lead, and PPP’s tweets are less than sunny for Fiorina. Plus that money could go a lot further in, say, Colorado or West Virginia.

      I’m looking forward to seeing the actual ad. This is going to look like either a brilliant move or a massive waste on Nov. 3.  

    2. already discussed one way or another here. I hope we will get something new tomorrow or Wednesday…. But generally i can’t remember a year with so much so wildly different polls

    3. The battle between Democrat Tom White and Republican Lee Terry in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District remains competitive, with The World-Herald Poll showing that Terry has an edge but not an insurmountable lead.

      Forty-four percent of registered voters said they would vote for Terry, while 39 percent chose White.

      However, Terry’s lead grew to 8 percentage points among more committed voters – those who said they had already voted or definitely planned to vote.

    4. Ralston on yesterday’s early voting

      The Republicans barely ticked up Sunday in turnout percentage after a weak showing in Washoe County and a slight advantage in Clark – the GOP now leads by 2.2 percent in the total urban vote. […]

      Total Clark early voting percentages relative to registration:

      Democrats: 19.0 percent

      Republicans: 21.2 percent

      Total Clark with mail ballots added (no mail counted Sunday):

      Democrats: 22.1 percent

      Republicans: 24.9 percent

      Total urban early vote:

      Democrats: 78,717 (18.7 percent)

      Republicans: 69,081 (20.9 percent)

      Total urban early vote (including absentees in Clark):

      Democrats: 89,391 (21.2 percent)

      Republicans: 77,908 (23.5 percent)

      For numbers geeks:


      Sunday: Dems, 6,908 Rs, 5,651 rest, 2,480

      Early: Dems, 63,632; Rs, 51,800 rest, 21,623

      Mail: Dems, 10,674; Rs, 8,827 rest, 2,822

      Combined: Dems, 74,306, Rs, 60,627 rest, 24,445


      Ds: 15,085 (17.5 percent)

      Rs: 17,281 (19.9 percent)

    5. GOP cheerleading going to get in the next week or so? I love talking about the polls, but I am getting really sick of the rah-rah comments about how great these GOP candidates are or touting GOP polls like they have anything to do with reality. If I wanted to read that nonsense, I’d spend time at the mainstream media sites.  

    6. Zogby went into FL for the Naples Daily News.  I have a very low opinion of this pollster, so take these numbers for what you want.


      Rubio 40 (39)

      Crist 33 (33)

      Meek 18  (18)


      Sink 43 (41)

      Scott 39 (39)

      The Sen numbers seem a bit off to me – to little for Meek and a bit too much for Crist.  Gov numbers have been all over the map, Scott up, Sink up, neither by much.  Both of these polls show a remarkable amount of stability and that just doesn’t seem right in the Senate race to me.  I could believe it in the Gov race, but who knows.  Clearly, he didn’t push leaners very hard.

    7. I really thought Brown was going to lose earlier this year, ala Coakley-style. But he keeps impressing me. I think its really likely Brown is headed for a win, based on gut instinct and the fact that everyone (Dems, GOP, and Indies) are tired of seeing eMeg’s face every single day, 3 times a day or even more so. Anyone else agree?

    8. Frank Caprio didn’t get Barack Obama’s endorsement and then went ballistic:

      Frank Caprio’s campaign last week said he would welcome the president’s endorsement. But on Monday, the same day Obama was set to make his first visit to Rhode Island as president and a day after the White House said Obama would not endorse anyone, Caprio angrily told WPRO-AM that Obama can “take his endorsement and really shove it.”

      Caprio is a horrible representative of the Democratic Party and even cavorted with the RNC:

      “What I’m saying to President Obama very clearly is, I’ll wear as a badge of honor and a badge of courage that he doesn’t want to endorse me as a Democrat, because I am a different kind of Democrat,” he told the station.

      Caprio has rubbed some liberal voters the wrong way by meeting with the National Republican Committee in Washington this year, at a time when he faced a potentially bruising Democratic primary, for reasons he has yet to fully explain.

      It’s good to find out about Caprio before the election.  Here’s hoping for Lincoln Chafee to kick his ass.

    9. I just don’t understand why GOP’ers think it’s a good idea to put foul smelling stuff in peoples mailbox?


      Much like magazine perfume advertisements, the mailer says, “Open for a fragrance sample of “Loretta, The Scent Of Washington.”

      On the inside of mailer, the piece says, “Something smells rotten about Loretta. It’s the stench of Washington.” Below that is the scratch and sniff panel.

      A GOP source who experienced the Eau de Sanchez put it this way: “It is a horrible odor, like the combination of the five or six worst possible scents you can imagine.”

    10. SUSA Schraeder -10, Elway Schraeder +12.  Someone is going to look very silly on Nov. 3.

      The quote in this article from the Bruun campaign was inspiring:

      The Bruun campaign said the results weren’t worrying. “At this point, with ballots in voters’ hands, this race will come down to who votes,” spokeswoman Alee Lockman said in an e-mail statement.

    11. this cycle has been a black eye for the polling industry, from the out-and-out crooks, Strategic Vision and Research 2000, to the wonky, conflicting results like this.  I hope the polling industry will engage in some introspection and restore some kind of order in future cycles.

    12. Let’s flash back to some of their recent polls:

      Poll of primary: Abercrombie 49, Hanneman 44

      Actual result: Abercrombie 57, Hanneman 38

      Poll of special election: Djou 36, Hanabusa 22, Case 28

      Actual result: Djou 39, Hanabusa 31, Case 28

      Not inspiring much confidence.

    13. They only polled 399 people? And who do they define as “very likely”? Really, they think Abercrombie will win but Hanabusa will lose?

    14. There just no way you can correct for them anymore in some places.

      I think from here forward, Internet polling will have to be the way to go. Not like Zogby (blech) does it, but the way YouGov has been operating in the UK for years.

      I don’t know how any of that will work for small areas like Congressional Districts, though.  

    15. …the conspiracy theory that Scotty goes as far as rigging the polls to produce SUCH specific results.

      But over time I’ve just become more and more suspicious.  So many of his polls are outliers that are just sooooo convenient for Republicans and conservatives.  His outliers favoring Dems are much more rare.  And that was still true in 2006 and 2008, when you didn’t see Rasmussen producing Dem-heavy outliers even in a strongly Dem year.

      I increasingly wonder whether Rasmussen is to polling what the WWE is to wrestling:  fun and LOOKS real enough, but it’s still fake and rigged.  Both require a willing suspension of disbelief.

    16. Ehrlich’s been cratering in recent weeks. I actually think his ads have been better than O’Malley’s, and O’Malley seemingly got caught fudging a jobs report this summer.  

      I wonder if Ehrlich’s being hurt by all the ambient Republican crazy floating around out there. Not that most non-political types are swimming in it like SSP regulars are, but Maryland has a lot of government employees. To win statewide in Maryland as a Republican, you absolutely have to get crossover votes, and perhaps seeing all this “Republicans are out for blood” stuff has given people who may have been open to vote for the Republican in this race considerable pause.  

    17. I hope that they spend a ton of money out in California. I really don’t see how Carly can pull out a win there. It is a difficult state for a Republican to win. I know that Boxer is polarizing and the GOP would love to take her out but it’s unlikely to happen. Their best “bang for the buck” is going to be in WV, CO and PA. CA is a poor investment on their end as it’s a very tough state to win in and it is extremely expensive.  

    18. My hunch is the winner of CA-Sen will prevail with under 50% of the vote. In all likelihood, that’ll be Boxer, but I’d say there’s at least a 25% chance Fiorina can land the perfect storm – that is, a double-digit win w/ Indies, strong GOP GOTV, and underwhelming Dem turnout. I don’t, however, think she can garner much cross-over voting. (My last model had Boxer up only 2, 49-47.)

    19. part of it, but it could also be that a lot of the races are just very, very close and a small change in the partisan composition of the electorate could produce big swings in he numbers. I suspect the latter is more prominent than the former, although the former in some ways influences the latter.

      I almost don’t want to give the polling firms that much leeway in regards to cell phones. Is it really any different than any other issue with polling in regards to reaching people? I don’t see how. It might be difficult to adjust, but why can’t they simply run some different polls of meaningless topics at various points to try to adjust for the cell phone issue and then go from there. They would probably have to make further adjustments as they go on, but they wouldn’t be as in the dark as some indicate they are now.  

    20. if the polling doesn’t look as much like the 2000 election as anything else–that’s for sure.

      And yes, Rove did make a play for California that year.  

    21. …Gore didn’t take the bait, so Bush ended up wasting his money there.  The key, of course, was that Gore took victory for granted in California and opined that it was unwinnable for the GOP.

      But this is a little different, it’s not like Boxer and allies aren’t running ads to help her and attack Fiorina.  So I don’t think we can say the NRSC is trying to bait Team Blue in any way, unless one thinks they’re trying to bait the DSCC into expensive ad buys which I don’t think ultimately helps the NRSC anyway.

      I think the GOP’s private polling really does show a margin-of-error race in CA-Sen, and that’s why they’re playin’.  But I don’t see it happening for them.

    22. They must actually think they have a chance there. And they must also realize, correctly, that for Fiorina to have any chance, her TV spending needs to be at parity with Boxer’s. So they’re taking the risk here.

      The optimist in me says maybe they’re investing in California rather than CO, WV, PA etc. because they don’t think their candidates there need any more help. But if Buck, Toomey, or Raese lose narrowly, the NRSC will deserve much of the blame for allocating their funds poorly.

    23. Fiorina is a very impressive candidate, both in her business experience, tough life story rising from secretary to CEO, battling breast cancer etc. and the fact that she’s very articulate and well spoken.

      It’s been said for a while that should she win, she would immidiately be promoted to Senate Republican Leadership. The senate GOP want her in the senate for more than just as an extra seat, they see her as an excellant addition to the team.

      If she wins election, you’ll be seeing/hearing alot from her representing the GOP on economic matters in Press conferences, morning shows, meet the press etc.

      Personally, I REALLY want this woman in the Senate.

    24. like California.  I’ve come to think that it comes from an unstated but deep contempt for Red State voters and Red State politicians within their upper ranks.  

      OTOH, 3 million is small change at a time when IE operators can and will dump many times that anywhere at their beck and call.  And when eMeg has thrown 30 or 50 times that on the California airwaves already.

    25. She became CEO, outsourced jobs extensively with impunity, wiretapped the other executives, cratered the stock, and got thrown out without a single regret.

    26. In all seriousness her business background is nothing to even come close to bragging about. Her shareholders fired her and the Company’s stock was nearly halved while she was the CEO. She was also named one of the “20 worst CEOs of all time” by Business Week. If the GOP really wants to tout that experience then by all means they see something that I don’t (they are professionals and I am not so that may be the case). On the other hand I feel like Meg Whitman has a real life business story that she could use but she has saturated the airwaves to the point that people seem to be over her. I don’t live in CA so I can’t vouch but from Virginia (caveat is that I  technically live inside the beltway) the GOP is making a mistake spending millions in California that they could use in WV, CO and PA.  

    27. Fiorina’s favorables are consistently upside down.  Even Rasmussen’s latest has her upside down at 47-49.  The preceding Fox version of Rasmussen had her even worse at 37-51.  She’s clearly disliked, and your image of her is not what most CA voters share.  I don’t remember the last time I saw a poll with Fiorina carrying good favorables, but I recall it was a looooong time ago back when she was largely unknown and the “no opinion” column was very high.

      Fiorina is competitive because Boxer’s own job approval and favorability are upside down.

      But make no mistake, Californians do NOT like Fiorina.

    28. the poor millionaire being attacked by anti-business, anti-capitalist elitist liburals right? There’s nothing to tout about what Fiorina did at HP. In fact its disgusting that she has the gaul to defend outsourcing good American jobs to Asia. Fiorina outsourced people’s dreams and hopes to line her own pockets.

      But then again going off on you’re logic Rick Scott would be an excellent governor. Never mind the fact he scammed the American taxpayers twice.

    29. while making a ton of money for herself and was such a bad surrogate for McCain that she ended up hurting McCain more than she helped him.  

    30. Fiorina is hardly impressive. Her tenure at HP is seen by most as a failure, she has no government or political experience except as a bumbling spokesman for McCain, she’s shown no particular understanding of the issues, and she isn’t especially likable. She’s a fairly good speaker, but that’s about it.

      On top of that, she’s a Bush Republican in a state that’s virtually impossible for a Bush Republican to win.

    31. I hate when polls show this many undecided this close to the election. I just can’t believe that many voters actually don’t know who they intend to vote for in MA-10. At least give us some results with leaners, Globe.

      Also odd: “other” is getting 10% in MA-4. I tend to think those are Democrats who aren’t terribly enthused about Frank, but who will come home in the voting booth.

    32. We’re crazy with anger as we all know and its why I personally don’t discount large swings in poll numbers.  This isn’t 2008 where the country was pretty uniform and predictable in what would be the voting patterns for the coming EDay.

    33. I think that Bob Ehrlich’s biggest problem was that he wasn’t that good a governor the first time and was only elected because his Democratic opponent was the worst campaigner of all times. And he was replacing a universally loathed governor.  As long as a Democrat runs a mistake free, competent campaign he or she wind in Maryland.

    34. Back in the summer I remember telling people that “Maryland is so liberal and has so many politically-interested people that many, especially in Montgomery, PG, and Howard Counties, will be really scared to vote Republican because of all this tea party shit”

      That’s exactly what I’ve been seeing on the ground – most Dems I know are worried about the racism and random anger they’re seeing from Republicans nowadays. This worry seems to exist in both liberal white and nonwhite communities here in Maryland. I was in West Baltimore not too long ago, and I saw a bunch of signs that said “Obama – we’ve got your back.”

      Maryland is a tricky state for Republicans – they need a strong year, but they can’t show any signs of racism or bigotry or else their numbers completely tank in central MD.

    35. I would have expected Terry would be up by double digits by now.  I wouldn’t have been surprised by that kind of margin over the summer simply because voters don’t pay attention to their local U.S. House race until VERY late, IF at all.  But at this stage I would have expected Terry would easily be at 50.

      Still, a tall hill to climb for White simply because it’s a Republican district in a Republican year.

      Of course I WANT to believe this is yet one more GOP-held seat that we’ll steal to surprise eveyone on election day, along with FL-12 and FL-25 and CA-03 and KS-04 and on and on!  But the better part of me knows these opportunities are not going to materialize as wins in this environment.

    36. she outsourced jobs shouldn’t necessarily be held against her. It’s a business decision, and if you consider labor like any other commodity (which in many ways it is but not entirely–it does concern humans, after all), it’s no different than buying another material in the process of making a product for a reduced price from another supplier. Instead, her widely recognized piss poor performance as CEO, involving all decisions, is a perfectly acceptable target, if for no other reason than she and many others hold this experience as if it’s something they need to bring to government. (Heaven help us!) The fact that she received tens of millions of dollar while being kicked out on her ass deserves even more attention, because it’s a perfect example of the “heads, I win; tails, you lose” approach to executive compensation that is pervasive in our society.  

    37. …hardly anyone really thinks about their local U.S. House race.  If I door-knock for the Presidential, people obviously give it a lot of thought.  For the Senate, they give it a lot less thought, but it’s on their minds.  But for the U.S. House, really people don’t think about it much at all and are actually surprised to have someone ask them about it.  I find that if I door-knock for something local, like for my Virginia House Delegate last year, people are more attentive and want to hear what I have to say than if I’m door-knocking for Congress; after all, the local elected officials and state legislators are the ones who fix the local problems everyone cares about personally.  The U.S. House is the “tweener” in voter interest I think, it’s too far downballot to excite people, but too distant for people to take it personally.

      That doesn’t mean voters don’t care or give it thought before actually voting, it just means when caught off-guard by a knock on the door or a phone call, they draw a blank.  And I think these polls for House races reflect exactly that:  voters caught off-guard and drawing a blank.

    38. I’ve been in MA-10 for a couple of months, and the anti-Perry ads are working.  There were a lot of people on Cape that were supporting Perry who are now probably answering, “I don’t know…”  They don’t really like Keating, because he’s been invisible on this side of the bridges, and they want to support the local guy.  Keating also only moved to the district (barely, into Quincy) when Delahunt announced his retirement.  I would have advised him to move to Plymouth and work the South Shore vote more.  But Keating’s raised serious doubts about Perry with the “Strip Search” ads.  There are a lot of new undecideds.  They may end up going Perry, but the Keating/DCC ads have been effective.

    39. is that ‘other’ mostly amounts to people who won’t actually turn out to vote.  But they’re vaguely considering it and feel guilty about probably not making the effort on Election Day, so they tell the pollster they intend to.

    40. Yes it’s a “business decision” to outsource jobs, just as it was a “business decision” a century ago to let young children work in dangerous factories 6 days a week…or to have young children work TODAY in outsourced factories!

      Most voters rightly disapprove of certain types of “business decisions” and rightly hold it against a candidate for making them.  Outsourcing jobs, not general piss-poor CEO performance, is really what voters care about.

    41. …that Americans did not deserve good jobs.  That’s a paraphrase, but why that hasn’t shown up in an ad, yet, is bizarre.

    42. The good thing about this race is that there are two Tea baggers in the race. This race will be a lot about turnout.  

    43. between general neglect of workers and simply moving stuff around to find cheaper labor–a big, big difference, in fact. (Sometimes, outsourcing can involve poorer working conditions, but that is not always the case.) Think of it this way: there’s really not that much of a difference between moving a job from New York to New Jersey and moving a job from New York to Europe. The country may be different, but there’s no inherent reason to oppose it. Free trade in labor as is legitimate as free trade in products.

      The problem isn’t that we have free trade in labor. It’s that we have free trade in labor for blue collar workers but not professionals. As Dean Baker, whom you should be reading if you aren’t already doing so, has said, there’s nothing in the trade theory that says a dishwasher’s job should be subjected to foreign competition while a lawyer’s job shouldn’t be. Yet, that’s what we often see.

      I realize that there are a lot of people in our party that disagree with me, but I think there’s a lot of ground on which to criticize someone like Fiorina without use the wedge issue of outsourcing.  

    44. Fiorina, IMO, is another example of Republican affirmative action at work. User Ireland’s suggestion that she’d immediately get put into the R leadership makes sense to me.

      Of course, that requires a bizzaro world where she can overcome the late Boxer attack in CA.

    45. And focusing more on her as being a national leader is just assinine since she got fired from her surrogacy duties for McCain after saying he probably couldn’t be a CEO bc he has no experience, or something along those lines.  Maybe she’s wisened up a bit but I sure as hell wouldn’t want someone responding for the GOP Party when she can only stay on message when talking about herself.  Bullshitting on behalf of others is much harder.

    46. There is, indeed, an inherent reason for American voters to oppose moving a job from New York to Europe.  That job leaving America is in and of itself a bad outcome for Americans.  Losing the job altogether is not “less bad” than poor working conditions while the job is here.

      The promise of free trade was that for all the jobs we lost in some industries and trades, we’d gain jobs in other industries and trades.  But voters don’t think that’s happened, they think we’ve lost more than we’ve gained.  I think they might be right, but what matters is most voters think that.

      I’m quite confdient that Fiorina’s strategists are not encouraging her campaign to pursue your line of reasoning in her campaign messaging!  And indeed she’s not, she’s ignoring the issue altogether because it’s a loser for her!

      Jobs being shipped overseas is a bottom-line bad result to voters.  That’s why our campaigns are using it against Republicans, with some success.

    47. …for favorability nationally.  She’s running for a California U.S. Senate seat, so the polling on her is limited to CA voters.

    48. I’m not convinced it’s true on the West coast, where many industries get direct benefits from free trade.

      w/r/t Fiorina, I think that makes the “incompetence” argument better.

    49. from trade, but as a whole, we usually benefit from it. It’s not that we don’t gain; we do. It’s just that the gains aren’t always, or perhaps usually not, even distributed.

      I get that a factory worker in Ohio would be completely against trade. When it’s your livelihood, your mindset changes. I might disagree with him, but I can’t say I blame him for his opinion.

      And don’t get me wrong: the cynical, partisan side of me is absolutely thrilled we can bludgeon the other side with this. Out of all the outrageous things that are said by each side, this stuff is far down on the list. But as a free trader, I’d like our side to develop better messaging to deal with this. We just passed a landmark health care reform bill that will hopefully establish a floor so that if a person’s job is lost to trade (or for any other reason), they won’t lose coverage. Why not campaign on that? Or why not talk about job training (I know it’s limited) or wage insurance of some type?

      In other words, we can be right on the economics and right on the politics and we wouldn’t have to change our ideals. That sounds like a good deal to me.  

    50. I went off on free trade because that’s the subtext of my exchange with b.j., but the campaign argument in CA-Sen is about Fiorina herself outsourcing jobs overseas, and there’s no question that’s a lot stronger than attacking her “incompetence.”

      This “incompetence” meme is abstract and meaningless to voters.

      That Fiorina fired California workers and sent their jobs to China is very concrete and hits home.

      No question Boxer’s argument IS the strong one.

    51. what to say. The anger isn’t directed at any one source. The Democrats may be unpopular, but the Republicans are even less popular. People may hate congress, and even more might think it should be dramatically changed, but they like their own congressman and think he should be reelected. It’s hard to capture all of this, but it’s the pollsters’ job.  

    52. is depressive rather than angry.  There’s a fringe that finds blaming some scapegoat e.g. Obama as outlet for their anxiety and there’s a blunt reactionary mood born of fear of change among others.

    53. made the excellent point that if she gets everyone who voted for her in the primary to vote in the GE that she will win. Literally more than 50% of the GE electorate showed up to vote for her in an uncontested primary.  

    54. know, I am wondering if Ireland realizes that she practically ruined HP with her HORRIBLE leadership.  

    55. of my classmates, who’s father works at HP told me that Fiorina practically ruined that company and laughed at Fiorina’s published ballot statement that touted her “job creating skills.”

    56. Obviously, it’s been working. NO ONE outside corporate HQ supports outsourcing. It’s definitely turned up Fiorina’s negatives. And yes, her outsourcing while at HP is hard evidence that voters immediately “get”.

    57. perhaps from “likely to vote” to “very likely to vote”

      Of course, that’s a significant change in methodology. While I don’t know if that would fit the legal definition of fraud, it would certainly support wild swings in results.

      And of course, such changes in methodology, if Rasmussen does such, would be something they’d want to hide.

      I’m guessing the “very likely to vote” screen would capture more Rs even in ’06 and ’08.

    58. I’ve ever read on this site.  I wish I hadn’t decided to get my PhD once public univerisities were no longer getting their budgets massacred and was applying now because I’d do my thesis on Rasmussen.  It’ll probably just be redistricting, which is a topic I could already write books about.

    59. Ive heard Omaha is growing and trending our way but maybe Obama only won because of his outsized margins with yuppies.

    60. I must be missing something here, because rurally that might make sense, but I’d think the Dems would need to win the urban vote to have any chance.  

    61. Dems now out to a 2,933 vote lead in NV-03.  I don’t have yesterday’s numbers in front of me but it seems like a big uptick.

    62. Those numbers are the percentage of actual registered voters of that party (while 21% of urban Republicans have voted compared to 19% of urban Democrats, because urban Democrats outnumber urban Republicans they are in fact leading early votes.

    63. “enthusiasm gap” is rather small in Nevada, and in absolute numbers Democrats are even leading. Not so in some other states (Pennsylvania, Florida) as far as i know.

    64. The “lead” the GOP has is in the very specific metric of percentage turnout of each party’s registered voters.

      Dems have a 42-37 registration edge in Nevada.  For the GOP to erase that in actual turnout, they need a higher percentage of Republicans to vote than the percentage of Democrats who vote.  They are EXPECTED to do that even with “normal” midterm turnout because Democrats have lower turnout in midterms than Republicans, in Nevada and everywhere else.  So measuring an “enthusiasm gap” requires comparing current early voting with 2006 early voting, and the comparison shows Democrats are holding their own now with no ABNORMAL dropoff.

      Given that Democrats also have gained the advantage in voter registrations over the past 4 years, that lack of abnormal dropoff ensures that Reid will have a plausible path to victory.

    65. We’re exporting our economy’s production economy and becoming a nation of people whose only contribution to global commerce is to consume en masse what other countries make.  In no way is this a sustainable arrangement for an economic superpower, and we are guaranteed to be a nation in decline by doing so no matter how much money is to be made by a small percentage of bigshots and longshoremen when our jobs go overseas.

    66. And Florida is atrocious for Ds compared to 2008, but compared to 2006, it’s not as big an issue.

    67. don’t think it’s that bad. Sure Ireland’s comment above is not to the standard of this blog but I have not noticed a lot of comments like that. I find the vast majority of Republican users here are intelligent and the points they make are usually spot on. What particular comments annoy you? I for one would be saddened without GOPVOTER or MassGOP to name a few.  

    68. I think most of us understand this is a Dem blog and are doing our best not to make rah-rah comments and just commenting on the numbers.  Having said that, the numbers themselves are very favorable to the GOP in and of themselves – one can hardly report them without it being pro-GOP.  I think the GOP is likely to sweep in my state, for example, but that’s base on the numbers, not wishful thinking.  If I thought they were going to lose, I’d say that too.

    69. There’s a lot more pro-Dem posts here (things aren’t going as badly as the media say; we’re going to outperform expectations; Republican candidate X or Y is an ass who deserves to be soundly defeated) than there are pro-Rep posts. Of course that’s what you’d expect on a progressive site, but I don’t see how you’re going to hear even less in the way of Republican perspectives short of banning Republican supporters from posting here altogether.

      Personally, I’d like to keep my political views (far left, to American standards) separate from the discussion about polls and prospects, and appreciate neutrally worded posts most.

    70. In 2006 and 2008 everyone (and hee too, of course) was very bullish on Democratic chances. Me too. But this year is, obviously, going to be very good for Republicans – so why must one spit against the wind and refuse to recognize obvious? I support Democratic candidates approximately in 85-90% of cases (though i don’t belong to any party), but why must i state here “all will be good for Democrats this year”, when this is, obviously, not the case? There are Indies (chafee, Cutler)i root for, and even few (very few in fact) Republicans too..

    71. Maybe the only exception is on weekend open threads, when someone asks which candidates we really, really, want to win and I’m honest about who my favorites are. But in regular posts, I always try to neutrally interpret the data without GOP spin and don’t actively root for either side. I don’t know if my posts have an optimistic tone for Republicans, but if they do, that’s an accidental product of my point of view and not an attempt to cheerlead for the red team.

      I rarely link to polls at all (because someone usually beats me to it) but when I post a GOP internal I give my thoughts on its validity and don’t treat it as Gospel.  

    72. There are certain individuals on the board that will be more inclined to do that, but the GOPers here are pretty well-reasoned in their assessment of certain things.  If you wanted an echo chamber where everyone just amplifies a happy view of the midterms, then SSP probably isn’t the right place to get that.  Even Democrats on this board aren’t at all sold on a rosier image of what may happen on Nov. 2nd, and I imagine some of the Dems who post here whose insight is fairly balanced would be excoriated on a site like DKos.

      I think this is just going to be a race where, the earlier you’re more brutally honest with yourself about what’s going to happen, the easier it is to move on or, better yet, to try and do something about it.  The chances of losing the House are pretty high right now, and we’re in a dogfight to keep the Senate.  That being said, if you can do something, then you can still do it right now.  If not, then you just gotta see this as Team Blue losing and leave it to the voters in later elections to fix.

    73. Perry now has a radio ad on (that I just heard) voiced by Scott Brown that deals with the strip search issue.  It’s about as good a comeback as he can have, but I don’t know if it will be enough to ease concerned indys.

    74. I don’t know if you can really read much into the early turn out numbers on either side.  Because this is the first time in a mid term year, that early voting has been pushed hard by both parties.

    75. You need an excuse to request an absentee ballot in PA (infirmed, going to be out of state, etc.).  The numbers politico is showing must be based on a VERY small sample.  Even the “maybe 5%” number of total ballots being absentee seems too high.  Of course, there’s nothing (other than your honor/signature) to prevent someone from requesting an absentee and giving a false reason and voting early anyway, but it would be dubious for any organization or political entity to do any kind of absentee “drive”.

    76. And, indeed, this stuff should be taken with a grain of salt, but I hardly think, just b/c this place has a Dem lean, that GOP internals should never be posted.

    77. Keep in mind, Coats doesn’t have Tea Party enthusiasm behind him. He’s strictly the favorite of the establishment/rank-and-file. My voter model shows…

      GOP – 46%

      Democrat – 38%

      Independent – 16%

      Coats – 92/14/55 = 56%

      Ellsworth – 8/86/45 = 44%

    78. I’m totally down with the Daily Digests having an ideological lean, but if we didn’t have commentary from both sides in the comments section – if this joint were nothing more than a head-nodding Dem-love session – I wouldn’t participate. And, I’m a Democrat!

    79. But as far as i know – the policy of this site is to allow Indies and Republicans to publish and discuss their data here in correct and respectful ways. This data includes internals, at least in the races where there are not “official” (BTW – what’s this) polling. As long as a person doesn’t stress his preferences at the expense of objectivity – he is usually welcome here

    80. If the possibility of Tancredo becoming governor (does he have deportation orders ready to go?) ups the Latino turnout, that will be good for Bennet.

    81. Same with Russ for that matter – completely unwilling to attack their opponents negatives.  

      Tancredo would be 20 points behind and Johnson would in the very least be a toss up.  

      Hey Hick, how about another one of those quirky, humorous ads.  

    82. I agree with some of the sentiment above that Tancredo would do more harm than good to the Colorado GOP because of his anti-immigrant rhetoric. If Republicans can take a chamber of the state legislature, they are probably better off long-term with Hickenlooper winning this year and having divided control of government.

    83. I’m a numbers junkie.  If there’s an internal poll done for the Libertarian candidate in WA-05, I want to see it.

      (I have no idea if there’s a Libertarian candidate in WA-05, just picked something at random.)

    84. a problem when the GOP posters here treat those numbers as gospel while ignoring independent polls and ripping apart Dem internals. Multiple GOP posters do that.  

    85. Weird thing about that poll is it’s showing that most of the undecideds are Republicans who aren’t all that keen on Buck.  That would suggest to me that he’s got the edge in a year like this, but no doubt it will be close.

    86. which PPP hasn’t shown in previous polls.

      On Thursday (53% of sample), Buck led 51% to 43%.  But, for Friday and Saturday (47% of sample), Bennet led 52% to 41%.  Clearly the race hasn’t swung that dramatically, but this could be some indication of a trend toward Bennet.

    87. on who you ask. With Stutzman you either love him or hate him. Tea Partiers love him, the establishment and more main stream R’s never liked him much. Then again no one really likes Coats. The positive about Coats is at max he will only serve two terms, then we will be able to have a shot of getting the seat back. We may be able to knock him off in 2016, you never know.  

    88. The moderators here have welcomed R guests to this site.

      While there is an open double-standard (i.e. more rigorous moderation of Rs), nobody here is allowed to go off on policy tangents (unless they relate directly to elections). Plenty of Ds have been banned from this site too.

      The reality checks from our R guests have helped me better understand the real picture.

      If this were to become another progressive lovefest site like OpenLeft or god forbid FDL, I’d be out of here in a heartbeat.

    89. running mate is Latino as well. I agree this race being competitive may be a blessing in disguise. The more competitive it is the more the base shows up.  

    90. and, probably, there will be less Republican comments after Nov. 2 I am reasonably sure they already prepared a lot of champign for that day, so they will be very busy for some time..

    91. that it doesn’t matter. I guess I just have to ignore posts that insult Boxer and cheerlead for hacks like Fiorina.

    92. If I were you, I would be more worried about any seeping echo chamber effects, with such a dominant Dem-supporting majority on this blog, than on coming across the occasional poster who’s happy about your opponents’ success.

      I think in general this site does a good job in avoiding the echo chamber stuff, mind you – the posters are wonky enough to be more interested in data than in rhetorics. Even so, when you’re all rooting for one team, instinctively you run the risk of overplaying developments that seem promising for your side and downplaying less welcome developments.

      That could be seen clearly here, IMO, a week or two ago. Nate Silver pooh-poohed the notion that the Dems were enjoying momentum, and multiple posters here postulated about how they didn’t think Nate was doing a good job this year, how he let himself be blinded by his model, how he was too invested in the narrative he’d himself built earlier. I think you were a vocal one, if I remember correctly (forgive me if I’m wrong).

      Of course, we’re one or two weeks down the road now, and it seems Nate was largely right. The SSP’s own ratings, in their last iteration, saw some improvements for Dems, but they were largely outnumbered by further slides elsewhere. While a couple of individual Senate and Governor races have turned for the better, mostly thanks to the weakness of the GOP candidates there, the overall trend is still dragging twice as many Dems down, especially in the House.

      It’s only natural for us to fall prey to such bouts of wishful thinking, no matter how much we pride ourselves on our wonky focus on nothing but the numbers. It’s just instinct – we’re emotionally invested. We may not blithely repeat talking points like liberals on other sites, but most of us will still be likely to keep more hopeful-looking polls (within the realm of the reasonable) at the front of our head, and rationalize why the depressing ones can’t be right, picking apart the demographics, the crosstabs, the pollster’s record. I’ve seen a lot of that here.

      That’s why personally I’m glad that people like Nate see all the same data as us, but feed them into a model that doesn’t have instinctive or subconscious preferences, and why I’m glad that there are a couple of incurable pessimist Dems and reasonable Repubs here to provide a counterpoint. No disrespect to the data-gathering people like you do here, but without them filling in the other side of the picture, the discussion on this site would be a lot less useful.

    93. There are only 6% undecides. The MoE is astronomical on those numbers and saying anything of significance about a 5 point difference in their preference is bordering on pollster malpractice.

    94. I’ve already said I’m not going into work the next day, but I’m also the boss, so I can do that.  I’ll be up waaaay too late waiting for HI results.

    95. Though I think a lot of undecideds at this point are Republicans who will end up sucking it up and voting Coats. Ellsworth will more than likely break 40 though.  

    96. Though I think a lot of undecideds at this point are Republicans who will end up sucking it up and voting Coats. Ellsworth will more than likely break 40 though.  

    97. Though I think a lot of undecideds at this point are Republicans who will end up sucking it up and voting Coats. Ellsworth will more than likely break 40 though.  

    98. …in their write-ups, making more of the crosstabs than is valid.

      I don’t know if they sincerely forget the statistically realities of polling, or if they push the envelope as part of selling their product since they ultimately are, after all, a for-profit business.

      But either way, it’s just not valid to draw any conclusions about the leanings of a paltry 6% of the sample.  The subsample margins of error are such that the samples could easily be overstating Bennet’s margin with Dems, and understating the number of Dems and Dem-leaners among the undecideds.

    99. Just stop with GOP talking points. I don’t need to hear that Fiorina would make a great Senator; that Boxer is rude; that Obama is hated, etc.  

    100. he made a pact with the voters through ads promising he wouldn’t go negative, back when hick was winning by 20 points.  now, his two choices are to attack and look like a liar, which could backfire, or hope that tanc doesn’t have a coalition to win.

    101. …this myth seems to persist that he has not.

      Feingold has aired quite a few attack ads.

      Now, it’s perfectly fair to argue whether Feingold’s attacks have been individually good ads or add up to a coherent and persuasive narrative.

      But to say he’s “unwilling to attack” Johnson is an outright falsehood.

      Hickenlooper is another matter altogether.  He decided up front to ignore his opponents because the 3-way looked like a cakewalk.  At the time it irritated me because I think a candidate should always keep a willingness to attack in his/her back pocket in case things change, but of course I didn’t make too much of it because I, too, thought this would end up a cakewalk anyway.  Now Hick finds himself in a box, and it’s awfully late to START going negative.  He might be in a similar position as Coakley, not realizing the danger until it’s too late.

      Really, the DGA and DNC and IE groups need to get into CO and start attacks on Tancredo, so Hick doesn’t have to “renege” on his “no negative” pledge.  But I don’t see any signs of that coming, it looks like everyone is caught flat-footed, deer in the headlights, and hoping for the best.

    102. I guess the lesson is never to swear off using negative ads.  The ‘cowboy’ ad was fine, but the ‘shower’ ad is what’s got him into trouble.  In hindsight, he should have just run positive ads, but left himself the other option in case he needed it.  Marco Rubio’s ads have been nearly all positive because he really hasn’t needed to go negative (though he has a bit on Crist.)  But can’t the DGA come in with a last minute ad hitting Tancredo, or is there just not the time?

    103. I can’t imagine Coats as anything other than a one-term retread.  I figure he’ll want to retire to NC by the time 2016 comes around.  It’s just that Stutzman is young and should have had no problem winning in a year like this and then would be in a much better position to hold it in 2016.  Given the weakness of the third GOP candidate in the primary, Stutzman would have seemed the best choice to me, though far from perfect.  The GOP seems to have a bunch of flawed candidates in IN once you get away from Daniels.

    104. …it would have been just as easy to simply NOT go negative, without promising anything, and then keep the ability to go negative in his back pocket.

      The “promise” not to go negative doesn’t win any votes.  If you’re going to win votes by being positive, you win them by just doing it, and a “promise” doesn’t add any value.

      More realistically, you have to be ready to attack in case it gets close unexpectedly.  Colorado is starting to go in a direction where it could very well be an unmitigated disaster for state Dems, if Buck and Tancredo both win.  Can you imagine the fallout?!

    105. Did they really air ads for Edwards or against the Republican?  She was so piss-poor a fundraiser in what is a tough district even in a normal midterm that I’d be surprised to learn they went in there in the first place, when we’re playing so much defense.

      If the DCCC was there at all and pulled out, I take that as a GOOD sign, rather than a bad one!

    106. Does the DGA still have time left to come in and play in this race?  Or are they stretched too thin already?

    107. …those dramatic differences are WHY pollsters call over 3-4 days.  Every campaign that runs a daily tracking poll knows that a one-day sample can be completely out of whack and throw off a total result, so you need multiple days to smooth out the numbers and get an accurate read.  That Rasmussen does only one-day samples for horserace polling (except Presidential) is one of their fatal flaws.

      Bottom line:  there’s no day-to-day trend, the differences are just noise.  It’s a tie ballgame.

    108. Either they decided there’s no time and they’re stretched too thin, OR their private polling is better than some of these public polls.  But we now have enough polling showing a low-to-mid-single digit race that I have a hard time believe private polling has Hick up still by double digits.

      Of course, SUSA says it’s still a 10-point lead.  They’ve been bad all cycle, but maybe in the weird state of polling they’ll end up being right?

    109. him retiring in 6 years. I also think in six years the state could be demographically less conservative. Making Indiana a toss-up state in the future. Especially without Mitch Daniels.  

    110. With their favorables Tancredo actually winning. Unless Maes goes even lower. I had thought he would bottom out at 10% but it seems not.

    111. really pisses me off with Meek.  

      I hope I never have to hear his name in political discussion again come November 3rd.  

      Congrats on your 18% of the vote there Chief.

    112. but Boxer is  really “polarizing” figure: almost all people i know either like her a lot or hate her strongly. And Obama really lost a lot of his popularity since, say, November-December 2008, isn’t he??? And there are some areas of the country where vast majority feels vey strongly against him: look, for example,  at La Salle parish in Louisiana, where he got 13% in 2008 – what would he get there now????

    113. that Crist could beat Rubio in 1-1 race, Meek – never. But he refused to recognize this. Simply – wrong candidate for this state. The same as Elliott in AR-02, or (on Republican side) O’Donnell in Delaware.

    114. Had Meek dropped out, Sink’s chances would have been gone.  And that’s the more important race because of redistricting.

    115. Seeing MA-03 in your “signature” i am tempted to ask you: do you think Republicans nominated their best candidate here? Lamb seems to me being simply too conservative, while district, though, surely, not the most liberal in Massachusetts, is not. Wouldn’t a more moderate (and, probably, pro-choice) candidate (if there was one in primary) have better chances? Or it would be “no difference”?

    116. You don’t do any serious cheerleading and you treat internal polls from the Dems and the GOP equally.  

    117. …the fact Ehrlich is NOT competitive anymore certainly helps ensure there’s one less thing to gin up Republican interest on the Eastern Shore.

    118. I actually didn’t follow the primary election that closely because I didn’t think any of the 5 Republicans had a chance at knocking off McGovern. They needed someone like Karyn Polito (who is pro-choice and running for Treasurer) to have a real shot here. I voted for Brian Herr in the primary because he had the best fundraising and the most polished-looking campaign in place, but I don’t think he would have won either.

      Lamb, to his credit, is not running a bad campaign. He is a bit too conservative for the district and he has looked like a rookie a couple of times, but he is at the very least the first credible Republican to challenge McGovern in over 10 years.

    119. So NV Dems increased our raw vote lead in NV-03 by 515 votes in the last 24 hours… And the simultaneous good news & bad news is that Dina’s base is pulling the weight here. Dina Titus typically runs strongest in The East Side, Silverado Ranch, and the Green Valley part of Henderson, that stretch of land east of The 15 from Sahara to Silverado Ranch/Horizon Ridge where she’s known best.

      However, the bad news is that “the enthusiasm gap” is looking bigger in The Southwest, Summerlin, and Northwest suburbs. These are the fringes of the valley rambling along the western extension of The 215 Beltway. Dems are underperforming registration in (State) Senate Districts 6, 8, and 9 by about 4%, whereas Dems are underperforming Senate Districts 5 and 12

      (Henderson) by about 2% (about the Clark County average), and Dems are hardly underperforming at all in Senate District 7 (The East Side, which btw Dina used to represent)… And in fact, Dems are actually slightly OVERperforming registration in a

      handful of Assembly Districts east of The 15, like District 15 (East Side) and District 21 (Henderson, where btw I live! W00t!).

      So overall, it’s The East Side and Henderson keeping Dina and Harry afloat… Which is good for them, but the problems in the western suburbs are making me more concerned about the legislature candidates out there.

    120. He did have that silly stunt where he put his campaign platform on a barf bag. I sort of get what he was trying to say there, but it’s kind of easy to ridicule.

      McGovern had the whole “the Constitution is wrong” flub at the debate (everyone there knew he was talking about the Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision) but I’m not sure even that hurt him that much. The T&G comments board was full of “McGovern needs to retire so he can hang with his buddy Fidel” but those people are always saying that anyway.

      The GOP has a pretty weak bench in Central Mass, though less so than some other parts of the state. Polito would probably have been the strongest potential opponent, although someone like that subjecting herself to Republican candidate forums where most everyone else there is throwing red meat, could have been painful. (So naturally, running for a state office where a Republican candidate can stress moderation and competence and good government untied to Democrat machines seems like a more attractive proposition; the crazies tend to focus on Capitol Hill and ignore Beacon Hill most of the time.)

      Which I think is going to be a problem for Republicans in blue states going forward in a way that Democrats have

      (mostly, there are exceptions) avoided in red states.  Team Blue’s candidates in unfriendly territory aren’t generally calling for a Department of Peace and such. But every new Republican I see running for anything anywhere seems to be pushing for dismantling huge chunks of the public sector.  

    121. If this was a Rasmussen poll, on Thursday, he would have published an 8-point Buck lead, when in fact the story is much different.

      I’m curious, though, why one day out of three gets 53% of the weighting. Why wouldn’t they poll relatively equal numbers on all days? Is it a weekday/weekend difference: try to get 50% in a weekday sample and 50% on the weekend?

    122. This plus the ad that compares Whitman to Arnold are really going to hurt her.

      I was expecting Brown to run a really lackluster campaign and he has truly surprised me.

      I am not surprised that people are sick of Whitman though. She bought way too much airtime.  

    123. which is to be very efficient- play defense and stay out of the picture until Labor Day, be on the offense and appear on TV in person in October.  Get five or six persuasive attack ads together and launch them for maximal effect and damage.

      Don’t entertain any illusions of getting California Republican votes- it’s a waste of time and money trying for them.

    124. my inner pessimist thinks it might reinforce the image of Jerry Brown as a dinosaur and an insider.

    125. been neutral but I am now rooting for Chaffee. I mean what an opportunistic dick. Had the Republican’s taken him I bet he would have switched parties to further his career. Chaffee will likely serve a couple of terms as Governor and retire, Caprio could use the Governor’s mansion as a springboard to Senate down the road, and he has Joe Lieberman written all over him.  

    126. leaning Dem (not that it matters, I’m not a Rhode Islander), but now I’m all-out for Linc.

      I can’t imagine how this helps Caprio. Was this impulsive or strategic? I have a hard time believing the latter, because now more Dems and liberal/moderate indies will coalesce around Chafee, who seemed to already have the momentum in the race.

      Maybe Caprio knows he’s toast and is going down swinging?

    127. just wow…. Caprio’s lucky that Obama can’t endorse Chafee out in the open otherwise he would piss off a ton of people at DNC headquarters.

    128. I was just thinking how I would rather Chafee over Caprio, in the even Reed left to join the cabinet. Now, I’m thinking I want Caprio!  

    129. I mentioned a while back how Caprio is a dick. there are dickish things about him that I don’t think it’s appropriate to say on here, but here’s an example of his dickishness coming out into the open. This is why lots of Rhode Island progressives like me who are otherwise reliable Dem voters are voting for Chafee instead.

    130. I should point out that RI doesn’t have no-excuse early voting. so late-breaking developments will hurt badly. (good thing this happened to Caprio and not Chafee since I already sent in my ballot!)

    131. When you put together a sample, you have targets in your various demographics.  You want X number of women, Y number of College Grads, Z number of Latinos, etc…Sometimes on day one, you get a larger percentage of one of those groups than you need.  You have to find the right balance to make the demos line up.  Maybe you need a lot more Women on day 2.  Your goal is to make the sample as balanced as possible, so any weighting is minimal.  Some pollsters do it a lot better than others.  I work in a field that literally gets bonuses or pink slips based on a company’s ability to accurately create a representative sample.  

    132. Don’t know the demographics of that jurisdiction in particular, but you can’t go much lower than 13%.

      I’d be more concerned about what people in a county in, say, Ohio where Obama won 54% or so of the vote thinks of his performance.  Or at the bottom end, a county in, say, Florida where he got 45% of the vote.  

    133. those areas to GOTV.

      Overall, the numbers are looking pretty good. We’ll have to see if this trend continues this week or not though.

    134. Someone at DK posted a link which showed Ras. had the worst pollster ratings in 2000, which was surprising because they were pretty accurate in 2008. So, was 2008 an aberration for them or was 2000?  

    135. went from McCain +11 to McCain +16, while Manchin’s margin went from +3 to +6.

      So this wasn’t an especially friendly sample to Manchin, and yet he’s still growing support.

    136. Depressive among usually Democratic-leaners, anger and even fury – among Republican-leaning.  

    137. He had McCain winning FL by a point, and Obama won by 3.

      He had Ohio tied, and Obama won by 4.

      He had McCain winning NC by a point, and Obama won by a point.

      He had McCain winning Indiana by 4 or so, and Obama won by a point.

      He had PA about 4 points closer than it was.

      He had NV a LOT closer than it was.

      There were others, but on balance almost every state that was close, Scotty had Obama doing worse than he actually did.

    138. I meant to say that I wish the Democrats didn’t have to use such an argument. I mean, I understand why they do, and like I said before, out of all the outrageous arguments that are made by and against candidates, this is really low on the list. But it’s still not a great argument to be making.  

    139. it is a better argument than just going all protectionist. It’s a way to bridge the divide between Midwest and Pacific Ds.

    140. although I thought I wanted to be one once, so let me say that in theory, trade is good. It’s clean cut and pretty easy to understand. But then, when you factor in things like subsidies and exchange rates and so on, it becomes a lot more complicated. The political systems of the trading countries certainly do not help, to say the least.

      Or, to be simpler, trading doesn’t have to involve all of the things you describe. It can, but that’s not because it’s inherently bad. It’s because of outside influences.

    141. a stake through the heart of Democratic chances to win the White House. Right now, there’s no visible replacement for California amongst blue states. If Texas becomes competitive in the next few cycles, perhaps there will be, but then if the Democrats are winning Texas, why wouldn’t they be winning California?

      Also, think of Congress. It’s a big, big state, and getting even bigger, and its Democratic members make up about ten percent of the Democratic caucus in the House. You’d have to think that if the Republicans were making in roads at the presidential level, they’d make even more at the congressional level. Think of how difficult it might be for Democrats to control the House if the situation were reversed and they had 19 Representatives while the Republicans had 34.  

    142. especially when there’s also a viable Republican on the ballot, I would think he’d risk losing many, many more Dems and indies than he would gain conservative votes. Doesn’t make sense to me.

    143. They seem to like getting governors and Senators in those Blue States out of a kind of spite, more for the glee of handing Democrats a defeat than illusions of attaining any enduring advantage.  Scott Brown is a trophy to wave in Democrats’ faces, not someone they trust and rely on and expect to hang on the seat the seat he holds.  Likewise with Schwarzenegger and Pataki.

    144. and it was.  Obama won it on unexpectedly large and well organized youth and minority turnout, iirc.  Caught the Republicans napping.

      Terry has a struggle to consolidate Republican support every election.  It’s not the opposition, though Democrats have put up some decent candidates.  It’s not that Terry ever strays from the Party line.  My guess is that Terry is simply an unlikable hack even to his own.

    145. if you don’t intend to win and then hold the seat? If they really didn’t care, they’d simply not put up a credible candidate with party support, as is the case in Pelosi’s district. The fact that someone like Scott Brown, a relative moderate, is allowed to run for the seat with party support is an indication that they want to hold it. If they didn’t care, why wouldn’t they nominate the most conservative person they could find? If nothing else, holding the position in question allows them some small chance of influencing the agenda in an indirect way, like having a say in redistricting or voting for the leadership.

      I’m sure there is a sense of glee when Republicans control a position that should be well within the reach of the Democratic party. I was certainly happy to hear that Virgil Goode lost when Obama won Virginia. But that doesn’t come at the expense of actually holding the seat for the the purpose of influencing policy. How could you possibly make that pitch to donors?  

    146. By sending organizers to the Summerlin area this week to do more walking and calling.

      The NV Dems’ coordinated campaign has already been working out there, but I have a feeling they’ll be pushing even harder this week. I’ve been hearing from many more Dems who will be voting, but haven’t done so yet… If they vote, “the enthusiasm gap” is gone. It’s just a matter of getting them to vote this week.

    147. The numbers are definitely an outlier out of everything we see in public polling, and it’s no surprise if Boxer’s numbers, while good, are not THAT good.

    Comments are closed.