Public Policy Polling (8/27-28, likely voters, no trend lines):
Scott McAdams (D): 39
Joe Miller (R): 47
Undecided: 14Scott McAdams (D): 22
Joe Miller (R): 38
Lisa Murkowski (L-inc): 34
Undecided: 6Scott McAdams (D): 28
Lisa Murkowski (R-inc): 60
Undecided: 12
(MoE: ±2.7%)
Folks, we have ourselves a race here! In a head-to-head matchup against Miller, McAdams trails Miller by only 8 points — that’s about the best poll we’ve seen for a Alaska Democrat this cycle. McAdams holds 81% of Democrats (to Miller’s 73% of Republicans) and splits independents down the middle with Miller at 42% apiece. And that’s before most Alaskans are acquainted with McAdams! Joe Miller has a favorable rating that’s already underwater at 36-52, while McAdams is at 23-24, with 53% claiming “not sure”.
The poll also solidifies that this race would be dead in the water with Murkowski as the Republican nominee. Murkowski has stronger favorables among liberals than she does conservatives, and has a higher approval rating among Dems (52-41) than Republicans (47-47). In a three-way race as a Libertarian, Murkowski would take a plurality of independents (38%), a significant chunk of Democrats (28%) and nearly a third of Republicans (32%). As Tom Jensen notes, Democrats should actually be hoping that Murkowski does not pull the Libertarian trigger, as her supporters align behind McAdams by a 47-23 margin in a two-way race against Miller.
Of course, the dynamics of three-way races are always unpredictable, and as we’re seeing in Florida right now with Charlie Crist’s difficulties, they can present difficult needles to thread for the outsider candidate. However, for the time being, it would appear that Democrats should be hoping that Murkowski loses the final count — and that this stays as a two-way race.
They did just give her a big phat phinger, and her base seems now to be cross-partisan
From the very little bit we’ve seen of McAdams (i.e. the video posted here and his website), I really think he has the possibility of connecting with rural, mostly conservative voters. He reminds me a bit of John Tester.
It seems pretty clear that enough independents and more moderate Republicans (the folks that mostly would vote generic R this year) are really uneasy about Joe Miller. McAdams needs to keep raising those questions, and sell himself as a solid alternative. Fortunately, this is such a cheap state to do it in — various groups could spend as much on all of McAdams’s campaign as would take for one weekend of a TV blitz in California or Texas.
but win the Senate races in NV, KY, CO, and AK, that will be the story the next day. “Republicans take the House, tea-baggers screw them over in the Senate.)
This looks like a solid win/win for us. If Murkowski forgoes a third party bid, she’ll likely rule out endorsing Miller and we have ourselves a race. If Murkowski jumps in, we start out behind but have the opportunity to make significant inroads and at the very least, get an autumn full of Grade A cat fud. Plus the national media this kind of race could generate would be huge for us. Knock ’em dead Scott.
Alaskan opinion polls seem to be of questionable reliability. This one seems intuitive, though.
The sample went for McCain over Obama 55-39 while the real results were McCain over Obama 59.5-38. No doubt these numbers would still be surprising if the voter sample were appropriately adjusted, but perhaps a few points ought to be shifted to the R column. I see no reason to not expect R enthusiasm to outpace D enthusiasm as is the case with everywhere else.
I think the one path to victory he has is for Murkowski not run and then endorse him about 2 weeks before the election.
Or McAdams drops out and Murkowski is the Dem.
This is just the result of a hard fought primary. I’d suspect this number would flip-flop and most of the Murkowski Republicans would find their way home to the GOP.
Also Miller will have 10x the money McAdams will being a National Teabagger candidate and quasi-celebrity for knocking off Palin’s arch enemy in Alaska. He’ll be able to frame himself and McAdams before Scott has enough time to even get enough money to get on the air.
Miller is going to race to the middle, to pretend to be a moderate and that will fool enough of the Murkowski voters.
Only chance I’d give McAdams is if Murkowski endorses him and campaigns with him.
First, if Murkowski runs third-party, there’s no way she bolts and caucuses with the Democrats. I suspect the national GOP, unlike the Palin/Tea Party crowd, would half-heartedly back Miller, whilst giving a wink and nod that a Murkowski win would be OK. I think if she does jump in and run a center-right campaign, she probably wins.
Second, I have a tough time fathoming McAdams can really win here. Democrats are likely to make-up less than a FIFTH (!) of the electorate this year, and even if McAdams made inroads among moderate Republicans, he’d probably still fall at least ten points short.
Third, I’m actually of the mindset that McAdams can only win if Murkowski DOES run. If Miller runs as a Tea Party populist and Murkowski as a rank-and-file Republican, that gives McAdams a clear path to scoring among the centrist Tony Knowles crowd.
I cant see how Miller beating McAdams 47 to 39 can be thought of in any way as great news. If after all the votes are counted Miller wins the GOP nod its still his race to lose.
Remember there is still uncertainty on the GOP side holding down Miller’s numbers right now. If he wins outright his numbers will improve.
As for Murkowski I dont see what she gains by going rogue (I couldnt resist using that line). If she has lost she needs to realistically look at what she wants. I could see Murkowski very easily sliding into a very well paid K street lobbying job. Going 3rd party, bad mouthing Miller and making GOP enemies wont help her very much in her new career.
Sadly for the Dems I most likely can see her swallowing her pride, endorsing Miller and then riding off to rake in the bucks.
Besides if in the back of her mind she ever hopes to stage a political comeback (ie run for Senate in 2014) pissing off the GOP establishment out of spite wont help her any.
McAdams is much closer to Miller in a two-way race than I thought possible.
This poll is flat wrong, Alaska polls usually are. This is a huge and diverse state and pollsters typically take the easy way out – they call random folks in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau and then are amazed when the actual results come in. At that point we hear, ‘Boy things must have changed in the last 10 minutes after we took our poll. Some pertinent details:
1. Democrats do very poorly in statewide office. Ted Stevens lost due to a late – and ultimately bogus – felony conviction. Prior to that, it had been 1970 since a Dem had been sent to Washington.
2. There aren’t that many Dems here – only 15% of the registered voters. True, only 25% are reg Rs but the vast majority of the Inds and NPs vote R. Look at the primary, look how many of them took the R ballot rather than the D.
3. PPP says they surveyed 1,300 likely voters but offers no geographical info or party weighting. No doubt they oversampled Anchorage and oversampled Ds.
4. No one in Alaska was really surprised that Miller pulled out ahead. As the election got closer, one began to hear more and more supporters for Miller and the feeling was that it was getting close. Even the last pollsters had him down 11 – and he finished up 2, a mere 13% error.
5. Pollsters made the same mistakes when Palin ran for governor – she was supposed to finish 3rd in the primary and won by 20%. Then she was going to lose the general to Knowles and won by 8%.
Trust me, if Miller wins the primary, he easily beats McAdams in a 2-way. If Lisa M runs as a Libertarian, folks will call her a sore loser and, again, Miller wins the general. Her best shot might be as a write-in and I can’t see that working.
Her only real chance is hoping the remaining count goes her way.
McAdams has no shot. None. He didn’t even file until June 1 when it became clear that no other Democrat was going to bother.
Why do you think Tony Knowles said no to replacing him on the ballot? Because he knows he would lose and lose badly.
Knowles lost to ‘Thanks Dad’ Lisa Murkowski in 04 despite the baggage of being the only US Senator appointed by her father. Two years later, he lost 41-49 to Sarah Palin.
If the so-called ‘most popular Democrat in Alaska’ couldn’t win an election, how is McAdams?
Get out a map. Sitka is on an island and is closer to Seattle than Anchorage.
Again, look at history. No Democrat has gone to DC since 1970 except Mark Begich who barely scraped by after Stevens was convicted of 5 felonies.
Bill Sheffield was elected governor for one term in 1982 but didn’t run for re-election due to some pesky indictments. Steve Cowper served a term and then fled.
Tony Knowles was elected Governor by the thinnest of margins in 1994 and then was re-elected after the Republican nominee was found to have lied about getting millions in donations from his rich Chicago wife.
That’s it. That is the list of successful statewide Dems in the last 40 years. Contrast that with Ted Stevens, 40 years in the Senate. Frank Murkowski, 22 years in the Senate. Don Young, 40 years in the House. Governors Hickel, Miller, Hammond, Palin, Parnell.
Alaska has been carried by exactly one Democrat running for President, LBJ in 64. Every other time, the electoral votes have gone to a Republican.
Lisa Murkowski may win or Scott Miller may win but you can bet it will be one of them. As the DNC spokesman said, “Well, our candidate in Alaska…his name is not Lisa Murkowski.”
At some point PPP has to reexamine it’s weighting. They do excellent among the sample they do poll, but their sample weighting ranges from okay to incredibly obtuse. That’s why they are quite accurate in primaries (where there is almost no partisan weighting).
PPP scale now goes from a 28% Obama voter no-show rate in consistently high turnout Wisconsin, to this poll where they assert a 10% McCain voter no show rate.
While I can see some merit to the idea that Alaska will have the greatest McCain no-show rate in the country, 10% is enormous… especially given their assertions of extreme 20%+ Obama no-shows in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A more realistic (and consistent with their other polling) 2% percent McCain no-show rate would put McAdams about 12 points behind.
Miller was on Face the Nation today. You can watch the video here. I won’t write what I thought out his appearance but all I’ll say is if this wasn’t a deep red state like Alaska his goose would be cooked like Sharron Angle’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Immediately after the Republican primary in Nevada, the polling had Angle over Reid by 11. Once she had to start actually defending her ideas and positions, she started tanking. Joe Miller’s got that same not-ready-for-prime-time air to him and a similar collection of patently nutty proposals. His proposal to eliminate the Department of Education would cost Alaska a significant sum. His proposals to limit the amount of revenue Alaska receives from the federal government would seem very likely to draw a negative reception. He got off on an Angle-like wrong foot by starting his (mostly) post-primary campaign by sending out the Murkowski tweet, alienating her and a large percentage of her supporters.
Basically, a difference of eight points is the starting baseline. If Miller turns out to be as bad a campaigner as Sharron Angle or Rand Paul, then McAdams has a legitimate shot at taking this seat. If Miller gets his act together very rapidly, if McAdams runs a poor campaign, or if Miller gets a large amount of outside help, then the chance will fade into the normal Republican-leaning Alaskan political mold.
“concern troll”.