Hays Research for IBEW (10/25-26, ? likely voters, 10/22 in parens):
Scott McAdams (D): 29 (25)
Joe Miller (R): 23 (26)
“Another candidate you have to write in”: 34 (31)
Undecided: 13 (17)
(n = 500)
Hays Research has apparently been polling the Alaska Senate race repeatedly without releasing the results, and the Mudflats got their hands on the newest batch of numbers, which are a real eye-opener. (Of course, that would suggest that they’re polling on someone’s behalf, and the writeup has no word of that, which seems like an important detail. It also doesn’t give an MoE or even state whether we’re dealing with LVs, RVs, or what here. But you can’t have everything.) (UPDATE: Thanks to Nate Silver, we now know the poll was paid for by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and is of likely voters.)
Most notably, this is the first poll released that gives Lisa Murkowski a sizable lead, or at least that gives “another candidate you have to write in” a sizable lead, but one would expect the vast majority of that go for Murkowski. (Unlike other polls, this one doesn’t even delve into who people plan to write in. There have been as many methods of polling this impossible-to-poll race as there have been pollsters trying it.) But also significantly, this is the first poll to show Joe Miller in third place and Scott McAdams leading among all named candidates. The memo has trendlines from four different polls, so the collapse of Miller is on full display over the course of October.
Suggestive of an “anti-incumbent” year is that most of the momentum seems to be with McAdams, not Murkowski, though. Does that mean that Miller votes are entirely flowing to McAdams, rather than to Murkowski? Maybe former Miller votes are also shifting to Murkowski and undecideds are breaking for McAdams. (That would certainly explain why the NRSC has been going anti-McAdams with its latest ad: they’re rightly worried he may be able to shoot the gap.) At any rate, Miller seems to be in a position he can’t recover from, especially as more damning revelations seem to trickle in every day: his favorables are now 26/68, including 60% “very unfavorable.” (If there’s any consolation for him from this, at least he’ll probably still perform better than fellow grifter Dan Maes.)
Here’s one other item that will help Murkowski: the Alaska Supreme Court promptly overruled a lower court that said that voters can’t use a list of potential write-in candidates. While the list approved by the Supreme Court will not actually be on display in voting booths, those asking for help at polling places can be shown the list. (UPDATE: There’s still a temporary restraining order against the lists for now, though, so this looks like it’ll be an ongoing story. H/t Adam B.) (YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Actually, the lists will be available, but with a few caveats. In Adam’s own words, “What it does is stays the effect of the TRO below — in other words, the Board is not forbidden from posting lists — but says that the lists can’t contain partisan identification for the write-in candidates, and if a voter is given the list, her ballot gets segregated.” Here’s the link to the Supreme Court’s order, if anyone actually wants to read the fine print.)
The Alaska Supreme Court is still receiving briefs today on the merits of the “posted list” question; they’ve entered a stay of the lower court’s TRO until they resolve this.
Teabaggers’ strategy backfires! Again!
McAdams were to pick up this seat, in the midst of such a republican year like this, that would be beyond stunning. At the very least, it’s becoming obvious that Miller isn’t going to win. He can’t collapse any more than 20% though, because I don’t see McAdams cracking 40% of the vote in AK this year. For him to win, it’ll have to be a 38-35-27 or thereabout deal.
However looking at the ads being run, Murkowski has switched her focus to McAdams and McAdams is going after Murkowski with his latest and potentially last ad –
If McAdams can show Miller running third, it might allow him to shake lose Dem “strategic voters” to come home.
If Miller’s really in third place now, Scott McAdams could pull an upset. We don’t know where Lisa Murkowski’s numbers will actually be, just because write in campaigns are unpredictable, so McAdams might have so room here.
I would believe the numbers, but this specific pollster has such a horrific record, also that it’s someone’s internal poll.
I hope he thanks Sarah Palin at his victory speech for making his win possible. That’s a clip that would be run on endless loop on the cable shows.
McAdams would have crushed Miller in a 1 v. 1
According to Politico, anyways. It’s ridiculous.
I frequent RedState as much as I frequent SwingState. I don’t post over there, because of there “never-question-teabagger-orthodoxy-or-be-banned” policy. But they are completely discrediting this poll without having any cross tabs or anything that we don’t have access to. It is amusing how they are just dismissing the fact that Miller isn’t as popular as Jesus.
A lot of times I read the commentary on SSP, and I get the feeling that things are going a lot better then they are (e.g. the constant talk over Rand Paul’s weakness, the constant talk of a Sestak comback, the continuous predictions that Democrats will just barely keep the House). Then I actually go look at the polls at pollster or RCP, and it’s pretty clear that Rand Paul has a strong and stable lead, that Toomey has a strong and stable lead, that Nate Silver gives Democrats <20% chances of keeping the House, that Richard Burr has a double-digit lead and that Democrats are mad for thinking that they can win in NC, and on and on and on.
I kind of feel that this is happening again in Alaska.
Face it, this is a deep red state in a deep red year, and almost everywhere outside of SSP and a few liberal blogs McAdams is talked about as an irrelevant candidate (the Kendrick Meek in Alaska). I just don’t see a Democrat winning in Alaska – not in this year.
Dailykos has some crosstab info:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
I don’t know what the hell is up with these numbers, but apparently no one in their comments thread has pointed up these numbers add up to either less than or way more than a hundred. Someone with an account there should bring that up.
If McAdams wins it would be almost as big of upset as Cao was. A fisherman to a Senator in a matter of years. Probably not going to happen though. I’m not getting my hopes up. PPP will do a poll of this race, it should be interesting to see what a reputable pollster finds. A Murkowski win is really a meh moment as she is better than Miller but is still far to the right and I’ve never liked her do to the way she got where she is anyway. I could understand why an Alaskan dem would vote for her though, they want their pork and not the crazy. A McAdams win would obviously be fantastic though. Like I said though, it’s more than likely not going to happen.
The undecideds are so big they could provide a rather large victory margin should they split in a single direction. Though this is the 1 race where I believe high undecideds might be a reality.
The most important thing is that on election night McAdams be ahead of Miller. The Murkowski votes will be challenged until miod-2011 I’m sure. So long as Miller is behind the actual name printed on the ballots (McAdams) we can be pretty sure not to have Sen Miller.
Gotta say, I know people love McAdams’ candidacy, but I’m loving that Murkowski is fighting back. I don’t know why, but I like a fighter to keep it interesting. On the other hand, I kinda think had Castle done this in Deleware he could be winning right now to be honest.
I’m at the point where I’ve given up on trying to predict this one. It’s nice to have polling, but I trust the polling here less than any other race just because of how odd the race is to begin with. Anyone else feel that way?
Nothing would surprise me here on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning/December in court. I’d say a Murkowski win would be least surprising, but really, I don’t think it’s wise to take anything off the table.
Have any Senators endorsed her this cycle?
Poll was paid for by IBEW Local 1547
Hays has posted methodology and data on their website:
http://www.haysresearch.com/pa…
Despite the decent transparency I think you have to consider it a partisan internal poll… if the numbers had shown McAdams still behind Miller, would it have been released? It’s cherrypicked data, to some extent.
How much support did the write-in cost her? Did Lampson only win because she dropped out? What can we take away from that race? I know the dynamics were different (DeLay dropped out, Murkowski is far better know, and it’s a legit three person race), but can we guesstimate how much support Murk will lose due to a write in campaign based on TX-22 in 2006?
Will Murkowski address Palin in her victory speech should she win? If so, what will she say? And will she address Demint directly or only refer to “Alaskan independence when voting”?
I’d love for her to come otu swinging, I think she’d have the political capital to say what she wants too, though I’m not sure it benefits her to do so of course 🙂
I wonder where she’d be. I’m guessing high 30’s right now and still rising…