Swing State Project

Thursday, September 28, 2006

NY-26: NRCC Chairman tied with Jack Davis (D)

Posted by RBH

SurveyUSA released a new poll showing the following results.

Jack Davis (D): 43
Tom Reynolds (R-Inc): 45
Christine Murphy (G): 8
Undecided: 4
MoE: ±4.5%

But, there's a few catches that make this look even better.

1) The Green Party candidate got booted off the ballot during the polling period. She got 8% of Democrats and 20% of Independents. And those votes are more likely to go to Davis than to Reynolds.

2) Reynolds leads with Republicans by a 62/31 margin. In races where your side is outnumbered, it's pretty helpful to get some people from the other side cross over and vote for your guy, especially if you can get 1/3rd of them to cross over.

3) SurveyUSA had a huge Republican sample. In a district where 41% of voters are registered Republicans, their sample was 51% Republican.Needless to say, when it comes to this poll, I would imagine that at worst, it's a tie, and at best, we're on our way to an upset.

So, some of you might be asking "Who the hell is Jack Davis?"

Jack Davis is a business owner who is staunchly opposed to free trade treaties. He ran against Reynolds in 2004, mostly self-financing his campaign, and recieving 44% of the vote.

Davis' website outlines 12 short policy statements which are the basic foundation for his campaign. As well, there's Speeches.

Back in 2004, Davis spent over $1M of his own money. In 2006, he has mentioned spending as much as $2M of his own money. Of course, Reynolds just says that he's trying to buy the seat. Which I would imagine doesn't quite work as well when it comes to someone who is 73 years old. He's spending what it'll take to win, because people like Tom Reynolds upped the ante in campaign spending. Jack Davis probably isn't going to make any fundraising lists, but he is putting this race on the map.

And I can't see any problem in making the Republican House campaign committee chairman concentrate on winning his seat. After all, he'll be spending money in his district, instead of sending it off to help other incumbents.

Posted at 07:22 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, New York, Polls | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Junkie Heaven

Posted by DavidNYC

Via Taegan Goddard's indispensible Political Wire, we have polls for thirty - count `em, thirty - competitive House races from RT Strategies/Constituent Dynamics. Just enjoy:

District	Incumbent Party	Party	%	Challenging Party	Party	%	Margin
AZ-08*	Primary 9/12/06	(R)	46	Primary 9/12/06	(D)	50	D+4
CO-04	Marilyn Musgrave	(R)	47	Angie Paccione	(D)	41	R+6
CO-07*	Rick O’Donnell	(R)	46	Ed Perlmutter	(D)	48	D+2
CT-02	Rob Simmons	(R)	45	Joe Courtney	(D)	51	D+6
CT-04	Christopher Shays	(R)	49	Diane Farrell	(D)	42	R+7
FL-13*	Primary 9/05/06	(R)	56	Primary 9/05/06	(D)	38	R+18
FL-22	Clay Shaw	(R)	52	Ron Klein	(D)	44	R+8
IA-01*	Mike Whalen	(R)	41	Bruce Braley	(D)	54	D+13
IA-03	Leonard Boswell	(D)	54	Jeff Lamberti	(R)	43	D+11
IL-06*	Peter Roskam	(R)	46	Tammy Duckworth	(D)	47	D+1
IL-08	Melissa Bean	(D)	48	David McSweeney	(R)	45	D+3
IN-02	Chris Chocola	(R)	N/A	Joe Donnelly	(D)	N/A	Polling under way
IN-08	John Hostettler	(R)	N/A	Brad Ellsworth	(D)	N/A	Polling under way
IN-09	Mike Sodrel	(R)	N/A	Baron Hill	(D)	N/A	Polling under way
KY-04	Geoff Davis	(R)	49	Ken Lucas	(D)	46	R+3
MN-06*	Primary 9/12/06	(R)	53	Primary 9/12/06	(D)	42	R+11
NC-11	Charles Taylor	(R)	47	Heath Shuler	(D)	50	D+3
NM-01	Heather Wilson	(R)	48	Patricia Madrid	(D)	45	R+3
NV-03	Jon Porter	(R)	51	Tessa Hafen	(D)	43	R+8
NY-24*	Primary 9/12/06	(R)	41	Primary 9/12/06	(D)	49	D+8
OH-06*	Charlie Wilson	(D)	56	Chuck Blasdel	(R)	40	D+16
OH-18*	Primary 9/14/06	(R)	43	Zack Space	(D)	47	D+4
PA-06	Jim Gerlach	(R)	45	Lois Murphy	(D)	50	D+5
PA-08	Mike Fitzpatrick	(R)	53	Patrick Murphy	(D)	45	R+8
PA-10	Don Sherwood	(R)	43	Chris Carney	(D)	50	D +7
VA-02	Thelma Drake	(R)	43	Phil Kellam	(D)	51	D+8
VT-AL*	Peter Welch	(D)	54	Primary 9/12/06	(R)	40	D+14
WA-08	Dave Reichert	(R)	46	Darcy Burner	(D)	49	D+3
WI-08*	Primary 9/12/06	(R)	44	Primary 9/12/06	(D)	48	D+4
WV-01	Alan Mollohan	(D)	52	Chris Wakim	(R)	42	D+10

An asterisk indicates an open seat. All polls have a margin of error of ±3.1%. Bowers has more here and here.

Posted at 03:17 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Polls | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Internal Polling This Year

Posted by DavidNYC

Josh Marshall writes a little bit here about internal polls. On one point I'm not so sure I agree:

The problem with them is that a partisan poll only gets released when it's good for the candidate who sponsors it.

So, hypothetically, a candidate could commission three polls, get a range of results and only release the one which shows him doing the best, a reading that's likely an outlier and thus misleading.

While this is indeed hypothetically possible, I tend to doubt that this takes place all that often. Commissioning a poll is not a cheap exercise - it's a five-figure affair no matter what. (Unless you use a robo-polling outfit, but I really don't think many campaigns bother with that.) So unless your campaign is especially flush, and a bit silly, I think the most likely reaction to a bad internal poll is to just shut up about it.

Where I certainly do agree with Josh is that the typical response to Joe Democrat releasing an internal poll is for Jim Republican to fire back with one of his own. But the GOP has been almost whisper-quiet on this front. Exactly how silent? Amy Walter tells us (sub. req.):

Publicly released polls taken in individual districts also tell a pretty ugly story for the incumbent party in Congress. Since the beginning of this year, we have seen 38 polls released by Democrats, or Democratic-related groups, while we have seen just five public polls released by Republicans or Republican-related groups. And, when you look at the individual polls, it is easy to understand why Democrats are much more willing to disclose their numbers.

Democrats have released polling taken in 27 districts held by a Republican. Of those, 22 incumbents were under 50 percent of the vote against their Democratic opponent and 10 incumbents were either behind or within the margin of error. Republicans have only released three polls in Republican held seats - two of which showed the Republican under 50 percent (one was Rep. Bob Ney who announced this week that he was not running for re-election).

Walter's article was dated Aug. 9th. I know of at least three other favorable Dem polls taken since that time - Hodes', of course, Mike Arcuri in NY-24, and Larry Kissell in NC-08. There may well be more out there. And in any event, like Josh says, these three new polls - like most of the thirty-eight taken before them - have been accompanied by just one distinct sound: cricket, cricket.

Posted at 12:53 AM in 2006 Elections, Polls | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

New SUSA Senate Approval Polls

Posted by James L.

Enjoy. Highlights: Jim Talent (R-MO) is in the negatives for the first time, as is John Kyl (R-AZ). Santorum's prognosis looks pretty grim, too.

Posted at 06:00 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Polls | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Thursday, May 11, 2006

The Roaring Twenties

Posted by DavidNYC

Wondering who's gonna win Josh Marshall's pool?

Answer: We all do. Well, the other 71% of us, anyhow.

Know that tomorrow, no matter how bad your day is, George Bush's will almost certainly be worse.

UPDATE: Ha! A commenter at DKos points out that the Kansas City Royals, with a 10-22 record (ie, 31%), are doing better than George Bush. Yow.... that's GOTTA hurt.

Posted at 10:33 PM in Polls | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Monday, March 20, 2006

Poll Roundup

Posted by DavidNYC

• OH-06: Hadn't seen this before. A January internal poll from the Wilson campaign put him up 42-24 over Chuck Blasdel. Of course, this survey was taken before the filing debacle. Things may have changed quite a bit since then. (Thanks to reader Sam for alterting me to the poll.)

• WA-Sen: The latest Rasmussen has Cantwell leading McGavick 49-36. McGavick has scored 36 or 37% over the five polls Rasmussen has conducted since early November. Meanwhile, Cantwell has dropped from 52 to 49 in that timeframe - but even Rasmussen says this may just be "noise". Regardless, McGavick is just not gaining much traction here.

• NJ-Sen: Menendez has a 40-36 lead over Kean according to Quinnipiac, up from 38-36 in January. Bush's approval is 31-65, his lowest ever in NJ. I just don't see how Kean can pull this one out with an albatross like that around his neck.

• MT-Sen: Rasmussen also has a new poll on this race. Both Tester and Morrison beat Burns (46-43 and 48-43 respectively). Rasmussen also looked at what would happen if Burns dropped out and Denny Rehberg or Marc Racicot replaced him. Those numbers look very bad for us: Rehberg beats Tester by 56-37 and Morrison by 53-41, while Racicot beats Tester by 57-34 and Morrison by 56-36. Ouch. Schweitzer, meanwhile, clocks in with a 73-24 approval rating.

Posted at 02:22 PM in 2006 Elections, Polls | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Thursday, January 19, 2006

On Internal Polls

Posted by DavidNYC

As a general rule, there are certain kinds of polls I don't like to report. One are Zogby's Internet polls - I don't trust the methodology or accuracy. I'm also always somewhat suspicious of partisan polls, for obvious reasons. And, likewise, I'm definitely very skeptical of internal campaign polls. I'm not saying that independent polls are always right, or better, or anything so extreme - but I do think, on average, they deserve greater trust. (And if you want to compare pollsters, SurveyUSA has put together some great interactive spreadsheets covering just about every outfit in the land.)

Anyhow, I say all this because you may have heard about an internal poll from John Morrison, showing him up 39-20 over Jon Tester in the Montana Democratic senate primary. As I say, I'm no fan of internal polls - I didn't give any airtime to Sherrod Brown's recent survey, either. But I also don't want to be accused of ignoring "bad news" about Jon Tester, a guy I support. I'm not going to spend time trying to dissect this poll - and in any event, we've got almost no information about it except for the topline number. It's clearly not good news for Tester, but I'll wait until we have an independent poll on this primary before I sink my teeth into anything.

Posted at 04:55 PM in Polls | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Thursday, November 17, 2005

New SUSA Bush 50-State Poll

Posted by DavidNYC

Enjoy. He's at 37-60 - first time he's hit 60% disapprove according to SUSA.

Posted at 03:48 PM in Polls | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

DCCC Incumbent Protection Message on Iraq

Posted by Bob Brigham

Two months ago today, David Sirota rightly blasted the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for a disconnect on Iraq:

On the issue of the Iraq War, the disconnect between the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party establishment and political reality in America is growing by the day. Case in point is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's attitude towards the tremendous special election run by Paul Hackett in the staunchly Republican Cincinnati suburbs.

Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, made headlines in the campaign for taking a strong position against the original decision to go to war in Iraq, even calling the President of the United States an SOB. And while it's true, Hackett didn't support full withdrawal from Iraq, few would deny that his position opposing the war was a key part of his campaign.

Ultimately, the anti-war position defined his candidacy, and was the clear reason he was able to do so well in such a Republican district. That should be no surprise: polls have been telling us for months that America agrees with Hackett in believing going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Meanwhile, Americans' view of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level ever.

Incredibly, however, in a memo sent to all Democratic House Members about what Democrats should learn from the Hackett race, the DCCC makes not one mention of the Iraq War and its effect on the election. Not one. It is as if the party is going out of its way to deny the importance of Democrats taking a strong position against the war, or making the war a serious issue in their campaigns.

In the two months since the infamous DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel sent this memo, more than 150 US troops have made the ultimate sacrifice and public opinion polls have moved another 5-10 points against Emanuel and Bush.

Any Democrat serious about challenging an incumbent Republican member of Congress is wise to make Iraq a defining issue in the race. Yet the DCCC has remained silent on Iraq because the message is quite different for incumbent Democrats who -- like Congressman Rahm Emanuel -- are on the wrong side of the issue. As long as the DCCC remains silent, it is clear that their message and priority is incumbent protection -- trying to minimize losses instead of winning seats.

Yesterday, Chris Bowers noted that Congressman Rahm Emanuel never mentioned "Iraq" when talking about the difference between Democrats and Republicans on Meet the Press:

This is despite the fact that recent polling has repeatedly shown that the number one difference between rank and file Democrats and rank and file Republicans is, in general, differing views on national security policy and the use of military force and, in particular, the decision to go to war in Iraq. This is despite the fact that back in May, during the first vote on withdrawal in the House, Republicans voted 98% against and over 60% of Democrats voted in favor. And that was in May.

So, it would appear that the DCCC wants to sweep the number one issue that separates Democrats from Republicans under the rug. This issue also happens to be the number one issue in the country. And oh yeah--it is an issue on which the majority Democratic position has overwhelming national support, including a near majority among Republicans.

.

But hey, let's not run on said issue. In fact, let's not even mention it. Let's take it off the table, because that worked really well in 2002. Let's brag, like Schumer did in 2002, that Bush was winking at us during his speech when he was stating his case for war--a war which DSCC head Schumer voted for--rather than arguing that said speech and said war was based upon lies. Let's not talk about Iraq, because we are Democrats, and we don't want to win, and we don't want to address the important issues of the day, and we don't have the guts to stand up and support what the vast majority of our caucus, our rank-and-file, and our entire nation supports.

If Iraq isn't on the Democratic agenda in 2006, we will lose. A party will never sweep to power if it holds the same minority position on the most important issue of the day as the current governing party. I am starting to wonder if Democrats in D.C. have the ability to grasp this, or if they even care.

That last line brings up an important question and the answer is the difference between Rahm Emanuel's DCCC being incompetent or just lacking an interest in anything other than protecting incumbent Democrats. Because I would hate to think it is the former, I'm going to assume it is the latter. Regardless, I think it is clear that the DCCC is not focused on winning additional seats in 2006.

A few hours later, Bower's post was linked on the most popular Democratic blog where Kos said:

The DCCC's top dog, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, is putting together a pretty solid foundation for a "Democratic agenda". Yet he continues to avoid Iraq like the plague, ignoring the most pressing and important issue of the day.

A reminder to those blinder-wearing DC Dems -- support for the Iraq War is crashing.

Two months ago, Sirota smacked Emanuel upside the head and it played out in the papers:

"This sentiment gives Democrats an opening," he said recently. "We can now make the case that an exit strategy from Iraq will actually strengthen our national security. We have to stand up for our principles. There is strength in national-security prudence. There is weakness in national-security impulsiveness, as Bush has demonstrated. People will believe us. They have the evidence in front of their eyes every night on the evening news."

Unfortunately, he argued, the top Democrats are boxed by their own past complicity: "They were proponents of this war... . They can't speak out now with any moral authority."

Some net-roots liberals are even demanding that the pro-war Democrats show some contrition. Bob Brigham, who runs Swingstateproject.com, said: "We as a party can't run from this issue any longer. Some people need to admit being wrong about the war. And we all need to show some political courage. That's what voters respect. If you have core convictions, and aggressively demonstrate that, voters will respect you, regardless of whether they agree with you on individual issues."

Brigham and Sirota, among others, cite the results of an Ohio congressional race on Aug. 2. In a die-hard Republican district where Democrats routinely lose by 40 points, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran who contended that Bush has been "incredibly stupid" on the war, lost by only two. Yet the Washington Democrats seemed not to notice; when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee analyzed Hackett's strong showing in a memo, it never cited the war as a factor.

Congressman Emanuel needs to make a major adjustment in strategy. As long as the DCCC ignores Iraq, it is not an organization worth supporting unless your goal is to waste money on incompetence or fund an effort focused on Democrats minimizing losses.

Bloggers are calling bullshit on this strategy and something tells me we are close to another round of this playing out in the press. While I'm pulling together some choice quotes for reporters, I hope Congressman Emanuel begins dealing with a subject he has avoided for far too long.

The 2006 midterm elections could be tidal for Democrats, but we need some leadership on the most important issue of the day to pull it off. The current leadership vacuum will be filled, if not by the DCCC then from the ground up with a message they can't control.

While I would love to see 2006 be a Democratic year, the establishment Democrats lack of contrast with the Republicans means it could very well be a "throw the bums out" cycle. If Emanuel cares about keeping incumbent Democrats in congress, the quickest route is to join the American people on the most important issue and have some contrast with the GOP. This is also the quickest route to pick up seats, but I think we all realize that isn't the goal.

UPDATE: Sirota piles on.

UPDATE: Looking at the transcript, we see that Emanuel was asked about Iraq:

MR. RUSSERT: So, for example, should we withdraw troops from Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL: Well, I--let me--let's take what the general just said. Let's deal with that.

The correct answer is, "damn straight" but since Emanuel wants to sit on the fence and not offer a yes or no answer, he gets questioned again.

MR. RUSSERT: But what are the Democratic ideas?

REP. EMANUEL: I'm going to lay them out. I here to answer it. You know, what you guys have provided, Tom, is a set of old policies, even in this crisis we have with Katrina, that got us to this result, which is a failed set of policies, where, in fact, we've added up $3 trillion in the nation's debt, more people are losing health care, and poverty's going up. Democrats want to offer big ideas to change the direction of this country because we can do better.

On Iraq, we have a false choice between stay the course and get the same results and just pull up. I think Senator Levin laid out a very good agenda, which is we're going to have measurements. You can't say after two and a half years, like you asked the general before, two and a half years, nearly $400 billion, and we have one Iraqi battalion? We're going to set standards every way and measurements from the political process, economic process and also on the military and national security where Iraq has to stand up.

MR. RUSSERT: OK. So--so...

REP. EMANUEL: Let me go over--let's go...

MR. RUSSERT: No, no, wait. So if the Iraqis do not stand up, if there are not 10 battalions, 15 battalions in place, we withdraw?

REP. EMANUEL: See, Tim, that's the wrong question, in my view.

MR. RUSSERT: Well...

REP. EMANUEL: I'll tell you why, because when we...

MR. RUSSERT: But it's the question I asked.

REP. EMANUEL: But the Congress has an obligation to hold a standard. We have given the president a blank check. It's been a rubber-stamp Congress that sent troops in there without Kevlar vests, without Humvees. We have to have a standard in which Iraq and the administration measure up over the two years, and at that point we'll evaluate where we are.

There is an answer that fits nicely on a bumper sticker.

MR. RUSSERT: So was it a mistake for Democrats in the Senate and House to vote to authorize the war?

REP. EMANUEL: Given the information that we were given them, they made their decision. What has been a mistake is to let this type of administration basically run a policy of incompetence when it comes to Iraq.

The problem is that Bush is able to continue his "policy of incompetence" because of weak Democratic leaders who were on the wrong side of the vote, have been hiding from the issue, and won't give a simple answer that voters can digest.

Why Democrats don't have a message on Iraq as part of what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans is a major, major problem. Emanuel needs to get his act together.

Posted at 11:25 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Democrats, International, Ohio, Polls, Scandals | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati

Monday, August 29, 2005

OH-Gov: New Poll on Governor Bob Taft

Posted by Bob Brigham

A new poll on embattled Ohio Governor Bob Taft suggests he is a few pitchforks and torches shy of getting run out of town. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Forty-six percent of Ohio voters surveyed say the governor should quit, while 44 percent say he should not. Ten percent of voters say they are undecided.

Taft was convicted on Aug. 18 of four misdemeanor crimes for failing to report $3,500 worth of gifts and golf outings from business and political leaders. [...]

"I feel he should resign," said survey participant and Republican Jan Moorehead of Cable, a rural town in the largely Republican Champaign County. "It wasn't so much the oversight that he has not reported stuff, but quite honestly, I think he is spending too much time with lobbyists. I think 52 golf outings with lobbyists and others -- that's a lot of golf."

You know you're in trouble when even Republicans think you're spending too much time playing golf. The midterm election will be a great time be running as a Reform Democrat in Ohio.

Posted at 09:21 AM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Ohio, Polls | Technorati

Friday, June 17, 2005

CA-48: Special Election Polling

Posted by Tim Tagaris

So, it's closer than I thought it might be:

Conducted by Probolsky Research (R). June 10-14, 2005. N=325 likely special election voters districtwide. (MoE +/- 5.5%)

John Graham (D): 22%

John Campbell (R): 31%
Marilyn Brewer (R): 8%

Don't Know/Undecided: 39%

The Democrat, John Graham is a university professor. For the Republicans, John Campbell is a State Senator and Marilyn Brewer is a business woman.

Posted at 02:29 AM in 2005 Elections, California, Polls, Special Elections | Comments (3) | Technorati