Author: conspiracy

At last some good news! PPP finds State Treasurer and Democratic frontrunner Alexi Giannoulias leading GOP Congressman Mark Kirk 42-34.

http://publicpolicypolling.blo…

Interestingly, though Kirk edges indies 33-27, Alexi leads among moderates by 45-25. He also has slightly better favorables. I wonder if the airing of all the dirty laundry in the primary is helping get it out of the way.

Jackson and Hoffman trail but it is basically a statistical tie. Since Giannoulias has a clear lead in the recent primary polls this is probably academic.

Some are beginning to talk up the possibility of the GOP not only taking the House but also the Senate this November. To do that they would have to win ten Democratic seats. In my view they currently lead in North Dakota, Nevada, Arkansas, Colorado and Delaware. Illinois and Pennsylvania are too close to call. Despite the loss of Massachusetts this week I still don’t think they will win all of these. But say for the sake of argument they did. They would then need three more from somewhere. Unless they can get fresh challengers in Washington, Wisconsin and more likely Indiana then they would have to win Connecticut, New York AND California to get control. To cut a long story short the gold standard of polling in the Golden State suggests the latter is very unlikely to happen.

Field Poll (1/5-17) MoE 3.3%

General Election

Barbara Boxer (D) 48%

Tom Campbell (R) 38%

Boxer (D) 50%

Carly Fiorina (R) 35%

Boxer (D) 51%

Chuck DeVore (R) 34%

The incumbent has a positive favorability rating of 48-39. The Republicans have far less name ID and only Campbell is in positive territory.

GOP Primary

Campbell 30%

Fiorina 25%

DeVore 6%

Undecided 39%

http://www.field.com/fieldpoll…

500 LV, MoE +-4%, 12-13/1

Martha Coakley (D) 49%

Scott Brown (R) 41%

Joseph Kennedy (L) 5%

The electorate is 40% Democratic, 18% Republican and 42% unenrolled/independent. Brown leads the latter by 49-36.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/u…

And breathe. Hopefully this means the ads are sinking in and making Democrats get off their behinds for next Tuesday. President Clinton is up there tomorrow and First Read reports a Vicki Kennedy ad is in the can and ready to go up before the weekend.

The polling for Tuesday’s gubernatorial election in New Jersey is all all over the map. Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a wide split.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/…

Governor Corzine and his campaign have done a terrific job in getting this far. Indeed, at the end of August it looked all over with Christie consistently hitting 50 percent. But even then there was always the nagging feeling that you never say never with regard to a Democrat in New Jersey.

The basis for this is the positive numbers for Republicans throughout this decade in the state – the 2004 Presidential race, the 2006 Senate race, the 2008 Senate and Presidential races. In each case of course the Democrat went on to win comfortably.

Further, and what I was particularly interested in here, there is the belief that the final polls will favor Republicans by at least a couple points. A hidden Democratic vote if you will. So, is this fact or merely wishful thinking?

Here are the final polls in each case mentioned earlier. I’ve included the 2005 gubernatorial race for obvious reasons.

2004 President

Result –

Kerry +6

Final Polls –

(Strategic Vision) TIE

(Quinnipiac) Kerry +5

(Star-Ledger) Kerry +4

(Survey USA) Kerry +12

(Rasmussen) Kerry +12

(FDU Public Mind) Kerry +7

2005 Governor

Result –

Corzine +10

Final Polls –

(WNBC/Marist) Corzine +5

(Rasmussen) Corzine +5

(Survey USA) Corzine +6

(Quinnipiac) Corzine +7

(Monmouth/Gannett) Corzine +9

(Star-Ledger/Rutgers) Corzine +6

(Fairleigh Dickinson) Corzine +2

(Strategic Vision) Corzine +6

(Stockton College-Zogby) Corzine +7  

(Record/Research 2000) Corzine +9

(New York Times) Corzine +9

2006 Senate

Result –

Menendez +9

Final Polls –

(OnPoint Polling and Research) Menendez +9

(Quinnipiac) Menendez +5

(Strategic Vision) Menendez +7

(USA Today/Gallup) Menendez +10

(Mason-Dixon/MSNBC-McClatchy) Menendez +7

(Monmouth University/Gannett) Menendez +3

(WNBC/Marist Poll) Menendez +8

(Rasmussen) Menendez +5

(Fairleigh Dickinson/PublicMind) Menendez +10

(Reuters/Zogby International) Menendez +12

(Rutgers/Eagleton) Menendez +4

(Zogby Interactive) Menendez +6

(CNN/Opinion Research Corporation) Menendez +7

(Research 2000) Menendez +6

(CBS News/New York Times) Menendez +1

(Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal) Menendez +9

(Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg) Menendez +4

2008 President

Result –

Obama +15

Final Polls –

(Rasmussen Reports) Obama +15

(Monmouth University/Gannett) Obama +21

(Survey USA) Obama +10

(Fairleigh Dickinson University) Obama +18

(The Record/Research 2000) Obama +16

(Strategic Vision) Obama +15

(Marist College) Obama +17

(Quinnipiac) Obama +23

2008 Senate

Result –

Lautenberg +13

Final Polls –

(Survey USA) Lautenberg +15

(Strategic Vision) Lautenberg +8

(Marist College) Lautenberg +7

(Quinnipiac University) Lautenberg +22

(Monmouth University) Lautenberg +16

(Rasmussen Reports) Lautenberg +14

(Fairleigh Dickinson University) Lautenberg +16

So from that I get the following:

1) The Democrat outperformed the polls only in 2005 and 2006.

2) The most accurate pollsters in the state are probably Quinnipiac and Monmouth.

“Dede Scozzafava, the GOP nominee in a key upcoming House special election, is running dangerously low on campaign cash, according to several GOP sources familiar with her spending and fundraising.”

Interestingly the article goes on to say that the RNC has sent only two staffers and hasn’t contributed a cent to the race. Owens is outspending her 12-1. Even Hoffman has spent more. The NRCC is trying to make up the difference but even they have been overtaken by the DCCC.

“Despite a recent poll showing the GOP nominee with a 7-point lead over Owens, the spending disparity has many Republicans downbeat about her prospects.”

I have to say I’m surprised at this. You would think the RNC would be flooding cash into the district to try and get a clean sweep of all the big races on November 3. Politico suggests they are concentrating on the gubernatorial races but that seems dubious at best. Maybe they just don’t want her to win. I know I don’t.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

UPDATE

The Rothenberg Political Report moves the race from Pure Toss-Up to Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic.

http://rothenbergpoliticalrepo…

Five weeks from election day and Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) leads Bill Owens (D) by seven points with Doug Hoffman (C) trailing in the first independent poll of the special election to replace Army Secretary John McHugh in the House of Representatives for New York’s 23rd District.

The topline numbers from the Siena College Research Institute (LV, 9/27-29, MoE 3.9%) are:

Scozzafava 35%

Owens 28%

Hoffman 16%

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedf…

“This is a wide open race. One in five voters is currently undecided. Add to that the fact that one-third of Scozzafava’s current supporters and one-quarter of Owens’s current supporters say they are not very certain of their choice and that they very well may change their minds between now and Election Day.”

I think it fair to say this is a total tossup, particulary with the better known Scozzafava having such a small lead. I will update with more thoughts when I’ve poured over some of the internals.

UPDATE

Looking at the 2008 presidential race in the district we find Obama won Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Madison, Oswego and St. Lawrence counties. McCain carried Fulton, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lewis and Oneida.

The three-way makes it difficult to extrapolate but Scozzafava leads big in the West (which is where her Assembly district is located) matching McCain in Jefferson and Lewis counties but also in St. Lawrence where Obama won big.

On the contrary Owens leads in some of the central counties she represents and which McCain won, namely Madison, Oneiga and Oswego.

The good news is they are tied in places Obama won big – Clinton, Essex and Franklin. As andgarden mentions in the comments Obama is popular in the district so if people there get to know Owens and like what they hear I think there is a good chance he can take this one.

On the flipside McCain did well in Fulton and Hamilton so Owens is overperforming there though I suspect that has more to do with Hoffman taking conservative votes.

UPDATE 2

Favorables are interesting. Scozzafava clocks in at 33-20-47, favorable, unfavorable, no opinion. Hopefully Hoffman’s kamikaze act helps make people form a negative opinion.

Owens is at 23-12-64 so significantly more room to grow. Hoffman at 16-13-71.

Top issues, economy and health care, unsuprisingly, and the candidates are split.

McHugh’s endorsement would be key according to the numbers but if Obama comes out for Owens is it at all likely he will oppose his new boss? Interesting.

With little over a year to go until the 2010 midterm elections I thought it would be interesting to look at recent history to see if it is at all likely that Republicans could take control over the House of Representatives.

In recent weeks several pundits have opined that the decling popularity of the Obama presidency and the Democratic congress makes this a least a possibility. I for one have been skeptical.

The GOP would need to pickup 40 seats to have a majority of 1. We know that in 1994 a large number of the Republican gains were in open seats but at the moment there are only four Democrats vacating. Looking back at the waves of 2006 and 2008 we find that Democrats picked up 30 and 21 seats respectively. In terms of incumbents the numbers are 22 for 2006 and 14 for 2008. What I was interested in looking at was the percentage of the vote each of these incumbents scored in the election before the year of their defeat. In other words in 2004 and 2006.

These are the 22 GOP incumbents defeated in 2006 in descending order of their winning percentage in 2004:

Don Sherwood (PA-10) 93%

Henry Bonilla (TX-23) 69%

Sue Kelly (NY-19) 67%

John Sweeney (NY-20) 66%

Jeb Bradley (NH-01) 63%

Melissa Hart (PA-04) 63%

Clay Shaw (FL-22) 63%

Richard Pombo (CA-11) 61%

Gil Gutknecht (MN-01) 60%

Nancy Johnson (CT-05) 60%

Anne Northup (KY-03) 60%

Jim Leach (IA-02) 59%

JD Hayworth (AZ-05) 59%

Kurt Weldon (PA-07) 59%

Charlie Bass (NH-02) 58%

Jim Ryun (KS-02) 56%

Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) 55%

Charles Taylor (NC-11) 55%

Rob Simmons (CT-02) 54%

Chris Chocola (IN-02) 54%

Jim Hostettler (IN-08) 53%

Mike Sodrel (IN-09) 49%

For sake of clarity I am exluding Shelley Sekula-Gibbs from this list despite the fact she won a special election to replace Tom Delay so in theory TX-22 wasn’t an open seat on election day.

The first thing that struck me was the number of incumbents that were defeated having won easily in 2004. But then looking at the seats in detail it is clear that several of those winning with larger margins were to become plauged by scandal by 2006 or in the case of Henry Bonilla see changes to the demographics of their district.

These are the 14 GOP incumbents defeated in 2008 in descending order of their winning percentage in 2006:

Virgil Goode (VA-05) 59%

Tom Feeney (FL-24) 58%

Phil English (PA-03) 54%

Ric Keller (FL-08) 53%

Steve Chabot (OH-01) 52%

Joe Knollenberg (MI-09) 52%

Randy Kuhl (NY-29) 52%

Chris Shays (CT-04) 52%

Thelma Drake (VA-02) 51%

Tim Walberg (MI-07) 50%

Robin Hayes (NC-08) 50%

Bill Sali (ID-01) 50%

Jon Porter (NV-03) 48%

Marylin Musgrave (CO-04) 46%

The average for 2006 was 60% which thrilled me considerably since this is exactly the arbitary cutoff I’ve been using in my mind in trying to judge which Dems are vulnerable next year. The average for 2008 was 52% which is understandable due to the nature of back-to-back waves. Because of this I think the 2006 figure is a more sensible comparison to what me might expect next year in a worst case scenario.

So using this figure which Democratic incumbents are threatened? As you can see the list is worryingly long, much longer than I was expecting. I have split the list into two – seats won in districts won by John McCain (22) which in theory should be most vulnerable and seats won by the president (34) which shouldn’t be considered necessarily safe.

McCain Dems elected with less than 60% in 2008:

Frank Kratovil (MD-01) 49% R+13

Bobby Bright (AL-02) 50% R+16

Tom Perriello (VA-05) 50% R+5

Walt Minnick (ID-01) 51% R+18

Eric Massa (NY-29) 51% R+5

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) 51% R+3

Parker Griffith (AL-05) 52% R+12

Chet Edwards (TX-17) 53% R+20

Harry Mitchell (AZ-05) 53% R+5

Travis Childers (MS-01) 55% R+14

Gabby Giffords (AZ-08) 55% R+4

Jim Boccieri (OH-16) 55% R+4

Chris Carney (PA-10) 56% R+8

Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01) 56% R+6

Jason Altmire (PA-04) 56% R+6

Betsy Markey (CO-04) 56% R+6

Harry Teague (NM-02) 56% R+6

Jim Marshall (GA-08) 57% R+10

Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) 57% R+4

Baron Hill (IN-09) 58% R+6

John Murtha (PA-12) 58% R+1

Lincoln Davis (TN-04) 59% R+13

Obama Dems elected with less than 60% in 2008:

Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15) 46% D+1

Dina Titus (NV-03) 47% D+2

Mark Schauer (MI-07) 49% R+2

Scott Murphy (NY-20) 50% R+2

Jim Himes (CT-04) 51% D+5

Glenn Nye (VA-02) 52% R+5

Alan Grayson (FL-08) 52% R+2

Michael Arcuri (NY-24) 52% R+2

John Adler (NJ-03) 52% R+1

Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) 52% R+0

Steve Driehaus (OH-01) 52% D+1

Gary Peters (MI-09) 52% D+2

Paul Kanjorski (PA-11) 52% D+4

Steve Kagen (WI-08) 54% D+0

Kurt Schrader (OR-05) 54% D+1

Jerry McNerney (CA-11) 55% R+1

Larry Kissell (NC-08) 55% R+2

Ron Klein (FL-22) 55% D+1

Gerry Connolly (VA-11) 55% D+2

Dan Maffei (NY-25) 55% D+3

Chellie Pingree (ME-01) 55% D+8

Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) 56% R+4

Dennis Moore (KS-03) 56% R+3

Leonard Boswell (IA-03) 56% D+1

Martin Heinrich (NM-01) 56% D+5

Patrick Murphy (PA-07) 57% D+3

Dave Loebsack (IA-02) 57% D+7

Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) 58% R+2

Debbie Halvorson (IL- 11) 58% R+1

Bill Foster (IL-14) 58% R+1

Tim Bishop (NY-01) 58% R+0

John Hall (NY-19) 59% R+3

Chris Murphy (CT-05) 59% D+2

John Yarmuth (KY-03) 59% D+2

Sobering isn’t it. However, I don’t think it very likely any of the seats with a Dem PVI will be lost except perhaps OH-15 and maybe OH-01, WI-08 and NV-03. That leaves 20 Obama Dems. Obviously there are seats that may look vulnerable outside these, including open seats but my thinking is that those will cancel out the seats in my list that will never materialize as even the slightest bit competitive. What I was interested in initially was to see if there was a total number of seats that make it even possible for the Republicans to take the House. It looks like the answer (42) is yes but only just. I’m sure the way I’ve come to this conclusion will look to many like I’ve pulled the number out my ass but it seems to me as good a way as any and at least it is based on real numbers from the recent past.

First Rasmussen has Christie up 46-38 but check out the commentary. He sounds worried.

“However, it’s worth noting that other indicators suggest that Christie’s lead might be a bit softer than the eight-point advantage indicates. Results before leaners are included show Christie up by just four points. Among those who are certain how they will vote, Christie leads by six. This suggests that the GOP campaign may be like a baseball team heading into the late innings with a lead but lacking a reliable closer. They’re happy to be ahead but can’t wait for the game to end so they can breathe again.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

And Democracy Corps?

Christie leads 41-38 and the internals are similar.

“Corzine’s standing has improved over the past month, with his favorable rating ticking up from 32 percent to 36 percent. Christie’s favorability rating remains at 1:1, 33 percent favorable and 33 percent unfavorable.”

http://www.democracycorps.com/…

Corzine has to move from 38% but there is still hope.

I’m quite prepared to delete this if I’m breaking site policy but the topic seems relavant to me.

I’ve been fighting something of a lonely battle at Daily Kos arguing with people over the health care debate and real possibility of the Obama administration dropping the so called ‘public option’ in order to bring conservative Democrats in congress onboard in order to pass a bill.

Most have drawn their proverbial line in the sand and are committed to opposing any bill that does not include a robust public option. I have no doubt that many posters here at SSP also hold this position. I respect it but cannot agree.

This mcjoan diary from earlier today seemed to be totally off base and I said so.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

They are fixated on the polls that show support for the public option in theory but refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the polling that indicates the electorate has turned against the plans that are actually under discussion. As we all know perception is reality in politics.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/…

The reason I believe we can and should discuss this here is because of the real paradox that this has created. On the one hand Democrats in conservative districts won by John McCain or narrowly won by the president last year are clearly concerned about supporting a bill that is unpopular among their constituents. Their rationale is to remove the public option. But of course this is a sticking point for progressives particularly in the House.

I think this impass is a recipe for disaster. Though I don’t think the health care failure in 1994 was the only factor in the Republican Revolution it was clearly the coup de grace after all the scandals and the contentious votes taken that cycle particularly on the budget and on the assault weapons ban. There is clear evidence that Dems in conservative districts that year who voted for those bills were likely to go down to defeat while those who voted no all survived.

Though the author is a bit of a winger and RCP in general leans conservative this article is quite persuasive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

I know Dave Wasserman at The Cook Political Report has come to the same conclusion and Nate Silver posted a link to the article yesterday and made many of the same points.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

It is clear to me the pragmatic solution would be to find a compromise that can find the necessary votes in both chambers. Kossacks seem determined though to stand their ground even if it means no bill at all. What do y’all think?

Democratic apathy tells the story.

“In a result probably owing more to the shift against Democrats in the national political climate than anything going on in Virginia, Bob McDonnell now leads Creigh Deeds 51-37 in the race to become the next Governor of Virginia. It’s not that voters are changing sides from last fall – the 5% of John McCain’s voters planning to vote for Deeds is actually equal to the 5% of Barack Obama’s voters planning to vote for McDonnell. But Republicans, on a losing streak in Virginia, appear to be more motivated about heading to the polls at this point three months before the election.”

I would argue in Virginia it probably has more to do with specific groups, young people and African Americans – the core Obama groups, not taking an interest. Still time to turn it around but hard work all the same.

“McDonnell has a 52-33 lead among independents and has locked up 94% of the Republican vote while Deeds is at 80% with Democrats. There is some good news for Deeds in the poll, as he leads 64-3 among African Americans. The 33% of undecided voters in that group will likely move toward Deeds as the election approaches, tightening up the race.”

The strategy is clearly to unite Democrats, to get black voters energized (Obama must get involved – I have faith in the WH here since we know they know the consequences of losing NJ AND VA from that Wilder interview. Must get him on board too) and to work on those indies. Creigh has come from behind once he can do it again.

http://www.publicpolicypolling…