Polls and 2006 Senate Races: Conneticut, Pennsylvania, Washington and Virginia
The 2006 elections are coming, and the anticipation is palpable among the political columns of major newspapers and the cyberspace clatter of the blogosphere. And all important within elections are polls: those marvelous devices that (when functioning properly) sap individual enthusiasm, but also bring monumental tales of underdog victory—(a la Truman's '48 victory).
But polls are mischeavous devils: telling us the obvious and missing the important. One of the most vexing questions I have come across is the relation between favorable ratings and actual polls on votes—and most importantly the degree to which favorable ratings shore up actual polling numbers.
To try to understand this critical but nebulous relation, let's overview four elections that reflect three ideal-types: incumbent-victory, clear contest, and incumbent-loss. All the numbers I will be using, unless specified otherwise, will be from Rassmussen Reports.
Connecticut: Jo'mentum is alive and well in the Constitution State
Joe Lieberman, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, fits easily within the incumbent-victory column. While ruffling the feathers of his own party (refer to my last post for more), it seems clear that Lieberman will win this contest: whether will a clear majority if under the Democratic banner, or a very strong plurality under as an Independent against his Republican and Democratic opponents, Schlesinger and Lamont respectively.
Lieberman is just living up to his state's motto: "He who transplanted shall sustain."
While his own party might dump him, his personal favorability guarantees him (avoiding Murphy's Law) victory in November. Rassmussen reports:
Lieberman is viewed favorably by 67%, unfavorably by 29%. Lamont is viewed favorably by 41%, unfavorably by 37%. Schlesinger, the former mayor of Derby who officially entered the race in mid-April, is viewed favorably by 31%, unfavorably by 36%. He's still an unknown to 33%.
A near 70% favorability rating seems to help Lieberman: only deviating from current polls on the race when one interests another Democratic into the field. Whether it's 38% or 15%, it seems clear that Lieberman is on his way to victory. And while some may say a Lamont poll-boast could be expected after a primary victory, the extensive press coverage dampens the chances of post-nomination Lamont surge. And Schlesinger: the woods he now resides are deep and dark, with little hope of light shining down.
Flying in the Crosshairs in Pennsylvania: Santorum’s Attempt at Term #3
Rassmussen Reports calls Santorum the 'Most Vulnerable Incumbent', a far cry from the presidential aspirations Santorum enjoyed after winning reelection in 2000. Rassmussen reports:
Senator Santorum is viewed favorably by 42% of likely voters, unfavorably by 47%. About a quarter, 26%, view Santorum Very Unfavorably.
Casey is viewed favorably by 59%, unfavorably by 28%, with 13% undecided.
And the polls on a match-up between Casey and Santorum? Santorum has consistently lost: ranging from single digitals to over twenty points. Here one finds the reverse situation of Leibermen: higher unfavorability is crippling his campaign.
Now many have considered this political veteran able to mount a come-back: he did surprisingly well in 2000. Yet his political exposure, thanks to his strong Iraq war support, his loud calls for abortion restrictions and gay-marriage ban, and his book being construed by some as anti-feminist have turned the tide. While one can get elected with high unfavorable rating, when they are higher than your favorable you know you're in trouble.
And today might have been the final blow for Santorum: at a press conference to day he claimed that WMD had been found in Iraq. For a praise-worthy spin on this action, check this out.
Unfortunately, the story is bogus: so bogus, in fact, that Fox News has called Santorum out. Now where was this reporting before the Iraqi War, I do not know—better late than never, I guess?
It seems no matter how hard Santurom pushes he's still going to be pushed off. Fortunately he hails from the state of the Ruffed Grouse, a close family relative of his new occupation: roast goose.
The Tough Cases: Are Allen-Town Virginia and Cantwellian Washington Changing Course?
Democratic Senator Cantwell is facing a rough re-election bid from Republican McGavick. Rassussmen reports:
Cantwell is viewed favorably by 53% of likely votes, unfavorably by 42%. However, just 25% view Cantwell Very Favorably while 20% view her Very Unfavorably.
McGavick is viewed favorably by 46%, unfavorably by 35%. The Republican is less well known than the incumbent he is challenging and fewer voters have firm opinions of him—just 16% say they have a Very Favorable opinion of McGavick while 12% hold a Very Unfavorable opinion.
What is interesting about this race is Cantwell's slide: watching a 15-point lead evaporate to a 4 point lead. Suddenly the favorable ratings aren't much good for: both her favorables and unfavorables are in line with her opponent: if on different scales. Yet, this translates into a 4 point lead.
Why? Her support for the Iraq War.
Here what becomes the problem is extreme disaffection of the Left: 8% of Democrats would vote for someone else in a Cantwell-McGavick match-up. This seems to be the crucial reason for slide, for Cantwell. This article shows the disaffection in Washington of Cantwell's support for the Iraq War.
Thus one finds that Cantwell still on the road to victory: with most left-leaning voters most likely preferring Cantwell over a Republican. She also has more funds, and ample space to pin McGavik.
George Allen is facing a Republican-turned-Democrat, James Webb. Holding higher favorability and lack of intra-party feuding, he’s consistently failed to significantly break 50% in the polls. Suddenly favorability ratings get us a strange result: with a virtual no name, turn-coat Democrat running against Allen, his lead stands around 5-10 points. How can this be?
Part of it may just be a blip, but I feel there is a significant difference between Allen's perceived image in Virginia and the actual. While some make-up Allen as a political jedi-master, the truth is a bit father off. Yes, he sailed to victory for Governor and then won a US Senate seat. But both these achievements reflected weak opponents: particularly Chuck Robb, a politician that seemed to want to be anything but one.
But more importantly, most national coverage forgets to point out that Allen was the starting point for Republican fiscal policies that pushed Virginia to near ruin—ushering in two Democratic governors in a strongly conservative state. Allen's first victory came before Mark Warner's victory as governor, which gave Virginians four years of efficient and straight-talking governance. This seemed to mean something: as Democrat Tim Kaine won the governship in a clearly ‘red’ state against the Republican Attorney General (supported by Allen and Bush) Kilgore.
Allen's allure comes from the Beltway: in Virginia he is a powerhouse but not as untouchable as imagined. [If you want an interesting story on what united George Allen and George Soros check out this article on 527s out]
Allen fails to achieve over 50% support owing to moderates holding a long-memory and his repeated status as the Republican Great White Hope for the presidency in ‘08. This second aspect is nicely displayed by The American Spectator putting Allen on their Cover with the emboldened words: The Conservative President? Yet does America really want a President who holds firm with Bush foreign policy, fence sits on immigration, and spends his time trying to constitutionally ban same-sex marriages?
Maybe: Allen does have that ‘aw shucks’ look like Bush. But unlike 2000, 2008 will not be to the public a place-holder election: merely picking someone to keep prosperity at home and captain our policies aboard. This election will be about men and women who are capable of solving hard problems at a time when American are looking out at a world feels neither safe nor predictable as it was once felt to be.
But the American Spectator does size-up Webb well: he’s not the dream candidate. But they should remember that while Webb might not be perfect, at least he hasn’t told audiences that the Senate is to slow for him.
Allen will probably win his Senate seat, but in doing so it will show his party that he is not the person to be its standard-bearer in two years time.
So what does this tell us about polls?
Favorability ratings are notorious fickle: descriptive only of poll numbers they have gathered. What this over-view really seems to show is only the elusive distance between perception and reality.
But polls are mischeavous devils: telling us the obvious and missing the important. One of the most vexing questions I have come across is the relation between favorable ratings and actual polls on votes—and most importantly the degree to which favorable ratings shore up actual polling numbers.
To try to understand this critical but nebulous relation, let's overview four elections that reflect three ideal-types: incumbent-victory, clear contest, and incumbent-loss. All the numbers I will be using, unless specified otherwise, will be from Rassmussen Reports.
Connecticut: Jo'mentum is alive and well in the Constitution State
Joe Lieberman, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, fits easily within the incumbent-victory column. While ruffling the feathers of his own party (refer to my last post for more), it seems clear that Lieberman will win this contest: whether will a clear majority if under the Democratic banner, or a very strong plurality under as an Independent against his Republican and Democratic opponents, Schlesinger and Lamont respectively.
Lieberman is just living up to his state's motto: "He who transplanted shall sustain."
While his own party might dump him, his personal favorability guarantees him (avoiding Murphy's Law) victory in November. Rassmussen reports:
Lieberman is viewed favorably by 67%, unfavorably by 29%. Lamont is viewed favorably by 41%, unfavorably by 37%. Schlesinger, the former mayor of Derby who officially entered the race in mid-April, is viewed favorably by 31%, unfavorably by 36%. He's still an unknown to 33%.
A near 70% favorability rating seems to help Lieberman: only deviating from current polls on the race when one interests another Democratic into the field. Whether it's 38% or 15%, it seems clear that Lieberman is on his way to victory. And while some may say a Lamont poll-boast could be expected after a primary victory, the extensive press coverage dampens the chances of post-nomination Lamont surge. And Schlesinger: the woods he now resides are deep and dark, with little hope of light shining down.
Flying in the Crosshairs in Pennsylvania: Santorum’s Attempt at Term #3
Rassmussen Reports calls Santorum the 'Most Vulnerable Incumbent', a far cry from the presidential aspirations Santorum enjoyed after winning reelection in 2000. Rassmussen reports:
Senator Santorum is viewed favorably by 42% of likely voters, unfavorably by 47%. About a quarter, 26%, view Santorum Very Unfavorably.
Casey is viewed favorably by 59%, unfavorably by 28%, with 13% undecided.
And the polls on a match-up between Casey and Santorum? Santorum has consistently lost: ranging from single digitals to over twenty points. Here one finds the reverse situation of Leibermen: higher unfavorability is crippling his campaign.
Now many have considered this political veteran able to mount a come-back: he did surprisingly well in 2000. Yet his political exposure, thanks to his strong Iraq war support, his loud calls for abortion restrictions and gay-marriage ban, and his book being construed by some as anti-feminist have turned the tide. While one can get elected with high unfavorable rating, when they are higher than your favorable you know you're in trouble.
And today might have been the final blow for Santorum: at a press conference to day he claimed that WMD had been found in Iraq. For a praise-worthy spin on this action, check this out.
Unfortunately, the story is bogus: so bogus, in fact, that Fox News has called Santorum out. Now where was this reporting before the Iraqi War, I do not know—better late than never, I guess?
It seems no matter how hard Santurom pushes he's still going to be pushed off. Fortunately he hails from the state of the Ruffed Grouse, a close family relative of his new occupation: roast goose.
The Tough Cases: Are Allen-Town Virginia and Cantwellian Washington Changing Course?
Democratic Senator Cantwell is facing a rough re-election bid from Republican McGavick. Rassussmen reports:
Cantwell is viewed favorably by 53% of likely votes, unfavorably by 42%. However, just 25% view Cantwell Very Favorably while 20% view her Very Unfavorably.
McGavick is viewed favorably by 46%, unfavorably by 35%. The Republican is less well known than the incumbent he is challenging and fewer voters have firm opinions of him—just 16% say they have a Very Favorable opinion of McGavick while 12% hold a Very Unfavorable opinion.
What is interesting about this race is Cantwell's slide: watching a 15-point lead evaporate to a 4 point lead. Suddenly the favorable ratings aren't much good for: both her favorables and unfavorables are in line with her opponent: if on different scales. Yet, this translates into a 4 point lead.
Why? Her support for the Iraq War.
Here what becomes the problem is extreme disaffection of the Left: 8% of Democrats would vote for someone else in a Cantwell-McGavick match-up. This seems to be the crucial reason for slide, for Cantwell. This article shows the disaffection in Washington of Cantwell's support for the Iraq War.
Thus one finds that Cantwell still on the road to victory: with most left-leaning voters most likely preferring Cantwell over a Republican. She also has more funds, and ample space to pin McGavik.
George Allen is facing a Republican-turned-Democrat, James Webb. Holding higher favorability and lack of intra-party feuding, he’s consistently failed to significantly break 50% in the polls. Suddenly favorability ratings get us a strange result: with a virtual no name, turn-coat Democrat running against Allen, his lead stands around 5-10 points. How can this be?
Part of it may just be a blip, but I feel there is a significant difference between Allen's perceived image in Virginia and the actual. While some make-up Allen as a political jedi-master, the truth is a bit father off. Yes, he sailed to victory for Governor and then won a US Senate seat. But both these achievements reflected weak opponents: particularly Chuck Robb, a politician that seemed to want to be anything but one.
But more importantly, most national coverage forgets to point out that Allen was the starting point for Republican fiscal policies that pushed Virginia to near ruin—ushering in two Democratic governors in a strongly conservative state. Allen's first victory came before Mark Warner's victory as governor, which gave Virginians four years of efficient and straight-talking governance. This seemed to mean something: as Democrat Tim Kaine won the governship in a clearly ‘red’ state against the Republican Attorney General (supported by Allen and Bush) Kilgore.
Allen's allure comes from the Beltway: in Virginia he is a powerhouse but not as untouchable as imagined. [If you want an interesting story on what united George Allen and George Soros check out this article on 527s out]
Allen fails to achieve over 50% support owing to moderates holding a long-memory and his repeated status as the Republican Great White Hope for the presidency in ‘08. This second aspect is nicely displayed by The American Spectator putting Allen on their Cover with the emboldened words: The Conservative President? Yet does America really want a President who holds firm with Bush foreign policy, fence sits on immigration, and spends his time trying to constitutionally ban same-sex marriages?
Maybe: Allen does have that ‘aw shucks’ look like Bush. But unlike 2000, 2008 will not be to the public a place-holder election: merely picking someone to keep prosperity at home and captain our policies aboard. This election will be about men and women who are capable of solving hard problems at a time when American are looking out at a world feels neither safe nor predictable as it was once felt to be.
But the American Spectator does size-up Webb well: he’s not the dream candidate. But they should remember that while Webb might not be perfect, at least he hasn’t told audiences that the Senate is to slow for him.
Allen will probably win his Senate seat, but in doing so it will show his party that he is not the person to be its standard-bearer in two years time.
So what does this tell us about polls?
Favorability ratings are notorious fickle: descriptive only of poll numbers they have gathered. What this over-view really seems to show is only the elusive distance between perception and reality.
posted by keithedwhite at 3:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home