Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Adding in the new Gallup Senate polls, which should nearly round out all of the Senate polling for this cycle, here are the latest, and nearly final, Senate polling averages for all of the races I have followed this cycle. Big assist, as always, to
  • Vermont: Sanders (D / I) 60.0%--33.6% Tarrent (R). Sanders won the Democratic nomination here, but turned it down. But he will caucus with Democrats anyway. In both of those aspects, he is more of a Democrat than Lieberman.
  • Florida: Neslon (D) 58.4%--34.4% Harris (R). At least one high profile member of the evil empire is destined to go down in flames this year.
  • Nebraska: Nelson (D) 55.0%--32.8% Ricketts (R). Note: This just never really turned into, well, anything except a blowout. Dems can win in Nebraska. I hope Nelson isn't the only one who does so in 2006.
  • Minnesota: Klobuchar (DFL) 53.8%--36.8% Kennedy (R). Hahahahahahahahahaha. Mark Kennedy: Greatest. Candidate. Ever.
  • Michigan: Stabenow (D) 51.4%--39.4% Bouchard (R). Could Stabenow become a Michigan fixture, ala Levin? Sure looks like she is here to stay.
  • Ohio: Brown (D) 53.2%--42.2% DeWine (R). Everyone knows that Brown will win here, including Republicans. Whatever people thought about his torture vote, Sherrod Brown will now join his Progressive Caucus colleague, Bernie Sanders, in the Senate. It is nice to see a first immediately coupled with a second. A big, big gain.
  • Pennsylvania: Casey (D) 50.8%--40.2% Santorum (R). I fully expect Alex to pay me the $20 we bet on the 6-point Casey over under. Although that does feel wrong, since Alex has probably done more to beat Santorum than I have.
  • Washington: Cantwell (D) 52.6%--43.2% McGavick (R). Will Washington Republicans still be around to pose a serious challenge to Cantwell in 2012? Debetable.
  • New Jersey: Menendez (D) 48.2%--41.6% Kean (R). Menendez clearly has the edge here, and there just isn't much to worry about in this state anymore. In case anyone was counting, there have now been twenty-one polls, including internal Republican polls, released to the public since Kean last led here. Disaster averted. Well done, Scott Shields, well done indeed. New Jersey really owes MyDD.
  • Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) 47.3%--41.3% Chafee (R). I have only included the last four polls here, leaving out the 10/20 Mason-Dixon because the poll is both old and repetitious. For reasons that generally escaped me, this campaign quickly turned into a Whitehouse rout after being close seemingly forever. Now, once again, it shows a closer campaign. But Whitehouse still clearly has the edge--just look at the polling average.
  • Maryland: Cardin (D) 48.4%--44.6% Steele (R). No poll has ever shown Steele ahead in this campaign, ever, at least against Cardin. It is way, way closer than it should have been, and Democrats need to do a much better job supporting African-Americans than they have done while in the opposition. But still, even thought the trend is not favorable, Cardin maintains the edge here. And where will the 7% of undecideds break in a state like Maryland? I have to favor Cardin. Otherwise, I would be betting against the odds.
  • Montana: Tester (D) 48.8%--45.6% Burns (R). No poll has shown Burns ahead in this race, ever, at least since it has been a race. The latest Gallup shows Tester more or less cruising. I favor Tester, without any reservations. The trendline is now either static or pro-Tester, not pro Burns. And remember--Tester won his primary by 30% when the polls showed it tied going in.
  • Missouri: McCaskill: (D) 48.2%--46.2% Talent (R). I really like McCaskill's chances here now. That's seven polls in a row that do not show Talent in front. If McCaskill wins, I'll spend a week in Missouri as gratitude. I'm not kidding. But she really should have it now.
  • Virginia: Webb (D) 47.0%--45.8% Allen (R). This is an eight-poll average that includes all four polls that were completed on October 29th. This should be good enough for Webb to win. It is basically what Kaine led by last year heading into the election.
  • Tennessee: Corker (R) 48.6%--45.0% Ford (D). I used the most recent polls from the last five polling firms for this one, because Rasmussen has been polling this one like crazy. It sure doesn't look good for Ford, although it doesn't look as bad as some have made it out to be. I don't think he will get blown out anymore, but racism was the key here. I don't care how many Tennessee residents think the racist ads were offensive. They ended up falling for it. If Republicans keep the Senate, they will have done so on pretty much straight-up racism.
  • Arizona: Kyl (R) 49.4%--41.4% Pederson (D). I still don't think e wasted our money here. I like the idea of pushing the field right at the end, even if it doesn't result in a win. But I now think I was wrong to move this race ahead of Tennessee. Pederson probably should have done better than this.
  • Connecticut: Lieberman (CfL) 49.2%--38.2% Lamont (D). It will be a lot closer than this. And Lieberman's corruption troubles are not over when the election is.
  • Nevada: Ensign (R) 54.2%--39.4% Carter (D). This is a four poll average, not five. Sadly, it just never came together here. There were indications that it could, but for one reason or another, it didn't. I'm not really sure why.
And so, fifteen months after my first Senate outlook (parts one and two), that is your nearly final Senate polling picture (there are no polls out of North Dakota, but that doesn't matter). If everything goes according to the polls, and if Lieberman really does caucus with Democrats, then Democrats will win the Senate 51-49 (or 49-49-2, however you want to call it). I just think that we will lose more than one of the really close races in Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Montana and Maryland. We need four out of five of those to win, as long as Rhode Island or New Jersey doesn't turn into a real problem, or Arizona doesn't turn into a very nice surprise. I know that some people buy into the blowing breeze theory, but I don't. I think it is a convenient explanation for lucky elections, rather than an actual force of politics. And even if I did, I'm not sure if it is blowing for us right now anyway. With numbers like these, my final prediction will probably be a four or five seat Democratic gain--I haven't decided yet. Just don't force me to pick which of the toss-up seats we actually lose, because I am unable to do that. I'll have a final Senate Forecast up at some point later on Monday to codify all of this for posterity.

Tags: polls, Senate 2006 (all tags)



it bums me out.

If Pederson was just as good as Carter, or if Carter just had had Pederson's money... we'd have another one in the bag.

And if wishes were fishes... etc.


by neutron 2006-11-05 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: it bums me out.
You said that right. If only there could have been a combo.
by Chris Bowers 2006-11-05 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: it bums me out.

Giving a bastard like Jon Kyl a real scare is well worth it though.  I'd also say it's worth forcing the Rs to spend money to defend a seat like that, but as it turned out, they haven't had enough to do so, even pulling out of Ohio!  His state is changing (more Hispanic), and I'm sure he knows it.  I can't muster the same kind of visceral dislike for Ensign.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-11-05 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: it bums me out.
 Consider this, not only Hispanics move here!!!  There are MANY people moving here from the Midwest. Michigan. has a large segment also California gives us a lot if middle class looking for a lower cost of living. So it seems to me every election we have a different electorate.
Another thought, it is so often (almost always) that Republicans get elected others have lost hope. So on some elections if a person is busy they don't bother to turn out to the polls. BUT THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT, WE THINK WE MIGHT MAKE IT. Partly because we elected a Dem. Gov. last time and partly because of the general political climate. Whether we elect Pederson or not. I think we will have a larger than normal Dem. & Indie turnout. (a lot of Dems are registered as Indie. so they can vote in the Republican primary. It is usually the only way to have an influence on the election)
by del 2006-11-06 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: it bums me out.

Terry Goddard might have won it, or Napolitano, but the chances didn't look this good back when they would have had to throw their hats in the ring.  If McCain retires in '08, either one of them should be favored to win the open seat -- and if Napolitano wins it, Goddard will likely win the governorship.  He served four terms as Mayor of Phoenix (1983-1990), and for the last four years he's been a damned good AG, and is cruising to reelection this year.  His political base in Phoenix is important, because the Valley of the Sun is AZ's Republican bastion; a Democrat who can even come close there will be put over the top by Pima County's left-leaning electorate and high turnout.  (At the rally I attended last Thursday, Bill Clinton mentioned that Pima had the second highest turnout rate of any county IN THE COUNTRY in 2002.)

by Alex 2006-11-06 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages
Definately beer, BBQ and blues. Bur porbably central Missouri anyway (Columbia and Jefferson City, where my girlfriend is from).
by Chris Bowers 2006-11-05 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Forest Park and toasted ravioli in St. Louis are worth it.  Can't say much for the city's overwhelming racism, classism, or provincialism though.  They do have a successful, newly expanded light rail network.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-11-05 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

...If McCaskill wins, I'll spend a week in Missouri as gratitude. I'm not kidding...

And I'll buy you a beer.

by Michael Bersin 2006-11-05 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

That will be a union made Budweiser or Busch I hope!  A tip -- check out Chuck Barry at his monthly gig at Blueberry Hill in the Loop of University City, just steps from the western line of St. Louis City.

by howardpark 2006-11-06 02:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

It will be great to have Progressive Caucus members Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in the Senate.  But it won't be a first.  Wellstone was the lone senator in the Progressive Caucus while he was there.

Somehow this business about Democrats ignoring blacks in Maryland is being overblown or misunderstood.  Cardin is Jewish, and O'Malley's running mate is black.  Two of the state's eight congressmen, Elijah Cummings and Albert Wynn, are black.  Mfume narrowly lost the Senate primary to Cardin, and a black Democrat lost the Attorney General primary to a white Democrat.  Personally, I would have voted for Cardin for the simple reason that polls consistently showed him performing better against Steele than Mfume.  Should the party apparatus intervene in primaries to benefit black candidates?  Should it champion one minority group over another, as in the case of the black Mfume and the Jewish Cardin?  That seems like nothing but a pure can of worms to me.  Should Barbara Mikulski retire in 2010, or whenever she does, I would love to see Mfume take her place.

I don't know how many of those MD polls included Kevin Zeese.  I wouldn't expect him to get more than 3% or so, but there's a small chance that could be enough to swing the race.  Zeese's candidacy is a weird case; he's running as an Independent, but both the Green and Libertarian parties have endorsed him.  What the hell?

I think we lose AZ and TN, and win the other close races (MD, MO, MT, NJ, OH, RI, PA, VA).  I predict +6 in the Senate, to 51D-49R.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-11-05 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Well, more black candidates could certainly run.  Maybe there are things we could do to erase structural disadvantages they face, like helping fund strong black candidates, especially at the farm team levels.  And I haven't seen an argument anywhere that Cardin or O'Malley have fallen short on civil rights issues.  Running a black candidate alone, or electing them, is not necessarily going to benefit the black community either--Michael Steele wouldn't do much for them, and J.C. Watts was no prize.  Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun weren't exactly great credits either.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-11-05 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

The 5th District DFL (Minneapolis) is a predominately white district, but Tuesday we probably will elect Keith Ellison, African American and Congress's first Muslim.  The decision to do this was very controversial, with some of the formerly Liberal Dem's around Martin Sabo, (our retiring Congressman) quite publicly making the case they will vote Green.  But assuming Ellison wins, he can stay for two decades, as the district is essentially 74% DFL.  

by Sara 2006-11-05 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Exciting, it will be interesting to say the least!  I am formerly from Minn. not from that district but I am proud that Minn. is electing him. I hope he becomes a great Rep.

by del 2006-11-06 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages
Ayup. I basically agree with Chris' comments regarding the African-American component in the MD Senate race, although issues of class and geography (i.e., Baltimore -vs- DC_suburb competition) are also involved. Cardin should make for a decent enough senator, voters willing, but IMHO Mfume is a true American success story - to the extent such an idealized thing really exists - and as such, I had really hoped there would be enough votes from those of us who supported him to get him to the general election.

From what I've been reading lately - that last link, from today's WaPo, is particularly relevant - the tension within the MD Democratic Party has been growing with the increasing numbers and wealth of the African-American community, especially in Prince George's County, who don't feel that their political influence is keeping pace with their growing presence. Wayne Curry, who was a very good PG County Executive for his two-term-limited eight years, has voiced this frustration for as long as I can remember, so while disappointed, I was not terribly surprised that he crossed the line to endorse Steele. He and a number of other Af-Am leaders in PGC really feel like they have been in the role of Charlie Brown for far too long, with Annapolis Democrats in the role of Lucy-with-the-football. This was a significant factor in bringing us a Republican governor in 2002.
by SteveMD04 2006-11-05 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

My feeling when I lived there (which I did for the first twenty-seven years of my life) was that the best solution to DC residents' lack of representation in Congress would be to allow them to vote in MD Congressional and Senatorial elections (and count them as part of the MD population for redistricting purposes, of course, which might increase MD's delegation from eight to nine).  Mfume might have won both the primary and the general if DC's residents had been allowed to vote in the election.

by Alex 2006-11-06 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages
{{additional citation found after original comment}}

Oct.25 WaPo blog post (with comments) addressing this topic.
by SteveMD04 2006-11-09 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

You've called it as I would, though I expect a Monday poll will actually show Ford closing again. We still are in reach of all of them except AZ, so 7 is doable yet.

If I were to put money down, I'd barely concede TN. And MO, VA, MD, remain the three I worry about most. While I agree with your logic on MD, I'm still nervous about the potential for fraud there. And MO and VA will depend entirely on the better GOTV operations. Warner and Kaine provided the winning ground game that Webb has now inherited. MO? You're right, if Claire wins, she deserves your fine company.

Let's do it.

by KevinHayden 2006-11-06 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

I wouldn't concede TN just yet.

S-USA has Ford and Corker tied at 46% among likely voters.

If you check the crosstabs, they are projecting a higher African-American turnout that 2004, but a lower African-American turnout that 2000.

If the black turnout is what people in TN say it is, this means that Ford still wins.

by wayward 2006-11-06 02:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

People are making the assumption that all black voters will vote for Ford. That may be the case somewhat in Middle and East TN but will not be the case to the same extent in West TN where there are two political factions in the black community - the Ford family and the Mayor's faction. There is tremendous friction between those factions and at least some percentage of the Mayor's faction will not support Harold Ford, Jr. for Senate or his brother Jake Ford for TN-9.

by robliberal 2006-11-06 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Even after Ford got attacked for racism? I'm personally aware of that kind of divide but I have to think it'll blunt that effect.

by MNPundit 2006-11-06 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

In the primaries for TN-9 a large majority of the voters in that district voted against the candidate the Ford family wanted to hold that seat. The majority of those voters are black. There are many yards in the Memphis area with Corker and Cohen signs (the TN-9 nominee).

by robliberal 2006-11-06 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Santorum

On Tuesday when I vote, I may just pause a little longer than normal and admire the red light I've pushed next to Bob Casey's name.

BTW, have you seen the "Rendell/Santorum" yard signs that have popped up along Roosevelt Blvd? I saw them yesterday and thought there's a sign of a campaign that knows it's going down.

by phillydem 2006-11-06 12:36AM | 0 recs
you're kidding me

Call the Rendell campaign.  Now.   (215) 545-4553 for the Broad Street office.  They will want to take care of it.

I bet I know who did it.

by Adam B 2006-11-06 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope

You're involved with the Dems more than I am, why don't you can give them a call, too?

by phillydem 2006-11-06 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope

Well, I'd need to know where on the Boulevard they are.

They don't need your name.  Call 'em.

by Adam B 2006-11-06 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: they're gone

Up here along the Blvd from Tpk exit 28 on south, the battle of the blvd lawn signs is an annual ritual. One camp puts them up and the other camp takes them down the next day and on it goes. It's really pretty amusing to watch.

by phillydem 2006-11-06 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: they're gone

Excuse me, you mean the Daniel Faulker Memorial Highway, right?

by Adam B 2006-11-06 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: yep

Now what could you mean by that, Adam? ;)

by phillydem 2006-11-06 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: yep

That's what it's called -- there are signs as you enter Phila and when you come off the Schuylkill.

by Adam B 2006-11-09 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Can I just mention again how great the Sanders lead is? Not only will he be an amazing addition to the Senate, but he's beating the nastiest campaign Vermont has ever seen. The billionaire Tarrant just flooded Vermont's airwaves wtih some vile ads, and, not only didn't it work, but he's completely discredited in the state. He could've run a nice race, used his millions to create a real discussion, and then run for Lt. Governor or State Senate or something. But now ... I don't think he'd be elected Town Clerk.

This race was never really in doubt, but it's just great to see that all the negative ads money can buy didn't dent Sanders's support at all.

by BriVT 2006-11-06 02:07AM | 0 recs
TN's racist ads

I think it was Matt who postulated on the bitch-slap theory, that the GOP does something against the rules so we'll cry foul, thereby looking like pansies to the public. Even if this isn't the most precise description of the causal mechanism, I think the idea is sound. Here's a less specific version of the theory:

They run racist ads, so in the second to last week of the race, the only thing most people hear about it is the PC-police whining in Ford's defense. Then, for the final push, everything Ford says sounds more liberal, aggravating, whiny, feckless, and/or shrill.

I'm not in TN, and I don't know if Ford made a big deal about it, but the politically-correct or thinly-veiled-racism debate was all over the national media, usually framed with a great deal of skepticism towards those crying foul. Just after that, we saw Corker move ahead in the polls. From the way this race has gone, I don't think racism is enough to explain what happened in the final weeks.

Good luck, Tennessee Democrats -- we're counting on you.

by msnook 2006-11-06 02:34AM | 0 recs
You are correct

There is much more to it than a ad run by the republican and or anything that Corker has said or done. IT boils down to how many in TN can hold their nose and still vote for Ford/Bush, some say what difference Ford/Bush = Corker/Bush.

Add on top of that, all the things Ford's group have done to turn on the local Democrats TN-9 and TN-7.  He could have lifted up all of them with his national coverage. But chose to think only of his one campaign instead.

by dk2 2006-11-06 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You are correct

I just don't buy that voters got in touch with their Inner Racist because of the Blonde Bimbo ad, and that it drove Corker's rise in the polls.  And I'll tell you why.

If you do a simple 2-by-2 matrix on the possible oucomes, with racist and not-racist on the x-axis, and vote-for-Ford and vote-against-Ford on the y-axis, here's what you get.  For the two frames of people who are not racist, the ad was a non-issue, and if they were going to vote for Ford already, I don't see an attempt at racism making them vote against him.  Indeed, you could argue that it might have sent a few votes to Ford that he might not have otherwise gotten (call it the I'll-Show-Them Effect).  Now, among the folks who are racist, well, the ad only served to reinforce beliefs they already held.  If you were a racist, were you really going to vote for Harold Ford anyway, before the ad came along?

I'll tell you what I did see was a lack of any new, positive messages from Ford for about a week or so.  He did a nice reply ad to the Blonde Bimbo ad, and it was up quick, like, within two or three days.  It was the usual Harold, clever and eloquent, but it was pure defense.  He needed to stay on the offense, and launch something new and positive at the same time.  There were about three new negative ads launched by the DSCC and DNC around that time (Harold has run no negative ads of his own that I have seen), but that was all.  It was like the lights went out for a while at the Ford campaign.

Ford rose to his highest poll ratings when he was launching a new, positive ad a week (and Corker's campaign was bumbling around with the Lying-to-his-mother ads, prompting him to broom his campaign leadership).  But going a full week or more with no new, positive messages was what I think let Corker back in the game.  You can go negative, and you can go on defense, but if you choose to do either one of those, you must also stay on offense with positive messages to stay ahead.

Just my $.02, I think if your take-away is that racism swayed the election against Ford, you're missing the real lesson, and you're missing what really happened.

by gas28man 2006-11-06 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: You are correct

And I'll add another thing.  I did some canvassing for the Democrats in my area of Tennessee, and asked people about the Bredesen race, the Ford race, and the local state rep race.  I was in a heavily Democratic area near a college campus, and of 60 homes at which I got 27 replies, only one said they were going Republican on all three races.

The remaining 26 had 26 for Bredesen, 25 for the local Dem representative, and 23 for Ford.  Ford has some strong negatives that were not about his race.  One guy in particular said, "I would like to vote for Ford, but he's just not clean."  My own observation, which I kept to myself, was that Corker is crooked as a $3 bill, and Ford Jr. -- exclusive of what his family has been accused of and/or done -- has a strong record of honesty and integrity.

So, rightly or wrongly, I think the sins of the father/uncle/brother/aunt, whether real or perceived, are being visited on Junior.  If he loses, I'd pin it on that.

That said, I'm phone banking for him tonight, and will work the polls tomorrow.  I don't see any quit in the Democrats around here.

by gas28man 2006-11-06 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Whitehouse (D) 47.3%--41.3% Chafee (R). I have only included the last four polls here, leaving out the 10/20 Mason-Dixon because the poll is both old and repetitious. For reasons that generally escaped me, this campaign quickly turned into a Whitehouse rout after being close seemingly forever. Now, once again, it shows a closer campaign. But Whitehouse still clearly has the edge--just look at the polling average

I think Whitehouse wins, but I fear it will be pretty close, and I'll be happy when the numbers are in the bag.  Chafee's desperation was plain when he started flashing pix of Whitehouse with Buddy Cianci; hell, we all have pix posing with hizzoner, including my son (little league).  Even so, there will be a small and hopefully negligible block of voters who will simply find themselves incapable of voting against a Chafee once in the voting booth, just because.

Lieberman (CfL) 49.2%--38.2% Lamont (D). It will be a lot closer than this. And Lieberman's corruption troubles are not over when the election is.

Got that right.  Joey Kingmaker is going to find that whichever party he shits on after the election will have plenty of ammo to use in taking him down.  I suspect he'll feel forced to caucus with the Republicans, if only because the Dems don't have quite the incentive to get him tossed from office (they'd be looking at a Rell appointee, presumably Senator Shays) and don't have their hands on the levers of power in the FEC and IRS.

by dr bloor 2006-11-06 03:08AM | 0 recs
The Dems can't piss him off...

...if he wins.

He will control the balance of the senate.  If he caucuses with the Republicans, they most likely keep the senate-he will be the swing vote.  The Democratic powers-that-be will have to kiss his ass to keep him in line and wearing a D, and he knows it.

by Geotpf 2006-11-06 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The Dems can't piss him off...

Only if he's exactly #51.  But even if he is, I doubt there's any amount of ass-kissing that the Dems can do that will get Joe to behave: 1/6/13103/9397

Basically, Joey's much too narcissistic and spiteful to stay in line under any circumstances.

by dr bloor 2006-11-06 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The Dems can't piss him off...

He'll caucus with Dems if he's 51 and he'll caucus with Reps if he's 50, b/c that way he gets to be in the majority either way. he'll use that decisive status to negotiatiate some plum chair too.

by jujube 2006-11-06 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The Dems can't piss him off...

Exactly my point.  If he's #50 he's of no use to the Dems anyways.  In that scenario, if I was Harry Reid I'd hope for a defection so that he makes Mitch McConnell's life miserable for the next two years rather than mine.

by dr bloor 2006-11-06 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

If indicting Holy Joe for corruption doesn't flip the majority (i.e. he isn't the 51st dem and caucusing with us), I hope it happens.  We won't have much control of whether it happens or not in any case; it would be up to either the Connecticut judicial system or the FEC, I would think, not Congress.  We could live with Senator Shays until the special election, and probably replace him with a Democrat.

by Alex 2006-11-06 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

I don't think the New Jersey race was ever really as close as the pollsters put this race, although Kean did do his best to use every drop of goodwill the family name had in New Jersey to keep it interesting.  And he benefited from the Governor's raising of taxes in NJ this year.  But I still think Menedez has more of a base that the polls actually showed.  Many Statewide polls try to get an even sampling thoughout the State, and New Jersey is not (population wise) all that balanced, and I think when the tally's come in, the northern Blue Counties will have a much larger voting block that is represented by the polls.

Fortunately, most of this will not matter in the end because Tom Kean Jr. did eventually opened his mouth and from that point on it really was over (albeit slowly).

Also fortunately the last ditch ethic smear campaign that the Kean Campaign launched (opps excuse me, "independent advertisers" he had "no control" over the content [see TN.]) first tagging Menendez as "on of da boys" trying to link him to organized crime, and then after that turned some Italian-American organizations against him for suggesting that all NJ Italian-Americans are part of Organized Crime, he then went to that well AGAIN trying to claim that Menendez "sold out" his Italian-American constituents for voting against the nomination of "New Jersey's own" Samual Alito.  (As if him being from NJ and being Italian-American would be enough reason to vote for for him).

In the end it will be the arrogance of Tom Kean Jr. that helped wipe out his own campaign.  And that is the only thing I can ever think of saying thank you to Kean for.

by jaymonster 2006-11-06 03:19AM | 0 recs
I disagree on Ford

I think the Kerry thing hurt him more than anyone else in his state (despite his deman dfor an apology), and I think campaigning with Bill Clinton last week punctured the "Ford's a conservative Democrat" persona he carefully crafted for the past several months in his ca,mpaign ads and campaign.

I don't agree that racism is the reason Ford will lose.

Also, unless the Democrats have gotten to near parity with the GOP on their GOTV operation, a 2 or 3 point lead is meaningless.

I have faith in Montana and Virginia Dems to get out the vote. But I am very leery of R.I. and Missouri.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-11-06 03:55AM | 0 recs
Blacks typically underperform

It's true.  There is a small but significant segment of the population who are racists, but don't want to admit they are racists to pollsters, so they say they are voting for the black guy, but when in the voting booth, they always vote for the white guy.  Since Ford is down in the polls to begin with, and adding a minus three to five points for this factor, and I come up with the unfortuante conclusion he will certainly lose.

by Geotpf 2006-11-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

You can stay with us Chris when Claire wins:

I'm live blogging the race at Kos.  I'll be up all night.

by grog 2006-11-06 04:00AM | 0 recs

So many have oversimplified the TN race to explain it away that it was because of the RNC ads. Ford was losing momentum even before then and not that many people in TN even considered the ads racially motivated. I am a liberal and I did not see tham having the racial angle that the national media made such hysteria about. A lot more people considered the ads "values" motivated to contrast Ford's constant talk of religion with his lifestyle. Ford will finish higher than any of the recent Democratic nominees for the U.S. Senate in TN who were all white. Ford did well in the early part of the campaign and made huge, huge mistakes in the last part of the campaign which caused him to lose his base. One thing that has stood out in the polls the past several days is that Ford failed to connect with the extreme right wing voters he was targeting. He gave up his own base on a gamble that he would somehow attract extreme right wingers who have not voted for any Democrat in decades. If he had taken a more moderate course and held on to his base and attracted the moderate GOP voters he would have had a shot in this race.

by robliberal 2006-11-06 05:03AM | 0 recs
New CNN poll with huge lead?

On, there's a new line for CNN, showing a 20-point generic lead for Dems in the House? 58-38?

that can't be right.

by HKingsley 2006-11-06 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: New CNN poll with huge lead?

Why not?  There are conflicting polls out there, and there were earlier in the season too right around the time that a lot of polling organizations switched to LV models.  Subsequent polling better supported the large leads than they did the small ones.  Here are the recent generic polls:

 - CNN (11/3 - 11-5) - 58-38
 - Newsweek (11/2 - 11-3) - 54-38
 - Time (11/1 - 11-3) - 55-40
 - Post/ABC (11/1 - 11-4) - 51-45
 - Pew (11/1 - 11-4) - 47-43

Now, 20 points is probably on the high side, but we've got two groups of polls - 3 with Dem leads of 15% or more (CNN, Newsweek and Time with 20, 16 and 15 respectively), and 2 showing a dramatic drop and leads of 7 points or less.  From a statistical point of view, these groups cannot be reconciled.

Now, there are a couple explanations possible:

1. Momentum is still with the Democats and they hold a generic lead in the mid to upper teens with Post/ABC and Pew being strange outliers.

2. Both Pew and CNN are distant outliers, and the democratic lead is somewhere in the lower teens, consistent with what it's been for a while now.

3. All three polls favorable to dems are wacky outliers and there has been a dramatic shift in momentum away from the Dems, narrowing their lead to mid single digits.

Now, I gotta say that 3 is objectively less likely than 1 or 2 because it simultaneously has to reject the majority of recent polls and explain a major shift in public opinion.  It also must accept the rather strange makeup of likely voters shown by Pew, which has been discussed before.

by fwiffo 2006-11-06 05:52AM | 0 recs
How about splitting the difference?

Giving you a 10 or 12 point lead for the Dems.  Factor in the traditional +5 the Dems normally get in these generic polls, and it looks like a 53/47 Dem lead nationwide is the best guess here (or maybe 52/46/2, with the 2 being for third party canidates).

This is lower than I would want it to be.  If there is ever an election where the +5 Dem rule doesn't apply, it's this one.  Maybe the lower group of polls are attempting to factor the +5 in, and the higher ones aren't.  Dunno.

by Geotpf 2006-11-06 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: How about splitting the difference?

I don't know if it's that specifically, but I do suspect that the four high-margin polls and the three low-margin ones are using very different LV models.  My hope is that the low ones are using models based on past elections, where Republicans typically beat Democrats on turnout, while the high-margin polls are basing their LV model on polling of this election which says that this year, for once, Democrats are far more energized and likely to turn out than Republicans.  We'll find out who's right tomorrow night....

by Alex 2006-11-06 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Always about working vacations huh?

by MNPundit 2006-11-06 05:28AM | 0 recs
Short note about North Dakota

This is the Conrad election. Conrad is the weaker senator. As for Dorgan, even Hoevan might not be able to beat him and Hoevan is the #1 Republican in the state.

by MNPundit 2006-11-06 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

"New Jersey really owes MyDD"  

Oh, yes!  What would we ever have done without you?

by gdtroiano 2006-11-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

was that statement abot NJ owing MyDD meant to be a joke?

I'd be curious to know the details about how MyDD saved the election (which hasn't even happened yet) for NJ.

by claw 2006-11-06 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Yes.  It was a joke.

New Jersey and MyDD... Perfect Together.

by Scott Shields 2006-11-06 12:52PM | 0 recs
The Lieberman question

If this is correct - then Lieberman is a key - along with Sanders? - to holding the caucus in the Senate, yes?

You know what?  It seems then, that Matt Stoller's "betrayed in the back" scenarios, were based on the political calculation that we NEED to maintain control of the Senate.  And so we have to curry favor with Joe - which, of course, sucks.

But that's politics, I guess.

I sure hope Lieberman doesn't do a REAL betrayed in the back, and caucus with Repubs.  That would be horrible.

It is funny though.  For all of our making fun of the fact that "it is all about Joe" - in this scenario, it is more about Joe that ever.

by jc 2006-11-06 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The Lieberman question

Just to address your question mark: Sanders is independent b/c he has problems with the Democratic party being too corporate and beholden and not progressive enough, not b/c he is trying to split the difference between the two parties. He may have differences with the Dems, but he certainly won't caucus with the republicans.

by jujube 2006-11-06 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: bogus Santorum poll

Just a heads up. Santorum has a press release out of a poll from McCullough Research and Polling(?), an outfit out of Illinois run by Rod McCullough who is apparently a big Republican operative there. Anyway,
the poll is pretty suspicious looking so if you see
anyone referencing it, be aware, it looks like a rigged poll.

There are plenty of Republican polling outfits Santorum could have used like Susquehanna or SV, but
the fact that he had to go out of state to an IL
GOP operative says it all about how badly his campaign is going.

by phillydem 2006-11-06 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: bogus Santorum poll

This is all you need to know about that poll: 758.html

by NJIndependent 2006-11-06 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: bogus Santorum poll

Ah, yes, not just "likely voters" but "very likely voters."  What, pray tell, is a "very likely voter?"  I smell a weasel.

Of course, the more disturbing possibility is that they're laying the groundwork to steal the election.  If you're going to cheat, your falsified results will look more plausible if there's at least one last-minute poll that shows your candidate closing the gap.

by Alex 2006-11-06 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages

Rob, you have to admit that if these two candidates Ford and Corker were in any other state ABOVE the Mason Dixon line Ford would win going away...  Heisod and you both seem to try to make up excuses to cover up the bigotry of the south that still percist with SOME of the voter who want vote for FORD regardless of how articulate and well manared he is.

by nzubechukwu 2006-11-06 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: don't think so

There's plenty of bigotry and prejudice north of the Mason-Dixon line.

by phillydem 2006-11-06 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: don't think so

Agreed.  Having lived in Tennessee for three years, in a very rural community in the Cumberland foothills, and having lived in the exurbs around Detroit for 20 years before that, I can tell you that Southern racism does not perform as advertised, and the racism of the Detroit suburbs is the worst I've seen anywhere.  My lily-white wife lived in a black neighborhood in North Carolina, after growing up in Illinois and Michigan, and said the same thing.

When it comes to Southern racism, don't believe the hype.

by gas28man 2006-11-06 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Nearly Final Senate Polling Averages
I hope Nelson(FL) has the coattails to bring Jim Davis to the Florida Governors's Mansion.
Cardin(MD)margin of victory will not be that close- I expect a 10 point margin. 55-45
I also expect Whitehouse(RI)to win by a double digit margin.
by CMBurns 2006-11-06 09:19AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads