MyDD :: More new US Senate polls

More new US Senate polls

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:21:55 PM EST

In Ohio, the Democratic challenger, Rep. Sherrod Brown, led Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, 47% to 39%.

In New Jersey, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez held an edge, 45% to 41%, over his GOP challenger, Tom Kean Jr.

In Virginia, Democrat James Webb led Republican Sen. George Allen, 47% to 44%.

In Missouri, Republican Sen. James Talent was ahead of Democrat Claire McCaskill, 48% to 45%.

In Tennessee, Republican Bob Corker, the former mayor of Chattanooga, led Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., 49% to 44%.

With a 4-5% MOE, that means that only Brown is clearly ahead, the rest are going to likely all go Democratic or all go Republican, by recent historical wave standards in the US Senate. Whether that recent formula applies to '06 is a good question.

Tags: Sherrod Brown, Bob Menendez, James Webb, Claire McCaskill, Harold Ford (all tags)

Permalink :: 40 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

I love the over pessmism of the left, and the over optimism of the right. between the two, there maybe a center called realism.

by bruh21 on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:30:22 PM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

Given the margin of error in these polls and the ~7% undecided in each race it looks like it is the ground game that is going to decide. Motivated voters + GOTV = the winner. I like our chances but the Republicans are going to dump big cach and big effort into the last 3 days - we've go to outwork them to split that undecided 60/40 or better for us and to turn out our voters. Most all the polls show this same thing. We CAN win but we need to work harder and smarter in the next two weeks.

by Wesc on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:35:01 PM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (3.00 / 1)

bruh21: there isn't a center in America past 1998 or so. It's all left or right. Either you support flag-burning and blastocyst murder or you believe in God and His Instrument in the White House. Better figure out where you stand.

Either we're going to win big (in the house, at minimum) because 70% of the country is actually fed up, or they're going to steal the election for the third time in a row. There isn't a 'centrist' outcome to this election.

Jerome:

With a 4-5% MOE, that means that only Brown is clearly ahead, the rest are going to likely all go Democratic or all go Republican, by recent historical wave standards in the US Senate. Whether that recent formula applies to '06 is a good question.

Context for the ignorant, please? Does this mean that the Ohio Senate race has historically reliably indicated the outcome of wave elections?

by lightyearsfromhome on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:42:47 PM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

No, just that Ohio isn't close, and those close Senate races have tended to all go one way or the other.

by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

I was referring to the need to be "too" pessimistic. I think all indicators are good for the Dems. I understand to hedge one's bet, or, in the case of the WH, to not demoralize the troops, but realistically, I think things are looking good for us is my only point. I also happen to think Bowers is right- that one can work just as well from the perspective that we can win to suceed at a goal as one can from an attitude of "well we may still lose."

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this the first poll (none / 0)

to show Webb ahead of Allen?

by texas dem on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:55:45 PM EST

Re: Is this the first poll (none / 0)

Well, there was a Zogby Interactive poll a month or two ago... but I would argue that that doesn't even deserve to be called a real poll.

Swing State Project: Campaign & Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country

by HellofaSandwich on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this the first poll (none / 0)

Ditto.

And if your sandwich ever gets messy and you need a hand, gimme a call!! :)

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the first one I remember (none / 0)

Seems like it deserved special mention in the text instead of buried among the others. I doubletaked initially and thought it was 47-44 with Allen leading, not Webb.

The bottom of the LA Times article says it's the first major poll allowing Webb the lead.

I'd be interested to see the crosstabs. It's got to be Webb finally with an edge in the womens vote, where he has been basically even.

Also, Mark Warner has a new commercial supporting Webb and will campaign for Webb over the final week, so that race should be on the uptick.

by Gary Kilbride on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

US Senate polls (none / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/opinio n/25wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Here's some late night good news for y'all. The NY Times just endorsed Democratic challenger Diane Farrell in her CT House race against long time incumbent Republican Christopher Shays.

by global yokel on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:35 PM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (3.00 / 1)

Tennesse is begining to become disturbing. How in Hell can the RNC get away with thier racist campaign ads and slander on Ford? Damn them....

by nzubechukwu on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:05:32 AM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (3.00 / 1)

I don't see how Ford lost a 5 pt lead is now down several points

The only thing I can see is that deep red states like TN got scared of Dems running things and "came home"...and thats an End Game for Ford

Stubborn southern republicans are not going to be charmed out by Ford

I am telling you guys, our 2/3 is MO, VA and AZ...TN is a second tier race along with NV

by thorgrim on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tennessee is top tier (none / 0)

I've always felt we were the underdog despite any poll numbers, once the GOP nominated Corker. The problem was Corker had a disastrous month in September, not October.

Ford is overly hyper, from what I've seen in the debates and otherwise. Trying too hard. He's a damn good speaker but everything is 100 MPH and high decibel level. I've spent enough time in Tennessee, birthplace of Cracker Barrel, to know that's not necessarily going to go over well with everyone there on the front porch, in the rocking chairs waiting another 45 minutes. As soon as I saw Corker and that he was a slow talking southern gentleman type I knew Ford would have to run a perfect race and get some breaks to win by 1 or 2%.

Carter can't win but Ford still has a shot. Don't overreact to a couple of polls. If someone had told us at the beginning of the year Ford would only be down by a couple of points on average in late October, we'd have been fools to turn it down.

by Gary Kilbride on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:56:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

I agree about Arizona. Yesterday I got word from some reliable AZ sources, even Republicans who have said that Pederson's pro-choice abortion ad against Kyl was a home run. Kyl panicked and replied with a lame ad against pederson.

AZ is 58% pro-choice according to SUSA and has lots and lots of moderate, pro-choice Republican suburban women.

I told the Pederson camp to run against Kyl on abortion eight months ago. Glad he's finally doing it, albeit a little late.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 03:04:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

I find it hard to imagine us winning VA but not MO.

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:11:52 AM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

why? it's like a three point difference

by Covin on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:15:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

Talent is a new senator from a state that has recently elected democratic senators, and only was lost by Gore by 3pts, and McCaskill is a well known name

Allen is known as a powerful Senator, he's regained his footing, has enormous money, his state elects solid conservatives, went against Gore by 8pts, and Webb is still relatively unknown

sigh I Wish Ford was in VA or MO, then he'd have locked it up as an easy Dem pickup awhile ago...but TN is just so god damn red...14pts for Bush jesus

by thorgrim on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:21:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

...Talent is a new senator from a state that has recently elected democratic senators, and only was lost by Gore by 3pts, and McCaskill is a well known name...

Uh. In the 2004 senate race, Kit Bond (r-podium pounding hand breaker) defeated Democratic State Treasurer Nancy Farmer. In 2000 Democratic Governor Mel Carnahan did win the election, but then again, he was running against John Ashcroft. We didn't let the fire go out.

In addition, the rnc is dumping (and I do mean "dumping") obscene amounts of cash in the state. All roads lead to Missouri:

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
FILING FEC-248713
Committee: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
National Media Inc.
815 Slaters Lane
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Purpose of Expenditure: Media Buy
This Committee OPPOSES The Following Candidate: McCaskill Claire
Candidate ID: S6MO00305
Office Sought: Senate
State is Missouri in District
Date Expended = 10/23/2006
Person Completing Form: Jay Banning
Date Signed = 10/23/2006
Amount Expended = $1772765.54
Calendar YTD Per Election for Office Sought = $2853275.34

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:29:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New ASU Poll as Pederson down by 6 vs. Kyl (none / 0)

It's Kyl 47-41, down from an 11 point lead earlier this month.

http://www.azpbs.org/horizon/poll/2006/1 0-24-06.htm

by Davidsfr on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:16:49 AM EST

Re: New ASU Poll as Pederson down by 6 vs. Kyl (none / 0)

You should post that on Breaking Blue. Good news!

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New ASU Poll as Pederson down by 6 vs. Kyl (none / 0)

Kos mentioned as separate poll by University in AZ showing an even tighter race at 2 pts to be released tonight

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New ASU Poll as Pederson down by 6 vs. Kyl (none / 0)

wrong

"AZ-Sen: An ASU poll tonight will threaten to turn the race upside down. Apparently, it's a 2-point race. Outlier? Other polls are showing the race tightening."

Kos just got the wrong rumor...sad I was really hoping for a 2pt race...but 6pts and closing is a lot better than how things are looking in our other 3 nail bitters

by thorgrim on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New ASU Poll as Pederson down by 6 vs. Kyl (none / 0)

okaaay. calm down.

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

Most polls in MO seem to have shown McCaskill ahead, and she's a stronger candidate than Webb. VA is more of a Republican state, and as noted above, only 1 outlying Zogby poll has shown Webb ahead until now. (A Mason-Dixon poll last month found the race tied at 43%, but this month they show Allen ahead again) VA hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since 1994. The threshold for a Democrat winning is a little higher in VA than MO. I'm pretty familiar with both states too; McCaskill losing and Webb winning just seems backwards to me. Of the close races, I've thought all along that VA would be the hardest/last one we'd win.

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:18:38 AM EST

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

these are polls- both show both candidates in tight races- thats about all you should take from them

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

I take from them the consistent trend that McCaskill is slightly ahead and Webb is slightly behind. I also know that MO is a more evenly balanced state while VA still has a Republican edge.

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:50:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

last year kaine was behind kilgore in the mason dixon poll and running even in others two weeks before the race, he only pulled slightly ahead in the last week. the final tally? 52 to 46- a 6 pt spread. there is nothing certain in either race. i have heard as much sky is falling from those from MO who claims she needs to be up by 5 or some such b/s. I honestly dont know, and frankly dont think anyone knows in this election year what will happen. Learn to accept that the best we can know is that things are close- I find it less stressful than trying to be as certain as you seem to be acting.

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

Polls are fairly accurate snapshots of public opinion at specific points in time (depending on their methodology). People change their minds, especially in the final hours before voting. If Webb wins, great! We all want him to beat George Allen, who is truly horrible. I've written in a couple places today that I've been feeling a little more optimistic about McCaskill lately, and I hope she wins too as Talent is also horrible--more than many people realize. I'm simply saying that based on my knowledge of MO and VA, and based on the polls I've seen in both Senate races this year, and based on the analyses I've seen from the likes of Cook and Rothenberg, I've thought all along that we'd win MO and even TN before VA. Hopefully we win those and AZ too. Check the averages on electoral-vote.com. They may be different in the morning, but MO has been narrowly Democratic while VA has been narrowly Republican.

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

the polls are too close to make any judgement other than the races are close. I believe a lot of people here are wanting to read them like they are exactly right even over multiple polls with differring methologies, the best can do when like in VA where its been 43 43, 47 43, 43 47, 49 47 etc is to realize that since these are all in the MOE- the race is a GOTV race- a virtual tie that will come down to turn out. Most of these polls unless the numbers are like PA or MT- I believe show that turn out is the key, but this isn't really saying much because thats true regardless I guess. My point though is that I think people are overthinking this. they want to take any given poll or even an average and think they know the outcome. I think GOTV this year will determine outcome because so many of these polls are showing toss ups.

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

ps GOTV was what helped Kaine last year. Which is why I mentioned it. He won by a much larger number than any poll had suggested he would win by. I have looked up those numbers. I believe the biggest spread at the end was by 3- but he won by 6 which tends to refute all the "sky is falling in VA" conversation because obviously its not that cut and dry (some of these polls were the day before the election by the way).

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:09:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Also (none / 0)

Something to keep in mind:

The GOP Senate committee just dropped 1.5 million dollars into negative ads against Webb. That should tell you something.

by Ben P on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls and accuracy (none / 0)

Why should these Bloomberg polls have more credibility than Mason-Dixon polls released earlier or Rasmussen?? Seems like these polls all contradict each other and none of them by themselves are to be trusted. That's why the projective statement by Jerome seems so absurd. I am more interested to see the trends over time as they are shown in the averages on Pollster.com

by cmpnwtr on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:33:54 AM EST

Taken More Recently (none / 0)

That's the problem with MO, two polls taken after M-D show Talent ahead. And the most recent polls in TN have shown Ford falling behind. Doesn't mean those races are lost, but the trends are bothersome. On the other hand Menendez has been ahead in several polls in a row.

Anyway Jerome's point was that as long as the candidates are within the margin of error going into the election that the turnout and enthusiasm levels would make the difference. That is reasonable and valid.

by Davidsfr on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:49:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polls and accuracy (none / 0)

They shouldn't. Your best bet, indeed, is to consider a bunch of polls in the aggregate. It helps to know that Rasmussen and Survey USA are robo polls, and thus have to be taken with a grain of salt, and also that Zogby is often an outlier among polls.

The most recent polls, in general, do seem to show the AZ Senate race narrowing for example. It seems to me that could be a sleeper race we win. In a huge wave year of the type this may end up being, candidates 5 points down on Election Day can win.

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:54:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 0)

I'm sick of this "robo polls aren't reliable" thinking. Its sort of CW that isn't really true - its just assumed because it seems like it should be true.

Rasmussen and SUSA's recent track record is actually quite good. I think SUSA even has a break down at their website of how they compare to other companies in predicting final outcomes.

by Ben P on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polls and accuracy (none / 0)

this is a volatile year- so who knows anything really.

by bruh21 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 12:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

Jerome's point on close Senate races breaking one way is supported by recent results. In 2004, for example, all the tossups but one on Charlie Cook's list broke Republican. Roughly 14 times as many House seats are at stake each year compared to Senate seats yet Senate swings particularly in the recent and semi-recent past have been nearly as large as House swings in some years.

In 1986, Democrats picked up just 5 House seats but 8 Senate seats. In 2000, 1 House and 4 senate seats were gained. Of course, in a wave election the patterns are less extreme. In 1974, Democrats picked up 49 House seats and 5 Senate seats; in 1994 Republicans gained 54 House and 5 Senate seats. In 1966, Republicans gained 48 House and 3 Senate seats. Then there was 1958, when somehow Democrats gained 49 House and 16 Senate seats (4 new seats were added for Alaska and Hawaii with Democrats winning 3 that year).

Just as an aside, Corker and the Republicans are running indirectly against the Ford family dominance of Memphis politics. Harold Ford missed his "Sister Souljah moment" and did the wrong thing when he backed "independent" family member Jake Ford for his House seat instead of the winner of the Democratic primary, Steve Cohen. The baggage of the Ford family is pretty well known. Bob Corker doesn't need to make this a family attack and Harold Ford's indignant toe-to-toe probably just tends to bring up his family's problems.

by David Kowalski on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:48:54 AM EST

Split Tickets (none / 0)

In West TN you will see a lot of split tickets who vote for Corker, a conservative, and Cohen, about as liberal and progressive as you can get, and many who will leave the Senate blank. The Ford family baggage is one of the major factors in this race. Ford is from one of the last old time big city machines in the nation which in many ways is the opposite of the goals of reform minded netroots. The Memphis Meltdown at Wilson Air gave Corker a big opening to bring up more about the Ford family and he has taken advantage of that. Everyone knew the GOP would run attack ads they are doing so in every state. The mistake the Ford campaign has made has been to give them more and more ammunition to use.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More new US Senate polls (none / 0)

Chuck Todd made the same point in one of his columns several months ago. Since direct election of senators, the Senate has switched party control more times than the House, and the House has NEVER switched hands without the Senate doing the same. (Last time it happened was 1910, before the 17th Amendment; the reverse happened in 1986 and 1980 and arguably in 2000/01). I agree; Senate races tend to break mostly in one direction each cycle. And historically you can see that the Senate is more volatile than the House. Just a small correction: Republicans gained more like 7-8 Senate seats in 1994, not just 5. They gained 2 more when Richard Shelby (AL) and Ben Campbell (CO) switched parties.

by Sandwich Repairman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at the whole thing (none / 0)

Pages 7 and 8 of the link ask the question, "Do you think of your vote in the Senate race as a vote for or against George W. Bush and his policies?". I have been curious as to how much of a drag the Shrubster has been across the country - this answers that question a little bit.

In Virginia, 44% say their vote is a direct repudiation.

by Nina Katarina on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 08:25:15 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.