"Forget Jon Porter's sleazy campaign. Remember his record."
Hafen is doing fine. I agree, Porter is definitely worried.
My disappointment is Dina Titus. Gibbons is a clod but he has dominated the airwaves since the August 15 primary, hammering Titus with effective negative commercials. I'm not sure she can recover. The new Rasmussen poll is a joke, showing Carter closer to Ensign than Titus to Gibbons, but no doubt Titus has lost ground the past few weeks. I spend a lot of time watching sporting events in sportsbooks and the Gibbons campaign is obviously targeting that male audience. There are anti-Titus ads on all the major primetime sports telecasts.
I noticed this on Wikipedia tonight, that the so-called old IP address has apparently been busy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kean
_Jr. "The same IP address was used to make edits to Wikipedia pages related to the election, often intended to enhance Kean's position."
Not a major issue or one that will have legs but Kean does come across as an oft-practiced liar. Great stuff when the newsman provided the IP address clincher at the very end.
The New Jersey polling tilted toward the GOP is a legit issue and let's hope it holds up again. Still, one thing irks me about this race, the ongoing silly insistence that voters are still confusing Jr. with dad and once they figure out otherwise Menendez will zoom in the polls. Talk about wishful rationalization, similar to our hidden cell phone users from 2004.
There were televised debates in that campaign beginning in late June. I checked out the media coverage at the time and Kean's picture was plastered all over the major papers and clips of the debate played on the local TV stations. Those early debates were heated and generated plenty of followup coverage.
Then I checked the New Jersey media during and shortly after the government shutdown and Kean Jr. was frequently asked to comment. Now you've got the Bluejersey issue, covered by the NYT, and Kean Jr. on TV denying everything. When, exactly, are we expecting the public to magically brainstorm the true identity? Kean's dad hasn't been governor since 1990. Think of the governor from your state in 1990 and pretend the public would believe he was suddenly running for high office again, and that false impression would linger for months, through the primaries, televised debates and all summer. Sure.
It's a close race because it always figured to be tight. Even when the polls after the early debates had Menendez significantly ahead, the odds on the race were always very close to even. I remember posting on DU after the odds on Kean moved 15 points in his favor on Tradesports in one day, back to 50/50. Tradesports has seen a ton of support for Kean Jr. all year. In fact, he's a slight favorite now, in the area of 54-46.
The presidential vote is hardly the worst possible measure of partisanship. The percentages in a gov race would be exponentially worse. Just think if someone who knew nothing about American politics tried to evaluate each state or district right now via recent gov results. Red Massachusetts and blue Oklahoma, etc.
I agree the lesser statewide races can be a good measure. In '96 I looked at many factors trying to get an advantage in an election pool. The problem with lesser statewide races was you occasionally had a young outstanding candidate who was using that race as a stepping stone and it would really throw off the percentages if he won big. And that would happen quite often, especially if he was a son or relative of a bigwig in the state's recent political history.
I ended up using the presidential vote to evaluate states and districts and I've never regretted it, especially in that 16-man election pool.
Who the hell knows? Now the CBS/NYT poll may be the outlier. We maintain a 49-39 generic congressional ballot edge according to the LAT but Brownstein says it rests on softening ground, "On virtually every comparison between the parties measured in the survey, Republicans have improved their position since early summer."
Brownstein writes Republicans have doubled their advantage on terrorism and Bush's net negative on the economy has dropped from -21 to -9.
Unrelated, but I'm watching a tape of the Minnesota senate debate and Chris Bowers is right about Mark Kennedy. What a mealy mouth unimpressive weasel. Klobuchar comes across infinitely more genuine, knowledgable, forceful and likable. BTW, Dennis the Menace is running for that senate seat as an independent. Robert Fitzgerald is 29 but looks more like a teenage Jay North.
42. Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to ensure a strong economy?
Result: 50-35 Democratic advantage. That's the largest margin in our favor among 26 NYT polls beginning in 1984. In fact, the only time we've ever polled at 50%. But let's ignore it.
Plenty of good stuff in that poll. The favorable/unfavorable ratings of the Democratic party and Republican party are virtually reversed: 52-40 positive for the Democratic party and 41-52 negative for Republicans. I've noticed for years the NYT always has our favorable number higher than other surveys, for some reason.
57. How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?
The very badly percentage is 33%, the highest number since the NYT began asking the question in May 2003. That number was between 25 and 29 in the previous five polls since April.
One problem. If you look at the breakdown of who the NYT sampled, it's bizarre. They claim to be only 17% liberals, the lowest number in many surveys. It was 21-25% in every previous sample this year. They favored Bush over Kerry 39-32 in '04, with a full 24% not voting. The party ID drops to 32-30 advantage. Yet the generic ballot edge jumps to 50-35. I don't know. As someone who looks at every available page of the crosstabs in one poll after another, that doesn't jive with other recent surveys. It's got to be an unusually high percentage of left leaning independents and crossover conservatives.
Let's say your team misses the playoffs. You can still have rooting interest in the postseason, that a team(s) you despise will lose. And that can be extremely satisfying as it happens, but hardly the same as your team going all the way, or threatening to.
We are rooting more for Republicans to fail, than for Democrats to win. That's my sense and no one can convince me otherwise. There's no obvious agenda to embrace should we take control, no party theme to get behind during the campaign. Plus it's a hang on baby type of feeling, no recent implosions from Bush to cause a slide in the polls, and glee on the progressive sites.
I prioritize governorships so in that regard the midterm year is more interesting by definition, since roughly 2/3 are decided.
I watch cable almost exclusively compared to broadcast, normally CNN and MSNBC. Here in Las Vegas, which has a huge percentage of the state's population, I see anti-Dina Titus commercials all day and night on cable. Gibbons is simply hammering her, and has for weeks. Meanwhile, I know Titus has a couple of new ads, which I thought were disappointing when I looked at them on YouTube, but I've yet to see them on cable. She used the same strategy in the primary, allowing Jim Gibson weeks of unopposed TV time before shattering him down the stretch, but I'm worried the dynamic here is completely different and she may have been defined already, specifically on taxes.
Tessa Hafen and Jon Porter spots show up occasionally on cable. Nothing from Jack Carter in weeks. Ensign has been the most invisible incumbent senator ever in terms of TV time. I guess he isn't worried and figures he doesn't need to spend much until later in the campaign. There is at least one Ensign commerical airing but it's very infrequent, at least on cable.
Admittedly, I saw only the final segments but she was definitely more aggressive and effective than Talent during those questions. He was looking downward with a monotone voice and hardly emphatic. I couldn't believe how poorly he was doing compared to my memory of the 2002 debates with Carnahan. Perhaps it's because he now has a senatorial record, or lack of one, to defend.
It will be interesting to see how the new "false patriot" flap plays in this race, if at all. Talent's camp is in a huff about it but I'm glad McCaskill isn't backing off or apologizing.
I put a great deal of faith in their numbers in 2004 since the party ID breakdown in each state made the most historical sense. But ARG had a horrible year. The party ID was dead even nationally while ARG polls obviously anticipated the standard +3 to +4 Democratic advantage.
This year the party ID edge has returned to our side by roughly the +3 to +4 so perhaps ARG will nail the results. The Lamont poll is incredibly encouraging if he indeed has drawn even or to slight edge among independents. That would significantly decrease the necessity of Schlesinger moving upward, into the mid teens. But I'll need verification from other polls. It's not exactly clear why Lamont would suddenly surge among independents.
Two years ago conventional wisdom was we were playing defense this cycle in the senate. I always keep that in mind when evaluating the potential for +6. IMO a +3 or +4 would be fantastic even though it leaves us short of control. Remember, we netted +5 from this same block of seats in 2000. So another huge transfer in the +5 of +6 range would mean 1/3 of the seats in this group changing parties over a 6 year period.
The scary seat is Ohio. Lefty blogs have more of less expected Brown to win for months due to consistent poll leads. But they have been small and I'm still worried Brown is too liberal for Ohio's basic preference in a statewide election, especially if the anti-Bush mood isn't the level we expect in November. Ohio is hardly trending blue due to demograhics like in Virginia or Colorado. We are benefitting via GOP corruption and a lousy state economy but voters won't necessarily attach DeWine to either.
Admittedly, I despise the Diebold crap and if Brown loses I'm sure we'll hear plenty of it for two years; "Blackwell knew he was too far behind to steal that race, but he took care of DeWine."
A couple things about the New Jersey trend. It's certainly true Democrats have been understated of late, but also true many sharp posters from New Jersey indicated Menendez would have the most trouble winning a general election, among the logical choices Corzine had. I've always kept that in the back of my mind and I expect a very close result.
Also, if we accept New Jersey undersamples Democrats, why is that ignored in reverse regarding Georgia? I still hear screaming about Cleland and Barnes in '02 and Diebold theft. Meanwhile, many races before Diebold featured Democrats significantly overstated in Georgia. You can look at the '94 Zell Miller re-election, the '96 Cleland race and the '00 Gore numbers. None of the pre-election poll averages were even close to the actual result.
There was an interesting question in this week's PEW poll, would you be more likely to vote for a candidate with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Democrats and Republicans predictably split, overwhelmingly yes for Democrats and similarly no for Republicans.
Independents were much closer to the Democratic side, by margin of 35-20 saying they would be more likely to vote for someone who had a timetable.
I'd be very careful merely reversing the question by asking to define stay the course. You know damn well a Russert or Matthews won't allow that to stand, without asking, "Yes, but what is YOUR plan?" I saw Sean Penn on Larry King a few days ago say no one should vote for a Democrat who didn't have a plan on Iraq. I'm not saying he's a great source of strategy but from talking to average Joes every week here in Las Vegas I hear similar to that all the time.
My dad volunteered for GOTV at age 71, no previous experience. This was in a major suburban area in southwest Miami, obviously in a vital state.
Within a week my dad was precinct captain. The head guy abruptly quit. My dad said the lists of addresses and numbers were so innacurate they were basically worthless. He would canvass a block or two and virtually everything was wrong, compared to the original list. Finally they had to jettison the lists and start from scratch, literally knocking and calling with no idea if the people were aligned with either party, or registered at all.
That's where the Diebold crap comes from, people reading things like that and thinking it's accurate, something we have a legit shot at.
For reference purposes, the betting sites have it basically 50/50 we gain the 15 seats to regain House control. Plus 40 would literally be odds of several hundred to one against, if not significantly higher than that. It might be 1000/1 or much higher. I know odds and that is not an exaggeration. Similarly, we have theoretically less than 20% chance at the +6 in the senate. If you expand that to +7, it becomes at least 15/1 against.
The Zobgy poll had us ahead by 3 in the generic ballot. Most polls are in the high single digit to low double digit range. The +16 is long gone.