Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Non-Viable Candidates showing strength

One of the interesting things about the Senate primaries so far is the amount of support candidates who got absolutely no attention are pulling on election day. In the Illinois Republican primary candidates other than Mark Kirk and Patrick Hughes got 24%. In the North Carolina Democratic one candidates other than Elaine Marshall, Cal Cunningham, and Kenneth Lewis got 19%. In the Indiana Republican contest candidates who weren't Dan Coats, Marlin Stutzman, and John Hostettler got 9%. And in the Illinois Democratic primary candidates below the top tier of Alexi Giannoulias, David Hoffman, and Cheryle Jackson pulled 8%.

Who cares? This trend has implications for next week's Democratic primary in Arkansas. Given the willingness of voters in past primaries to choose candidates with no chance of winning it seems more realistic that the third candidate in the race- D.C. Morrison- could pick up enough support to force a runoff in the race between Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter. Morrison picked up 10% in one poll last month and if he can really get that at the polls next week and there's less than 10% separating the two front runners in the race it will keep either Lincoln or Halter from getting the 50% necessary to win the nomination outright.

We haven't been polling the Arkansas race so I don't know what the chances of those things happening are, but given the surprising support non serious candidates have been getting in other Senate primaries it would not be shocking to see Morrision hit double digits or close to it.

7 comments:

DBL said...

It's not just the Senate. Candidates that haven't raised any money are pulling in 30% of the vote in House primaries. Some people will punch any name that isn't the incumbent.

Anonymous said...

Tom, you're on the mark. You should also post on unknown challengers getting a third in a primary and nobody heard of them. Dems who voted against HCR and lost a third might lose a bit only of a few disappointed liberals staying home, but Rahall losing a third means that he's TOAST! That third a probably McCain voters that will vote for the GOPer in November because he's too liberal.

Anonymous said...

Cont...: Also it's different if Terry (R-NE) loses a third to a Tea Partier, but those will 100% vote in Nov. for him, but conservadems of WV will vote against Rahall this time like they voted against Obama and even stronger, in WV-1 Dems still have a chance because some Dems (registered and in name only) might not abandon their party this time, but the liberals might stay home and let either conservative win.

wt said...

How popular is the Iraq war amongst Kentucky Republicans? Is it too crazy for Grayson to get to Paul's right by saying Paul would have voted against the use of force?

Paul's general election chances are starting to worry me. Just gave 50 bucks to Grayson.

Anonymous said...

Tom, can you please do me a favor and post what the actual (not likely voter) voter registration by party in PA12. I'm asking b/c I think that the actual Dems there is 53% to 36% Rs and 11% Indies. And I saw a susquehanna poll today that had Critz up with 6 points and they had 63% Democrats! and it might be very off target. (You had 55% Ds and had Burns up 3). Thank you very much. I appreciate it a lot.

Christian Liberty said...

If voters don't pay attention to polls, they won't know who is "non-viable". Targeted media communications level the playing field. grassroots social media campaigns lower the costs and barriers to entry. More candidates can get the attention of more voters when expensive tv ad buys are no longer the sole means of communicating to voters.

The unusual strength of "non-viable" candidates may also be a more valid indicator of the strength of fledgling, decentralized, yet growing movements: tea party, 9/12, GOOOH, etc.

Anonymous said...

So Tom, will you do me the favor please and post what the actual (not likely voters) partisan voter registration is in PA-12? Thanks

 
Web Statistics