We're going to have new California numbers out starting Monday and they're a lot more positive for Democrats than most of what we've seen from that state in the last couple of months.
There's a very simple reason for that: we're simply not seeing that either Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina has much support across party lines. Whitman gets 12% of Democrats and Fiorina gets 11%.
Republicans showed in Massachusetts that they could win a state that went as strongly for Obama as California. But there Scott Brown won 19% of the Democratic vote. Unless Fiorina and Whitman push closer to that level they're going to come up short.
We'll start on Monday with the Senate numbers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I hope Brown is up...
Okay, but Real Clear Politics has Whitman up by 5 on Brown, and Fiorina down by less than 2 to Boxer. "Can't win" seems like a strong word choice.
The Democratic trend in your upcoming CA polls seems consistent with recent WA Sen polling--Democrats and their leaners seem to be coming home in deep blue states. Unfortunately for the Democrats, this trend doesn't seem to be materializing in purple states, such as FL, MI, OH, PA and WI, where recent polls show races slipping away.
Uh... if Whitman and Brown are pulling in over 10% of Dem voters, that's *not* good news for Dems!
Dems make up 45% of registered voters in CA - if the Republican candidates are pulling in over 10% of that, that's setting the Dem candidates 'floor' at 40%. I don't see how that's "good" news.
To overcome that, Dems will have to do particularly well among Indies, likely needing to pull in over half. And that's not even assuming Dem turnout will be down in CA this year, which it almost certainly will!
I don't see how any of this is "good" news!
When a poll is of "likely voters," does it include assumptions about unlikely voters as well?
Suppose 15% of unlikely voters decide, on election day, what the hay, I'll vote after all. Is that built into the polling model?
I've heard your likely voter model screens out people who didn't vote in 2006 and 2008, both strong Democratic years - is that true? Thanks.
"When a poll is of "likely voters," does it include assumptions about unlikely voters as well?
Suppose 15% of unlikely voters decide, on election day, what the hay, I'll vote after all. Is that built into the polling model?"
No, but you have to assume in a state like CA, and really anywhere, that the more people who don't plan to show up now actually do vote, the more it helps Dems, considering the enthusiasm gap.
"I've heard your likely voter model screens out people who didn't vote in 2006 and 2008, both strong Democratic years - is that true? Thanks."
Nope, not true at all. We poll registered voters who have voted in at least one of the last three general elections and then screen out anyone who volunteers that they don't plan to vote this fall.
"No, but you have to assume in a state like CA, and really anywhere, that the more people who don't plan to show up now actually do vote, the more it helps Dems, considering the enthusiasm gap."
Oh, I totally agree. It helps the Democratss. And it might be the reason you see Dems doing slightly better than the enthusiasm gap has indicated in the last several elections. Some percentage of "unlikely voters" decides to turn out afterall.
Post a Comment