Just finished the general election numbers in Delaware and New Hampshire. Not going to release them until Wednesday when we have nominees but in one case the conventional wisdom about who's more electable was confirmed and in the other it was not:
-In Delaware Chris Coons polls 26 points better against Christine O'Donnell than Mike Castle. Castle's net favorability is 25 points higher than O'Donnell's. That electability gap is even wider than what we saw a month ago when Castle did 20 points better against Coons than O'Donnell.
-In New Hampshire though the electability gap has pretty much evaporated. Kelly Ayotte does only one point better against Paul Hodes than Ovide Lamontagne. That's quite a shift from our 2 previous polls in the state this cycle. Ayotte did 12 points better than Lamontagne in April and 8 points better as recently as July. And beyond that Lamontagne's net favorability is actually 15 points higher than Ayotte's, suggesting he might have more room to grow if he was indeed able to pull a last second upset tomorrow night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I have trouble seeing Ovide getting the 49%/50% needed to win on election night in November. However I do think he has the potential to pull an upset tomorrow. 37% is weak for Kelly Ayotte, especially given that she was polling in the 40s for most of this year and that attorney generals and establishments candidates have been losing left and right this year.
O'Donnell's current unfavorability and headline numbers are likely weak because she is currently being attacked by establishment RINOs. As we see in KY, NV, FL, CO with time Tea Party candidates are just as popular and competitive as establishment candidates if not more so.
I don't understand why any Republican could vote for Castle under any circumstances...if you look at his voting record he is a pretty loyal Pelosi Democrat....it would be like saying well...Reagan can't win so I am just going to vote for Obama cause he can win and that would be good....are you kidding me!
Just reminding everyone that O'donnell lost by 30 points to Biden in '08...
O'Donnell's current unfavorability and headline numbers are likely weak because people don't think she is *FIT TO HOLD OFFICE.*
It's one thing to have negative approval numbers and still get someone's vote. It's another to convince people who don't think you're sane to put you into office.
But at least she won't have to go far from home to talk to her opponents. They are right outside her house, hiding in her bushes.
Also reminding people that the Delaware Republican Party nominated O'Donnell two years ago. Now all of a sudden the establishment turns on her?! These smears are transparently disingenuous.
Furthermore, O'Donnell-Coons polling shows Delaware to be no more solidly blue than West Virginia or Connecticut. Electing O'Donnell is a lift, but well within reach of a wave election such as 2010.
what does it mean 20 point better, does this mean O'donnell is still ahead of Ovide
As polling has quite conclusively shown, Tea Party candidates run much weaker than 'establishment' candidates.
Sharron Angle has successfully given Harry Reid an unprecedented lease on life after he was down by enormous numbers in polling earlier this year; he's held a small but persistent lead in Nevada polling for months now. Only Angle's ineptness and insanity let Reid get back into the game. The Tea Party candidate is responsible for a shift of about twenty points to the Democrat in the race.
Lisa Murkowski held a lead of 30+ points against the Democrat, Scott McAdams. Joe Miller's lead, as confirmed by three separate polls, is in the single digits. The Tea Party candidate is responsible for a shift of about twenty points to the Democrat in the race.
In the last poll before the Kentucky primary, Grayson had a 13-point lead over Conway. In the most recent CNN/Time poll, Conway was even with Rand Paul. The Tea Party candidate is responsible for a shift of thirteen points to the Democrat in the race.
In Florida, Republican governor Charlie Crist had a 17-point lead over Democrat Kendrick Meek in the last head-to-head poll. Currently the Tea Party candidate Rubio is down to independent candidate Crist in the non-partisan polling. The Tea Party candidate is responsible for a shift of twenty points away from the Republican candidate in the race - in terms of horse race, not in terms of total percentage, since the shift to a three-way race makes that an unfair comparison.
The only race where it can remotely be argued that the Tea Party candidate has not run less strongly than the establishment pick is Colorado, where the last six polls have shown three Republican leads, two Democratic leads, and one tie, and the last poll of the establishment candidate Norton showed a six-point Democratic lead (and polling at the same time showed Buck with only a three-point deficit).
O'Donnell has terrible favorability because she's a crackpot who runs every time and very literally believes that Mike Castle's campaign has people hide in her bushes. She claimed to have won two of Delaware's three counties, and even a friendly talk-show host had to point out that no, she didn't, and that her subsequent retraction to 'tied' was also laughably incorrect. Polling has a twenty-five point difference between Castle and O'Donnell - either a comfortable Republican lead with Castle or a comfortable Democratic lead with O'Donnell. That's what the Tea Party does.
I discount Utah, where non-political factors play such a massive role, and where Lee has been able to run a low-key Standard Republican Campaign. New Hampshire doesn't have a consensus teabagger pick, but does have a consensus establishment pick who's managed to claim some fraction of the Tea Party mantle amidst a crowded field, so it's a wash there.
Want to argue otherwise? Back it up with facts, Herbie.
One of the most ridiculous things I keep hearing is that nominating O'Donnell would somehow make it harder for Republicans to take the senate. HA!
O'Donnell is a principled fighter for truth and justice. Anyone who would call her a "crackpot" is an extremist crackpot themselves.
Would Castle win, Democrats would largely concede Delaware and spend their resources on more competitive races. Would O'Donnell win, Democrats and their evil ilk would be deluded into contesting Delaware, siphoning away resources that just might bail them out in WI, WA, CA, NV, CT, WV, etc. when they quite likely could lose Delaware anyway. If anything nominating O'Donnell would make it MORE LIKELY Delaware and the whole senate go Republican.
Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Joe Miller are all going to win. Paul, Rubio, and Miller likely by double digits. And it is not at all unlikely that O'Donnell wins Delaware in November as well.
Not that Delaware is even required to win a majority. Republicans can hold every seat, plus pick up ND AR IN PA NV CA CO IL WA WI... and still credibly contest DE WV CT NY.
Expect 50-54 Republicans in the senate. Supporting Tea Party candidates will make Republicans MORE APPEALING to real Americans, not less.
"One of the most ridiculous things I keep hearing is that nominating O'Donnell would somehow make it harder for Republicans to take the senate. HA!"
You've reached the point where you discount even objective numbers and blatant facts, shutting them off with your partisan bullcrap. Seek professional help. It's not healthy to have such delusions.
Christian 'Herbie' Liberty doesn't live in a sane world. He lives in a world where 'facts' get replaced by 'assertions' and as long as he froths hard enough over his keyboard he doesn't have to make any sense.
I am so bummed that the specifics on these numbers aren't coming out till tomorrow.
I really could have used a post with the exact data -- 26 points! -- in pushing back against the Mark Levin people bragging about Sunday night's poll.
Arg. Ok fine, I'm over it.
Post a Comment