One of the interesting dynamics occurring in the Nevada Senate race right now is that Harry Reid is outrunning his approval numbers- about 10% of voters who don't approve of his job performance are planning to vote for him anyway.
The automatic assumption would be that those are folks who think Sharron Angle's too conservative, but only 40% of them actually hold that opinion. When you ask them whether Reid or Angle would be more effective as a Senator though 87% of them say Reid to only 10% for Angle.
Reid's power in Washington and ability to deliver for Nevada wouldn't really make that big of a difference if this race was in the 5-10 point range in either direction. There aren't that many voters who are going to let that trump party and ideology. But in a race that is basically 50-50 right now voters who don't like Reid but are voting for him anyway because of his effectiveness are tipping the scales. It's the kind of thing that could end up making the difference in a race that's not likely to be too slanted in one direction or another.
Overall 48% of Nevada voters think Reid would be more effective to 42% who say Angle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sounds a lot like Jessie Helms when he was a fixture in the Senate from NC.
Lots of folks disagreed with him, but if you had a problem and called his office they got things done.
I guess it depends on how you define 'effective', but I'm quite surprised 42% of the population thinks a freshman Senator in the probable minority would be more effective than the Majority Leader (leaving politics out of the question.) Really?
Given the level of political polarization across the country right now, I would be completely unsurprised to see any politician at all being overwhelmingly dubbed 'ineffective' by partisans of the opposite party. It's a fluid term that a lot of people would probably readily interpret as "Not doing what I want."
Tom,
Several months ago you addressed the issue of the "enthusiasm gap" that exists between Republican and Democratic voters. Out of curiosity I recently did a little bit of research on the matter and found some rather interesting facts.
In a poll that Pew did on 7/1, they had the "gap" at 56-42, Gallup on 6/21 was at 59-44 and USA Today on 6/13 at a more modest 69-57; all favoring the GOP. They were reported by all three polling firms as being the largest enthusiasm gap between the two parties EVER recorded by them.
Nate Silver at 538, using the (again modest) USA Today numbers, did a few of his own calculations. He based those calculations, thus results upon what he referred to as being an "enthusiasm ratio". He used a couple of possible scenarios, whereas the overall voter turnout was projected into the equation as being the minimum and maximum varable. In doing so, he concluded that this November's elections will produce a net voter gain for the GOP of somewhere between 6.6% and 14.2% - above and beyond those attained through conventional polling methods. I was quite frankly, rather astonished! Clearly, that kind of a gap has to bode quite well for the GOP candidate(s) and the party in general.
But, I would like to know what your thoughts and opinions are, in respects to how you think that those numbers might play out come November. Just wondering.
I would greatly appreciate your response. Thanks.
Post a Comment