I heard over the weekend that if Richard Moore does indeed decide to run for the US Senate, he'll make the announcement sooner than later to try to ward off other opponents. He may be able to scare some folks off with success in early fundraising, but it still seems unlikely he'd be able to avoid a tough primary fight after losing this year.
Useless trivia: there's at least one former State Treasurer and Democratic primary for Governor losing person serving in the US Senate right now- Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. And he and Moore share a campaign manager in Jay Reiff.
All that said, I still think taking a few years off and running for Congress may be Moore's best shot at continued political relevance, and he could use that as a launching point for a Senate or Governor bid further down the line after he's repaired some of the damage that his overly negative campaign in the last few weeks of the Gubernatorial primary did to his reputation.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Richard Moore and 2010
There seems to be a lot of speculation that Richard Moore and Roy Cooper's current feud is a preview of a 2010 Senate primary but I really, really doubt it.
I can't imagine Richard Moore is going to run for the US Senate unless the Democratic field is cleared of viable candidates except for him. He already lost one statewide primary, another loss in one would definitely be the end of his political career.
And the reality is that the field isn't going to clear for him. He already has some of the 'loser' stigma attached to him, and he didn't make any friends with the state's black political leadership in the final weeks of his campaign against Bev Perdue. It's hard to win a contested Democratic primary if you do really poorly with that demographic.
I actually think Moore's best next career move would be a reprise of his 1994 Congressional run when Bob Etheridge steps aside. Etheridge has become so entrenched and done such a good job of retaining the seat that it's easy to forget that George W. Bush won the district twice and when it comes open it will be hotly contested. Moore is the kind of moderate to conservative Democrat who can keep that seat in the party moving forward.
I will be very surprised if Moore is a candidate for the Senate in 2010.
I can't imagine Richard Moore is going to run for the US Senate unless the Democratic field is cleared of viable candidates except for him. He already lost one statewide primary, another loss in one would definitely be the end of his political career.
And the reality is that the field isn't going to clear for him. He already has some of the 'loser' stigma attached to him, and he didn't make any friends with the state's black political leadership in the final weeks of his campaign against Bev Perdue. It's hard to win a contested Democratic primary if you do really poorly with that demographic.
I actually think Moore's best next career move would be a reprise of his 1994 Congressional run when Bob Etheridge steps aside. Etheridge has become so entrenched and done such a good job of retaining the seat that it's easy to forget that George W. Bush won the district twice and when it comes open it will be hotly contested. Moore is the kind of moderate to conservative Democrat who can keep that seat in the party moving forward.
I will be very surprised if Moore is a candidate for the Senate in 2010.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Celebrities for Senate
I was interested to see Rasmussen's new poll today on the potential Chris Matthews/Arlen Specter match up in 2010, showing Specter leading just 46-43. That's a much better performance for Matthews than he had in either our survey of the race right before the Presidential election that showed Specter up 40-27 or a recent Quinnipiac one that showed him up 45-33.
It's possible that the Rasmussen poll is just a bit of an outlier, or it could be that as Matthews' potential candidacy has received a lot more attention in the Pennsylvania press his name recognition has increased and his poll numbers along with it. My guess is that it's a combination of the two things.
Either way though, I wonder if Matthews is really the Democrats' best hope for winning that seat. Al Franken may still win in Minnesota, but would Norm Coleman have been definite toast if the Democrats had nominated one of the state's big city mayors, or someone from the Congressional delegation, or even a legislative leader? I don't know the answer- maybe Franken really was the best potential candidate- but I wonder if nominating the contentious celebrity was the best way to go.
And I wonder the same thing about Pennsylvania in 2010. I hope Quinnipiac or someone else who polls the state regularly will look at folks like Joe Sestak and Allyson Schwartz. If their baseline is similar to Matthews, I think there's a good possibility their upside could be higher if they come with less potential baggage than the tv host.
I like Chris Matthews and certainly won't be unhappy if he ends up as the standard bearer but Specter's going to be tough to beat and it's important Democrats nominate the best candidate possible if they're going to do it.
It's possible that the Rasmussen poll is just a bit of an outlier, or it could be that as Matthews' potential candidacy has received a lot more attention in the Pennsylvania press his name recognition has increased and his poll numbers along with it. My guess is that it's a combination of the two things.
Either way though, I wonder if Matthews is really the Democrats' best hope for winning that seat. Al Franken may still win in Minnesota, but would Norm Coleman have been definite toast if the Democrats had nominated one of the state's big city mayors, or someone from the Congressional delegation, or even a legislative leader? I don't know the answer- maybe Franken really was the best potential candidate- but I wonder if nominating the contentious celebrity was the best way to go.
And I wonder the same thing about Pennsylvania in 2010. I hope Quinnipiac or someone else who polls the state regularly will look at folks like Joe Sestak and Allyson Schwartz. If their baseline is similar to Matthews, I think there's a good possibility their upside could be higher if they come with less potential baggage than the tv host.
I like Chris Matthews and certainly won't be unhappy if he ends up as the standard bearer but Specter's going to be tough to beat and it's important Democrats nominate the best candidate possible if they're going to do it.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Cabinet Impacts
There's been tons of discussion about the effect that Barack Obama's appointments will have on offices like Hillary Clinton's Senate seat and the Governorships of New Mexico and Arizona but little about what the potential impact of some of Bev Perdue's possible selections of current elected officials to her cabinet might have.
Four legislators prominently named on Under the Dome as possible selections have been Senators David Hoyle and Clark Jenkins and House members Alma Adams and Bill Owens.
The place where it's clearest there would not be a huge change is Adams' slot. More than likely she would be replaced by another African American in the minority/majority district and the only threat to that person would possibly be in the 2010 primary. No chance of a party shift.
There's no real possibility of Jenkins' Senate seat switching parties either, but it does seem quite possible that a black Senator would be appointed in this district where a majority of Democratic primary voters are African American. Jenkins has done a remarkable job of holding onto the seat through multiple primary challenges but it seems pretty inevitable that when he vacates the seat a minority will take his place.
Owens' House district is prototypical eastern North Carolina. It went for George W. Bush by a good margin in 2004 and also went narrowly for Richard Burr. But it voted Democratic for the state offices, albeit in some cases by a close margin. This is the kind of district that could be competitive if it was truly an open seat, but if Owens goes into the cabinet and a replacement gets two years to establish his or herself with the district's voters the seat would certainly be favored to remain in Democratic hands moving forward.
David Hoyle's seat is a whole different story from the other three. It is deeply Republican and that Hoyle has been able to hold onto it for so long is almost amazing. There are two ways of looking at the impact his leaving the Senate could have. The most obvious way is that he's been uniquely equipped to win that seat as a Democrat and if he leaves you may as well turn the seat over to the GOP. The other way you could look at it is that Hoyle is going to retire some day, and whatever small chance the Democrats might have of holding onto the seat would be enhanced if someone new was able to move into the seat and then be able to run in two years as an incumbent. It would still be a tough road, but perhaps more doable than if it was just a complete open seat.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Four legislators prominently named on Under the Dome as possible selections have been Senators David Hoyle and Clark Jenkins and House members Alma Adams and Bill Owens.
The place where it's clearest there would not be a huge change is Adams' slot. More than likely she would be replaced by another African American in the minority/majority district and the only threat to that person would possibly be in the 2010 primary. No chance of a party shift.
There's no real possibility of Jenkins' Senate seat switching parties either, but it does seem quite possible that a black Senator would be appointed in this district where a majority of Democratic primary voters are African American. Jenkins has done a remarkable job of holding onto the seat through multiple primary challenges but it seems pretty inevitable that when he vacates the seat a minority will take his place.
Owens' House district is prototypical eastern North Carolina. It went for George W. Bush by a good margin in 2004 and also went narrowly for Richard Burr. But it voted Democratic for the state offices, albeit in some cases by a close margin. This is the kind of district that could be competitive if it was truly an open seat, but if Owens goes into the cabinet and a replacement gets two years to establish his or herself with the district's voters the seat would certainly be favored to remain in Democratic hands moving forward.
David Hoyle's seat is a whole different story from the other three. It is deeply Republican and that Hoyle has been able to hold onto it for so long is almost amazing. There are two ways of looking at the impact his leaving the Senate could have. The most obvious way is that he's been uniquely equipped to win that seat as a Democrat and if he leaves you may as well turn the seat over to the GOP. The other way you could look at it is that Hoyle is going to retire some day, and whatever small chance the Democrats might have of holding onto the seat would be enhanced if someone new was able to move into the seat and then be able to run in two years as an incumbent. It would still be a tough road, but perhaps more doable than if it was just a complete open seat.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Wrapping up the Georgia Runoff
Well if you grade it on a curve PPP did a good job on the Georgia runoff since we showed Saxby Chambliss winning by more than any other pollster. But we did, like everyone else, underestimate the size of his victory.
It doesn't take a ton of imagination to figure out why we did that. The Georgia electorate is easily the most racially polarized of any state we polled regularly during the 2008 election cycle. Since we had Chambliss winning by 43 points with whites and Martin winning by 77 points with blacks it essentially meant that every point we over or underestimated the African American share of the electorate by was worth 1.2% on the margin. We don't have an exit poll and I haven't seen any hard data from the Board of Elections yet but my guess is that black voters accounted for only 22-23% of those who turned out for the runoff, consistent with their share of early voting numbers. There was no rush to the polls yesterday as we had anticipated.
Chambliss' overwhelming support from voters over 65 was also a death blow for Martin. He had a 68-31 lead with that demographic and I wouldn't be surprised if that most dependable group of voters ended up accounting for almost a quarter of those who voted yesterday, basically twice as much as their share of the November 4th electorate.
The next question: what were the implications of yesterday's results? I think the only implication is that you can't expect to get a failed Lieutenant Governor candidate elected to the US Senate in a conservative state, and certainly not without a drawing card at the top of the ballot to ensure high turnout from strong Democratic demographic groups. Beyond that I don't think it means much of anything.
It doesn't take a ton of imagination to figure out why we did that. The Georgia electorate is easily the most racially polarized of any state we polled regularly during the 2008 election cycle. Since we had Chambliss winning by 43 points with whites and Martin winning by 77 points with blacks it essentially meant that every point we over or underestimated the African American share of the electorate by was worth 1.2% on the margin. We don't have an exit poll and I haven't seen any hard data from the Board of Elections yet but my guess is that black voters accounted for only 22-23% of those who turned out for the runoff, consistent with their share of early voting numbers. There was no rush to the polls yesterday as we had anticipated.
Chambliss' overwhelming support from voters over 65 was also a death blow for Martin. He had a 68-31 lead with that demographic and I wouldn't be surprised if that most dependable group of voters ended up accounting for almost a quarter of those who voted yesterday, basically twice as much as their share of the November 4th electorate.
The next question: what were the implications of yesterday's results? I think the only implication is that you can't expect to get a failed Lieutenant Governor candidate elected to the US Senate in a conservative state, and certainly not without a drawing card at the top of the ballot to ensure high turnout from strong Democratic demographic groups. Beyond that I don't think it means much of anything.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Martinez news good for GOP
Well within about 15 minutes of my hitting publish on that last post it became obsolete with the news of Mel Martinez's retirement announcement.
That's good news for Republicans. I had pretty much concluded their only prospects for holding onto that seat were if Martinez got booted in the primary. His approval ratings were just unbelievably low- SurveyUSA hasn't done one of its 100 Senator approval things in a long time but if they did I have to imagine Martinez would rank in the bottom five.
It all depends now on who runs but I have to imagine this will be one of the most closely contested and expensive races in the country in 2010 both in the primary and the general election. Unless Alex Sink changes her mind there aren't any clear favorites on either side of the aisle- lots of solid candidates but no real superstars. That's the recipe for a crowded field.
That's good news for Republicans. I had pretty much concluded their only prospects for holding onto that seat were if Martinez got booted in the primary. His approval ratings were just unbelievably low- SurveyUSA hasn't done one of its 100 Senator approval things in a long time but if they did I have to imagine Martinez would rank in the bottom five.
It all depends now on who runs but I have to imagine this will be one of the most closely contested and expensive races in the country in 2010 both in the primary and the general election. Unless Alex Sink changes her mind there aren't any clear favorites on either side of the aisle- lots of solid candidates but no real superstars. That's the recipe for a crowded field.
The Florida Senate Race
Assuming the Politico report that Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink will not run against Mel Martinez is correct, that's definitely disappointing news for Florida Democrats. Sink would have been an extremely strong candidate.
The fact remains though that PPP polling over the summer showed four different members of the Florida Congressional delegation extremely competitive in possible matchups against Martinez:
-Allen Boyd led Martinez 37-33.
-Ron Klein also led Martinez 37-33.
-Debbie Wasserman Schultz led him 38-37.
-Robert Wexler tied him 31-31.
One thing that will be interesting to see is whether Florida Democrats can avoid a divisive primary. A spirited primary season can actually end up making a candidate stronger, as happened in the Presidential race this year. But since Florida doesn't hold its primaries until September, that doesn't leave a lot of time for party healing before the general election compared to an intra party battle that's resolved by the spring or early summer. It will be interesting to see if Washington higher ups try to clear the field for a preferred candidate- that seems less likely with Sink out of the mix.
The fact remains though that PPP polling over the summer showed four different members of the Florida Congressional delegation extremely competitive in possible matchups against Martinez:
-Allen Boyd led Martinez 37-33.
-Ron Klein also led Martinez 37-33.
-Debbie Wasserman Schultz led him 38-37.
-Robert Wexler tied him 31-31.
One thing that will be interesting to see is whether Florida Democrats can avoid a divisive primary. A spirited primary season can actually end up making a candidate stronger, as happened in the Presidential race this year. But since Florida doesn't hold its primaries until September, that doesn't leave a lot of time for party healing before the general election compared to an intra party battle that's resolved by the spring or early summer. It will be interesting to see if Washington higher ups try to clear the field for a preferred candidate- that seems less likely with Sink out of the mix.
How malleable was the electorate?
A new AP study out last week suggested that 'few Obama, McCain backers were unwavering.'
It claimed, among other things, that:
- Just six in 10 of both Obama’s and McCain’s voters backed their contender in those surveys without exception since September.
That finding just doesn't square with PPP's research at all. In our September battleground polling we asked respondents whether there was any chance they might change their mind about who to support between the time they were polled and the election. The percentage of voters open to changing their minds ranged from a high of 11% in North Carolina to a low of 7% in Virginia. Folks in the other states fell somewhere in between. But the bottom line is that very few people were not firmly committed to their candidate of choice.
Why the disparity between our polling and the AP polling? They were interviewing the same panel over and over again, and my intuition is that folks might respond differently in a situation like that than they would if they just got called for a one shot poll. There may be a social desirability factor not to look intractable by just saying you support the same candidate over and over and over and that there's no chance you could change your mind.
Nonetheless I think our polling probably gives a more accurate picture. I think for the vast majority of the electorate their minds were made up early and their minds were made up firmly. Obama and McCain were fighting over a 10% persuadable swath of the electorate and vying to do the better job of getting their voters out to the polls. Contrary to the conclusion of this report, I think most voters were unwavering.
It claimed, among other things, that:
- Just six in 10 of both Obama’s and McCain’s voters backed their contender in those surveys without exception since September.
That finding just doesn't square with PPP's research at all. In our September battleground polling we asked respondents whether there was any chance they might change their mind about who to support between the time they were polled and the election. The percentage of voters open to changing their minds ranged from a high of 11% in North Carolina to a low of 7% in Virginia. Folks in the other states fell somewhere in between. But the bottom line is that very few people were not firmly committed to their candidate of choice.
Why the disparity between our polling and the AP polling? They were interviewing the same panel over and over again, and my intuition is that folks might respond differently in a situation like that than they would if they just got called for a one shot poll. There may be a social desirability factor not to look intractable by just saying you support the same candidate over and over and over and that there's no chance you could change your mind.
Nonetheless I think our polling probably gives a more accurate picture. I think for the vast majority of the electorate their minds were made up early and their minds were made up firmly. Obama and McCain were fighting over a 10% persuadable swath of the electorate and vying to do the better job of getting their voters out to the polls. Contrary to the conclusion of this report, I think most voters were unwavering.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Georgia Runoff Results: Chambliss still leads
Saxby Chambliss 53
Jim Martin 46
PPP's final Georgia runoff poll finds overwhelming support from white voters likely to result in the reelection of Saxby Chambliss.
Chambliss is up 71-28 on Jim Martin with whites. For Martin to win the runoff with that performance, the electorate would have to be 34% African American. Given that it was only 30% for the general election with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot and that early voting was less than 23% black, that does not seem particularly likely.
Chambliss is up 58-41 among those poll respondents who reported having participated in early voting, not surprising given the overwhelmingly white nature of those who have already cast their ballots. Martin will need an incredible Democratic turnout at the polls tomorrow to make up for the deficit he goes into election day with based on early voters.
Martin leads with voters under 45, but trails 68-31 with voters over 65. Senior citizens are the most reliable group of voters and likely to make up a larger portion of the electorate than they did on November 4th for this comparatively low interest election. That's just one more hurdle to climb for the Democratic challenger.
Full results here.
Jim Martin 46
PPP's final Georgia runoff poll finds overwhelming support from white voters likely to result in the reelection of Saxby Chambliss.
Chambliss is up 71-28 on Jim Martin with whites. For Martin to win the runoff with that performance, the electorate would have to be 34% African American. Given that it was only 30% for the general election with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot and that early voting was less than 23% black, that does not seem particularly likely.
Chambliss is up 58-41 among those poll respondents who reported having participated in early voting, not surprising given the overwhelmingly white nature of those who have already cast their ballots. Martin will need an incredible Democratic turnout at the polls tomorrow to make up for the deficit he goes into election day with based on early voters.
Martin leads with voters under 45, but trails 68-31 with voters over 65. Senior citizens are the most reliable group of voters and likely to make up a larger portion of the electorate than they did on November 4th for this comparatively low interest election. That's just one more hurdle to climb for the Democratic challenger.
Full results here.
Polling the Georgia race
Polling a special election is hard. You usually don't have a lot of precedent to base turnout projections on, and that makes it difficult to figure out ahead of time what the electorate is going to look like.
Polling a special election over a holiday weekend is even harder. People are out of town, at the mall, and generally just harder to reach than usual.
That's the confluence of circumstances folks polling the Georgia runoff are having to deal with.
So here's one conundrum. On our poll over the weekend the unweighted percentage of respondents who were African American was higher than it was for the Presidential election. Does that mean Republicans and/or conservative leaning white Democrats are planning to stay home on Tuesday, or does it mean those demographics were more likely to be visiting family out of state or in Athens for the football game over the weekend?
At the same time African American participation in early voting was under 23%, considerably less than what it was for the Presidential race. I can absolutely guarantee you that if that number doesn't increase when those who turn out tomorrow are factored in that Saxby Chambliss will win by double digits.
So we have data from the poll this weekend suggesting black turnout could be as high as 33-34% and turnout from early voting suggesting it could be as low as 23-24%. Our poll the previous weekend, not over the holiday, looked like blacks would make up 27-29% of the electorate and we're sticking with that for our projection. But because we've seen evidence to the contrary in either direction really nothing between a 2 point Martin victory and a 16 point Chambliss victory would absolutely shock me. That's just the nature of the uncertainly with an election like this.
Polling a special election over a holiday weekend is even harder. People are out of town, at the mall, and generally just harder to reach than usual.
That's the confluence of circumstances folks polling the Georgia runoff are having to deal with.
So here's one conundrum. On our poll over the weekend the unweighted percentage of respondents who were African American was higher than it was for the Presidential election. Does that mean Republicans and/or conservative leaning white Democrats are planning to stay home on Tuesday, or does it mean those demographics were more likely to be visiting family out of state or in Athens for the football game over the weekend?
At the same time African American participation in early voting was under 23%, considerably less than what it was for the Presidential race. I can absolutely guarantee you that if that number doesn't increase when those who turn out tomorrow are factored in that Saxby Chambliss will win by double digits.
So we have data from the poll this weekend suggesting black turnout could be as high as 33-34% and turnout from early voting suggesting it could be as low as 23-24%. Our poll the previous weekend, not over the holiday, looked like blacks would make up 27-29% of the electorate and we're sticking with that for our projection. But because we've seen evidence to the contrary in either direction really nothing between a 2 point Martin victory and a 16 point Chambliss victory would absolutely shock me. That's just the nature of the uncertainly with an election like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
