My entire extended family is congregated at the beach in South Carolina this week, and my 14 year old cousin got her first cell phone for Christmas (good grief, most folks in my 'generation,' ten years older than hers, didn't get one until college.)
So what did she and her 13 year old sister decide to do during their first day with this exciting new toy? They made prank calls to random people in Greenville, South Carolina purporting to be conducting a survey. They said the main two questions they asked were 'Do you prefer Full House or the Gilmore Girls' and 'Who do you like better: Taylor Swift or the Pussycat Dolls?'
No wonder legitimate survey researchers have trouble getting folks to pick up the phone and answer their polls! I told Maggie and Annie their idea of Christmas Day fun was making our job that much harder.
Tongue in cheek of course...Merry Christmas to everyone from the PPP team.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
NC President by CD
The good folks at Swing State Project have tabulated the results of the Presidential race in North Carolina by Congressional district. Here's what stood out to me:
-Two districts, the 2nd and 8th, flipped from 2004. Those districts have a lot of similarities- certainly predominantly rural in terms of overall geography, but each takes in a number of heavily black precincts in one of the state's two biggest cities.
-Another pair of districts with Democratic Congressmen continued to vote Republican for President, and did not show that much movement toward Obama relative to Kerry's performance in 2004. In the 7th Obama lost by 5 relative to 12 for Kerry and in the 11th Obama lost by 5 relative to 14 for Kerry. Sometimes folks within the party grumble that Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler aren't progressive enough, but they're the kind of Democrats who can win in their districts and I certainly wouldn't trade 'em for anything.
-The district with the least movement relative to 2004 was the 10th, where Obama lost by 27 after Kerry lost by 34. That makes Daniel Johnson's performance looks all the more impressive even though he still lost by a lot, and unfortunately it also speaks to why that race is probably a nonstarter for the Democrats moving forward.
I'm going to have some more on this tomorrow.
-Two districts, the 2nd and 8th, flipped from 2004. Those districts have a lot of similarities- certainly predominantly rural in terms of overall geography, but each takes in a number of heavily black precincts in one of the state's two biggest cities.
-Another pair of districts with Democratic Congressmen continued to vote Republican for President, and did not show that much movement toward Obama relative to Kerry's performance in 2004. In the 7th Obama lost by 5 relative to 12 for Kerry and in the 11th Obama lost by 5 relative to 14 for Kerry. Sometimes folks within the party grumble that Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler aren't progressive enough, but they're the kind of Democrats who can win in their districts and I certainly wouldn't trade 'em for anything.
-The district with the least movement relative to 2004 was the 10th, where Obama lost by 27 after Kerry lost by 34. That makes Daniel Johnson's performance looks all the more impressive even though he still lost by a lot, and unfortunately it also speaks to why that race is probably a nonstarter for the Democrats moving forward.
I'm going to have some more on this tomorrow.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Cooper's Other Big Strength
Last week we wrote about one of Roy Cooper's biggest strengths as a possible 2010 Senate candidate, his ability to win over white Democrats who can often go either way when it comes to federal races.
Another of his key pluses as a candidate, on a somewhat related note, is his ability to win over voters in eastern North Carolina. Bev Perdue saved her campaign by doing well there, leading 60-38 in the 252 area code on our final pre election poll. Barack Obama put in a performance that was just good enough to allow him to pull out the statewide victory, 54-46. Erskine Bowles, on the other hand, significantly underperformed for a Democrat in the region, and that's why Richard Burr's running for reelection right now. Strength in the east can often make or break a candidate's chances.
If Cooper runs, the Nash County native is primed at this point for a very strong performance on his home turf. Right now he leads Burr 45-28 there. Allocating the undecideds, that puts him on track for over 60% there at this very early stage. Democrats who cross that 60% threshold are going to be statewide winners 95% of the time.
Cooper's profile as a moderate, law and order Democrat, as well as a native of the region gives him a strong appeal to eastern North Carolina voters. If he runs in 2010, they may well flip the balance to send him to Washington.
Another of his key pluses as a candidate, on a somewhat related note, is his ability to win over voters in eastern North Carolina. Bev Perdue saved her campaign by doing well there, leading 60-38 in the 252 area code on our final pre election poll. Barack Obama put in a performance that was just good enough to allow him to pull out the statewide victory, 54-46. Erskine Bowles, on the other hand, significantly underperformed for a Democrat in the region, and that's why Richard Burr's running for reelection right now. Strength in the east can often make or break a candidate's chances.
If Cooper runs, the Nash County native is primed at this point for a very strong performance on his home turf. Right now he leads Burr 45-28 there. Allocating the undecideds, that puts him on track for over 60% there at this very early stage. Democrats who cross that 60% threshold are going to be statewide winners 95% of the time.
Cooper's profile as a moderate, law and order Democrat, as well as a native of the region gives him a strong appeal to eastern North Carolina voters. If he runs in 2010, they may well flip the balance to send him to Washington.
Friday, December 19, 2008
National Pundits Flat Out Wrong
It is beyond me why pundits like Charlie Cook and Chris Cillizza think that David Vitter is one of the most endangered incumbents in the country for 2010 while not even putting Richard Burr in the top ten.
The reality is that for his personal foibles, Vitter is still pretty popular and the Democrats in Louisiana have no bench. I'll be surprised if whoever the Dems put up is even able to hold Vitter below 55%, even if his poor personal choices are dredged up ad nauseum. Why would Charlie Melancon want to give up what's become a pretty safe House seat for a Senate race where his chances would be iffy at best?
Burr, on the other hand, has consistently low approval ratings and is already losing a match up to potential challenger Roy Cooper. Even if Cooper doesn't run there is no shortage of strong potential candidates the Democrats could put up.
Beyond that North Carolina just went blue across the board, including the resounding defeat of a Senate incumbent once thought to be invincible. Louisiana stayed solidly red at the Presidential level, dumped two Democratic members of Congress (granted there were strange circumstances for both), and saw its Democratic Senator reelected by a tighter margin than any other in the country. The political climate in NC is much better for Democrats.
I think this race has to be considered in the top five of potential seat shifts in 2010, if not even in the top two or three.
At least Nate Silver, as usual, has a clue about the relative competitiveness of these races. I think some folks need to get outside the Beltway more.
For whatever it's worth, we've done polling on eight 2010 Senate races so far. Based on the current landscape for each of those seats I'd put the likelihood of their flipping in this order:
1) Florida
2) North Carolina
3) Ohio
4) Missouri
5) Pennsylvania
6) Colorado
7) Arizona
8) Georgia
If Richard Burr does better at the polls in 2010 than David Vitter, I'll be happy to eat crow. But I would be shocked.
The reality is that for his personal foibles, Vitter is still pretty popular and the Democrats in Louisiana have no bench. I'll be surprised if whoever the Dems put up is even able to hold Vitter below 55%, even if his poor personal choices are dredged up ad nauseum. Why would Charlie Melancon want to give up what's become a pretty safe House seat for a Senate race where his chances would be iffy at best?
Burr, on the other hand, has consistently low approval ratings and is already losing a match up to potential challenger Roy Cooper. Even if Cooper doesn't run there is no shortage of strong potential candidates the Democrats could put up.
Beyond that North Carolina just went blue across the board, including the resounding defeat of a Senate incumbent once thought to be invincible. Louisiana stayed solidly red at the Presidential level, dumped two Democratic members of Congress (granted there were strange circumstances for both), and saw its Democratic Senator reelected by a tighter margin than any other in the country. The political climate in NC is much better for Democrats.
I think this race has to be considered in the top five of potential seat shifts in 2010, if not even in the top two or three.
At least Nate Silver, as usual, has a clue about the relative competitiveness of these races. I think some folks need to get outside the Beltway more.
For whatever it's worth, we've done polling on eight 2010 Senate races so far. Based on the current landscape for each of those seats I'd put the likelihood of their flipping in this order:
1) Florida
2) North Carolina
3) Ohio
4) Missouri
5) Pennsylvania
6) Colorado
7) Arizona
8) Georgia
If Richard Burr does better at the polls in 2010 than David Vitter, I'll be happy to eat crow. But I would be shocked.
Salazar Departure Good for Colorado Democrats?
John Hickenlooper 54
Bill Owens 40
John Salazar 52
Owens 43
Hickenlooper 54
Tom Tancredo 37
Salazar 53
Tancredo 40
Could Ken Salazar's move from the Senate to Interior Secretary actually be a good thing for Colorado Democrats?
The conventional wisdom is that an open seat gives the opposite party a good chance to take it back. But Ken Salazar's approval numbers weren't exactly out of the park when we gauged them over the summer. And when we tested him in potential match ups against Congressman Tom Tancredo and former Governor Bill Owens he led just 49-37 and 44-41 respectively.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Congressman John Salazar, the top choices of Colorado voters to be appointed as the state's new Senator, each do a good deal better in possible contests against Tancredo and Owens than the departing Senator did.
Hickenlooper leads Owens by 14 and Tancredo by 17. He wins independent voters by almost 30 points in either scenario and also wins nearly 20% of the Republican vote while holding the Democratic base pretty much in place.
Salazar leads Owens by 9 and Tancredo by 13. Like Hickenlooper, he has a strong advantage among independents voters and peels off a decent number of Republicans.
If appointed it looks like either Hickenlooper or Salazar would enter the 2010 race in good position to be reelected, at least against this pair of potential foes.
Full results here
Bill Owens 40
John Salazar 52
Owens 43
Hickenlooper 54
Tom Tancredo 37
Salazar 53
Tancredo 40
Could Ken Salazar's move from the Senate to Interior Secretary actually be a good thing for Colorado Democrats?
The conventional wisdom is that an open seat gives the opposite party a good chance to take it back. But Ken Salazar's approval numbers weren't exactly out of the park when we gauged them over the summer. And when we tested him in potential match ups against Congressman Tom Tancredo and former Governor Bill Owens he led just 49-37 and 44-41 respectively.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Congressman John Salazar, the top choices of Colorado voters to be appointed as the state's new Senator, each do a good deal better in possible contests against Tancredo and Owens than the departing Senator did.
Hickenlooper leads Owens by 14 and Tancredo by 17. He wins independent voters by almost 30 points in either scenario and also wins nearly 20% of the Republican vote while holding the Democratic base pretty much in place.
Salazar leads Owens by 9 and Tancredo by 13. Like Hickenlooper, he has a strong advantage among independents voters and peels off a decent number of Republicans.
If appointed it looks like either Hickenlooper or Salazar would enter the 2010 race in good position to be reelected, at least against this pair of potential foes.
Full results here
Thursday, December 18, 2008
'Fixing' the Final Poll
I've seen a fair amount of discussion since the election about whether pollsters 'fixed' their final poll to bring them more in line with reality, and more specifically whether organizations purportedly biased toward one candidate or another were particularly guilty of this. The line of thought is that a Democratic organization might have tried to 'help' Obama by cooking the polls for him throughout October but then showed the race closer at the end, or vice versa, so that their final polls were as accurate as possible.
I know we didn't do that, and I don't really think any of our competitors at least in state level polling did either. If you look at our polls and their demographic composition by the three things we weight for, which are gender, race, and age, I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of difference between what our projections were on the last poll and what they were on other surveys we did in the same states in September and October.
There were ten states we polled the week before the election that we had polled at least one other time in the previous six weeks. Here's how our final poll and second to last poll in each of those states compared:
In five states we showed movement toward McCain, in three movement toward Obama, and two no difference. On average we showed McCain doing about half of a percentage point better in our final poll compared to our second to last one, hardly evidence we were 'fixing' our polls.
Interestingly, in two of the three states where we showed the biggest movement between the final two polls we were about the only polling company to do so. Nobody had Obama winning New Mexico by as much as us, and nobody had him losing West Virginia by as much as us. In both cases our final judgement ended up being the most accurate, and it's worth noting again that the movement we found in those two states actually headed in opposite directions.
Our only goal, whenever on the calendar we were conducting a poll, was to give the most accurate picture of the race at that time we possibly could.
I know we didn't do that, and I don't really think any of our competitors at least in state level polling did either. If you look at our polls and their demographic composition by the three things we weight for, which are gender, race, and age, I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of difference between what our projections were on the last poll and what they were on other surveys we did in the same states in September and October.
There were ten states we polled the week before the election that we had polled at least one other time in the previous six weeks. Here's how our final poll and second to last poll in each of those states compared:
| State | Second to Last Poll | Last Poll | Difference |
| | Obama +10 | Obama +10 | None |
| | Obama +1 | Obama +2 | D +1 |
| | Obama +2 | Obama +1 | R +1 |
| | Obama +10 | Obama +13 | D +3 |
| | Obama +2 | Tie | R+2 |
| | Obama +11 | Obama +17 | D +6 |
| | Obama +1 | Obama +1 | None |
| | Obama +7 | Obama +2 | R +5 |
| | Obama +9 | Obama +6 | R +3 |
| | McCain +8 | McCain +13 | R +5 |
| Average | Obama + 4.5 | Obama + 3.9 | R + .6 |
In five states we showed movement toward McCain, in three movement toward Obama, and two no difference. On average we showed McCain doing about half of a percentage point better in our final poll compared to our second to last one, hardly evidence we were 'fixing' our polls.
Interestingly, in two of the three states where we showed the biggest movement between the final two polls we were about the only polling company to do so. Nobody had Obama winning New Mexico by as much as us, and nobody had him losing West Virginia by as much as us. In both cases our final judgement ended up being the most accurate, and it's worth noting again that the movement we found in those two states actually headed in opposite directions.
Our only goal, whenever on the calendar we were conducting a poll, was to give the most accurate picture of the race at that time we possibly could.
Moore basically rules out a Senate run
I'm surprised this hasn't received more attention, but in a wide ranging interview with Cullen Browder of WRAL yesterday, Richard Moore came close to ruling out a 2010 Senate run:
-He said he's interested in going into the money management business.
-He said he had no specific plans for future electoral office.
-He said he didn't think the timing was going to work out for a run against Richard Burr.
-He expressed a feeling that he needed more of a break from campaigning/electoral politics than an immediate Senate run would give him.
He left the door open but my sense from the interview is that he doesn't have the fire in his belly to wage a tough statewide campaign two cycles in a row.
The most relevant part about his 2010 plans is from the 17 to 19 minute mark.
He also didn't sound like someone who felt like mending a lot of fences, blasting SEANC and defending the 'Confederate Hats' ads he ran against Bev Perdue in the closing days of the Democratic primary. You have to figure if he was really thinking about a Senate race he'd be looking to mend fences with those constituencies.
As I wrote two weeks ago, I think not running in 2010 would be the prudent choice for Moore. But maybe he'll surprise us. It's hard to be surprised by anything in politics after the past year.
-He said he's interested in going into the money management business.
-He said he had no specific plans for future electoral office.
-He said he didn't think the timing was going to work out for a run against Richard Burr.
-He expressed a feeling that he needed more of a break from campaigning/electoral politics than an immediate Senate run would give him.
He left the door open but my sense from the interview is that he doesn't have the fire in his belly to wage a tough statewide campaign two cycles in a row.
The most relevant part about his 2010 plans is from the 17 to 19 minute mark.
He also didn't sound like someone who felt like mending a lot of fences, blasting SEANC and defending the 'Confederate Hats' ads he ran against Bev Perdue in the closing days of the Democratic primary. You have to figure if he was really thinking about a Senate race he'd be looking to mend fences with those constituencies.
As I wrote two weeks ago, I think not running in 2010 would be the prudent choice for Moore. But maybe he'll surprise us. It's hard to be surprised by anything in politics after the past year.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Hickenlooper the top choice in Colorado
John Hickenlooper 23
John Salazar 15
Andrew Romanoff 12
Federico Pena 11
Diana Degette 8
Ed Perlmutter 6
Cary Kennedy 2
When it comes to the question of who should replace Ken Salazar in the US Senate there isn't much consensus among Colorado voters, with support divided relatively evenly among the candidates being most commonly mentioned.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper leads the way at 23%. One thing that's interesting about his support is that he gets the most support among Democratic, Republican, and independent voters at a steady 23-24%. That's different from, for example, New York where our polling finds that Democrats prefer Caroline Kennedy but other polling shows Republicans prefer Andrew Cuomo. Hickenlooper's support is steady across party lines.
Hickenlooper is the favorite in the Denver metro area at 26%, followed by Andrew Romanoff at 13%. In the rest of the state John Salazar is the top candidate at 25% with Hickenlooper receiving 19% support.
One thing to note about the results is that while Hickenlooper leads overall, the number of voters saying they would like to see John Salazar or Federico Pena appointed exceeds his level of support. That could be an indication that a plurality of voters would like to see a Hispanic candidate appointed.
That's certainly the case within the Hispanic community, where 32% say their top choice is Pena with 18% saying it's Salazar. Romanoff gets 16% with Hispanics and Hickenlooper falls further back at 11%. The divide among Hispanic voters about whether they'd rather see Pena or Salazar appointed falls largely along regional lines. Denver area folks prefer Pena while out state ones want Salazar.
Of course this decision is ultimately up not to the voters, but to Governor Bill Ritter. We tested Ritter's approval and found that he gets relatively good marks. 49% of Colorado voters like the job he's doing compared to just 36% who disapprove. He predictably does well with Democrats and poorly with Republicans, but has a solid 50-34 spread with independents.
Full results here
John Salazar 15
Andrew Romanoff 12
Federico Pena 11
Diana Degette 8
Ed Perlmutter 6
Cary Kennedy 2
When it comes to the question of who should replace Ken Salazar in the US Senate there isn't much consensus among Colorado voters, with support divided relatively evenly among the candidates being most commonly mentioned.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper leads the way at 23%. One thing that's interesting about his support is that he gets the most support among Democratic, Republican, and independent voters at a steady 23-24%. That's different from, for example, New York where our polling finds that Democrats prefer Caroline Kennedy but other polling shows Republicans prefer Andrew Cuomo. Hickenlooper's support is steady across party lines.
Hickenlooper is the favorite in the Denver metro area at 26%, followed by Andrew Romanoff at 13%. In the rest of the state John Salazar is the top candidate at 25% with Hickenlooper receiving 19% support.
One thing to note about the results is that while Hickenlooper leads overall, the number of voters saying they would like to see John Salazar or Federico Pena appointed exceeds his level of support. That could be an indication that a plurality of voters would like to see a Hispanic candidate appointed.
That's certainly the case within the Hispanic community, where 32% say their top choice is Pena with 18% saying it's Salazar. Romanoff gets 16% with Hispanics and Hickenlooper falls further back at 11%. The divide among Hispanic voters about whether they'd rather see Pena or Salazar appointed falls largely along regional lines. Denver area folks prefer Pena while out state ones want Salazar.
Of course this decision is ultimately up not to the voters, but to Governor Bill Ritter. We tested Ritter's approval and found that he gets relatively good marks. 49% of Colorado voters like the job he's doing compared to just 36% who disapprove. He predictably does well with Democrats and poorly with Republicans, but has a solid 50-34 spread with independents.
Full results here
Where Kennedy's supporting is coming from
As Caroline Kennedy meets with leaders in Upstate New York today, a new Public Policy Polling analysis finds that's where she's weakest when it comes to popular support from Democrats across the state.
Statewide Kennedy is the top choice of 44% of New York Democrats to replace Hillary Clinton, followed by Andrew Cuomo at 23%.
Although Kennedy is the top choice in the Upstate as well, that support is not as strong as it is in New York City and its surrounding areas. 36% there would pick her, compared to 22% for Cuomo. Kirsten Gillibrand and Brian Higgins, who get only 6% and 5% statewide, receive 11% and 13% respectively in the Upstate.
Kennedy gets her strongest support in the suburbs, where she's the top choice of 57% of Democrats compared to 24% for Cuomo. In the city itself the numbers pretty much mirror what they are statewide: 45% preferring Kennedy and 25% for Cuomo.
If Kennedy is looking to shore up her popular support as she tries to get David Paterson to pick her, the Upstate is the place to be.
Statewide Kennedy is the top choice of 44% of New York Democrats to replace Hillary Clinton, followed by Andrew Cuomo at 23%.
Although Kennedy is the top choice in the Upstate as well, that support is not as strong as it is in New York City and its surrounding areas. 36% there would pick her, compared to 22% for Cuomo. Kirsten Gillibrand and Brian Higgins, who get only 6% and 5% statewide, receive 11% and 13% respectively in the Upstate.
Kennedy gets her strongest support in the suburbs, where she's the top choice of 57% of Democrats compared to 24% for Cuomo. In the city itself the numbers pretty much mirror what they are statewide: 45% preferring Kennedy and 25% for Cuomo.
If Kennedy is looking to shore up her popular support as she tries to get David Paterson to pick her, the Upstate is the place to be.
Cooper's Big Advantage
There are a lot more Democrats in North Carolina than there are Republicans. Always have been, and the advantage is so large that it's likely to remain so at least for another generation.
Of course that doesn't mean that Democrats always win statewide races, especially at the federal level. That's because there are a lot of folks on the more conservative spectrum of the party who vote Republican for key offices like President and Senate.
Even this year, which was remarkably successful for the Democratic Party in the state, a lot of white Democrats voted Republican for President, Senate, and Governor. Our final pre-election poll found Barack Obama winning white Dems 71-28, Bev Perdue winning them 71-25, and Kay Hagan winning them 76-21.
Exceptional black turnout made the Democratic sweep at the top of the ballot possible, but it begs the question: are Democrats going to be able to knock off Richard Burr in 2010 if turnout returns to more standard patterns?
It all depends on who their candidate is, and if it's Roy Cooper the answer is yes. In the Burr/Cooper poll we conducted last week Cooper led 63-16 among white Democrats. Extrapolate those figures out to 100, and it's an 80-20 lead for Cooper with white voters in his party. In other words that margin is five points better than the one Kay Hagan had with white Dems, 14 points better than Perdue's, and 17 points better than Obama's.
For the most part a Democratic nominee who gets 80% of the white vote in his/her party is going to win statewide in North Carolina, even with a much more normal turnout than what we saw in 2008. Cooper's record and profile have given him the popularity within his party to make that a possibility, and that's why he's the Dems' strongest possible candidate in 2010.
Of course that doesn't mean that Democrats always win statewide races, especially at the federal level. That's because there are a lot of folks on the more conservative spectrum of the party who vote Republican for key offices like President and Senate.
Even this year, which was remarkably successful for the Democratic Party in the state, a lot of white Democrats voted Republican for President, Senate, and Governor. Our final pre-election poll found Barack Obama winning white Dems 71-28, Bev Perdue winning them 71-25, and Kay Hagan winning them 76-21.
Exceptional black turnout made the Democratic sweep at the top of the ballot possible, but it begs the question: are Democrats going to be able to knock off Richard Burr in 2010 if turnout returns to more standard patterns?
It all depends on who their candidate is, and if it's Roy Cooper the answer is yes. In the Burr/Cooper poll we conducted last week Cooper led 63-16 among white Democrats. Extrapolate those figures out to 100, and it's an 80-20 lead for Cooper with white voters in his party. In other words that margin is five points better than the one Kay Hagan had with white Dems, 14 points better than Perdue's, and 17 points better than Obama's.
For the most part a Democratic nominee who gets 80% of the white vote in his/her party is going to win statewide in North Carolina, even with a much more normal turnout than what we saw in 2008. Cooper's record and profile have given him the popularity within his party to make that a possibility, and that's why he's the Dems' strongest possible candidate in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
