Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

IL: 34% Giannoulias, 34% Kirk (Tribune 8/28-9/1)

Topics: Illinois , poll

Chicago Tribune / WGN by Market Shares Corp.
8/28-9/1/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Chicago Tribune article)

Illinois

2010 Senate
34% Kirk, 34% Giannoulias (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

How can a poll of 68 percent of the people be accurate? They should at least try to poll leaners.

____________________

Cederico:

It seems the voters of Illinois don't like either guy. This will come down in the end on whether the Illinois DEM machine can get out their voters.

If I were Giannoulias I would mercilessly hammer Kirk as a "liar" and highlight his conservative positions. This is a moderate Democratic state and he has to play to that sympathy to eke through a win.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Obama needs to forget about the swing states, and come home on weekends and focus on IL. He still has 55 percent approval in his home state.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obama needs to forget about the swing states, and come home on weekends and focus on IL. He still has 55 percent approval in his home state.

Why? When you do nothing but campaign, you have plenty of time to fly around the country on the taxpayer dime in order to prop up far-left candidates.

____________________

Von Wallenstein:

the same poll shows the green candidate @ 6 pts and the libertarian @ 3. both sexi lexi and kirk have some serious flaws, so i don't find it surprising that the third parties are at 10 points with 18% undecided

lexi will call kirk a liar, and kirk will call lexi a crook due to broadway bank. should go down to the wire

____________________

Publius:

Field Marshal

"When you do nothing but campaign, you have plenty of time to fly around the country on the taxpayer dime in order to prop up far-left candidates."

Bush did the same thing in 2002 with far right candidates, and he questioned every Democrats' patriotism.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Field Marshall: Obama still has a lot of support in New York, New England with the exception of NH, and of course he should support his home state's Democratic candidates.

As for a president flying around the country on taxpayers dimes, do you think I wanted my taxpayer dimes to go to Bush in 02 when he campaigned for Pataki, Erlich, Saxby Chambliss and other winners.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yes, Alexi should campaign against voting for third parties and Kirk's lies about his medals. I think it is slightly worse than Blumenthal saying he served in Vietnam. Blumenthal could cleverly get out of it by saying he misspoke, and did serve his country while we were fighting in Vietnam.

Nevertheless, Mcmahon who has no political experience is hitting Blumenthal with tons of lies.

By the way, why hasn't NH or CT races been polled recently?

Regardless of Castle never losing an election, I still think the Dems could win that one. Not because Castle is a bad candidate, but DE is one of the few states where the economy isn't as bad as others, and it is a small state, that has high Democratic representation. More Dems may not vote for Castle just to save the senate from going Republican.

____________________

Cederico:

I agree that Deleware needs to be a higher DEM priority. This is a Democratic state where Obama is still popular and of course is Biden's former seat.

The DEMS have a very good candidate in Coons and should make sure he has the resources to win. There is no excuse in not seriously contesting this seat. Castle has consistently been under 50% in recent polls of the race and he can be beaten.

____________________

Paleo:

If Castle is the nominee.

____________________

Dave:

Oh, I think it would take something pretty shocking for Castle not to be the nominee.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"The 44% of Republican voters who say they are voting more against the Democratic candidate exceeds the level of negative voting against the incumbent party that Gallup measured in the 1994 and 2006 elections, when party control shifted (from the Democrats to the Republicans after the 1994 elections and from the Republicans to the Democrats after the 2006 elections)."


http://www.gallup.com/poll/142874/Anti-Democratic-Sentiment-Aids-GOP-Lead-2010-Vote.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics

____________________

Cederico:

Actually Dave, Christine O'Donnell has a real shot to upset him in the closed Deleware GOP primary. She is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in help from the Tea Party Express who was behind the big upset by Joe Miller in AK.

The Tea Party Express put out a statement saying she was only trailing Castle 44% - 38% in the primary according to a a poll they did. So I would not neccessarily be shocked if the more moderate Castle is beaten in a few weeks.

This is a strange and wild election year and the Tea Party people are making this primary their top priority.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This would truly be embarrassing if Kirk wins. Michelle has to defy the statistics about the lack of interest among African American groups, and Obama has to take initiative and focus on the African American community big time and get them to turnout.

While Glen Beck thinks Obama is out for only African Americans and hates white people, I think he has tried too hard to please white people and not spent enough time with the black community. If I were African American, I would begin to think that Obama wasn't black enough.

____________________

VermontWisdom:

FM that stat you just gave us may not be as indicative of a Republican landslide as you may believe. I think it shows the Republican support is pretty shaky. In 1994, people were voting for the Republican Contract "on"...I'm sorry I mean "with"...... America. It may have been misguided but it was based on hope.

Right now people are angry and lashing out at Democrats in their responses to pollster's questions. If the Democrats can go on offense and demand that Republicans tell the voters what they'll do if elected( they have no plan IMO other than continue to say no in hopes that the economy will not improve and they can regain the WH in '12), remind voters constantly who got us into this mess and present a viable plan for how Democrats will build on the modest gains so far, I think a lot of those anti votes are simply going to reconsider when they actually have to vote.

Start with the stalled small business bill. Hammer the Republicans day and night on why they are holding it up. It is really an Achilles heel for them because there is no logical reason other than to hurt the Democrats chances in November.

____________________

melvin:

The Republican party do not want to debate,after Brewers disastrous performance yesterday in ARZ you can see why...The Democrats should force the GOP to have debates...The GOP don't want the truth to come out about where they stand on social security,and the HCB...The media have got to start reporting this,because the Republicans are going to try to get away without debating before the Midterms,and its up to the media to call the Republican party out on this...Its amazing when you have so many close races you wont see 1 debate before the Midterms!! Why is the Major Media letting the Republicans get away with this.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

That is so typical of the Palin/Brewer/Angle style Republicans is they don't answer questions from the press. THey don't answer questions that are fair, and are simply coming from the local media in their state. This isn't Rachel Maddow asking them the questions.

I don't know how anyone can vote for a senator who will refuse to debate. That is one reason, I see unDemocratic elements in some of the extreme candidates linked with the tea party. Their policies are so distorted and out of the mainstream, that anyone who could vote for Brewer or Angle after that reprehensible performance, is an idiot.

If that were a Democrat in the same situation; let's say Al Franken in 2008 dicked over the St Paul local news the way Brewer did, Norm Coleman would have won by 20 points. If any conservative says that I would support a Democrat after laughing so moronically as Brewer did in that debate, my answer would be," I would vote for a third party". I would know damn well that any liberal Democrat who did what Brewer did in a statewide race would lose big.

____________________

seg:

Publius:
"Bush did the same thing in 2002 with far right candidates, and he questioned every Democrats' patriotism."

I have seen this written many times, but I cannot recall Bush questioning dems patriotism. As I recall, Bush was focused on acting "presidential" and left the ugly stuff to others, because that is what presidents do.

Can you link to speeches or press conferences where Bush questioned the patriotism of others?

____________________

seg:

VermontWisdom:
contract with America

I have read that less than 24% of Americans even knew what the contract was about until well after the election, and that included partisan democrats.

Reps are planning to release a new "contract" in early October. I doubt many voters will know what it is either, just as they typically had no way of knowing that Obama's often repeated "all economist agree" was completely false or that the meme of obstructionist-only reps was false.

The didn't know then and will not know now for the simple reason that the MSM will barely report it. The difference now is Fox, but they only reach a small fraction of news viewers. It is not the sort of thing that will catch on fire on the U-tube.

The reps will win, anyway, just as they did in '94 because, as polls typically show, the public assumes a dem slant to the news and discounts for it.

I long for the day when reporters simply report, whether they are CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox, instead of filtering based on whose ox is gored. Since that will not happen anytime soon, I hope that one of the network news groups goes conservative so both liberal and conservative messages will both be heard by all citizens. Maybe if that happens, someone will figure out that just playing it straight could be a good niche to fill.

It is amazing that CNN, for example, has not dropped its losing effort to compete with MSNBC for the modest number of cable news liberals and switch to being truly moderate instead of easy-listening liberal. if I were a stockholder, I would be demanding mass firings from the top on down. Just shows that network news is about ideology, not making money. Must be maddening for them to be criticized by clueless liberals for being money-crazed Philistines every time they include some mild criticisms of libs.

____________________

seg:

The end of liberal spending and it effects:

This site is about polling, which is predicting election results. In the final analysis, elections are determined by issues, with personalities mattering only at the margins.

I am therefore intersted in policies and their consequences. I am also more interested in the long-term than the short term. In the long-term, we are facing wrenching changes. They will transform politics to something that makes a mockery of current divisions.

The liberal elite is about to lose the basis of its power, which is spending gov money, regulations, and forcing others to spend their money to achieve lib goals. That power is about to go away for the most ironic of reasons: the massive gov deficit and economic mismanagement. Realizing their most cherished dreams will destroy their power. Obamacare and the current-account deficits will add to the Krackatoa-scale wave of the retiring baby boomers.

Reaganauts used to think they could starve the government beast. They failed utterly and Bush spent like a liberal, but liberal dems now have made that starvation inevitable. The continuing deficits (and truly stupid regulatory efforts) will continue to suppress growth and create high unemployment, especially when Obamacare gets into gear. All fed and stimulus cannons have been fired. More actions will incur only higher and quicker punishment down the road.

The only choice that will remain is massive retrenchment: reducing social security, medicare, military, aid to states and localities, aid to education, and every other goody liberals promise to provide. On top of that will be the VAT and elimination of interest and medical insurance deductions. Transfers from rich to poor will only reduce the size of the pie. As someone once said (Thatcher?): the problem with socialism is that you run out of other peoples’ money to spend.” And then you go massively into debt, producing economic stagnation and recurring fiscal crises.


Money is the root of all patronage, and it is about to disappear. Without patronage, both high and low, the party of government has no reason to exist. The fallout from deficits and other things in sight will be devastating and will end give aways:

(1) legacy unions: when new union workers are paid much less than current union workers so that the industries the current workers parasitized to near death will not fold, the reason for unions disappears. They no longer are able to extort higher pay than the market would have provided. Low paid workers will demand lower union dues, reducing political action and support. Why, exactly, should new workers support the union will they become the majority?

(2) government employees: it is fiscally impossible to continue letting gov workers retire young or to provide high retirement pay and medical care. When gov employment is no better than private work, why be grateful to those who support you politically? SEIU, what have you done for us lately? Politicians, create more private jobs so I can get one! Historically, state and local jobs often have been held by those who craved security and were willing to accept low pay to get it. We will return to those days. The fed gov workers will be immune to this for awhile, but they will be a huge issue in 2012, and Obama may have to choose between sacrificing them or their votes. At the least, he will end early retirement, which is indefensible for the vast majority.

(3) teachers: the poor performance of blacks and Latinos in schools is creating turmoil and panic in education. Bureaucrats and politicians lurch from one mis-directed program to another, wasting enormous amounts of money and providing incredible stress to teachers. In their panic, they have turned on unionized teachers, who are convenient "villains." Since the problem is mostly with the students, not the schools or the teachers, none of these programs work and the pretense that they are working has worn through. Hence, the search for scapegoats will intensify and move down further in the grade levels. Since money is about to dry up, shiny new schools and computers will not be able to distract from the real problems or allow the pretense that they will solve the problems.

As gov coffers run dry, teacher pay will return to historic levels, which were very low. Teachers were not liberals in those times. They support liberals now because they prop up their pay. If teachers’ unions cannot provide high compensation, why should teachers support them? I do not mourn the unions, but I do mourn the effects on what are typically well-meaning and hard-working people.

(4) academics: colleges and universities are a massive bubble. We have massively oversold the benefits of a college education to our society, mostly by using analytical fallacies. For example, college graduates earn more than non-graduates. Is it because they learned skills and knowledge that are marketable? No! It is because the half that graduate had more on the ball than the majority that did not. Many of the graduates take jobs that do not require or benefit from a college education, including bank tellers, factory floor workers, car salespeople, Starbucks clerks, etc.

The level of coverup and hypocrisy on this is mind-boggling to me.
Costs have run far higher than inflation for decades, mostly due to buildup of large staffs and historically low teaching loads. The latter is obscured by the heavy reliance on low-paid adjuncts (like Obama) and graduate students. Some of the adjuncts are successful professionals doing it for ego (like Obama, who is now referred to as a constitutional scholar, even though he never published) or love of teaching. The great majority are the grape-pickers of academia.

All schools will see reduced alumni giving. The latter predominately comes from those evil folks who make $250k or more, and they are about to be socked by, guess what, liberal tax increases and reduced deductions, including charitable giving. This will hit pricey elite schools the hardest.

State support of colleges and universities will fall sharply as Obama subsidies to states and localities dry up and state deficits ratchet ever higher. State support is about 25% in most states. It will drop sharply in blue states as they continue to support gov worker pension and medical plans.

Faculty members are expected to cover much of their salary by research funding. The latter is a micro-economics sleight of hand since the teaching load falls commensurately (when you support your salary 50%, your teaching MUST fall 50%). Like sports programs, research brings in a lot of money, but just as sports income all goes to support sports, all of research funding “overhead” is used to support research costs. If anything, the teaching budget subsidizes research and sports. I have been extremely successful in bringing in research dollars, and I know where every dime of it goes.
The deficit will kill federal research funding that does not have a clear economic or political payoff. That will spare perhaps 15% of the total.

Suddenly the adjuncts will be let go, and regular faculty will be begging for courses to teach. Retiring faculty will not be replaced until the numbers drop by more than half in most departments, whether they had been supported by research or not.

Likewise, the gov will not be able to afford massive losses in student loans, which will occur if graduates or non-graduates cannot get high paying jobs. Students and parents will become cost averse (i.e., rational), leaving the elite schools to minorities and the rich (which is mostly the case even now). Soon elite schools will return to their historical niche of just the rich. The high tuition state-supported and private supported schools (UVA, U Mich, etc.) will be hit by the perfect storm: lower enrollment, lower state support, demands for lower tuition, lower research funding, and lower alumni giving.

(5) minorities: blacks and Latinos are already suffering greatly from the economy. It will get much worse since gov hiring cannot make up for it. Likewise, quotas and set-asides are one thing when it is 7% or so, it is another thing altogether when it is 35-40%, which is where the numbers of blacks and Latinos is pushing us. It is one thing when admissions to elite schools make up 7%, which can be made up by failing to admit whites from red states and conservatives in general, it is another when it affects admissions of liberal applicants from blue states.

Likewise, SEIU has lots of white, blue-collar firemen, police, and gov paper pushers. Right now Holder is pushing for proportional hiring of blacks and Latinos in fire departments using outcomes in judging discrimination (disparate impact) instead of discriminatory practice. Something has to give.

Dems can lose even more working class whites or they can drop affirmative action and lose most of the reason blacks and Latinos have to support them. One more Obama Supreme Court member and it will be applied everywhere.


Things will be no easier for conservatives, who will no longer be able to deliver tax cuts. Neither libs nor cons will be able to give away tax loopholes so freely.

We are in a zero-sum game when we do not grow the pie rapidly. Are you libs really, really sure you want to continue this spending, bans on drilling, etc? Maybe Reagan's growth policies made a lot of sense?

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR