Pollster.com

Say it ain't so Joe.......thanks Kos.

This will be like the Ohio race. Close. Although Sestak probably has a better chance of winning than Fisher. Between these two races and the 10 Dem House seats in the two states that are in play, it's safe to say that these two states could very well determine the outcome of the 2010 election.

Kos? Toomey must be up by 50.

Joe should have taken that Sec. of Navy gig when he had a chance. Poor sap..

Toomey ahead by 5 if Kos has Sestak leading by just 3 points.

Foxnews is trying to destroy Sestak chances of beating Toomey.Foxnews is reporting non-stop about the Sestak in Whitehouse Controversy.the Republicans thought they could just sit back in say no to everything,but America is noticing the Republicans donot have no plan at all to what their going to do about the problems everyday people in America are facing.former Senator Tom Ridge told Foxnews lastweek if the Gop think their going to win back the House in Senate without telling the American people what their going to do to solve these problem were facing, then their dreaming.

Wow Criticizing this poll because you don't like the results. Then criticizing the Dems on this site because we criticize the results of Rasmussen's polls. We usually criticize his likely voter model/ house effect too. Did you even look at KOS's models? Living in PA, I would say this is pretty accurate. IMO, Toomey is not going to win this state. Santorum lost 60-40 to Casey and he actually is way less conservative than Toomey. Sestak will appeal to blue collar workers while Toomey will not. Sestak will attack him on his views on social security. Pa has the 2nd oldest population in the country and majority of them will vote against him. Don't think Sestak is going to carry 60% of the vote but it will be low 50 for him. Toomey is going to have the fight of his life and then he will back to being the CLub for Growth President.

Five thirty eight has an interesting article about Ras involving the WI senate seat. Rasmussen's poll is showing that Ron JOhnson is behind Feingold by 2 points. His favorability is at 68% even though he isn't even well known in the state. 538 saw only three articles about him in the biggest Wi paper all month. He has never run for office before. Most people in WI never heard of him. However, some voters could be voting for him just because he has an R behind him but not at these kinds of numbers and not in WI.

My theory from everything I have heard on every media source other than Fox News is that Bill Clinton who is not currently serving in the administration approached Sestak about volunteering his time to helping with some critical foreign policy decisions. Democrats are not as strong as Republicans in finding those who specialize in defense, and Sestak was simply asked to help.

Kos isn't as biased as righties say it is. The dems only hold a 1 point on the generic ballot compared to 6 on QUinippiac which is more non-partisan.

Why it took so long for them to come up with this answer is puzzling even to me, but I think that maybe it was Sestak who was behind of Specter in the polls at the time, wanted to imply that this may have been the reason why Clinton had asked him to volunteer his time. Did Clinton officially ask Sestak to withdraw? I am not sure if that was the case.

Perhaps Sestak figured, being the outsider pointing a finger at the administration in a time the voters are not happy with the incumbents might have gotten him the nomination. I think with some good damage control, admission of mistakes the issues will speak for themselves in PA.

This poll is probably not as good for sestak as it was last week, but than again the voters overeact and believe everything the media tells them, and than they get over it. It is as simple as that. Obama went down in the polls after Jeremiah Wright and the "guns and religion" statement, but did he lose to Hillary? no

Farleft,

I don't think Kos polled generic ballot this cycle yet.

"Joe should have taken that Sec. of Navy gig when he had a chance" Except he wasn't offered it. Another right-wing lie down the drain.

Sure Paleo,

Joe was offered an unpaid advisory position that meets semi-monthly by a tailgate at FEDEX Field, so he can stop running for that crap US Senate position. Because it was starting to look like he was winning. And WH has all of Bill Clinton's credibility to back that up. Word.

StatyPolly:

They did. Dem +1

According to the chart, Rasmussen has Sestak up by 4 pts in their last poll while Kos has him up by 3 pts.
Seems like the data aren't exactly contradictory.

Sometimes I am just SHOCKED that politicians offer to help each other if they do something the other wants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIX_0nMlIBU

Basically Clinton offered Sestak, at the request of the white house, a position where he would have been slightly closer to the president but he would have had to remain in the house. Big freakin deal.

It was Sestak who exaggerated as if they offered him the navy secretary position, which they didn't. He's the bigger loser here by inflating his own importance.

When I was a good boy in class, the teacher gave me a sticker or maybe a piece of candy if I was really, really good.

So, what's the deal with Kos? I actually think that the Republicans posters have a point about bias with the Kos polls and here's why: Research 2000 is getting a lot of money from Kos for all these weekly polls and Kos has an unambiguous political viewpoint. This creates a conflict of interest for Research 2000.

Similarly, Rasmussen has a conflict of interest since he's such a darling of Republican media outlets and gains a lot from his media exposure.

I don't believe that maintaining a reputation for objectivity and professionalism is enough to counter clear conflicts of interest if enough money is involved. Anyone remember Arthur Andersen? To take a more recent example, consider that one component of the financial crisis stemmed from large investment bank's ability to pick their credit rating agencies to assess their products. Lo and behold, their junk was often given the highest possible rating to the detriment of small investors. One thing I like about the financial reform bill is the fact that credit rating agencies will now be assigned to investment by the SEC which should help.

For someone interested in polls to get a realistic picture of the political climate, it would be great if Kos was randomly assigned a pollster each week to conduct its surveys. In any case, this will never happen. My rule of thumb for correcting for the conflict of interest is:

Rasmussen: assume a +2R bias
Kos: assume a +2D bias

BTW, I don't believe that Rasmussen and Research 2000 purposely fudge their results. They may just be blind to systematics in their voter models that create biases in what they consider a desirable direction.

One bias I consider common to most pollsters is the issue of contacting cell phone users, namely those that don't have a land line or never use it to take calls. Pew did an impressive analysis of cell phone users which was picked up by Nate Silver at 538 and Mark Blumenthal at Pollster. As far as I can tell, not including those potential voters tilts polls in a Republican direction. Until I'm satisfied that pollsters correctly account for that effect, I include a correction for polls where cellphone only participants are not included in the surveys. To be conservative, I assume a tilt of:

delta = +2R

although I have a feeling from what I've read that it could be bigger. Obviously, I'm not making any strong claims here since I have not done any kind of numerical analysis. The result for Kos and Rasmussen accounting for conflict of interest and cell phone participants is:

Kos --> +2R + +2D = 0. basically a wash
Ras --> +2 R + +2R = +4R

These numbers are not enough to reconcile the Kos and Ras polls but that's just one attempt to include the effect of obvious conflicts of interest and cell phone users.

Just watching Issa comment on Fox. Good bulldog. Believe me kids, this story is a centipede. It's gonna hound WH until they come clean.

Funny thing is Sestak likely did nothing wrong, but may end up looking like a south Louisiana wetland.

"Funny thing is Sestak likely did nothing wrong,"

It's what he did afterward that's the issue, which is always the case in these things.

He implied that he was offered a big time job like Navy secretary. He was offered something less important than a committee assignment that involved no monetary benefit for him.

The white house is probably covered legally because no official actually made the offer. Clinton, not an employee of the government, made it.

Was the whole episode unseemly? Yes. Was it politics as usual? Yes. Is it that big of a deal? No.

Now the republicans will say "But Obama said he was about change! He said he would be transparent and end cronyism!" etc...

I think people are smart enough to know that talk was rhetoric. True change would be libertarian party, green party, american party, consitution party, socialist party. NOT republican or democrat party. By voting for one of them you vote in the establishment.

"He was offered something less important than a committee assignment that involved no monetary benefit for him."

If that statement is true, I agree with the rest of your post, Aaron. But I have plenty of doubt that that statement is true.

Something can have value without having monetary value. There is much more to the sestak scandal. Its a tight spot to be in for the WH, they cannot really throw sestak under the bus because of the important of the senate race and sestak cannot retract anything....that is whythey released what they did. But there's more tothe story...and these things have a way of always eventually leaking out.

Politcally speaking, its the last thing the WH needed right now with the negative impact the oil spill is having on them...plus its an election year...the last thing they wanted was a scandal like this lingering around.

The white house and Sestak's stories now align because Sestak ate crow once the white house divulged what the offer was. Sestak was the one exagerrating the whole time. I can't imagine this unpaid presidential "advisory board" is anything more than a group of lower level politicians friendly to Obama that tell him what they think every month or two in some luncheon. Best perk, maybe they get some white house food.

It was a b.s. offer. Obviously you're not going to give up running in a competitive primary for a spot as one of the teacher's pets.

The only way there would be "more" to this story is if Sestak disputed what the white house said or vice versa. The damage is done. Sestak can actually less afford this than the white house. White house has 2 and a half years to get over this. Sestak has 5 months and he's the one who exagerrated the whole thing and brought it up in the first place because it helped him against Specter. It's not like Clinton lobbied him for months. It was one conversation, Sestak declined and they moved on. They were probably gaugeing Sestak's loyalties and commitment.

Clinton is to savvy to offer a meaningless spot. Something more went on. It makes sense that sestak would confirm the WH story now, because now they need eachother to try and win the election. Neither side can afford to go after the other.....but there's more. You don't send a former president to go offer some meaningless position to a congressmen to drop out of a race. Its bigger than that.

Like I said, these things have a way of trickling out. They always do.

The question is, if Clinton acted on Rahmbo's request to make an offer to sestak to get him out of the way, does that constitute bribery in some fashion? I beleive its illegal fo the WH to directly or "indirectly" do something like that. It also comes under the cloud of the whole Blago mess and WH invovlement in that a whiel back.

But stretgically, the GOP should keep this going....the WH is getting negative attention on several different angles now and its an election year.

But just keep in mind, you don't send someone like a former president to offer a guy head dog catcher.....something more is there. time will tell.

The deal is out in the open. WH counsel said they wanted Specter to have clear path to the nomination. Fox News will harp on this for a few days and then forget about it because it's nothing more than politics as usual. Daryl Issa is already walking back some of his statements. For there to be something more there HAS to be money exchanging hands or the offer of it. Issa said as much in his press conference.

It's much less serious than Obama offering Jon Huntsman the China ambassador job. When he did that he was called a political genius for pre-empting a possible 2012 challenger.

What I think is interesting is that Bill Clinton was involved at all. It seems like an unprecedented level of involvement in petty politics from a past president. Bill Clinton is still very much in the game and more involved with the administration than I thought he was. His influence might be quite strong. What he's doing in general should be looked into. I never did trust him.

"does that constitute bribery in some fashion?"

Is it bribery to offer a better committee assignment in return for support on key legislation? Is it bribery to support someone's legislation when they support yours?

If that is bribery than everyting politicians do is bribery.

I'm tellin ya aaron, former presidents don't get involved like this unless something else was up. Just because the WH internal investigation says they did nothing wrong, doesn't make it so. The two need eachother now, so its unlikely sestak would admit anything toehr than what the WH released....politics as usual, I thought Obama was supposed to be different.....change we can beleive in remember?

even if nothing is illegal, its still a PR mess for the WH...like I said its the last thing they needed in the midst of the oil spill fiasco.

"I thought Obama was supposed to be different.....change we can beleive in remember?"

Like I said if you want real change, vote for a party other than D or R. It's like wanting to play a different game than basketball but having to choose between the Lakers and the Celtics as your favorite team.

The damage is already done on the change vs. politics as usual point, but then I never expected much of a difference.

Well fair enough. But something remains fishey. I don't beelive either the WH or Sestak...this board appointment is a cover story....and its gonna leak out.

This whole thing doesn't make sense, tyring to get someone out of a race with some dopy baord appointment that is meaningless, asking a former president to do it? The WH trying to ignroe the story for a long time......sorry, it does not make any sense.....and as Judge Judy tells us, if something doesn't make sense, its usually not true.

This thig will linger and the truth will somehow make its way out...I think the rumors that sestak was offered the sec of the navy spot are true............thats just me.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven...and it does not make sense.

If Sestak was offered Sect'y of the Navy to get out of this race then what of it? What law would have been broken? It fails to qualify as offer of bribe or any other violations of statute that I'm aware of. They require a quid pro quo for some vote or official action in the capacity of one's office. Here a Congressperson is being asked not to run for a different position in a different body. It's the kind of political horse trading that has characterized administrations dating back to Washington, for all I know.

As was pointed out earlier Republican candidate SI Hayakawa was offered a job by Ed Rollins of the Reagan admin if he decided not to seek reelection.

Would you want to pass a law making this strictly illegal? It would result in investigations of both Dem and Repub administrations all the time or at least calls for a special prosecutor, as we have here (despite my not being alerted to any cognizable claim of illegality).

Polly, please go to www.pollingreport.com

Daily Kos posts their generics on their. You'll see they haven't given much of a lead to dems.

Well the only thing I can blame Obama's "change we can believe in" Slogan is he probably didn't think the lack of bi-partisanship and they tactics the GOP as an entire party has used to fight him on every single issue is appauling! I am talking about just about everyone in the US Senate other than maybe Brown, Snowe and Collins. Even Brown didn't support repealing don't ask don't tell. That will come back to bite him.

If Obama is for something, the GOP will be against it, even if it was a position they once supported. The Bob Dole genre of the early 90's had a health care plan quite similar to the compromise that was eventually passed. Because Obama suggested a similar plan, they clearly all agreed to be the party of no. That will come back to bite them.

Obama can't force Republicans to be more bi-partisan, but I think the lack of bi-partisanship is the reason America has hated congress for 5 years.

The "change" mantra to me always meant change from Bush and not much more. I had vainly hoped it would mean change from Clinton too, but Obama's admin has in many ways become the Clinton admin redux, but at least it's better than Bush was.

Anyone notice the poll Rasmussen released on the eve of the American Idol finale? Check out:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/entertainment/may_2010/bowersox_is_the_favorite_among_american_idol_watchers

This is an interesting poll because Rasmussen identified Bowersox as the favorite with the following numbers:

38% Bowersox
33% DeWyze
30% Not sure

Bowersox went on to lose. If Rasmussen had called it correctly, that would have shown that he has some control over the limitations of the automatic phone methodology (which can not call cell phones by law) he uses since AI has a large young and female audience. According to Rasmussen, the young and women preferred Bowersox. I don't want to make too much of this poll, but the AI audience is exactly the kind of demographics I would expect Rasmussen to screw up.

I think some of the Chicago style deal making politics is not anything I would do as president. I am from northern New England where politicians have much more integrity, and would rather see a primary play out in each respective party, and the voters make the decision to nominate the best candidate. I think if the allegations are true, Obama made a mistake and can't continue this deal making.

I think Sestak has done nothing wrong and should distance himself from Obama and let the people of his state know he is the best person for the job.

As for Issa and the GOP witch hunters I dare them to go ahead and form an independent counsel. For all the crap and lies that Bush got away with, any wrongdoing by Bill clinton or the administration is peanuts in comparison.

Just want to point out that most liberals dislike Rahm from mildly to foaming-at-the-mouth levels. It might be the one area where FM, Stillow, and Farleft agree.

My personal thought on this whole thing is that Obama expressed to Rahm a desire to keep some kind of Dem promise to Arlen to clear the primary field, and Rahm said he'd take care of it. Next thing you know this Clinton offer (whatever it really was) happened. Not that Obama is above this sort of thing but I doubt he engineered it or specified the details.

And, if he did then he did nothing wrong (as I've opined above) other than making me and a few million others like him less. Of course if he keeps that up 2012 may find him without that big army of volunteers that powers his campaign, along with that Internet fund-raising juggernaut.

As for Issa, he's simply trying to keep this non-scandal alive for as long as possible. I don't blame him; always good to do when the other party makes an unforced error. Repubs are laughing about getting any mileage out of this whole thing because it's the kind of behavior that goes on in all administrations on a regular basis. Sestak is an idiot for bringing it up ta all, as it couldn't possibly be helpful to him in the short or long term.
As I said....no bribery laws or similar violated...no quid pro quo a defined by statute; quitting a race isn't the kind of action the statute was intended to address. Paying for votes is. Of course, no Repub or Dem EVER allows ANY lobbyists' attention, money, favors, tickets, golf outings, etc. to influence their votes now, do they?