Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

Slate 13: Final Update

Topics: 2006 , The 2006 Race

Our next to last Slate Election Scorecard reaps where things stand in the closest Senate races: Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee and Virginia.  Meanwhile I wanted to give one last update on the overall "mashed-up" margin across all the Senate races on the Slate Scorecard. Consistent with the trend on Professor Franklin's Senate "national forces" charts (which have their basis in the same underlying data), the average Democratic margin across the turned downward over the last week -- for the first time in seven weeks.

11-06%20slate%2013%20trend.jpg

One interesting twist to these findings is that the Republican Bob Corker's gains in Tennessee explain virtually all of the Democratic decline.  The last 5-poll average in Tennessee went from a dead-even tie to a 7.4 point Corker lead in just a week.  If we remove that race from the overall average, there is still a leveling off of the six week Democratic trend but virtually no decline.  Republicans saw gains on the averages in some states over the last week, but so did Democrats and, except for Tennessee, the changes cancel out.

11-06%20slate%2013%20last%20week.jpg

 

Comments
Matonte:

Looks like we got 'em. Don't worry about me- I already voted! Then again, this is what Custer said before he was bruttally pwned (killed falls too short of what happened) at the Little Bighorn.

____________________

John McCutchen:

At some point it would be great to have Prof Franklin's take on the Polimetrix poll. Evidently part of a general 2006 Election Study, it has pretty heavy-weight cast of characters involved. Headed by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT ("Going Negative") the study is using INTERNET polls!

I assume they've randomly selected a longitudinal panel which responds via the Internet but this is not clear.

____________________

Cugel:

For this polling to make sense you really should delete the states where it won't matter if the final result changes by a few points: CT, MN, OH, WA, PA.

For instance, does it really matter whether Santorum loses by 13 or 10 points? There should be some tightening where Republicans/ Rep. Indy's who hate Santorum just can't pull the lever for a Democrat. But, there obviously aren't enough of such people to matter.

MD, MT, MO, RI & AZ are where the action is.

So, MD and MT are currently within 5 points, and perhaps too close to call, but still with no polling showing Steele or Burns with a lead it looks like Cardin and Tester win.

Arizona tending in the right direction, but with the election tomorrow, it looks like it's too late. Pederson needs another week and doesn't have it.

So, overall things are lining up for a 5 or 6 seat swing to the Democrats and the latest polling just confirms that. Who'd have thunk it six months ago?

____________________

debcoop:

No one answered my question about the Pew poll. I am trying again. There is what seems to me to be an anomalous result. 34% of the responses came from the South with a 48-42 R edge. The South does not have 34% of the population. The Northeast was at 21%, Midwest 25%, West 20% and those 3 regions do have Dem leads.

Also the South has almost no meaningful races in this cycle. So what does it help that the increase in R interest is in the South? The Dem's still have advantages in the regions that have significant races.

I think the geographical distribution has skewed the poll too much toward the R's. It make the generic predictive value less meaningful.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

debcoop, I don't have time to pin this down, but if you count heads in Texas, Florida, all the way up through Virginia, you may be surprised. The weighted 2004 exit poll shows 32% in the South, which should be pretty accurate. So 34% is probably not far off.

But certainly, as you say, less than 1/3 of the competitive races are in the South. So you may be right that the Republicans are getting a generic boost in a useless place. The Pew numbers may also show movement in the northeast, but the sample sizes are sufficiently small that I think I won't even speculate.

____________________

R Stoddard:

If you focus on the just the really tight races in the Lead/Deficit table, it boils down to 4: MD, MO, MT, and VA. The Dems have a slight lead in each, but two lost ground (MD -2.2, MT -2) while the other two have gained (MO +2.6, VA +1.8). I'm not sure what conclusions to draw--the safest bet now would be that it's going to be a looooong night.

____________________

debcoop:

Well... a good night for Democrats in the Northeast, Midwest and West. I think my sceptism about the Pew Poll's applicability to the actual regions in which there were conteested regions seems to, at least at first glance to have been borne out. The South may have gotten a lot closer and we did suffer some D performance decline in the Northeast (Shays seems to have pulled it out),and maybe the West...but I haven't checked all those races.

Just think how many seats the Democrats could have taken with the mid October numbers.

____________________



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