Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (NBC/WSJ 9/22-26)

Topics: National , poll

NBC News / Wall Street Journal
9/22-26/10; 1,000 adults, 3.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(NBC: story, results; WSJ: story, results)

National

State of the Country
32% Right Direction, 59% Wrong Track (chart)

Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 49% Disapprove (chart)
Economy: 42 / 54 (chart)

2010 Congress
20% Approve, 73% Disapprove (chart)

Positive / Negative
Barack Obama: 47 / 41 (chart)
Sarah Palin: 30 / 48 (chart)
Mitt Romney: 21 / 30 (chart)
Mike Huckabee: 26 / 25 (chart)

 

Comments
iVote:

6 point tightening among likely voters in the generic ballot. Republicans now lead just 46-43, and it's tied at 44-44 among registered voters. Democrats are starting to get energized.

In the last month, the Democrats have either been tied or ahead in the following polls:

Reuters/Ipsos
Gallup
PPP
Politico
National Journal

and now this NBC/WSJ poll shows it very close.

If Democrats decide to sit on their hands, then the Republicans will no doubt make big gains, and you can say hello to Speaker Orange. But if the Dems can get some momentum over the next month, then the outcome may not be so obvious.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

@iVote

I think that a bunch of Democrats have realized what will happen if Mr. Orange gets the speaker's chair - and they do not like it. Now they just have to convince other Democrats and liberals.

For all of Pelosi's real and perceived faults, Boehner would be much, much worse.

____________________

BH:

Bob and iVote, you guys should really check out a cross-tab once in a while. Again we see another cooked poll to force a narrative that isn't. Partisan breaks in this poll are as follows 43D-26R-24I (5 Other). Do you really think that we are going to see a Dem outpouring this year that will eclipse 2008 levels? Did you even bother to check the breaks in this poll over the last to see if they oversampled Dems like this before?

This is how news is created. Hardcore Ds are overjoyed, Rs are scared to death and ratings go up...until someone bothers to check the devil in the details.

____________________

BH:

..correction it's either 43D-37R-11I or 35D-26R-35I depending on how you look at the breaks. Either way, very 2008ish at best.

____________________

lat:

You guys are missing the point. There is no advantage to the dems losing say 27-36 seats, maintaining marginal control which would let the conservadogs tie Nancy Pelosi in knots only to get nothing done and piss the voters off even more than they are now. I would rather lose 40- 45 seats and let Johnny Bonehead take over! Obama needs an enemy and he will turn Johnny Bonehead and his henchmen into spam (not to mention he will veto any piece of crap legislation that is put in front of him.)! To use a sports analogy it's sort of like The Eagles and Michael Vick. If you are going to have the guy on your team, accept his baggage and all the criticism that comes with it then at least reap the rewards of what he can do for you as a starting player (none of this 2nd string crap). The dems are going to lose a bunch of seats no matter what so at least let Obama take advantage of weakness and incompetence on the other side.

____________________

BH:

"To use a sports analogy it's sort of like The Eagles and Michael Vick."

Substitute Pacman Jones in and then you're getting warmer - all pain, ton of baggage, zero upside.

____________________

lat:

BH,

Where do you come up with this garbage about a "cooked" poll? I read the WSJ every day and it's not exactly a bastion of liberal thought (how the hell could it be when Mealy Mouth Murdoch owns it?). I will often criticize Ras simply because I think Scott Rasmussen is a total jerk off with his head up the ass of fox news (You know the network that claims to be fair and balanced and then cuts a check to the gop for a million bucks?), but a poll is a poll. It's called you don't like the results therefore the methodology must be flawed? Not buying it.

____________________

BH:

lat, unlike you I actually gave evidence to support my argument. And actually, you didn't even form an argument. If you don't understand what I mean by partisan breaks and voter turnout then you should probably find another site to troll.

____________________

lat:

BH,

I don't buy the bs on either side that this poll is more accurate than that poll, etc. To me it's whining when you don't like the results. I have consistently said that the dems will get their asses kicked in 2010 (I have been saying it for almost 2 years) simply based on historical norms for what happens to the party in power during off year elections. So again I ask where is your evidence that this poll as compared to other polls is "cooked"?

____________________

StatyPolly:

lat, you read the WSJ every day?! Kidding, right? Are they running comics and horoscopes there days? That's like Melvin claiming to be a lifelong subscriber to Spellin' n' Grammar Quarterly or something. You crack me up.

As far as the poll goes, sure there is been a little tightening in the past 2-3 weeks in Generic (about 4 pts) but this particular sample is really bunky nevertheless. Without even examining such obvious pitfalls as party ID and ideology here, it's the voting history that catches my attention. Out of 82% of the sample that claims to have voted on 08, where 5% voted for someone else, and yet another 5% voted for not sure, BOBO still winds up with a 10% advantage over McCain? IMPOSSIBLE. Further, 33% claim to have voted in Dem primary in 2010 vs. 28% in GOP primary. Where is the real breakdown of people who voted in primaries of the two parties is Dem 43% and GOP 57%.

So just on voting history in 2008 and 2010 alone, this sample is about 10-20% to the left of population averages.

____________________

ErikEckles:

1. The polls were bound to tighten.

2. This is still far from good news for Democrats. In fact, the only "good news" is that they can possibly scrape out just a tiny victory in the House. Maybe. Losing the popular vote by three points will still be disastrous for the Democrats.

And yes lat, from a progressive liberal standpoint, the option of keeping the House by a shred is worth fighting for. My gut right now says if the election were held tomorrow the Republicans would win a margin of about ten seats. True, Obama has the veto pen so no Social Security privatization is going to slip through, but that still means major fights over budget and appropriation bills. Not to mention it means subpoena power. Ask Bill Clinton how well having a slight Republican majority worked out.

____________________

lat:

StatePolly,

I am sorry I can't compete with your intellectual superiority. You will just have to keep showing me the err of my ways and I will submit to your higher level of intelligence because I can't possibly keep up with it. We can simply agree that you are smarter than me and I'll just have to live with it. Thanks for straightening me out!


Erik,

Yes I am happy to look at how it worked out for Bill Clinton as he cruised to re-election in 96 thanks to Newt and company making him look good for 2 years. If the gop takes I would welcome them to start handing out subpoenas as well as shutting the government down. In fact I would be cheering it!

____________________

ErikEckles:

The reason we have elections is to determine the direction of public policy, and by any measure the last six years of the Clinton Administration were a disappointment from a progressive liberal view. I think that's fairly indisputable. And notice Clinton was never able to win a chamber of Congress back.

If all you care about is winning a personality driven Presidential election every four years (with no regard with what happens in between), maybe you should watch sports instead.

____________________

niikeb:

All adults poll, that tends to skew a lot more to the dems then the 2010 electorate will.

____________________

kariq:

NBC/WSJ has historically been considered the gold standard for national polling, and if you're going to argue that they 'cooked" a poll, you're going to have to come up with a lot better evidence than a 6 point voter identification advantage for Democrats, BH. You think that's wrong, and it may turn out that you are correct, but that doesn't mean it's impossible (or even all that unlikely given the number of polls that have shown movement toward the Democrats over the past couple of weeks) for the Democrats to have an advantage among voters.

____________________

lat:

Erik,

Please spare me the lecture about the progressive do gooders vs. the evil driven conservatives. I have said a thousand times on this board that I vote democratic due to how I feel about social issues (I am a civil libertarian) not fiscal issues. On fiscal issues you folks on here are fighting at the margins because both parties have shown that they are completely irresponsible, in addition to being total chicken shits when it comes to addressing them (entitlement reform, cuts in defense spending, etc.). So yes who is in the white house matters much more to me than who controls congress (go ask the democrats how great is was when they had the house and Reagan steamrolled over them anyway?). I am in the highest tax bracket and have been for years and whether I pay 35% vs. 39.6 isn't changing my life. Telling people who they can or can't marry, not controlling my wife's or daughter's uterus, implementing prayer in public schools, telling me what I can or can't read or watch on TV, etc. is what I care about.

____________________

melvin:

The Democrats is going to keep control of the House,because the Democrat base is much bigger then the Republican base...Fox News was shocked to see so many people turnout for Obama's rally in Wisconsin,they was making fun of it,but in reality it scared the hell out of the Republicans,because the GOP thought the American people was turning its back on Obama...

The Democrats are going to turnout in big numbers,because the message about Social Security,and the GOP talk of repealing the HCB is starting to hit home with the voters.The Republican party wants to do away with all the programs the Democrats created,but theyre not telling the American people what programs they are going to create to replace the Democrats programs.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Dems will lose 70-100 seats.

____________________

cmbat:

@TeaPartyRules-

ROFLMAO.

____________________

Dave:

Again, why does everyone assume Obama will be able to take advantage of Boehner like Clinton did Gingrich? Isn't it equally possible the two have a similar relationship that Bush did to the Democratic Congress beginning in '06?

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Dave

Bush was running for reelection in 2008. Obama will be gearing up for his reelection run in 2011 and early 2012. He would love nothing more than to run against the "extremist Republican/Tea Party" Congress.

I have said for the past year or so that the best thing that could happen to Republicans would be to win around 35 to 37 House seats and 7 or 8 Senate seats and as many governorships as possible. That way, the Congress in 2011 and 2012 is still technically controlled by the Democrats, but their margins are so tiny that they can get nothing done. Then, when Obama goes to run for reelection, he can't run against the "extreme Republican Congress" because all the GOP has to say is, "hey, your party controls the Congress and the entire Federal government; what are you whining about?".

Also, it is probably more important that the Republicans pick up 8-10 governorships than winning the House. We are about to enter redistricting battles all across the country and if there are 30-35 Republican governors, the GOP will have a clear upper hand during this process. Plus, having a bunch of governors is how a party develops their Presidential bench for 2012, 2016 and 2020 and God knows, the GOP desperately needs some new blood on that bench.

____________________

JMSTiger:

Sorry, I meant to say in the above comment that Bush was "not" running for reelection in 2008.

____________________

lat:

JMS,

I agree with you on the house, but obviously for different reasons.

____________________

Cederico:

Lat,

I can understand how you could view having Boehner as Speaker makes for a convenient obama foil. There is some merit to the argument.

But this is the problem. Yes it might help Obama but does it help the Democrats overall. Remember the GOP controlled the Congress for the rest of Clinton's two terms (6 years) and they held onto control for the first six of Bush's term. Clinton was from then on a reactive President and got nothing progressive done.

If DEMS lose the House this year they are likely to be out of power for years as redistricting will allow the GOP to consolidate their gains. Also the public will likely like having a "check" on Obama's agenda which many have deemed to far reaching and "too liberal".

On the other hand if DEMS retain control of the House and the Senate despite the horrible political climate, it bodes well for their chances at keeping control in a more normal presidential election year environment in 2012. If the economy rebounds they get the credit which again could usher in a longer era of Democratic rule in Congress.

So I don't see anything good in the House going GOP. Democrats can still keep control and they should fight tooth and nail to do so.

____________________

BH:

"...but that doesn't mean it's impossible."

It's possible that the Dems will 100% turnout this year, but it's not reasonable...thus the basis for the "cooked" remark.

Just admit it, this poll is cooked. It's the same kind of thing we talk about when a Wall St. firms releases pie-in-the-sky results to inflate their stock price when their numbers don't conform to reason or reality.

____________________

lat:

Cederico,

We can agree to disagree. I see no advantage to the dems retaining control of the house by a razor thin margin. If all the dems towed the progressive line I might be more inclined to agree with you, but they don't. All I see is Nancy Pelosi having her hands tied with blue dog dems who will be scared of their own shadows and therefore not much getting done as opposed to letting Johnny Boehner and his gang of nutjobs attempt to shut the government down, pass insane legislation, etc. It will be a fine reminder to the country of why we threw the gop out in the first place.

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Ha! remind us why we threw the GOP out? Perahps taken one step further you could say pelosi and Barry are reminding everyone why we threw Dems out. v The country goes back and forth, you should know that...and that back and ofrth is almost directly linked to how well the economy is doing...and right now its total crap. In 1982 the economy was still pretty bad and Dems were in control i nthe late 70's when it began to go sour...and the GOP lost big in 82. Now everything is reversed, but the underlying basis is the same...and crappy economy...that means Dems will lose big.

I agree with you though, the last thing Dems want is a narrow lead in the House because Pelosi will be all tied up....no matter what, the Senate will be razor thin making the filibuster impossible to break.

You work on wall st....you should be happy we have gridlock coming, one thing the eocnomy likes from g'ment, its gridlock.

What is probably to happen based on on the polling available is that the GOP will control the House by 5-20 seats and the Dems will retain the Senate by about 52-48. Even a little give or take in any direction there means we have 2 years of gridlock ahead of us....so maybe the economy can get moving again because everyone will know g'ment at least for two years cannot screw up there lives anymore.

____________________

Stillow:

BH - Totally normal for pollsters to create narratives using wacky party id's. Just slight movement in party id can affect a poll by several points. Most people can look at the party break down though and adjust the numbers quickly in there heads for a more accurate result on what the general mood is. Right now anyone giving a 7 point edge to Dems in party ID is simply sniffing paint.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I have to agree with lat (ick, my breakfast just came up to the back of my throat). The dems would greatly enhance their chances in 2012 if they lose control in 2010. Of course, i disagree with his assessment that if the "progressive" agenda (whatever the hell that is) would get passed despite the blue dogs that they would be in better shape. The people are rejecting the far-left nutcases like Pelosi and her agenda. They are not wanting MORE of it!

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/poll-obama-democrats-poised-lose-grayson-house-seat

____________________

Field Marshal:

I really hope Grayson is re-elected. He epitomizes the nuts that have taken over the democratic party. We need him to stay in the congress and keep giving television interviews so like when Pelosi speaks people realize the morons that are in control of our government and attempting to make decisions for you.

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

To quote Stillow: "so maybe the economy can get moving again because everyone will know g'ment at least for two years cannot screw up there lives anymore."

I read somewhere's this morning that the most likely reason why the stock market is up decently this Sept. when usually it is down is because Wall Street sees your scenario.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

Yes I work on Wall St, but what I do has an inverse to a nuetral relationship to visa vie the stock market. The bond market is much more indicative in my world (although lately that has not been exactly true either).

Field Marshall,

Wow! You agreed with me on something it had to hurt for you to say that. Lol!

____________________

Xenobion:

I'd support a Bohner led House. People demonized Pelosi pretty quickly, let him have a crack at it. Bohner wouldn't stand a chance and end up saving any potential loses in 2012 in both the Senate and Presidency.

____________________

melvin:

You people just dont realize how difficult it is to win over 40 seats in the House...Its only been done 9 times in 222 years with the GOP only doing it 4 times..

____________________

melvin:

When the GOP only wins 26 seats i wonder what the Media in the pollsters are going to say then,because its ridiculous how the Major Media,the Republicans,and the pollsters have already got the GOP running Congress.

____________________

melvin:

Because of the significant Demographic change in this Country,it means the Republican party lead in the Generic Ballet have to be over 12% with likely voters by Election day to win over 40 seats,because the numbers just don't add up for the GOP.

____________________

Xenobion:

I would probably argue melvin that since the Democrats own so many seats in the House that there would be an effective probability that increases the loss of those seats as the Republican generic ballot percentage increases over the Democrat percentage.

____________________

Bukama:

It is fundamentally always better to be in control than not in control of Congress (or either house). Start with Health Care Reform. Everyone knows it will be adjusted next year. There are already many Dems calling for partial repeals and adjustments.

The effort will begin in the House. The difference between Rep. or Dem control will make a significant difference in the tenor of the changes. And Obama will nto be able to block these efforts if he has any hope of winning re-election in 2012. He will have to find a workable compromise with the leadership in Congress.

The chairmanship of dozens of House committees will determine what issues come before Congress. republicans will not be able to pass everything they want, but Democrats won't even be able to bring to the floor any number of things on their agenda. And again, the President will not do his re-election hopes any good if he declares war on the Republican leadership in the House. They might respond "Hey - we won - deal with it!"

____________________

melvin:

In 24 days Rasmussen is going to stop polling,because he always pull out a week before the big Election..But we will find out which pollsters was right,and which pollsters was wrong come November 3rd...Rasmussen is just a paid political propaganda machine for the Republican party...I am still is concern about those Republican party voting machines,the Democrats needs to inspect those voting machines immediately,because that's the only way the GOP can win over 40 seats,because they just don't have the numbers...Am afraid the media is pumping up the GOP numbers so that no one would be suspicious of those voting machines if the GOP win over 40 seats.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Some new polling out. Kirk up on Giann. 40-36 by PPP.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IL_9291118.pdf

Min Gov

Dayton 38- Emmer 27 - Horner 16

http://wcco.com/wireapnewsmn/MPR.Humphrey.poll.2.1937298.html

____________________

Field Marshal:
____________________

Xenobion:

An effective repeal isn't going to happen. Half the standards of the bill have been put in place everything short of the healthcare system itself. A pretty simple veto by Obama would happen for fear of losing a majority of his Democratic base.

Republicans need to learn bipartisanship again, and if they win the House what do you think they'll accomplish? Probably nothing.

____________________

Field Marshal:

You mean the kind of bipartisanship that the Dems have espoused the last two years which has been basically, this is the bill, you have no say, vote for it, if not, you're an obstructionist?

____________________

JJC:

Once again another skewed sample from NBC. This poll gives dems a 9 point advantage. In 2008, Obama won by 7 points. Are we to believe that Dems fortunes have increasedv since then?

Secondly, this is a poll of all voters, which is the most favorable to dems. Still, even with the skewed sample and favorable voting methodology, Obama is stuck at 46%, and GOP is leading by 3.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Did Emily call in sick today? There is lots of new polling out. Plenty of stuff to discuss. Kasich back up by 8. Even an Alan Grayson poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

In other minor news - Mysteries of the Universe Revealed. Free for a three-day trial.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/public_relations/press_room/press_releases/rasmussen_reports_offers_free_trial_of_platinum_service_now_through_friday

I don't even wanna click there and risk ruining my innocence.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Thanks Polly. Just signed up. Checked out the crosstabs on the WV race from yesterday.

Rep: 37%
Dem: 46%
Ind: 17%

52% female,
48% male

____________________

John:

"..correction it's either 43D-37R-11I or 35D-26R-35I depending on how you look at the breaks. Either way, very 2008ish at best."

Er, isn't that the party-id for the full adult sample. The poll (unfortunately) doesn't give a breakdown for either the RV or LV sub-samples. I am pretty sure NBC/WSJ do not weight by party-id but the average adult sample breakdown by party-id at the moment (looking at the pollster average) is 31.8D, 25.7R, 34I.

____________________

Xenobion:

"You mean the kind of bipartisanship that the Dems have espoused the last two years which has been basically, this is the bill, you have no say, vote for it, if not, you're an obstructionist?"

You mean the, "Here are 50 bills... why did you vote no on all of them?"

Obstructionism is a two way street. Its good to look both ways before crossing into that territory.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Tons of data on the platinum pages. Highly recommend everyone here take advantage of the trial. No CC is needed to be input so you do not need to cancel after 3 days.

____________________

StatyPolly:

FM, so in other words - Ras is an elaborate liar. But hey, nobody's gonna give a you 20 for nothing..

____________________

Field Marshal:

You mean the, "Here are 50 bills... why did you vote no on all of them?"

Yes, that is what i'm talking about. The fact that the Dems shut out even GOP committee members from meetings on legislation let alone say in writing shows bipartisanship isn't even be considered by the Dems. Why would the GOP vote yes on any of it at that point?

Obstructionism is a two way street. Its good to look both ways before crossing into that territory.

Fine by me. Both parties pass terrible legislation.

____________________

Dave:

All those saying Obama will be able to have Boehner as a foil, name one "foil" that Obama has "defeated" so far?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Emily must be in a day-long meeting or out sick. Tons of new polls including Buck up by 8 over Bennett by Ras.

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

Frank Luntz's focus group from FL last night was a hoot. Many pro-Obama supporters vigorously claiming that it was Nancy Pelosi who forced Obama to the left and created those unpopular pieces of legislation. LOL!!!

____________________

Xenobion:

"Yes, that is what i'm talking about. The fact that the Dems shut out even GOP committee members from meetings on legislation let alone say in writing shows bipartisanship isn't even be considered by the Dems. Why would the GOP vote yes on any of it at that point? "

Last I checked Republicans are voting in committee on many of these bills. Turning around later to vote against the bill.

This is more of a question of how much collaboration should occur on behalf of both parties but be allowed as the ruling party. The ruling party should not have to constantly bend over backward to collaborate on legislation. I wonder if Democrats will do the same when they're out of power in the House.

We've been convinced Bush was wrong, now Obama. We're electing people to reverse who was previously in power. Real productive legislative environment we have here.

____________________

Dave:

But don't we want our representatives to stand upon their principles? For example, the rep from my hometown is pretty conservative, and so I feel decent about voting for him.
Now, should he immediately abandon the principles he ran on once the Democrats take over Congress? I would sure hope not.

____________________

StatyPolly:

This one is a bit of a shocker.

Foley within 3 of Malloy in CT. Same sample that had McMahon within 3 also though.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1508

____________________

StatyPolly:

From Ras:

Reid 48 Angle 47

Rubio 41 Crist 30 Meek 21

____________________

StatyPolly:

President Hate-Monger.

This week President Obama chimed in with another uplifting message about the American electorate. Mr. Obama told Rolling Stone that the tea party movement is financed and directed by "powerful, special-interest lobbies." But this doesn't mean that tea party groups are composed entirely of corporate puppets. Mr. Obama graciously implied that a small subset of the movement is simply motivated by bigotry. The President said "there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the President."

____________________

dpearl:

"6 point tightening among likely voters in the generic ballot"
iVote: I am a bit confused by your point here - I read the poll and didn't find that they asked the generic ballot question.

Some commentators have pointed to the distribution of respondents as being potentially skewed toward the Democrats compared with other polls. Note that this survey includes 200 cell phone only respondents as part of their methodology and as a result includes more young respondents that we normally see from other pollsters. The live interview polls also have tended to draw a different set of respondents than the automted-call polls. I would not label this as "wrong" or "right" to do.

The fact that different pollsters use different methodology and thus have varying characteristics for their respondents, is part of the underpinning of why you get a more accurate result by averaging the polls' results. If every pollster used the exact same methodology then we might improve the variability by combining their results to get a bigger sample size - but we couldn't tell if they were all making the same systemic error.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Dpearl, agreed. This particular poll is not necessarily "cooked", but it is an outlier sample. For some of the reason I posted last night.

Just one comparison.

NBC/WSJ 9/22-26 1000 Adults BO appr/dis 46/49 Net -3

CNN/OR 9/21-23 1010 Adults BO appr/dis 42/54 Net -12

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Yeah, judging from today's list of polls, looks like that minor bump that Dems enjoyed the past couple-three weeks is starting to subside a bit. Not to say that we won't see another set of ebbs and flows over the next 34 days.

____________________

Cederico:

Are you kidding StatyPolly? Calling the NBC / Wall Street Journal poll an outlier?

Most polls have Obama around 46% approval including Rasmussen (who actually had him at 50% a day ago). The real outlier is the CNN Poll. Just because you want him to have a 42% approval rating doesn't make it so.

As for the generic ballot...in most polls coming out it is fairly close with the GOP up slightly amongst likely voters and the parties basically tied amongst registered voters. That is still a bad position for the Democrats to be in but it does represent an improvement.

The key to this election in the next 34 days is whether the Democrats are successful in awakening their base...African Americans, Latinos, younger voters, women voters, etc. If Democrats show up at the polls they will narrowly keep control of the House and Senate...for Democrats this election is now all about GOTV.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"A new CNN/Time/Opinion Research poll in Alaska shows Joe Miller (R) leading Sen. Lisa Murkowski (I) in the U.S. Senate race among likely voters, 38% to 36%, with Scott McAdams (D) trailing at 22%."

____________________

iVote:

O'Malley now up 11 over Ehrlich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_092910.html

Toomey leading Sestak by just 3 among likely voters. Independents favor Sestak 41-30. If Democrats come home to Sestak on election day, the 1.2 million registration advantage could put him over the top.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_701759.html

____________________

iVote:

That Rass poll is a +1 improvement for Reid.

____________________

Dave:

How did CNN arrive at those Murkowski numbers? No way she does that well when the real thing comes around.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Crosstabs of the NV poll:

Gender-
Male: 47%
Female: 53%

Party-
GOP: 33%
Dem: 37%
Ind: 30%

Ethnicity-
White: 74%
non-white: 24%

____________________

Field Marshal:

Found the CNN/Time poll

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/09/29/topstate4.pdf

It also has Florida, California and Illinois with it.

____________________

Field Marshal:

CA:

Whitman and Boxer up by 8. 52-43.

Ill:

Giann. up by 1. 43-42-8.

FL:

42-31-23 in the senate race
47-45 scott over sink in the gov race

Alaska:

38-36-22 (Miller-Murkowski-McAdams).

The question for that poll was: "If the election for U.S. Senate were held today and the candidates were Scott McAdams,
the Democrat and Joe Miller, the Republican, who would you be more likely to vote for --
or would you write in the name of Lisa Murkowski, who is also running?"

____________________

Billy Chunge:

What on earth has happened to Pollster? Looks like this takeover thing has really messed them up. Not good so close to election time.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Said pollster Keating Holland: "It looks like Alaska Democrats may be planning to do some strategic voting. Nearly four in ten Democratic likely voters say they plan to write in Murkowski's name. That's an indication that a lot of Democrats are more interested in defeating Miller than they are in electing a member of their own party."

____________________

StatyPolly:

Cederico, I back up my claim with numbers. This poll sampled a lot more self ID'd Dems, 08 BO voters and 2010 primary voters than the national averages.

For example, 82% of the 1000 adults are RV's. Of those 10% claim to have voted for "not sure/other" 31 for McCain and 41 for BO. There is easily 7-8% lean to the left away from national average.

Out of the same 82% of RV's, 33 claim to have voted in Dem 2010 primary, to 28 in GOP. Actual numbers were 17.2 Mil voted in GOP primaries, and 13.0 Mil in Dem. That's about 57 to 43 split. So that 28-33 split for Dems in this poll is over 20% off to the left of national average for those RV's who voted in 2010 primaries. And this sample claims 65% participation of all RV's polled here.

Further, if you look at favorability up on top of this page, BO's is above recent average, while every GOPer's is well below.

This sample is a way to the left of national average, plain and simple.

____________________

StatyPolly:

No way Murky is gonna get her name written in correctly by even 15% of voters.

Miller's got this.

____________________

iVote:

What the hell was Whitman thinking employing an illegal immigrant? I'm extremely conservative when it comes to immigration, and Whitman just proved that she's part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.

____________________

iVote:

Field Marshall:

Basic math and reading skills are a good skill to have. Boxer is up 9, not 8, as is Jerry Brown, not Meg Whitman.

Boxer and Brown seem to be surging. Both now have double digit leads among registered voters. +15 point improvement for each of them since the beginning of the month.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Relax Ivote. Don't get your pad in a bunch. I wrote it quickly while doing nine other things at the same time.

I wonder how much is this maid getting from the Brown campaign for this fabricated "outcry." I don't agree with Whitman's use of an illegal immigrant but the timing of this is highly suspect.

____________________

iVote:

Overall re CNN polls, good news for the Republicans out of FL, and encouraging news for Giannoulias in IL. Not sure what to make of AK.

____________________

John:

@FM

Thanks for posting the Nevada crosstabs. NV is pretty difficult state to poll, in 08 the democrat really managed to turnout their voters (it was +8D, with 30% non-white). It will be interesting to see how many of those voters turnout for Reid (or for that matter just against Angle), probably the final result will have closer to even party-id but at tad less white voters than the rasmussen poll.

@StatyPolly
The way CNN asked the Alaska question probably inflates Murkowski numbers, but voters do not need to spell her name correctly. Interestingly in Alaska there is almost no difference between the RV sample and the LV sample. Still Miller seems like a heavy favorite.

____________________

dpearl:

I notice that Senator Murkowski's support comes principally from older voters. While they are indeed a group very likely to vote - they may also be the least likely to work through the write-in process correctly. The Senator might do well to spend all of her campaign funds on buying rubber stamps with her name on it and handing them out to voters.

____________________

Field Marshal:

dpearl,

According to the Alaska state board of elections, writing "Lisa M" will count along with several spellings of Murkowski.

John,

No problemo. So the NV poll versus 2008 is only a +4 GOP move in party id? Am i the only one who thinks it should be much more than this given the huge shift in enthusiasm?

Speaking of enthusiasm, here is a new article by gallup. Emily should be paying me today!

http://2010central.gallup.com/2010/09/story-of-election-disproportionate.html

____________________

JJC:

If Murkowski isn't running way ahead of Miller - like 20 points ahead - she will lose. I guarantee it. You can probably take 10-20 points of her polling numbers come election day (if not more).

Alaska has a precedent for famous candidates attempting write-ins. And they have all failed spectacularly, despite polls showing them in the lead.

The Gov race in 1998 was perhaps the most favorable condition for the write-in candidate, Robin Taylor, to win. Not only did Taylor have extremely high name recognition, but the GOP candidate dropped out amidst an ethics investigation. The entire GOP threw their support behind Taylor. This was the most favorable condition imaginable. Yet even then, on election day Taylor only pulled 18%.

Now look at today. How motivated do you think Murkowski supporters are to vote? Especially the big chunk of dems she got in this poll who would merely rather have her than Miller in the senate? Do you think they are more motivated than Miller supporters? She is running as an establishment candidate trying to stay in power in a national mood that is "throw the bums out". As the election nears, dems will return to their party, as will the GOP.

Polling write-in candidates is tricky. I tend to trust Rasmussens technique - which is to only offer the choice voters will see on the ballot. I'm not saying that Murkowski doesn't have a chance, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. I'd say she has maybe 5% chance of winning. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if she got even 20%.

____________________

iVote:

The move to HuffPost is official. You can find me there as -iVote-

____________________

StatyPolly:

Looks like it's ovah.

Huffpost blows the big one with their moderator policies.

____________________



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