The Prez numbers make me skeptical of this poll......

R2K did this poll, and while they're generally decent, and while I've never crunched the numbers, I've always noticed quite a few of their polls appear to be outliers.  No bias for or against Obama or Dems generally, the outliers can go either way, but they're there.  I can't forget some months back R2K did a poll for local St. Louis media and had Obama with a 5-point lead when all other polls in that period had McCain with a clear lead.

I know all pollsters have their nutty results, so not to make too big a deal......

But McCain is NOT beating Obama in IA-04.  And this poll makes me doubt the House poll, too.  I doubt Greenwald is running even with Obama, unless people there think there really is such a groundswell.  And Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, and others would have picked up on that and made this a "lean" race already.

Finally, note that R2K simultaneously released a poll for Cedar Rapids local TV that has Obama up 54-39 statewide.  No regional breakdown I've seen, but coming from the SAME pollster, a 15-point statewide lead directly contradicts a 4-point IA-04 deficit......the two are not reconcilable.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:07:51 AM UTC

I don't think the analysts knew it was close

People like Cook, Rothenberg and Sabato may have more insider sources on races than we do, but often they do have to rely on the same set of data available to all of us.  Since there were no independent polls on IA-04 until this one I suspect they just didn't realize it was this close.  Just watch, I'll guarantee most of them shift this race and TX-10 in our favor this coming week.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:16:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with ChadinFL

What makes you think Cook, Rothenberg et al would be watching this district closely enough to pick up on a groundswell for Greenwald? And why would they have more info if there have not been any public polls to date?

I don't know if this poll is accurate, but I do know that Latham has been running a negative tv ad on the bailout, so I really doubt his internal numbers are great.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:23:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cook, Rothenberg et all. spend ALL DAY doing this......

This is all they do, follow federal races.  It's their only job, it's their only means of support, it's how they buy groceries and keep a roof over their heads.

So I fully expect they're in touch everyday with people in bunches of states about races in those states, and they hit every state's races at least once a week.  And at this stage I doubt they drop the ball on anything, they pick up the local buzz everywhere.

The only true shocker of 2006 as far as I could tell was Carol Shea-Porter.  Going into election day, I had found beforehand at least one snippet online showing a possible Dem win in every House seat we picked up EXCEPT Shea-Porter's.  I had information on Loebsack, on Boyda, on Harry Mitchell, and so on, suggesting those races were turning in our favor or at least into true tossups.  And if that's what an obsessive political junkie can find online, I guarantee Cook and Rothenberg and others know even more.

That doesn't mean I always agree with every one of their ratings.  But it means if a race isn't on their radar as within the margin of error in reliable polling or other inside information, the race is almost certainly not 5 points or less.  Yeah there are Shea-Porters out there, but even 2 years ago when we picked up 30 seats there still was only ONE.

And all the above aside, like I said, I just don't trust a poll with a clearly off result, as is the Obama performance in the distict.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 04:38:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wouldn't an undersample of Dems mean that

Greenwald might actually be UP?

Not saying that this poll is more trustworthy than it is, but just some wishful thinking.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 05:02:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

to my mind the most important finding

is that Greenwald does as well as Obama in the district. I would not have expected this. Latham clearly needs some ticket-splitters to carry him through. There were quite a few Kerry-Latham voters in 2004.

This poll may or may not be accurate, but this poll combined with the fact that Latham has not released any internal polling and has gone negative on tv makes me think it is close.

I certainly don't agree with everyone rating this a "likely R" district. IA-04 should be considered lean R.

If the DCCC or EMILY's list had invested in this district several weeks ago, who knows? Maybe it would be a tossup by now.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 14:42:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking for myself...

Sometimes I see polls that I can't publish on SSP (not that I've seen anything for IA-04). It doesn't happen everyday, but it happens -- and I'm just some Joe Schmoe blogger. Guys like David Wasserman and Charlie Cook -- they see a lot of data that we aren't privy to, especially from the GOP side of the aisle.

---

by: James L. @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:14:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's the reason for not being able to publish them?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:36:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well...

Varying reasons, I guess, depending on who's sharing. Sometimes campaigns prefer to keep their internal numbers under their hat, sometimes pollsters themselves who like us give us tips, but they're not at liberty to leak that sort of thing publicly without the knowledge of their clients.

Like I said above, I don't want to overstate how much inside chatter we hear -- we get a bit of private data, but not a ton. But as SSP gains in profile and popularity, we've been getting more friends who throw us a few bones.

And unfortunately, we have no Republican friends at all. :)

---

by: James L. @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Friendless over there?

Ain't no big loss.

Seriously, having observed the enthusiasm with which most Repubs lie, cheat, and manipulate and distort the truth, why would you want any info from them anyway. By definition it would be an unreliable source.

The guys DCCyclone admires so much have to get info from the Repubs as part of their jobs, but I don't see it making them any more accurate. Because the Repubs kept insisting it was so, the prognosticators kept saying that Mary Landrieu was in deep trouble this year. Really?

Don't believe the hype!

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 13:00:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

I'm sure that even you, Woody, would enjoy seeing the rumored GOP internal poll showing Dana Rohrabacher barely ahead in CA-46!

---

by: James L. @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 18:31:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Half Agree With You.....

The Presidential portion of the poll is definitely wrong.  It's mathematically impossible for Obama to be ahead statewide by double digits in Iowa yet underperforming Kerry in District 4.  You're correct that that makes the entire poll suspect.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm gonna be dissuaded from believing Greenwald is competitive simply because Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg haven't taken notice of the race yet.  Plenty of 2006 races apparently slipped below their radar as well.  And I've never seen as much of Tom Latham as I have in the past month with incessant TV ads.  That tells me he sees some scary (for him) internal polling numbers.

---

by: Mark @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 21:54:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]