Hey, the Reid numbers aren't half bad

---

by: lovespolitics @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 20:49:49 PM UTC

You

took the words out of my mouth. Plus you add the rass effect so that means Reid is actually leading. You never know, maybe Harry ain't dead yet after all.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 20:56:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, Tarkanian

If he gets the nom, he'll be tough based on these numbers, the others are all possible to be "vaporized."

POSSIBLE, not likely though.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 20:57:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I want to know

is why only second and third tier candidates seem willing to take Reid on, I mean he seems like an easy kill, why pass up a chance to be Senator?  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 21:00:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sandoval, Heller, Kroliki

Outside of Kroliki, there's Brian Sandoval and Dean Heller and not much else. Sandoval is running for Governor and Heller is tight with Reid.  

---

by: panhandler @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:36:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "rass effect"?

I've seen this sentiment pop up from time to time in the comments that if, somehow, you add a few points to the Democratic candidate and subtract the same amount from the Republican for any Rasmussen poll, you automatically get THE TRUTH.

The only problem is that this approach is seemingly not grounded on anything beyond a "gut intuition" form of methodology.

Research 2000 came out with a poll that was even worse than Rasmussen's last week, yet no one piped up to say that the poll had to be adjusted for the "R2K effect". A couple weeks before that, PPP had a very lousy poll poll for Reid. So just because Rasmussen comes out with a poll showing Reid in a slightly better position, we have to "correct" the poll in Reid's favor just because we dislike the pollster? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. It's wishful thinking at its worst. The evidence from all pollsters suggests that Reid is behind. Rasmussen, like them or not, is right in line with everyone else.

---

by: James L. @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 23:09:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I

will agree with you in the sense that they report accurately. Still to say they don't lean right, is to say SSP doesn't lean left. I mean look at all of those teaser questions they throw on there, that get used by republicans all of the time. Scott Rasmussen is a man with a mission.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 23:32:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't like Rasmussen

But I don't think you can make the blanket assumption that every single poll they produce needs to be adjusted in the same way.

---

by: James L. @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 23:39:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When an incumbent is polling at 40%

behind the "some dude" (R) candidates, it's by no means good news.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:28:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually...

When the incumbent is Harry Reid it is good news.

---

by: Hamtree @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:39:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not really, no

Sorry.

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:40:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's an upward trend, though

---

by: lovespolitics @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 23:20:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brian Krolicki

This is only one poll, but I thought that Krolicki would be a stronger candidate than the third tier folks. I suppose Reid's attack dogs did their work on him.

---

by: InRepublican @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 20:54:40 PM UTC

Krolicki

I am also surprised Krolicki is doing worse against Reid than all others. Maybe it is lingering fallout from the case brought against him by the state's attorney general. The suit got thrown out in court but fact he was even charged with something could explain his weak numbers compared to the others. Anybody from Nevada have any idea?  

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 21:46:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is it just me or does he hardly ever

Poll Dem primaries?

---

by: conspiracy @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 21:49:03 PM UTC

Looks like its Conway or bust.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 21:53:29 PM UTC

I heard Conway is more progressive than Mongiardo

any truth to that?

---

by: lovespolitics @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 21:56:27 PM UTC

Mongiardo co-sponsored SB 245

Which amended the Kentucky constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage (and also civil unions). I'm not sure how much more or less progressive Conway is on any other issues, but Mongiardo's record on gay rights is beyond unimpressive.

---

by: boojumsnark @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:15:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In terms of electability

Conway just has more room to grow since people don't know him. Opinions of Mongiardo are pretty much set in stone from what I can tell.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:17:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plus Mongiardo is kind of a dick

He went on the record trashing the governor the day after he endorsed him.

22, male, VA-10

---

by: Bharat @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:37:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

part of the nevada problem

is predicting what the electorate will be in nov.  I don't mean what mood they'll be in, I mean how many people will have been foreclosed upon and just decide to leave the state.  between the quick boom and bust of vegas the pop is in such a state of flux there's no telling who will show up to vote come november.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:05:16 PM UTC

Makes sense.

after all, Nevada was a polling failure across the board in 2008. Hopefully 2010 will also see the Ds overperforming the polls.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 02:07:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More likely the other way

Nevadans voted against the incumbent party in 2008. What's the incumbent party in 2010 that didn't fix their economy?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 03:53:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a matter of fact

In 2004, the polls also underestimated Dem strength (granting that Kerry still lost). I wonder if it has something to do with the ever increasing latino population in Nevada.

Honestly, while I'm not happy with Reid's chances, I wouldn't count him out just yet (in fact, I'd be willing to bet long odds that Reid's performance will be one of the bigger shockers in November).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 05:10:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The exit poll showed 2008 polling error WAS mostly missed Latino vote......

If the exit polls are right (they're not always, but the big 2008 pre-election polling misses combined with the massive performance swing between 2004 and 2008 suggest the exit poll in Nevada probably were right), then Nevada went from 77% white in 2004 to 69% in 2008, and from 7% Hispanic in 2004 to 15% in 2008.  That accounts for the overwhelming majority of the pre-election polling error, if in fact the Hispanic vote share was double what pollsters were guessing in their turnout models.

Regarding Reid, I've been increasingly resigned since Brown's MA-Sen win that Reid is toast, as is Lincoln, and we're going to lose Delaware now, too.  But strangely, somehow I can't mentally write off Reid 100% (unlike Lincoln who I think is going to crash in an anti-Obama southern white undertow), somehow I think he IS going to close the gap and if he loses it really will be close, and he could have a realistic shot at winning.  But that "realistic shot" depends on the economy improving and people feeling it in their lives.  I see a small glimmer of hope in the unemployment rate surprisingly dropping to 9.7% for January, and if it gets down below 9% by the fall, then we might be looking at fewer losses, with a few people surviving who seem inconceivable to win now.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:11:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think going from 10% to 9%

is sufficiently statistically significant, especially if that isn't coupled with some solution of the underwater mortgage foreclosure problem. If the official unemployment rate is 9% in November, the Democrats will go down, big.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:54:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read more closely......

I said BELOW 9%.  That would be 8.9% or lower.

And I think that DOES make an electoral difference, because it makes a psychological difference.  Just like a  $9.99 pricetag registers differently in the brain than $10.00, I think once we get down into the "8s," then people start to feel like we're making real progress, even if things remain not so good, and their nerves begin calming.

And I didn't say "below 9%" erases our problems, only that our losses will be fewer than we now conceive, at least assuming one conceives right now that our House majority is at real risk as I believe is the case with health care reform seemingly dead and the Democratic base disillusioned as a result.  And "fewer losses" means also that a few people who seem like likely losers now might end up winning, like, IMO, Reid and Michael Bennet.  I think Lincoln is a goner anyway, frankly.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 17:23:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I get your point

and we agree about Lincoln, which is why I hope she gets serious primary opposition.

But I think unless the official unemployment rate is in the 7's, with a corresponding drop in foreclosures, the Democrats are going to face big losses in both Houses. And they have only themselves to blame for not having passed big jobs programs.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:39:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm of the school that says there's nothing more government could do...

...beyond the stimulus.  Yeah it could've been bigger, with more spending and fewer tax cuts, and that would've been better.  But I doubt those things would have made such a huge difference.  The stimulus substantially did what any stimulus can do.

Government can get money circulating again in the economy, but if a nearly-$800 billion stimulus combined with a loose money policy by the Fed with a rock-bottom interest rate doesn't get us any further than we've gotten, then a jobs bill isn't likely to do much better.

I actually think it's a mistake for Congressional Democrats to focus heavily on the economy, because it's not under their control, and they're at the mercy of whatever happens without having other accomplishments to save seats.  Health care was a good thing to focus on for that reason, because it allows us to sell a major accomplishment in the midterms no matter the economy, and it offered some cushion to our fall if the economy remained bad.

So I find myself fearing we lose the House this November if we don't luck out on the economy, with nothing else major registering in the public mind for these 2 years.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 23:55:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WTH is with Reid?

It is truly weird to see Harry Reid doing so well against relatively well-known first/second tier challenger, yet do so poorly against the more generic candidates. My two cents is that people would love to get rid of him, but dont know how!

Another factor is that Rass oversamples the TeaParty (tm) people, and gets those kinds of numbers b/c they wont vote for someone as pure. Im not sure about that, but it also comes to mind.

On top of all that, youve got new voters, hispanic voters, low-income voters, all of which dont answer polls all that much. You've got Obama winning by 12, while the polls had him at 7. If Reid overforms like that, its a tossup... question is "can he?"

---

by: lubyarco @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 03:11:43 AM UTC

Makes Sense to Me

Add the NY races (House, mayor, county exec) to MA, NJ and VA and what do you get? Anti-incumbency! And in that environment the traditional understanding of what constitutes first-tier doesn't necessarily fit. Swapping one politician for another would be less appealing than swapping one for a fresh face.

---

by: armand @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 03:51:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jane Norton over 50%?

Now we may well lose this race in Novemeber, but I have a very hard time believing a low-profile former lt. governor being over 50% against an incumbent whose approval ratings aren't good, but aren't totally radioactive. It's also bizarre that they have Rand Paul so far ahead of the Democratic candidates vs. Trey Grayson.

---

by: NCDem @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 04:42:07 AM UTC

speaking of Rasmussen

I got a kick out of this tweet from Markos:

Tried to hire Scott Rasmussen to re-do our GOP-only poll, says he's now a "media company", no longer does commissioned polls.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 05:16:12 AM UTC

Priceless

The guy is a giant fraud. And I don't mean Kos.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:19:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Encouraging Ohio numbers

Portman just up four points on either and perhaps more importantly Obama at 49% approval. Maybe the corner has been turned. Or at least things might not get any worse.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 13:30:31 PM UTC

Rasmussen is doing too many polls too early in the election season

I've been feeling he's trying to influence recruitment and fundraising for awhile.  It's annoying.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 17:30:13 PM UTC

Hick +4 in CO

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Wow, a Dem actually leads with indies!

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:20:19 PM UTC