Google Ads


Site Stats

TX-Gov: Perry, Under 50, Leads White by 6

by: James L.

Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 5:28 PM EDT


Public Policy Polling (9/2-6, likely voters, 6/19-21 in parens):

Bill White (D): 42 (43)
Rick Perry (R-inc): 48 (43)
Undecided: 12 (14)
(MoE: ±4.2%)

PPP's switch from a registered to a likely voter model gives Rick Perry a six-point lead. Interestingly, that switch only translated into a 52-41 McCain sample from a 51-41 sample in June. However, the sample is significantly more Republican (47R-30D from 43R-37D in June) and whiter (70% from 66%).

Despite Perry's edge, Tom Jensen calls White, along with Colorado's John Hickenlooper, "one of the two strongest new Democratic candidates in the country this year". That's evidenced by White's promising 44-29 favorable rating, especially when stacked up against Perry's 36-49 approval rating. More:

The race is confounding the major trends we're seeing in most contests across the country. White is winning independents 53-34. Republicans have the lead with them most everywhere else. White's winning 82% of Democrats while Perry's getting 77% of Republicans. Republican voters are more unified than Democrats most everywhere else. But there are a lot more GOP voters than Dems in Texas so Perry's still ahead anyway.

PPP also tested the Lt. Governor's race, and finds incumbent David Dewhurst up by 54-34 on his spirited Democratic challenger, Linda Chavez-Thompson. That Bill White is poling competitively while the lower-ticketed races look like Solid R affairs is both a testament to White's strength - and Perry's weakness.

Meanwhile, PPP's Dustin Ingalls takes a look at an issue that may have some resonance in Texas this year (much as it did in 1994): term limits.

James L. :: TX-Gov: Perry, Under 50, Leads White by 6
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
0% Obama no-shows in Texas
and 15%-25% in most other states.

PPP's turnout models are so illogically inconsistent it's hard to even imagine how they can release these polls.


PPP's explanation
We are not seeing any drop off in Democratic turnout there from 2008 probably because it's their party who has a candidate they're excited about in Bill White while it's the Republicans having to hold their nose and vote for an incumbent they're tired of in Rick Perry.


[ Parent ]
This sounds accurate
While walking the majority African American pct a few weeks back, I only got one person who was "nah, I don't think I'm going to vote this year." the rest were "Hell, yeah! I know this guy already, he's the dem, right? I'm in for him."

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Bigger picture extended explanation
from Steve Singiser at DK http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

[ Parent ]
While that effect certainly comes into play
on the same day they are saying there will be zero dropoff in Texas and 20% dropoff in Maine.  4% droppoff, 8% droppoff, even 10% dropoff... these can be historically justified sometime in the past 40 years.

No dropoff due to excitement is plausible.  20% dropoff for generic but not grotesque candidates is behavoir never before seen.


[ Parent ]
But...
Its a 20% dropoff from an electorate never before seen also.

[ Parent ]
Hardly, except literally
First of all, the 2008 electorate was not significantly different in many states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, dakotas, etc) than the 2004 one.

Obama only got 10 million more votes than Kerry total!  And that includes population growth, and those who switched from Bush to Obama.

20% of Obama's 70million vote total is 14 million.  So very roughly if Obama no shows were 20%, that would mean not just that every single person who voted for Obama who didn't vote for Kerry would not vote, but that 4 million Kerry voters will not vote either!

It's an utterly, fantastically silly thing to assert.


[ Parent ]
While I'm guessing you won't like it
I suggest you read Steve's diary linked above. One excerpt:

Despite the best wishes of some Democratic faithful, however, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the 2010 electorate will look anything like the 2008 electorate. When you go from a presidential election to a midterm election, you are shedding about one-third of that leap year electorate. And, as it happens, a lot of that one-third has historically come from demographic groups that would tend to support Democrats. Therefore, assuming that PPP and other pollsters are being unduly pessimistic because they are not asking enough Democrats could be an errant assumption.

That is why comparing sample demographics in 2010 to the most recent election (2008) is probably not the wisest comparison point to make.

Bolding mine.


[ Parent ]
So what?
The bolded comment is just simplistic.  

The 2010 electorate will be different than the 2008 and will be different than the 2006 electorate and the 1994 electorate.  Geez, some folks act as if that is news.

What we don't know is the future, precisley how it will change, but most pollsters are 100% guessing how it will change, and they are all over the place in their guesses.

What we do know is the massive no shows PPP proposes has never happened since at least the passage of the Voting Rights Act.  What has always happened is a much smaller amount of no shows occurs, and some people change their mind.  

PPP in fact is saying hardly anyone will change their mind (in this case, those that do will net go toward the Democrat).  


[ Parent ]
The bolded comment is just the thesis
The linked diary also suggests that the people behind DK are still part of the "reality-based community".

Perhaps you should discuss your disagreements directly with Steve.


[ Parent ]
How many times do I have to post this?
"One final note: we do not weight our polls for party or 2008 vote or anything like that- just fixed demographics of gender, race, and age. So the level of Democratic dropoff we show is not determined by our guesses, but by who says they're going to vote this fall and answers our polls."

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

You put far too much trust in these crosstabs.


[ Parent ]
And how many times will it take you to understand it doesn't matter
Think, stop parroting irrelevancy.

Either a sample is deliberately set; or a sample is not deliberately set.

In either case the sample asserts a turnout where essentially every single voter who voted for Obama but not kerry will not vote, and 6.66% of Kerry's voters will not turn out on top of that.

Instead of repeatedly saying math and sample composition doesn't matter, explain how such a turnout is possible.  

Your assertion that a poll of 90% Republicans and 10% Democrats is just fine is absurd on its face.  


[ Parent ]
How rich
It is not I that is the parrot.

[ Parent ]
See your above post
I suspect you didn't understand the full implications of the mathematics of some of these PPP samples, but continually asserting that sample makeups don't matter means you should also be asserting that turnout doesn't matter either.

Any no-show percentage greater than the entire 6-to-7 increase of Kerry voters to Obama voters is kool aid that should be impossible to swallow by any objective person.


[ Parent ]
"No, no sir, it's not dead. It's resting."


[ Parent ]
The people who hired PPP don't agree with you
as documented from the linked diary.

aka, comparisons to Presidential election years are essentially irrelevant. The DK people who hired PPP understand this. As part of a "reality-based" community, they are objective.

Since you seem to have a "different" sort of "reality", you should discuss it with the people who hired PPP. And Steve Singiser is the key numbers person there.  


[ Parent ]
No Show to below Kerry
Uhm... How many Kerry voters dropped off in 2006?  This is a midterm...

[ Parent ]
Looks like White's still very much in this
It seems like, with Dems basically conceding TN, OK, KS, and losing badly in MI and PA, all that remains is to shore up IL (not a lost cause a la MI just yet), OR, MD, NM (very good bang for buck I would imagine here), and play offense in CA (still very gettable), FL, and TX.  I'm taking it as a given that Vermont's gonna swing, and that Maine isn't as bad as it looks.

The DGA can afford to cut Bernero lose if his numbers don't improve late September, and Onorato has the 8 year governor's switch working against him in an awful political climate for Democrats.  If the Dems scale back their resources, conceivably we can come out of the 2010 midterms with a net loss of only 2, which is marginally acceptable even though those states are where the mansion would help big time.  

White and Sink look to be extremely and surprisingly competitive this year, and winning those two enormous states can very much mitigate gerrymanders and ensure that the delegations remain fair.


Why are you assuming VT will flip?
I think Dubie has led in every poll so far.
Also, you forgot MN, HI, CO, and CT. All of those are leaning towards us but will still need that extra push. (Well, maybe not CO at the rate things are going...)

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/


[ Parent ]
Bill's an electable-ass candidate
but I can't help thinking that the top-lines wouldn't be so great if they hadn't asked the Perry approval question first. :( I mean, yes, Texans hate Rick Perry, but there is just a huge GOP partisan advantage down here.

Anybody have thoughts about how to measure the effect of...
typical priming questions. Looks like Ras primes typically by asking about Obama approval ratings first. Seems like if we could determine the "true" state of a race at the moment of a poll (in a past cycle), we could then calculate, maybe, (the average distance of the candidate of the same candidate as the president from his or her true position in the race at the time)/(the average distance of the candidate of the same candidate as the president) + (the average distance of the candidate of the same party as the president from the presidential approval rating at that moment (and, I suppose, in the geographic unit polled)). Which would give a crude measure of the tendency of the question to influence the answer. Or something. But how to determine the true state of the race at a given time?

Should I take this to 538?


[ Parent ]
I've always thought that SUSA
does it the right way. (Something like demographic info first, then party ID, then LV screen, then horserace, then fav/unfavs.)  

[ Parent ]
To follow up on yesterday's good poll for White
looks like result was not primed by homeowner's insurance question, but might have been primed by prior Texas right track/wrong track question

Still, looks like pretty good evidence of the home-owner's insurance issue as a way to attract ticket-splitters.

Another good strategy would be to remind voters that a vote for Rick Perry is a vote for Rick Perry.  



Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox