Google Ads


Site Stats

AK-Sen: Unnamed Write-In Candidate Leads

by: Crisitunity

Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM EDT


Hays Research for IBEW (10/25-26, ? likely voters, 10/22 in parens):

Scott McAdams (D): 29 (25)
Joe Miller (R): 23 (26)
"Another candidate you have to write in": 34 (31)
Undecided: 13 (17)
(n = 500)

Hays Research has apparently been polling the Alaska Senate race repeatedly without releasing the results, and the Mudflats got their hands on the newest batch of numbers, which are a real eye-opener. (Of course, that would suggest that they're polling on someone's behalf, and the writeup has no word of that, which seems like an important detail. It also doesn't give an MoE or even state whether we're dealing with LVs, RVs, or what here. But you can't have everything.) (UPDATE: Thanks to Nate Silver, we now know the poll was paid for by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and is of likely voters.)

Most notably, this is the first poll released that gives Lisa Murkowski a sizable lead, or at least that gives "another candidate you have to write in" a sizable lead, but one would expect the vast majority of that go for Murkowski. (Unlike other polls, this one doesn't even delve into who people plan to write in. There have been as many methods of polling this impossible-to-poll race as there have been pollsters trying it.) But also significantly, this is the first poll to show Joe Miller in third place and Scott McAdams leading among all named candidates. The memo has trendlines from four different polls, so the collapse of Miller is on full display over the course of October.

Suggestive of an "anti-incumbent" year is that most of the momentum seems to be with McAdams, not Murkowski, though. Does that mean that Miller votes are entirely flowing to McAdams, rather than to Murkowski? Maybe former Miller votes are also shifting to Murkowski and undecideds are breaking for McAdams. (That would certainly explain why the NRSC has been going anti-McAdams with its latest ad: they're rightly worried he may be able to shoot the gap.) At any rate, Miller seems to be in a position he can't recover from, especially as more damning revelations seem to trickle in every day: his favorables are now 26/68, including 60% "very unfavorable." (If there's any consolation for him from this, at least he'll probably still perform better than fellow grifter Dan Maes.)

Here's one other item that will help Murkowski: the Alaska Supreme Court promptly overruled a lower court that said that voters can't use a list of potential write-in candidates. While the list approved by the Supreme Court will not actually be on display in voting booths, those asking for help at polling places can be shown the list. (UPDATE: There's still a temporary restraining order against the lists for now, though, so this looks like it'll be an ongoing story. H/t Adam B.) (YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Actually, the lists will be available, but with a few caveats. In Adam's own words, "What it does is stays the effect of the TRO below -- in other words, the Board is not forbidden from posting lists -- but says that the lists can't contain partisan identification for the write-in candidates, and if a voter is given the list, her ballot gets segregated." Here's the link to the Supreme Court's order, if anyone actually wants to read the fine print.)

Crisitunity :: AK-Sen: Unnamed Write-In Candidate Leads
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

not quite.
The Alaska Supreme Court is still receiving briefs today on the merits of the "posted list" question; they've entered a stay of the lower court's TRO until they resolve this.

Ha Ha
Teabaggers' strategy backfires!  Again!

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

If somehow
McAdams were to pick up this seat, in the midst of such a republican year like this, that would be beyond stunning.  At the very least, it's becoming obvious that Miller isn't going to win.  He can't collapse any more than 20% though, because I don't see McAdams cracking 40% of the vote in AK this year.  For him to win, it'll have to be a 38-35-27 or thereabout deal.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

Let's hope it's something like 34-33-32
You know, just to keep us all busy for a while.

21,Democrat, NY-02, male

[ Parent ]
You think the Minnesota recount in 2008 was bad...
.... what would a 3 way recount including write in votes be like? There would be more election lawyers in Alaska than fisherman.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
And werent the judges pretty specific on what to count?


[ Parent ]
They were
I was actually surprised to see court after court stocked with Republican-appointed judges rule unanimously against Coleman. It was a pleasant surprise, but a surprise none the less

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
Hearing
of things like that--when people who can make easily partisan decisions but choose not to because their paramount concern is rule of law and fairness--gives me hope for this country. As bitter as the partisan divide can sometimes be, it's not nearly as bad as you'd think if you give too much credence to what comes out of the mouths of candidates or their flacks in the media.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
So McAdams picks up the bulk of the undecideds here?
I can see that. They're not going to Miller and Murk is a known commodity.

This is certainly one of the more interesting races. Kills that we may not know the true result for weeks!


[ Parent ]
I was thinking this morning
about the strategic nature of winning certain Senate seats. I don't really know anything about McAdams, so I really not sure how he'd be as a legislator, but Senate seats in Alaska don't open up for the Democrats that often. The advantages of incumbency are often overstated, but still, he won't have to run for reelection for six years. That should be more than enough time for him to work on shoring up his support in his state.

But would I rather McAdams win rather than, say, Giannoulias in Illinois or Feingold in Wisconsin? I'm almost tempted to say yes, because in those states, and in Colorado and Pennsylvania, I think the long-term trends favor the Democrats. Of course, in the same way it is possible for McAdams to spend time building up his support, it's possible for Buck, Toomey, or anyone else to do the same, but what's going to happen if Colorado, for instance, becomes more and more favorable to the Democrats?

Suffice it to say that these questions are what makes this stuff more interesting, but also more nerve-wracking.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
I mean
we already hold the OTHER Senate seat in Alaska...

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

[ Parent ]
Yes, but
wasn't that mostly due to Stevens looking thoroughly corrupt?

This is a really general, and slightly crude anology, but if I had the choice between sex with Jessica Biel and sex with some non-celebrity lady I had my eye on, I'd pick Jessica Biel. After all, how many times will I get the chance to do that? It's much more likely that I will be able to score with the non-celebrity than I will ever get the chance to have sex with Jessica Biel ever again.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
If McAdams wins and I had the money
Id commission  a trophy that is of Begich and McAdams with "Suck It" engraved at the base and mail it RNC headquarters.

[ Parent ]
^^^This one actually made me spit take (nm)
nm

[ Parent ]
I'd chip in for that.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Not sure why the RNC
Since it clearly wasn't their fault that Stevens was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct, leading to his defeat, and that some crazed tea partier took down an incumbent and has caused a giant clusterfock.

Sending it to Palin might be a better choice.  


[ Parent ]
On the other hand,
perhaps it's better saved for when the Democrats either (a) elect a Democrat from Texas who is a legitimate Democrat instead of a Phil Gramm-style Democrat to the Senate and/or take Texas in a presidential contest.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
You aren't going to get Ted Kennedy from Texas
That being said, Texas was where LBJ came from. While he had his faults, he did a LOT of legitimate good for this country, and for the Democratic Party. He wasn't a dixiecrat by any stretch of the imagination.  

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
No, but
perhaps someone like Mark Warner would win in Texas.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing
You'd take Phil Gramm and Lloyd Bensten over Cornyn and KBH though.  I understand your hopes and you seem realistic so keep your hopes alive...someday :-)

[ Parent ]
Hey, I don't know
much about Texas politics, but I don't think it's fair to put Lloyd Bentsen in the same group as Phil Gramm. I don't think anyone would confuse Bensten with Bernie Sanders, but I don't think they'd confused him with Gramm, either.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
one specific IL-SEN factor
Winner of that seat takes over in November 2010, not January 2011.

[ Parent ]
Same applies to WV-Sen, right?


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

[ Parent ]
Also DE-Sen and NY-Sen-B
Illinois and West Virginia are the only two relevant ones, though, when looking at the math for lame-duck legislating. Colorado seems like it should be in that group as well, but apparently the law there states that Bennet's term lasts all the way until the end of Salazar's original term, and not just until the election to replace Salazar.

If Kirk wins, Republicans will be down one vote in the House during the lame-duck session, but they are likely to pick up votes from IN-03 and Ny-29 on Nov. 3rd.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


[ Parent ]
I would be shocked
But I would also be tickled pink if McAdams won. Certainly Republicans would spin it to say that 2/3 of the votes were for Republicans. And there is an element of truth to that. But when it comes down to counting votes, picking up a seat in Palin's home turf has to be a bit of a sting to her.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
Nate crapped all over this poll...
However looking at the ads being run, Murkowski has switched her focus to McAdams and McAdams is going after Murkowski with his latest and potentially last ad -

If McAdams can show Miller running third, it might allow him to shake lose Dem "strategic voters" to come home.  


This poll shows Miller running third. (nm)
nm

[ Parent ]
Decent idea
It's the Charlie Crist strategy of convincing McAdams voters that voting for him will mean Senator Miller.

The main difference, though, is that unlike Rubio, Miller is so damaged that it's tough to see him actually winning.  McAdams actually has a shot at winning, so the Democrats will actually vote for him; Murkowski needs to convince some of the remaining Miller voters.  (Think any of Miller's primary supporters are regretting that decision now?)

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent


[ Parent ]
This is an interesting poll result to say the least
If Miller's really in third place now, Scott McAdams could pull an upset. We don't know where Lisa Murkowski's numbers will actually be, just because write in campaigns are unpredictable, so McAdams might have so room here.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

Poll
I would believe the numbers, but this specific pollster has such a horrific record, also that it's someone's internal poll.

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8

2008 was an anamoly, due to the Palin effect
Do you have any evidence of problems from this pollster in other elections?

[ Parent ]
Poll
To be off by 20 points, 2 days before the election, having McCain up by only 3 points? Also, I think this poll didn't weight for registered voters or anything, but maybe I'm wrong on this

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8

[ Parent ]
Hays was spot on with the Palin-Knowles race in '06.
So I ask again, any evidence of problems besides '08?

[ Parent ]
If McAdams does pull this off
I hope he thanks Sarah Palin at his victory speech for making his win possible. That's a clip that would be run on endless loop on the cable shows.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

If he's looking to
secure donations from around the country--and he almost has to be, given how small Alaska is--his advisers would probably tell him to do just that.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Man, we really got shafted in this one
McAdams would have crushed Miller in a 1 v. 1

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

Yep.
However Murkowski would have beat McAdams 60-40 if she didn't take her primary win for granted.  

If only that 40% showed up for McAdams now, he's win in a walk.  


[ Parent ]
I argued that back in August
Murkowski in this race hurts McAdams. He needs significant support from Republicans and right-leaning independents who don't like Miller to win this race. With Murkowski in there, these people have someone ideologically similar to them and can vote against Miller without having to vote for a Democrat. Without Murkowski, McAdams could have run unimpeded to the center and made a strong case to these folks, and greatly benefitted from Miller's collapse.  

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
But would Miller collapse without Mur?
Look at Toomey, Angle and Paul. Epic fail candidates, but do not implode. Republicans in those states basically holds their noses, and votes for them because they can't bring themselves to vote for the democrat.

But in Alaska they can vote for the 3rd option. I don't think Miller would have imploded without her campaign and I don't think a write in campaign will ever win anything. It's still McAdams v Miller on election night and Mur is not helping Miller.  


[ Parent ]
Toomey is not Angle or Paul
Seriously, you may not agree with his views, but he's said or done nothing remotely close to the Angle/Paul camps.

[ Parent ]
Ok
But still. Angle and Paul does not implode.  

[ Parent ]
Angle imploded
Just because candidates are crazy doesn't mean voters aren't also.  Crazy can win all over the country, it really can.  It takes different recipes, but crazy can win.

I've always thought Paul was a better fit for KY than people think.  Sometimes people like someone who at least stands for something, especially if its something different at a time when the "same old thing" doesn't seem to be working.


[ Parent ]
Yes, but the argument still stands
If there ever was a state that was eager and willing to elect crazies, it would be Alaska. Remember that former Governor?

If Mur was not running a write in campaign, Miller would be safe.  


[ Parent ]
What was the craziest thing Palin did...
before being elected governor in 2006.  In fact, she really only went hard right after being selected VP.  There was even a time where she sided against Don Young due to his corruption and pushed Stevens about his.

You can't blame people for voting someone who was, by and large, perfectly normal by Alaska standards at the time of her election.  

And saying Alaska elects crazies is pretty out there.  I mean, what have Stevens, Murkowski or Young done that were crazy.  And they've elected Knowles, Gravel and Begich too.  Let's face it, Gravel wan't that crazy when elected either.


[ Parent ]
That's because Palin didn't crater during her campaign
She only became revealed as a load of crap well into her term of service.

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

[ Parent ]
Paul does not believe...
that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should apply to private businesses or in the American's with Disabilities Act.

When I heard that, I found his opinion so out of bounds in 2010 American society as to be disqualifying for office.  However, I have never lived in Kentucky and I am not a Teabagger.

As an AA, the thought of it offended me to no limit...I still steam when I think about it.

I guess that he can be a "libertarian purist" because he would never suffer the indignity of it.  

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
Well those views
Aren't really the cornerstone of his campaign.  And they might not be as high up on other's list of important issues.  people ahve widely differing view points and concerns.

Being anti-tax and anti-govt plays this year.  To some it means throwing the good out with the bad and they are okay with it.  Others find the thought horrifying.  

I think Kentucky is split on this pretty evenly, but the R and D next to candidates' names makes it look like its more people supporting Paul's agenda than really do.


[ Parent ]
I agree
Republicans seem to be pretty comfortable voting for immoral crooks and nutsos, as long as they are Republican.  LA-2 is insanely dem, yet it still booted William Jefferson.  Meanwhile Florida Republicans and even SSP Republicans are all happily rooting for Scott to win Florida.  And he very well might.

[ Parent ]
I maintain my observation that
Democrats are actually trying to govern while Republicans are trying to win elections in order to push an agenda.

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

[ Parent ]
LA-02 is a good example
of booting a crooked incumbent. But finding cold (literally) cash from lobbyists should disqualify anyone, I don't care who you are.

However, let's not overlook the fact that there are crooks on both sides of the aisle that consistently get re-elected. Visclosky in IN and Rangel in NY are two good examples of crooked Dems surviving merely bc of their safe D districts.

Vitter in LA is a good example of an immoral, if not necessarily corrupt, GOPer who will win this year just bc of how red LA has become.

Voting the party label for someone who probably shouldn't be in Congress is not a Republican-only trait, unfortunately.  


[ Parent ]
It's of adults, not likely voters
According to Politico, anyways. It's ridiculous.

Per the update,
Nate Silver says it's an LV poll.

[ Parent ]
RedState
I frequent RedState as much as I frequent SwingState. I don't post over there, because of there "never-question-teabagger-orthodoxy-or-be-banned" policy. But they are completely discrediting this poll without having any cross tabs or anything that we don't have access to. It is amusing how they are just dismissing the fact that Miller isn't as popular as Jesus.  

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


I think that there's a lot of wishful thinking going on here.
A lot of times I read the commentary on SSP, and I get the feeling that things are going a lot better then they are (e.g. the constant talk over Rand Paul's weakness, the constant talk of a Sestak comback, the continuous predictions that Democrats will just barely keep the House). Then I actually go look at the polls at pollster or RCP, and it's pretty clear that Rand Paul has a strong and stable lead, that Toomey has a strong and stable lead, that Nate Silver gives Democrats <20% chances of keeping the House, that Richard Burr has a double-digit lead and that Democrats are mad for thinking that they can win in NC, and on and on and on.

I kind of feel that this is happening again in Alaska.

Face it, this is a deep red state in a deep red year, and almost everywhere outside of SSP and a few liberal blogs McAdams is talked about as an irrelevant candidate (the Kendrick Meek in Alaska). I just don't see a Democrat winning in Alaska - not in this year.

http://mypolitikal.com/


A little harsh
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[ Parent ]
Toomey has a strong and stable lead?
Not to hijack the thread, but that's a new one.  I could have sworn I saw a poll with the race tied yesterday, and multiple polls with Sestak ahead within the past two weeks.  The only poll in which either candidate has been ahead by more than 4 points in the past almost three weeks was from Muhlenburg on Tuesday, so unless you're taking that poll as gospel...

As for the House, if you look at the polls district by district, our chances are much better than 20%.  

I think too many people are falling into woe-is-me land and are dismissing polls that are favorable to democrats.  It seems like whenever we have a favorable house district poll, the common answer is often "wow, (insert incumbent democrat here) is ahead?  That's a surprise."

We'll have to wait for Tuesday to be sure, but I'm not waving the white flag yet, not based on the data that's out there.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13


[ Parent ]
I take issue with you on those as well as AK-Sen......
Yes there are some people here who are exactly like you describe.  There are going to be some people like that on a partisan site.

But by and large people here are pretty realistic.  Some of the most prolific race-by-race diarists are more optimistic than realistic IMO, but they stand out because they do the race-by-race diaries, and I don't think most of us think we'll keep the House.  Those of us who think we'll lose it don't really want to do detailed analyses that are only depressing, so you don't see those diaries!  And in turn we don't stand out as much.

On the Senate races, look at most people's race-by-race predictions, and you see everyone in line with Cook, Rothenberg, and others, predicting 6-8 losses.  Those necessarily include ones like KY and PA that we'd HAVE to lose on a night when we lose at least 6.  Maybe some people say Sestak wins, but they turn around and say Giannoulias loses, so it's a wash......these are tossups anyway per the pros.

I think the majority of commenters here are reality-based.  And on a partisan site, a "majority" is actually damn good, better than you'll see on any other partisan site.  There sure weren't any Republican blogs in 2006 and 2008 admitting they were in for a world of hurt until at least extremely late, and many of them, not even then.

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


[ Parent ]
Oh, and I forgot to add regarding AK-Sen......
I don't think this race looks like others at all, and I was distinguishing here in my arguments early on.  But even then I've made the point even now that Murkowski has the edge.  But McAdams always had a plausible path to victory here in a 3-way, where it's a late-developing race the major party nominees are largely unknown, and the Republican nominee is a political disaster.  Hays Research might be terrible, but I was predicting a few days ago here that McAdams would finish ahead of Miller, and it would be a two-way between Scott and Lisa with Lisa having the edge.

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

[ Parent ]
True
"There sure weren't any Republican blogs in 2006 and 2008 admitting they were in for a world of hurt until at least extremely late, and many of them, not even then."

There are some who still haven't admitted it :-)


[ Parent ]
As someone
who has made several comments about how the Democrats could hold the House in the last few days, let me say that I am well aware of the limitations of my prediction. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Republicans take the House, even if I think the margin would end up being a lot smaller than some think. I've just said that, based on a few things I've noticed--where the candidates are located, who else is running, and what ground games they have--it's not that ridiculous to think they could hold the House by a few seats. You could make a prediction that goes against what I've said--and many people here have--but I don't think I am suggesting anything as ridiculous as a loss of only ten seats for the Democrats. Neither is anyone else.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Everyone sees things differently
I don't think anyone is making any over the top, ridiculous predictions, but just looking at numbers and talking about what could happen. The PA Senate race certainly has closed up in the final week or so and it looks as if something is happening in AK.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

[ Parent ]
The irony is that the most ridiculous, over-the-top prediction on this site...
...is that we lose a net 93 seats!  So much for pie-in-the-sky optimism!

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

[ Parent ]
Well fair enough
When you look at polls, do you do the in-depth analysis that posters do here, or do you take them at face value?  Do you analyze early voting trends like posters here or do you read polls and use them solely.  Do you view all polls as equal?  Do you really believe the GOP outpolls Dems with the 18-29 crowd in most states Senate races like SUSA reoports.  Do you see 25% of blacks voting for the GOP like SUSA always reports?

Seriously, using polls only measures what 300-500 random people say on their landline phones.  I enjoy the in-depth analysis people provide on this site and wouldn't trade it for your "polls = truth" analysis any day.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this site is about the conversation, not predictions and being right.  If you are convinced that the polls ahve given you the claravoyance to know the results next week, why surf the political blogs?


[ Parent ]
I guess what led to this comment
was something that happened a few weeks ago. At that time I'd essentially used SSP as my number one source of up-to-date political news (which I still do).

But I randomly decided to actually go to pollster.com and check out the polls, and the discrepancy from what the data was saying and what the conversation here was about really startled me.

Now, I'll admit that I didn't do this at all scientifically; about the most rigorous I got was seeing what happened if you throw out Rasmussen.

But people here, for instance, talked a lot about how Ellsworth was a great candidate who would be competitive in Indiana. I remember that there was a lot of conversation about that. But when I looked at the actual polling, not really having much of an idea other than a vague notion that Ellsworth was behind, and saw that Coats was leading by high double-digits. He was leading by landslide margins. That was quite shocking.

That's just one example. Another one would be the North Carolina numbers, where there was a lot of conversation about how Burr was a weak candidate. But when I looked at what the polls were actually saying - lo and behold, Burr was up by double-digits. A similar thing happened with Kentucky. And with Ohio. And Pennsylvania (although that has gotten better since I looked).

So if you actually look at Alaska race in Pollster, you see McAdams running third. He's actually behind Miller, and behind Murkowski by the high single-digits. He hasn't led a single poll, ever. He's been in third place in eleven out of the fourteen polls with all three candidates.

So who knows. Maybe McAdams can pull out a shocker. I sure hope he does. But I'm just not seeing it, unless all the polls are completely wrong come election day.

http://mypolitikal.com/


[ Parent ]
Sorta reminds me of drafts in various sports
Some new candidates are obvious stars, some show exceptional promise, some bring up surprises during the season.

But with the exception of the "obvious stars," perhaps more than a majority of candidates who are talked up eventually fail. Some of the "obvious stars" flame out too.

Ellsworth seemed to be a near obvious star. A lot of us were more than hopeful. But IMO his ads were just plain awful, and his campaign ran on two cylinders, i.e. a flameout.

As for NC, I think more than a majority here realized that was a crapshoot, given our candidates -- an unknown AA minor leaguer who never cared for the netroots (despite their care for him) and an unknown statewide utility player candidate who never did raise money in the past (or this year).

As for AK, that's sorta like the chess of Mikhail Tal. Wild, crazy, unbalanced, with a queen in strange places. It's 5 days before the election, and the courts are still setting the rules. But I think people here are hard nosed realists, and understand that even with an extra break (which may or may not happen), McAdams may be a 1:4 shot. But AK is a cheap state, so it's like a cheap call in poker, with a potentially substantial reward.

Some here get overenthused about certain candidates, and that's the nature of some of the population here. Smart, sharp, enthusiastic, and young. Many here haven't seen the elections of failure for Ds from '80-'06, broken only by the two presidential election years of Clinton (and possibly '98). Realism is not necessarily their forte. (it does surprise me how many realists there are even among the teens here)

But that's a good thing.

That slightly unrealistic enthusiasm is necessary for slightly longer shot candidates, as some do succeed. And that's supportive of a national party, where we fight for the best possible policies in every state.

(gosh, that was a ramble!)


[ Parent ]
The tricky thing about the polls here...
And I want to say, I agree with you and tietack on some of the enthusiasm gone wild you tend to see on partisan sites like this one (although I think there are a lot of very smart, very savvy, very pragmatic people here, even if many tend toward the optimistic side of things) - but the tricky thing about the polling in Alaska is actually a combination of factors:

1. Sen. Murkowski is mounting a write-in bid. It's not clear how the level of support she's polling at holds up when the votes are in. Writing in a candidate adds another layer of complexity to the process, and low-information voters might not even know they have the option of writing her in (might not even have a reminder as to who she is, considering her name appears nowhere on the ballot or in polling places unless a list of declared write-in candidates is specifically requested, in which case her name will be one in a list of several). What's more, a lot of those ballots - conceivably even the whole pile - can and will be challenged in court if they look to be decisive.

2. Polls of Alaska are notoriously finicky and error-strewn. It's not that polling in the Last Frontier State has never hit the mark, it's that it's less reliable than polling in, say, Virginia. There are a lot of cell phone-only voters, a lot of absentee voters, and - perhaps paradoxically - not a lot of voters.

3. It's a three-person race in the truest sense, i.e. any ordering of the three when the vote is counted is conceivable. The dynamics of a three-person race are incredibly fluid, especially in a political system used to dualism and thus broadly divided into "liberal/Democratic" and "conservative/Republican" camps. And in a race like this, perceptions are everything. Murkowski may be seen as a "compromise candidate", but if voters don't feel like they have to compromise, she could wind up losing a lot of her support and abruptly tanking; it's not like people are voting for her because of her amazing life story, long list of accomplishments, or sparkling personality.

4. Nobody seems to know whose GOTV operation is going to turn out stronger. The Republican infrastructure is naturally better, but it's also divided and somewhat dispirited by two fairly bloodied, unpopular candidates. The Democratic infrastructure is, to my understanding, not terribly intact since Tony Knowles got whupped by Sarah Palin, but Mayor McAdams is working with an unusually high level of enthusiasm at a time when Democrats are rather discouraged in the Lower 48 and Hawaii.

5. In Alaska, you can never count out weather playing a major spoiler role. Forecasts can change on a dime, and "very likely" voters and diehard supporters of one candidate or the other (or the other) may dominate the electorate if an early winter storm smacks Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, and the Kenai Peninsula on Monday or Tuesday.

It's a wild race. I agree McAdams is an underdog, but I sure see a few different scenarios in which he walks away with a brand-new Senate seat.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
With
do respect if you think you are getting mis information here then go to other places like political wire and pollster and come up with your own conclusions. I mean I don't agree with everyone on a lot of things, NV Senate the most notable, but I still enjoy the intelligent level of discussion here. There are a few cheerleaders but most people here are predicting what most of the national pundits are, it depends on who you listen to. I'm not trying to be mean but if you don't like it here no one is forcing you to stay.  

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

[ Parent ]
There was a Sestak comeback
Whether it's enough to get him over the top, that's questionable (and Toomey, for the moment, seems to have stopped the bleeding). But when you "go look at the polls at pollster or RCP" Sestak has closed the gap somewhat.

[ Parent ]
RCP,
while it can serve as a good resource for polling info, is clearly a conservative-leaning site. So I'm not sure that's the best comparison for what you see here.

[ Parent ]
My observation exactly.
I keep coming back to this site like an addict, because it's so awesome in so many ways. And with 500 comments per thread now, it takes a good chunk of my reading-about-the-elections time too. And every week I come away with some new reason to feel optimistic - ah, the Dem is surely going to hold on in state X, or we definitely at least stand a chance in state Y, or momentum has clearly shifted in our direction.

And every time I then remind myself to check out the actual trendlines on pollster.com, or Nate's latest revisions of his numbers, and I go, um, wait - the numbers aren't actually there (yet?). We're projecting.

Posters here are a wonky bunch who love their data - but there is some wishful thinking going on, with positive polling being magnified and negative polling dismissed (and there's always some reason or other to dismiss a poll if you want to). It's tricky, and I have to remind myself to get my reality check elsewhere.

That also makes me a little puzzled, btw, about the recent expressions of exasperation with the few Republicans and possible concern trolls that you do have here, who tout the signs of the upcoming GOP wave. They may annoy you, but really, you want them around. The far bigger risk on a progressive site like this is getting stuck too much in your own bubble and wishful thinking.

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU


[ Parent ]
Crosstabs
Dailykos has some crosstab info:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Write-in
Dem 26
Gop 40
Ind 29
Other 39
DK/Refused 41

Miller
Dem 1
Gop 39
Ind 19
Other 17
DK/Refused 14

McAdams
Dem 59
Gop 4
Ind 33
Other 27
DK/Refused 3

I don't know what the hell is up with these numbers, but apparently no one in their comments thread has pointed up these numbers add up to either less than or way more than a hundred.  Someone with an account there should bring that up.


I think I get them now
presentation was just throwing me off... maybe they make sense after all

[ Parent ]
Interesting
Here's the thing - for McAdams to win, he needs to prevail among Independents. He does that in this poll. Alas, what trumps even that is if Murkowski wins Republicans, she prevails. And this poll shows her doing that. What McAdams needs is a win among Indies and for Miller to maintain a lead among GOP-ers.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Not really the most credible poll in the world
If McAdams wins it would be almost as big of upset as Cao was. A fisherman to a Senator in a matter of years. Probably not going to happen though. I'm not getting my hopes up. PPP will do a poll of this race, it should be interesting to see what a reputable pollster finds. A Murkowski win is really a meh moment as she is better than Miller but is still far to the right and I've never liked her do to the way she got where she is anyway. I could understand why an Alaskan dem would vote for her though, they want their pork and not the crazy. A McAdams win would obviously be fantastic though. Like I said though, it's more than likely not going to happen.  

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

Agree
Having said that it does match some of the things GOP insiders were saying last week about Miller tanking. They wouldn't be going after McAdams if they were slightly concerned.

[ Parent ]
One professional campaign reporter tweeted a few days ago that...
...Republicans are more nervous about McAdams than Democrats are hopeful.  That's the irony here, that the GOP really is worried he could slip through.  But the Dems I imagine are shellshocked after so many obviously good opportunities have disappeared in the wave.

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

[ Parent ]
Irony is,
I think if we were focusing MORE on the race (and generating more pro-McAdams news coverage), we'd probably be LESS likely to win - as it might encourage Republicans to consolidate toward one R candidate or the other. For McAdams to win, it has to be stealth.

[ Parent ]
Smart point, I bet you're right. (nm)
nm

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

[ Parent ]
This applies to a lot of races.
And to that end, sometimes I think that less polling may actually be strategicaly useful at times.

Obviously, they can't be races that we pundits and analysts can get much word of, so I've been trying to think of how such campaigns could work.

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


[ Parent ]
I remember after the 2006 election Stu Rothenberg defended the DCCC and DNC against Carville......
Carville had complained we screwed up at the end and should have been able to win more seats with national party help.  Of course he complained, too, the DNC should have given more money for TV ads.

Rothenberg wrote in a column that in some close losses, DCCC and DNC ads would have hurt more than they helped, because the districts were very conservative and voters dislike the national Democratic Party and would have been turned off by the ads.  I think that was a debatable argument by Rothenberg, but it was certainly plausible.

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


[ Parent ]
McAdams
What little chance he had was probably killed when the Alaska Native Corps threw their support behind Lisa Mruk. Traditionally, the Bush vote has been Democrat so the native corps will take votes that would have likely gone to McAdams. They are all in with Lisa M.

[ Parent ]
Aside from the obvious flaws
The undecideds are so big they could provide a rather large victory margin should they split in a single direction.  Though this is the 1 race where I believe high undecideds might be a reality.

The most important thing is that on election night McAdams be ahead of Miller.  The Murkowski votes will be challenged until miod-2011 I'm sure.  So long as Miller is behind the actual name printed on the ballots (McAdams) we can be pretty sure not to have Sen Miller.

Gotta say, I know people love McAdams' candidacy, but I'm loving that Murkowski is fighting back.  I don't know why, but I like a fighter to keep it interesting.  On the other hand, I kinda think had Castle done this in Deleware he could be winning right now to be honest.


Castle
Not a chance.

[ Parent ]
Please, Coons is nothing amazing.
If O'Donnel breaks 40%, I really don't think its such a stretch that Castle could get closer.  He'd certainly draw some Dems and Mod GOP who are voting for Coons.  And who knows what high scrutiny would have done to his campaign.

[ Parent ]
The 3-way was polled and Castle came in at 5%......
Yes it was Rasmussen, but it's one I buy as it's exactly as I had already been arguing here, that Castle would be single-digits.  And it was reported in the news that Castle actually polled the 3-way himself; he then announced very quickly he wouldn't try the write-in.  That tells you what HIS numbers said.

Murkowski is strong because Alaska is a Republican state and center-right voters are desperate for an alternative to Miller.

Delaware is a liberal state and most voters are left or center-left, not interested in writing in a Republican.

All the talk of Castle perhaps having been a strong write-in was foolish.

The proper comparison wouldn't be AK-Sen, it would be CO-Gov, with the Democrat dominating against a split right.

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


[ Parent ]
LOL
Castle in the single digits is foolish.  You think right now he wouldn't be surging.  Sure Coons would still be favored, but its not like Castle won his races by getting the fringe right-wing vote alone.

You're right though, voters will elect someone Governor and Congress repeatedly if their name is printed, but doing write-ins, well then they will just vote for the next-best thing then.  C'mon.


[ Parent ]
Castle right now would be taking some votes from O'Donnell with Coons sitting pretty......
Coons' margin over 2nd place would be only bigger right now.

This notion that post-primary Coons would bleed support to a write-in is absurd.  Delaware politics are the polar opposite of Alaska, and that's decisive.

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


[ Parent ]
They don't have to similar
Its Castle, he's an institution.  And he'd have put much more pressure on Coons than O'Donnel did.  It would have been a serious race not "I'm not a witch" and "The constitution says nothing about separation of church and state".  

There's no way to predict how it would have gone, but it would have been a tougher race and Castle certainly had a better chance of winning in a 3way than O'Donnel does now.  Coons could have done or said soemthign infinitely stupid, we'll never know.


[ Parent ]
You badly overstate Castle-love in Delaware......
He is not a rock star.  He is not a beloved figure with a deeply loyal organic fan base.  He's a well-respected senior political leader, but that's not close to what it takes for people to go to the mat for someone.

Castle was beating Coons one-on-one only by about 10-15 points in the weeks before the primary.  Coons already was scraping up against 40% in those horse race polls, and Castle's average had dropped down a shade below 50.  Coons' support vs. Castle was his floor, he was never going to drop below that.

Meanwhile, once Castle lost the primary, Coons immediately shot up into the 50s vs. O'Donnell.  Castle running a write-in was not going to knock him down that much when it was clear Castle was fighting O'Donnell for Republican leaners.  Those people supporting Coons post-primary are all people who are used to voting for Democrats, and many of them were familiar with Coons and used to voting specifically for him.  They weren't going to abandon him without a good reason, and the mere fact of Castle waging a write-in is not compelling.

Again, Castle polled a 3-way himself and promptly announced he wasn't doing a write-in.  That tells you what his own poll said.

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


[ Parent ]
The actual wording of that question is critical.
Castle was listed in the frequencies as if his name was mentioned as one of the options, but it is very possible Rasmussen did not ask about Castle by name and only included those who said "Someone Else" and then mentioned Castle when prompted.

There is no way to know for sure because the wording for that question just says "2010 Delaware Senate Race" whereas all other questions are written out as they were actually asked.

I believe there is no way Castle would have been only at 5% if his name was mentioned.  Rasmussen could very well have constructed the question to keep Castle's % low in order to discourage Castle from pursuing a write-in campaign.

Whether or not Castle ended up doing his own poll is unclear, but he was already leaning heavily towards not going ahead before any polls came out.  He may have just seen the Rasmussen numbers and decided it was hopeless.


[ Parent ]
Oh, this crazy, bizarre race
I'm at the point where I've given up on trying to predict this one. It's nice to have polling, but I trust the polling here less than any other race just because of how odd the race is to begin with. Anyone else feel that way?

Nothing would surprise me here on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning/December in court. I'd say a Murkowski win would be least surprising, but really, I don't think it's wise to take anything off the table.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


The 3 way-race polling
Is a new phenomenon.  I think when people ahve too many choices their minds get overloaded.  I know mine does.

Even when the polls predict the winner, I'm still guessing most polls in 3-way races won't really be that accurate.  I mean we know "Other/3rd party candidate" always over-polls compared to election day.  The 3-way races give an actual name to the "Other/3rd party" guy in a more serious way than almost all prior 3-way races.  

Pollsters may need to review this and see if there's anything they can do in the future; I doubt there is but when we see the inaccuracies I think people might be unwilling to ever use 3-way race polling in the future as seriously.


[ Parent ]
Murkowski
Have any Senators endorsed her this cycle?

Info from twitter
Poll was paid for by IBEW Local 1547

Hays has posted methodology and data on their website:

http://www.haysresearch.com/pa...

Despite the decent transparency I think you have to consider it a partisan internal poll... if the numbers had shown McAdams still behind Miller, would it have been released?  It's cherrypicked data, to some extent.


BTW, the survey is LV's


[ Parent ]
Well good info in their
I agree with your bias, but of the not too biased stuff I liek that McAdams "never heard of" is down to 5%.  Means that the news coverage must be introducing both he and Miller and only Miller has had bad news during the cycle.

I also thought the screen was interesting, having had to vote in 2 of the last 4 local or state elections.  By definition that has to under-poll those under 25, but I have no idea if that age-group trends as Dem friendly in Alaska as many other states.


[ Parent ]
And when I say your bias
I mean you're pointing out that the IBEW sponsored poll might be biased, not any bias of yours.

[ Parent ]
Is the Sekula-Gibbs election a good comparison?
How much support did the write-in cost her? Did Lampson only win because she dropped out? What can we take away from that race? I know the dynamics were different (DeLay dropped out, Murkowski is far better know, and it's a legit three person race), but can we guesstimate how much support Murk will lose due to a write in campaign based on TX-22 in 2006?

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

Not a valid comparison because she was the establishment GOP pick, meaning...
...she was THE Republican in the race.

The AK party is split between Miller and Murkowski.

The other major write-in that I can remember that was successful was Charlie Wilson in the OH-06 Dem primary in 2006.  Wilson screwed up and failed to qualify for the primary ballot, and overcame the embarrassment with a write-in campaign that resulted in his easy blowout victory over an opponent whose name was printed on the ballot.  That they pulled this off in a primary is even more amazing.  But that was a primary, not a general election where you have to appeal outside your party for votes to have a chance to win.

I don't think there's a real precedent for this.

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


[ Parent ]
Also,
Murkowksi is a known figure and well-known name in the state. Sekula-Gibbs, not so much.

[ Parent ]
Best
Best write-in in Alaska history was Wally Hickel, wildly popular former Governor who may have gotten screwed in a primary by Jay Hammond; votes were found in the trunk of an election official's car and Hammond won by 98 votes after a recount. Hickel got mad, spent a ton on a write-in .... and pulled 23%, some 10,000 fewer votes than he had in the primary.

[ Parent ]
But was Jay Hammond was incompetent as Joe Miller?
Another notable write-in run was Ernest Gruening in '68 after Mike Gravel ousted him in the primary. In the general, most Dems flocked to Gravel, while Gruening won enough Indies (and a few Dems) to win 17%. The difference between '68 and '10 is, unlike the very competent Gravel, Miller's just spouting trouble all over the place. Miller isn't holding his party's base like Gravel did, and he's bleeding way more Independent to Murkowski than Gravel did to Gruening.

Again, as long as Murkowski has a solid GOTV operation, she should definitely win this. I think she'd prevail by double-digits, Lieberman-style, if her name were on the ballot.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast


[ Parent ]
Not true
Gravel was a lunatic - same guy who nominated himself for President when no one else would, same guy who wanted to build a giant domed city 10 miles across for a state capital.

Gruening lost because he took an extremely unpopular anti-Viet Nam stand, not because Gravel was such a sound candidate - which is why he was tossed out.

Murkowski will take some votes from McAdams but remember, the Inds had the chance to vote for her in the primary and didn't.

Miller will get the solid Rep base and do well in Mat-Su and Fairbanks. Murk will run close in Anchorage and in traditionally Dem Bush and Southeast but it won't be enough. She won't be able to overcome the 'sore loser' stigma, the weight of her perceive liberal record and, most importantly, the handicap of being a write-in.

She probably needs 38% to win - and that's 15% better than any previous write-in. Don't see it.


[ Parent ]
Well its time for some fun
Will Murkowski address Palin in her victory speech should she win?  If so, what will she say?  And will she address Demint directly or only refer to "Alaskan independence when voting"?

I'd love for her to come otu swinging, I think she'd have the political capital to say what she wants too, though I'm not sure it benefits her to do so of course :-)


If Murkowski got the Libertarian line
I wonder where she'd be.  I'm guessing high 30's right now and still rising...

Miller
If Lisa were on the ballot, she'd probably win - but she isn't.

DO NOT trust these polls. Two years ago, Hays had McCain up 3 over Obama; he won by 21.

Hellenthal had Don Young losing by 10; he won by 6.

Miller will win by 10%, 37-27-22 with 14 going to 3rd party or no votes/bad votes.


[ Parent ]
Two years ago, Palin was atop the ballot
or might as well have been, as far as Alaskans were concerned. So I give AK pollsters a pass for their errors in '08, and believe that they won't have errors --of that magnitude-- this year.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, no one was saying "Alaska polls are unreliable" before 2008, it's a tell of being poorly-informed when...
...someone points to ONE election as CONCLUSIVE PROOF of a broader argument.

No doubt this election itself might prove impervious to polling simply because it's so unique.  But that's because it's its own animal, just as 2008 was its own animal with an Alaskan on a national ticket for the first time ever.

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


[ Parent ]
Not true
Alaska pollsters have been wrong for years.

In 06, they had Palin and Knowles neck and neck. She won by 8%.

In 02 Governor: The statewide telephone poll of 400 likely voters was conducted by Craciun Research Group between Oct. 12-14 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Of the respondents surveyed, 46 percent said they favored (Dem) Ulmer and 43 percent said they backed Murkowski. Seven percent of those polled said they were undecided.

Frank Murkowski won by 15%.

There are many more examples but, long story short, for 20+ years, pollsters have consistently had Democrat candidates well above their actual positions.


[ Parent ]
What about Begich in 2008?


[ Parent ]
And Hays polled Knowles accurately in 2004, and I recall polling for Knowles in the 90s...
...proved on the mark in predicting first his election in a 3-way, then his reelection.

I do know Begich underperformed polling in 2008, but that was the Palin factor.

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


[ Parent ]
More data
this looked pretty good overall w/r/t polling for Palin-Knowles
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I don't see the evidence to support your conclusion. It's easy to cite a rogue poll, as they're easier to remember.


[ Parent ]

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