Drew Carey polls better than actual elected officials

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:17:35 PM UTC

Hilarious n/t

23, liberal democrat, SSP Gay Caucus Majority Whip, IN-02 (home), IN-03 (birth), SC-03 (early childhood), IN-09 (college);   DKos: HoosierD42

---

by: HoosierD42 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 18:30:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, if the Price is Right?

Thank you... I'll be here all week.  Try the veal...

Seriously, though, that is really, really sad...

---

by: LordMike @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:31:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably some defections from the McCain camp too

You mention in the last paragraph that some of the Obama voters might not vote for him in 2012.  I think there is a good possibility, and I certainly hope, that some of the people who voted for McCain in 2008 hoping he would govern like the "Maverick" of 2000 will switch over and vote Democratic.

This is especially true if the Republican nominee is not Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, or Mitt Romney.

---

by: ajwagner @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:24:23 PM UTC

I failed to mention

when the other Brown (MA)poll was posted.  Scott Brown was above 50%. I do note that S. Brown is still under 50%.  No not saying either will be re-elected come 2012 but in my 50% is a big number for anyone to poll at this point in time.  Scott is a yes and Sherrod is a no.

PPP found a base of 43%D in this poll.  In 2008 CNN exits found 39% and in 2006 it was 40%D for Ohio? So if one believes this poll is accurate we are looking for a blend of D voters in Ohio  in Nov 2012 that exceeds 2006 & 2008.  

I guess we will see as its pointless to debate that point in March 2011.

I do note that RAS had the R's at +9% generic.  Gallup had party ID at +1R so those numbers are well of whack with what PPP in showing in Ohio.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:24:38 PM UTC

Brown, etc.

I'd take into account that Rasmussen and Gallup were 5 and 8 points off, respectively, in their final generic in '10.

As for Brown, I think he'll be okay.  Circumstances could change, of course, but '12 will see a higher turnout, Kasich could be a drag on whoever the Republicans choose, and labor will be fired up.  Plus, Brown is a pretty good candidate.  He's not Lee Fisher.

---

by: Paleo @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:32:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A fair point BUT

PPP has it as 43D-35R-21I. 2008 had it as 39D-31R-30I. So it's still an eight-point margin between D and R.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:33:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

David

now that's "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say.  I focused more on % of D's as opposed to the gap because PPP, in this poll, has found some a huge shrinkage of indies?  

I note, however, that you are 100% correct in your numbers.  This time PPP had 43-35 partisan gap and last time it was 44R-39D.

David here's the change in ideology

12-10---  40% conservative  42% moderate 18% liberal

3-15   43% Conservative (15% Very-28% somewhat conservative)   moderate 29%  26% liberal 19%Very & 7% somewhat.

Here's one partial ideological ID from 2010. Only 16% of voters in Ohio identified themselves as liberals so 26% is a an increase.  

As I think I said in my post.  What will 2012 look like?  It might look at 2006/2008 or it might not.  This poll does appear to have found more democrats & more liberals then those years.  More republicans too but certainly more democrats.  Of course if Brown leads by 80% among D's and not so much among indies that gap impacts the poll numbers? Justsaying.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:52:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is worth remembering

That most self-identified independents still vote like partisans of one or the other kind, in general, so there is not one self-similar group of "independents".  There are basically-democrats who call themselves independents, basically-republicans who call themselves independents, and actual independents, the latter being the smallest chunk of the three.  So an increase or decrease in the number of indies--either an actual change or a measured one-- doesn't necessarily imply much of a change in terms of actual or measured partisan voting patterns.  Or so my impression is.  Maybe the people who vote like dems but usually call themselves indies were just calling themselves dems in this poll.  Maybe not.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 18:46:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the moderate vote that shrunk, not the conservative vote

Which means even if we made the "correction" (and it's in scare quotes because I don't think it needs to be corrected) that moderates should be higher, guess what? Brown is still in extremely good shape against all comers. If we use PPP's old poll model, assuming that the "Liberal" vote is only 18% and the "moderate" vote is 39% (ignoring the 3% increase in conservatives) the toplines don't change, since Brown is absolutely destroying every Republican among moderates as well as Independents.

So even if you happen to be right (which I don't concede) it doesn't change the validity of the poll.

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 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 18:52:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

great comments from you and the poster above

I don't disagree with either one of them. Naturally with self identification things a little dicey anyway.

I just note the polling differences and leave it that.  2012 is a long way away and what happens then is an open question

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:28:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OH urnout out was even last year

In the best year for Republicans in a decade and a half. Turnout for a presidential election will be higher so it seems likely to me there will be more Democrats than Republicans next year. Say it is half as good as 2008, 37d-33r-30i, then Sherrod Brown will still win even losing indies 55-45 with say 5% of partisans voting for the other party. And I think that is being generous.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:48:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2008, good Dem year, was 39D-31R-30I. 2010, terrible Dem year, was 36D-37R-28I.

So all Brown needs to do is win independents and keep Democrats unified. Right now, he's up big because he's crushing the Republicans among independents. If he can sustain that, he'll win easily.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:38:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is why the 50% rule is stupid

The difference between 49 and 51 in a poll is meaningless. Sure, both incumbents could either lose or win but there is a huge difference between the states they have to run in. And the partisan breakdown of the sample is D+8 as it was in 2008. You are parsing the numbers too much. Though I'm amused you cite the two polls that inflated the generic ballot for Republicans far more than anybody else last November - the GOP margin was about 7 points not 12 and 15 points repspectively. Nice try though.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:25:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks more Lean D than toss-up now

Brown probably won't prevail by 15%+ or even his '06 margin, but the GOP bench here is nothing to write home about. Taylor will be tainted by her Kasich connection and LaTourette won't give-up his House seniority on a long-shot Senate run.

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

---

by: andyroo312 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:30:14 PM UTC

Agree

Unless things get worse for the national party he should be fine.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:52:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's my prediction

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, the day after Obama and Brown are reelected, Brown unofficially starts his 2016 presidential campaign.

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:53:25 PM UTC

Now THAT

Is a campaign I could get on board with!

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 17:57:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed.

Definitely one of my favorite senators.

---

by: marcs @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 18:31:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, who else is there?

Kirsten Gillibrand? Martin O'Malley? Amy Klobuchar?

Hillary and Biden will be too old.

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:20:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think Clinton

would let her age get in her way if she wanted to run.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:22:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She seems a very firm no on everything

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:28:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even in 2008, when she was 61 on Election Day

She would have been the oldest Democratic nominee since Harry Truman in 1948. Republicans nominate geezers; we don't.

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't say she would run.

I said IF she wanted to run. I think her new popularity within the Democratic base would insure her a victory in the primaries IF she were to run, but apparently as of now shes not going to.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:50:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think she'll run either

But even if she were I'd expect her to say exactly what she is saying now.

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:56:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I *do* think she'll run,

in spite of what she's saying. Actually, leaving State in '13 sets her up quite nicely for '16. She can get a little distance from Obama, criticize selectively to reestablish her independence, and start to quietly build a campaign - maybe even get "drafted."

And I think she'd be formidable - both in the primary and the general.

Plus, she'd be younger than McCain was in '08.

---

by: itskevin @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:45:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even at the hight of Obama's unpopularity

she was unaffected. I don't think it would be good for her to criticize him.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:51:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

others

Brian Schweitzer and Mark Warner. Schweitzer is a great speaker, should go over well with swing voters, and is big on energy issues which will be incresingly important. Warner has experience as both a senator and governor, should also do well with independents, and would lock up Virginia.

I think Schweitzer/Gillibrand would be a very strong ticket, although it wouldn't fit very well on a bumper sticker.  

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

increasingly*

nm

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:37:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My personal ideal for '16

(unless Hillary runs)

Warner/Cantwell, the high-tech ticket of the future.

---

by: tietack @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:40:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The big question about Warner

He has a Romney-sized bank account. How much of it would he be willing to spend on a campaign?

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:50:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mark did spend $10 m getting elected VA-Sen in '96

if that's any indication.

That would be at least non-trivial seed money, even in '16.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 00:03:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You mean losing in '96

He also spent money on his '01 campaign for Governor.

---

by: emilysdad @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:25:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

D'oh! brain fart.

thanks for the correction.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:53:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honestly I believe it will be a woman.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:50:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mark Warner

On paper, Mark Warner is almost the perfect candidate. He's reasonable looking (some call him goofy, but he's got a pretty wife, so what do I know?), a nice looking family, executive experience in both the public and private sector, and huge crossover appeal in an important swing state. The little I remember about him makes me think he's uneventful as a speaker, but perhaps than can be changed. If he's not working to mess with Social Security or do something else that's just stupid, he could be a force to reckon with. He'd probably kick the ass of Jindal, Christie, or Rubio all over the Electoral map.


"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:37:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's my dream ticket

Sen. Warner looks great on paper, but that's about all he looks great on, IMO.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:07:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's your problem with him?

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:23:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's not particularly dynamic, IMO

Also, I can't name a single issue that doesn't have to do with the military-industrial complex that he's been a leader on since entering Congress.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:57:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those three...

Plus Govs. Schweitzer and Cuomo, maybe Sen. Mark Udall...

Sen. Sherrod Brown isn't a viable presidential candidate, IMO.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:55:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mark Udall?

I'd prefer the other senator from Colorado.

---

by: emilysdad @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:30:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why?

Sen. Bennet's fine, he's a solid vote, but he's rather on the boring side and he hasn't taken a lot of risks. Sen. Mark Udall has been right out front leading on issues like DADT repeal. I appreciate that.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:58:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

he's also

ineligible to be president

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

---

by: jncca @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 15:41:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah yes...

Easy to forget Sen. Bennet is the nation's first Indian American senator.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He was only born there because his father

was an aide to the US Ambassador to India. Wouldn't they make an exception like they did for McCain?

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 22:26:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I had read that Lowell Weicker was OK

even though he was born in Paris....

and then I read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

George Romney (1907-1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 22:51:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once again

PPP finds very little interest among the young.  In this poll the 18-29 aged voters are 7% of the electorate.

In 2008 they made up 17% of the electorate and in 2004 they made up 21% of the electorate.  

I can do this by state:
Missouri - In 2008 voters 18-29 made up 21% of the electorate, in the PPP poll they make up 10%.
Virginia - in 2008 they made up 21% of the electorate and in 2004 they made up 17%. In the PPP poll they made up 9%.
North Carolina - In 2004 they made up 14% of the electorate and in 2008 they made up 16% of the electorate. In the PPP poll they made up 10%.
Wisconsin: In the PPP poll they made up 10%, in 2008 they made up 22% and in 2004 20%.

SO what to make of this?  My guess is that interest in an election for marginal voters really doesn't change until an event happens to spark their interest.  In 2008 it was the primaries.  In 2012 my guess is that we will not see this trend reverse until the Convention.  As a result trial heats will likely understate true Democratic strength.

---

by: fladem @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 18:27:13 PM UTC

Does PPP poll cell phones?

If not, that could be a big part of the problem. Personally, I don't know anyone at college who has a regular phone so pollsters could be missing a huge part of the 18-29 year olds.

On the other hand, IIRC there was a study done last year that showed that polling cell phones didn't make a huge difference. I think it might be a while before we figure out what the true effect is.

21, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)

---

by: JonathanMN @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 18:56:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PPP can't poll cell phones...

They do a pretty good job of accounting for that, though.  Still, it will be an increasing problem going forward.

---

by: LordMike @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:28:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

None of that

Their crosstabs don't often look anything like actual election results. But the toplines are very accurate.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 19:29:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]