Cantwell's pro-war stance aids GOP bid for Senate (Is the MSM reporting this?)

The Washington Times ^ | 7-18-06 | Donald Lambro

[GianniV]

Campaign analysts say the Republican Party's chances of defeating Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington have improved significantly as the Democrat has been forced to fend off rivals opposed to the war in Iraq. Polls show Republican business executive Mike McGavick has moved within striking distance of Miss Cantwell, who this month persuaded one of her Democratic primary challengers to join her campaign. "Two things are going on here," said Mr. McGavick. "One, we're getting better known and people know what my message is and that's building support as we go along. On the other side of the equation, Cantwell continues to face a barrage of aggressive questions from Democrats on her support for the war. "That is having the effect of pulling her support down," said Mr. McGavick, who has spent the bulk of his $4.6 million campaign funding on TV ads to introduce himself to voters. A Rasmussen poll on June 13 showed the former chief executive officer of Safeco Insurance Cos. trailing Miss Cantwell by 44 percent to 40 percent, but a Republican Strategic Vision poll conducted between June 23 and 25 had her leading by three points, 47 percent to 43 percent. Miss Cantwell "is facing a tough challenge from ... one of the strongest candidates Republicans have recruited this cycle," Senate elections analyst Jennifer E. Duffy wrote in the Cook Political Report. Miss Cantwell first has to win the state's Democratic primary in September, which she is expected to do, and then will have to overcome at least two more anti-war candidates who are expected to steal support in the November general election.

[GianniV]

I haven't seen Bill Schneider on CNN or the Washington Compost talking about this. I thought all Democrat seats were "safe" in '06?

[LS]

If McGavick is within 3%, that's MOE. Now, I don't think he's ahead yet, but the trend is our friend.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

The Democrat Party is going to be beat to a pulp this November, and that has always been the case. No one with any kind of a sane brain would vote for these cut & run traitors who would not lift a finger to defend America!!!

[DM1]

I sincerely doubt all Dem seats are "safe" NJ, MD and Minnessota and even MI are either in play or potentially in play.

[MikeA]

Trust me, I worked in polling and Bill Schneider is considered a massive joke in the industry.

[okstate]

The trend in Washington polling strongly favors McGavick.

Strategic Vision had Cantwell up 10 in late March -- that's down to four now.

Rasmussen had her up 13 in March -- that's down to four now, as well.

Granted we'll have to fend off the King County voter fraud machine, but McGavick will end up winning this one in the end, I think.

[tflabo]

I hope every single conservative in Washington state gets to the polls and dumps Cantwell-(D). The Dems in that state need to be smacked down but good for all their shenanigans. That congress creep McDermott neads to be term limited for good also.

[LS]

I absolutely do not accept any polls from Rasmussen. He may have been right on the money in 2004, but he was so far off in 2000 and, my recollection is, also in 2002, that he'd have to have a winning streak for me to have any faith in his work.

Don't forget, Zogby was dead on in 1996, then was completely off in 2000.

Moreover, I think ALL of these polls are, for a reason I can't yet explain, consistently underestimating the GOP candidates. What I am suspicious about, especially with Ras, is that ALL of his total numbers are way, way down (in the 80% range sometimes). So that's 20% of the voters unaccounted for. Which 20%? That would be important.

[Soul Seeker]

Well, take into consideration this is the state that had a Governor's seat stolen so to avoid this McGavick will have to win by a larger margin then Rossi and Republicans will have to actually monitor voting sites a hell of a lot better then in 2004.

But, no, this seat isn't safe for Cantwell. McGavick's run a better campaign then I imagined would occur at the start. He's basically running an an anti-establishment/anti-status quo candidate. Blasting the D.C. culture as being more interested in partisan bickering then their constituents back home. If McGavick wins, in part, the victory could, rightly, be chalked up as backlash against the leadership in both parties...which is what the Democrats were hoping these campaigns would be about. But they apparently didn't figure that sentiment would possibly bite them in the butt.

Yes, he's running on issues but the overall theme of the campaign is positive and against the D.C. establishment. That sells here. IMO, it would sell everywhere because the majority of Americans, despite what the Dems want to believe Congressional polls indicate, dislike both parties right now. They are receptive to "outsiders" in Washington...actual "Mavericks"...which McCain decidely is not.

Meanwhile Cantwell has to deal with Liberal activists that want out of the war now, and voting Liberals that hate the war but don't believe we can irresponsibly pick up and leave now. So, she's being challenged. Doesn't help that she have never been a very effective politician and certainly doesn't market as well as McGavick.

[NavyCanDo]

I tuned in Air America on the drive in and there was some real concern on their part about November. They admitted that the chief reason they could loose is their stance on the war. Talk like a hawk and loose votes, talk like a cut-and runner, and loose votes.

[okstate]

2000 was Rasmussen's first election cycle (and he was off in our direction). Maybe it just took his company a couple of elections to learn the ropes better?

Regardless, all the major polling companies are fairly accurate (to within a few percentage points - except for the Minnesota Star-Tribune) and that's really all there is to it. Mason-Dixon, SurveyUSA, Strategic Vision, Rasmussen, Research 2000, it doesn't really matter.

In his last ten Senate polls, Rasmussen has found an average of 11 percent that do not choose the Republican or Democratic candidate. In the last ten non-Rasmussen Senate polls posted on Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the average percentage not indicating either a Dem or Repub is 16. If anything Rasmussen pushes undecideds harder than companies like SurveyUSA, AP/IPSOS, and the like. Also even if Rasmussen is leaving out a segment of the population, look at his national job approval numbers for President Bush versus those of other major outlets. He finds Bush at 42 percent now, while TIME has him at 35, Gallup at 40, AP/IPSOS at 36 and FOX News at 36.

I just don't see any reason to dismiss any of the major polling companies out of hand given their track records, the only exception being, of course, the Star-Tribune's Minnesota Poll.

[LS]

Gerald Wasserman surveyed ALL the polling organizations in 1996 and found them ALL to be so far off as to be unbelievable (most were off by 3-4% on their finals). Moreoever---and this was what Wasserman really nailed---they were all off to the left. Now, I simply do not trust ANY pollster who is always, consistently, off to either side. The fact that Ras was off "in our direction" in 2000 merely shows he was as bad as the others. An accurate pollster would have a small MOE and be off in BOTH directions from time to time to be trustworthy.

And one cannot go by the final poll #s (as so many here on FR cite, esp. with Ras in 2004) as they all tended to dramatically adjust their numbers to get in line with what they really knew the numbers were. A better long-term assessment would be to look at the polls shift in the last month.

But I won't keep arguing polls with people here at FR. Try reading "Mobocracy," which is a pretty good analysis of the polling business, and not just polls about campaigns, but of everything, and you'll find that polling is incredibly unreliable.

The fact that Ras is so low on all these polls suggests to me that regardless of how he "pushes" people, they are uninterested at this time, and contrary to the "conventional wisdom," no one really knows HOW uninterested people vote in November. Last minute news apparently has a HUGE impact: consider that Spencer Abraham was down DOUBLE DIGITS going into the last weekend in his first Senate race, and won; or that most "experts" agree that the DUI charge cost Bush close to 1 million votes in 2000, making the race not close at all (according to Dem Bob Beckel).

For what it's worth, my prediction remains: the GOP wins +1 Senate seat (perhaps +2 or even +3), and +1 to +5 House seats.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

The Democrat Party should be absolutely and finally destroyed by American voters this November. I am not a hater, by nature, but I hate every one of them. Why? Because every night I pray to the Lord to protect our men and women in harms way, and these bastards (Democrats) have done nothing but enable, abet and aid our enemies, and in doing so, they have caused unecessary deaths and woundings to our military folks and thousands of innocents, both American and Iraqi citizens, including children. Can you just imagine if this country all pulled together fighting the war on terror? These Democrats are guilty of treason and are traitors to the USA and our future. IMHO, May everyone who is a Democrat burn in Hell for eternity!!! My heart aches for each and every serviceperson that died, so they (the Democrats) could play politics over pulling together for the good of our country.

[muleskinner]

+1 to +5 House seats.

That's quite optimistic compared to MSM reports. What are your reasons?

[LS]

What are yours? Find me the seats we'll lose. I can't. Most people think we'll pick up Bean's seat in IL; and the three most vulnerable GOP seats are Ney (OH), Hoestettler (IN), and Shaw (FL). But Hoestettler ALWAYS seems vulnerable and always wins. There are some 5-7 Dem seats we've identified as vulnerable---but again, this is JULY. Nothing, nothing, NOTHING in the war on terror or national security can help the Dems in any way shape or form.

They would have to count on some massive domestic upheaval (gas going to $5 a gallon, or some huge scandal), or otherwise the news cycle is against them too.

[Merta]

Sounds like Lamont fever has hit Washington State.