Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Zogby confirms what poll rumors said: Santorum closing in hard on Casey
Wall Street Journal via National Review Online: The Sixers ^ | 9/10/06 | Alex Charyna, et al

Posted on 09/10/2006 10:31:42 PM PDT by dangus

Zogby and the Wall Street Journal released a poll only two weeks after their last one.

It represents a loss of 3.5 for Casey and a gain of 1.2% for Santorum. The Romanelli factor is unknown. Casey's lead has dropped from 9% in July and August to 4.1% today.

The margin of error for poll was 3.3%.

The polling was done between August 29th and September 5th, which means that only the last three days of polling would have covered the Meet the Press debate. The Casey performance's effect on this poll may be minimal.

A 4.1% difference is closer to the Casey internal of 3% than any other poll taken in over a year. In fact, the only poll closer than this was Keystone's poll in March of 2005. There was some speculation that the Casey internal poll was a fake one. It's also way closer than Gallup's 18 point margin.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: 109thcongress; 2006; 2006elections; 2006polls; casey; congress; dangus; election2006; elections; midtermelections; pennsylvania; poll; polls; santorum; sauce; senate; ziggyzogbyoyoyoy; zogby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last
The above is the NR's article. WSJ is not making their report generally available, so I'm not going to steer traffic to them.

I don't know why NR said the debate performance effect may be minimal. It's true, but since another very recent Zogby poll showed a huge gap, it's at least equally likely that the swing towards Santorum is far larger than the poll can capture; perhaps a poll taken September 3rd-5th would show Santorum even stronger.

1 posted on 09/10/2006 10:31:44 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangus

Its zogby, so you gotta take it with a grain of salt.


2 posted on 09/10/2006 10:36:09 PM PDT by BoBToMatoE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Just like Hillary, Kerry and lots of other libs, the more the public sees of them the less they like them. So, I'm for Casey getting out there all he can. Casey is just getting exposed as being an empty suit.


3 posted on 09/10/2006 10:37:36 PM PDT by bpjam (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida - The Religion of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BoBToMatoE

Well, yes, but it's not ONLY Zogby. Within the last couple of days, an internal poll for Casey supposedly also reported Santorum closing in... only 3 points back.

Besides, Zogby is known for tilting left.


4 posted on 09/10/2006 10:37:46 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus; fieldmarshaldj

Is this another Ziggy Zogby Ziggy Zogby Oy Oy Oy crack-for-the-weak "Interactive" Internet poll?


5 posted on 09/10/2006 10:38:34 PM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I'm now calling for the Republicans to be as likely to gain Senate seats as they are to lose them; and for two of the losses to actually be beneficial to the GOP.

My take is that the Democrats will defeat their best friends in Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee. That's right: Both these losses will actually BENEFIT the Republican party.

Meanwhile, we pick up Tom Kean in New Jersey, who is likely to be RINO-ish, but not likely to seek the destruction of the conservative movement the way Chafee and DeWine did... And I'm very bullish, actually, on Steele in Maryland.

The Republican party could still very well lose in Montana, Missouri, or Pennsylvania, or who knows, even Tennessee. But I doubt it, especially Tennessee. On the other hand, they could also gain in Michigan, Minnesota, or Washington.


6 posted on 09/10/2006 10:44:51 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Zogby polls are inherently suspect, whether or not their results are favorable.


7 posted on 09/10/2006 10:45:15 PM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Yes. It's the same methodology that Zogby's using to show Allen trailing Webb and that had Carter within a few points of Ensign in Nevada. Pure Zogby special sauce.


8 posted on 09/10/2006 10:46:22 PM PDT by Steve_Stifler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangus

If we accept this poll, we have to accept yet another Zogby poll that shows Allen losing to Webb, this time by 7 points. We also have to believe that in Arizona, Kyl is only up 7, that Steele is down by double digits in Maryland, that Minnesota is farther from flipping than Arizona, that New Jersey is tied, that DeWine will lose, than Corker is only up 3 in Tennessee, that Kay Bailey Hutchison is up only 8 in Texas, and that Cantwell is only up 8.

In fact, out of 18 of this last series of Zogby/WSJ polls, only the polls in Connecticut, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, and MAYBE Ohio and Tennessee are even close to accurate. 5 to 7 out of 18 is not a great track record when measured against all the other pollsters out there.

Kyl is up by more than ten, Mfume probably won't win the primary in Maryland, Stabenow is up at least 8 if not 10, Ensign leads by tons in Nevada, Kean is up in New Jersey by 3 or 4, Casey leads by at least 6 in PA, Hutchinson is up 20 or 25 in Texas, Allen is up 4 or 5 in VA, Cantwell is up 17 (according to both Survey USA and Rasmussen), and Kohl is up probably 20+ in WI.

If anything the fact that Zogby shows Santorum closing in on Casey leads me to believe that Santorum is falling farther behind. That's how wacky these SELF-SELECTING Zogby polls are. I mean really. Kay Bailey up only 8 in Texas? Yeah, right.


9 posted on 09/10/2006 10:46:43 PM PDT by okstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Again... this only further validates earlier reports! Geesh! You guys act like I accused your wives of having affairs!


10 posted on 09/10/2006 10:47:04 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I just wanted to say

Ziggy Zogby Ziggy Zogby Oy Oy Oy


11 posted on 09/10/2006 10:49:27 PM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Your predictions are fairly reasonable... but Montana and Pennsylvania are more likely to flip parties than Maryland or New Jersey.

As for Minnesota, Kennedy has never lead and Klobuchar has not dropped below 47 percent since April.

Michigan? Bouchard got a primary bounce, but he's never led and has never polled above 43 percent. Meanwhile the last four polls from MI show an average of 10 point lead for Stabenow. Heck, Allen and Corker will lose before Stabenow does.

And Washington? Thanks to Mike McGavick, Cantwell is heading for another six years in DC. (Two SurveyUSAs and a Rasmussen all show her up 17)


12 posted on 09/10/2006 10:50:50 PM PDT by okstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: okstate

So, essentially, you are proving that Zogby tilts strongly to the left, and you are using that as evidence that a poll that shows a Republican resurgence in Pennsylvania really means trouble.

Incidentally, yes, I do believe that COrker is in a tight one, that DeWine will lose, that NJ is (almost) tied, Minnesota is more than 7 points apart (currently), and that Cantwell is up by 8 or fewer. And given the way Zogby handles pre-primary polls, the Steele numbers don't bother me.


13 posted on 09/10/2006 10:52:01 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: okstate

McGavick had a huge scandal with DUI, but now Cantwell has been exposed with lobbyist corruption, so Washington is back in play.

Most polls show Kean winning in NJ. Montana's a little scary, but the fundamentals are in place for a huge comeback, now that 527 money is out of play.

This thread is amazing. Every poster so far is far more certain of Democratic success than the Democratic pollsters. A crowd of cheerleaders for an automobile accident.


14 posted on 09/10/2006 10:55:33 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus

No, I'm proving that Zogby tilts strongly in the direction of insanity.

I neglected to mention that he shows Nelson in FL up only 18, when Katherine Harris will surely lose by at least 30 if not 40. For that matter, he's at least 5 points off on the NY race and he is way underestimating Cantwell and Kohl's support.

So to summarize... slanted to the left in AZ, MD, NJ, and VA, TX, maybe TN... slanted to the right in FL, MI, NY, PA, WA, WI

He's off all over the place


15 posted on 09/10/2006 10:56:35 PM PDT by okstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BoBToMatoE
Its zogby, so you gotta take it with a grain of salt.

That's for sure.

16 posted on 09/10/2006 10:58:07 PM PDT by DuxFan4ever (The next rational liberal I meet will be the first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus

"McGavick had a huge scandal with DUI, but now Cantwell has been exposed with lobbyist corruption, so Washington is back in play."

"DUI" is a lot easier for the media to play up than a very confusing and twisted lobbyist scandal. That's a simple fact of what's more likely to play on the minds of voters who aren't that interested in politics.

"Most polls show Kean winning in NJ."

I agree. Zogby has Menendez up .2 percent, which is more reason to distrust all his polls.

"Montana's a little scary, but the fundamentals are in place for a huge comeback, now that 527 money is out of play."

You may be correct here. But Zogby inexplicably has chosen not to poll Montana this year, so we can't say within this framework.

"Every poster so far is far more certain of Democratic success than the Democratic pollsters."

Calling Zogby a "Democratic pollster" or (even a "pollster" for that matter) is a little overdramatic. He's nothing more than a pundit -- not a scientific pollster. This is why his "final election poll" last time was not released until late in the afternoon on election day, after a couple of rounds of exit polling were public! He will manipulate his numbers in any way necessary to get what he wants, and that's the mark of a dishonest and bad pollster.


17 posted on 09/10/2006 11:00:43 PM PDT by okstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BoBToMatoE

"Its zogby, so you gotta take it with a grain of salt."

I don't take it with a grain of salt.

I add 4 to 6 points for liberal bias and come out with the correct outcome of the election. Too bad the Einsteins over at Zogby haven't figured this out yet. It's almost like they enjoy being wrong.


18 posted on 09/10/2006 11:01:18 PM PDT by incredulous joe (“I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself.” - St. Thomas More)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Time to do the Zogby Dance!!


19 posted on 09/10/2006 11:05:13 PM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
If Santorum can pull this victory off in Blue PA, he instantly becomes a very interesting Presidential candidate.
20 posted on 09/10/2006 11:06:29 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson