Posted on 09/30/2006 10:13:58 PM PDT by okstate
WASHINGTON — Democrats are slightly ahead of Republican incumbents in three election battleground states that will help determine control of the Senate, a series of polls released Sunday showed.
In Montana, Democrat Jon Tester had the support of 47 percent of registered voters, while incumbent Republican Sen. Conrad Burns had the support of 40 percent.
In Ohio, Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown had 45 percent of registered voters, while incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine had 43 percent.
In Tennessee, Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. had 43 percent, and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, the Republican Senate nominee, had 42 percent.
Democrats probably must win all three races if they’re to take back control of the Senate on Nov. 7. They need to gain six seats overall, and these three are among the six seats held by Republicans that are considered most vulnerable.
Another Republican incumbent, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, was locked in a 43 percent to 43 percent dead heat with Democratic challenger James Webb, according to a poll released Friday by McClatchy Newspapers and MSNBC.
The surveys underscored how much these states are up for grabs and how much rides on the final five weeks of campaigning. The work of both major parties to get their supporters to turn out on Election Day could prove decisive. One in 10 voters remain undecided in Montana and Ohio, 12 percent in Virginia and 14 percent in Tennessee.
The polls were all conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. for newspapers in each of the states — Lee Newspapers in Montana, the Cleveland Plain Dealer in Ohio and the Memphis Commercial Appeal and Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee. Each state poll was of 625 registered voters and had an error margin of plus or minus four percentage points. The polls were taken between Monday and Thursday.
Mason-Dixon conducted a broader series of polls for McClatchy Newspapers and MSNBC in seven other closely fought Senate battleground states. Virginia results were released Friday, and the other six will be released Monday.
First, we are on the defensive this year. In a normal year, we wouldn't be talking about keeping our majority, but of expanding it.
Second, of these three states, I feel very good about TN, good about OH and hopeful about MT.
TN - The Democrat is 1 point ahead, but is in the low 40s. With a decent campaign by Corker, the Republicans of this state will come home to Corker.
OH - DeWine is two points down. The state is slightly Republican, but our guy is tainted by the curroption of Ney and Taft. In the end, I think the people of the state will figure out guilt by association is not reason enough to vote for the Democrat.
MT - This one is going to be tougher. Burns is not only behind by a half dozen points or so, his approval rating is in the low 40s. He has some direct connections with Abramoff. The state is not as Republican as its vote in the President might indicate (it has a Democrat Senator, a Democrat Governor, a Democrat state Senate and an exactly split state House). The one good thing Burns has going for him is that the Democrats nominated a tree-hugging left-wing wacko.
As of now, I am thinking that MT and PA are possible pick-ups for the other side, and NJ and RI are toss-ups.
PS In my congressional district, the Democrats are running against the "do nothing Congress," and not against the incumbent Republican Congressman. This is understandable because hardly anybody in the country has a good opinion abaout the Congress. But, as to why the Congress is performing badly is another thing. The majority of the people of this district can be persuaded that putting another left-wing Democrat into the Congress will mess things up more.
And, in neighboring Maryland, the Democrats are running against George W. Bush for Governor. It is understandable that they would want to do this, since the state is tilted Democrat. But, it will be easy for Governor Erlich to point out they are running against President Bush because and not him, because he has done a good job.
Charlie Crist will win with 15 to 20 percent of the vote. The state of Florida is trending more and more Republican, has a pro-business / low tax environment, and minorities easily assimilate into the middle class. We should be able to retain all of our Congresional seats in this state, including the seat formerly held by Foley, as well as our solid majorities in the state legislature. In a normal year, we would be competitive against an incumbent Democrat in the Senate race. Even this year, Katherine Harris will close fast in the final two weeks, and make the Senate race interesting.
These results are essentially what I expected. If anything, it answers the question why the GOP has been throwing significant money at MO, OH and TN of late.
What I see right now is a first-tier of Dem pickups being PA and MT, where the Dem candidates hold fairly solid leads outside MOE. The second-tier is OH, MO and TN, RI should probably be there as well, but RI polling is total garbage, so I'm never quite sure. These are toss-ups all told. VA then follows and AZ and NV are probably mostly off the radar.
FYI, the MSNBC/McClaskey poll on Virginia doesn't look like a typical Mason-Dixon poll for a number of reasons.
First, the poll has too many generic questions about Bush and Congress and not specific questions concerning the candidates. Second, the poll was conducted over five days, not over three. Also, the results of that Virginia poll are still not linked to on their website, btw, either, which they always do for their results.
This leads me to think the questions were created by MSNBC/McClaskey and that M-D just conducted the surveys. Compare the Virginia (MSNBC) poll with the Tennessee one just released.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15047082/
http://www.tfponline.com/MEDIA/PDF/CorkerFordPoll.pdf
Uh, my point is not to see conspiracies in everything. I don't think this is a case of that. Mason-Dixon is the best state polling company out there, bar none. Rasmussen is below that, imo.
What is probably happening here is that MSNBC/McClaskey wanted to conduct some polls and wanted to ask the best state polling company to conduct the poll. But MSNBC/McClaskey wanted to ask the questions. Mason-Dixon is getting paid regardless, so they're obviously going to conduct the poll no matter what the questions are.
What's kind of curious is that in 2004, MSNBC paid M-D to conduct state polls and let them ask the questions. Maybe, they will in the other polls (we've only seen VA). But this one looks like what I was talking about above. However, it does mean the poll was probably conducted properly (good poll-questioners, etc), so the poll is definitely not worthless, at all.
If Corker (Tennessee) does not wise up and move away from looking like he is still tied to his momma's apron strings, he is going to get beat by a member of one of the most corrupt families in Tennessee history. In almost every commercial, Corker comes across as still having to consult his momma on every issue (where is his WIFE?), as a slightly bored rich ivy-league college boy harping on illegal immigration (which Ford is beating him on the head about on account of his own unanswered illegal immigrant work site problems which he seems oblivious to and hesitant to answer). Ford is creaming him with his cheap hit-piece commercials, but Corker trudges on determinedly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with his endless "tributes to momma" and hypocritical sounding illegal immigration commercials. A lot of Ford's mud is sticking, and if Corker continues to ignore it (as Republicans tend to do), he is going to need to prepare a concession speech for election night.
Corker's momma seems like a real nice lady, but is time for him to either put up or shut up and decide whether or not he really wants to win.
Hastert gets complaints about his 435 members on a daily basis, along with having to handle big stuff like Iran and tax issues.
The emails were innocuous earlier yet people like you keep insisting that Hastert knew all the details. Do you expect him to follow up on every email that his members get that look suspicious regarding sex, bribery, treason, campaign funding, etc. etc. etc. Ridiculous.
As soon as the hard evidence turns up he dumps the guy. But you keep buying the MSM propoganda just like they want you to do. Sad that our side isn't smarter.
Mason-Dixon only got one outcome wrong in the last election, not "several."
That's untrue. Gallup has Clinton winning by 11 -- he won by 8, well within the margin of error. The only poll that eleciton to be outside the margin of error was conducted by CBS News.
I agree that DeWine has improved. But I don't see any hope for Burns and Corker has lost ground.
That's what I'm hoping, too.
I agree about Ohio in a way, but I still view it as a trouble spot.
As for Burns, his approval ratings are disastrous (36 percent in latest Survey USA tracking on Sept 26. 57 disapprove.) I'm sorry, but there's no way he's going to win reelection with those number. And it's not like Montanas don't elect the liberal Max Baucus every six years anyway. I just can't see Burns winning.
What is your congressional district?
That is odd about the Virginia poll. I agree with your assessment of the Senate right now. I guess though that we'll be seeing all the other M-D polls soon.
LS, you are right about the polls prior to just before the election. In all the recent elections, Republicans "came from behind" to close the gap (although not in a monotonic fashion, as sometimes the Democrat rebounded as Al Gore did in 2000). The fact that polling companies continue to survey through the campaign, enables them to claim they are "right" (meaning, within the "margin of error") a high percentage of the time (but not as frequently as sampling theory would imply).
Based on this history, we can suppose the following: 1. For whatever reason, Republicans tend to do better than early polling "predicts;" and, 2. Polling, thusfar, is a bit biased even among good companies (such as Gallup [nationwide] and Mason-Dixon [statewide]) (as distinct from Research2000 and - ohmyGod - the Minneapolis Star-Tribune).
With respect to 1996, the fact that more than a dozen reputable polls overpredicted Clinton's number means that their combined poll was well out of the margin of error for the implied sample (of about 10,000). The same thing occured with the Exit Polls of 2000 and 2004. The odds that these polls have overpredicted the Democrat vote by more than the margin of error in three consecutive Presidential races are too low to be dismissed as coincidence.
In fact, the consortium involved in the Exit Poll has itself concluded that their poll suffers some bias, which they are hoping to rectify by having their survey-takers "look like America," instead of being predominately liberal Democrats. However, I don't think the problem is isolated to the fact that their bottom people are predominately of one persuasion, but that all their people are predominately of that persuasion.
Honestly the last time I can remember a Senate incumbent behind in all the polling only to win on election day was Bob Smith from NH in 1996.
The polls showing GOP candidates behind in:
RI
PA
OH
MO
MT
mean these candidates will lose. Only MO might be a surprise.
Polls are not usually off by that much. In the final month of the 2004 election Bush was never over 50 but he never trailed Kerry either. He was consistently ahead by 1-3 points. I do believe Dick Morris' claim that Undecided either dont vote or they break slightly towards the incumbent. The theory of undecided breaking towards the challenger hasnt happened since the 1990s
Too late for Foley's seat, it is going DEM. It will go back to the GOP in 2008.
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.