About that New Jersey Governors Poll, Part III

FHQ promised to revisit the recently released Neighborhood Research poll and its August predecessor and gauge the impact those polls would have on the race if they were included in our graduated weighted averages of the polling in the New Jersey governors race. I was going to go the whole nine yards and include a mock-up of the usual graphic I've been putting up with our updates of the New Jersey and Virginia contests. In the interest of clarity, though, I'll hold it to a simple numbers-to-numbers comparison.

I don't think anyone will be surprised by the fact that these polls hurt Chris Christie more than Jon Corzine. That the Republican has pulled in only 37% support among the likely voters in both polls is indicative of how accurate they are. Even when those polls are included amongst the others, they are barely within two standard deviations of the unweighted polling average. Corzine's distribution is much more tightly clustered. Every single one of the 39 polls conducted in this particular match up since the first of the year is within plus or minus one standard deviation of the unweighted average.

I don't want to bog you down with statistical gobbledygook, so this is just a long way of saying that both these Neighborhood Research polls are outliers and both polls put more of a drag on Christie's numbers than on Corzine's.

How much? Well, to be fair, the polls aren't helping Corzine either (other than to decrease Christie's average support). But the incumbent only loses four tenths of a percentage point (from 37.8% to 37.4%) when these polls are added to our averages. However, the comparable figure for Christie is a loss of one point (46.4% to 45.4%). In other words, the polls have twice the negative impact on Christie as on Corzine (at least in terms of FHQ's averaging of the race).

Is that a big deal? Honestly, it isn't, but in an environment where a decreasing margin is expected to some extent (Corzine catching up due to registered Democrats outweighing Republicans in the Garden state), these polls have the effect of inaccurately deflating that gap.

And that, in a nutshell, is why FHQ is looking the other way when these polls are released.

...well, sort of...


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/20/09)

About that New Jersey Governors Poll, Part II

Huckabee Takes 2009 Value Voters Straw Poll

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/20/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

FHQ is averse to taking one poll out of context, but the evidence is mounting in the polling of the Virginia governors race that the contest is tightening as September comes to a close. And in the clearest indication yet that Bob McDonnell's thesis is having an impact on the race, the Washington Post's new survey shows the gap not only closing, but that independent women -- the group of potentially undecided, or at least heretofore undecided, voters most likely to be affected by the thesis revelation -- are moving away from the Republican and helping Creigh Deeds draw closer. In last month's poll, the Post found McDonnell ahead by 28 points among that subsample. Now however, Deeds leads narrowly by three points; a dead heat given the margin of error in the poll (no to mention a larger margin among the subsample).

2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Deeds	McDonnell	Undecided
Washington Post	Sept. 14-17, 2009	+/- 3%	1003 likely voters	47	51	2

And while Deeds is closing the margin between himself and McDonnell, it is important to note that McDonnell is still above the 50% mark in this poll and is only down three points from the Post's survey a month ago. There has been some damage inflicted, yes, but to this point it isn't the type of damage that will take down the Republican's campaign. As the Post points out, the enthusiasm remains higher on the Republican side of this race. Still, if the thesis continues to have the same dampening effect on the former state attorney general it could spell real trouble. However, FHQ contends that the magnitude of the thesis will decay over time. As more voters move from the undecided to decided column, the less chance there is for the thesis to prove a decisive role in their vote choice.

Does Deeds have some momentum? Yes, but Bob McDonnell is still very well positioned (above 50%) in this race.

[Click to Enlarge]

In our averages, the gap between Deeds and McDonnell is under eight points, and as such, Virginia (in the figure at the top) is now not as red as it has been recently.

...but it is still decidedly reddish at the moment.


Recent Posts:
About that New Jersey Governors Poll, Part II

Huckabee Takes 2009 Value Voters Straw Poll

Friday Afternoon Open Thread: The Americano

About that New Jersey Governors Poll, Part II

I think Saturday was a good day for Neighborhood Research to release the results of their most recent poll of the New Jersey gubernatorial race. If people weren't already looking to the Value Voters Summit for a 2012 straw poll, they were planning on watching some football. [Yes, FHQ is aware that there are some people out there who did neither, but we're willing to bet that if you are reading this, you were looking forward to at least one of those.] In any event, it was a good day to sweep last month's snafu under the rug and move on.

New Jersey Gubernatorial Polls
Poll	Date	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Neighborhood Research	Aug. 12-21, 2009	35	37	6	22
Neighborhood Research[pdf]	Sept. 14-17, 2009	33	37	8	22

Yeah, remember their first poll. [Right, the one that led to this post to which this current one is a sequel.] It was the one FHQ was leery of because it showed Corzine ahead (???) and because the pollster was a former campaign manager of a Chris Christie primary opponent, Steve Lonegan. Well, according to Neighborhood Research's release today, that lead wasn't Corzine's; it was Christie's.

...but nevermind that we (Neighborhood Research) didn't bother telling anyone that reported this initial, how shall I put this so that it maintains a modicum of diplomacy, transcription error. Just to prove that I'm not imagining this, let's look at some (still active) screenshots from Pollster and PolitickerNJ from the around the time of the August Neighborhood Research poll.

[Click to Enlarge]

That's the view from Pollster, but how about PolitickerNJ?

[Click to Enlarge]

But if you follow the the link at this post's outset, you'll see that Christie is now the one who held that 37-35 edge during the mid-August period in which the poll was in the field. At the time, I talked about the two issues with the poll* (the Corzine lead and the potential conflict of interest) being two strikes against Neighborhood Research. Well, I think they may have just struck out.

But just so FHQ doesn't seem too jerky, tune back in tomorrow morning and we'll have a glance at how these polls (to this point excluded) would affect our graduated weighted averages of the race.

*And that doesn't even bring into the picture the small sample sizes and this quirky likely voters/definite voters distinction.


Recent Posts:
Huckabee Takes 2009 Value Voters Straw Poll

Friday Afternoon Open Thread: The Americano

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/18/09)

Huckabee Takes 2009 Value Voters Straw Poll

It wasn't a rout, but Mike Huckabee did win the 2009 Value Voters Summit straw poll by a margin greater than any of his opponents received. Huckabee won a plurality of the 597 voters with Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin and Mike Pence all jumbled up behind the former Arkansas governor.

Here's the count (via GOP12):

Huckabee: 28% (~167)*
Romney: 12% (74)
Pawlenty: 12% (73)
Palin: 12% (72)
Pence: 12% (71)
*Raw votes in parentheses (via Jonathan Martin)
------------------------
Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum all split the remaining 24% of the voters. Rick Perry pulled his name off the ballot on Friday.

One thing that struck me as curious was that, in looking back at the 2007 Value Voters straw poll, Romney won and there were approximately ten times as many votes cast. The total two years ago was inflated by online voting whereas this year's poll was comprised of those in attendance.

What does it all mean? Well, the top two are still the same as they were two years ago, but the ordering is reversed. Again though, it is still early yet to be thinking about the 2012 race (despite the fun). One thing that is interesting is that Huckabee's position in these results mirrors some of what we've seen in the 2012 polls conducted thus far. Especially in the case of the general election trial heats against Obama, Huckabee has consistently done the best. Head-to-head in the Republican primary polling, though, the former Arkansas governor has been trading the top honor with both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, with all three clustered atop the list well ahead of all other prospective candidates. Are those general elections trial heats driving this straw poll result or are these the type of voters that are being picked up in and supportive of Huckabee in those polls? It is an interesting question that I don't think we really have an answer to.

Regardless, this is an early feather in Huckabee's 2012 cap.

...but will he decide to run? (See, I told you it was early.)


Recent Posts:
Friday Afternoon Open Thread: The Americano

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/18/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/17/09)

Friday Afternoon Open Thread: The Americano

Newt Gingrich's new site devoted to providing US Hispanics with a bilingual news source with a different take.

"Hispanic Heritage is as rich today in the United States, as it was back in the 1850s when the first bilingual newspapers were printed," states Newt Gingrich. "We think The Americano will provide a much needed traditional values viewpoint that will honor that heritage."

The big question? Was the site created with a 2012 run in mind? What say you, FHQ readers?


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/18/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/17/09)

What if Obama Won the Electoral College 1265-599?*

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/18/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Another day, another poll in Virginia. And while the new Daily Kos/Research 2000 survey of likely voters in the Old Dominion does not show as close a race as yesterday's Rasmussen poll, it seems a rather accurate depiction of where the race is currently: McDonnell is around the 50% mark and Deeds support has rebounded some after a summer swoon followed his initial post-primary boost.

2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Deeds	McDonnell	Undecided
Daily Kos/Research 2000	Sept. 14-16, 2009	+/- 4%	600 likely voters	43	50	7

And the underpinnings of the poll are consistent with that "feels accurate" idea in mind. In the survey, McDonnell is doing about ten points better among Republicans than Deeds is doing among Democrats (89-80, respectively), but Deeds still clings to a small advantage among women (and while that margin is not statistically significant, it is likely a better gauge of the true breakdown among women than other recent polls that have shown that sub-race all over the map. The bottom line is that there just isn't that much of a gender gap in this race.). Most importantly, though, McDonnell continues to best Deeds with independents. The margin in the race may have decreased, then, but McDonnell's position near 50% has not changed. The movement is all with Deeds at this point as the Democratic state senator has made a move into the mid-40s in the most recent two polls.

In FHQ's averages, though, Deeds still comes in below that point while McDonnell is just under 50%.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/17/09)

What if Obama Won the Electoral College 1265-599?*

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to Meet on Sept. 28

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/17/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

It must be the thesis, right?

Maybe, but if the thesis is driving the margins in the polling of the Virginia gubernatorial race lower, we should expect that when a "not this optimistic" poll from the Daily Kos and Research 2000 comes out tomorrow (?) commentators to spin the less favorable results as a function of Deeds' tax comments* at today's debate. [Nevermind the fact that the poll was in and out of the field after those comments were made.] Yes, that's an unfair depiction of the media, but such is life when poll gazing.

2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Deeds	McDonnell	Undecided
Rasmussen	Sept. 16, 2009	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	46	48	5

The undeniable fact is that once the idea of the thesis and what it meant was internalized, the poll numbers began to dip for Bob McDonnell. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the Republican is still in a good position in the Rasmussen poll that was released today. The candidate who should be getting the focus is Creigh Deeds. The Democratic state senator is at his highest point in terms of polling since he led McDonnell in a poll conducted (by Rasmussen) the day after Deeds' victory in the Democratic primary. Taken on its face, then, this result is something of an outlier compared to the recent polling the race.

Are things closer than they were pre-thesis? Yes.

Are they within the margin of error close? That's debatable.

What's clear is that the thesis seems to have closed the gap to some degree. But does Deeds have the momentum? We'll have to see. Internally, I mocked the idea of a Thursday debate, but it was well timed if there happened to be a gaffe of some sort for either candidate (but more so for Deeds since he didn't have a thesis-type revelation already out there). Fridays are typically days to bury some bit of news before the weekend.

The race is closer, but the fundamentals of the race still favor McDonnell overall. The Republican is inching closer to the 50% mark even as Deeds is closing the gap. And that is something not to lose sight of as we head down the home stretch in this one.

[Click to Enlarge]

Surely the good folks at Rasmussen don't follow little ol' FHQ, but it sure sounds like they are being a wee bit defensive/opportunistic with their comment in the write up of the poll above.

"All of those figures include “leaners.” Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate. Premium Members can review the data without leaners and complete demographic crosstabs."

In other words, complain if you wish, but if you want the data, pay up. Duly noted.

...said the employed political scientist still trying to shake the cheap graduate student mindset.

FHQ will say this: I'm glad to see Rasmussen come out with some "information" on how they collect their leaners data. [Hint, hint; nudge, nudge.]

*You absolutely have to love the title to that National Review blog entry.

Recent Posts:
What if Obama Won the Electoral College 1265-599?*

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to Meet on Sept. 28

Early Voting in New Jersey and Virginia?

What if Obama Won the Electoral College 1265-599?*

What?

There is a great article in the New York Times today that discusses a case being brought forth in a federal court in Mississippi that calls foul on the representative disparities in Congress. On the one hand, the entire state of Wyoming is one district with 523,000 people, but a district like Nevada's 3rd contains nearly a million people. Does that disparity mean that one district is more represented than the other? Those bringing the case think so. They propose that the House be expanded to at least 932 seats, but that 1761 seats would better fulfill the one person, one vote principle.

1761 seats!?!

FHQ is plenty satisfied with 435 House elections plus an additional 33 or 34 Senate elections every two years, but why not add 1300 more? More elections would be great for business. In all seriousness, this has been an ongoing issue since the number of seats was held at 435. Will this case go anywhere? It's doubtful but it does raise an interesting question:

We strive to adhere to the one person, one vote ideal within states but not across states. Why? It is ironic that this case is coming through Mississippi. When I was in a Southern politics class with University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock a few years back, we were discussing both how much leeway states get in drawing districts and how much easier that process has become with geographic information systems. And the example he used was Mississippi. Typically, the courts allow states wiggle room of about 5% in terms of the populations in their allotted congressional districts. In a hypothetical state with one million people and two congressional districts you could "get away" with having one district with 512,500 people and the other having 487,500 people for example. [Well, given GIS, that probably isn't realistic as long as the districts are compact and relatively competitive. But you get the point.] So, there's some leeway. As I recall, though, Mississippi didn't just get their four districts down to within 5%. In at least two cases they got them to within 5 people. And none of the four districts had anymore than 14 or 15 people more than any of the other three.

Given that matters can be so precise within the states, then, why is it that we don't insist upon this equality of representation across states? It is curious. Mainly, I'd say that the root of this issue finds its origin at the outset of the republic itself when these matters of representation and the alignment of Congress were bitterly debated. The result was the compromise that gave the US a Senate with an equal number of members from each state and a House with its membership determined by population. In the same way, 435 is a compromise of sorts. It isn't perfect.

...but it does give us enough electoral votes to track.

Hat tip to Rick Hasen at the Election Law Blog for the link.

*Where did those numbers come from? Well, there's no way of accurately knowing how these new districts would be allocated. I could probably figure it out, but used a shorthand calculation instead. Obama won about 68% of the electoral votes last November. After adding in the 100 senatorial electoral votes plus Washington DC's three to the 1761, FHQ found that 68% of 1864 is 1265. Now, that would be fun to track in 2012.

Oh and in the interest of continued fun, I should add that under the 932 seat scenario, there would have been 1035 electoral votes. Using similar math to the above, Obama would have won 702-333.


Recent Posts:
GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to Meet on Sept. 28

Early Voting in New Jersey and Virginia?

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/15/09)

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to Meet on Sept. 28

According to John DiStaso, writing for the New Hampshire Union-Leader, the Republican Party's Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is slated to meet on September 28 to continue discussing the order of 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses. Overall, the group is charged with setting the rules that will govern the entire delegate selection process for the next presidential election cycle. The committee is historic in that it the first time in the modern era that the Republican Party has set its rules for the next cycle in a forum other than the preceding national nominating convention.

Here's the full excerpt from DiStaso:

RATH ON THE COMMITTEE. A bit of presidential primary news here.

Former state RNC member Tom Rath is now a member of the national party's Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, which is trying to figure out a way to alleviate "front-loading" in the 2012 primary/caucus schedule.

Rath said the next meeting is Sept. 28. He also said that the committee's charge is to focus on the order of delegate selection events after New Hampshire's primary.

The party rule that created the delegate selection committee guarantees New Hampshire and South Carolina spots ahead of the pack. It does not address Iowa since its caucus-goers do not directly select delegates. That is done later through a complex process.

Recent Posts:
Early Voting in New Jersey and Virginia?

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/15/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/15/09)

Early Voting in New Jersey and Virginia?

It was nearly one year ago to the day that the first votes were cast in the presidential election. [On September 18, 2008 some areas of the Louisville area in Kentucky began early voting.] The story of the 2008 election was the Obama campaign's organization. Fueled by dedicated and enthusiastic volunteers and savvy campaign operatives, the Obama candidacy excelled throughout the year; from the primaries through the general election. Toward the end of the campaign, a large part of that organization was built around not only get-out-the-vote efforts but on banking votes in states where early voting was allowed. If you can get folks to vote early, those are people you don't have to constantly badger in the last few precious hours of the race to go to their polling stations and vote.

What was exciting about this was that the groundwork for strategy in subsequent campaigns -- presidential and otherwise -- was being laid. At the close of the 2008 election, I was most interested in how the Republican Party would respond in future elections and/or how they would perform in the area of early voting if and when the GOP held an enthusiasm gap advantage. As polls in New Jersey and Virginia throughout 2009 have indicated, there does seem to be a bit more motivation on the right than on the left in both states' gubernatorial elections.

The perfect storm to test this, right?

Well, no. While likely voters in most of the recent polling samples have tilted toward the Republicans -- indicative of a more energized segment of registered voters on the right versus the left -- neither New Jersey nor Virginia have early voting systems in place. Republicans, therefore, cannot bank those early votes and watch as the less-energized Democrats attempt to catch up. No, that's why most of yesterday was spent trading financial figures in Virginia. A $7 million infusion from the RNC will certainly come in handy given the previous $5 million pledge from the DNC and a slight Deeds edge in cash raised over the last couple of months (though the Democrat trails McDonnell in cash on hand). Regardless, both sides will need the cash for a more traditional get-out-the-vote campaign leading up to the November 3 election.

And no, Massachusetts doesn't have early voting either (just absentee voting), so we'll have to wait (past the special election to fill Kennedy's Senate seat) until the early primary election of 2010 to see the effects of early voting at work again.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/15/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/15/09)

"Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk"?