The Darcy Burner campaign has released a second in-house poll for WA-1 (and accompanying memo). And it looks very good for Burner on the Democratic side.
Campaigns normally don’t release internal polls unless there is some advantage to doing so. So we’ll look at the positives, and then read between the lines for the rest.
The good new for Burner is that she leads the Democratic pack:
Among primary voters who vote for one of the Democratic candidates on the initial ballot, Darcy Burner currently leads the pack with a decisive lead. Burner leads with nearly half of the vote (45%), followed by Laura Ruderman (15%), Steve Hobbs (13%), Suzan DelBene (12%), Roger Goodman (10%), and Darshan Rauniyar (5%).
More good:
Moreover, Burner is well-regarded among primary election voters who pick a Democratic candidate in the initial ballot. More than half (54%) of these voters have a favorable opinion of Burner, while 9% have an unfavorable opinion. DelBene is less well known, with 21% of voters having a favorable impression of her. Seventeen percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Ruderman. A majority of these Democratic voters have no impression of Ruderman or DelBene, while most are familiar with Burner.
The findings are consistent with the previous internal poll released by the Burner campaign.
What these numbers tell us is that, contrary to certain media naysayer, Darcy is the front-runner among Democrats in this race.
These results debunk, what I’ll call, the Connelly meme, named after the Darcy Burner naysayer-in-chief, SeattlePI.com’s Joel Connelly. Joel has, of late, has made something of a specialization in portraying Burner as an outside interloper—as some kind of ultra-liberal Daily Kos Manchurian Candidate destined to be an also-ran. The Connelly meme is bullshit.
The new poll results bode well for Darcy Burner in a Democratic primary race.
Unfortunately, Washington state doesn’t have a Democratic primary. Rather, we have this top-two primary. And that brings me to what this poll doesn’t tell us.
Take a look at the poll methods:
These findings are based on 504 telephone interviews with a random sample of likely 2012 primary election voters in Washington’s new 1st Congressional District. Interviews were conducted from January 23-26, 2012. Sampling error is +/- 4.4%.
What we never learn is how many of the 504 interviewees chose to not select one of the Democratic candidates. There were two Republican candidates in the race when the poll was taken (one has since dropped out), yet we don’t see numbers for these candidates, or an “other” category if the pollster made a (dubious) decision to not name Republican candidates as well.
The absence of reporting on the Republican (or “other”) tally in a poll of “likely 2012 primary voters” is telling. It suggests to me that the “votes” for non-Democrats matched or exceeded those for the Democratic candidates. That is, the numbers don’t make Darcy look strong enough in a general election that the campaign was willing to release ’em.
The numbers support the idea that Darcy is the Democratic front-runner, but it leaves me feeling a little bit nervous about the prospects that any Democrat will be taking the district.
I look forward to seeing some independent polling in the race.
Darcy is going to be a U.S. Representative. She hugs rabbits, too! Suck my cute cottontail, wingnuts.
I’m not sure how Darcy doesn’t run as the Democratic candidate after a top-two primary where she is the Dem front-runner. No TWO Republicans are going top her and neither will any Democrat, so how would she not be the candidate?
BTW, I think I’m still WA-08 after the redistricting, so I won’t be able to vote for her.
Is it a coincidence that Darcy released a skewed, campaign-sponsored poll on the same day her weak fundraising numbers were reported? No.
The poll in question is completely useless. It surveys Democrats in an OPEN primary. You can’t possibly get accurate information when using a polling methodology that doesn’t correlate with the voting methodology. Plus, we don’t know what questions were asked, etc. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
Well, its just the first poll out there on the district. I’m sure others will come in soon with more detail. All that has to happen is for ONE of the Democratic contenders to come in at least second against the REpublican candidate, and for the Republican candidate to get less than 50% of the total vote. That puts the contest into a general election. Since only one Republican is running, that pretty much assures as Democrat of a slot in the general election. Darcy (or any other Democrat) doesn’t have to come in first. They just have to stay ahead of the third-place finish, and make sure the Republican doesn’t get over 50% of the total vote.
Why would holding the Republican to under 50% matter? Obviously you want them under 50% going into the general but it hardly seems necessary.
3.
no kidding.
who the hell believes or puts any faith in a poll conducted BY a candidate – which just happens to show that candidate in the lead.
what a load of crap…of course it gets lapped up by the burner lemmings like kitten and and a bowl of cream….
nothing like a “darcy is in the lead” poll to get goldy to break out his jizz rag…again.
Brian,
“Is it a coincidence that Darcy released a skewed, campaign-sponsored poll on the same day her weak fundraising numbers were reported?”
Weak fundraising numbers? Democratic candidates in the first raised a total of $343,000 for the Oct to Dec 2011 period just reported. Darcy raised much more than any of the other candidates ($127,875 compared to Laura Ruderman $76,184 in second place).
“The poll in question is completely useless. “
No…actually it is useful for some things; worthless for others.
“It surveys Democrats in an OPEN primary.”
Wrong. It surveyed ALL primary voters. It only REPORTED the Democratic results. The latter fact was one of my criticisms of it.
“You can’t possibly get accurate information when using a polling methodology that doesn’t correlate with the voting methodology.”
Perhaps…but you misunderstand the methodology, so you aren’t really standing on firm ground critiquing the usefulness of the results.
“Plus, we don’t know what questions were asked, etc. It doesn’t pass the smell test.”
It is unfortunate that all of the methods and findings were not released. However generally internal pollsters don’t get credibility by misleading their client. The problem with internal polls usually isn’t bias in the methods used. Rather it is bias in releasing the information. That is, we only see the polls released that are good for the client.
In this vein, I note that Susan DelBene also had a poll in the field recently. Her campaign chose to NOT release it. Why? It very likely wasn’t to their advantage. Probably because it found what the Lake Assoc. poll found. That’s their prerogative.
@6 Candidates don’t conduct polls, idiot. They hire pollsters to conduct polls. Why would any candidate pay for a doctored poll? What good is fake information? You’ve gotta be a wingnut because you’re too stupid to be anything else.
@8
are you really that stupid that you dont know the answer to that question?
wow….just….wow….
I was gonna help you out and lay the answer out for you, but you know what old man? This is one you are gonna have to figure out for yourself.
lets see if you can!