After only a month on the air and a few weeks on the ground actively campaigning, US Sen. Maria Cantwell has widened her net approval rating from a mere 5 to 6 point margin in June and July to a healthy 17 point margin in August.
At 55% to 38%, Sen. Cantwell not only sits comfortably above the 50 percent approval mark where incumbents want to be, but also matches her highest approval rating over the past year in the monthly SurveyUSA poll. By comparison, both her approval and net approval ratings rank Sen. Cantwell in the middle of the pack amongst senators nationally, and several points above WA’s Sen. Patty Murray, who easily won reelection in 2004.
But a look at the cross tabs is even more instructive. Sen. Cantwell’s approval amongst self-identified “liberal” voters jumped from 60% to 34% in July to 76% to 18% in August… a stunning 32 point increase in net approval margin in only a single month, and the best approve/disapprove numbers she’s scored over the past 15. Sen. Cantwell’s bounce amongst “Democrats” is nearly as pronounced, climbing from a 62% to 31% margin to 73% to 19%.
The conclusion: ninety days before the election, Sen. Cantwell’s base has come home.
According to SurveyUSA, Sen. Cantwell’s approval rating now sits at or above the magic 50% mark amongst both men and women, and in all regions, age groups, education levels and races except Asian. She enjoys 52% approval with independents and 63% with moderates, while her disapproval amongst Republicans and conservatives is significantly softer than her approval amongst Democrats and liberals respectively.
Sure, this is just a single poll in a single month, and a lot can change between now and November, but none of the trends look very good for Republican challenger Mike!™ McGavick right now. His campaign tried to make hay about him “closing the gap” in recent polls, but in truth, it was Sen. Cantwell’s numbers that slid while Mike!™ couldn’t gain enough traction to climb above 40 percent. And the most recent Rasmussen Poll, taken only a week after Sen. Cantwell’s first ads started airing, showed the trend reversing with Sen. Cantwell retaking a double-digit lead. No wonder in its latest “Balance of Power” scorecard of the US Senate, the Republican-leaning Rasmussen listed Sen. Cantwell’s seat as safe Democratic.
Mike!™ has been widely touted as the Republicans best shot at taking down a Democratic incumbent. Hmm. Looking at current trends, that doesn’t say much for the GOP’s prospects this November, huh?
Cantwell will kick mike’s ass.
The one nice thing about all the money Safeco gave to Mike, is that soon he won’t have it or the job as United States Senator from the great state of Washington.
What a joke his campaign is turning out to be.
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat and really looking forward to the November election. A clean sweep is really possible.
McGavick promised a civil campaign.
His first radio ad is a political smear job on Cantwell.
What a loser. Can’t even keep his word for the first ad.
Hate to see someone with those ethics in DC representing us…
Way to go Maria. I didn’t think her first ads were particularly memorable but they were frequent. And, she has been highly visible. I’ve seen her in Tacoma alone four times in a four weeks. Mike- who’s he?
Why are you guys even talking about this election? A Rep can’t overcome the Western Wasington Democratic voting bloc. Saying that Cantwell will win in November is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.
Libertarian @ 5
We talk about because we just can’t resist the “neiner neiner” urge. Plus we get the added benefit of taunting the likes of Puddy, John Craig, Janet S. and their friends
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat
We should be proud to have Maria Cantwell representing this state in the Senate. She is smart, open-minded, hard working, and a quick study. The longer she serves, the better senator she will become. On the other hand, Mike#@!~*% has nothing to offer but tired old platitudes from the white male, country club kleptocracy that has had too much power in this nation for far too long. The last thing we need in the Senate is an insurance company executive. Go Maria!
We talk about because we just can’t resist the “neiner neiner” urge. Plus we get the added benefit of taunting the likes of Puddy, John Craig, Janet S. and their friends
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat
==========
Well, thanks for clearing that up!
If Senator Cantwell wants to win she better be ready for the ugliest campaign of her life. Memos that were designed for GOP operatives shows that the republicans have abandoned anything that even resembles truth. They have made a decision to outright lie and distort the record figuring that Dems won’t have the money to catch up.
We need to start going after Alaska’s Senatorial Candidate Mike McGavick NOW – RIGHT NOW – not on Friday – TODAY. No dirty trick is too dirty because believe me, they’ve got some real shit in their bucket and we better have some in ours too!
McGavick only gained ground when he was the only one advertising, and he kept very quiet about being a Republican or an insurance company lobbyist/executive. His first ads were vapid – talking about paying for a broken window when he was a kid, etc. So his first increase in polling was simply due to better name recognition. But once people started to get to know about him, he lost any advantage along those lines.
Maria got a big push in the polls by showing she’s looking out for local issues – oil tankers in the Puget Sound, protecting Washington utilities from having to pay the bankrupt Enron for energy it never provided.
What I have to wonder about is what McGavick’s got up his sleeve. He’s only pushed 2 million of his Safeco money into the campaign so far. If he puts in another 20 million for October airtime, what sort of attack ads will he run, and will Cantwell have the time/money to respond?
I understand that when a candidate or political party reserves airtime, it is public record. Any idea how we find out how much airtime McGavick has reserved?
Libertarian,
We have all taken their crap, and the crap of their party, for far too long. We were silenced by the sheer force of their victory 20 years ago. Now the tide flowing out and taking them with it. Who would not be overjoyed? This nation faces a huge decision about 3 months. Do we go forward with a new plan, fresh ideas or do we hold the status quo of allowing big business and selfish interests to control our direction?
I choose change.
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat and Soap Box speaker.
Polls are polls and can be massaged one way or the other. Rather than being used as a tool to guage public opinion, they’re meant to sway it. Now with that intro to Communications 101 being done, I’ll say that it will be interesting to see what the Primary results look like in September because then you’ll have a big enough cross-section of the electorate participating.
What a bunch of me too Yay Hoos’s you all are. As if the half dozen or so of you make a difference. You are all irrelevant ignorant fools, and only believe everyone to think as you do because you live, work, eat, play, etc. in one place, the Peoples Republic of McDermottistan.
Looking forward to watching you all cry in your chai. Losers.
When all the votes are counted (and we’re gonna insist on counting ALL of ’em), Cantwell will crush McGavick. Washington voters want no part of a CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVE who would knock waitress wages down to $2.12 an hour while greedy restaurant owners empty the tip jar into their own pockets.
@12 Whistlin’ past the graveyard, aren’t we?
Observer,
Just what have you been observing? The winds of political change are about to blow through here taking every RightWingNut it. Every vote counts. Do not belittle the “half dozen”, at least they speak out and let their views be known.
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat
So Republicans “have made a decision to outright lie and distort the record?” How unlike them.
Observer
At least you didn’t call us “loosers.”
@18 The voters will do that for us.
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
I know that the ads on the side of this blog are from Google, but I must say that it’s a bit disconcerting to see an ad saying “Buy Ballots on eBay! Ballots for sale!”
People might think we’re Republicans!
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
rhp6033
“What I have to wonder about is what McGavick’s got up his sleeve. He’s only pushed 2 million of his Safeco money into the campaign so far. If he puts in another 20 million for October airtime, what sort of attack ads will he run, and will Cantwell have the time/money to respond?”
One big reason that we need to get the courts to declare that $23 Million to be a campaign contribution. “Bonus” is such a blatant lie that it is amazing that anyone could believe it.
While I hesitate to agree with JCH on anything, (and I’m sure he did not mean his comments to be used in this matter) corporations (theoretically) pay out money in order to further their corporate goals. Giving $23 Million to Mike!™ without any contractual obligation to do so is simply an example of that. They want their candidate to win, and expect that he will represent their interests in Washington DC.
Or, to put it more simply, Mike!™ is bought and paid for.
Oh, and Puddybud. That “busy” screen comes up for all of us occasionally on anything longer than about 10 words. Goldy isn’t doing it.
21 John, Puddy probably has reason to get more upset because when that happens, it crashes his “maxo-repetitive Post-O-Bot”.
Reporterward @ 12
“Polls are polls ”
I beg to differ. Polls are different from one another, and if you learn to pay attention, you can figure out which are more reliable. Gallup had a good explanation of the relevant factors; I’ll see if I can find it…Well, Gallup doesn’t post it any more…here’s Wikipedia’s entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll
And Maria’s plan to end the war is…?
Now I understand ya got to play the hand you are dealt, but how can you be HAPPY about Maria?
However- the key dynamic was not Maria’s ad- it is the anti-war element succumbing to the inevitable. That 32 point swing in that “liberal” grouping is the most significant event.
But now the question- dollar for dollar, isn’t that $8,000 a month investment in former Libertarian Mark Wilson paying off? And much better than any advertising. I’d have never thought that the liberal demographic could have been purchased so cheaply.
But more importantly- if Maria buys that demographic so cheaply, how much is her position on the war really going to be affected? Shouldn’t you be holding her hostage a bit longer?
After all, once her “base” has fallen into line, she’ll be out there trying to buy off the middle demographics. And the last to dance is usually who goes home together.
Think about it…
Mr. Love,
Have you ever done polls for the Associated Press? No? I have. So when you go about “learning” other people, pay attention to who they are. Especially those with more experience with polls then yourself.
Like I said before. Polls are polls. Especially political ones that attempt to handicap elections. Some of them are geared in one political direction. Others are geared in another. That’s why you get McGavick folks touting one poll showing Mike! within four points because it indicates he has momentum so hop on board and vote for him. And that’s why you have the poll Goldy just posted indicating another result with Cantwell so far in the lead that Republicans needn’t even bother to turn out.
The only thing guaranteed about polls is that they are wildly inaccurate and unreliable.
They only become relevent when there is a large enough cross-section of the public represented. That’s why I only really pay attention to the “Primary” poll before a general election.
Observer
“You are all irrelevant ignorant fools,…”
Looking back on his confinement to Bethlem, Restoration playwright Nathaniel Lee declared: “They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me.”
“Men have called me mad but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence–whether much that is glorious; whether all that is profound–does not spring from disease of thought, from moods of mind exalted at the expense of general intellect.” Edgar Allen Poe
“Mad? Mad? They called me Mad at the university!..come to think of it, I was a bit ticked off” (RowrBasil)
“They Called Me Mad at The University, But I Don’t Have the Right Page Reference in Order to Show Them All!”
Victor Moritz: You’re crazy!
Henry Frankenstein: Crazy, am I? We’ll see whether I’m crazy or not.
12
I thought every reporter knew that primary results are worthless for predicting general election outcomes.
13
I’m sure that if we researched the archives, we’d find that you were one of the loudest “we wuz robbed” crybabies out there the last time you pigfuckers got your asses reamed at the polls.
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
Jim King— 8/22/06@ 2:19 pm
Actually, Jim, much of her “base” isn’t really thrilled with her, but the alternative is much worse, and she seems to be honestly trying to do a good job. I’ve questioned her position on some issues, but she does at least seem willing to listen to opposing positions, and change her position where it seems the right (rather than just the expedient) thing to do.
I have far less heartburn with her Iraq votes than I did with her vote for cloture on the Alito debate. Yes, she did vote against him later, but that vote was almost meaningless.
All things considered, I find myself voting more against Mike!™ than for Maria, but I’ve had worse choices that I ended up voting for. Maria isn’t even in the “lesser of two evils” category, but more like “I wish there was a better choice”.
But I do wish there was a better choice.
To see picture of Observer after last election, click here: http://tinyurl.com/hzy69
Roger @ 27
You make a leap in logic Mr. Rabbit and you should know better. Although, I guess, Rabbits can’t help but leap around.
The reason I cited the “Primary” poll is that it’s a good indicator of the morale of the party faithful. Take a hypothetical for a race that won’t matter.
If Steve Beren of the GOP gets 40 percent of the primary vote in Seattle (wildly optimistic) that doesn’t mean he’ll get the same percentage in November. But it would mean the base is highly energized and “could” translate out to higher GOP turnout numbers not only for him but for statewide candidates. Conversely, if he got 10 percent of the primary vote (wildly pessimistic) it “could” indicate a long election night for Team Elephant
Polls are strictly numbers oriented. And their fault is that you can never get enough numbers to make one accurate. And even if you do get one right in July or August that doesn’t mean those numbers will hold up when folks get into a voting booth in the fall.
That’s why I favor just good old fashioned political savvy, historical precedence and a rough moistened finger in the air approach to predicting political outcomes. Granted it’s not as “scientific” as political polling but it’s more honest and just as accurate.
Reporterward
“Have you ever done polls for the Associated Press? No? I have.”
What did you do, sweep up? Because you exhibit what I consider to be apalling ignorance about polling.
“<> The only thing guaranteed about polls is that they are wildly inaccurate and unreliable. They only become relevent when there is a large enough cross-section of the public represented.”
And how is a “large enough cross-section” represented in a poll? If you know anythign about it then you know that for very large populations such as the voting population of the US (about half the voting-age population of 217.8 million) or Washington State (Cantwell v. Gorton had 2.5 million votes cast), smallish samples, if they are truly randomly selected out of the population as whole, work perfectly well to obtain high-accuracy results.
Of course, so-called “advocacy polling” does exist (that is, the use of polls by interest groups to create an aura of strong popular support for their favored positions. Typically this is achieved by the employment of unrepresentative
samples, leading questions, or selective reporting of results. But if you think a particular poll is asking leading questions, say so. If you think that If you think a sample is too small or not representative, say so. But “polls are polls?” If you’re going to say stupid things, don’t be surprised at what people think about you.
Now, the polls Goldy mentions (Rassmussen reports) took place over time. And during that time, we went from two declared candidates doing nothing, to a barrage of early ads and publicity for Mike! McGavick, to Waria’s first set of ads. The poll swings that took place were not unusual and corresponded to a reasonable expectation given the events during that time span. And because the same company was polling, we can expect a consistent sampling and consistent methodology that would tend to make movement in the numbers sometwhat more credible. It doesn’t make them “wildly inaccurate and unreliable” any more than your claim does. According to http://www.custominsight.com/a.....ulator.asp, you can get 95% confidence that your results are accurate within 4% if you survey 600 people.
More resources (though not necessarily for Mr. Sensitive here):
Rasmussen methodology
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/methodology.htm
Accuracy measures
http://www.stevetoner.com/hand.....ccuracy%22
Random Sampling
http://www.custominsight.com/a.....mpling.asp
Reporterward
Please explain to us using statistical methodology why “[polls’]fault is that you can never get enough numbers to make one accurate.”
Never? What if you asked everyone? So maybe “never” is a bit too extreme. Do ya think?
But statistical sampling (have I argued this with you somehwhere before?) is both valid and accurate (to within its margin of error) if done well. And, of course, watching trends instead of focusing on a particular set of numbers gives on a better picture.
Well, obviously you do have far more expertise than I do. Afterall, you’re able to include links to Rasmussen and Wikipedia websites in your post. I wish I could do a Google search on different pollsters and link to their websites like you do. If I could only get Zogby, Gallup or Pew to come up on my search engine I could be as edumacated as you.
Now, to tip my hand. One of the reasons I dislike polls is because that word “reporter” in front of my last name means something and I’m absolutely dismayed at the lack of insight much of today’s political coverage. We’ll run a story about a poll. Then we’ll follow it up in a few days with a piece about fundraising. It’s an intellectually lazy, press-release approach to journalism that abrogates any sense of political know-how.
Oh boy. I’m dealing with someone who thinks he’s a statistician.
You can’t get an accurate poll number because no one polling firm is able to take a large enough sample to get an accurate accounting. Most of the modern polls that are done have a sampling rate between 300 and 1,500 individuals. This is supposed to provided representative information for a population size anywhere from a congressional district to the population of the United States. The data typically is gathered by phone call although there are other techniques.
(Need I go on with the boring freshman lecture?)
You get errors in your data through a variety of means. (yada, yada)
I do not buy the assertation that a 1,000 people surveyed defacto means that there is only a 3 percent margin of error. Different topics and different people elicit a different response.
People respond differently when answering questions on the phone then when at the polling booth at an elementary school gymnasium.
A significant number of people (my experience is most) don’t even bother to answer polls and hang up on you. If you phone 10,000 people and 9,000 hang up on you, the remaining 1,000 do not accurately (in this humble reporter’s opinion) represent the viewpoint of the rest of those “polled” or even the larger segment of the population they are supposed to represent. With any degree of meaningful accuracy at any rate.
Many people (myself) only use cell phones and will never be polled. Different demographics of people are more likely to answer phones. Housewives and senior citizens sitting at home at 3 p.m. versus people with jobs, young adults, etc.
To top it off, there are discrepencies between polling firms themselves. These people are all out to predict the same election result and can be off by as much as five percent from each other (Plus or minus 3 percent). Zogby, which supposedly predicted the 1996 election accurately has (to the best of my rememberence) been wrong since. Basically when you’re dealing with these groups they’re doing what everyone else is and making best “guess-timates”.
It’s like handicapping a horse race. There’s no one right method, just a lot of wrong results.
@29 Barelli- I understand what you are saying. My point, in all sincerity, is that the folks who arrive “in the middle” of the dance are most likely to get taken for granted. Them’s that brought you, and them’s you are dancing with at the end, are more likely to be remembered. In love AND in politics…
There is no doubt that Cantwell’s positions on the war are now changing- I wonder whether it is a lasting change or a matter of convenience. The shift- in her position AND in the liberal demographic- has come so swiftly that I wonder what all of the hullabaloo was about as recently as the State Convention.
While I disagree with them, I have friends who are sincerely antiwar and who were real unhappy with Cantwell a month ago, and they have been trying to convince me she saw the light. I don’t believe it for a minute, and fear not just for their disappointment, but that she will continue to be part of the muddle in the middle if re-elected.
Unless she is pushed harder.
That may sound strange coming from a conservative Republican, but if there is anything this country does NOT need it is more muted trumpets and less-than-clear calls to action.
A clear, cogent call from anyone prepared to lead would be nice.
Reporterward demonstrates the GOP attitude toward science:
How typically Republican it is to “not buy” the results of elementary statistical inference and sampling theory.
The other great big off-base assertion by silly little Reporterward is that polls are of no value because “there are discrepencies between polling firms themselves“. But of course the principal point of this post is the month-to-month time trend in in the same poll. SUSA asks the same questions, in the same manner, using the same sampling methodology, every month. Yes, there are differences in the relative proportions of subsets of the population (for instance, they had 22% Republicans in August, compared to 24% in July and 27% in June), but not in the poll itself.
cHUkbkaVW8W3R 58pX9UqKxmswxt qD55UvR4gH
oyLaqsuq8U mBJ8Z19atTe V7w5iT3Yoomy5v
Reporterward @ 35
Beleive me, I am no statistician, although I do have a degree in mathematics. Um, actually it was you who set yourself up as the big expert, so it seems entirely reasonable to ask you to support your assertions. And this is whet we get: “I do not buy the assertation [sic] that a 1,000 people surveyed defacto means that there is only a 3 percent margin of error.”
Well, what you mentioned is not an “assertion,” it’s a fact (although a reasonable doubt of maybe 10% that your results do fall within that error). According to the page that atumatically calculated for us all, you get about a 95% certainty of a 4% margin of error with a sufficiently random sample of 1000 responses for a sufficently large population (such as WA voters). I didn’t set up the calculations behind the page, but it corresponds closely enuogh to the other information I have for me to be reasonably satisfied with it.
You, on the other hand, “don’t buy” the central working premise of scientific polling, and your reason? “Ask different people, and they’ll tell you different things.” Duh. But a sufficiently well-selected sample wil give meaningful resutls. “If you phone 10,000 people and 9,000 hang up on you, the remaining 1,000 do not accurately represent the viewpoint of the rest of those polled or even the larger segment of the population they are supposed to represent. With any degree of meaningful accuracy at any rate.” Wrong. If the 1000 people truly had a random chance of eing selelcted, then the fact the 9000 other similarly selected people did not resond does not affct your accuracy. But no one telephones 10,000 people.
Your best point was that about people who are not accessible by residential telephone. The excellent artile I pointed to on accuracy estimates that this misses 7-8% f the population, but also notes that they are at commonly “the poor, the rural, and the
transient.” This may not affect voting patterns, but should be factored into margin of error. This is often handled by “weighting” responses, but no one will reveal their weighting formulas, so any effects for it are impossible to calculate.
The other poster N in Seattle correctly points out that we have been watching two polls (Rasmusssen on the head-to-head and Survey USA on job approval) over a period of months, whic illuminates trends even if there are systematic errors. And the trends are that Maria’s job approval is rising, she is consolidating support in her base, and Mike! isn’t moving, which could mean he’s risen as high as he’ll go. I don’t expect him to get a lot more, personally.
I mentioned partisan polls before. They’re not inherently biased or innacruate, although you need to look at the sample size, sampling method, questions, and so on to really evaluate one. But the real danger in partisan polling is that typically a partisan poll only gets released when it’s good for the candidate who sponsors it. So, in that vein, I’d like to mention that Roll Call (subscription required for link) reports that recently the NRCC dropped $450,000 to conduct polls in 28 competitive districts. The article was dated July 31st. And the polls were conducted “over a two-week period this month.” In other words, the polling was almost certainly done at least a month ago. So far as I can tell, I’ve seen few if any of those polls. And it’s not hard to figure out why.
Wow,no links? Let me try again: Roll Call
Although I do think the polls are still pretty accurate, I do conceed that the trend in younger households to “cell phone only” service poses a sampling problem for the polling firms.
If ignored completely, you might eventually get the problem you had with the 1932 polling, which predicted Hoover would beet Roosevelt overwhelmingly. In that election, it was later determined that telephone polling did not work because telephone service was one of the first “luxuries” abandoned when a worker became unemployed.
But I don’t think its an obsticle that they cannot overcome.
Speaking of polls….
NY Times poll:
Americans increasingly see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism, and nearly half believe President Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The finding that 51 percent of those surveyed see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader antiterror effort was a jump of 10 percentage points since June.
I am sure that Republicans are paying no attention to this poll, as unreliable and erratic as they are. Question: Am I referring to polls or Republicans here?
Polls don’t vote, people do. (and in King County, some non people too!)
You can chime the bells all you want, but we’ll see what happens come game day.
Hooray for Maria , In a previous life she advocated for a Growth Management Act , she is called the “mother” of the GMA , only thing was she didn’t plan on was paying for the land she “liberated in Washington State , while property owners were left holding the bag . Now it comes homes to roost as voters of all stripe suppport I-933 to fill in the responsible part of Growth Management that Maria left out , compensation . I am sure it was just an oversight .
Hooray for Maria , she advocated and voted for NAFTA & GATT , now Washington state has 500,000 illegal citizens , that came North looking for Maria . Good plan Cantwell , once again we are holding the bag for Maria’s Consequences .
Maria , votes for giving the war powers to tha President to invafe Iraq , at least she figured out the cash for this ride . It is every dime of the money you sent to the gov’t for social security for your retirement .
Maria votes for the Patriot Act , giving G W a blank check to wholesale rape the Constitution .
Hooray for Maria , turning the Progressive voice of Wash. state into a pro-war camp , as they abandon any semblance of Progressive values .
Well , I’m not voting for her in the Primary . I am not taking the advice that is being applied to Dems and Reps , ” to stand tall and hold your nose ” for the party . What is it that smells so bad and is so good that one must not look at it too closely and “hold your nose” . Let’s give Maria a strong message , that we expect course change from her not another one of her lame excuses .
Maria needs to be sent home – she does not represent of vote the will of the people!
JC4QdNdX3L6xHv RPExumADGX5DW HjkeM5aKO7v