Several things to cover on various developments in the Senate race:
1) Ads
Mike McGavick's campaign has a couple new ads out, responding to run-of-the-mill attack ads from Maria Cantwell. One responds to Cantwell's ad about Safeco. Note Cantwell's ad has the same fellow clearing off his desk as seen in a Nebraska Senate ad, this guy must really have some tough luck, huh? This isn't the first time the Cantwell campaign has used recycled ad footage. On the topic of McGavick's response, I wish the ad itself was as direct in taking on Cantwell as the corresponding press release.
McGavick's other ad lays out an almost humorous rebuttal to Cantwell's hidden Social Security ad (longer version of McGavick's ad which calls Cantwell out further, here). Of course, part of this debate is needlessly complicated by the fact McGavick's Social Security position is a bit peculiar, and complicated enough compared to last year's debate on the issue that even this Social Security reform wonk found it somewhat difficult to digest, and doesn't particularly like it (a point elaborated on toward the end of this post).
The good news about the ads is they're relatively effective, though not great. The bad news is they put him on the defensive. It's nearly impossible to find out which ads are running most often, but McGavick is probably better served keeping this ad in focus rather than the two defensive ones.
2) Polls
All right, I'm officially throwing up my hands with the polls in this race. I no longer know what to make of them. Rasmussen's latest claims Cantwell is up 15. This after the firm's previous three polls showed leads of 6, 17, and 6 respectively. If anyone believes the race has fluctuated that much be my guest, but I think most serious observers on both sides of the aisle would doubt that.
3) Debate Footnote
I'm remiss is not previously mentioning the KING 5 debate did not include any questions on terrorist detainee policy which Maria Cantwell voted against, or the terrorist surveillance program which earlier passed the House and will be before the Senate during its post-election lame duck session. These are perhaps two of the most contentious questions facing Congress today, and a great chance for voters to see a contrast between the candidates. The fact a related question was not posed by the debate panel in the only such statewide contest was a disservice to Washington state voters.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 20, 2006 08:10 AM | Email ThisNow today we learn that Democrats have been leaking classified information for political gain.
We simply can't trust Democrats to have anything to do with national security.
Posted by: pbj on October 20, 2006 09:05 AMI hail from California and lack any real sense of the race there. I realize the polls all have Cantwell up b/n 5 and 10 points, but this year everything seems to gyrate wildly (as you infer in your post)that I don't know what to think. Do you sense any momentum w/ either campaign at this time based on your own instinct?
Posted by: Good Captain on October 20, 2006 09:08 AMThe interesting thing (to me) is to watch the "human drama" played out in the blogs. cantvotewell is a lousy candidate and a pathetic Senator. There is one singular thing that she brings to the table: a reliable "D" vote. Nothing else.
So, in this bluest part of a blue state, why is she having so many problems? Why have the trolls felt the necessity to try to disparage McGavick? They can't defend her record because she doesn't have one, but that doesn't stop the libs, who proudly point to our other resident moron, er, Senator Osama Murray (who also offers one singular thing that she brings to the table: a reliable "D" vote).
This should be a cakewalk for cantvotewell, but it hasn't panned out that way.
I believe that, by hook or by crook, cantvotewell will prevail in the end. McGavick is a nice guy (and you know what they say about nice guys), but the Dhimmicrats can't afford to let this one slip from their fingers. The stakes are too high so they will do whatever they must to drag her stinking carcass across the finish line...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 20, 2006 09:29 AMWhat's so hard to understand about the polls? Polls always have a margin of error -- a natural fluctuation in the results. That's why the site that you linked to, like other sites that do some in-depth analysis, doesn't rely on just the latest poll for its conclusions. Any time you do that, you're going to subject yourself to unwarranted heartburn or elation every time there's a natural fluctuation in the numbers. Intead, RealClearPolitics, like Slate for example, uses an average of the recent polls to gauge where the race is. (For Slate's similar take on poll averages for several races, go to http://www.slate.com/id/2148600/?nav=tap3.)
The RCP average of the recent polls is Cantwell 52, McGavick 42. Now considering a usual 4% margin of error, think about the underlying poll results. They're almost all within a range of 4% up or down from 42 for McGavick, and 4% up or down from 52 for Cantwell.
It's simple, really. The heavy weight of multiple polls puts this race at a 10 point Cantwell advantage. Given the margin of error in polls, that may come out as a 15% advantage in one survey and a 6% advantage in another, but that's only because there's an expected 4% fluctuation in *each* candidate's numbers.
Posted by: Vonnegut on October 20, 2006 09:53 AMLet me sum it up for you like this: Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, Polls. In that order.
This is an off year. No Presidential or Gubernatorial candidates here in Washington.
Voting will be lower than expected.
McGavick has momentum and could pull off an upset.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on October 20, 2006 10:14 AMbtw: the republican talking points for "stay the course" in iraq are about to change. be prepared to defend the incompetent prosecution of this 'war on terror with iraq as the central front'.
what is mcgavick saying about the iraq fisaco?
Posted by: dinesh on October 20, 2006 11:16 AMSo, tell us, our BDS suffering pal: who sounds more like someone who fits the anti-Iraq attitudes? Maria who voted for it and still supports it? Or McGavick who claims it's mismanaged?
Run along back to your little troll hole now.
Posted by: ferrous on October 20, 2006 11:31 AMOf course, if the pollster get's my wife, she just states she isn't interested in participating.
Posted by: tc on October 20, 2006 11:31 AMThe caption is a NY Times headline that says "Safeco Earnings Far Below Forcasts" It then attributes it to "New York Times, October 10, 20??". The year appears to be (intentionally?) cut off.
This headline was from the year 2000, BEFORE McGavick took over as CEO, and was, in fact, the REASON he was hired as CEO. This seems to be a slimy way of trying to infer that he CAUSED the lower earnings rather that that he was HIRED because of them.
Anyone else have any comments on this?
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 20, 2006 12:21 PMMcGavick is clearly no Dino - he's not even picking up newspaper endorsements a lot of the GOP can typically count on. It didn't help him drive up turnout in Eastern Washington today when the Tri-City Herlad endorsed Cantwell.
Posted by: thor on October 20, 2006 06:28 PM