October 20, 2006
Senate Race Roundup
Several things to cover on various developments in the Senate race:
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.
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 This
I 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?
Good Captain - the race is hers to lose. Not just as an incumbent, but because the DCCC says so. The LSM in this neck of the woods has tried to do their part with the poll results (tried too hard in my estimation, that's why the results are so skewed).
The 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...
What'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.
Let me sum it up for you like this: Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, Polls. In that order.
6. Strategic Vision, a GOP pollster, has Cantwell at plus 9% and over the magic 50% mark. This goose is just about cooked.
It's all about turnout.
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.
8. This race was pretty much in the bag for NeerDoWell once Rossi opted out (for very good reasons). McGavick never did have much of a shot, IMO. Running a corporate CEO against an incumbent 'Rat Senator in a deep, dark blue state in a 'Rat year is too much to overcome. Even if McGavick made it close, the 'Rats polished their election stealing skills in '04 by slipping Fraudoire into the Governor's Mansion, so there wasn't much doubt StupidWell, someone with little or no accomplishments to show after years in the Senate, would be sent back there to join up with her playmate, Stupid Murray, and the two of them together might add up to a combined room-temperature IQ. Way to go, SayWA...
maybe more poll respondents have caught on to the fact that the state and the country do not need another 'r' in the senate b/c republican leadership will simply co-opt that 'r' into rubberstamping failed policy after failed policy and provide no meaningful check on an executive who is irrationally committed to a course of failure.
btw: 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?
Dinesh, if you didn't have a severe case of BDS, maybe you'd know that McGavick says Iraq has been mishandled. What's Maria's ideas and experience on that? Eh? Oh, that's right, she's still in support of us staying the course over there (only thing she's semi correct about btw).
So, 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.
On the polls, I am not sure how they can be all that accurrate. The ones I have recieved on the Senate race have asked one or possibly two questions (e.g., are you registered to vote and in a race between x and y, who would you vote for if the election is held today). They also depend on the mood of the person being polled. I may answer McGavick. I may respond with Cantwell, just to through off her organization (make her think she has my support when she doesn't). Then again, I may just state that I don't know (i.e., a non-response, which I am not sure if they count undecided or not).
Of course, if the pollster get's my wife, she just states she isn't interested in participating.
Has anyone looked at Cantwell's ad, where she shows McGavick on a tv screen? Cantwell Ad
The 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?
13. Bill, you're expecting a lot to think that a Democrat election campaign would actually be honest and not hypocritical at the same time.
14. Fans of this blog probably don't want to hear it, but the polls taken after the KING5 debte will show support for Guthrie, and most likely at the expense of Mike!
I think its pretty clear what the polls are showing about the McGavick campaign. He's losing by too much to have much chance of winning within the next two weeks. It hasn't been close since Cantwell started campaigning in August.
McGavick 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.
16. McGavick's ads are much better than Cantwell's.
His campaign obviously was just waiting for the Safeco ad, but this particular Safeco attack is easy to refute. The one that would/will be hard is the "profit from deceptive contracts to save Safeco at the expense of its own customers" Ad, if they have the intelligence to do them. But there is no sign of intelligence in the Cantwell campaign. Her people are national and don't know (or care about) Washington. That she's leading, even as bad a job as her campaign is doing is testimony to Mike's weaknesses, all predictable (and predicted). But the success of his "Differences" Ads (and, yes, he did move the numbers) is testimony to the way Republicans must win. Just as Dino's campaign proved. ON CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE. Mike's problem is that all those great principles contradict things he has said previously, and, hence, have no credibility for knowledgeable conservatives.