We Ask America - selected IL races (R)

[muon2]

Recently released numbers since the IL primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IL 8
Democrat Melissa Bean 37.6%
Republican Joe Walsh 38.3%
Green Party Bill Sheurer 3.9%

IL 10
Democrat Dan Seals 40.1%
Republican Rober Dold 37.4%
Green Party Richard Mayers 2.4%

IL 11
Democrat Debbie Halvorson 30.22%
Republican Adam Kinzinger 42.04%

IL 14
Democrat Bill Foster 36.5%
Republican Randy Hultgren 37.9%
Green Party Daniel Kairis 4.5%

IL 17
Democrat Phil Hare 38.8%
Republican Bobby Schilling 31.7%
Green Party Roger Davis 3.9%

[Torie]

I interpret these numbers as meaning one Dem seat in Illinois out of those listed is in serious play. I suspect the bulk of the undecideds, if that way at this point in time, are going to tilt to the Dem incumbents by election day.

So these numbers "feel" right to you Muon2?

[muon2]

I interpret these numbers as meaning one Dem seat in Illinois out of those listed is in serious play. I suspect the bulk of the undecideds, if that way at this point in time, are going to tilt to the Dem incumbents by election day.

So these numbers "feel" right to you Muon2?

They have Obama with a 50-47 disapproval. I would guess that the right number is closer to 55-42 approval. If that's the case, the other numbers should be shifted accordingly. Also, this was taken some time ago, and I think that the health care vote mat have some effect on the next poll as well.

[Sam Spade]

garbage polling

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Three Dem incumbents are losing and yet Seals is winning. Right.

[Lunar]

Yeah, those numbers look like junk.  Overly strong Green Party presence and they didn't push leaners enough to distinguish them from the actual undecideds 

[muon2]

Yeah, those numbers look like junk.  Overly strong Green Party presence and they didn't push leaners enough to distinguish them from the actual undecideds 

Actually, the Green numbers seem reasonable. Since Whitney's 10% showing in the 2006 Gov's race, the Greens are seen by many as a none-of-the-above choice. Numbers like 2-4% this far from November are probably right. There is a real anti-incumbent mood, and spillover to the Greens is part of it.

[ajc0918]

Damn, if these are right, I wanted Bob Dold to win...

[Lunar]

I still think they're oversampling them, but still, I dislike polls that are so loose that they can't show a non-disaster incumbent above 31%

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Three Dem incumbents are losing and yet Seals is winning. Right.

That's not entirely unlikely considering Seals' opponent is a far right wing extremist hardcore fascist. That said there is no way Halvorson is doing that bad.

[DownTheMiddle]

I know that the folks who did these "snapshot" polls are really well respected. They nailed the primary results in Illinois (the only polls that did get it right by predicting a "too close to call" result in the GOP primary and being only .2% off the Dem results).

That said, if you read between the lines in what they say in some of these early results, its clear that these  polls are merely capturing a snapshot of a rapidly gyrating landscape.

However, I know a lot of people who feel that Halvorson is in real trouble. She was subject to some pretty brutal treatment by the anti-Card Check crowd, and this is a district that previously elected a very conservative congressman--Jerry Weller.

[Badger]

I interpret these numbers as meaning one Dem seat in Illinois out of those listed is in serious play. I suspect the bulk of the undecideds, if that way at this point in time, are going to tilt to the Dem incumbents by election day.

So these numbers "feel" right to you Muon2?

They have Obama with a 50-47 disapproval. I would guess that the right number is closer to 55-42 approval. If that's the case, the other numbers should be shifted accordingly. Also, this was taken some time ago, and I think that the health care vote mat have some effect on the next poll as well.

Are those Obama approval numbers for IL statewide or only these districts? I can't tell from their website.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I interpret these numbers as meaning one Dem seat in Illinois out of those listed is in serious play. I suspect the bulk of the undecideds, if that way at this point in time, are going to tilt to the Dem incumbents by election day.

So these numbers "feel" right to you Muon2?

They have Obama with a 50-47 disapproval. I would guess that the right number is closer to 55-42 approval. If that's the case, the other numbers should be shifted accordingly. Also, this was taken some time ago, and I think that the health care vote mat have some effect on the next poll as well.

Are those Obama approval numbers for IL statewide or only these districts? I can't tell from their website.

If its only from the districts polled combined then its probably pretty accurate considering none of the Chicago districts were polled (not any reason to). Statewide though, those numbers are doubtful.

[Badger]

I interpret these numbers as meaning one Dem seat in Illinois out of those listed is in serious play. I suspect the bulk of the undecideds, if that way at this point in time, are going to tilt to the Dem incumbents by election day.

So these numbers "feel" right to you Muon2?

They have Obama with a 50-47 disapproval. I would guess that the right number is closer to 55-42 approval. If that's the case, the other numbers should be shifted accordingly. Also, this was taken some time ago, and I think that the health care vote mat have some effect on the next poll as well.

Are those Obama approval numbers for IL statewide or only these districts? I can't tell from their website.

If its only from the districts polled combined then its probably pretty accurate considering none of the Chicago districts were polled (not any reason to). Statewide though, those numbers are doubtful.

Exactamundo.

[muon2]

The Springfield Journal-Register has an informative column on the the polling company We Ask America. It seems to imply that the Obama approvals in the poll were based on statewide numbers. Other polls I've seen from that period would give a 5-10 point advantage to Obama rather than the 3% disadvantage shown here.

[yougo1000]

Go Hultgren and Brady

[JohnnyLongtorso]

A guy on Swing State Project did some digging and found out who's behind this pollster:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, they're in the tank for Republicans and want to obfuscate that fact. I think we can stick these polls in the trash.

[muon2]

A guy on Swing State Project did some digging and found out who's behind this pollster:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, they're in the tank for Republicans and want to obfuscate that fact. I think we can stick these polls in the trash.

I thought I made it pretty clear with the initial title that this was an R-related firm. That's why I added the extra link with the background on Durham so that it was clear.

[cinyc]

Beware of pollsters stating their results to the tenth of a point eight months before the election.