MI-Sen, PPP: Land in the lead

[publicunofficial]

Dem numbers are only going to get better from this point.

How can you say that when that hasn't been the case thus far?

Because A) Peters/Schauer aren't going to get MORE unknown, and B) the ObamaCare situation is getting better, not worse. And it's hard to imagine something that can hurt Democratic numbers worse than what we just went through.

[Keystone Phil]

It wasn't even so much this post as an overall pattern, but whatever, I'm not invested in this enough to dig through your posting history for examples, tbh.  Also, I never said your feelings about Christie were any different post-Obama hug than they were before, in fact I said that I suspected they were the same.  I will admit that I was in a bad mood about other stuff (and I'll admit, annoyed by the poll) when I posted the comment and it was probably uncalled for.  Btw, I am curious, what would be an example of an ideological disagreement you have with Santorum?  I've been here a while and I cannot remember you ever mentioning one, but that obviously doesn't mean you don't have any.

Well, if you're not that invested in this, don't make definitive judgements on my attitude here. And I was asking you to look through my posts for it to become immediately evident to you that I'm not "always a jerk whenever someone disagrees" with me. I wasn't asking you to dig through to prove your point. It's just that your point is easily proven wrong, ironically, by the very fact that you thought I was asking you to find examples of me being a jerk just because someone disagrees with me. If I did that all the time, you wouldn't have to do much digging.

I said I disagreed with Santorum. That can include many things, not just an ideological difference. It doesn't have to be an ideological difference to be an "acceptable" difference. That said, I do have policy differences with Santorum. Most recently, I'd say we differ on intervention in Syria and Libya.

[morgieb]

Well, f**k.

The only god news is that Peters name rec is poor.

[IceSpear]

Interesting that this poll has Snyder doing worse than most but Land doing better than most. Pretty counter intuitive, you'd think their fortunes would rise or fall together barring a candidate specific event.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Downward trend of Synder shows that these are winnable races in the Midwest governorships and MI senate. The peak of Synder is over. This poll shows the peak of Land towards the end of Synder's peak and Peters is a better candidate. I am counting on Peters still winning.

[ElectionsGuy]

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

[morgieb]

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

I'm not disbelieving polls (well, not legit polls), but at the end of the day, I still think Peters is the favourite. We're at a lull at this stage, I don't think we'll do as bad as the polls say.

And this poll reeks of a potential outlier in some ways as well, given the gap in the two tickets is much smaller than most and (IMO) the other polls had a Republican lean.

[DrScholl]

Name recognition does count and at this point, no one is paying much attention to the race right now. Unless Peters stumbles badly or there is a massive Republican landslide, he wins. You have to remember, when control of the Senate is at stake, that is a good motivator for blue state Democrats to come out.

[tmthforu94]

It's worth noting that more undecided voters in this poll are conservatives than liberals. 10% of "Very Conservative" voters and 21% of "Somewhat Conservative" voters are undecided, compared to 7% of "Very Liberal" voters and 18% of "Somewhat Liberal Voters". Conservative voters also make up a great percentage of the electorate.

Now, my math skills are a bit rough, but based on this poll, if Land were to take 85% of conservative voters and 15% of liberal voters (which would be the rough numbers if all undecided voters on each side break towards the candidate closest to them politically), she would only need 40% of the moderate vote to be at 50% statewide.

Land is already at 32% with moderate voters, compared to 45% for Peters and 23% undecided. Land only needs to get 35% of undecided moderates to be at 50% statewide.

In conclusion, despite the comments by many on the left in this thread, if we were to assume this poll was completely accurate, undecided voters are more conservative and would likely hand the election to Land. Peter's will not only need to maintain his base, but also convince a vast majority of moderate voters and even some conservative voters who are undecided to his side.

On the other hand, more undecided voters voted Obama than Romney. Hence why a poll can be interpretative many different ways. Personally, this tells me that this is a winnable race for Republicans.

[Keystone Phil]

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

Yeah, he mysteriously became unknown when he lost his lead!

[Kevin]

It's worth noting that more undecided voters in this poll are conservatives than liberals. 10% of "Very Conservative" voters and 21% of "Somewhat Conservative" voters are undecided, compared to 7% of "Very Liberal" voters and 18% of "Somewhat Liberal Voters". Conservative voters also make up a great percentage of the electorate.

Now, my math skills are a bit rough, but based on this poll, if Land were to take 85% of conservative voters and 15% of liberal voters (which would be the rough numbers if all undecided voters on each side break towards the candidate closest to them politically), she would only need 40% of the moderate vote to be at 50% statewide.

Land is already at 32% with moderate voters, compared to 45% for Peters and 23% undecided. Land only needs to get 35% of undecided moderates to be at 50% statewide.

In conclusion, despite the comments by many on the left in this thread, if we were to assume this poll was completely accurate, undecided voters are more conservative and would likely hand the election to Land. Peter's will not only need to maintain his base, but also convince a vast majority of moderate voters and even some conservative voters who are undecided to his side.

On the other hand, more undecided voters voted Obama than Romney. Hence why a poll can be interpretative many different ways. Personally, this tells me that this is a winnable race for Republicans.

Also you forgot to add that conservative/GOP leaning voters typically underpoll in Midterms. Cs. Presidential elections where Democratic leaning voters also incur the same effect.

[DrScholl]

Actually political geography counts for a lot and for Land to win, she has to completely shut Peters out in Metro Detroit, winning everything, except for Wayne (and keep Peters to 65% there). Considering that the suburbs are drifting less and less Republican, that is tough to achieve. But apparently, it's not appropriate to say that Peters could win, since that's totally delusional.

Realistically, Peters has the better chance of winning, not Land. That's not delusional.

[Vosem]

As Tmth pointed out, the undecideds in this poll are both overall both conservative and Obama-voting, making it unclear in which direction they will break (though considering how many 2012 Obama voters have deserted him, probably narrowly Land), but the electorate as a whole in this poll is probably somewhat more Republican than the one which will show up in 2014 really, so it perhaps understates Peters very slightly. The two effects, I think, probably balance out to some degree. There's zero reason for the supreme confidence forum Democrats seem to have in Peters; Land can self-fund, has won 2 statewide races (while Peters has only ran before once, losing), and has the lead right now. Declaring Peters to be the favorite right now, when his chances are 50/50 at best, is quite the act of hubris.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lolz. The map is growing in both directions.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Translation: Land significantly in the lead.

[dmmidmi]

As Tmth pointed out, the undecideds in this poll are both overall both conservative and Obama-voting, making it unclear in which direction they will break (though considering how many 2012 Obama voters have deserted him, probably narrowly Land), but the electorate as a whole in this poll is probably somewhat more Republican than the one which will show up in 2014 really, so it perhaps understates Peters very slightly. The two effects, I think, probably balance out to some degree. There's zero reason for the supreme confidence forum Democrats seem to have in Peters; Land can self-fund, has won 2 statewide races (while Peters has only ran before once, losing), and has the lead right now. Declaring Peters to be the favorite right now, when his chances are 50/50 at best, is quite the act of hubris.

If Land's previous electoral success is so significant, why do a plurality of voters answer "not sure" when asked of an opinion of her? Though PPP didn't specifically ask the question, her name recognition here has to be through the roof--yet >40% of the people asked in this poll aren't sure what they think about her.

I'm not entirely sure where this "Terri Lynn Land is a strong candidate" narrative came from, just because she won two elections as the person responsible for passing out licences plates and registering voters.

Given that Michigan has only sent one Republican to the Senate in 40 years, and has led in almost every other poll (except for this one), where did you come up with the idea that Peters' chances of winning are maxed out at 50%? Or, is that just made up?

Actually political geography counts for a lot and for Land to win, she has to completely shut Peters out in Metro Detroit, winning everything, except for Wayne (and keep Peters to 65% there). Considering that the suburbs are drifting less and less Republican, that is tough to achieve. But apparently, it's not appropriate to say that Peters could win, since that's totally delusional.

Realistically, Peters has the better chance of winning, not Land. That's not delusional.

Terri Lynn is going to have to come up with significant support in Oakland and Macomb counties in order to win. She'll probably have to win Macomb outright, and at the very worst, come within a few points of winning Oakland. Given that this is where Peters' base is from, he likely starts with a significant advantage. She won't be able to win by just shoring up voters in West Michigan.

Is Terri Lynn leading right now? She may very well be, even if her lead is small. Could she win? In the right environment, you bet. But I definitely wouldn't put money on her winning--not at this point, at least.

[free my dawg]

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

Yeah, he mysteriously became unknown when he lost his lead!

He's always been unknown.

Don't blame me when I call it again and you can't crack Michigan again.

[free my dawg]

Translation: Land significantly in the lead.

Even though the GOP shill polls have the same results as PPP does now, you choose the "unskewed" version of this one.

Cherry picking is great, isn't it?

[tmthforu94]

Democrats were making similar arguments back in 2009 for the Gubernatorial race: "Democrats usually underpoll, we won't start leading until August 2010 or so." "Name recognition is the primary reason we're polling so low."

Republicans would be foolish to think they're favored to win here - it's going to take work. Democrats shouldn't be taking this for granted - if Snyder could win by 20 points in 2010, I'm sure a competent Republican could win an open Senate race.

[Keystone Phil]

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

Yeah, he mysteriously became unknown when he lost his lead!

He's always been unknown.

Don't blame me when I call it again and you can't crack Michigan again.

I never said the GOP would win the seat. I just don't think Peters is a near slam dunk like the usual suspects here think.

[pbrower2a]

As has been already mentioned, Land is at the Republican floor. She has higher name recognition than Peters and we'll have to see if she can get out of the low forties. Let's check back in Feb/March to get a clearer idea.

Floor? In this poll Land is already getting more of the vote than Hoekstra.

Hoekstra lost the 2012 US Senate election with the horrid "Thank you Debbie Spend-It-Now" ad with the cute Chinese woman riding a bicycle around some rice paddies. It's hard to see how anyone could top that for setting up an electoral defeat. The 2014 Senate election will be much closer because that hideous performance can hardly be topped.

It's rare that a politician loses the general election that he has some chance to win on Super Sunday... but that happened in Michigan in 2012. 

[Badger]

Peters has 57% "not sure" on the favorability scale, the overwhelming share of which are actually simply not familiar with a congressman representing 1/14th of the State. The name recognition argument has some grounds to it. Though among those Not Sure, a larger share say they voted for Romney....

He's also getting only 72% of the vote of African-Americans. Anyone think for a sec he'll get under 90% on Election Day?

Race will be close, but Land is still the underdog in MI.

[henster]

Land already ducking questions about rape insurance

http://www.ibtimes.com/michigan-senate-hopeful-refuses-comment-states-rape-insurance-law-1512268

[Maxwell]

Peters has 57% "not sure" on the favorability scale, the overwhelming share of which are actually simply not familiar with a congressman representing 1/14th of the State. The name recognition argument has some grounds to it. Though among those Not Sure, a larger share say they voted for Romney....

He's also getting only 72% of the vote of African-Americans. Anyone think for a sec he'll get under 90% on Election Day?

Race will be close, but Land is still the underdog in MI.

Nobodys saying she isn't but polls like this assure us that Land has a good chance.

[Vosem]

As Tmth pointed out, the undecideds in this poll are both overall both conservative and Obama-voting, making it unclear in which direction they will break (though considering how many 2012 Obama voters have deserted him, probably narrowly Land), but the electorate as a whole in this poll is probably somewhat more Republican than the one which will show up in 2014 really, so it perhaps understates Peters very slightly. The two effects, I think, probably balance out to some degree. There's zero reason for the supreme confidence forum Democrats seem to have in Peters; Land can self-fund, has won 2 statewide races (while Peters has only ran before once, losing), and has the lead right now. Declaring Peters to be the favorite right now, when his chances are 50/50 at best, is quite the act of hubris.

If Land's previous electoral success is so significant, why do a plurality of voters answer "not sure" when asked of an opinion of her? Though PPP didn't specifically ask the question, her name recognition here has to be through the roof--yet >40% of the people asked in this poll aren't sure what they think about her.

I'm not entirely sure where this "Terri Lynn Land is a strong candidate" narrative came from, just because she won two elections as the person responsible for passing out licences plates and registering voters.

Land's previous electoral success is significant because it proves that she knows how to win statewide in Michigan, whatever her name recognition may be. Peters has run once, and shown that he can't. Land has experience doing this, can self-fund, and is therefore a strong candidate. Your shtick that Secretary of State elections don't count because they're lower-profile is becoming tiresome. You know how candidates get ready for higher-level campaigns? By running in lower-profile ones first. Land has shown that she is very good at this; Peters, not so much. It's simple and you know this is true.

Given that Michigan has only sent one Republican to the Senate in 40 years, and has led in almost every other poll (except for this one), where did you come up with the idea that Peters' chances of winning are maxed out at 50%? Or, is that just made up?

Considering that he's behind in polling to a candidate with much more experience than he has, who will be able to fundraise significantly more than he will, it's asinine to say that Peters is ahead. Peters certainly has his advantages -- the state's lean being the biggest -- but he's clearly behind right now and his path to getting ahead of Land is dependent on the national environment improving for Democrats or Land stumbling, both variables he has no control over. How can you possibly say he's favored?