RT Strategies (Various Congressional Districts)

[Democratic Hawk]

Taken from RealClearpolitics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/latestpolls/

Washington-8 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,051 RV Reichert (R) 46% , Burner (D) 49% Burner +3.0%

Nevada - 3 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,018 RV Porter (R) 51% , Hafen (D) 43% Porter +8.0%

New Mexico-1 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,010 RV Wilson (R) 48% , Madrid (D) 45% Wilson +3.0%

Colorado - 7 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,014 RV O Donnell (R) 46% , Perlmutter (D) 48% Perlmutter +2.0%

Colorado - 4 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 996 RV Musgrave (R) 47% , Paccione (D) 41% Musgrave +6.0%

Iowa - 3 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 989 RV Lamberti (R) 43% , Boswell (D) 54% Boswell +11.0%

Iowa - 1 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,014 RV Whalen (R) 41% , Braley (D) 54% Braley +13.0%

Illinois - 8 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,006 RV McSweeney (R) 45% , Bean (D) 48% Bean +3.0%

Illinois - 6 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,069 RV Roskam (R) 46% , Duckworth (D) 47% Duckworth +1.0%

Kentucky - 4 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 963 RV Davis (R) 49% , Lucas (D) 46% Davis +3.0%

Florida - 22 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,022 RV Shaw (R) 52% , Klein (D) 44% Shaw +8.0%

North Carolina - 11 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,021 RV Taylor (R) 47% , Shuler (D) 50% Shuler +3.0%

Virginia - 2 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,021 Drake (R) 43% , Kellam (D) 51% Kellam +8.0%

Pennsylvania - 6 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,020 RV Gerlach (R) 45% , Murphy (D) 50% Murphy +5.0%

Pennsylvania - 8 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,006 RV Fitzpatrick (R) 53% , Murphy (D) 45% Fitzpatrick +8.0%

Connecticut - 4 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,011 Shays (R) 49% , Farrell (D) 42% Shays +7.0%

Connecticut-2 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,010 RV Simmons (R) 45% , Courtney (D) 51% Courtney +6.0%

Pennsylvania - 10 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,008 RV Sherwood (R) 43% , Carney (D) 50% Carney +7.0%

Ohio - 6 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 982 RV Blasdel (R) 40% , Wilson (D) 56% Wilson +16.0%

West Virginia - 1 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,003 RV Wakim (R) 42% , Mollohan (D) 52% Mollohan +10.0%

Dave

[Tender Branson]

Here´s the link to the Constituent Dynamics poll (incl. map):

http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.html

[Sibboleth]

Who exactly are RT Strategies?

Illinois - 8 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,006 RV McSweeney (R) 45% , Bean (D) 48% Bean +3.0%

That Bean is the Democratic Rep. most in trouble is no suprise. I don't think she'll make it.

Kentucky - 4 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 963 RV Davis (R) 49% , Lucas (D) 46% Davis +3.0%

As expected. This one will go down to the wire...

North Carolina - 11 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,021 RV Taylor (R) 47% , Shuler (D) 50% Shuler +3.0%

Virginia - 2 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,021 Drake (R) 43% , Kellam (D) 51% Kellam +8.0%

!

Connecticut - 4 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,011 Shays (R) 49% , Farrell (D) 42% Shays +7.0%

Connecticut-2 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,010 RV Simmons (R) 45% , Courtney (D) 51% Courtney +6.0%

Interesting, very interesting...

Pennsylvania - 10 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,008 RV Sherwood (R) 43% , Carney (D) 50% Carney +7.0%

!

West Virginia - 1 RT Strategies/CD 08/27 - 08/29 1,003 RV Wakim (R) 42% , Mollohan (D) 52% Mollohan +10.0%

Seems about right.

[Tender Branson]

The good thing is:

Out of the 30 races polled, the Democrats are leading in 18, the Republicans in 9 and in the 3 IN districts polling is still under way.

[Sibboleth]

Here´s the link to the Constituent Dynamics poll (incl. map):

http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.html

If you click on the little white dots, you get breakdowns of the results, some of which seem quite interesting.

[Democratic Hawk]

Who exactly are RT Strategies?

There are a bipartisan public affairs opinion research and polling organisation founded by Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and V. Lance Tarrance, Jnr, a Republican. http://www.rtstrategies.com/

They are sponsors of the National Omnibus Poll and are partners with Charlie Cook on the Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll

Dave

[Sibboleth]

They also have some numbers for districts in which one or both parties don't have nominees yet...

AZ-8: D 50/R 46
MN-6: R 53/D 42
FL-13: R 56/D 38
WI-8: D 48/R 44
OH-18: D 47/R 43
NY-24: D 49/R 41
VT-AL: D 54/R 40

[nick]

Constituent Dynamics is with the DNC.

[WMS]

Constituent Dynamics is with the DNC.

And Wilson is still leading Madrid in NM-1.

INTERNALS! FINALLY! W00T!

[So the Heroes Fall]

MN-6: R 53/D 42

Huh? Both nominees are already clear there.

If so it sounds as if this poll simply asked "Are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate or Democratic candidate?" For that, those numbers sound right. Now if you included the names of Wetterling and Bachmann, the R numbers would hopefully drop. If 53% of the district are crazy enough to agree with a complete nut like Bachmann, well there's more evidence of why suburbs are awful evil places

[Sibboleth]

Huh? Both nominees are already clear there.

If so it sounds as if this poll simply asked "Are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate or Democratic candidate?"

Yep, it does sound like that. No names were mentioned. Of the three geographic areas the poll was broken down into, the generic Democrat had a lead in Anoka, but everywhere else is strongly Republican.

[So the Heroes Fall]

That's good to know, although it makes the numbers rather pointless. Since both Wetterling and Bachmann have the primaries in the bag I don't see why they didn't just do a Wetterling vs. Bachmann poll, especially since we need one.

[Democratic Hawk]

From http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.html

Indiana CD-2

Chocola  (R) 40% (29% strong, 11% weak) / Donnelly [D] 52% (43% strong, 9% weak) - Dem +12%

Bush net approval -21%

Indiana CD-8

Hostettler [R] 45% (31% strong, 14% weak) / Ellsworth (D) 51% (44% strong, 7% weak) - Dem +6%

Bush net approval -5%

Indiana CD-9

Sodrel (R) 42% (28% strong, 14% weak) / Hill (D) 54% (47% strong, 7% weak) - Dem +12%

Bush net approval -24%

What is striking is the strength of support for Donnelly, Ellsworth and Hill compared with that for Chocola, Hostettler and Sodrel

It would seem that Bush's unpopularity is doing the GOP incumbents no favors; while the unpopularity of Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (sitting at -15% according to the latest SUSA 50 state tracking poll) might also playing its part

Nevertheless, the Democrats are running good candidates, who should be capable of winning election on their own merits

Dave

[So the Heroes Fall]

Very nice!

I was expecting Sodrel to go down since his 2004 victory was a bit of a fluke but finally taking out Hostettler and Chocola will be nice too.

[Sam Spade]

Although these Indiana results are interesting, they lead me towards further suspicion of the quality of these polls.

My main rationale here lies within the recent Research 2000 poll released a couple of days ago in IN-09 showing Hill up by 6%.  R2000, for any of you who have ever read Vorlon's comments, is a state polling firm that conducts polls similarly to M-D.  This usually means steady results, as opposed to SUSA for example, which tends to jump around a lot.  However, R2000 is, for all intensive purposes, a lesser quality firm than M-D; they tend to cut a lot of corners in the developement of their polls. 

In the polling world, this invariably means that their numbers tend to lean Democratic in comparison to the whole.  I'm not saying this is by much, but in 2004, their numbers were, on the whole, about 1-2 points too Democratic. (in 2000, when Dem turnout numbers at the end shot up dramatically, they were much closer to even. I consider that luck) And because their polling method is fairly consistent, these findings are fairly consistent as well.  I'm trying to think of a race where R2000 overestimated on the Republican side and none comes to mind.  It's just that consistent.

Now, I'm sure the response would be:  Well, how do we know that R2000 didn't just get a bad sample for once or an overly Republican sample?  This is quite correct in my opinion.  That's the reason why I called it suspicion, not certainty.  Only more polls can clarify this opinion.

[WMS]

In the polling world, this invariably means that their numbers tend to lean Democratic in comparison to the whole.  I'm not saying this is by much, but in 2004, their numbers were, on the whole, about 1-2 points too Democratic. (in 2000, when Dem turnout numbers at the end shot up dramatically, they were much closer to even. I consider that luck) And because their polling method is fairly consistent, these findings are fairly consistent as well.  I'm trying to think of a race where R2000 overestimated on the Republican side and none comes to mind.  It's just that consistent.

So, Sam, does that mean you think Wilson is even further ahead in NM-1 then?

[Sam Spade]

In the polling world, this invariably means that their numbers tend to lean Democratic in comparison to the whole.  I'm not saying this is by much, but in 2004, their numbers were, on the whole, about 1-2 points too Democratic. (in 2000, when Dem turnout numbers at the end shot up dramatically, they were much closer to even. I consider that luck) And because their polling method is fairly consistent, these findings are fairly consistent as well.  I'm trying to think of a race where R2000 overestimated on the Republican side and none comes to mind.  It's just that consistent.

So, Sam, does that mean you think Wilson is even further ahead in NM-1 then?

Well, their result matches ABQ polling, which about matches Madrid internal polling.  I know what the ABQ record was in 2004, so that makes me suspicious a bit, but I doubt we get any other polls out of this race to compare, so I gotta believe what I have. 

How's that for a non-answer.

[WMS]

In the polling world, this invariably means that their numbers tend to lean Democratic in comparison to the whole.  I'm not saying this is by much, but in 2004, their numbers were, on the whole, about 1-2 points too Democratic. (in 2000, when Dem turnout numbers at the end shot up dramatically, they were much closer to even. I consider that luck) And because their polling method is fairly consistent, these findings are fairly consistent as well.  I'm trying to think of a race where R2000 overestimated on the Republican side and none comes to mind.  It's just that consistent.

So, Sam, does that mean you think Wilson is even further ahead in NM-1 then?

Well, their result matches ABQ polling, which about matches Madrid internal polling.  I know what the ABQ record was in 2004, so that makes me suspicious a bit, but I doubt we get any other polls out of this race to compare, so I gotta believe what I have. 

How's that for a non-answer.

Yes, there are no top-quality polls here, sad to say

That's a good non-answer. I would just like to remind everyone again that Wilson has led every poll for this race, even the Dem internal ones...that is not good news for Madrid...