MT: Rasmussen: Tester(D) leads by 2 against Burns(R)

[OC]

New Poll: Montana Senator by Rasmussen on 2006-11-04

Summary: D: 50%, R: 48%, U: 2%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Tender Branson]

Looking good. 6 seat gain on the plate I hope.

[poughies]

Montana: After Labor Day, it was Jon Tester (D) by nine over Senator Conrad Burns (R). When October began, it was Tester by seven. Last Wednesday, it was Tester by four. Now, our November 4 poll shows Tester by two (50% to 48%). See Scott's Page. Data coming later. When this is released on the public site, the race will be shifted from "Leans Democrat" to "Toss-Up" in our Senate Balance of Power summary. See previous Montana poll.

[Conan]

Tester better win. I believe he will and by a fair 3-5 % margin. Montana polls were off in the primary, they probably are now.

[Adlai Stevenson]

The one thing that encourages me is that in the Democratic primary Tester won by a far greater margin than anyone expected. 

My prediction:

MONTANA SENATE
Tester (D) 51%
Burns (R) 48%
Other 1%

[MSUfan]

Tester has a great GOTV campaign and even if Burns leads by 2-3% I would expect Tester to still win a narrow victory.

[AuH2O]

If primaries say anything about general elections, then Cardin is more done than Burns.

But in reality, they do not. Burns has all the momentum and Montana is a red state. Tester peaked early and he's obviously out of answers.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

If primaries say anything about general elections, then Cardin is more done than Burns.

But in reality, they do not. Burns has all the momentum and Montana is a red state. Tester peaked early and he's obviously out of answers.

The first part of this post, about having primaries doing nothing to do with anything, was great.  Then you got to this ridiculous "momentum" crap.  By and large, by the time we see momentum, it's over.  There are some cases - the crash in TN - being an exception.  But the movement has generally been within MoE range, which is simply not enough to establish that the numbers just didn't happen to fall that way.

I don't disagree that Burns has gained there, but I do dispute that you can call it a definite "trend."

EDIT: Just to clarify.  I don't mean to say that there isn't momentum, but the problem with momentum is that it tends to end quickly and it's hard to tell when.  I don't see it any more likely that his momentum will continue than won't, and if it doesn't, I think he'll still be behind.  Which is a bad position to be in.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I feel good about the fact that Burns can't seem to break 48% in any of the polls but I'm still pretty concerned all the same. It will be close.

[HardRCafé]

Burns by two.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

If primaries say anything about general elections, then Cardin is more done than Burns.

But in reality, they do not. Burns has all the momentum and Montana is a red state. Tester peaked early and he's obviously out of answers.

The first part of this post, about having primaries doing nothing to do with anything, was great.  Then you got to this ridiculous "momentum" crap.  By and large, by the time we see momentum, it's over.  There are some cases - the crash in TN - being an exception.  But the movement has generally been within MoE range, which is simply not enough to establish that the numbers just didn't happen to fall that way.

I don't disagree that Burns has gained there, but I do dispute that you can call it a definite "trend."

EDIT: Just to clarify.  I don't mean to say that there isn't momentum, but the problem with momentum is that it tends to end quickly and it's hard to tell when.  I don't see it any more likely that his momentum will continue than won't, and if it doesn't, I think he'll still be behind.  Which is a bad position to be in.

Momentum means less than pundits say it means.  People won't start flocking to a candidate once his poll numbers go up.  It's simple polisci.

[Gustaf]

The problem for Burns is that Tester isn't really losing ground; what has happened is that Burns has been gaining undecideds, which isn't really too surprising. Tester is still at, or at least very close to, 50%, which is still enough to win. Some undecideds probably won't vote anyway, I suspect.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A weekend poll has the Dem up by 2 points...I say the odds are the GOP holds this seat and Burns wins by 3-6 points.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

A weekend poll has the Dem up by 2 points...I say the odds are the GOP holds this seat and Burns wins by 3-6 points.

Way, way overestimating the effect of weekend polling.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A weekend poll has the Dem up by 2 points...I say the odds are the GOP holds this seat and Burns wins by 3-6 points.

Way, way overestimating the effect of weekend polling.

I added momentum (1-2%), weekend (2%), very red state (1-2%), Saddam verdict (1-2%)

[Deano963]

I still can't believe Burns is this close. That man is so corrupt he should be getting destroyed. If Tester had had as much campaign money as Burns did, this race would not be close.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

A weekend poll has the Dem up by 2 points...I say the odds are the GOP holds this seat and Burns wins by 3-6 points.

Way, way overestimating the effect of weekend polling.

I added momentum (1-2%), weekend (2%), very red state (1-2%), Saddam verdict (1-2%)

Quite scientific.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

A weekend poll has the Dem up by 2 points...I say the odds are the GOP holds this seat and Burns wins by 3-6 points.

Way, way overestimating the effect of weekend polling.

I added momentum (1-2%), weekend (2%), very red state (1-2%), Saddam verdict (1-2%)

Why are you adding "very red state"?  Why would a poll need to make additional accounting for that?

[poughies]

look a lot of people already voted early before this swing in the polls..... and Burns is under fifty..... this is seat number 3 or 4 (with virginia, man that state has climbed]... I honestly think Chafee might pull it off....

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

look a lot of people already voted early before this swing in the polls..... and Burns is under fifty..... this is seat number 3 or 4 (with virginia, man that state has climbed]... I honestly think Chafee might pull it off....

Don't but the Chafee hype. Too little, too late for him.

[Ben.]

Let's be honest Tester hasnt been over 50% in that many polls even when he was leading by a wide margin... Burns was likley to make up the diffrence in a state like MT and narrow the gap, it was always likley that Tester would be able to garner somthing like 50-52%, but it was never likley that he'd win by a wide margin... the polls havent really changed that much Tester has remained pretty static in the 48-52% bracket, the diffrence is Burns has made up the deficit a bit... but he needs to do more than that to win, at the moment I'd still say that was unlikley.   

[Gustaf]

Let's be honest Tester hasnt been over 50% in that many polls even when he was leading by a wide margin... Burns was likley to make up the diffrence in a state like MT and narrow the gap, it was always likley that Tester would be able to garner somthing like 50-52%, but it was never likley that he'd win by a wide margin... the polls havent really changed that much Tester has remained pretty static in the 48-52% bracket, the diffrence is Burns has made up the deficit a bit... but he needs to do more than that to win, at the moment I'd still say that was unlikley.   

Yep, exactly my point. Even Schweitzer didn't win by more than a couple of points.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I added momentum (1-2%), weekend (2%), very red state (1-2%), Saddam verdict (1-2%)

Why are you adding "very red state"?  Why would a poll need to make additional accounting for that?

I think Burns is under polling in Montana, as most GOPers do in Red States in recent years.  BUT, I forgot about the large number of early voting when I originally posted in this thread.  I no longer believe Burns will win by 3-6%.  This one will be very tight.

[bullmoose88]

I added momentum (1-2%), weekend (2%), very red state (1-2%), Saddam verdict (1-2%)

Why are you adding "very red state"?  Why would a poll need to make additional accounting for that?

I think Burns is under polling in Montana, as most GOPers do in Red States in recent years.  BUT, I forgot about the large number of early voting when I originally posted in this thread.  I no longer believe Burns will win by 3-6%.  This one will be very tight.

I agree it will be tight...I think that Burns though (unlike Bunning in Kentucky which for some reason felt like a similar situation) will lose...too little too late

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I added momentum (1-2%), weekend (2%), very red state (1-2%), Saddam verdict (1-2%)

Why are you adding "very red state"?  Why would a poll need to make additional accounting for that?

I think Burns is under polling in Montana, as most GOPers do in Red States in recent years.  BUT, I forgot about the large number of early voting when I originally posted in this thread.  I no longer believe Burns will win by 3-6%.  This one will be very tight.

I agree it will be tight...I think that Burns though (unlike Bunning in Kentucky which for some reason felt like a similar situation) will lose...too little too late

That is my guess and the same for The Chafeeanator.