Talk Elections

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/529128829408002050

Interesting to see that Don Young's only up 6 too.

This is probably good news for Sullivan, considering the fact that the GOP is always underestimated in this state.

Much closer than I had thought! Maybe the pro-incumbency rule and Begich's groundgame can save him!

Definitely leaning Sullivan at this point.

The margin gives us Dems more hope than expected! Not that I expect this poll to make any sense in relation to the final results given that GOP pollsters have begich up and left leaning ones have Sullivan. Messy state to poll.

I think it's more an underestimation of incumbents than overestimation of democrats.

Whoa, this is actually very close considering he was consistently trailing by 3-6 before. This one could go either way.

Begich can still win this, it's contingent on how good turnout is in the bush. PPP's last poll had Sullivan up by much more than this.

The sheer number of basically ties this year is just ridiculous

No, it didn't. The last PPP poll had Begich down 2.

If the Dems beat polls by 3% and somehow hold CO IA NC while winning Kansas and keeping a majority. Along with winning governors in FL PA WI MI KS, the right's reaction would be just priceless. Of course they'll win a narrow majority and think it's a full throated endorsement of the GOP agenda and then lose the senate right back in 2016.

Begich will win as Alaska's pro-incumbent rule strikes again!

God damn the responses to these polls make this board so hard to read sometimes. This forum should be called Election Atlas Forum (D).

Begichmentum!

The problem with that logic is that Republicans have also been underestimated by the polls in presidential elections too. This is coming from someone who wants Begich to win.

Evidence?

The chart in this article ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-senate-polling-in-alaska-is-making-us-sweat/ ) indicates that Democrats were seriously overestimated in Alaska presidential polling in 2000 and 2008, at least.

History of a 7 point discrepancy between the polls and actual results doesn't matter in Alaska apparently. But you know, Ken Buck. 

2008 can't be included due to the Palin effect. So really that leaves just 2000 as the "proof" that it's not just an incumbent bias. Considering we have an incumbent R and incumbent D up at the same time on Tuesday, this will be put to the test.

That's from the same chart that shows uber Rep States have Democratic polling biases and Dem States having Republican biases. That's because the minority party's numbers are at the ceiling with tons of undecideds. Begich could easily win with 46-45% of the vote given the popularity of third parties in Alaska. We'll see, but I believe Begich will win. His ground game is certainly taking Sullivan's to the woodshed.

2006-Gov had no incumbent running either, and just discounting 2008-Pres like that is questionable. But I suppose you are right that it will be put to the test on Tuesday :)

Just a note... you realise none of this is going to change the outcome in any of these states right? You're only increasing your blood-pressure unnecessarily.

Begich is still in play due to his good relationship with the Alaska Native American community but it's pretty funny too see someone who's been posting images adamantly claiming KEN BUCK AND 2012 BIAS THEREFORE UDALL WINS not care about Alaska's decade long D+7 poll bias.

Something is until it isn't. Still, I'd wouldn't be shocked if Walker and Sullivan both won, but it's far more likely that it's Parnell and Sullivan. Begich's ground game might lower the polling distance, though, so the polling we see may be more accurate than ever before.

Or he wins by 12 and we're all just scratching our heads like what the f*kk even is Alaska.

^^^Seriously. There's really nothing that would surprise me in Alaska. Begich landslide, Sullivan landslide, anything in between.

The most likely scenario, based on Alaska being as Republican as it is, is Begich losing his Senate seat.

Yes, definitely.

Genuine question: With all of this talk about how Alaska loves incumbents, are there instances when it benefited a Democratic incumbent??

Only thing I can think of is swing to Obama in 2012. But Alaska hasn't really had it's own Dem incumbent in a while...

Tony Knowles ran statewide five times, the only time he ever crossed 50% (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=2&year=1998&f=0&off=5&elect=0) was as the incumbent governor despite originally winning with 41% (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1994&fips=2&off=5&elect=0&f=0). Obama also overperformed there in 2012 (relative to expectations as there was zero polling done) as the state swung his way more so than any other state in the country. There's also the Murkowski reelection which suggests it isn't just a Republican Party name brand type thing.

Simply put, there haven't been enough Dem incumbents to know for sure. This election will test the hypothesis.

Well, you can't really have that discussion about Alaska Democrat Senators, since they haven't had one up for re-election since 1980. And Mike Gravel lost in the Democratic Primary. The guy that beat Gravel went on to lose the general election to Frank Murkowski.

The Senator before Grabel, Ernest Gruening, lost the Democratic nomination to Grabel in 1968.

The other Alaska Democrat, Bob Bartlet, died while in office and was replaced by Ted Stephens.

I guess those Democrats got two terms each, while the Murkowskis and Stephens held on to their seats forever. Stephens lost to Begich in 2008.

The swing to Obama in 2012 is likely due to a Palin effect no?

I don't see why Palin on the ballot would bias the polling in 2008 though. That doesn't necessarily make sense to me. In fact, it makes little sense in general that there would be a polling bias for incumbents. What's the logic behind that theory?

No idea what's going to happen here. I'm thinking Begich may have a better shot at surviving than Udall or Bailey though which is pretty funny.

Also lol @ Don't Young. Stop threatening to kill people, you old coot.