Talk Elections

New Poll: Washington Senator by Rasmussen on 2006-09-07 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2006/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=53200609070)

Summary: D: 52%, R: 35%, U: 13%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.rasmussenreports.com)

It looks like McGavick is heading toward a thorough Nethercutting.  I think that Strategic Vision will show a closer race, but if McGavick has lost his personal appeal, he's probably toast.  I do not think he is the kind of candidate who can turn this kind of deficit around in the debates.

EDIT: This is a premium poll; you should not be posting it here, as it is unverifiable.

EDIT 2: For what it's worth, today's news cycle contains a very unfavourable story for Cantwell.  I doubt it will remain this lopsided.

Hmm didn't Ras. usually have this one really close? I guess we don't have to spend a huge amount of time worrying about this one any more although its still worth keeping an eye on.

No, the last poll he took had Cantwell ahead by 11 pts, it was SV that had it unusally close.

Yeah but I'm pretty sure Ras. had it close for a while.

Overton is incorrect.  Rasmussen's last poll was Cantwell +6.  Strategic Vision's was Cantwell +5.  Rasmussen and SV have been tracking pretty similarly.

Washington is a state where the polls work normally.  If two polls say Cantwell is above 50% and leading by double digits, then she probably is.  This is the reason why I changed this race to Likely.

I did see the story in today's newswires, but we'll see if it has any effect come the next few polls.

That sums it up quite well, please no one believe him

I was looking at the last Ramussen poll in July. But the last Survey USA poll had it a big lead. I think Cantwell survives, but barely. The republicans thought in 2000, she would lose and she held on.

Why do you think it will get much closer?

I think Rasmussen is correct, it is a 5-6 pt race, just like in TN, Ford is more like 5-6 pts behind.

Why?

If you take the average of Cantwell's polls and Corker's polls it equals 5-6 pts recently.

I'm pretty sure thats not true.

SV 5 pts, Rasmussen 6 points, and SV 4 points. If you take all the polls except the last two, which can be thrown out due to the recent revelation of the story today it is 5-6 pts. It is true.

You really have no idea of what you are talking about.  Cantwell's story is nowhere near as bad as McGavick is.  How about you leave this race to someone actually from Washington?

I agreen with you Alcon... I have seen that ever since Cantwell started her media blitz she has been looking better and better in the polls (I remember coming home two days ago and having 5 messages... two from Cantwell campaigners and three from local, then turning on the TV immediatly appears a Cantwell ad, kinda freaky really)

I was saying that Cantwell got a bounce from the dui revelation of the McGavick camp and with this revelation today it might stabalize that bounce that she got. That dui revelation was part of the reason why her poll numbers rising. Again, I didn't say it will derail her campaign, I said it may neutralize the dui charge of McGavick that she got her bounce from and the race might return back to a close race. And SV will come out with a poll at the end of this month, I think it will remain a close race. I think it will remain a close race which most of the pundits predict all the way through.

It might reduce the bounce a bit, but when people hear anything involving transferring of money from some such to some other such, they tend to tune out.  I'm saying, when the dust clears, Cantwell will probably be up by somewhere between a Kerry margin and a Patty Murray margin, perhaps allowing for Green Aaron Dixon.

And saying that it will neutralise the DUI charge is also kind of ignorant.  The DUI charge wasn't the problem; the "lying" about the DUI charge was.  It wasn't even that, per se, but rather how absolutely lame being wrong about the DUI was.  A lot of fence voters sat, scratching their head, thinking "wasn't this guy supposed to be down-to-earth and a straight shooter?"  Despite the wrangling over whether one could actually forget a DUI arrest and think they were cited, it's kind of hard to believe his genuine, tortured public apology and how much it has affected his life when he never bothered to ask and remember whether he was arrested.

People are seeing echoes of George Nethercutt, here.  The last straw - to mix metaphors, the one that breaks the camel's back - will be a folksy, "I'm a good guy" ad in the vein of Nethercutt's "Bloopers."  That was the point at which the politically savvy said, "this guy must be seeing some really bloody internals," and the swing voters thought, "well, OK, you're a good guy who will change things in Washington.  Do we get to hear anything else?"  McGavick is, so far, probably even guiltier of running on personality than Nethercutt.  He risks becoming everybody's clueless dad.

Well so far SV have had it a 5-6 pt race, it will come out with a new poll at the end of this month and we will see what it comes out to. SV was close in the governors race, so I might lean more to the SV side of the equation.

And SurveyUSA was more Republican -- much more.  Really, no pollster did well in 2004's Governor race.  You can't directly transfer the two.  If everything was as it was in 2004, SurveyUSA should be getting more Republican results...

Besides, isn't the Senate more relevant?  Granted, Strategic Vision was the best there.

And Mason-Dixon really did screw up Washington state races in 2004...Never noticed that.

Zogby agrees that it is more like a 6 or 7 pt race and he did well in predicting Patty Murray's and John Kerry's victory there. Eventhough he didn't do well in the Governor's race.

Was this a Zogby Interactive poll, and when was it conducted?

The Zogby polls were conducted on Aug 28. And it had Cantwell up by 7 or 8 pts. No, this isn't a Zogby poll but I put stock in the Zogby polls better than Rasmussen who has been all over the map all year long with its irregular polling.

Which in most states beats becoming everybody's cold, distant mom.

P.S.  Patty Murphy !?!

Sorry meant Patty Murray.

Zogby is terrible. Rasmussen is pretty good. Just look at the polling during the 2004 elections.

You keep saying that and he blew the 2000 election. He nailed the Patty Murray race if I recall and he predicted the Kerry victory in 2004, so I believe his poll on Washington. Also Eraserhead this poll was taken before the news story broke before yesterday.

Everyone predicted a Kerry victory in 2004 in Washington.  Washington is an easy state to poll federally, and not so easy on the state level (Mason-Dixon did poorly in 2004).

But the Patty Murray was called by Zogby as well.  I think that Cantwell is up between 6-9 pts. This race is going to go down to the wire.  And the DUI charge and the scandle by Cantwell might cancel each other out and we will have a very close race at the end worth watching.

Do you even know what the scandal is?  Seriously, dude, you're uneducated on this stuff.

I am not uneducated I just said that this race will come down to the wire all scandles aside. Scandles don't have much impact unless it is a big scandles both were minor and it will be a close race.

Why do you think Cantwell will lose support?

Because she is very pro-war and WA the war isn't that popular. In WA Bush approvals are negative. That's why I think it will be very close at the end. Also, there are independents on the ticket, and just like Ralph Nader syphened votes away from Kerry and Gore, they are going to take away some support from her, and it will end up being a close race.

Why do you think that will change by November?  It's already a well-known fact that Cantwell is pro-war.

Dixon isn't going to do super-well.  Not enough to make a difference of more than a few points, I don't think.

Whats the alternative though? McGavick is even more pro war. Now if McGavick was anti-war we would have a really interesting campaign on our hands.

There is about 15% undecided and eventhough they know Cantwell's position on the war they have yet to decide if she is fit for office. Those undecides will decide the outcome of the race one way or the other. So, far they haven't broke for either camp. They know who positions, but they haven't made up their minds yet.

Dude, I know what undecideds are.  They generally aren't ultra-liberal. :P

But the undecides will decide the outcome of the election and might give McGavick a chance who has a great story though, that's why it will get close at the end and race will be undecided until the ads and debates. No, the independents are not very liberal, but they might want someone who is a true independent like McGavick and not someone who votes along party lines, Democratic.  I am not saying that McGavick will win this but he  can make it dangerously close just like Webb is doing in VA.

Oh, please.  Every Washington Republican is an "independent."  McGavick is a social and economic conservative who will vote pretty near party line.  He worked for Slade Gorton!

I am saying that they may want people who moves Bush bills forward in the senate not stalling them. I am not saying that he will win, but he got a great life story and he can will.

Why would Washington want someone who supports Bush legislation when he is so unpopular?

Why did the country vote for Bush in 2004 and he was unpopular as well? I agree with you that Washington isn't like the rest of the south but having an incumbant in the WH does give advantages to the party that is challenging the outparty. I was refering to the spending bills on defense spending not social spending bills like tax cuts. The country wants continued support of defense build up and Cantwell might not fit that bill. She hasn't vote  for all of Bush defense authorization bills.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Ever.

Bush had positive approvals in November 2004; Kerry had negative approvals.

Whatever "defence build-up" means.

EDIT: Washington, in the South?   What?!?  Are you actually even from the U.S.?  Please tell me that you aren't confusing the District of Columbia with Washington state.

I was talking about the defense bills that Cantwell cut. She didn't vote for all of them and the people want the defense bills passed all of them and McGavick will vote for them. As for Bush approvals, he was at 40% all summer long he was only at 50% only on election day. Again, I didn't say that Cantwell won't win, it will be close. And I do know what I am talking about.

The approvals during the summer don't matter.  People don't vote based on summer approval!

And please tell me that you know the difference between Washington state and Washington, D.C., because Washington isn't a part of the "South."  What the hell?

Again, Cantwell didn't vote for all the spending bills over the long hall and people want someone who funds the war on terror. And the approval ratings was at 40% until election day. If Kerry had so low approvals why did he win close to winning the election.

Prove that people won't vote for someone based on this.  Give any evidence.

By the way, you need to be honest, here.  I'm going to assume that you aren't American, or aren't a native English speaker, or something.  Is this true?  If it is, I will be a little less harsh on you, but confusing Washington, D.C. with the state is ridiculous.

The Dems who were obstructing defense authorization bills lost two elections based on the war on terror that is my evidence. It might be to some but not to everyone.  Kerry got defeated because Bush ran the ad over and over again, that he didn't fund the troops in Iraq, that's my proof.

I am increasingly believing you are one of the single best trolls I've ever seen.  You are way too passive about being insulted, considering how uneducated you are on this.

No one is convinced they know too much while making a statement like "Washington is in the South."  Sorry.

Well if you disagree with me on that there Dick Cheney came on MTP this morning and said that the biggest asset the Republicans have is that the republicans have kept people safe and they have won every election since 911. I think that may help out Republicans in close races. And you were not too long ago was argueiing with me that McGavick had a chance, why did you change.

I do think McGavick has a chance, but I think that he blew a huge part of his chance with screwing up the DUI confession.

And you still have not answered my question.  Why did you confuse Washington, the state, with the district?  I do not believe that any educated American would do this.

Honestly Overton, I've found you to be miseducated, misinformed, and annoying lately.  And this post, and the ensuing posts from you just confirm to me that you are an idiot.  No Washington "isn't like the rest of the south", because it is not in the South, it is in the Pacific Northwest!!

And Bush was somewhat unpopular in 2004, and much more unpopular now!!  And do you know anything about Washington State and it's residents??  Yes, the eastern part of the state is more conservative, but it it's voice is usually drowned out by the democrats, liberals and ultra-liberals in the western part of the state. 

You are a moron!!

In my opinion, the factors of this race are that Cantwell is a freshman senator, whom the population still isn't sure of, and whom has made some mistakes in some of the minds of her traditional base of support.

Stop trolling every thread, when you clearly haven't got a grasp on the facts or political influences involved!!

You call me a moran or an idiot. I didn't say that Cantwell was going to lose, you misread my comments. I said that the war on terror may help some GOP senators in some of the close races. It may be this one it may be in NJ. But you shouldn't resort to name calling when you disagree with someone. Take a look at my map, do I have Cantwell losing no I don't. I said that there are enough undecides in this race to make it close at the end. Plse read my comments thouroughly before you respond.

Oh, I read everything you write, the problem is it just makes no sense.  It jumps from argument to argument, without any clear realization of facts or political environment.

To you it don't make since. I said that this is going to be a very close race with the undecides and that is what I was trying to say maybe I got some facts wrong but all the polls show that except the last two which was conducted before the revelation was revealed.

Stop with the "revelation."  It's a minor scandal at best.

Cantwell is the favorite but when debates come McGavick can put himself in position to will ultimately on election day.

I don't think there's much of a chance of McGavick being a significantly better debator than Cantwell.

I will go by the next SV vision poll they have a good record on predicting the outcome of WA races. It can be argued that they shouldn't be listened to as much, but I will will listen to the next one.  So far they have it nick and tuck.

Who the hell confuses Washington DC with Washinton state in a conversation like this?

I hope to God, overton, that you are a foreigner than at least there is a reason for your stupidity. However I would suggest to you, if you are an uninformed foreigner, that you either learn about America and American politics or you leave.

I seriously consider that you are now just actively trolling just due to your lack of any knowledge on most issues, your pig-headedness and your annoying behavior.

I didn't confuse Washington DC with Washington state. That comment should be deleted from from this thread. I was talking about voting trends of the country. But the topic at hand was how close this election will be and I believe it will be close. You may disagree with that, but I do and that is all that counts.

Actually, the topic at the hand currently seems to be, "Overton says that the race will be close over and over again without really explaining why."

And, yes, Washington votes differently than the South.  Huh?  Maybe that's because there are actually white Democrats here?

SV and Zogby has the race close and that is all that matters to me. And you said it too over the summer that SV had a good record on predicting races in WA and you said that McGavick had a good chance of winning.

Strategic Vision is good, but as Vorlon says...

One of these is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...

And that is assuming that Strategic Vision comes out with a much closer poll.

Here's a look at the 2004 polls in Washington:

President - Everyone did very well.  There was not a bad poll for President in Washington in 2004.  Zogby did not poll toward election time.  Mason-Dixon and Strategic Vision both did very well; SurveyUSA did decently, but was a bit on the GOP side.

Senate - Mason-Dixon did best (I forgot that Murray won by such a big margin), and they did well.  Strategic Vision was just OK, and SurveyUSA did poorly, but not whacky.

Gubernatoral - No one did particularly well.  SurveyUSA yet again was too Republican, Strategic Vision did pretty decently, and Mason-Dixon was too Democratic (although less than SurveyUSA was Republican).

So, in conclusion:

Strategic Vision - Good.

Mason-Dixon - Good, perhaps with a Democratic tilt.

SurveyUSA - OK, but too Republican.

No other polling firms polled close enough to the election to have a record, including Rasmussen and Zogby.

And, now, what do we have?  Strategic Vision more Republican than SurveyUSA, regularly.

And what does that mean?  That 2004 doesn't mean much for 2006, in Washington, so you can't make these assumptions you're making.

McGavick had a good chance of winning - an OK, at least - before the DUI crap.  Now he has a very remote chance of winning.

As long as Cantwell struggles in the polls I am leaning this towards Cantwell slightly. And in some polls she had struggled. If she had a substantial lead all the way through it would of been different. But struggling to get to 50% isn't good to be an incumbant no matter how much you lead in the polls and so far she has only been above 50% in two polls.

Being over 50% isn't very important.  The margin is.  If a poll pushes undecideds harder than another, a candidate is more likely to go over 50%.

For instance, what's a better place to be -- ahead 50%-48% in the polls, or 49%-12%?

I think this race will depend on turnout and turnout always dictate races in competetive races, and this race will come to that. Turnout is the key. If more republicans come out more McGavick has a chance for the upset. If it is a typical year like in Wa in years past McGavick has no chance.

And what groups do you think will turn out to help McGavick?

personally I dont see any heavy turnout in any of Washington except for WA-08, most people see Cantwell heading to another term and all of the congressional districts besides Reichert are pretty safe, so I would say that is where to expect the highest turnout by far, and since the district is so split I would say that it doesnt really make a difference (in anything helping Cantwell a teeny-tiny bit... maybe)

This race is way too hyped. Cantwell will win, unless some odd scandal happens in the next two months. Why is everyone so freaked out about a not so close race? I don't see what the big deal is.

What about Elway?

Elway's last poll was in mid-September, and was way too Democratic (as his polls almost always are).

Right.