Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
I've been concerned for a while now that Paul Hodes is missing the boat in his campaigning/ advertising. A little while back he was just a few points behind Ayotte and, according to a poll I just saw reported on MUR, he has slipped behind much more.
The first TV ad Hodes ran was the one where he was speaking over a hot dog eating contest, comparing DC with the gluttony going on behind him.It was hard to hear him and it was silly. I thought then he should ditch the cute and go for a serious, direct talk with the voters. These are serious times, frightening times, that require serious, direct communication. Instead, he has opted for more cute, ducking his vote for the stimulus and saying he's the fiscal conservative. This does not do the voters justice.
Hodes needs to defend his positions and votes directly and with conviction. He needs to talk about special interests and the fact that Ayotte is in lock step with the party that has fought every attempt to protect the middle class. He needs to defend the health care bill in terms that people understand and not just the 2 points about pre-existing conditions and kicking people off their policies. He needs to show passion and conviction about how the Republicans have fought tooth and nail against any provisions that support patient's rights over insurance companies; have fought tooth and nail against any financial reform to hold banks and other corporations accountable and protect consumers. He needs to combat the myth of Obamacare as government run healthcare. He is letting the Repugs frame the issues and he plays defense.
Now Ayotte is running exactly the kind of ad I was hoping Hodes would run. She speaks directly to the voters and delivers the talking points in a credible and un-scary way while walking through the New Hampshire woods. This is the way to gain credibility with voters.
It's time for Hodes to go on offense and attack Ayotte for her lax enforcement of mortgage fraud cases that came before her and generalize that to a lack of sympathy with working families - whether it's health care coverage/insurance reform, banking regulations or other regulations. She sides with big corporations. People need to understand how her lax enforcement as AG reflects her priorities and sympathies. When she was AG, she had the chance to use her position to stand up for home-owners and did she? NO!
Stand up, Paul, talk to the camera and tell the voters why you will protect them from the runaway tea party train hell bent on dismantling the middle class, and worrying only about the well off. Tell the voters you are in Washington to protect them against the very powerful corporations that have demonstrated in so many ways that all they care about is their profits. Tell the voters what will happen to the middle class if Repugs take over. Paint the picture. Take on Ayotte's positions on issues that effect our lives and our futures. If she calls it class warfare, tell her someone better fight for the middle class because if they don't it's going to disappear!
(Some really impressive diaries coming down the line lately... - promoted by Dean Barker)
The latest John DiStaso Granite Status column screams:
LYNCH STRUGGLES CONTINUE. A fourth consecutive poll of the New Hampshire governor's race shows Democratic incumbent John Lynch falling short of the 50 percent mark in a head-to-head match-up Republican candidate John Stephen.
Why does he focus on Lynch falling short of the 50% mark, rather than the head-to-head numbers? Well, as every "political insider" knows, incumbents polling under 50% are vulnerable this early in the election because the undecided vote always breaks against the incumbent.
Except, the conventional wisdom is wrong! And Nate Silver proves it.
What the actual evidence shows, rather, is the following:
1) It is extremely common for an incumbent come back to win re-election while having less than 50 percent of the vote in early polls.
2) In comparison to early polls, there is no demonstrable tendency for challengers to pick up a larger share of the undecided vote than incumbents.
3) Incumbents almost always get a larger share of the actual vote than they do in early polls (as do challengers). They do not "get what they get in the tracking"; they almost always get more.
4) However, the incumbent's vote share in early polls may in fact be a better predictor of the final margin in the race than the opponent's vote share. That is, it may be proper to focus more on the incumbent's number than the opponent's when evaluating such a poll -- even though it is extremely improper to assume that the incumbent will not pick up any additional percentage of the vote.
Oh, by the way, the Rasmussen poll purportedly showing Lynch struggling has him up by 12 points over Stephen, up from 10 points last month.
(I saw this poll as well. Wonder how this will play out in 2010 and beyond. - promoted by Jennifer Daler)
How discredited is the Grand Old Party brand name these days? This discredited:
According to a just-released Rasmussen poll (I know... Rasmussen, but still), in a three-way ballot test a "Tea Party" candidate would outpoll his Republican opponent by 23% to 18%. A Democrat finishes first with 33% and the other 22% are undecided. Among independents, 33% would prefer the Tea Party candidate while only 12% prefer the GOP.
In a UNH poll conducted between 4/13 and 4/22 with about 500 sample size (in other words, likely the same operation done here and here), John E. Sununu is shown to be besting Paul Hodes 46%-41%, with 11% undecided and 2% for someone else.
That's a fascinating result for the Sununu Dynasty to chew on as they decree whether or no The Younger shall be the nominee - on Cloud Hampshire.
When you add up the 111 registered Democrats, 137 registered Republicans, and 185 registered Undeclareds who were polled on this match-up, you get a remarkable picture of this fantasy state. Let's compare it with the most recent data - November 2008 - from a real place that has elections called New Hampshire.
On Cloud Hampshire, Democrats make up only 25.63% of the electorate, Republicans dominate with 31.63% of the share, and the remaining 42.72% are Undeclared.
In New Hampshire, Democrats are actually the party in the driver's seat, with 29.44% of the people's choice, followed closely by Republicans with 29.26%. Undeclareds round it out with 41.27%
In Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, the Sprinter has a chance. Here on earth, with 2% less Republicans and almost 4% more Democrats, it's harder to say.
Also on Cloud Hampshire, young voters (ages 18-34) are picking Hodes over Sununu by 9 points (47%-38%) - wow! What a pity that in the clouds, people aged 18-34 only make up 9.75% of the voting electorate. Now I know that young people are the hardest to get to the polls, but sheesh, Cloud Hampshire, you have a serious civics problem there. Especially since in a real place called the United States of America, exit polls show that 52% of voters aged 18-29 turned out for the election. I'm guessing that translates into something a little higher than 9.75%. And in fact, a little bird tells me, voters age 18-29 made up 17% of the electorate in NH-Sen for 2008. I wonder what 18-34 would be?
But here's the thing. The poll was done by Andy Smith during the same round on other issues released a little earlier (and conducted from 13 April to 22 April). Mo's poll also has an almost identical sample number of 491 voters.
While lacking internals to look at, it is nonetheless reasonable to assume based on the sample size and date conducted that the marriage equality poll is likely higher than even the 55% majority represented.
I'm putting this post up for one reason only - so that it can mock us for the next four years if we don't do our part to get out the vote from now until Tuesday.
The wind is at our back. Here are six reasons to work like mad to capitalize on it:
Research 2000 (for the Monitor):
Barack Obama: 51%
John McCain: 44%
Jeanne Shaheen: 52%
John Sununu: 42%
Ken Blevens: 2%
Carol Shea-Porter: 49%
Jeb Bradley: 42%
Robert Kingsbury: 2%
Paul Hodes: 55%
Jennifer Horn 38%
Chester LaPointe: 3%
John Lynch: 64%
Joe Kenney: 32%
Survey USA:
Barack Obama: 51%
John McCain: 44%
Jeanne Shaheen: 53%
John Sununu: 40%
Strategic Vision
Barack Obama: 50%
John McCain: 41%
other: 2%
undecided: 7%
Jeanne Shaheen: 48%
John Sununu: 41%
undecided: 11%
Suffolk U (this one is a really interesting read on independents and women - someone tell Jennifer Donahue):
Barack Obama: 53%
John McCain: 40%
Jeanne Shaheen: 48%
John Sununu: 39%
Rasmussen (NH-Pres and NH-Sen):
Barack Obama: 51%
John McCain: 44%
Jeanne Shaheen: 52%
John Sununu: 44%
ARG (NH-Pres and NH-Sen):
Barack Obama: 56%
John McCain: 41%
Jeanne Shaheen: 53%
John Sununu: 41%
Pretty remarkable consistency among all six, no?
What methodologies and samples I could find are below the fold. As usual, R2K appears to be the most precise in sampling for party and demographics.
Excuse the drive-by post, but three new polls today give some great news all around for Obama, Shaheen, Carol, Paul, and John: R2K for the Monitor, Survey USA, and Strategic Vision.
Analysis coming later after the trick-or-treating.
Sorry, folks, this one is behind a paywall, so I've got no data to look at, but the latest NBC/Mason-Dixon poll for our state confirms the many other polls that have come down in recent days - Obama 50 to McCain 39%.
I suppose this could be a polling Open Thread, since there are so many interesting ones out there, both state and national.
Dante made an interesting observation about women and Obama v. Shaheen, but I'm not going to make anything of it until I see a couple more days of the tracking poll.
(I tried so hard not to promote this, I really did, but the spread is so shocking (and the fourth one now, for POTUS, in four days) that I can't resist. - promoted by Dean Barker)
There's a new SUSA Senate poll out today: Shaheen 48%, Sununu 40%.
They also have a state Presidential poll: Obama 53%, McCain 40%.
They see Obama headed to the biggest Dem win here since Johnson in 1964.
How could it be that Obama has opened up double digit lead in two different polls? It's easy if you follow what Dante said (and buy his current PVI projection for NH, which I do):
Let's start with a look at the national polls. It's clear that Obama has broken this race wide open, at least for now. Pollster.com estimates his lead nationally at 7 points.
Three months ago, we estimated New Hampshire's PVI (partisan voting index) at R-2 or R-3. In other words, given the results of the 2004 election and demographic trends since that time, one would expect a Republican presidential candidate to perform two or three percentage points below his national standing here in the Granite State.
In that context, a 10-point Obama lead here is perfectly plausible, in the context of a national race where the Democrat leads by seven. In that context, New Hampshire is behaving just as we might expect from a purple state with a Democratic tilt.
Brian Lawson's got his hands on a new poll from St. Anselm's that has Obama up big. I can't find a link, but here's the data I culled from the 'Ticker:
I don't know anything about the pollster, Abt SRBI, but there we are. And here's a takeaway from the poll that will make you smile:
"Change in Washington is extremely important to 44% of likely voters, the poll shows. Of those voters, Obama drew 65% and McCain 22%
Could be an outlier, or could be yet more evidence that in the wake of McCain's reckless campaigning, Obama is pulling away from McCain in the critical swing states.
Anecdotally, a registered Republican told me yesterday that he was voting for Obama on the basis of our country desperately needing change from the past eight years.
It positively rained New Hampshire polls today - I'm only just now catching up to them.
Let's start with the presidentials. Marist College has Obama leading, and with a good sample size of registered voters, and more so with leaners factored in:
70% of Obama's backers are excited about the candidates running for president while 49% of McCain's report they are enthused.
On to Rasmussen, which was the real (bad) surprise of the day, and unfortunately I have no access to their sample data without paying for it. First up, the presidentials have McCain ahead by a couple, mimicking the Faux Hampshire poll. A click at the link suggests that McCain has shored up his support among the GOP here (a result of Palin? I personally don't think so, but who knows?)
Obama 49%
McCain 47%
Sample size: 700. Conducted 9/23. MoE +/-4%
On to Ras' Senate poll, the real shocker of the day, so much so I can only believe we have an outlier on our hands here, especially given that just yesterday Shaheen was beating Sununu by four in a poll that oversampled Republicans by 7%, and ARG still has them worlds apart:
Sununu 52%
Shaheen 45%
Sample size: 700. Conducted 9/23. MoE +/-4%
Next up, Paul Hodes released an internal poll today to counter the sly NRCC poll taken right after Horn won the nomination (courtesy SSP):
Anzalone-Liszt for Paul Hodes (9/14-18, likely voters):
Paul Hodes (D-inc): 50
Jennifer Horn (R): 32
Chester Lapointe (L): 4
(MoE: ±4.4%)
Looks like not a whole lot to worry about there.
And rounding out the end, we come to the third, Congressional iteration of the WMUR/UNH Granite State Poll of Faux Hampshire, the land of 7% more Republicans than New Hampshire:
Interview dates just a bit before the Obama momentum shifted...
2008 President
McCain 48% (+3 over August)
Obama 45% (-1 over August)
Other 1%
Undecided 6%
Interview dates: September 13-15, Sample size: 600 likely voters MOE: ±4%
So another month of pins and needles for the Obama camp in NH. Rasummusen should be out in the next day or two with their monthly... perhaps we will see some Obama Mo there?
Much better news for Shaheen
2008 US Senate
Shaheen 52%
Sununu 40%
Undecided 8%
Interview dates: September 13-15, Sample size: 600 likely voters, MOE: ±4%
Let's start our consideration of the UNH poll results with their partisan breakdowns, since that's been the place their sample is clearly inconsistent. July registrations, statewide, broke down as 30.5% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 38.3% undeclared. The 5.5% of the UNH first district sample and 7% of the second that's unregistered makes it difficult to assess compare directly, but in any case, what I'm most interested in is the sample from poll to poll.
Here's how that goes:
Dem
Rep
Ind
July Poll 1st District
25.5
27.2
41.3
April - 1st District
26.3
25.9
41.8
January - 1st District
37.1
26.6
28.1
Dem
Rep
Ind
July Poll 2nd District
25.2
28.2
38.2
April - 2nd District
27.5
21.5
42.9
January - 2nd District
29.3
24.7
38.7
But the key point I've been trying to make is that the fluctuations in the sample of this poll from one to another make it problematic to directly compare them.
So from January to April, Carol Shea-Porter's net favorability dropped from +26 to +11 at the same time as Andy Smith's sample of Democrats dropped from 37% (which was way too high) to 26%. From April to July, Andy Smith's first district sample remained relatively stable, and Shea-Porter's favorability dropped further as her opponents worked hard to negatively define her, but her head-to-head match-ups with Jeb Bradley and John Stephen changed very little.
Meanwhile, in the second district, the sample had both Democrats and Republicans losing ground to undeclareds in April, and Republicans jumping considerably in July with both Democrats and undeclareds dropping. And lo and behold! Hodes dropped in his head to head match-ups with Bob Clegg and Jennifer Horn. Who ever would have thought that when you raise the Republicans in your sample by nearly 7 points, the Democratic incumbent's head-to-heads will suffer a bit?
So, with that said, take it for what it's worth: That is, somewhat more than ARG, but not a whole lot at least up until the pre-election tracking poll starts.
If you still want the numbers, here they are. I'm including April numbers in parentheses, even though the comparison is, as I've detailed, problematic:
First district MoE 6.4%
Shea-Porter 40 (39)
Bradley 46 (45)
Shea-Porter 42 (43)
Stephen 36 (35)
Second district MoE 6.3%
Hodes 44 (51)
Clegg 25 (24)
Hodes 43 (52)
Horn 23 (25)
(Edited to add MoE.)
Update: In case anyone's wondering, here are the statewide sample numbers.
Dem
Rep
Ind
January
32.9
25.6
33.6
April
26.9
23.7
42.4
July
25.3
27.6
39.9
I should also note, some of these fluctuations aren't at all significant. I'm just laying them all out because some are and I think it's important to have as much information as possible available.
Finally, based on these new polls, CQ has, correctly, imho, changed their rating to "Leans Democratic" from "No Clear Favorite."
Takeaway: conventional wisdom is starting to solidify nationally that Sununu is in serious trouble. And for us watching more closely, we have two more polls that still show him well below the magic 50% number needed for an incumbent to show any kind of job security. And as far as where the electorate is in reference to the two polls, my best guess is that it's probably somewhere in-between ARG and UNH, which is essentially where it was in previous polling.
Sometime in the near future, we can expect to see new polling on the state's congressional races from the UNH survey center. Before those numbers come out, I want to do a little refresher on why no one should take them very seriously.
Short version: UNH polls have serious sampling problems. Specifically (at a minimum), partisan identification fluctuates so wildly that looking at trend lines is misleading. The UNH poll in January is different from the UNH poll in April which may well turn out to be different from the UNH poll in July. Not garden-variety, all-polling-contains-some-error different. Apples and oranges different.
Long version: Back in May, I wrote a diary about the recent record of this poll, and specifically about these sampling problems. Rather than excerpt the entire diary, I'm bumping it to directly below this post.
But here I want to get back to the core problem, so I will repeat my excerpt from DavidNYC at noted national horserace blog Swing State Project.
I think that just about explains things: The current sample has 10% more Republicans than the prior poll. While I'm aware that party ID among independents tends to shift with the political winds, there's been nothing to suggest that even so much as a gentle zephyr has been blowing in the GOP's direction in New Hampshire over the last twelve weeks. What's more, if Bush's favorability shows an increase comparable to Bass's, that would make him more popular in blue New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole - and more popular than he's been in the state since January.
So, what's been going on with the sample in recent UNH polls? Let's look a take at the first district, where Carol Shea-Porter's popularity apparently took a pretty striking nosedive between January and April. At least, in Andy Smith's sample, which it must be understood is distinct from reality.
With first-district samples of 267 in January and 251 in April, here's how partisan identification broke down:
Basically, we're to believe that Democrats took an 11-point tumble while Republicans held just about steady and undeclareds skyrocketed. I can believe that in the wake of the primary, a few people who had voted for one party reverted to identifying as undeclared. But this sample strains credulity to a truly insulting degree, relying on reporters not to read closely enough to see what's going on (whether it be grounded in sloppiness or intentional manipulation).
I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to find out the partisan distribution of the upcoming poll. Anyone got any bets?
Update: A quick gander at the numbers of likely voters in the presidential poll released today showing Obama up by just 3 points, in contrast to other recent polling, shows this partisan breakdown:
Democrats 25%
Republicans 28%
Undeclared 40%
Presumably this is just a subset of the sample being used for the downballot races, which won't be screened for likely voters, but if it's a sign of things to come, color me excited.
And a reminder: 50,000 more people voted Democratic in the NH presidential primary than voted Republican this year.
