For our purposes, this is the Mystery Pollster edition!
But What About The Presidential Debate?
My night watchman.
Most of these polls were sampled just after the debate. My expectation, which is not met but also not disproven by these polls, since I don’t trust many of them to be honest, is that Senators are not going to be heavily impacted by their Party’s Presidential candidate performance, even among voters who barely pay attention to the election.
That said, their reactions may impact certain Senators. After all, even though President Biden technically won that debate, Senators who ignore his demeanour and initially wrong answers on the Democratic side may face criticism and a few lost votes, while those who do criticize Biden may lose the votes of those voters who value absolute loyalty. It’s a bit of a conundrum.
Republican Senators may be less vulnerable to losing their base, but more vulnerable to losing the respect of independent voters, because they are loyal, regardless of inner turmoil, to Mr Trump. Independents who recognized the utterly despicable flow of mendacity from Mr Trump’s lips, his repeated inability to answer questions and to control himself, may find themselves unable to vote for those Republicans, incumbents or not.
What About Remington Research Group?
Or at least you’d be asking if you read ahead. Remington published a lot of polls on July 10, which explains why I’m including them. They have a FiveThirtyEight rating of 2.6, putting them in the top 30 of those ratings, which is nothing to sniff at.
That said, it’s worth noting the sponsor of all the Remington polls is American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). It takes very little imagination to think that FiveThirtyEight lists them as a Republican-aligned organization, as it’s the Democrats who lean heavily to disassembling the fossil fuel industry in response to the growing evidence of climate change. AFPM will not be in favor of Democratic governance, even if it means the destruction of humanity. And it might.
Remington’s poll samples are small, but not minuscule. I’d be far happier with samples twice as large, but maybe that’s just me.
Adding to that is the publishing media, an extreme-right platform called The Daily Wire. Written to make readers think they’re getting an exclusive insight, it discourages comparisons and critical thinking while trying to encourage sheep behavior following the Presidential debate. It feels very manipulative.
Past performance is not necessarily predictive of future accomplishments. Looking over the Remington results, with the possible exception of Ohio and maybe Michigan, all the results are far more in the conservatives’ favor than most other polls I’ve seen. The question in my mind, then, is whether Remington was bought to produce results, or if the other pollsters are just getting things wrong. While either remains possible, the fact of the matter is that, over the last 2-4 years, most conservative polls have proven painfully and inaccurately optimistic, while independent pollsters have been more successful.
So evaluating Remington will involve a lot of skepticism.
And Onwards Over Yon Cliff …
- In Texas, unknown pollster Manhattan Institute (which may be the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, but Wikipedia does not see it being a polling organization, and FiveThirtyEight just shrugs its shoulders either way – don’t visualize that) tries to give continued hope to Texas liberals by allowing that incumbent Senator Cruz (R-TX) has only a three point lead over challenger Rep Allred (D-TX), 46%-43%. Wikipedia lists Manhattan Institute as conservative, but perhaps the honest conservative sort, as they’ve been around since 1978; then again, other elderly conservative think tanks have recently turned turtle, losing their respectability credentials in a frenzied rush to build a position in the envisioned new conservative order called Trumpism, which I consider an exercise in futility, as this new order is all about fellating Mr Trump, and that’s it. As Manhattan Institute is new to me, I don’t know if they are respectable, still, or just another conservative organization looking for power and influence, and so I’m not sure how to weigh this somewhat surprising polling result.Something similar goes for Remington Research Group, which is giving Cruz a ten point lead over Rep Allred, 43%-53%. Is this their honest evaluation, or are they trying to protect the Senator?
- Mystery pollster National Public Affairs, again unknown to FiveThirtyEight, suggests Nevada’s incumbent Senator Rosen (D-NV) has an eight point lead, 41%-33%, over challenger Sam Brown (R-NV). National Public Affairs’ website suggests a conservative organization, citing as one client known extremist Rep Ronny Jackson (R-TX). If so, the Rosen lead may be a few points larger than eight, which would be broadly congruent with other pollsters. That doesn’t stop Remington Research Group from giving Senator Rosen only a 2 point lead over Brown, 48% 46%. Notably, while neither pollster is necessarily trustworthy, at least Remington puts Rosen at 48%, just two point away from the 50% goal, while National Public Affairs has the Senator 9 points from the goal.
- Another pollster living in the Great Unknown, SoCal Research, measures Wisconsin’s incumbent Senator Baldwin (D-WI) leading challenger Eric Hovde (R-WI?) by twelve points, 50%-38%. This is not the big breakthrough for Hovde previously mentioned, but it also may be a bit of an exaggerated lead for Baldwin. With no history to build an accuracy estimate, it’s a little hard to know how to assess a SoCal Research result.
But a little waiting produces another poll, this one by the RepubliCratic (yes, yes, I mean two pollsters working together, with opposing alignments) pollster Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/Impact Research (1.7), and it gives Senator Baldwin a five point lead at 50%-45% as they work for the AARP. Despite the pollsters’ mediocre rating, this poll’s results seem well within the range of plausibility.
And then the aforementioned Remington Research Group also has a poll for Wisconsin, having Baldwin and Hovde tied at 48%. While this is not outside the realm of possibility, it’s certainly farther to the conservative end of the spectrum than I would expect from a good poll.
- Remington Research Group finds Arizona’s Rep Gallego (D-AZ) even with prospective Republican nominee Kari Lake (R-AZ) at 47%. The only polls I’ve seen calling this potential contest close are from suspect pollsters. The primary is July 30, and Rep Gallego has no Democratic challenger at the moment, while Lake has two. Will election-denier Lake, who was booed at a Arizona Republican convention, still win the nomination? Stay tuned.
- In Michigan, Remington Research Group gives Rep Slotkin (D-MI) a four point lead, 47%-43%, over prospective GOP nominee and former Rep Mike Rogers (R-MI). Both still must survive their primaries on August 6, but they are the way to bet, so far.
- Montana voters supposedly favor challenger Tim Sheehy (R-MT) over incumbent Senator and farmer Jon Tester (D-MT) by five points, 50%-45%, at least according to Remington Research Group. Since most other reputable pollsters give Senator Tester the edge, albeit within the margin of error, this is where I figured the rat was residing for Remington.
- Ohio’s been a bit short of polls, but Remington Research Group gives Senator Brown (D-OH) a healthy 6 point lead, 50%-44%, over challenger Bernie Moreno (R-OH). This is in line with other polls.
- In Pennsylvania, Remington Research Group has Senator Casey’s (D-PA) lead over David McCormick (R-PA?) down to one, 49%-48%. This is not in accordance with other polls, and I would disregard it until other pollsters come to the same conclusion. McCormick may also be facing a scandal made of false claims on his part.
And In Conclusion
Watching how Remington Research Group results played out against other pollster’s results so far, it strikes me that certain Senatorial seats are considered safe for Democrats, and so honest results are given, such as Ohio’s, but others, such as Texas’, Montana’s, and Wisconsin’s, are considered up for grabs, and so those results are skewed. Is this true? I dunno; only senior leadership at Remington Research Group can really answer that. But that’s the impression I get from looking at these results.
