There should be a Roadrunner joke here, but it ran away.
How About That Vice President Debate, Hey?
I indulged in malpractice and didn’t watch.
Given Mr Trump’s age and apparent mental difficulties, the debate may be more meaningful for voters than is usual. After all, Vance might be called upon to fill an important role if Trump/Vance wins in November.
But for the Senate races? If you believe voters are more likely to practice Party-line voting, then it matters. If you think voters are willing to split their ballots, then maybe it doesn’t. And if you think independent voters are knowledgeable enough to realize Vance is way out of the mainstream on American values, then this may have not convinced them of the point – but, if Vance does have to take over, another way to foil him is for the Republicans to fall further out of control of the Senate.
But the most important group in this election is the independents, and Politico observes this:
… Walz had a commanding advantage with independents, 58 percent of whom sided with the Minnesota governor while 42 percent gave Vance the edge.
Walz’s strongest ratings came from younger people, particularly those ages 25-34, those with college degrees, and Black and Latino respondents — all key components of the Democratic coalition that powered President Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in 2020.
Vance, meanwhile, performed best with people over the age of 55, white voters and those without a college degree.
Which, I think, is as one might expect. The oldsters, moi excluded, lean more towards Trump, while the youngsters lean towards Harris.
The fact that Walz managed to win what he was expected to win, but not more, suggests the debate was about average. And that may not affect Senate races at all.
Who is AtlasIntel?
I’ve not heard of them before, but FiveThirtyEight is giving them a heady rating of 2.7, so, at least historically, they’re nobody to sneeze at.
However, given the results they’ve posted over the last few days, subtract the rating, and I’d say they’re just another conservative pollster skewing their results to keep the customer happy.
How to evaluate them? Keep an eye on the divergence of their results from respectable pollsters’ average. If they drift towards other reputable pollsters, figure they are adjusting models and these are just outliers. No movement relative to other pollsters? Then a determination cannot conclusively be reached until after the election; they may be conservative and skewing, or their models and adjustments are just wrong, or the other pollsters may simply be off and AtlasIntel is ahead of the pack.
For what it’s worth, here’s their website. This sounds like Intimidate the rubes! jargon to me:
Nationally representative polls conducted by AtlasIntel using its proprietary data collection technology and post-stratification algorithms.
But maybe it means something – I am not an expert on polls, stats and probability. I’m just an obsolete software engineer casting an eye over the Senate races without wasting too much … time. Excuse me, gotta run.
And Into The Dust Storm
- Starting a run of AtlasIntel (2.7) results, they believe that Rep Gallego (D-AZ) in Arizona has only a four point lead over Republican challenger and election-denier Kari Lake (R-AZ), 50%-46%. Note the link doesn’t appear to have Senate-level data; perhaps FiveThirtyEight made a mistake. A four point lead is at serious variance with other respectable pollsters, which range from 6 to 13 point leads. Four is probably on the edge of the margin of error, which might make Arizona Republicans feel a little better about picking Lake as their nominee. InsiderAdvantage (2.0), for comparison, gives Rep Gallego a more substantial 7 point lead, 50%-43%. And very respectable Emerson College (2.9) is having none of this tightening race claim in Arizona, giving Rep Gallego a 52%-41%.
In the news, Laurie Roberts of azcentral notes the Republicans’ seem frantic to get the Green Party up on the debate stage for the Arizona Senate seat, which happens soon. The strategy seems to be splitting the vote on the left. The Republicans may like Kari Lake, but just about everyone else doesn’t think she has the right stuff, or so says Roberts.
- AtlasIntel (2.7) is either measuring the wrong race or has a major insight into polling as it says former Rep Rogers (R-MI) is beating Rep Slotkin (D-MI) by a substantial margin, 49%-44%, in Michigan, and then round it up to six as well. This is at serious odds with other pollsters, some of whom give Slotkin a double digit lead.And one of those other pollsters is top-rated The New York Times/Siena College (3.0), which is according Rep Slotkin a five point lead, 47%-42%, among likely voters. This pollster has had its own divergences from the pack, not to mention from liberal commentators, but this poll seems entirely plausible. Mitchell Research & Communications (2.4), another respectable pollster, if new to me, is giving Rep Slotkin a 49%-44% lead, which is none too large, but respectable. RMG Research (2.3), which generally has been trending conservative, breaks the mold here: a 49%-43% lead for Rep Slotkin, or six points.
Down at the other end of the scale is Trafalgar Group (0.7 – and that’s not a typo), known to be aligned with the Republican Party, giving Slotkin and Rogers a tie at 47% apiece. I think I’m mentioning them for the laughs.
- AtlasIntel (2.7) doesn’t hesitate to knock sitting Senators down to size, either. In Nevada, after a run of polls that gave Senator Rosen (D-NV) such a large average lead over Republican Sam Brown (R-NV) that I stopped reporting the Nevada polls, AtlasIntel assesses the Senator a mere two point lead at 48%-46%. That strikes me as trying to haul a rogue dragon out of its cave with a mere silk thread, but we shall see. InsiderAdvantage (2.0) is giving Senator Rosen a lead of 49%-42% for comparison.
- AtlasIntel (2.7) is giving Senator Casey (D-PA) a two point lead over David McCormick (R-PA) in Pennsylvania, 47%-45%, which is not as unbelievable as some of their results, but is still on the far right side of the spectrum. OnMessage (1.1), sponsored by Republican-aligned Sentinel Action Fund, gives the Senator a one point lead at 45%-44%, but this pollster/sponsor pairing is awful if you want plausible results. Another known Republican-partisan pollster is Trafalgar Group (a laughable 0.7 rating, but maybe they’ve gotten … better?). which is measuring the Senator’s lead at 47%-46%. I only mention them so my reader may get a feel for how much … gunk … is flooding the zone. And then there’s Patriot Polling (1.1), new to me, giving the Senator a 51%-48% lead. Let’s finish up old PA with Emerson College (2.9), even if it does seem to be running a little to the right, and its assessment of 47%-45%, which seems out of the general range of respectable ratings in Pennsylvania. About a month from now we’ll find out.
- AtlasIntel (2.7) is still conceding Wisconsin Senator Baldwin (D-WI) a two point lead, 48%-47%, over Eric Hovde (R-WI?), but only because they’ve rounded their numbers up or down. This is another far right side of the spectrum scenario. The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) sees Senator Baldwin (D-WI) leading challenger Eric Hovde by a substantial margin, 50%-43%. The gap is even larger with observed right-leaning ActiVote (unrated), 54%-46%, but the implicit conclusion (54+46=100) that there are very few undecideds left in Wisconsin does concern me, especially when The New York Times/Siena College poll suggests 7% of the electorate is undecided. Add in the margin of error of ±4.9 points, and it’s hard to take them seriously. Finally, maybe just for laughs, Republican-aligned Trafalgar Group (0.7 – why do they bother?) also gives the Senator a two point lead of 48%-46%.
If you’re wondering about Mr Hovde’s dark innuendos concerning the Senator, Bill Lueders of The Bulwark has a response and some of his own innuendos regarding Mr Hovde. Take home paragraph:
But Baldwin’s greatest advantage is that she is well liked and respected in Wisconsin and known to be a hard worker. In 2023, her campaign tallied, she “attended or hosted nearly 150 community events and meetings with constituents” in 44 of the state’s 72 counties. (It’s unclear how she was able to do this while spending as much time as possible hanging out in a pricey New York condo, all the while regulating entire industries.)
- In Florida, Victory Insights (1.3 – yes, a bit paltry) gives Senator Scott (R-FL) a lead of 45%-44%, or a statistical dead heat, with former Rep Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL). If Victory Insights was highly rated I’d say Scott was in trouble. They also report that the state constitutional amendments on the ballot supporting abortion rights and marijuana legalization are highly popular. If so, those may push Mucarsel-Powell over the top. That is, if Scott and Mucarsel-Powell are still running a close race.
Public Policy Polling (1.4), working for known Democrats-aligned Clean and Prosperous America, has a similar result for the Senate race, with Senator Scott leading 44%-43%. Given the poor pollster rating and the known bias of the sponsor, it’s difficult to give it much weight.Anchoring the other side of the quality and political spectrum, RMG Research (2.3, but take that with a grain of salt) gives Senator Scott a luxurious lead, 50%-44%. And, yes, the press release includes … was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen … I hope you like salt.
- In Ohio, The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) is giving Senator Brown (D-OH) a small lead of 47%-43% over challenger Bernie Moreno (R-OH). The Senator needs to hoof it a bit more. Note that the previous Ohio update had RMG Research (2.3) giving Moreno a two point lead. A 5-6 point swing is unlikely, so I have to wonder about RMG Research. Again.
- Texas Democratic partisans can continue to hope, as Public Policy Polling (1.4), working for known Democrats-aligned Clean and Prosperous America (CPA), see Senator Cruz’ (R-TX) lead down to two points, 45%-43%. Or they can conclude CPA is skewing the results of a weak pollster, depending on their level of cynicism. On the other end of this rope is unrated ActiVote, observed leaning rightwards, giving the Senator a larger lead of five points, 52%-48% (insert a song about “rounding” to a C&W tune here).
RMG Research (2.3) is giving Senator Cruz a three point, 50%-47%, over Rep Allred. If RMG Research is skewing its data analysis, this race may be tighter than advertised.
However, before indulging your cynical side, dear reader, consider this interview with Senator Cruz on right-wing cable news source Newsmax. It smacks of panic. Cruz may be wondering if the Republican message has become stale with Texas voters, by which I mean they may have come to realize it’s the message of grifters. Larger and larger applications of money may be insufficient to his needs.
- In lightly polled Missouri there’s what I consider to be an anomalous polling result: observed right-leaning ActiVote (unrated) is giving Senator Hawley (R-MO) the lead, but it’s only 54%-46%, or 8 points. Add in the ±4.9 point margin of error (or average expected error as ActiVote calls it), and then adjust for the possible skew of an apparent Republican-aligned pollster, and this race may have suddenly tightened up tremendously, as I speculated might happen in my last entry concerning Missouri. Or it may not. We need a high quality pollster to visit Missouri, check out the restaurants, etc.
- Speaking of, I’d sure love to have a good poll of Mississippi. Just sayin’.
- Is this shock turning into farce? Last time I mentioned Nebraska’s Fischer (R-NE, incumbent) vs Osborn (I-NE) contest, I said it’s the biggest shock of this campaign. But now we’re approaching farce territory as The Bullfinch Group, which is unknown and unrated, has a poll, sponsored by The Independent Center, giving Mr Osborn a 47%-42% lead over Senator Fischer. The last respectable poll, from SurveyUSA (2.8), gave Osborn a one point lead, a shock in what Republicans should have considered a safe race. Now I’m to believe it’s a five point lead?
I think it’s best to neither believe nor disbelieve, but wait for a better pollster to do a poll. The pollster is unknown, and it’s a good bet the sponsor would like to see this result. It’s best to recognize the ambiguity of the situation.
That said, I have to say I was gobsmacked that Chris Hayes, handed the chance to comment on the race that’s surprising him the most by Stephen Colbert the night of the VP Debate, picked the Texas Senate race. Sure, it’s important. It’d be a solid blow to a Texas Republican Party riddled with corrupt, or at least weak-willed, members (see TX AG Ken Paxton). It’d suggest that Texas is wavering. But the same could be said for Senator Scott (R-FL).
But the real surprise, if it holds together, is the Nebraska race. No one, besides Osborn and maybe his team, saw this coming. Nebraska Republicans losing their grip on one of their Nebraska seats, with an incumbency advantage on top of that, will rattle some teeth loose.
- Only to be polite: Lake Research Partners (1.2) has Senator Cramer’s (R-ND) lead over Katrina Christiansen (D-ND) in North Dakota down to nine points, 49%-40%, in a poll I must have missed – it’s a bit old (Sept. 23-26). The verbiage on that report suggests it may have been sponsored by Christiansen, too. A more recent poll by WPA Intelligence (1.7) is much less encouraging, as Senator Cramer’s lead is 22 points at 51%-29%. Don’t take this entry too seriously, as I’m unconvinced Christiansen has a chance. Maybe a big pollster needs a vacation trip on the prairie to clarify the situation.
And The Monster Goes Swimming Down The Estuary
Anything to say? Bon Voyage? North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming remain safe for Republicans? Don’t get sunburn?
