My, the silt has accumulated quickly.
“I Didn’t Mean It When I Said …”
WaPo has a report on an unsurprising, but risky, change in Republican strategy for some House members, a change that can be anticipated to appear in Senate races, and in fact already has …
Some Republicans appear to be softening — even backtracking on — their reproductive rights positions
As Nov. 5 approaches and the struggle for control of the U.S. House reaches a fever pitch, Democrats are doing everything they can to tie their Republican opponents to their antiabortion voting records. Some Republican candidates, meanwhile, seem to be softening their positions. And political analysts say it’s part of a larger trend playing out nationwide, up and down the ballot.
“The politics of abortion and reproductive health can get voters to participate at higher rates,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University. “Republicans have to moderate their stance if they’re going to be in the battle.”
Senator Cruz (R-TX) is greasing his reelection bid with something similar:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has been a loud anti-abortion crusader throughout his political career.
But as reproductive rights loom over the election season as a key issue for voters, Cruz is uncharacteristically quiet.
The Texas Republican, running for a third term in the Senate, is locked in a tight race against U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas, who has made restoring access to abortion and blaming Cruz for the toppling of Roe v. Wade central to his campaign. [The Texas Tribune]
An anti-abortion stance is one of the pillars of the conservative movement – everyone and their pet poodle knows this. Will conservatives accept this change and vote as the Party expects? Will independents, many of which don’t pay much attention to politics, notice the sudden change and label it hypocrisy?
This’ll be a threading of the needle, and could be the trick for winning for the Republicans – or the camel’s terrifying straw.
Hey – Didn’t I See Redfield & Wilton Strategies Out In The Wild?
Yes – and I ignored it, per this post. Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) only up by 8 points? Come on!
Did I Just See A Pollster Named Research Co?
Yes, I did, and so did you if you read ahead. Despite the most boring name ever, Research Co has a respectable rating of 2.4 from FiveThirtyEight, so they get some respect right out of the gate – they’re new to me.
However, I was a little dismayed to see that their sample size is limited to 450, and for larger States that is inadequate. Most of the big pollsters have much larger sample sizes, so I’m uncomfortable accepting Research Co. results, even if I cite their margin of error.
But there’s not much to be done for it. I’m just a fly holding on to the end of the plane’s rudder.
Here Come The Dancing Rivers
- Finally, the national press is paying attention to Dan Osborn (I-NE) and his campaign to unseat Senator Fischer (R-NE) in Nebraska with this WaPo article.In numbers news, Impact Research (1.5), working for Osborn, gives Osborn a two point lead at 48%-46%. Even the Heavens may be puzzling over whether that’s an accurate result.
- Florida Atlantic University PolCom Lab/Mainstreet Research (maybe 2.0?) has Senator Cruz (R-TX) of Texas ahead of Rep Allred (D-TX) by three, 47%-44%. Dubious pollster/partisan sponsor pairs is exemplified with CWS Research (1.6) / Texas Gun Rights, the latter a known Republican partisan group, putting out a poll that gives Senator Cruz a six point lead, 46%-40%, over Rep Allred (D-TX). I don’t get it – why not give Cruz a 16 point lead? A 26 point lead? Even more? It’d make the sponsors ever so much more comfortable, wouldn’t it? Or does the fact that some pollsters, of far more respectability, have this race a statistical dead heat make CWS a trifle bashful?
Meanwhile, and a blow to CWS Research’s thesis, The Texas Tribune reports multiple organizations are changing their evaluations of the Texas Senate race:
Cook Political Report shifted its rating for the race from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican” on Tuesday. Inside Elections shifted its rating from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican” last week.
This is important as it indicates momentum is now with Allred, and he has about three weeks to capitalize on it. That, in turn, will force Republicans to send money to Cruz’s operation to finance efforts to retain the seat, and these are resources that they might have to sent to other races, such as, say, Senator Fischer (R-NE)?
- Highly respected Marquette Law School Poll (3.0) gives Senator Baldwin (D-WI) of Wisconsin a 53%-46% lead over challenger Eric Hovde (R-WI?). It doesn’t matter if you segregate by likely voters or registered voters; however, the margin of error is a surprisingly large ±4.4 points. Research Co. (2.4) is giving the Senator a five point lead of 52%-47%., with a ±4.9 point margin of error. Notably,
“Independent voters in will be crucial in securing a victory for either of the main presidential candidates in Michigan and Wisconsin,” says Mario Canseco, President of Research Co. “More than one-in-five Independents in both Wisconsin (24%) and Michigan (22%) have not made up their minds yet.”
As many pundits note, most folks have a definite opinion of Mr Trump. If they’re not already committed, I think the independents will either look at Mr Trump’s amateur antics, anti-American statements, and sheer flood of mendacity, and decide to go with VP Harris, or they’ll dimly remember the old chestnut that Republicans are better with the economy, forget how badly the economy collapsed when Mr Trump was faced with the challenge of the pandemic, never hear about the failure of the 2017 tax reform, passed by the Republicans, to attain its much ballyhooed objectives while adding to the Federal debt, and vote for Republicans, even though Mr Hovde is a rankly arrogant beginner.
But I think this race is all over except the shouting of electoral cheating! Will Wisconsin House Speaker Robin Vos (R) lead the chant, will he be too embarrassed?
- Tarrance Group (1.6) gives Senator Rosen (D-NV) of Nevada a 48%-41% lead over challenger Sam Brown (R-NV), which seems a trifle short in light of polls from highly respected pollsters.
- HighGround (1.6), unknown to me and lacking an impressive rating, still has Rep Gallego (D-AZ) of Arizona ahead of Republican nominee and election denier Kari Lake (R-AZ) by a substantial gap, 51%-41%. While smaller than some pollsters’ gaps, it does suggest HighGround may be trustworthy, at least in this race which Lake may lose by, say, 15 points.
Similarly, Scott Rasmussen, working for Napolitan Institute (FiveThirtyEight lists Rasmussen as working with, or for, RMG Research (2.3), but the publishing is via a Tweet rather than the usual press release with RMG Research’s imprimatur, which makes me wonder if this is just Rasmussen working on his own, and, as such, is listed on FiveThirtyEight, but without an actual rating, reflective of Rasmussen’s reputation as a rank partisan with little regard for honesty of results reporting. However, a close look at the Napolitan Institute press release, a separate link, does reference RMG Research, so we’re back to the confusing Is it 2.3 question) … let me get my focus back … oh, yes, measures a ten point lead for Gallego of 52%-42%. Additionally,
Thirty-eight percent (38%) have a favorable view of Kari Lake while 58% have an unfavorable view. Ruben Gallego is even in favorability/unfavorability at 46%.
So long as Lake’s favorability numbers hold in the above region, not only is Lake’s campaign finished, so’s her political career – and possibly her time in the limelight. I figure most of these characters – MAGAites – are simply frustrated attention-seekers, so oblivion is the worst thing that can happen, at least in their imaginations. As such, expect Lake to engage in worse and worse behavior, trying to keep attention on herself. And it won’t work.
Unknown pollster SoCal Strategies, sponsored by On Point Politics and Republican-aligned Red Eagle Politics, gives Gallego a comfortable thirteen point margin at 51%-39%. SoCal does appear to use entirely online polling, and, despite protestations of anti-fraud strategies, I am a little suspicious of an entirely online approach to data gathering.
In contrast, National Research (2.0) gives Gallego a mere six point lead at 48%-42%. Their sponsors are Democracy Defense Project and Echo Canyon Consulting, the latter known to be Republican-aligned. Did National Research skew their results, or just apply a conservative leaning model? That’s the questions that afflict me when seeing results not in agreement with top pollsters. Even Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/Impact Research (1.7) give Gallego a bigger gap at 51%-44%. I still figure Gallego by 15.
Laurie Roberts of azcentral notes that
After two years of virtual nonstop campaigning, Lake has succeeded in boosting the number of Arizonans who don’t like her by 9 points.
This is unsurprising. The type of arrogant character attracted to the likes of Mr Trump are generally disliked by the vast majority of citizens, even if some will make the excuse that they’re not frenching the candidate, as an Iowan was recently quoted as saying, merely voting for them. It’s worth noting that those citizens are usually wrong about the frenching, since the economic and social chaos will directly impact them.
Bad character should never be trusted with great responsibility – or great power.
If neither a Founding Father nor a Roman nor an ancient Greek said that, they should have.
- What’s going on in Indiana? I had counted Indiana as a Republican win long ago. It’s hardly polled, but big-time Emerson College (2.9) did perform a poll of the Senate race back in early September, and found Rep Banks (R-IN) leading Valerie McCray (D-IN), 47%-33%, or fourteen points.
Now there’s a new poll by unknown, but prolific, pollster ActiVote. I have been unable to ignore the observations that they do seem to lean conservative, and may skew certain poll reports to reinforce a conservative-desired win. Their polls might then be expected to reinforce Rep Banks, right? Right?
Their recent poll has a 56%-44% lead for Banks over McCray, and while 12 points isn’t that different from Emerson College, it is less than Emerson College, and much less than the 20 point gap I fully expected to see from a Republican-leaning pollster like ActiVote.
A Little Later: And now, shockingly, there’s this:
A NEW DEM PICKUP OPPORTUNITY? — National Democrats are eyeing a closer-than-expected governor’s race in deep-red Indiana as a pickup opportunity: The Democratic Governors Association is investing $600,000 into the campaign of former Republican schools chief JENNIFER McCORMICK, who is running against Sen. MIKE BRAUN (R-Ind.), our Adam Wren reports. It comes after their polling showed a “dead heat” race, with McCormick trailing Braun, 44 percent to 41 percent, with Libertarian DONALD RAINWATER pulling 8 percent. [Politico]
On The Issues – Senator Mike Braun (R-IN).
Senator Braun’s (R-IN) attempt to move into the Indiana governor’s office is in trouble? There are many questions to ask, but the overarching question is this: do all, or least most, of those questions and answers apply to Rep Banks? Are Senator Braun and Rep Banks related in the minds of Indiana voters?
Well, I have the answer to one question: Are they both ideological hard-liners? On the right, the On The Issues diagrammatic summary of Senator Braun is clearly indicating the Senator is a hard-liner. If you follow this link, you’ll find the On The Issues diagrammatic summary for Republican nominee Rep Banks, but I can save you the trouble: the diagrams are the same, or near enough. They are so similar that I actually double-checked the Banks diagram at On The Issues.
Other questions certainly involve Dobbs; attitudes towards women in general; the salutary lesson of Governor Brownback’s (R-KS) tenure in Kansas with regard to the economic and educational deficiencies that developed from his application of Republican tenets to the State; general Republican mendacity; Trumpism in Indiana; and etc. Any and all may apply, may explain Braun’s problems – and may predict future problems (as in, tomorrow) for Rep Banks in his attempt to be promoted to the Senate.
May, may, may.
There’s nothing definitive here, just a divergence from my expectations when it comes to Indiana, and the surprise of a close race for governor. Nothing may come of it: Banks may win in a walk. But I’ll keep hoping for another poll by a highly rated pollster.
- Glengariff Group (1.5) has Michigan’s Rep Slotkin (D-MI) ahead of former Rep Mike Rogers (R-MI) 47%-43%. Is it really that close? Research Co (2.4) is giving Rep Slotkin a 52%-47% lead, but see above. They report a margin of error of ±4.6 points, which seems a bit big.
In separate news, M. L. Elrick of the Detroit Free Press has raised a question: Does Mike Rogers actually live in Michigan? I don’t think anything will come of this, at least not legally. But I’ve been wrong many times before, and not just as a software engineer. And, at the very least, some fence sitters will be offended and vote against him. Maybe. Honestly, I didn’t really consider Rogers, who has lived most of his life in Michigan, before moving down to Florida and then either returning, or trying to return, a carpet-bagger.
- Since my last note on the Virginia race was from a dubious pollster, unknown Research America, and it had Senator Kaine (D-VA) up by only six points, I should mention that Christopher Newport University Wason Center for Civic Leadership (with a hefty 2.8 rating) has Senator Kaine leading by twenty points over challenger Hung Cao (R-VA), 55%-35%. That’s an ouch and I don’t plan to notice Virginia again until the end.
- Pennsylvania’s been popular this week, as always. Heck, I spent my seventh and eighth years there. Hello, Feasterville – what, it’s been annexed? Nevermind!
OK, so Research Co (2.4) is giving Senator Casey (D-PA) a 51%-48% lead over challenger David McCormick (R-PA?), which is within the margin of error of ±4.6 points for this poll. Prolific unknowable right-leaning pollster ActiVote gives the Senator a 53%-47% lead, or six points, which is greater than their margin of error of ±4.9 points. Another unknown pollster, The Bullfinch Group, is giving Senator Casey a 52%-42% lead, or ten points with a margin of error of ±3.46. Too bad they have no history.
Notably, all of these polls show Casey over the magical 50% mark, although not when the margin of error is figured in.
- During the 10/6 Senate campaign debate in New Jersey, Republican nominee Curtis Bashaw (R-NJ) suffered a “medical episode”:
Curtis Bashaw, the Republican nominee for New Jersey’s U.S. Senate seat, appeared to have a temporary “medical episode” during his debate against Democratic U.S. Rep. Andy Kim on Oct. 6.
While answering a question, the 62-year-old gay hotelier started slurring his words and stopped speaking entirely mid-sentence. Kim asked if he was all right. “Yeah,” Bashaw replied. [MetroWeekly]
Mr Bashaw resumed the debate a few minutes later, blaming a lack of nutrition. I do hope he’s fine, as I view him as a possible leader of the successor to the current Republican Party.
And In Conclusion?
Oooops, no time. Must mean my clock stopped, destroying time and the whole concept of a finish line. Pity that.
