CA: Rasmussen: Boxer narrowly leads
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 18, 2024, 06:22:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2010 Elections
  2010 Senatorial Election Polls
  CA: Rasmussen: Boxer narrowly leads
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: CA: Rasmussen: Boxer narrowly leads  (Read 3892 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,207
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2010, 08:25:36 PM »

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

If that rule was true, Bruce Lunsford, Ronnie Musgrove, Tom Strickland and Jim Martin would all be in the Senate today.  

a "rule of thumb" is not a hard and fast rule. it seems to hold true often enough that it is plausible to consider among other indicators.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/250399/embattled-incumbents-those-final-poll-numbers-are-often-painfully-accurate
 

Patty Murray's numbers are just fine and I doubt that Bennett can be considered a normal incumbent.
Also, in Boxer's and Reid's case there are third parties/none of the above choices that complicate the math.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,660


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2010, 09:23:10 PM »
« Edited: October 23, 2010, 09:29:58 PM by The Vorlon »

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

The "any incumbent under 50%" rule does not say they will lose, but basically, that they should be watched very carefully.

A rule that does apply very well is that incumbents basically end up getting their topline numbers.

Boxer is getting a pretty darn consistent 47% in the polls, maybe it's 46, maybe it's 48, but it sure isn't 50% - so I am pretty sure she will end up with 47% "ish" of the final vote.

There are 3rd party candidates, and 47% or 48% could very well win the race, but I do think it will be very close.

The GOP is tossing an extra $4 million into this race, which is a big chunk of their budget, Whitman is spending 30 million on GOTV which certainly won't hurt Fiorina, and at least one very, very good GOP pollster thinks the race is razor thin close.

I will predict that Fiorina will do better than Rossi in Washington.  

The both may win, they both may lose, but I think Fiorina has a real shot.



Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,003
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2010, 09:46:38 PM »

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

From the data I've seen, the over-under line for incumbents is closer to 45% than 50%.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2010, 09:48:51 PM »

Just for the record, here's the third-party performance in the last few California Senate elections:

2006 - 5.6%
2004 - 4.5%
2000 - 7.6%
1998 - 3.9%
1994 - 8.4% (and this was with a 2-point margin between Feinstein and Huffington)
1992 - 9.1%
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,070
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2010, 09:55:00 PM »

Did that '94 race turn out as expected?  I was too young.  I know as a liberal republican, Huffington appealed well, but that was a nail-biter.  Of course his divorce and his rumors of bisexuality hurt him after that race was over.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2010, 10:02:34 PM »

Huffington was a one-term Congressman who self-funded. I can't say, as I was 12 at the time, but those two things don't really add up to a strong candidacy.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,682
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2010, 10:18:02 PM »

I was about 8 then, but I can remember the race pretty clearly because everyone in my household talked about it. It really was the money and the environment that allowed Huffington to keep it close, it was a toss-up and the most talked about Senate race that cycle.
Logged
Chief Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,328
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2010, 03:27:01 PM »

I know it's become popular these days to point out that Boxer can't hit 50, but the fact is that she doesn't need to hit 50 to win. If minor candidates got up to 4% of the vote in the senate race and up to 6-8% in the governor's race, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

It's never good for an incumbent to be below 50 consistently this late in the game.

48% is 50% in California. Lots of third party strength here and I expect it to be even stronger this year.

     This cannot be stressed enough. If Boxer reaches 50%, she is winning by a pretty decent margin. Not so great for a California Democrat, but we are talking about 4-5%.
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 779
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2010, 06:23:33 PM »

I still think Boxer, undeservedly, will pull one out of the air and win this by a hair. And it's starting to look like Whitman will lose this one too (unless her new "Unhappy Decisions" ad has any impact at all).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/24/candidate-to-voters-an-unahppy-choice/#more-130632
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 15 queries.