MI-Sen, PPP: Land in the lead

[free my dawg]

Somewhat expected. Democrats are plagued by low name recognition here. Once Peters and Schauer get their names out there, the real race begins.

[free my dawg]

Yeah. I'm just hoping Peters can actually take Land seriously and start campaigning.

[free my dawg]

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

Yeah, he mysteriously became unknown when he lost his lead!

He's always been unknown.

Don't blame me when I call it again and you can't crack Michigan again.

[free my dawg]

Translation: Land significantly in the lead.

Even though the GOP shill polls have the same results as PPP does now, you choose the "unskewed" version of this one.

Cherry picking is great, isn't it?

[free my dawg]

As Tmth pointed out, the undecideds in this poll are both overall both conservative and Obama-voting, making it unclear in which direction they will break (though considering how many 2012 Obama voters have deserted him, probably narrowly Land), but the electorate as a whole in this poll is probably somewhat more Republican than the one which will show up in 2014 really, so it perhaps understates Peters very slightly. The two effects, I think, probably balance out to some degree. There's zero reason for the supreme confidence forum Democrats seem to have in Peters; Land can self-fund, has won 2 statewide races (while Peters has only ran before once, losing), and has the lead right now. Declaring Peters to be the favorite right now, when his chances are 50/50 at best, is quite the act of hubris.

If Land's previous electoral success is so significant, why do a plurality of voters answer "not sure" when asked of an opinion of her? Though PPP didn't specifically ask the question, her name recognition here has to be through the roof--yet >40% of the people asked in this poll aren't sure what they think about her.

I'm not entirely sure where this "Terri Lynn Land is a strong candidate" narrative came from, just because she won two elections as the person responsible for passing out licences plates and registering voters.

Land's previous electoral success is significant because it proves that she knows how to win statewide in Michigan, whatever her name recognition may be. Peters has run once, and shown that he can't... Land has shown that she is very good at this; Peters, not so much. It's simple and you know this is true.

That's one factor. While I do agree that Land being able to win statewide makes her a formidable candidate (and IIRC I've been saying this for a while), what you curiously forgot to mention was that Peters only lost the AG race in 2002 by 5,200 votes. In a slight R-leaning year, that's honestly not as weak as you think it is.

Your shtick that Secretary of State elections don't count because they're lower-profile is becoming tiresome. You know how candidates get ready for higher-level campaigns? By running in lower-profile ones first.

Secretary of State elections are far different from Senate elections. Most people don't really give a sh**t about which party registers voters or passes out license plates. But in these partisan times, especially now, you're basically permanently under a microscope if you're a Senate candidate, and here, your views matter. For example, where "rape insurance" comes into play, Land's going to get asked about her stance on abortion, and Peters can just say "I've defended women for my entire congressional career, and I'll continue to defend them in the Senate. My opponent won't comment on it."

Given that Michigan has only sent one Republican to the Senate in 40 years, and has led in almost every other poll (except for this one), where did you come up with the idea that Peters' chances of winning are maxed out at 50%? Or, is that just made up?

Considering that he's behind in polling to a candidate with much more experience than he has, who will be able to fundraise significantly more than he will, it's asinine to say that Peters is ahead.

And if you think in a light blue state where barely anyone knows the Democrat in the race voters have come home to the Democratic candidate for most of these Senate races, that it's a fifty-fifty chance, you're competing with Oldies for "biggest Republican hack on Atlas". And he's from the state we're talking about, for Christ's sake.

Peters certainly has his advantages -- the state's lean being the biggest -- but he's clearly behind right now and his path to getting ahead of Land is dependent on the national environment improving for Democrats or Land stumbling, both variables he has no control over. How can you possibly say he's favored?

Because it's a state where unions are going to be turning out in droves, where women will be turning out because of the sweeping abortion law, and is generally a state where Democrats have a good track record. As a matter of fact, Land's path is dependent on the environment staying the same and people not giving much of a damn about it. I'll give her chances of winning in the high 30s, but for now, this race is a solid lean.

Also curious how you say the CTGOP is weaker than the MIGOP: they've come close to winning on enemy turf, nearly won back Hartford, have a good chance at winning the mansion, came within striking distance of a Senate seat twice, are most likely going to gain more seats in the legislature, and generally remembered that they aren't representing Oklahoma.

[free my dawg]

Secretary of State elections are far different from Senate elections. Most people don't really give a sh**t about which party registers voters or passes out license plates.

Wouldn't they be even more inclined to vote for their preferred party (the Democrats) in that case? I'll agree that it's a lower-profile campaign, but people are still inclined to vote their party, and especially in a landslide year like '06, it's a remarkable achievement to dissuade them. Is it a Senate campaign? No, it's doesn't receive as much media attention or money. But considering it is a partisan, statewide campaign, they're certainly comparable.

I'm not sure Michigan 2014 is comparable to those races -- it... has a stronger local tradition of Republicanism than any of those states.

I'm a bit speechless, so I'll just use your words to refute this.

But in these partisan times, especially now, you're basically permanently under a microscope if you're a Senate candidate,

Any candidate. I'll agree that this is even more so the case for the Senate than lesser offices, but it's definitely the case for those lesser offices as well, and you know it.

Not my point. It's much more for the senate than lesser offices. Before you start condescending, learn the point.

and here, your views matter. For example, where "rape insurance" comes into play, Land's going to get asked about her stance on abortion, and Peters can just say "I've defended women for my entire congressional career, and I'll continue to defend them in the Senate. My opponent won't comment on it."

To my mind, arguing that your opponent is weak on women's rights is tough when she's a woman, but if that can work for Peters, fine; I mentioned that if the Land campaign can be derailed somehow, he's good to go. I just don't know if this'll work; certainly, right now, it hasn't even begun.

So by your logic, Jodie Laubenberg is stronger on abortion than Barack Obama. Right.

Given that Michigan has only sent one Republican to the Senate in 40 years, and has led in almost every other poll (except for this one), where did you come up with the idea that Peters' chances of winning are maxed out at 50%? Or, is that just made up?

Considering that he's behind in polling to a candidate with much more experience than he has, who will be able to fundraise significantly more than he will, it's asinine to say that Peters is ahead.

And if you think in a light blue state where barely anyone knows the Democrat in the race voters have come home to the Democratic candidate for most of these Senate races, that it's a fifty-fifty chance, you're competing with Oldies for "biggest Republican hack on Atlas". And he's from the state we're talking about, for Christ's sake.

Voters generally don't have to come home to the Democrat, because in most such races (OH 2012, PA 2012, MI 2012, etc., etc.) the Democrat never loses the lead. Once the lead has been lost (WI 2012, PA 2010, even IL 2010 as an extreme case), it is rather difficult to get back. Baldwin showed that it can be done, but it is hard.

I was describing races in Michigan, not swing states as a whole.

Peters certainly has his advantages -- the state's lean being the biggest -- but he's clearly behind right now and his path to getting ahead of Land is dependent on the national environment improving for Democrats or Land stumbling, both variables he has no control over. How can you possibly say he's favored?

Because it's a state where unions are going to be turning out in droves, where women will be turning out because of the sweeping abortion law, and is generally a state where Democrats have a good track record.

Really? At the state level, three Democrats have been elected since 1998 (Granholm, Stabenow, Levin), while seven Republicans have during that time (Engler, Miller, Land, Cox, Snyder, Johnson, Schuette). Why will those unions/women be able to affect this race when Republicans won most previous ones?

So in a state where Republicans have just recently engaged in union-busting and curtailing the rights of women, even in cases of rape and incest, that's not going to boost turnout because it didn't before?

I take it back. Break out the confetti, pop some champagne, we have a new biggest Republican hack.

As a matter of fact, Land's path is dependent on the environment staying the same and people not giving much of a damn about it. I'll give her chances of winning in the high 30s, but for now, this race is a solid lean.

It takes a lot to shift an environment, but more importantly, Peters has no control over it. How can you call someone favored who has to rely on factors he has no control over to win? You can't.

Because he doesn't have to rely on it, and even the reasonable Republicans know he doesn't. If you stopped chugging the red Kool-Aid for a second, you'd know this.