Mason-Dixon: Allen (R) increases lead over Webb (D)

[Tender Branson]

New Poll: Virginia Senator by Mason-Dixon on 2006-07-30

Summary: D: 32%, R: 48%, U: 20%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Adlai Stevenson]

Although most people think Mason-Dixon are the best pollsters out there, I am a bit non-plussed as to why two of their recent polls have shown Republicans with bigger leads than other surveys, i.e. this poll in Virginia and another in Tennessee.

However, I can believe this one.  I actually think I'm beginning to trust polls more that show high undecideds such as this one, typically in a race like Virginia where there must be a few moderates, independents and conservative Democrats who would lean towards Allen but who Webb is making a play for.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I knew that once mason-dixon came out, Webb will be even down further. But I think this poll is understated I think that Rasmussen is right, he is only down by 11. And also, everyone says that Mason dixon is the most accurate, they didn't fair that good in the 1990's where they predicted in 1994 Senate race right in TN.

[Alcon]

I knew that once mason-dixon came out, Webb will be even down further. But I think this poll is understated I think that Rasmussen is right, he is only down by 11. And also, everyone says that Mason dixon is the most accurate, they didn't fair that good in the 1990's where they predicted in 1994 Senate race right in TN.

We are going by polling results for a 1994 Senate race to judge a polling company's performance a decade later?

I'd rather go by 2004.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All I am saying is that you have to average all the polls together, you don't just take one poll company and then think that they will rule the whole universe.  Also, they were wrong in MN in 2004. Zogby was praised in 2000 and I rather go by Zogby. Also, you have to look at turnout, Mason-dixon overstates the republican turnout. In 2002 and 2004 republican turnout was high and when the republican turnout was down, in the 1990's, it didn't fair that well, and there isn't going to be the same type of republican turnout like they had in the past, so you can't go by Mason Dixon all the time.

[Alcon]

All I am saying is that you have to average all the polls together, you don't just take one poll company and then think that they will rule the whole universe.  Also, they were wrong in MN in 2004.

Mason-Dixon wasn't perfect in 2004, but I heavily biased my projections toward it and ended up with the highest score out of nearly 2,000 predictions.  Granted, I did miss Minnesota (and ME-2 - don't ask; I was dumb), but Mason-Dixon helped me nail virtually everything else.  And I'm pretty stupid.

I'm not saying that you take one poll company and rule the entire universe, but when you have:

1. Rasmussen releasing odd one-day polls with equally odd results.
2. Zogby doing whatever it is that he does to generate polling numbers (I think it's legal as long as they do it in Guatemala).
3. Traditionally decent pollsters like Survey USA, Strategic Vision, etc., staying fairly quiet.

...a Mason-Dixon is a welcome sight.  Statistical error means that they are going to screw up every once in a while.  Nobody's perfect.  But, by and large, they have never done anything dumb since 2000, and they are really the only pollster I can say that about.

Now, I will also point out that averaging every poll with no consideration of relative release duration and pollster quality is no more reliable than just taking Mason-Dixon's word for it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Don't forget ARG  and Gallup haven't released poll numbers on OH and MO Senate races and they tend to favor Dems.

[Alcon]

Don't forget ARG  and Gallup haven't released poll numbers on OH and MO Senate races and they tend to favor Dems.

ARG is another one of those solid pollsters that has been kind of quiet this year.  Same to Research 2000 (although they are always quiet - so much so that they appear more solid than they might be).

Gallup had some disturbingly random swings in 2004.  They were freakishly good and predicting the way the contest would drift in a week after their poll release, or so.  When the race was going from Kerry +3 to a Push, they'd have Bush +4-5.  It didn't make any sense, but at least it was interesting.  Still, I'm wary.  I like Gallup, and always have, but results like those just indicate that there are issues.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Evey polll company says it. Granted that with this war in Israel will give it a boost, but Bush will bad poll numbers will drown out his poll numbers. I am not saying that the conservatives will not come out, the libertarians, like the Ross Perots, and the Jesse Venturas and the Buchanans won't come out and vote for Bush and OH is a liberatarian state.

Alcon, all I am saying, is that you should consider the conservative ones as well as the liberal ones. And don't forget, eventhough Gallup got the states wrong, they predicted Bush would win 274 electorial votes.

[Alcon]

Alcon, all I am saying, is that you should consider the conservative ones as well as the liberal ones. And don't forget, eventhough Gallup got the states wrong, they predicted Bush would win 274 electorial votes.

Oftentimes, it seems that the polls that lean one way shift.  It's all about choosing a sample size, and keeping it consistent.  Some polls assumed even turnout in 2004; others assumed a Dem advantage.  The former turned out better than the latter.  I truly forget which was which.

I haven't seen any real bias in Mason-Dixon.  Beyond that, I usually shift Strategic Vision a point to the left - there seems to be a consistent error there.  Sadly, especially with Senate polls, it's hard to tell until it's too late to tell.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

And just like in Zogby in 1996 and in 2000, sometimes turnout can overcome a deficit. And the only way the Dems will make significant gains in either House is if in one house they will do such thing. I am in the point of view that if only the Senate flips will the House flip. I am not at the point of view that we will have a split Congress.  For the past 10 the voters have never selected a split system of Congress. And Chuck Todd says such, that only if the Senate flips will the Dems win the House. And as far as Mason-Dixon, Knight Ridder sponsors Mason-Dixon polls and I think he may not lean to the right but hid newspapers are on the more independent side. And the headquarters of Knight Ridder newspapers are in conserv San Jose.

[MasterJedi]

God, you really want to ignore every poll that shows a Republican leading in a vain hope that the Dems will landslide like 1994.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, I didn't say that I said that you should be weary of polls that constantly show GOP ahead, just like conserv are weary of Zogby polls that show Dems ahead.

[Frodo]

It's interesting that while Allen has increased his lead over Webb, he still only comes out with 48% support, with 20% undecided. 

[Sam Spade]

One of the reasons why M-D has been showing slightly better results for Republicans has to do with the summer polling factor which affects it much less than other polling companies.  Taking that into account makes it all become much more clear.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is one thing you forget about M-D just like in MN turnout can overcome a deficit on election day.

[Sam Spade]

There is one thing you forget about M-D just like in MN turnout can overcome a deficit on election day.

True, but remember that Virginia does not have Minnesota's rather lax same-day registration rules.  Neither do most states.

Anyway, even though it was partially true in Minnesota in 2004, it's not that strong of a case to be building on, fyi.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well just like mason dixon got its props in 2002 and 2004,  Zogby got its props in 1996 and 2000. So, I wouldn't bet on M-D as being all that reliable. Look, all I am saying is that we as Dems should be weary of polls that consistantly show GOP ahead just like conserv should be weary op polls showing Dems ahead like Zogby.

[Kingfish]

Why not believe the poll, and believe that George Allen is consistently ahead of Jim Webb?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because Mason Dixon understates Dem support. I agree with Rasmussen, I believe that Allen is ahead by 11 points not by 16. Mason-dixon and Quinnipiac uses registered voters not likely voters and I don't trust poll companies that  uses registered voters.

[Alcon]

No, I didn't say that I said that you should be weary of polls that constantly show GOP ahead, just like conserv are weary of Zogby polls that show Dems ahead.

I wouldn't necessarily say Zogby has a heavy Dem bias.  He's just so often wrong wildly, and about two-thirds of the time when he is, it's toward the Democrats.  Overall, it gives him the largest bias, but hat doesn't mean he doesn't release excessively GOP-friendly polls.

What evidence do you have that Mason-Dixon underestimates Democratic support?  As Sam said, summer polling tends to overestimate Dems.  Wait until September, and Mason-Dixon will become oddly Dem-leaning, before leveling off before the election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I said the sample is small that understates Democratic support. Most liberal pollsters uses a 1000 people like Zogby and Gallup. And when should we suspect other than that they will have DeWine or Talent ahead, they polled OH and they never had Brown ahead, so I don't expect them to have him ahead.

[Alcon]

I said the sample is small that understates Democratic support. Most liberal pollsters uses a 1000 polls. That's what I am saying.

Liberal pollsters?  Eh?

625 is perfectly fine.  There is a point of diminishing returns, and even factoring in MoE, the absolute closest this race could be is Allen 44%, Webb 36%, unless Mason-Dixon missed MoE, which has never happened.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well I am going to stick with my liberal polls that show Dems leading and have large samples instead of using small samples. I am not going to convince you that Mason Dixon is not conserv and it is conserv and you won't convince me either. The point is is that the only state that is certain is PA. And also, they use different pools of likely voters than the more liberal Zogby.

[Alcon]

Well I am going to stick with my liberal polls that show Dems leading and have large samples instead of using small samples.

625 is not a small sample, despite what you are saying.  And sample size adjustment is what MoE considerations and for.  Even considering the MoE of this poll and being overtly friendly to the Democrats, the closest this is, is Allen +8.

The range is Allen +8-24.