Rasmussen: Maria Cantwell(D) looks stronger over challenger Mike McGavick(R)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

New Poll: Washington Senator by Rasmussen on 2006-07-17

Summary: D: 48%, R: 37%, U: 0%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It doesn't seem like Mike is going to win this.

[Flying Dog]

great!

[Adlai Stevenson]

For some reason tonight all the polling shows good news for the Democrats (apart from VT AL).  I never suspected that McGavick could win but I still think Cantwell will face a competetive race, he is a good candidate. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Field poll came out by Elway and had Cantwell ahead by 14 so I think McGavick is behind by that many. Anyway, I am not concerned because McGavick hasn't taken the lead in this race and until he does, I am not concerned.

[Alcon]

The Field poll came out by Elway and had Cantwell ahead by 14 so I think McGavick is behind by that many. Anyway, I am not concerned because McGavick hasn't taken the lead in this race and until he does, I am not concerned.

Elway is on so many drugs that it is not funny.  Just look at his internals.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yea, he correctly predicted the 2000 race.

[Alcon]

Yea, he correctly predicted the 2000 race.

Dude, he had Dino Rossi at 38% two weeks before the election in 2004.  It is a terrible poll.

EDIT: Oh, yes!  And his poll that showed the Top Two primary initiative passing with 75%.  That was hilarious too.

EDIT 2: And you paid to see his internals?  Because that's the only way you can see them.  Never a good sign.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yea, alot of pollsters had Gregoire running away with the race like Zogby. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was correct in predicting Maria Cantwell would win against Slade Gorton.

[Alcon]

Yea, alot of pollsters had Gregoire running away with the race like Zogby. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was correct in predicting Maria Cantwell would win against Slade Gorton.

Well, congratulations to him for not totally screwing up once or twice.

Why do you trust Elway over Strategic Vision?  Considering that:

1. We can't see his internals.
2. He's a local pollster with little respect.
3. He has previously been totally off.
4. Strategic Vision has never screwed up that much, and has released a significantly higher number of polls.
5. This is the only poll to show this result.

[CultureKing]

personally I dont think that this poll by Rasmussen is that far off if any. Cantwell just started her TV ads and has just now started her campaign, up till now McGavick has had the advantage of campaigning to the voters while Cantwell was silent.

Oh, and I dont think ANYONE predicted Rossi being so close to Gregoire... her campaign just kinda fell apart the month before the election (also the infighting from the primary hurt her.)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

You said why should we trust him over Strategic Vision, the same Strategic Vision that said Bush will win Wisconsin. And I wouldn't am not concerned about this race until McGavick takes the lead.

[Alcon]

You said why should we trust him over Strategic Vision, the same Strategic Vision that said Bush will win Wisconsin. And I wouldn't am not concerned about this race until McGavick takes the lead.

Bush won Wisconsin by less than half a percentage point.  Predicting a Bush win in Wisconsin was not an unrealistic polling result!  Elway's were!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kerry won Wisconsin. But most pollsters as I recall said that Gregoire was going to win by a large percentage. No one predicted that Bush would win KY by 20%. The republican turnout was higher than expected and cause to give a false reading on alot of races.  This year the Dems will have a better turnout.

[Tender Branson]

No one predicted that Bush would win KY by 20%.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/2004/pastpolls.html#Kentucky

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I revise my statement, according to the good news for John Kerry based on the exit polls, no one thought Bush would have won Ky by 20%, they had based on the exit polls Bush winning it by 16%.

[MasterJedi]

Kerry won Wisconsin. But most pollsters as I recall said that Gregoire was going to win by a large percentage.

Same day registration screws up Wisconsin. We really need to get rid of that. -_-

[Alcon]

Kerry won Wisconsin. But most pollsters as I recall said that Gregoire was going to win by a large percentage. No one predicted that Bush would win KY by 20%. The republican turnout was higher than expected and cause to give a false reading on alot of races.  This year the Dems will have a better turnout.

1. Kerry did, but so narrowly, MoE was not broken.  Elway, however, broke MoE.  It is statistically much worse to predict something passes by 75% when it passes with 58% (or whatever) than to predict Bush by 1-3 when Kerry won by 1.  Do you deny this?

2. Yes, they did; you are arong about Kentucky.

3. How do you know Democrats will have a higher turnout?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

So, did other pollsters than Elway and you keep saying that. Zogby had Gregoire winning and so did Gallup overstate it. What I am saying is that Strategic Vision has consistently showed republicans more closer than what they really are and they have a conserv bias and I am not going by that poll.

As far as turnout, I Cook said today that democratic turnout will be better than what it was in 2004, most conserv are upset at the war. And you said we shouldn't go by Rasmussen poll, he predicted all the states right in 2004. So, I can go by his poll rather than Strategic Vision.

[Tender Branson]

So, did other pollsters than Elway and you keep saying that. Zogby had Gregoire winning and so did Gallup overstate it. What I am saying is that Strategic Vision has consistently showed republicans more closer than what they really are and they have a conserv bias and I am not going by that poll.

As far as turnout, I Cook said today that democratic turnout will be better than what it was in 2004, most conserv are upset at the war. And you said we shouldn't go by Rasmussen poll, he predicted all the states right in 2004. So, I can go by his poll rather than Strategic Vision.

Democrats are indeed really concerned about the turnout this year according to the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101332.html

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rasmussen says that the Dem turnout will be up this year. And Rasmussen is more conserv than the Washington Post, so I don't buy that story.

[Alcon]

Rasmussen says that the Dem turnout will be up this year. And Rasmussen is more conserv than the Washington Post, so I don't buy that story.

So, in other words, if a far-left Democrat says that the Republicans will win, they will absolutely landslide, because everyone is already right, as long as you adjust for political orientation?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, I am saying that you should look at the congressional ballot and look at the polls and you can tell by the way the polls are that the Dem turnout will be higher, by the mere fact that the Dems are picking up 6-7 gov seats and 3-6 senate seats. If the Dems weren't picking up seats then you can say that there won't be a higher than usual turnout.  And by the way in 2004, the liberal Time magazine predidcted that Bush will win the 2004 election based on turnout. Based on the way the polls were going on the final weekend of the campaign.

[Alcon]

No, I am saying that you should look at the congressional ballot and look at the polls and you can tell by the way the polls are that the Dem turnout will be higher, by the mere fact that the Dems are picking up 6-7 gov seats and 3-6 senate seats. If the Dems weren't picking up seats then you can say that there won't be a higher than usual turnout.  And by the way in 2004, the liberal Time magazine predidcted that Bush will win the 2004 election based on turnout. Based on the way the polls were going on the final weekend of the campaign.

Polling results do not indicate the final results, and Democrats winning does not guarantee equally stronger Democratic turnout.  It also means that independents and Republicans are voting Democratic more.

You CANNOT base final results on poll results.  It is a prediction, not a fact.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yea, but you conservatives miss the fact that when the republicans held the lead on congressional ballot, then they beat the Dems. But now that the Dems have the lead on the congressional ballot, you say it is wrong.