WA: Rasmussen: Incumbent Cantwell (D) lead narrows against McGavick (R) in Washington

[© tweed]

New Poll: Washington Senator by Rasmussen on 2006-09-20

Summary: D: 48%, R: 42%, U: 7%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Adlai Stevenson]

McGavick is clearly recovering from the DUI story that sunk him to 35% in the polls at the beginning of September.  He may be now recovering but I think his chance to make a stab at competetiveness was when the race stood at around 47%-43% for Cantwell.  We then saw a noticeable RNC/RSCC interest in Washington and heard more about it.  Since then Washington voters have aligned along traditional party lines, i.e. Cantwell will win about 52% to McGavick's 45%.  But the GOP search for that elusive Democratic vulnerability has moved on; it was once Washington and Minnesota and now its Maryland and New Jersey. 

[ottermax]

One thing is for sure, Cantwell will almost surely win, and by a larger margin than in 2000 (which shouldn't be too hard). So far, McGavick's ads have been bland, they tell me that he is a good person, but I know nothing of McGavick's views on any issues. Cantwell has at least showed her opinions, not just showed people that she can apologize.

[adam]

McGavick is a lamb that has been sacrificed to fill ballot space against a very popular Democratic incumbent in a Democratic state. Most of the narrowing polls are just pre-election anti-incumbent agnst that a lot of popular incumbents endure. In the end, the Democratic base will put Cantwell way over the top against her very lousy opponent. Predicition:

Maria Cantwell: 53.6%
Mike McGavick: 44.1%
Aaron Dixon: 2.3%

[Adlai Stevenson]

For a while McGavick was considered quite a good candidate and he was the only candidate on Dole's wishlist of challengers who did enter the race.  McGavick should at least win the 45% who voted for Bush in 2004 and I could see him attracting some independents.  My prediction:

WASHINGTON SENATE
Cantwell (D) 52%
McGavick (R) 45%
Other 3%

[Eraserhead]

How does this race go from +17 to +6 just like that? Strange.

[Gustaf]

McGavick is a lamb that has been sacrificed to fill ballot space against a very popular Democratic incumbent in a Democratic state. Most of the narrowing polls are just pre-election anti-incumbent agnst that a lot of popular incumbents endure. In the end, the Democratic base will put Cantwell way over the top against her very lousy opponent. Predicition:

Maria Cantwell: 53.6%
Mike McGavick: 44.1%
Aaron Dixon: 2.3%

But Perry and Lieberman are going down, right?

[Alcon]

How does this race go from +17 to +6 just like that? Strange.

I doubt it was ever +17.  Washington just doesn't go Dem +17 unless there's a very good reason.  More like +12, maybe.  McGavick DUI incident.  Now, everything has drifted backward.

A Democrat having a 6-point lead in Washington isn't something to worry about.  It's pretty much the default.

McGavick could win if he kicked butt in the debates, but I seriously doubt he will.

[MarkWarner08]

McGavick is a lamb that has been sacrificed to fill ballot space against a very popular Democratic incumbent in a Democratic state. Most of the narrowing polls are just pre-election anti-incumbent agnst that a lot of popular incumbents endure. In the end, the Democratic base will put Cantwell way over the top against her very lousy opponent. Predicition:

Maria Cantwell: 53.6%
Mike McGavick: 44.1%
Aaron Dixon: 2.3%

WOW. I guess the Washington punditocracy was completely wrong about McGavick. Seriously, Cantwell shouldn't have won in 2000 and is lucky that her strong opponent made a mistake with the DUI issue. Without the kerfuffle over the DUI, McGavick could've been within 3-4 points of Cantwell.

[Keystone Phil]

McGavick could've been within 3-4 points of Cantwell.

He will be when all is said and done.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Cantwell is the favorite, but I'm not going to give up on McGavick yet, that is quite a rebound, and let's all remember Tom Kean Jr. was the exact same spot in Rasmussen less than two months ago.

[Alcon]

WOW. I guess the Washington punditocracy was completely wrong about McGavick. Seriously, Cantwell shouldn't have won in 2000 and is lucky that her strong opponent made a mistake with the DUI issue. Without the kerfuffle over the DUI, McGavick could've been within 3-4 points of Cantwell.

McGavick is not a particularly strong candidate.  He is a respectable candidate, and the importance of that in Washington cannot be underscored.  Politically, it's all about the east side of Lake Washington.  Rossi was competitive because he pulled big margins in the area, which is known as the eastside.  It's affluent, well-educated, and will vote for the Democrat unless there's a reason.  In many ways, George W. Bush was the perfect awful candidate for the east side.  He was just socially conservative enough, just unpolished enough, just everything enough, to make the area strongly Democratic.

But the area could flip back very easily.  Rossi racked up decent margins there.  Outside of the Seattle metro, Rossi didn't actually do much better than Bush.  In many counties, he did worse.  That's because he was a distinctly suburban candidate.  And McGavick, a Seattle businessman, has the same problem.  He needs to appeal to the suburbs, and the polls indicate he isn't.  Gregoire was able to be pegged as establishment Olympia.  It's harder to make Cantwell seem like anything but a suburban liberal (not a bad thing on the eastside, really).  Rossi also was a lot more polished than McGavick is.

What's happening to McGavick is that he lost his fundamental suburban base, and then gained it back.  But he hasn't gained the suburban swing voters.  He briefly  had some of them when he was down by only 3 or 4, but he may have permanently lost that possibility with the DUI issue.  He isn't really all that likeable.

McGavick needs to make himself look personable and Cantwell unpersonable for this to even come close.  At the moment, he's managed to save face.  But making Cantwell look as bad as Rossi made Gregoire look is going to be difficult.  McGavick would have to run a near-perfect campaign.  Somehow, I have difficulties believing he will.

(For what it's worth, Cantwell has run not so much a bad campaign as a non-campaign.  Her ads have been unspectacular and general.  It's not that the campaign is awful, it's that it is bland.  I don't expect this to last, although it's certainly doing her no favours now.)

[CultureKing]

also one of the main things that I think McGacick is having trouble is reaching out to moderate voters, he is no Rossi and most likely his conservative views on many issue like school vouchers and Iraq will hurt him (also remember this is Washington and usually though not always the political landscape is not quick to change)
My Prediction:
Cantwell: 52%
McGavick: 45%
Other: 3%

[adam]

But Perry and Lieberman are going down, right?

Both are possible.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, Perry will win. There is no poll inside the margin of error. Lieberman he could go down but he is the favored. So, both are favored.l

[Eraserhead]

No, Perry will win. There is no poll inside the margin of error. Lieberman he could go down but he is the favored. So, both are favored.l

There is still a slight chance Perry could lose if voters in Texas can just pick which of the three candidates they want to be the anti-Perry. I wouldn't count on it but its possible. Perry himself seems pretty damn unpopular.

[Gustaf]

But Perry and Lieberman are going down, right?

Both are possible.

It's ridiculous to say that an incumbent you like will GAIN votes because she's an incumbent, but at the same time claim that incumbents you dislike will LOSE votes for no particular reason. Perry for instance is way ahead of Cantwell. Lieberman probably is too.

[adam]

But Perry and Lieberman are going down, right?

Both are possible.

It's ridiculous to say that an incumbent you like will GAIN votes because she's an incumbent, but at the same time claim that incumbents you dislike will LOSE votes for no particular reason. Perry for instance is way ahead of Cantwell. Lieberman probably is too.

Cantwell is far more popular than Perry and is only dealing with one serious challeneger while Perry is dealing with three (two of which attract conservative attention). Besides, there are many reasons why Perry can and will lose votes...If you have heard of the Trans-Texas Corridor, you will know what I mean.

Lieberman on the other hand has become an imbecile...but I doubt he'll lose. Lamont just isnt a strong enough campaigner as lastest polls have proven. I really have no clue about this race, it's an odd one.