Malloy Pulls Ahead

and Blumenthal is only 3 points ahead of the Sexy Bitch (4.00 / 2)

How many times does a pollster have to produce pure propaganda before you stop believeing anything they produce?

Heres 538.coms take on pollsters,

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

Ras= Grain of GOP salt.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 00:31:00 AM UTC

A GOP bias in this poll is even better news for Malloy (4.00 / 2)

I know but the Lamont campaign seems to take it seriously per campaign manager Joe Abbey. Also wouldn't a GOP bias mean that Malloy is probably farther ahead than the poll indicates? Obviously it helps Ned as well. But either way makes it look like Dan might be the better candidate to take on Foley (or Fedele) in the fall? Just a thought.

Blog | Twitter

---

by: Matt Zagaja @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 00:49:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Ned still runs stronger against Fedele than Dan (4.00 / 1)

Makes no sense

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 16:09:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Negative Attacks Work (0.00 / 0)

Film at 11.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 01:00:44 AM UTC

One thing you take away from this Rasmussen (0.00 / 0)

Even with a Republican bias, no Republican candidate breaks 40 percent.

---

by: notcho @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 13:50:52 PM UTC

Luckily Republican operatives like Rasmussen & Rennie (0.00 / 0)

don't really want a dog-fight in the Democratic gubernatorial primary!

Definitely we should give more weight to this incredibly non-biased effort, -- than we might give to the Q-poll. (Schwartz excepted.)

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:31:16 AM UTC

Where are the Lamont v. Malloy head-to-heads? (0.00 / 0)

Did Rasmussen not poll people as to the all important primary?

And is Zagaja implying Malloy is ahead in that contest? (I doubt it.)

Intellectually nauseating?

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:35:19 AM UTC

Q and Ras (0.00 / 0)

Each poll one race but not the other. Maddening.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 12:42:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I'm saying... (4.00 / 1)

Anderson,

I think you're a bit confused. My post is about the fact that Malloy is now doing better against Foley than Lamont (Malloy "pulled ahead" of Foley in this latest poll). One of the central arguments that has been made here is that because Ned Lamont has more money he will be more competitive against the Republican candidates than Dan Malloy. Ignoring the credibility issue for a second if we assume that this particular poll was properly conducted and that the data is valid it suggests that the Lamont money argument isn't holding up. Otherwise if it were significant enough he'd still be doing better against Foley than Malloy (again I reference this tidbit from Freakonomics that suggests money matters less than pundits seem to believe).

As to the issue of the credibility of the poll people here are uniformly citing Nate Silver's fivethrityeight.com analysis which I think is both cogent and relevant. Nate seems to say that the poll has a Republican bias, which could certainly account for the Fedele jump but does not account for Malloy (a democrat) jumping against Foley (a republican). It certainly does not build any type of narrative that would be favorable to the GOP. Additionally I think the Lamont campaign recognizes that this is a GOP bias and their strategists do give it weight and credibility in regards to measuring their competitiveness which is why they made sure to mention the Rasmussen poll in a press release.

I'm not forcing you to accept the poll, but I'm just saying that it's something the strategists at the Lamont campaign seem to view as important to their position and so maybe it shouldn't be completely discarded. I strongly disagree that a competitive primary is bad news for the democrats, I think that both candidates stand head and shoulders above their Republican opponents in both experience and ideas, and in a year with a heavily anti-incumbent sentiment the Republican candidates are going to have a tougher time winning the general election. Obviously we still have much time to go so we will see as more polls come out and the electorate starts thinking about this more.

-Matt

Blog | Twitter

---

by: Matt Zagaja @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 16:36:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

also ahead in the last ras poll [nt] (0.00 / 0)

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 17:02:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not that he was behind, just going farther ahead... (0.00 / 0)

Sorry if I was unclear. - Matt

Blog | Twitter

---

by: Matt Zagaja @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 17:13:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that's why AS was confused about which race you meant (0.00 / 0)

You "pull ahead" from behind. Otherwise it's maintaining / expanding a lead.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 18:03:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

obvious (4.00 / 2)

Nate seems to say that the poll has a Republican bias, which could certainly account for the Fedele jump but does not account for Malloy (a democrat) jumping against Foley (a republican).

If I wanted to "hurt" the dem leader in the primary, what better way to do so than show his primary opponent (who would actually be weaker in the general) is making massive gains.

It called "playing the opposition". It's why the proponents of open primaries want them to be open. So that they will have a chance to pick the weaker opponent in the general against their strong opponent.

It does not surprise me that the GOP-skewed pollster found that the generally "weaker" candidate in all other polls is doing so much better (a 14 point jump) against a hypothetical GOP candidate. It fits with the narrative.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 18:57:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mean it might not be a conspiracy (4.00 / 1)

They could just be polling normally. After all doesn't Foley get a bit hurt by this too considering the Fedele gain on Lamont and the Malloy gain on Foley?

We don't really have other supporting data here, at least I don't recall any other polls suggesting that Lamont is the better candidate to beat Foley. I think Ras was the only one polling this way. The central argument has been about Lamont's money and I'm sure it helps but when Lamont advisor Howard Wolfson helped run Bloomberg's Campaign for NYC Mayor against Democrat Thompson Bloomberg spent around $108 million versus Democrat Bill Thompson's $9 million and won by 5%. That's when Bloomberg was an incumbent.

I'm not swayed by the money argument and absent other polling we don't really know a whole lot. Ras is the only thing out there on this right now and it seemed good enough when news was good for Ned a month or two ago for people here and for the Lamont campaign. It's not going to be the only thing, and again you don't have to accept it, but it looks like a good sign for Malloy (and Ned too!) to me and absent specific evidence that this particular poll has been tampered with I think I'll take it for now until we get something better.  

Blog | Twitter

---

by: Matt Zagaja @ Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:56:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The money argument (0.00 / 0)

As I said before, there is no compelling issues-based argument to be made that Lamont is more progressive than Malloy. Being more progressive than Joe Lieberman does not make someone "progressive". There is no evidence that Lamont is any less "pro-corporatist" than Malloy, he is likely as corporatist if not more so.

Thus, the most compelling reason that Lamont supporters have made for their candidate is the money argument--only Lamont has the money to win this race. It is the only argument that has given me pause--and I don't even find this argument compelling enough to vote for Lamont in the primary.

In 2006, Lamont outspent Lieberman by 1.5% and lost by nearly 10 percentage points--and that was when he had the whole antiwar movement behind him and was running against a total villain.

Part of the reason I think Lamont lost in 2006 is because there were DTCs and other parts of the Democratic establishment who were actively working to elect Lieberman right up to election day.

It really helps to have establishment support--the DTCs are the local affiliates that help out during campaigns and on election day.

I think Malloy has a better chance of mobilizing party apparatus to work hard for his campaign and can win with the money he has from the CEP.

But, as I said, if Lamont can win the primary (which I don't think he can),  I think he can win the general election.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:24:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you said before that you hadn't heard any argument like that (0.00 / 0)

Saying that "there is no compelling issues-based argument to be made that Lamont is more progressive than Malloy" is a pretty significant calcification of your position.

Even though you seem to believe I am an unrepentant Malloy hater, I have continued to seek out evidence to support his claims and those of his supporters, particularly on Paid Sick Days. I have a standing offer to the WFP people that I will post up any evidence that Malloy wants something stronger than what the legislature proposed on PSD or that Lamont wants something weaker.

I will echo Jon K in saying that I also have not made, nor am I convinced by, the matter of finances as a rationale for voting Lamont. I didn't commit to a candidate until Juan dropped out, and he was flat broke. Please debate actual Lamont supporters, not fictional ones.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 22:30:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hurting a team member... (0.00 / 0)

You are doing it.

Please, feel free to say Malloy is not a corporatist. But...

here is no evidence that Lamont is any less "pro-corporatist" than Malloy, he is likely as corporatist if not more so.

That is an unsubstantiated "attack" on a Democrat for no reason other than you support his opponent.

If Lamont becomes the candidate after the Primary, would you feel fine to have him labeled that way by his GOP opponent?

Please people. Think before you hit the "post" button. If you can back up your statement with facts that support your opinion, great do so. But throwing tar and feathers on either candidate so yours can win the Primary will only hurt the General for whomever wins.

Promote Malloy if you are a Malloy supporter. Tell others here why we should want to support him. Promote Lamont if you are a Lamont supporter and tell others here why he deserves your support.

I think Malloy has a better chance of mobilizing party apparatus to work hard for his campaign and can win with the money he has from the CEP.

Better. How about...

I think Malloy can mobilize the party apparatus to work hard for his campaign and can win with the money he has from the CEP.  I think this because; (1)... (2)... (3)...

Here you can express why you believe Malloy is a good pick, you can give your reasons for this belief (facts, not more opinions, you already have given an opinion). Who knows, something like this may make an undecided say "Hey, That's a well reasoned argument for supporting Malloy!"

(LI Sound metaphor) If the goal is to get a Democrat into the Governorship, then let's not damage the ship that we may have to sail to get there. Tell us why you think the ship you want is a great ship, but don't set fire to the deck of the other in hopes that you can win by burning it down to the waterline. You may end up having to sail in that ship, and sailing a burned out hulk taking on water because of the fires you set isn't the best way to win the regatta.  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:16:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ned Lamont is a man of great character Sufi,... (0.00 / 0)

And that's pretty much the reason I'm going to be voting for him!

When Ned is governor, I trust him to do the right things, even if un-popular, and I know he will put his service to Connecticut in front of re-election concerns.

As to Dan Malloy and the whole DLC thing, it's hard for me to believe that he still belongs to that organization, which is now chaired by Harold Ford, Jr....

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 23:01:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

character not the deciding factor in this race (0.00 / 0)

I think Dan Malloy's character is just as good which is why the deciding factors for me are policy positions, experience, and electability and I think Malloy is better on all three counts. As I mentioned before, there are plenty of very corporatist Democrats that are not part of the DLC and the DLC also includes people like Al Gore, Congressman Rush Holt, and Congressman Jim Moran who were all supported by the progressive community at one point or another--so the DLC factor alone is a non-issue. If you want to make the case that Malloy should not be supported because he's DLC, I think you should also provide us with examples of specific DLC policies he implemented while he was mayor and show how those policies were not progressive. Absent that, I think this is really just a meaningless label.

On the issue of paid sick leave Ned Lamont has stated:

He said he would support a federal paid sick day bill, but not a statewide bill.
"Making Connecticut the first state to have this policy would put us at a competitive disadvantage at a time when we're losing businesses," Lamont spokeswoman Justine Sessions later explained.

Lamont's position on paid sick leave is a Republican or "centrist" position--not a progressive position. Although he is "not DLC", Lamont has already successfully shifted some progressives to the right because some of them have decided to back him on paid sick leave when they would otherwise not be doing so. Some of them are backing him in spite of his position paid sick leave.

The union that endorsed Lamont disagreed with his position on paid sick leave and vowed to "educate" Lamont on the policy.

In fact, the union leader even admitted he was supporting Lamont due to the money issue:

They don't agree with Ned Lamont on paid sick days, but they like his campaign war chest.

The union's e-board did not see significant ideological differences between those two candidates, Petronella said.

"Dan Malloy is very good on working issues, as Ned Lamont is," he said. He called the decision a "practical" one.

The choice comes down to "frankly, who can win an election," Petronella said. Lamont has better name recognition, and has proven himself in a statewide vote by beating U.S. Sen Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary, he said.

Lamont "has the momentum, and the money to do this," Petronella said.

This same union backed Lieberman in the 2006 primary:

Local 371 supported U.S. Sen Joe Lieberman-not Lamont-in the 2006 general election. "As a result of backing [Lieberman], we have access to him on a regular basis," Petronella said.

At the end of the day, this is just one issue out of many and even this is not a deal breaker for me. I'm more concerned about spending cuts that Lamont has proposed. I have no way of knowing that the spending cuts would target what we would consider "true" waste or whether they will affect vital social programs so I would like to err on the side of caution. As someone whose family has personally benefited from a state subsidized social program, spending cuts could have a direct negative impact on my family. I'm very concerned about it. I would prefer a candidate who has indicated that he is at least open to the idea of taxing gazillionaires to pay for programs that benefit the public and Ned Lamont does not seem to be that candidate.

In spite of this, I think Lamont would still be a good governor--but I think Malloy would be even better.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 14:08:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sufi... (0.00 / 0)

Al Gore does not belong to the DLC any more!

Are you kidding me?

In fact the number of people that asked out of that organization grew to be so big, -- that they had to remove their membership from public view!

And yeah, I think people should be wary of anyone who still associates himself or herself with that cabal. You can say it's meaningless, but I still believe it's very telling. Please ask some of the politicians who quit that group, why they quit that group!

And do you personally think last cycle's "DeStefano in a Dress" ad was fair and in good taste? Will you stand behind a win-at-all-costs campaign, since you have determined that Ned Lamont is un-electable?

Also, if the income tax issue is so important to you, do you thin State Senator Andrew MacDonald should be playing such an important role in Team Malloy, since he led the group that thwarted a move to an even more progressive state income tax?

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 17:07:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

could you please expand on this a bit (0.00 / 0)

Also, if the income tax issue is so important to you, do you thin State Senator Andrew MacDonald should be playing such an important role in Team Malloy, since he led the group that thwarted a move to an even more progressive state income tax?

Since an entire other thread was using "guilt by supporter" could you please expand on the level of involvement Mr. MacDonald has in the Malloy campaign. Financial? Supportive? Operational?

If the first two, then it would be no different than Mr. Kelly and a non-issue (as is Mr. Kelly). But if he is involved with some operational part, from an advisor to more detailed operations, then we have to expect Malloy proponents to be asking their candidate for clarification as to whether Malloy supports Mr. MacDonald's positions regarding tax and budgetary policy.

Again, I want to re-iterate that if his involvement is "I support Dan Malloy" and donation of funds, this is NOT an issue in any way, shape or form as a candidate has no real control over that. But, if you can show that he has taken a more substantive role within the campaign (kitchen cabinet, phone bank operations, holding meet-and-greets, etc.) with the candidates support, then the relationship is really a two way street and there is validity to the question of where the candidate stands.  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 19:42:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inside the Senate (0.00 / 0)

... my understanding is that the Governor's race is something of a proxy fight between supporters of Williams and McDonald for Senate President. McDonald appears to be favored to become Senate President if Malloy becomes Governor.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

need issues based argument (0.00 / 0)

Unless you can provide me with specific examples of how Dan Malloy implemented DLC policies during his tenure as Mayor of Stamford and explain how those policies were not progressive, I will continue to find this to be a hollow argument. For example, the DLC endorses school vouchers. Dan Malloy opposes school vouchers (you can confirm this by asking his campaign staff)--and so, given that his affiliation with the DLC does not really seem to be affecting his policies in a meaningful way or in a way that makes him less progressive than Lamont, I just don't care about it. Obama wasn't DLC but hired DLCer Rahm Emmanuel to be his chief of staff and filled his whole administration with corporatists like Lawrence Summers. Not being DLC does NOT make someone progressive and being part of the DLC doesn't necessarily make someone a right-wing corporatist.

You can look at a candidate's DLC affiliation. You can even look at their endorsements but NEITHER is a substitute for evaluating the record and positions of the candidate him or herself.

You asked about the DeStefano in a Dress ad. Yes, I disapprove of it. CTBob told me he asked Dan Malloy if we would be seeing those kinds of ads during this election cycle and Malloy said no. He realizes it crossed the line and was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.

I may not always approve of the aggressiveness of Malloy's campaign--but that's not going to cause me to vote for Ned Lamont in the primary when I believe he is the less progressive candidate in this race!

You write:

Also, if the income tax issue is so important to you, do you thin State Senator Andrew MacDonald should be playing such an important role in Team Malloy, since he led the group that thwarted a move to an even more progressive state income tax

Can you please provide citation for this? Actually, I believe it wasn't Andrew McDonald who thwarted this move, it was Ed Meyer who endorses Ned Lamont:

In addition to $1.5 billion in increased income taxes, the bill includes about $125 million in new fee increases that are virtually the same as the fee and fine increases that Rell proposed in February. It calls for raising the state income tax to 7.5 percent for couples earning more than $750,000 annually, which would be a 50 percent rate increase on income above that level.

Five fiscally conservative Democrats voted against their party's budget: Robert Duff of Norwalk, Joan Hartley of Waterbury, Gayle Slossberg of Milford, Paul Doyle of Wethersfield and Edward Meyer of Guilford. Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Stamford Democrat, provided the crucial 19th vote Thursday after initially voting against a more expensive Democratic tax plan at the committee level.

But I agree with Met00's comment below--McDonald's and Meyer's vote on this issue should not be used to evaluate Malloy. Malloy's own record and positions should be ultimately used to evaluate Malloy.

In an earlier remark, you described Ned Lamont as a "man of great character" who was unafraid to make "unpopular" decisions.

In 2006, many Democrats used that same argument to support Joe Lieberman. I didn't find that argument convincing then and I do not find it convincing now in this case.

Why don't you list a 3 or 4 issues on which you believe Lamont is more progressive than Malloy? That would be a more persuasive strategy than the ones you have employed thus far.

Finally, it's not so much that I think Lamont is UN-electable as much as it is that I think Malloy is MORE electable.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 23:11:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Margin of error?... (0.00 / 0)

I don't know much about polls, but from what I've been hearing, when it comes to Rasmussen, it sounds like the "margin of accuracy" is close to nil.  

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 14:03:17 PM UTC

Based on the April 7, 2010 poll and the current one, Lamont cuts into Foley's lead (0.00 / 0)

New poll shows Foley leading Democratic rivals
SNIP

The Rasmussen Reports' telephone survey of 500 likely voters has Foley leading Lamont, 44 percent to 37 percent, and besting Malloy, 44 percent to 35 percent. In February, Foley trailed Lamont, 40 percent to 37 percent, and was virtually tied with Malloy.

The poll was conducted April 1 and released Wednesday. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Foley, a former ambassador and Republican fundraiser, is the only one of the three doing any television advertising, but Lamont is expected to begin his advertising campaign this month.

SNIP

So the polling trend is up for Lamont even in the Rasmussen poll.  Malloy after trailing by 7 in April jumps to a 7 point lead over Foley in the latest Rassmussen poll.  Interesting spike.  Wonder if the sample is from all over CT or concentrated in Southwestern CT.

I don't know how many of the likely voters are Republicans, Democrats or Independents or if the percentages of the 3 groups match the CT likely voter pool.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:08:59 AM UTC

Do you know anyone that pays for their data? (0.00 / 0)

There are crosstabs...

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:15:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen is not credible (0.00 / 0)

I expect Nate at 538dot com will remove them from his list of pollsters very soon which will basically put them out of business because of 538s new partnership with the NYT.

Here's Nates latest jab at Rasmussen

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 13:36:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com Rasmussen says of it's "likely voter" ... (0.00 / 0)

SNIP
[From Rasmussen]
At this point in time, we use a fairly loose screening process, in the sense that we don't ask details about how certain you are to vote in a particular election next November. In fact, even the term "likely voters" is probably not the best term. I used to use the phrase "high propensity voters," because it was suggesting that these people who were most likely to show up in a typical mid-term election. We're not claiming this is a particular model of who will show up in 2010.

SNIP

Likely voters are less likely to include young adults... [and] minority voters....
SNIP

So What's a Likely Voter? Answers from Rasmussen and PPP

I would think that likely voters are those who have shown up in the past 2-3 mid-term election cycles to vote.  Not sure if there is a national database on that for pollsters and campaigns to use.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 21:06:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No I don't. I thought Markos Moulitas did at one time, but don't know any more (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 20:45:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am wondering when anyone (4.00 / 3)

started taking RAS numbers seriously? Especially so early on in a race when they typically just make shit up to try and push the media into a narrative? Pay attention to the second joke here:

Two Polls and Two Really Bad Jokes

Poll 1.

Research 2000 just pretty much confirmed the state of the Connecticut Senate race between Blumenthal and McMahon:

Research  2000 for Daily Kos. 5/24-26. Likely voters. MoE 4% (1/11-13  results)

Dick Blumenthal (D) 52 (56)
Linda McMahon (R) 33 (34)

It'd been a while since we polled Connecticut, and quite frankly, I  didn't expect to ever come back to this Senate race (the governor's race  is another story, and a race for another day to poll).

Poll 2.

These numbers are pretty darn close to where Quinnipiac had them yesterday:

May 27, 2010 - Blumenthal Pins McMahon By 25 Points In Connecticut, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Most Voters Say Vietnam Issue Doesn't Impact Vote


Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal leads former wrestling executive Linda McMahon 56 - 31 percent in the U.S. Senate race and tops the Republican candidate by large margins on every character measure, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Joke 1.

I blogged about that Vietnam issue being a pile of hooey, having been planted in the media by McMahon and hopelessly being flung around like poop in the right wing blogosphere and media in a desperate attempt to make a non-story into anything they can over at Connecticut Political Reporter. Probably because the joke of a corporatist media would really love to turn this smackdown of a Senate race into a horse race that they want and need to sell papers:

Despite "supposedly" putting his own foot in his mouth last week,  Dick Blumenthal still manages to put a good old  fashioned WWE Smackdown on Linda McMahon, where Blumenthal keeps a  formidable lead, 56-31, over McMahon in the most recent Quinnipiac  polling.

Proving that this  was the non-story that it really should have been from the start,  regardless of the GOP's McMahon planting it, the NY Times doing a bang  up job of corporatist stenography for the GOP and right wing  Bloggers desperately trying to make more of it than was ever going to be  worth.

When McMahon tries to float one we will flush it...

 In the media you will find that they repeat the same thing about this story yet is a taken from a video that is purposely taken out of context by McMahon and the media can't even bother to fact check it a bit before they go with it....

Joke 2. (And this is a long running joke)

Rasmussen does its nuttiest best to give the right wing something to latch onto:

18 MAY 2010
CT-SEN
Blumenthal D 48.0%, McMahon R 45.0%
Sample:
MoE:  500
4.5
Population: Likely Voters

What planet are they polling likely voters on? Is there some hidden Republican Connecticut on a propaganda producing Perelandra that we don't know about?

This is expected of Rasmussen as they are purely a propaganda arm of the GOP and they always produce polls that are so far out of whack with reality for months leading up to primaries and elections, which the corporate media slurps up like a Jeff Gannon kneeling in front of George W Bush passing this disease (and others) off to readers as "news",  and then suddenly, magically, weeks before an election their numbers start to reflect the real numbers of a race.

Rasmussen followed their typical propaganda pattern when they were constatntly predicting that there would be a "President McCain" coupled with a "GOP gaining in the House"... Right up until a few weeks before the election when it became clear they would be so far out of touch with reality at the end of it. And it is like they don't think people will notice this?

For example, from February to April of 2008, Rasmussen showed John  McCain leading by an average of 2.6%. Meanwhile, every other poll of  likely voters during that time period showed Barack Obama with a  2.6% lead. So from February to April, there was a 5.2% gap between  Rasmussen and everybody else.

From September through election day, however, the gap was  significantly smaller. The average Rasmussen poll taken during that time  showed Obama leading by 3.8% while the average of all other polls of  likely voters showed Obama leading by 5.8%, resulting in a gap of 2%.

So in the early months of 2008, the gap between Rasmussen and  everybody else was 5.6% compared with 2% late in the cycle. Another  important point here is that early in the cycle, Rasmussen's polling  accounted for a far larger share of overall polling, meaning that their  results played a more important role in shaping horse race narratives in  the early stages of the campaign than they did in the latter stages of  the campaign.

They are clearly trying to drive a republican narrative and it shows. Some earlier Rasmussen jokes being compiled by Nate Silver:

Here are the results of statewide polling in the 2000 Presidential  Election. Although the pollster ratings will eventually involve some  fancier math, the numbers you see below are as simple as it gets: I've  simply looked at the average error of the last poll issued by each  pollster in each state in terms of projecting the margin between Bush  and Gore.  (A cut-off is established 21 days prior to the election.)





While  2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal  with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and  some late-breaking developments like Bush's DUI charge, Rasmussen was  the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points.  They also  called 7 states wrong.** Some of this was the result of bias, as they  were 3.5 points too high on Bush's margin in the states they surveyed,  on average.

If I were a betting man, and I am not, I could see setting up a pool picking the date when Rasmussen starts to reflect reality in the CT-SEN race OR any other race for that matter. They really are that predictable.

An old empty bottle brewed in New Milford showing how out of touch Rasmussen was (looks like pure propaganda to me) during the healthcare reform debate. Just look at the pic to see clearly how out of whack their numbers are:

All  you need to know about healthcare polls:

For now...

The right wing keeps trying to push a Rasmussen poll  with bad numbers in it for Obama, the public option and for single  payer. I dealt with the  single payer numbers and public option numbers a little bit (and  other interesting things, to me, at least?) at ePluribus Media a couple  of days ago and most of the Blogosphere has seen the  numbers for Obama start to rise again. Much of these numbers have  all been noted to follow the start of of pressure from teabagging.  Briefly numbers across the board dropped... But as people began to  realize all of the things the birthers/.deathers/teabaggers were saying  were as crazy as the things many of them were doing the numbers for  those issues and Obama re-solidified. While pollster.com  dealt with many of the numbers in a different way, I just want to show  you the picture they put together of what I am talking about:

Yes, this  one picture deals with the public option but is easily applicable across  the board on almost any issue. And I am not even going to get in to the  well known right wing bias of Rasmussen, nor their incredibly  ridiculous outlier numbers in previous polls. Just remember that they  are the one polling outfit that was predicting major leads for the GOP  House early into the last election cycle and have, over time, taken a  serious beating from many poll savvy people over many of their crazy  outliers and polls bordering on the edge of push polls.

Anyways...  Some in the media and the right wing are ignoring recent polls and  quoting old stuff and even taking stuff out way out of context in order  to fit their talking points and narratives. How the heck can any person  call Obama and his policies in trouble when he has approval ratings over  50% in 48 of the 50 states? And an Obama   63% approval rate across the entire country?

6 months in  we are talking uber popular, both in  Obama's leadership and in many of his policies. If anything, the  numbers inside  the polls, overall and IMHO, show that the solutions  they are seeing are not liberal enough for them.
And we can  thank the raging, lying loonies on the right wing for helping to  solidify those numbers.

While I am certain that many of the  people with more experience in reading into polls will have more  important things to say about it all, people like the number crunchers  at dKos or Nate Silver at  fivethirtyeight.com, but really, and let us be honest here: If a  picture is worth a thousand words, that one up there speaks volumes.

Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 23:56:28 PM UTC

Excellent work!!! Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

Fascinating to see that the polling organization that does so much research for that far-left, radical, extremist "Daily Kos" blog is nearly the very best in the business: only eight errors (I take it that means that they called an election one way, and it turned out another), compared with four times the "errors" for Rasmussen.

Talk about conservative "epistemic closure"!

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 15:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]