Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Outing the Haters | Strawberries and Honey »

Friday, June 23, 2006

Cantwell Counters with Numbers of Her Own

Posted by on June 23 at 10:44 AM

The McGavick campaign caused a serious stir yesterday with numbers from a GOP Rasmussen poll showing the race in a statistical dead heató44 to 40, Cantwell.

Well, Cantwell rapid-responsed today with a polling analysis of her own, done by the the Democrats the Mellman Group, highlighting that Cantwell is comfortably ahead by 9.6 points. (I’d link you to the report, but the copy I have is in some weird format that I can’t seem to plug in here.)

Anyway, stupid move. Because it just makes voters think… “WTF? That’s confusing. Who knows?”

And that’s good for McGavick because now the numbers, which technically favor Cantwell, become suspect and confusing and… irrelevant.

Campaign Cantwell should have ignored the McGavick poll and most people would have still considered Cantwell the big frontrunner.


CommentsRSS icon

OR...what it says is "here is the high water mark and here is the low water mark" and cantwell's lead is somewhere in between.

Both sides need to give up on poll numbers and just focus on getting their messages out. I don't give a fuck if some percentage of the population according to some poll is in favor of voting for you in the future.

All I care about is your record and your vision for the future.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting a Republican would LIE?

Hasn't Iraq, PlameGate, or all the many many convictions and indictments of GOP officials taught you anything?

Imagine this scenario if you will. Joe Voter is one of those mythical, "undecided" swing voters that all politicians lust after with the eager rabidity of a Rottweiler espying a shapely leg. At the polling place on Election Day, Joe Voter thinks to himself, "Hmm, the last poll numbers I heard had Lobbyist Mike! ahead by 2/10ths of a percent - he's clearly a winner, so I'm voting for Lobbyist Mike!"

Does ANYONE anywhere base their voting on polls? If they do, they should be shot. Now, big donors, they may decide where to bestow their money based on polls if they truly have no preference one way or another, but how many of those are really out there in the wild? Who the hell is truly undecided anymore? Politics has become so partisan and so determined by finances that we might as well just let the candidates buy the seat outright, like an auction. Whoever raises the most money is automatically assumed to be the most "viable" candidate by 90% of the press and pundits anyway.

Cantwell should be thrashing McGavick. I don't understand why they haven't already started in on him. I can think of at least two issues on which he just can't win.

First, he should have his position on reproductive rights pinned down precisely. Asking McGavick endlessly if he is for banning The Pill, The Condom, The Morning After Pill, if he is for prosecuting doctors that perform abortions, or if he is for making abortion illegal in cases of rape will make him VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.

Second, he should be asked why Alaska needs three senitors. Why should Washington elect someone so closely linked with the political establishment of Alaska? Shouldn't we have our own representative?

Or maybe all the Rasmussen poll says is that McGavick is paying to run ads while Cantwell is holding her money until most voters pay more attention.

Recently McGavick video ads have been appearing on home pages of newspapers on line like the Spokesman-Review.

McGavick has also spent lots of money on radio and TV ads.

At this point its a who you've seen recently popularity like contest rather than a who are you going to vote for in November. The only real poll that counts is the one on November 7, 2006

Hey, did you catch the Connelly story in the PI about how McGavik is lying to voters about "touring WA in an RV" while he's actually in DC holding two big-money fundraisers?

Man, why are Repubs such LIARS?

McGavick is spending money this early to build name recognition. Unless they're partisans, people vote the name they know, not for unknowns. His problem right now is that most everyone knows his name but his numbers still haven't gone up.

Cantwell is saving her money for persuasion when voters will actually be paying attention, after Labor Day. She's a tough and smart campaigner who dethroned a two/three term incumbent and as long as she keeps bringing the A-Game we know she has, she'll win.

In the end, Washington is a blue state and Republicans just aren't going to become more popular here in 2006. I made this prediction a while ago and I'm still sticking to it:
Cantwell 52
McGavick 46
Other 2

Basically, the margin of victory for Kerry here with the Greens picking up a bit more than they normally would.

I agree with your reasoning, Aexia, but hasn't anybody in this thread been watching the television? The Heritage Foundation has been running attack ads calling Cantwell "a vulture" because she refuses to continue the Republican effort to create a hereditary aristocracy by repealing the estate tax.

The extreme right fruitcakes are eager to do McGavick's hatchet work for him.

By the way, nobody on the Democratic side pays much mind to Greens. About two years ago NORC (National Opinion Research Center in Chicago) released a study showing that, on the rare occasions that they bothered to vote, Greens actually favored Republicans about 60/40 in races where there was no Green candidate.


Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).