Betsy Markey Continues to Lead Marilyn Musgrave in Polls (Oct 2008)

Marilyn Musgrave’s attempts to change her stripes the past two years doesn’t seem to be working out well.  Thankfully, the good folks in CO-04 have a good choice this year in Betsy Markey.  Markey has run a good campaign, keeping the heat on Marilyn from the beginning.  I wrote a post back in May about the first poll that Markey’s campaign made public.  That poll showed Markey leading Musgrave 43-36.  At the time, I acknowledged that November was a long ways off and things could change.  Things haven’t gotten better for Musgrave, which is her own doing, really.

A couple of polls since then have come out – one in August and one in September.  It is worth noting that the September poll was done prior to the economic meltdown we’re still experiencing.  But let me start with the August poll.  Conducted by SurveyUSA (a very reputable firm), it showed Markey beating Musgrave 50-43 with 7% undecided.  The poll had a =/-4% MoE.  There are a couple of details in the poll I want to bring up here.  Men were evenly split, while women preferred Markey 53-38%.  Markey did better in every age group except 65+.  That’s all fine and good.  It’s the racial breakdown that confuses me.  “Whites” made up 100% of the respondents.  I know that CO-04 has a substantial Hispanic population.  It makes no sense why they weren’t included.  How hard did SUSA work to include Hispanics?  My thinking is the results would have looked even better for Markey had Hispanics been included.  Top issues identified in this poll were Iraq, Health Care, the Economy and Education.

The September poll was conducted by Grove Insight for EMILY’s List.  It showed Markey beating Musgrave by a 47-38 margin.  I couldn’t find poll internals, unfortunately.  Regardless, that’s three polls across a number of months that have showed a dintinct Markey lead.  It is bad news indeed for Marilyn Musgrave to poll no better than 43% by an independent polling firm, and generally around 40%.  Meanwhile, Betsy Markey’s numbers look to be in the high 40s.

Here is pollster’s tracking for CO-04.

Marilyn Musgrave has responded in the past month by trying to drag Betsy Markey into the mud.  Her ads have been filled with lies and attacks.  This from the same candidate who tried very hard for two years to convince voters she was as sweet as sugar and shared their values.  I don’t think Musgrave’s negativity is going to work in an election year in which the economy has tanked and she hasn’t produced any solutions.  Betsy Markey needs to stay positive and keep her grassroots active.  I would love to wake up on Nov. 5th knowing Colorado was going to send 5 Democrats to the House that were able and willing to work for Coloradans.  The time of socially divisive legislation is over.

[Update 11/2/08]: For those looking for additional polling on this race, there hasn’t been a poll publicly released since the September one showing Betsy Markey leading by 9.  I know both campaigns have conducted their own polling since then, but they haven’t released those numbers.  I think that means the numbers haven’t changed.  If Musgrave were ahead, she would talk about nothing else.  Instead, she’s unleashed a number of negative ads.  By the same token, Markey hasn’t released any additional information and has responded to Musgrave’s rumor-based ads.  I expect Betsy Markey to win this race.

State of the Race and Corporate Media Coverage

Add North Dakota and Missouri to the list of states that are toss-ups between Barack Obama and John McCain (dynamic link-valid for Oct 13/14 2008).  Obama has made serious gains in Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North Datkota, Virginia and West Virginia.  Colorado, Florida and Iowa are currently strongly pro-Obama states.  New Mexico and Ohio lean toward Obama.  Obama is in very, very good shape with 21 days to go.  I expect the polls to tighten up some between now and Nov. 4th, but the lead Obama’s supporters have generated is going to be very difficult to overcome.  Which brings me to my next discussion point.

The corporate media continue to try to pass this race off as currently close, when it’s anything but that.  Other blogs have noted that the Washington Posts’ coverage is particularly unrealistic.  Here are some of their assessments:

Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
Obama +10.0%: Leaning Democratic (NJ)
Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
Obama +9.0%: Leaning Democratic (OR)
Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
Obama +8.2%: Leaning Democratic (MI)
Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
McCain +3.8%: Battleground state (IN)
Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
McCain +2.2%: Battleground state (WV)

What do you notice about the list?  McCain leads in Georgia by 7% but WP calls it Leaning Republican.  Yet Obama leads in New Mexico by 7% and WP call it a Battleground state.  Somehow Minnesota and Iowa are Leaning Democratic [correction: Battleground] while Oregon and Wisconsin are Battlegrounds [correction: Leaning Democratic], even though the difference between them are in the tenths place.  Obama leads by 14 in Pennsylvania and WP still somehow identifies that state as a Battleground.  Seriously, what’s going on here?  These assignments show a complete separation from reality.  As usual, the corporate media does everything it possibly can to avoid being called ‘liberal’ by the fringe right-wing noise-makers.  Instead of an honest, non-partisan analysis, the Washington Post is trying its damndest to help out McCain in any way possible.  That’s not journalism.  That’s cheerleading.  And that’s why more and more Americans are turning away from corporate media outlets.  They know the corporate media’s reports don’t relate to reality.

Obama’s base in the electoral college is between 320-330 votes today.  It takes 270 to win.  McCain starts with only 155-170.  Obama and Democrats nationally are looking at a landslide victory if the state of the race is maintained.  After Democrats win in places like Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and North Carolina, Republicans will know what a real national mandate will look like.  Bush tried to claim he had one after 2004 and look how little he’s got done and how much he’s screwed up the government since then.   Winning in Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Indiana and Georgia would only solidify that situation.  Obama has also maintained support from more than 50% of poll respondents for over two weeks now.  If Obama can garner at least 50% of the vote on November 4th, it will be an enormous repudiation of Republican “governance”.

Remember though – extremist Republicans are trying to establish the frame in the corporate media that Democrats are cheating their way to victory.  They will continue to do so in the face of more and more losses.  As usual, it is and will be a distraction.  Their claims will be a distraction from Barack Obama’s and Democratic victories at multiple levels across the country.  It remains to be seen how effective their divisive, partisan talking points are.

Betsy Markey over Marilyn Musgrave in Poll (May 2008)

A poll done by Bennett, Petts & Normington has Democratic candidate Betsy Markey up over Marilyn Musgrave 43-36 with a 4.9% MOE. Yes it’s early, yes the sample size was fairly small (400 respondents). Yes a Musgrave campaign poll had Musgrave up 47-42 a couple months back. Although I must say that a three-term incumbent “showcasing” a poll where she only garnered 47% is pretty pathetic, especially considering the district’s voting pattern. Yes it’s only May and November is quite a ways off.What this poll results shows is that Marilyn Musgrave is in trouble again this year. She’s going to have to work her butt off raising money and actually spending time in the district if she hopes to stave off another challenger. And this time around, the NRCC will have limited funds to bail her out.

Two additional, important notes about the poll: Political affiliations for respondents were intended to match the GOP-leaning district: 40 percent Republican, 31 percent unaffiliated and 29 percent Democrats.A majority, 51 percent,of voters gave Musgrave a job rating of “not so good” or “poor” while only 40 percent rate the job she is doing in Congress as “excellent” or “good”. Combined with Musgrave’s lackluster polling results, the job rating results seem to me to signify an incumbent in trouble. More Republican-leaning districts have already fallen this year. Folks know which party started the Iraq occupation and led the economy into a recession. They know that party isn’t offering solutions to the problems they face. All they’re doing is name-calling and finger-pointing. Republicans have pointed out for numerous cycles how common-sensical rural voters in the West are. Those voters might just prove their point this year. As of March 31, the most recent date for which data are available, Musgrave had raised $1.38 million for her re-election and had $1 million on hand. Markey had raised $569,000 and had $376,000 available. Let’s help Betsy Markey close that financial gap. Let’s help Betsy win CO-04 this year and send a 5-2 (D-R) contingent to Congress next year.

Planty of Pro-Republicanism From the Weekend’s Corporate Media

Karen Crummy has a rural voter poll article. It’s mostly ambiguous fluff. Something she spent some time on: a majority polled said McCain shares their values. Really: values? Rural voters support unauthorized torture as a value? Rural voters don’t support health care or education benefits for our troops? That’s a value worth holding? This value argument was torn apart after the 2004 election. It’s sad that the corporate media and ideologically driven pollsters still focus so much on it. A majority of adults in the U.S. support progressive policy positions. Due in no small part to the media’s narrative, those that vote don’t know they hold the same values as progressives across the board.

There is an important note about this poll: 682 people responded. Thousands of scientists’ work worldwide don’t add up to enough proof that humans are forcing the climate system. But 44% of respondents said McCain shares their values (versus 35% for Obama) and it’s written in stone that Obama can’t win the rural vote. That’s ridiculous.

Interestingly, that’s about the only subject that McCain does better than Obama. The economy, taxes, “being on your side” (WTF?!), and bringing change. McCain edged out Obama on the Iraq war also. And somehow, everybody comes to the conclusion that Obama is the one who needs to do better with rural voters. 4-2-1 (O-M-tied) and Obama is identified as needing to do something. Riiiight. Not only does McCain have work to do with rural voters, you’ll notice the poll didn’t do urban voters. McCain is going to get killed in the cities and the corporate stenographers keep trying to distract us with “maverick” talk. The “maverick” is going to be buried under a landslide in November.

****

I just knew the headline from Chuck Plunkett would include a division within Democratic ranks (I would have bet on it, but nobody would put money down on a different headline). Sure enough, “Record crowd shows signs of rift”. No actual data was provided to support that headline, it was just something Chuck obviously “felt” at a gut level or something. No mention that they ran out of Obama ballots though. Isn’t that interesting.

I’m sure we’ll see similar headlines after the Republican Convention, right? I want Chuck and the Post to tell us what magic line is enough for Democrats and enough for Republicans. What kind of a lead would a Democratic nominee have to garner so that “rift” doesn’t show up in the headline? Similarly, what kind of a lead would a Republican nominee have to achieve? What measure is indicative of a rift, exactly?

****

Terence Hunt is no better. There’s no alternative viewpoint in his article that should have read, “Saudis tell Bush who’s really in charge“. At the end, we get to read about Bush throwing a tantrum. Not at the Saudis that refuse to refine more oil (they’re not operating at full capacity, for the record), but at Democrats who want to withhold a $1.4 billion arms sale to a regime that supports terrorists while they put the squeeze on our economy. Somehow, it’s Democrats’ responsibility to force energy corporations to expand refineries. That’s funny, I thought Republicans were supposed to be against government involvement in areas that corporations can handle so much more efficiently. Another Republican lie laid bare.

Project

Based on work I’ve done at SquareState and Luis’ comment, I thought about a project that might be interesting to do.  Since fundraising by presidential candidates and support both on-line and not don’t seem to be very well correlated, is there a way to quantify that?
1) a)Fundraising and on-line support scatterplot.

b)Fundraising and “real-world” support scatterplot.

Support being percentage response in polls – both official and straw.

There might be additional aspects to consider, but I wanted to get this down while I was thinking about it.