Google Ads


Site Stats

NC-Sen: Burr Leads Marshall By 5

by: Crisitunity

Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 1:30 PM EDT


Public Policy Polling (8/27-28, likely voters, 7/27-31 in parentheses):

Elaine Marshall (D): 38 (37)
Richard Burr (R-inc): 43 (39)
Michael Beitler (L): 6 (7)
Undecided: 13 (17)
(MoE: ±3.6%)

Things are looking pretty stable in the North Carolina Senate race according to PPP. Richard Burr has put a little distance between him and Elaine Marshall, with most of the movement to Burr coming out of the undecided column, as it seems like he's finally getting better acquainted with his constituents (he's up to only 20% "no opinion," a Paris Hilton level of celebrity compared to where he was a year and a half ago; he has 38/42 approvals). Marshall is still laboring in obscurity by comparison, although she's at least in positive territory, with 24/21 favorables.

The move from a 2-point Burr lead to a 5-point lead may seem like bad news, but Burr's leads were 5, 7, and 1 in previous PPP polls, so it's all routine movement within a narrow band. The overall regression lines are showing some mild tightening; the question is whether there's enough time and money for Marshall to make her case in the next few months, or whether Burr can ride the national environment to another term.
Crisitunity :: NC-Sen: Burr Leads Marshall By 5
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

NC-Sen: Burr Leads Marshall By 5 | 49 comments
Won't it be something if the only Senator besides Jesse Helms
to get re-elected in North Carolina for the past 30some years is this guy.  North Carolina is still a state that Democrats can win in, so there's still hope for Marshall to be able to get her name out there and make it a real race.  There's also the fact that she's at least stanched some of her poll numbers, whereas some races like MO are going the opposite direction.  Overall, the state is trending blue, and a 5pt lead really is unremarkable in a genuine swing state.  
Burr
North Carolina is an interesting state to say the least.  Burr's reelection would be interesting seeing he is generally lackluster compared to most standards.  Definitely a conservative, but never out there stepping in it on a daily basis.  Maybe that is the key to him surviving long term is avoiding being involved in too many messes.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7
[ Parent ]
When driving back to Duke
I saw a few ___(veterans/women) for Burr bumper stickers. Creepy, all-black stickers - this was in the Winston-Salem area.

Although talking to some native North Carolinians - most people have no clue who the hell he is.

(Disclaimer: I'll probably be campaigning for Marshall this fall)

So, I'm going to risk the wrath of my fellow SSP posters and say...
I don't think the DSCC should put a dime into this race, despite these numbers. I agree with PPP that Burr is the most vulnerable Republican, but his closest competition is Vitter, so that's not saying much. I know this race seems closer than some, but here's why I don't think there's an upside:

1). Burr is a non-crazy, and pretty non-threatening candidate, not a tea party guy. It's going to be hard to whip up the base against him.

2).  Marshall has little money. Burr has plenty of it.

3). There are more winnable races, even on Republican territory: Kentucky, Ohio (I know, Fischer doesn't have money either but the state is more Democratic), N.H. (especially if someone other than Ayotte or Binnie wins), and even Alaska (where I really think Joe Miller is one of the crazier Republican nominees of the cycle, and that's saying something)!

4). Marshall is a weak candidate. She's still suffering from the fact no one in the state knows her, which is not where she wants to be. Also, for those who want to make the comparison between Kay Hagan and Elaine Marshall, note that the former was leading at this time in the PPP poll, after having gradually caught up throughout the summer. In the PPP poll, she never lost the lead.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

Anyway, that's my thoughts.  

Consider my wrath incurred
lol
[ Parent ]
I figured you'd be among the wrathful...
Seriously, though jwaalk, what's your take?  
[ Parent ]
And mine


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Burr isn't non-crazy, he's a nothing...
Other than a party-line vote of course.  But he won't rally any troops or make any noise.  He'll vote whichever way party leadership wants and collect his paycheck.  
[ Parent ]
Eh, compared to Paul, Angle or Miller
I'd call him non-crazy
[ Parent ]
Being less crazy than those idiots isn't hard to do.
It's like beating an eighty year old woman with a walker in a footrace.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Agree
Too much of a hole to dig her out of. The money it would take to get even close to parity is needed much more in those states you mention plus PA, CO and maybe yet CT, WV, CA and WI.
[ Parent ]
IL too

[ Parent ]
^^^^^^This. All of it^^^^^^^^

[ Parent ]
*****None of it^^^^^^
If the main negative of a person is people not knowing them, and their opponent is also not known, then that is where you spend the money.  Because the money can define the candidate and the opponent.

Saying somehow money will help in CA or WV is ridiculous.  Do people in CA not know who Boxer is?  Will money in CA go anywhere?  Can the money be matched and then some by a self-funding candidate?  And while WV is cheaper, how will money help Manchin.  He's up like 20 points, and can only lose due to catastrophe, which money can't prevent.

NC is more Democratic this cycle than Ohio or Kentucky simply because its not a normal cycle.  I'm sorry but I just don't buy Kentucky as remotely Democratic in Federal races.  Histroy would back me up.

Also, Ohio is going to be more GOP because the GOP is fighting hard for Ohio on EVERY level (Guv, House, Sen, state races, local races, etc).  In North Carolina in 2010, only the Senate race is heavily contested and most of the incumbents in NC are not nearly as threatened as those in Ohio.

Invest the money to define your candidate and her opponent.  If you don't see results, then cutback and see if other opportunities are there.  To avoid NC for KY (where the opponent is already defined and leading) or Ohio (where the environment couldn't be worse) is crazy.

[ Parent ]
I guess what you're saying is that she's somewhere to the effect of 5th or 6th on the priorities list
This I guess makes sense.  She hasn't shown the national organizations that she has the charisma to go after Burr, although this might just be her fundraising.  

Hagan was down double digits at times before pulling it together, but I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison since I think she fundraised a lot better.  If the DSCC doesn't see Marshall as a Hagan redux, it will entirely be her own fault that she isn't getting her name out there.  

I'm still wondering how this would've turned out if Easley had jumped into the race, although the talk of a scandal or something didn't really get much coverage after he declined to run.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, it did get alot of play
and still does.  In fact, its kinda snared Governor Perdue (ironically, since they didnt like each other).  The News and Observer newspaper, once a great liberal paper, has turned its sights on state government which in effect equals Democrats.  Its going to be a rough year in North Carolina.

28, male, NC-13 formerly NC-01, 04, 05, 07, 11
[ Parent ]
I think it's worth an experiment
I'd advocate a --modest-- (low 6 figure?) DSCC buy to see what more name recognition for Marshall would do.

Perhaps such a buy could be limited to central-western NC where (I think) Marshall is less well known.

Even without it, I think Marshall will carry much of eastern NC.

Such a limited buy could also help prop up a couple of potentially vulnerable House members (Kissel, Shuler).

[ Parent ]
If it was a low buy, I probably wouldn't object
But to Conspiracy's point, I just don't want to take away from any winnable races, which I don't see this as one right now.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe its worth a low end buy
I am not sure if this race can be competitive in this environment, but it is worth a shot to try to improve her numbers.  A small buy right now will tell us whether the DSCC should focus on the race or move elsewhere.  I suspect the results will be move elsewhere.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7
[ Parent ]
The DSCC Cash on Hand is $22.4 mil
I think it's reasonable to use 1% of it to see if they can improve Marshall's numbers in appropriate markets.  
[ Parent ]
Hasn't Durbin said that
he's going to help Marshall? I assume that means some infusion of money is involved.
[ Parent ]
I actually agree, or at least understand
I just gave her $25 more today.  I've supported her since she first ran in 96 and think she's great.  But I've always believed the fundamentals of Burr are not nearly as bad as Dole's were.  There is nothing as blatant as only visiting the state for two weeks in a year, which Dole did.  Or her effectiveness ranking (he's much higher).  As boring as Burr is, we don't have anything real we can hit him on.  Plus, he has eleventy billion dollars to spend and has already started.  

She's trying and I would love it if she won of course, and will work my tail off to get her there, but at some point the DSCC has to make decisions and I'll completely understand if we're not included.

28, male, NC-13 formerly NC-01, 04, 05, 07, 11

[ Parent ]
Cal Cunningham was the way to go in NC...
He at least had some fight in him and and this age of retail politics better "looked the part" to take on Burr.  This was progressives returning the favor for all the teabaggers working to get the weaker candidates elected.  
He had no money either

[ Parent ]
Cal Cunningham
was in no way a progressive.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
All the better to take on Burr...
NC folks see they already have Hagan.  Cunningham has the track record of taking on military contractors as a JAG - he could have ran on taking on corruption and tackling waste - that would have resonated with voters.  
[ Parent ]
Elaine Marshall
has also been a decent Secretary of State. And as Johnny said, if Cunningham got slammed in the primary, then it's hard to imagine him doing better in the general.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
Generally, if a candidate goes down in flames in a primary
they're not going to be a good general election candidate.

Especially since Cunningham had the backing of the DSCC.

[ Parent ]
On second thought..
After reading the PPP teaser, it is hard to doubt that cash is probably needed by the DSCC elsewhere:

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

I think
they should focus on the crazy races. Kentucky is quickly becoming the best pickup of the cycle.  

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
Agree on KY

[ Parent ]
If McAdams can break 40 or 45
it might be worth it to throw a couple hundred thousand in Alaska.  A preemptive strike or the like means that the NRSC will have to spend just as much, limiting their offense in states like Washington and defense in states like KY.
[ Parent ]
Agree with this as well

[ Parent ]
Even there
Gives me pause. It was probably lost when Brunner made Fisher (who was and is only an average fundraiser anyway) waste all his money on the primary.
[ Parent ]
That's right.
And PPP's numbers now using Likely Voter spell gloom and doom for Dems in Ohio. I would keep working Missouri, only because of the whole Blunt's bailout, Carnahan being a better candidate, and having the money. MO and KY only on offense. If Melancon can show something with his money, maybe him. (but I doubt he can)

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
Two offensive races
I think this is quickly becoming a campaign with two offensive races for the Democrats in the Senate, Kentucky and Missouri.  The latter might actually be fading out of this category too, but Kentucky remains the best pickup chance.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7
[ Parent ]
Wouldn't give up on NH just yet
Binnie and Bender still have a mill each CoH and I imagine they might still force Ayotte to spend some more on the primary despite how hopeless it is.  Hodes has 1.7mill in reserve and he still represents half of the state.  Also, he hasn't been in the news nearly as much as the Republican primary candidates have been.
[ Parent ]
In 2008 or a neutral year
If this matchup was being held in 2006 or 2008 or even a neutral year Marshall would win this seat easy..
Can't disagree with this...
Also wonder how we would have done if Cooper had pulled the trigger.  
[ Parent ]
Cooper
Cooper has been in the North Carolina news a lot lately due to problems with the State Bureau of Investigation.  Methods of investigating crimes were found to be done haphazardly and many criminals are now having their cases reexamined.  A lot of them probably will not be subject to the death penalty as a result of the probe.  I don't think the blame for this can be directly pinned on Cooper but it is bad for him indirectly.  His support of the old SBI director until she was coming under very harsh criticism and his appointing a Raleigh insider to be the current director have been questioned.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/...

http://www.charlotteobserver.c...

[ Parent ]
We got the best candidate
Stop looking for better solutions.  A Dem trailing a GOP incumbent by 5 points in a GE matchup is the ebst we could hope for during this cycle.
[ Parent ]
PPP shows a massive move toward Marshall
Last poll PPP showed Marshall running a couple points behind Obama.

This poll running four points ahead of Obama.  This is the time PPP has shown a net switch of Mccain voters to Marshall.  

The net effect of all voter changes is 2% of McCain voters are changing their minds to choose Marshall.

At the same time, PPP's last poll stated there would be 0% Obama no-shows.  This time they state there will be 18% Obama no shows.  In a nutshell this shows PPP's incredibly bizarre methodology... and should give pause to some of the rather odd comments.

PPP is stating they find Marshall gaining ground among Mccain voters, while overnight 18% of Obama voters just decided to stay home.

The one message that is clear is... Marshall needs to continue changing minds of some Mccain voters,and she has to minimize Obama no-shows as much as possible.  She does however have both paths to win now.

Make that 4% of Mccain voters changing to Marshall
which amount to 2% of total voters.
[ Parent ]
Interesting comment
I've always said this about Marshall: she reminds me of one of the nice ladies from church. If Marshall can makes inroads with more conservative female and older voters on the basis of her personality, she stays in the game...
[ Parent ]
Been meaning to ask this for a while...
At the same time, PPP's last poll stated there would be 0% Obama no-shows.  This time they state there will be 18% Obama no shows.

I'm getting a Ph.D. in statistics, and your numbers require major caveats for them to make any sense.

Obama barely won the state 49.7%-49.4% over McCain.  Look, here's the actual results from 2008.

Obama 2,142,651
McCain 2,128,474

Total votes: 4,310,789


PPP's last poll (which I don't think had switched to a likely voter model yet) had a turnout of 47% for each side, essentially matching the 2008 election results.  That does NOT mean there's 0% Obama no-shows.  You could say a roughly equal proportion of Obama and McCain voters were not going to show up this November.  But that is simply NOT the same as saying "0% no-shows".  They never said that.


Now, they show an electorate where 54% voted for McCain, and 45% voted for Obama.  I understand that if you assume 100% of McCain voters show up again, then to make up 54% of the electorate, you need about 18% (really, 17.2%) of Obama's 2008 voters to not show up.  (I'm assuming that's how you calculated it, because otherwise, the number 18% should not appear anywhere at all.)   But first, this is obviously NOT realistic.  Turnout will of course be down because it's not a presidential election.  I can guarantee that you're NOT going to have 4.3 million North Carolinians show up this November.

So there's going to certainly be a certain number of McCain voters who won't show up.  For them to still make up 54% of the electorate, MORE than 18% of Obama's voters will not show up.  And it's NOT going to be 18% more.

Now, for simplicity's sake, let's assume a nice round number of 3,000,000 showing up in November.  (It'll probably be much less than that, as only about 2,000,000 showed up to vote in 2006.)  54% of them being McCain voters and 45% being Obama voters translates to these raw totals:

Obama 1,350,000 (63%; 37% no-shows)
McCain 1,620,000 (76%; 24% no-shows)

That means a no-show rate of 24% for McCain, and 37% for Obama.  The no-show rate for Obama would then be 13% more than McCain's.  You CANNOT say the no-show rate for Obama would be 18% more or higher, relative to anything.  18% simply does not appear at all anymore.  That number has no bearing on anything here.

Here's another scenario.  Let's ignore population growth and any other factors, and say only 2,000,000 show up like in 2006.  Then the numbers break down as such.

Obama 900,000 (42%; 58% no-shows)
McCain 1,080,000 (51%; 49% no-shows)

Here, the no-show rate for Obama is 9% higher than for McCain.

See, as we decrease the population turnout, the no-show rates for both Obama and McCain will necessarily get closer to 100%.  (Extreme example: ONLY 100 people show up to vote in November, 54 who voted for McCain, and 45 who voted for Obama.  Then the no-show rate for both of them is basically 99.9975%, and the difference in the no-show rate has been reduced to 0%!!)

The 18% rate you cited ONLY makes sense if you somehow assume 100% of McCain voters will still show up.  ANY decrease at all, and it's no longer 18%.  The ONLY way you can use 18% is by saying that that's the ceiling of the difference rate of Obama no-shows compared to McCain no-shows.  

So please stop saying you know the percentage of Obama no-shows, or that PPP is telling us what it is.  They aren't, because the data doesn't tell us that.  None of us know for sure.

[ Parent ]
I've posted this many times, so you are just repeating the obvious
You have listed again exactly what i have been saying, although I've shorthanded it here and some other places,

The no show rate for Obamas is relative to the Mccains.  In North Carolina, the 2008 turnout was roughly 100 McCain voters and 100 Obama voters.  In PPP's previous poll, they set 2010 turnout so that if 60 McCain's showed up, 60 Obamas would show up -- 0% Obama voter no show rate.

With this poll, if 60 Mccains show up, then about 49 Obamas will show up.  If 70 Mccains show up, then about 58 Obamas show up.

The 18% is rounded, but it is always 18% because it relates to a 100% unit of Mccains.  Put the most obvious way, PPP asserts the breakdown will be 54/45.... 54 is 100 as 45 is to 83.3.  Whatever McCain turnout will be, whether it is 950,000 or 1,100,000  PPP is saying Obama turnout will be 83.3% of that number.

It is true that none of us knows for sure what Obama no-shows will be.  But we also now precisely what PPP assrts Obama no-shows will be, relative to Mccain turnout.

So, please don't pretend that PPP isn't stating exactly their opinion, and that in this case their opinion has changed dramatically over the past month.  

What relaity will be is unknown, but the data tells us exactly the percentage PPP is guessing it will be in each poll.  To their credit, they tell us in every single poll they do.  To their non-credit, they are wildly inconsistent in the number they choose with each poll.

[ Parent ]
Then please...
just say something like "Obama turnout will be 83.3% of McCain's turnout".  Without specifying you're doing this relative to a 100% unit of McCain voters, it really reads like you're saying 18% of Obama voters won't show up.  Please don't assume we simply know you're talking about a relative rate.  It's been hammered home to us that we have to be VERY precise about what we're talking about.  Take it from someone who's graded literally thousands of student homework papers in our intro stats course.  You leave some qualifiers out and expect the reader to understand what you're talking about, we take off points for that.  :-)

BTW, 100% - 83.3% = 16.7%, which rounds to 17%.  Did you mean 17% instead of 18%?

And again, PPP switched voter models from the last one to this one, so it's expected that the turnout model would shift.  Wait until the next one from this state before you call them wildly inconsistent.  Right now with the national mood as bad as it is, there's nothing that seems out of place with an 83.3% turnout rate for Obama vs. McCain voters.

[ Parent ]
They are wildly inconsistent
between each other.  They have had 0% Obama no shows with the "non-likely" model in North Carolina, and 28% in Wisconsin.  The only word for that is silly.

As for "Obama turnout will be 83.3% of McCain's turnout", I do say it that way most of the time, but sometimes, yes, I don't type all the freaking words.  I'm glad to say that you now agree with what I've been saying, once you understand the shorthand.

As for the rounding, I've said each time they numbers are just rounded.  In the case of NC, IN and MO... where Obama/Mccain results were about 50/50, the rounding is certainly close enough to comment about a poll given that PPP doesn't give us decimel points so we don't know if 47% is 47.023% or 47.494%.

As for you thinking the 83.3% rate seems reasonable given the national mood, remember this isn't a "national" number.  In my view Obama no shows will be greatest in South Carolina, Virginia, and North Carolina (followed by MS,AL,IN,IL).  The no-show rate in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, the Dakotas, etc, will be far, far less.

[ Parent ]
I believes not Marshall in NC has better results than Sestak in PA and others

Is this poll with likely voters model too?

NC-Sen: Burr Leads Marshall By 5 | 49 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox