Monday, November 06, 2006

Final Q-Poll: Lieberman Far Ahead

From the AP:
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFL) 50%
Ned Lamont (D) 38%
Alan Schlesinger (R) 8%
Quinnipiac University, 676 likely voters interviewed from Oct. 31 to Nov. 5, sampling error plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Update: Full poll here. Lamont has 66% of Democrats, but only 35% of independents. Lieberman has 79% of Republicans and 52% of independents. The irony is that this looks a lot like the coalition that elected Lowell Weicker to the Senate for all those years--except with more Republican support.

Source
"Poll: Lieberman maintains 12 point lead." Associated Press 6 November, 2006.

40 comments:

CT Bob said...

Yeah, and the last time we elected an Independent in Connecticut, we got a state income tax.

I can only fear what Holy Joe has in store for us should he hang on and win.

Gabe said...

Why doesn't the Q-Poll release the partisan breakdown of their poll? I am very curious to see if its in line with the other polls in the race...

G-BuryMan said...

Read the poll:

LIKELY VOTERS.............................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Lamont 38% 3% 66% 35% 36% 39%
Schlesinger 8 16 3 7 7 8
Lieberman 50 79 27 52 51 48
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - - - - - -
DK/NA 5 2 4 6 6 4

Shadow said...

Why Quinnepiac and other polls are WRONG

All the CT Senate polls that have been released have been going on the assumption that the intensity behind the two candidates in terms of voters is equivalent, and that is an unfounded assumption which delegitimizes the polling. Here is a very simple explanation why, and it gets around all the impossible to get around variables in this race such as Schlesinger's support and the key shift in Lieberman's political demographics:

In 2000, Joe Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate with a vote in the mid 60's (about what he'd been polling), which translated into the mid-600,000's in terms of votes. Now 2006 is a mid-term election, unlike the Presidential year of 2000, where turnout is usually higher; however, under the current landscape, we can expect very high turnout this year, plus we have 86,000 new voters. In the case of Joe Lieberman, though, that also has to be balanced against the fact that he was also part of the popular vote winning Presidential ticket in 2000 - so all in all those two variables should balance out to a roughly similar turnout to the polls of Lieberman voters in 2006 as 2000.

Now let's say I actually believe the polls that put Joe at 50%. When he got the mid-60's in vote percentage in 2000, that was in the mid 600,000's for votes, so using that formula, about 500,000 voters will actually turnout on election day for Lieberman. To be safe, let's be generous and say 550,000.

Here's where it gets interesting though, and where I differ from the pollsters:

Let's say I believe the polls that say Lamont is only at 40%. Although 40% of about 2 million registered CT voters is 800,000, the pollsters expect the same election day turnout percentage for Lamont as they do for Lieberman, meaning they think only 400,000 of those Lamont voters will actually turnout to vote.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Lamont supporters are unanimously devoted, and believe this election is one of the most important in our lifetimes. How often do you meet a soft Lamont supporter? I think all indications on the ground suggest that if Lamont indeed has 800,000 potential voters, we can expect at least 700,000 of them to turn out. Even if it's just 600,000 votes that still beats Lieberman at 550,000.

None of this takes into account ballot position, or young voters registered in the last six years with cell phones who don't get polled (both factors that heavily favor Lamont favor), but even without those factors, we still see a victory for Lamont in these numbers.

I think Lieberman's only longshot here if the polls/national media perception can somehow sufficiently deflate Lamont turnout at the polls. When I speak to middle class, middle aged Lamont voters who aren't emersed in the constant energy of the grassroots campaign, they really think he can't win. What matters is that they're still going to vote for him; should that change, though, whether it be for them or other Lamont voters in the state, that could be devastating. I really see this as a longshot scenario, though, not a likelihood.

Ultimately though, people expecting a Lieberman blowout are going to be disappointed. There are only three possibilities in this election: Lamont wins in a close race, Lieberman wins in a close race, or Lamont wins in a landslide. Lamont has the edge, and the above generic turnout model proves it. Anyone who wants to debate me on the methodology is more than welcome to.

Billy said...

na na na naaaa na na na naaaaa hey hey hey goodbye. Bye Neddie... thanks for the 8 or 9 mil in ads I burnt in the fireplace. See ya on the flipside son.

TrueBlueCT said...

Gabe--

The Q's actions are fishy as all hell. Director Doug Schwartz is doing damage to Quinnipiac's reputation.

I wish someone would flesh out the Schwartz/Greenberg/Lieberman relationship. (Greenberg is Rosa DeLauro's husband, a former Yale PoliSci prof, who started his own polling company. During the primary, Lieberman sent $250,000 his way.)

bluecoat said...

this still looks like a push poll to me. I guess will know tomorrow night.

bluecoat said...

for a little political humor:As races wrap up, ‘gifts’ for candidates NHR columnist Gregory B. Hladky 11/06/2006

Gabe said...

G-Bury Man - Thanks, but what I meant was the breakdown of the poll, i.e. 40% D, 30% U, 30% R.

Without the likely voter screen that tells how the poll was broken down by party, its hard to determine how much stock to place in a poll.

You can make Lamont win by 30% if you make the breakdown 100% D, or make Lieberman beat Lamont by 76% if you make the breakdown 100%R.

I am curious to see what breakdown the Q-poll used.

justavoter said...

Shadow you make some excellent points and I agree the people that are saying Lieberman will win are worshipping the Q Polls like they are God.

The groundswell of Lamont Support from major Unions,Students,and the Middle Class and Poor Lower Income are all going to go and vote for Ned.The general voter in Connecticut who thinks for themselves will vote for Lamont.
If the Polls said Alan was going to win instead of Lamont these same folks would vote for Alan.
So if your voting based on the Q Poll your candidate is going to lose on November 7th its just not accurate in terms of the way people are feeling in this Blue State.Connecticut is not Alabama.

Shadow said...

Gabe - EXACTLY. Quinnepiac has never released those breakdowns.

In fact, a couple weeks ago after the last Q poll came out, the Lamont campaign requested the breakdowns, and were informed that they would receive them later that morning. Then after several hours, they were informed that Quinnepiac does not release that information.

How anyone can put stock into their poll after that farce is totally beyond me.

The real crime, though, is that the mainstream media has been treating the Q poll like the holy grail nonetheless. They don't mention in their analysis, even BRIEFLY, that Lamont was behind by the same amount in the Q poll before the primary and WON. Why, I have no idea, but it's derelict journalism and political analysis to not even MENTION that fact, but it's been the unanimous approach across the mainstream media. WTF!

turfgrrl said...

Shadow: You are wrong about the primary Q Poll. August 7, 2006 - Lamont Leads Lieberman 51 - 45 In Dem Primary, Quinnipiac University Connecticut Poll Finds; DeStefano Tops Malloy 48 - 41 In Governor's Primary
Connecticut likely Democratic primary voters back challenger Ned Lamont 51 - 45 percent over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the U.S. Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 54 - 41 percent Lamont lead among likely Democratic primary voters in an August 3 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In this latest survey, 4 percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided, but 90 percent of voters who name a candidate say their mind is made up.

Among Lamont supporters, 54 percent say their vote is mainly against Lieberman. Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq is the main reason they are voting for Lamont, 36 percent of Lamont voters say, while 54 percent say it is one of several reasons.
link

And Lamont won by 4%, so that would mean that they perhaps over represented Lamont support, then, if anything.

Genghis Conn said...

Lamont was up by 6% in the Q-Poll on the Monday just before the primary. He won by 4%.

How is that not accurate? Sorry, not trying to be snarky here, but I don't get the anger at Quinnipiac over the primary. They were actually right, or close to it, weren't they?

Gabe said...

I believe the anger comes from the Q-poll before the final one. If I remember correctly, they had Lamont up by 239%...

Gabe said...

GC - any chance of getting the to release the partisan breakdown of the poll?

Jim said...

Shadow,

The Q-Poll's numbers are among likely voters. These numbers are not far off from what other polls have shown, and I believe they are accurate. How close is up for question, but that will be answered tomorrow night.

As far as your underestimation of Lieberman's support, though, you couldn't be farther off base. I already cast my vote by asentee ballot and I think I am one of many when I say that I have never been so enthusiastic about a casting vote as I was with voting to re-elect Senator Lieberman. If, God forbid, I never cast a vote again, I am glad I was able to vote for Lieberman this year.

Oh, I am a Democrat.

This is clearly a race that will impact the course of the country. With Lieberman's re-election, potentially strong presidential candidates like Wes Clark will not be forced to see their support of Lamont come back to put a Republican in the White House again.

Ned Lamont is a moderate, a good man, and might make an okay senator, but he has the Dean problem. He appears to be too liberal and "out of touch" with the rest of America, whether or not it's true. This is just the opposite of what we need. Someone like President Clinton, Joe Lieberman, or Barack Obama, who fights hard for progressive values while winning the support of moderates and conservatives.

For the future of Connecticut and the Democratic Party, I happily cast my vote for Senator Lieberman, and I believe most of Connecticut will do the same tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Zogby has Lieberman up by 12%, SurveyUSA has him +11%, Research2000 +12%. I don't think they're all working for Joe. Even with more committed voters and better ballot position I've never seen anyone overcome a double digit deficit to win a statewide general election with just a day to go.

Shadow said...

I read in at least one credible location that the Q poll reported those pre-primary numbers; clearly the person who posted that was thinking of a different pre-primary poll. My apologies for reposting that misinformation.

Gabe said...

Anon- you know why no one is complaining about the other polls? Because they release their partisan breakdown...

SurveyUSA has an interesting sidenote to it - Between the last poll and the one before it, support among 18-25 year olds (or something like that - the youngest cohort) went from Lamont +3 to Lieberman +30 and did it without an appreciative shift in the overall numbers.

Anonymous said...

So the real question is will the democrats heal after Joe is re-elected?

Genghis Conn said...

It's a good question. There are an awful lot of very bitter feelings on both sides.

Well, he claims to be a bridge builder, and someone who can work with disparate groups. This should be job #1 for him... right?

Shadow said...

Genghis and Turfgrrl, you are both right, I was clearly thinking of a different pre-primary poll, my mistake; I really should have checked that number before scribbling that spontaneous last post.

However, I strongly stand by my original post in this thread; those numbers have all been double checked, and I notice no one has yet taken issue with any of the methodology I used.

Gabe said...

I don't know how much it really matters. (Assuming he wins) Lieberman doesn't come up again for six years and he most likely retires then anyway.

Generally speaking, they way we decide the moderate v. Liberal split is with primaries - you may notice that the other primary this year did not explode into a intra-party civil war.

I really don't see this as a problem going forward.

turfgrrl said...

gabe: I think there's still Malloy/DeStefano fractures in the Democratic party, it's just that the Senate race dominates right now. The liberal/moderate split is strong, just google DLC rants on any of the liberal CT sites to see what I mean.

Gabe said...

Anon comments on a website is the standard for determining a rift within the Democratic party? Seriously?

Anonymous said...

The one factor that no poll can account for is ballot position. A certain percentage of voters may go into the booth intending to vote for Joe but not find him in the place where they have in the past. There is no question this will hurt him. The unknown question is how much. Some people may not vote, some may be Democrats who then vote for Lamont and some may be Republicans who then vote for Schlesinger. It will be interesting to see how much a factor ballot position plays. In the end, I think it will end up a tighter race then the polls suggest, but I do not think it is enough for Lamont to overcome a 12 point defecit.

Genghis Conn said...

I don't think that's going to be much of a factor, A11:46. Remember Michael Jarjura last year? It is not easy to write someone in on the old lever machines, but voters in Waterbury did. Jarjura won in a landslide.

Voters in this state are smart. If they want to vote for Joe, they'll find him. Besides, he'll have people at every polling place to educate potential voters.

Gabe said...

Will they be the same kids he payed to poll stand at the primary?

Because I don't think sitting under a tree talking on their cell phones (as they were at two different polling places that I stopped at) is going to help anyone find him on the ballot.

Anyway, see this NYT editorial on ballot position by a social science professor that has studied this phenomenon. The classic Poli Sci study was done in the 1988 Democratic Presidential Primary in NYC (where every polling place had a rotated different ballot order). The result was a 2-3% drop from not having the top spot on the ballot.

Anonymous said...

Turfgrrl,

You're absolutely right about the Malloy/DeStefano split. There are plenty of Malloy supporters voting Rell or writing in Dan. I hate to concede the governor's race before the votes are cast, but I'm being reasonable.

I just hope JD can lose gracefully and not be our next Bill Curry. I'll wait until Wednesday to start talking about Malloy 2010, though.

turfgrrl said...

gabe: no, not the anonymous posts, it's just that's the easiest way to find the links to the news stories of people quotes as saying they want people kicked out of the Democratic party (New Haven), resolutions passed against Leberman (Norwalk), rifts too insidery to even summarize (Branford, Hartford, West Hartford). That many of these quotes come from DTC members is what kindles the feud.

Gabe said...

To justify: I think there's still Malloy/DeStefano fractures in the Democratic party, it's just that the Senate race dominates right now., you brought up various results of Lieberman not bowing to the primary results and running as an independant. How do those speak to a rift outside of the Lieberman kerfuffle?

turfgrrl said...

Gabe: Branford and New Haven rifts, are not Lieberman/Lamont, although they had those as well. I'd throw in West Haven as well on that note.

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 12:18: Right. Otherwise REll wouldn't be polling so high.

Anonymous said...

Ya know I bet if they actually bothered to mention Alan's name in the polling questions he'd get higher than 8%!

Anonymous said...

Ya know I bet if they actually bothered to mention Alan's name in the polling questions he'd get higher than 8%!

Dejafu said...

Lamont supporters are unanimously devoted, and believe this election is one of the most important in our lifetimes.

This is a bit wacky. A lot of Lamont's support is from people who are just voting the Democratic line.

Shadow said...

Not really. Although what you describe well may happen on election day and be an additional benefit to Lamont, thus far only about 70% of Democrats are sticking with him, which wouldn't be the case if your straight ticket voting assertion were correct.

brickbat said...

I know the "smart money" is on Lieberman, especially with the consistency of the polls.

And I know it may be wishful thinking...but my gut tells me Lamont wins tomorrow.

I don't believe "likely voters" will capture people who will turn out for Lamont -- young people who tend not to vote, the majority of the 38,000 'new' voters, etc.

I think Lieberman's ballot position is a real problem for him, and that a larger percentage of Rs than thought are going to vote for Schlesinger because he's easier to find (and there's a human tendency to stick with your team that won't be measured in polls).

I think the Democratic wave will keep more people on the straight ticket than expected, especially those who have already wandered away for Rell (and will feel guilty about it, see above).

I share the view that Lamont's supporters are more devoted -- because they are angry. I've heard the field operation has problems, particularly in one part of the state, but it's still broader than Joe's (which is virtually non-existent).

Again, I know it seems crazy or delusional, but I just think that this time the "science" will get it wrong.

We shall see.

Blue Turned Red said...

I'll be glad to see all the Lamont people go home after Tuesday. Now they can start plotting primaries against all the other CT state reps, senators, mayors, councilmen, etc. who backed Joe. As they’ve told us repeatedly that those folks aren't real Dems. In their mind you have to pledge allegiance to Moveon.org in order to be a "real" Democrat these days. Time to wake up people.

Shadow said...

I doubt anyone is going to take advice about how to be a "real" Democrat from someone whose handle is Blue Turned Red.