As predicted previously on THE-Ave.US, Suzan DelBene appears to be increasing her share of the vote and is, therefore, likely to the democratic candidate against Koster in the 1st.
My opinion irritates Darryl Holman, my dear friend and a far better political numerologist than I. So let me share his latest post on the polling with a few comments of my own. To help with reading, I have made my text a cool, rational green.
from Darryl,
Strategies 360 has released a new poll for the new Washington first congressional district. The poll of 500 likely voters (4.4 MOE) was conducted from 15 to 17 July.
Here are the results (with “leaners”):
- Koster (R) 36%
- Burner (D) 12%
- DelBene (D) 11%
- Hobbs (D) 7%
- Ruderman (D) 3%
- Rauniyar (D) 1%
- Ishmael (I) 2%
- Other candidate 2%
- DK/NA/Refused 26%
A couple of points. Susan DelBene has certainly moved up since the previous poll, but Darcy Burner still maintains a small edge.
For Darryl to describe a “slight edge” for Darcy is disingenuous. First, the total sample was only 500. This means Darcy’s 60 votes vs. Suzan’s 55. Five votes out of 500 is not significant. What should impress more is the trend. A few weeks ago, Suzan was far behind Darcy. What happened in between? Darcy spent her effort campaigning to her base. Suzan unleashed her dollars and focused ads on the profile of the WA1 voter. Those ads are working. I am much more impressed with DelBene moving from under 5% to 11% than I am with Burner hanging on to what she had before the Delbene spending began.
Laura Ruderman, who seems to generate as much “buzz”—even before MotherGate—as Burner and DelBene, is surprisingly weak at 3%.
John Koster has dropped 10% since the previous poll.
Koster’s drop is great news for the Dems but better news for DelBene then Burner. Where have the Koster votes gone? The implication of a 36% vote is that his hard edged core is much less than 50% and may be no more than equal to the Democratic core. Since the Koster votes are certainly not Burner votes, DelBene has a chance of getting these votes in the election.
With the ballots in the mail this week and voting starting, it sure looks like a November contest between Koster and Burner or Koster and DelBene.
But we should have some more evidence soon…at Drinking Liberally this Tuesday, Goldy mentioned two other (non-candidate) polls that were in the field.
What does this poll say about the general election? The above table shows that Hobbs has a very slight edge over the sum of votes for Democratic voters. Furthermore, Larry Ishmael, the independent, is a past Republican challenger to Rep. Jay Inslee in the first, so we can probably “re-purpose” his 2% to the Koster column. (This isn’t quite true…the the crosstabs show Ishmael has about twice as many progressive supporters as conservative supporters!) These numbers make the new 1st CD a split district with a slight Republican lean.
On the other hand, the self-reported partisan make-up in the sample favors Democrats by 43% to 39%:
- Democrat 27%
- Leans D 16%
- Republican 26%
- Leans R 13%
- Independent 13%
- Other/DK/NA/Refused 5%
I think Darryl (and others) way OVER interpret this sort of thing. The number of people who reflexly vote D or R is diminishing. Whatever that core is today, I suspect most folks use the terms R or D because they see politicians that want to follow as belonging to one or the other label. This gives Dems a huge advantage because the Democratic tent is far more inclusive than the Republican tent.
A huge part of this change for Dems is the death of the private sector unions. Without unions and without ward healers, it is hard to see why a typical middle calass WA1 one voter would have the team spirit to choose Dem. Of course the first does have Boeing workers BUT Darcey’s anti military establishment position is not going to win those votes any more than she is going to convince the Navy families that she is their best representative.
On this I agree with Darryl.
The Republican core depends on a doctrinaire set of conservative principles that are not friendly to a middle class community. The R vote will, over time, shrink to a radical fringe that equates abortion to murder, wants no taxes, and wants to nuke Iran. Romneyesque policies are only good for business if you are funding jobs in China to sell products to Brazil. That is not going to attract many voters in WA1. A small core of ultra wealthy may see the R as in their short term interest. These people have few votes. Their votes are mainly money. Koster, as doctrinaire R, may get some of that money in 2012 that money but whoever wins the 1st, at least whichever Dem, is gong to have to have the business cred to block a future moderate R candidacy funded out of Medina and Hunts Point. Even if Darcy wins in 2012, she will be an easy target in 2014.
Curious post.
Your opinion that DelBene is “likely to [be] the [D]emocratic candidate” doesn’t particularly irritate me. I just think it is a bit of wishful thinking, that’s all (but, just to clarify, OTHER things you say DO irritate me… 🙂
The fact is, Burner led in both polls released on the same day last week. The one you include here is slightly older than the PPP poll that has Burner up +3 over DelBene. Essentially, Burner has led in every independent poll taken in the first CD, even the two taken after DelBene’s large media buy. (Of course, neither lead is significant.) That MAY change. But Burner is still the person that must be beat.
“I am much more impressed with DelBene moving from under 5% to 11% than I am with Burner hanging on to what she had before the Delbene spending began”
That DelBene moved up is entirely unsurprising. She had almost no name recognition in the district relative to Burner.
“The number of people who reflexly vote D or R is diminishing.”
Oh REALLY?!? I thought most political analysts were convinced that (if not distressed by) how polarized the electorate has increasingly become.
“Of course the first does have Boeing workers BUT Darcey’s anti military establishment position is not going to win those votes any more than she is going to convince the Navy families that she is their best representative.”
There are several things wrong with this statement. First, calling Burner’s positions “anti-military” is recklessly false. It approaches wingnut-delusional (“it FEELS like it ought to be so, therefore it MUST be!”). BTW: Do you believe Gen. Paul Eaton is also “anti-military”?
Secondly, you claim that burner might have problems getting votes form Boeing workers and Navy personnel. But Boeing workers and Navy personnel don’t make up much of the new first CD–in fact, a tiny fraction compared to the old first CD.
I think where Darryl and I disagree is not on facts but on spin.
Lets all be clear, on most issues I stand with Darcy, the discussion here is about her campaign to get elected in the 1st. In my opinion she had lost to Suzan DelBene.
First, Darry makes a lot of the gerrymandering that separated urban 1st from rural 1st. Where he sees the 1st as very separated from Everett and Bellingham’s urban voters, I see the 1st as suburban and very dependent on the economies of Bellingham and Everett.
Moreover, if Darryl were correct that would be worse for Darcy. How many farmers and loggers vote D?
Second, I see the independent voters of the 1st as “moderate” Dems, more interested in jobs than in Darcy’s drive to make abortion respectable or accelerate Obama’s withdrawal form Afghanistan.
Third. YEP … I do see Darcy as anti military. Darryl mistakes support for servicemen with support for the military. Does he see Darcy as supporting Boeing’s efforts to build tankers of fighter planes?
Finally, Darryl and I both like stats. Why then does he dismiss DelBene’s surge as being the result of money? OF COURSE that is true! However, if Darcy knew (as she must have) that this was going to be the case why didn’t she do a better job of building beyond her netroots/progressive base?