Do You Know Who Will Win Tomorrow's CT Senate Primary?
If you know what will happen in tomorrow’s Democratic Senatorial primary in Connecticut, you are one step ahead of me.
By Gerry Daly Posted in 2006 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Tomorrow, all eyes will turn to Connecticut, to see if upstart candidate Ned Lamont can knock off former Vice Presidential candidate and incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman. Most recent polls indicate that he will.
In the past two Presidential elections, I have demonstrated that, while individual poll results can be misleading, one can generally use them to determine with accuracy who will win a particular election. For example, in 2004 I ‘predicted’ 48 states correctly, missing only Wisconsin which, I noted at the time, was so close that it really was a coin-flip (I did not make a call on Hawaii due to the scarcity of polling data). And all of the recent polling shows Lamont ahead. So why do I think we really do not know what will happen?
Let’s consider the polling done by Quinnipiac University. Their most recent survey shows Lamont leading, 51%-45% among “likely Democratic primary voters”. Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal, back in November of 2004, asked various pollsters their methods for determining who to include in their samples of likely voters. Here is the relevant section for Quinnipiac:
Uses a series of questions to create an index and screen out those below a certain score. An email from Doug Schwartz at Quinnipiac described the methodology as follows:
We ask a series of questions that measure likelihood of voting, past voting, interest in the election, awareness of the polling place location. We use past turnout to determine the cutoff. For example, if we estimate that 50 percent of the voting age population will vote in the election, about 50 percent of the top scores will be included as likely voters.
New Registrants. Though he did not elaborate, Schwartz said via email, "It is possible for first registrants to be classified as likely voters."
The question that pops into my head is, what percentage of the voting age population is going to vote in tomorrow’s primary? For most general elections, estimates can be made based on historic turnout rates, adjusted for perceptions on voter intensity. This is problematic for tomorrow’s primary, however. Simply put, there are not many examples to draw upon for comparison. Contested primaries involving an incumbent are infrequent. Contested primaries involving an incumbent in Connecticut are even fewer. To top it off, this will be the first time such a primary in Connecticut will take place in August. Educated guesses may be possible for the turnout, but they remain guesses aided by less history than is the norm. And since such an estimate plays into how the surveys are pared from all respondents down to likely voters, it causes me great pause in giving polls the same credence I normally do.
Another factor which gives me pause is the impact of college students. College students are generally a younger cohort, and history has shown that younger voters turn out at a lesser rate than older voters. While many factors play into why this is so, one is that college students may be registered at home but are at college when the November election day rolls around. I have no doubt that younger voters will, as always, turn out in a lesser percentage as compared to other voters, as they always do. What is an open question to me is if they will constitute as low of a percentage of actual voters as happens when the election occurs in November. In the most recent Quinnipiac survey, Lieberman holds a three-point edge among their likely voter sample who do not possess a college degree.
Another thing which makes me wonder about the validity of the current likely voter samples is the high number of absentee ballots which are being issued. The Stamford Advocate reports:
[Norwalk Town Clerk Andrew Garfunkel’s] office sent nearly 400 ballots to Democratic voters as of Friday, compared to about 200 sent for the 2004 Democratic presidential race.
One possible read on this is that it signifies that interest in the race is very high, which would be an indicator for heavy turnout. But is it really feasible that there will be higher turnout for a mid-summer primary as compared to a Presidential election? Perhaps, especially since Connecticut’s electoral votes were never really in question. While that is a possibility, it seems counter-intuitive; primaries, even contested ones, normally have significantly lower turnout than general elections. Another possibility could explain the high rate of absentee ballots—summer vacations. Of those who will be out of town, only a certain percentage will have been diligent enough to have applied for absentee ballots. It seems likely to me that those who will be on vacation will tend to be wealthier overall than the general Connecticut population, and the rich give Ned Lamont his biggest margins according to Quinnipiac. He leads by 21 points among those reporting an income above $100K, and by 9% among those in the $50-100K range. Those sampled who will be out of town may have indicated as such to the pollsters, or they may not have. All of this adds uncertainty.
Another thing which adds uncertainty in my mind is the role that “Get Out The Vote” efforts will play. Again, for general elections one can look at historic data, especially recent historic data, to get a feel for how effective each party’s organization is at turning potential supporters into actual voters. Tomorrow’s primary is quite different. We do not know what sort of ground effort each will have assembled, and we cannot look to the past for guidance. How much of the normal Democratic machine will be working for Lieberman? How much of it will be working for Lamont? We can make guesses based upon anecdotal evidence and on news reports, but it is another layer of uncertainty. Further, it stands to reason that the lower the turnout, the more meaningful the GOTV efforts of each camp become. Combined with the uncertainty over what the turnout will be, the impact of the respective organizations becomes even more uncertain.
When I add all of these factors together, I am left with more uncertainty than I normally have when looking at publicly available polling data. It would not shock me if Lamont won by double digits. It would not shock me if the winner is not known until deep into the night and the last precincts report. However, it would also not shock me if Lieberman won by a wide margin—and based on most things I have read, should this occur I might be the only one.
(Update: OK, maybe not the only one. JPod and The Elephant of the Academic Variety will also not be surprised.)
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | It's getting to be that time again. — Comments (5) »
Do You Know Who Will Win Tomorrow's CT Senate Primary? 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...that have me scratching my head on this one.
1). I have no real idea how much traction the blackface smear had/has on CT primary voters. There's one poll that covers that period (as part of a week), and it's got the smallest Lamont lead over Lieberman. Darned if I know whether that's accidental or not.
2). There's been reports of above-average switching of voter registrations from Independent or Republican to Democratic. That could mean anything.
3). This reminds me of the 2004 election; I never really doubted that Bush was going to win. I've got the same gut check towards Lieberman... which means absolutely nada, zip, zilch and zero.
I'll have my popcorn with extra butter, AE.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
He's a really great guy (as liberal Democrats go)...
I'll miss him if he loses.
One nice thing, however, is that he will be a great speaker to hear at the next Republican Convention (a la Zell Miller).
Any blue on blue fight is good for Republicans. The more money wasted the better, the more hard feelings generated the better.
Take a safe Democrat seat and make a real fight out of it -- Yeahaaaaa
Does it really matter in the end -- No.
Personally I’ve never liked Joseph Lieberman personally or politically. He’s one of those “nice Democrats” that appeals to the statist elements of our party after he sold out pretty much every quasi-free market idea (vouchers and PRA’s) he ever had in order to run for Vice President in 2006.
While I’d like for there to be a GOP upset (about as much chance as a doughnut in a room with Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore), it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that either way, Connecticut is going to elect a liberal Democrat to the Senate who will vote with his party the overwhelming majority of the time.
Hopefully the race tomorrow will be close enough that which ever candidate wins the endorsement, the other decides to run in the general election as a third-party candidate or independent thereby causing the “netroots” (a name almost as stupid as “the information superhighway”) to donate their finite resources into helping Lamont in the hopes that they can take Lieberman’s scalp.
Meanwhile, Republicans should concentrate our efforts on races that actually matter such as the Minnesota Senate Race.
D and L candidates have a bad habit of losing.
the KosKK are backing Lamont, they backed Howard Dean too.
I read somewhere that Kos backed candidates are like 2 for 20.
Time for another we didn't win but we made a good showing speech from the left.
We don't even allow referring to the Kossacks as the KKK. There are some groups just too vile to even joke about others being like them in name or substance.
On the one hand, I think Lieberman is a respectable senator with a good head on him about the country's vital interests, but on the other hand if Martin Peretz is right, I'd almost rather have Lamont win this time and have the Democrats completely implode in 2008. I tend to lean toward the philosophy of "one pro-war vote now is worth five possible pro-war votes in the future," but it may be post-2008 when it will be most important to ensure minority party status for the Democrats, since we will be switching presidents during a war. Overall, my gut says that no matter who wins tomorrow Lieberman will still be part of Connecticut's delegation come November, even though Lamont will probably be victorious after the votes are counted.
The expected win of Lamont over Lieberman is further proof of the implosion of the democratic party and of the realignment that occurred during the 2004 election establishing the republican party as the majority party in the United States. As such I am all for it and would actually reregister temporarily to vote for Lamont were I a Connecticut resident.. however I am dismayed by the amount of praise for Lieberman within republican circles but not surprised due to the short memories that many people have. Do not forget that it was Joe who spearheaded the dems efforts in Florida to deny ballots cast by overseas military personnel in 2000. Had he been remotely successful we would be in a world of hurt. His affirmative vote regarding Iraq does not redeem him in my eyes and frankly he is as partisan as any of his dem buddies. Thus for me it will take switching parties to gain one of iota of respect for the guy and I dont expect that to happen...
As a resident of Connecticut and a member of the armed forces this was a subject I watched very closely in 2000. Joe was on the Sunday morning show and clearly stated that he thought that every overseas ballot should be counted and it was some of the Gore lawyers on TV within a few hours saying that he was “making personal comments. Lieberman will be re-elected regardless of what happens in the primary. The smear campaign is on heavily against the Republican nominee (some nonsense about staying at the casino under a surname) and even if he was squeaky clean this is after all Connecticut. Odd how we love our Governors’ Republican but wont send one to Washington well besides the House.
If guns kill people~Spoons make Michael Moore fat
But that's also based on a gut check and nothing substantive. As someone else wrote earlier today, the outcome of tomorrow's race means zilch in that the whack jobs hijacked the Democratic Party a long time ago. A Lamont win only will confirm that reality.
as much as I hate for Joe to have to go through this, since he is a model of honsety and decency in a party that is all too lacking in both, a loss in the primary would be great for the country, as it will wake people up to just how extreme the lefties are. his party cannot afford for him to lose in the end though, whatever happens tomorrow. a heavy burden, to be the savior of a group that spits upon you.
Stoners, in this case as a reference to all the people who talk about voting, like the majority of college kids, the unemployed, welfare serfs, etc., who always answer the pollsters questions but just can't get off their fat, lazy butts to actually vote, skew the polls. Also we have the semi-disengaged who might be anwering "Lamont", but when they actually focus on voting, standing in line at the polls, will end up with the guy they voted for 3 times before. Consequently, Lieberman will win.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Lieberman will be winning this.
The big news, I htink, will be how people in the DNC start waking up and seeing those Krazy Kos Kids for the blowhards and flakes they are. It will be fun to watch the MSM try and do what the MSM always tries to do when a lefty group crashes and burns - equivocate the issue with a conservative equivalent. they will try to say that since Kos has krashed, the entire blogosphere, including especially the conservative part, is kaput.
I bet some folks just won't be able to pull the lever for the non-Joe candidate...
i think joe will lose by a small percentage and that will good enough to go forward with a 3rd party run. The bloggers accomplished what they wanted because joe basically is running away from the bush position on Iraq. Also it sounded good to teach Joe a lesson but when a lot of people get in the booth they won`t be able to vote for lamont because a lot of them have not known any other senator but lieberman.
In order to win in November joe will have to move left which is
somewhat of a victory for the lefty blogs.
Any prediction as to the results of the CT Democratic senatorial contest is just a guess. One intriguing thing in the latest Q-poll results is that women split evenly, 47% for each cadidate, while the men favor Lamont by 13% 55-42. That just doesn't make sense.
The Hartford Courant tells us there are 20,000 new Democrats in CT since May: "From May through Friday, 11,496 unaffiliated voters became registered Democrats. From May through the end of July, 10,344 new voters became registered Democrats."
These numbers from Conn. Sec of State website surprised me.
http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/lists/2005OctRegEnrollStats.pdf
I had no idea there were this many 'Unaffiliated' voters;
(#'s rounded & active voters)
U-869,000
R-428,000
D-654,000
If Lamont does win tomorrow-and Lieberman does run in November-Connecticut certainly could end up with a Republican Senator.
if i'm wrong, dump on me.
if the crossover registration factor turns out to be large, a lot of that will be republicans voting for lamont. yes, you read that correctly, a lot of that will turn out to be republicans voting for lamont. and these are good, everyday republicans you would want as your neighbors.
i still say the biggest factors influencing the primary election in connecticut tomorrow are...
one:
the abandonment of conservatives in new england and new york by the republican party. that's why the republican candidate is every bit as antiwar as ned lamont. that is why the republicans have two antiwar candidates while the democrats have only one. that's why the democrats are as leftist as they are.
two:
the failure of the bush administration to communicate the need to be in the war in iraq, along with statements like "islam is a religion of peace that's been hijacked by radicals." had the bush administration sold this war as it should have been sold (and waged it accordingly)--a war against radical islam--a lamont candidacy wouldn't have been as easy as it has been in connecticut.
you do not understand new england republicans if you do not understand that they are people who are two separate groups, both misunderstood by the republicans outside of new england:
a) liberal enough to vote in the weickers and create a state income tax (where there had been none) on top of a personal property tax (which was supposed to obviate a state income tax), and
b) conservative enough to believe (like novak and buchanan) that we should never have been in this war in the first place.
both of these kinds of republicans who crossed over to register democrat and vote tomorrow will be voting for lamont. yet the common wisdom is that they crossed over to vote for lieberman.
turnout will not be a major factor. even if it's 30%, a 50% increase over the usual summer connecticut primary, the results will still be much the same as if the turnout had been the usual.
but tomorrow's primary is mainly about what registered democrats in connecticut will determine. and they are overwhelmingly anti-lieberman nedheads. they will toss lieberman out on his ear, and they will also dominate the general election in the fall. lamont will easily win tomorrow, and he will win the general election as well unless the bush administration alters its message or some other event(s) radically change current perceptions.
in the grave yard of other Kos failed candidates and someone like you was passing by.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
...was when people like you said the voters of new york state would never elect hillary rodham. and, now, even the republicans in new york would rather vote for eliot spitzer than their own party's nominees for governor.
i have to assume you aren't from new york or new england. but, whether or not that's true, i'll be interested in sharing observations with you after tomorrow's results in connecticut are tallied.
witch. After all they voted for that lowlife, piece of scum for their other Senator. Great bookends.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
so should i infer from that comment that you find a huge message of hope in nutmeggers' willingness to send chris dodd to washington?
Will the moonbats of the left concede defeat? Will it be a great referendum in support of President Bush and the Iraq War?
Yeah, right.
Just watch . . . if Lieberman pulls it off by a narrow margin, the lefties will call it a "moral victory" (just about the only kind they've ever had in recent times) and say that Lieberman's close call sends a message rejecting Bush, the Iraq war, etc., etc.
And the Main Stream Media will go along . . .
But it would be fun to watch.
I am hoping enough sober moderate Dems show up to give Joe the nomination. A Lamont win may not pan out in Nov, but it might give the moonbats a megaphone to coerce other candidates to swerve towards a conciliatory position on foreign policy issues. Fence-sitting voters may also be persuaded by the rhetoric.
The effectiveness of current U.S. actions and diplomacy in the Middle East and other hotspots are debatable, however, previous actions and diplomacy by the U.N. can be evaluated as absolute failure.
We have to remain engaged. To accomplish that requires the confidence of the American people, giving resolve to our Congress. The real "quagmire" occured after we left Vietnam and turned an apathetic eye away from the tyranny across the globe.
ABC/WaPo poll Aug 3-6. Do you approve of the the way Prz Bush is handling Iraq? Approve 36%, disapprove 36. Many GOP candidates are in deep trouble unless they sound like Lamont.
RED RED Robbin'
Sorry but since 2000 I find it hard to read any post that quotes a poll from the Washington Post or any other media outlet. As has been the case for decades polls are not designed to gauge opinion but to create a news story. That combined with the huge weight they give to democrats really negates any value a poll would have. If you want to gauge public sentiment walk down your street and I suggest you could do a better job than the Post.
You're not the only one Dales--I have a sneaking suspiscion that we're going to be blessed with more of that "Yes we technically lost but we really scored a moral victory--they have to listen to us now!" rhetoric with which we have become so familiar.
Of course I could be dead wrong and Lieberman might get shelacked. Who knows. Pop the popcorn.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld