Survey USA poll shows Kaine up 52-43% over Kilgore

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=01f6575a-20e3-49b5-9a6f-24fd04944663&q=18298

I know it's a Survey USA poll, but it still shows Kaine with significant momentum regardless of what the numbers actually are.

This one is probably a little too optimistic, but altogether, this is a good sign.

Let's hope it is true.

any victory by Kilgore who just happens to squeak through.

Just a guess, cuz I don't even know what kinds of machines are used there or who controls the SEC of State office and vote count.

It's a big swing to Kaine as it looks like independents are banking towards him. Hopefully, we'll be able to counter the republican GOTV machine and win this thing.

I still don't think we can TRUST much of anything (voting)!

"hatch your counts".... yikes

- puns -

Here in Virginia, a Democrat needs a lead of at least 6 points in the polls going into election day to have a chance. Polls here consistently overstate the margin.

Polls in given states tend to consistently overstate one party or another. You can't just take them at face value.

My pet theory in the regard is PAN, or the Partisan Adjustment Number. It's similar to a pointspread in sports. Some states poll extremely poorly, for whatever reason. When I chart the state and it's consistently polling in one direction I'll amend the average poll numbers with the PAN. Admittedly, the sample size is simply not high enough to make adjustments with 100% confidence. There are only a handful of major statewide races and only every two years. Plus polling companies or methods can change, and they don't exactly warn me ahead of time.

Georgia is the most blatant example, and long before Diebold ever showed up. The polling in that state is so incompetent in our favor I adjust the polls 4.5 points in favor of the Republicans.

Virginia is not nearly as bad. But you are correct, the polls overrate Democratic strength. That is hardly unusual. In almost every case the PAN corrects toward the partisanship of the state. Red states poll more Democratic than is actual, and blue states poll more Republican than actual. My Virginia PAN is +1.8 Republican. So Kaine's numbers are probably overstated by roughly that amount. Even Warner in 2001 didn't match his poll consensus.

Jiacinto was the only one here who showed much interest in this theory and offered input. I more or less dropped it once he was banned. But this was another thing I tried to warn TIA about on occasion. He accepted state polls without doing any research to how they historically erred. His math was far superior to mine so I was actually hoping he would look into the matter and improve the theory and PAN numbers.

There are many states where it seems every election the results are off one way or the other. Georgia is the example I use too. It is almost always overstated in favor of Democrats. Wisconsin here is the opposite. Most polling here tends to overstate Republican strength.

Are you saying that the pollsters, in their polling methods in some states, poll too many Democrats? Say 38% instead of 32%, something like that? Although with the correct numbers, not the ones I just made up for example's sake. Is that what you mean?

For example, in 2000, 2002, and 2004 we polled better in NC, SC, and GA by significant margins than our candidates ended up doing. Part of the reason is that the polls assumed too many Democrats in states that are trending heavily Republican.

However, there are states where the pattern is reversed and Democrats seem to do better than polling suggests with those being my home state of Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon. Generally though, I would say there are more states where Democrats are oversampled than states in which Republicans are oversampled. Republicans are simply better at bringing their people to the polls.

I don't claim to know the mechanical reasons. I assume it's simply flawed polling application, perhaps sampling too few rurals in the red states and too few center city dwellers in the blue states.

In almost every instance the actual results tend to be toward the partisanship of the state, compared to pre-election polls. As a gambler I've taken advantage of that many times. Admittedly, that was the reason for my PAN numbers in the first place. I got in a big money election pool with 15 other guys beginning in'96 and needed an edge. I had to study polls and noticed they tended to err in the same direction.

Last year I bet on Murkowski in Alaska. I got an underdog price because EVERY poll for an entire year had Knowles in front. That state is incredibly difficult to poll and, of course, it is heavily red. My PAN number in Alaska is big in favor of Republicans, just shy of Georgia's. In the 2002 gov race, the elder Murkowski was barely ahead of Fran Ulmer in the polls then wiped her out. I think it was a 20+ point win. The Utah gov race was another example last year. We had a good candidate with family history and the polls were close, but I didn't buy it given the nature of that state. It turned out to be a massacre.

In contrast, in 2000 I bet on Hillary in New York. The late polls had Rick Lazio closing the gap significantly so the odds dropped, but those polls didn't jive with the partisanship of the state or the blue PAN. In '98 Schumer crippled D'Amato by much higher than his poll consensus indicated.

The questionable results would have to be races in which the actual vote strayed completely against the partisanship of the state, compared to poll numbers. Not many examples in that regard. I can't think of a good one.

Potts is pulling 3-5 points, mostly from Kilgore.

help widen the lead for Kaine.

:woohoo:

slimey voice and all it's done to our country in the last 5 years..I hope the repukes gambled and lost on bringing in bush to bat in the 9th inning.

"White House Gambles That Boosting Kilgore Will Pay Off for Bush

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 8, 2005; Page A07

"In jumping into the Virginia governor's race just 10 hours before polling booths open, President Bush put his credibility on the line last night and ensured that the results will be interpreted as a referendum on his troubled presidency. But the White House is gambling that after weeks of political tribulations, Bush has little more to lose.

Bush's election-eve foray to Richmond to rally behind Republican Jerry W. Kilgore inserted him into the hottest election of the off-year cycle and will test his ability to energize his party's base voters, according to strategists from both parties. Even in a traditionally Republican-leaning state such as Virginia, polls register disenchantment with Bush's leadership, and Kilgore has had trouble running against national headwinds."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110701413.html

The issues have been entirely local. It's not like it's a race for Congress in a competitive district where the issues are national.

no stinking logic..they think whatever the fuck they say goes..and the corporate media in most cases has been only too happy to oblige.

Is this a reliable poll?

onenote

I hope it holds true.

Take a look at the internals. Kilgore and Kaine are not tied in rural VA as this poll suggests. Kilgore has not lost significant support from Republicans in the last couple weeks. Etc...

Mason Dixon is the best pollster in the country. The polled this race a couple days ago. Kaine was up 1%.

Im predicting a 2-3% victory of Kilgore, but I really, really hope Im wrong. The GOP GOTV is a machine in VA this year. Ive been hearing that it is the most organized and advanced GOTV effort in state history. 9,800 phone bankers, thousands upon thousands doing lit drops, and millions upon millions being spent on this effort.

Your last paragraph is very representative of what I've been reading online since maybe 2002, often obscure articles because the GOP doesn't openly brag about GOTV advances like we heralded our registration efforts last year. I'm glad you included that paragraph on edit.

Rove and Co. genuinely expected to win by open margin on 2000. When they did not and realized they actually lost on merit but were given a reprieve, the focus on GOTV advances began in 2001, tested in the few elections that year in preparation for heavy expansion in the 2002 midterms. Ralph Reed was in charge of Georgia that year and when it succeeded so overwhelmingly he headed the entire southern effort in 2004. Now I've read the Reed strategies are being put in place nationwide.

It frustrates the heck out of me when realities like that are overlooked and any deviation from polls is attributed to Diebold or theft. The more we fret about machines the more it takes away from energy and attention to match the 9800 phone bankers or relentless lit drops.

That's a dreary prediction. I think it's a tossup but I'm more optimistic than a few weeks ago. My gut all along was Kilgore would win, simply because the state is still maybe 5 points red and no way Kaine matches Warner's great rural strength from 2001.

We desperately need this victory, not only due to potential significance in 2008, but also because 2005 will be defined by this race. If Kaine wins I count it as three major successes in a row (assuming New Jersey for Corzine), counting the Gregoire come from behind recount win in Washington last December. If Kaine loses it will properly be pounced on by the media that Democrats can't win a major statewide race even with the GOP in midst of implosion.

"It frustrates the heck out of me when realities like that are overlooked and any deviation from polls is attributed to Diebold or theft. The more we fret about machines the more it takes away from energy and attention to match the 9800 phone bankers or relentless lit drops."

That's right. The Repubs think ahead concerning elections.

And the longer Dems obsess about so-called stolen elections, the longer we will lose. The whole stolen election nonsense is a blind alley. GOTV and grassroots activism is what works, and we're sorely deficient there.

There are obviously poblems with who gets to vote (voter challenges, voter purges, etc.), and how people get to vote (limiting voting machines in Democratic districts, etc.), but there is no vote fraud in the machines themselves. That's a loser argument and a loser strategy.

But to say so around here is worse than defending Hillary Clinton. When we concentrate on voting machine issues etc, it distracts us from precisely the kind of effort you are talking about. We lose because of our failures IMO, not because the machines are rigged!

Is pretty laughable. It's a good excuse for losing, for some, I suppose. Seems like a loser project to me, though.

http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/vevo/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=502

AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE GAO'S REPORT SUBSTANTIATING THESE MASSIVE SECURITY ISSUES?

before the repugs take more and more seats in congress
and state govts. Not to mention the WH in 2008.

an even Bigger GOTV?!

Is there something missing that we can't do better than they do on GOTV?

Back in the 70's or so, Democratic backers chose to put money into activist groups. The idea was that these groups would be at the local level, working with people and making change. Then, come election time, that work would be identified with Democrats and the votes would come automatically. But it hasn't happened, for one. For another, the Republicans have turned those groups into a disadvantage, "liberal interest groups". And, if you didn't notice, they do get their noses out of joint if you don't pay them appropriate attention. Last year's election when women's groups and environmental groups complained Kerry didn't pay enough attention to them, for example. Well, it's not supposed to work that way. THEY are supposed to pull their heads out of their asses and educate THEIR base on the issues, who in turn talk to people, register and gotv. So we have to create a whole new operation, under the Democratic Party umbrella, from the ground up.

:shrug:

or as they say stupidity often becomes the thief in his greed

I always look for these sites early and bookmark them. This link might require one more click but it will get you to the numbers, and for the lesser races also not just governor. Tomorrow there should be underlined links where it says Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, House of Delegrates, although now the mere words are there. Updates begin at 7 PM Eastern.

http://www.sbe.vipnet.org/

If Dems manage to win in NJ and VA the Dc pundits will start asking how much a factor the embattled * was.

I mean Democrats took NJ and VA last time I believe when Bush was at his peak after 911...

if the GOP has a bad day the Bill Schneiders of the world will be talking about how this is ominous for the WH regardless of the fact that these elections turn on local issues.