Toss-Up in Montana for US Senate

Jon Tester (D) had a moderate lead for weeks, but now it's very close.  

From Rasmussen Reports today:

Republican Senator Conrad Burns has closed the gap and is now just a couple points behind Democrat Jon Tester. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll in Montana finds Tester with 48% of the vote while Burns earns 46%...

We are moving the race from "Leans Democrat" (to) "Toss-Up" column in our Senate Balance of Power summary.

Because of his relationship with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others under a cloud, Senator Burns is often seen as emblematic of GOP congressional corruption...

Rasmussen continues:

Rasmussen Reports conducted the current survey October 18, the day after the two candidates participated in a televised debate. They clashed over tax cuts, political corruption and, most notably, the war in Iraq. Tester advocates withdrawal of U.S. troops. Burns says the U.S. must persist despite any changes in strategy that may be necessary.

Please help Jon Tester in any way you can.

•  This can't be

  true! Burns is such an idiot!

  by etherapy on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:00:57 AM PDT

  •  Reality is a bitch

    When the elections get nearer, the electorate starts to really think about who they are going to vote for, which is when incumbency begins to matter.

    by Explorer8939 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:27:39 AM PDT

    •  More negative vibes

      You ever say anything postive about Democrats?

      Folks, this is a Republican....Feel deflated?  That's the point of this poster's presence here....He is Republican

      by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:30:55 AM PDT

      •  I don't get that sense from their post

        They're right - incumbency is a factor. I find that less negative than OMG OMG THE REPUBLICANS ARE GAINING GROUND WHY WHY WHY FOLEY IS WEARING OFF AMERICA IS STUPID WHY WHY WHY!!!

        by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:36:22 AM PDT

        •  Maybe so, but

          Just check this poster's diaries.....

          So, when the "advice" comes, or the adverse fact unsupported by evidence is cited, he will be believed........

          by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:55:49 AM PDT

      •  looking at their past diaries

        I'm beginning to believe you.  Even if they aren't a republican, they excel in concern trollism

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:37:27 AM PDT

        •  I am not troll rating the guy

          But he can be very destructive--if people take his advice....

          Every single comment and diary of his is negative--trying to bring democrats down.  He is especially active today given a couple of polls that could be over-interpreted.

          A favorite tactic:  Play on Democrats' irrational fear of Carl Rove.  He is trying to play us with his psy-ops.  And trusting Democrats and liberals that we are, many fall for it and leave this site deflated.

          Telltale sign:  He referred to the "Democrat" party.  Ooops, a slip.

          by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:49:36 AM PDT

        •  If it smells like a troll

          If it walks like a troll, and talks like a troll, and smells like a troll--good chance it's a troll....

          by pollbuster on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:18:02 AM PDT

          •  so if this IS psy-ops...

            ...then apparently it's working, otherwise why would anyone worry?

            If someone is so weak minded or easily discouraged that they'd give up or change course over (alleged) concern trolling, I'd argue they bring more weakness than strength to a cause.

            by PaintBoy on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:26:18 AM PDT

            •  True, but we need the strong,

              the no-so-strong, and the weak.....

              by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:13:30 AM PDT

              •  I suppose...

                ...but it can be... discomforting to know that some within your ranks can be so easily swayed.

                or to put it another way...

                if my gang is going to rumble, i dont want anyone showing up with their mittens tied together.

                (not really sure what that means, but it felt like a good time for a non-sequitur ;)

                by PaintBoy on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:55:18 AM PDT

                •  Yup

                  I think Bobby Kennedy is the way to go.....

                  And, everyone is human....We can't all be strong all the time; we need to help each other be strong.  

                  by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:31:48 PM PDT

            •  No way Karl Rove & al...

              ...would neglect psy-ops in these parts.  No way.

              by Land of Enchantment on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 02:19:57 PM PDT

      •  YUP

        TU'd for being a CT.

        by Boris Godunov on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:40:22 AM PDT

      •  That's absurd

        Aside from the subject line, the body of the comment does make undeniable sense. Incumbency matters close to the election itself, and as that day draws nearer, you can see a lot of fluctuation in polls as people have a harder time deciding.

        by eugene on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:48:28 AM PDT

        •  E, check this poster's diaries

          I have not troll-rated him, or suggested anyone do so.  But he is uniformly negative and will slip in comments that give "us" advice as he goes along.

          Just check it out and know who you are dealing with.  

          by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:53:07 AM PDT

        •  Remember Kathleen on MLW?

          E, "she" was psoting about a year ago.  She got a lot of feedback, I think "her" shtick was pro-life liberl--and then someone said she was a troll.  MSOC supported her, and utimately even she realized that "Kathleen" was indeed trying play us.  IMHO, "Kathleen" was a male Republican posing as a Democrat--what better way in a conservative's mind to pose as a Democrat than to adopt the persona of a woman?

          This probably sounds too tin foil to many out there, but just e beware, folks, this stuff does happen.  It would be surprising if it didn't.....

          And if I'm wrong and this guy is just a Concern Troll, so what?  All I'm saying is be skeptical of "friendly" advice that is deflating....  

          by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

          •  Oh, I know about concern trolls

            In this specific comment, though, I didn't see that as being the case.

            by eugene on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:37:12 AM PDT

            •  Okay

              But consider that undecided voters traditionally break decisively against the incumbent.  Our concern troll is advocating the opposite, and he has got your attention and apparently your agreement....

              Just saying.....

              by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:18:31 AM PDT

        •  Eugene, it's great to see you again

          We used to talk a lot on here in 2004...it's nice to see you are still here.

          by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:51:03 AM PDT

      •  differing motivations

        some people are motivated by the momentum of optimism. Hope for the best.

        some people are motivated by the stress of pessamism. Plan for the worst.

        for one camp to try to shush the other is counterproductive.

        If we mock the repugz for using a 'clap louder' strategy in Iraq, how can we then use it ourselves when it comes to the election?

        by PaintBoy on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:00:52 AM PDT

        •  I'm not trying to silence anyone

          But please let's not be naive.  Is it really possible that the Republicans would not have someone posting here trying to implement their "clap louder" strategy?

          What this poster does, is say something "realistic," engage a Kossack in dialgoue, and then slip in "advice" or assert an adverse fact--without support.  His posts are real downers...

          Just be aware, that's all.

          by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:10:08 AM PDT

          •  word

            I hear ya. I'm not so much defending this particular diary or poster, so much as the value of pessamism. I think it is healthy to have some devil's advoctaes around, thinking like a red-team. Every emperor needs that little kid around to tell him he's buck naked....  

            (yikes, that sounded Foleyesque...)

            by PaintBoy on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:18:09 AM PDT

            •  I think you are my kind

              of pessimist.  Keep on busting ass.....

              What caught my eye, is that a kossack posted a reply to our Concern Troll that sounded very defeatest, kinda like, oh well, we're going to lose again.  Bullseye.....

              by MKS on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:21:45 AM PDT

    •  And incubency really matters this year

      And incubency really matters this year, but more like, if you are a republican incumbent, you are in trouble.....

      by pollbuster on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:13:48 AM PDT

    •  have you been hiding under a rock all year?

      If you have been paying any attention at all to this race you would know that, financial aspects aside, incumbency is a distinct disadvantage in this race.  Burns is the least popular sitting senator whose negatives have been over fifty since January.

      by Scott in NJ on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:18:22 AM PDT

      •  Incumbency = pork and money

        Which is what he means. That won't be enough to get him the win, but it will get him some support from some voters who are wavering.

        by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:42:49 AM PDT

        •  $ from Jack Abramoff

          is the reason this is a competitive race to begin with.

          by Scott in NJ on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:51:57 AM PDT

          •  That's true,

            although I think Tester is what really made the race most competitive.

            by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:04:19 AM PDT

•  What the fuck is happening???

  There are several polls out there showing Repugs resurging.  I mean WTF?

  by RichM on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:02:06 AM PDT

  •  I can't figure it out either

    All this talk about the GOP in disarray, and here we have Reynolds ahead in the last NY-26 poll, Burns and Tester coming even, Paccione failing against a horrible person like Musgrave...

    This is depressing, and I wish someone would explain it all to me.

    by alkatt on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:04:33 AM PDT

    •  Me, too [n/t]

      by jamfan on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:06:48 AM PDT

      •  I think the Foley scandal is wearing off.

        Every time there is a scandal, such as Katrina or the ports deal, support for the GOP dips about 5-10% and then slowly recovers most of its lost ground over a period of days or weeks.  There's a large block of indie and moderate Repug voters that have a very short memory.

        by ryder92111 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:13:00 AM PDT

        •  This race has nothing to do with Foley

          Tester has been leading in polls for most of the summer and fall. Burns is disliked by people in Montana for reasons that have nothing to do with any Foley scandal.

          The race is going to be close (it's Montana), but I don't buy this poll, or that the race is a toss-up.

          by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

          •  Rasmussen has a GOP bias

            Exactly and anyone who gets too depressed about a Rasmussen poll has to stop reading polls for a while. Rasmussen has a long time republican bias. Remember he was the one pollster who had Bush ahead of Gore by 7 points on election day 2000....

            by pollbuster on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:25:04 AM PDT

    •  It has been explained.

      #1 The Reynolds poll did not poll the areas where Jack Davis has the most support, because of a snowstorm.

      #2 This is 1 poll, and all other polls have shown Tester doing well.

      #3 Musgrave is in a very Republican district and Paccione has not run the best campaign.

      Not really that shocking.

      by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:18:35 AM PDT

  •  Outliers

    Don't worry until later polls come out. Numbers will fudge up and down. If this trend is confirmed in two or three polls down the line then I would worry. Your concern is slightly premature.

    by jiacinto on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:07:50 AM PDT

    •  One poll is an outlier

      I would not worry too much about outliers - it is good to have the data, but if they are outliers, well, they are outliers.

      by Explorer8939 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:28:46 AM PDT

  •  There's too much optimism out there.

    The Dems will not take the senate this time around. Hopefully, there is a shot at taking the House, but even that's far from certain.

    I get the impression that all the "Democratic landslide" talk is largely the media looking for a narrative.

    Having said that, this is the best chance in a while to have an positive impact, so everyone should get out there and work like their candidate is 5 points behind.

    by Frank on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:11:07 AM PDT

    •  Peaked too soon?

      Fortunately, in the back and forth cycle of national mood, there's plenty more chance for it to go back.  I think the anger of GOP from the previous news cycles has mellowed.

      by Magster on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:16:05 AM PDT

      •  The anger at Burns is state, not national

        There's no real reason for them to have suddenly fallen in love with Burns. He did an ad with Marc Racicot, but that only goes so far.

        The media works 24/7 to benefit Republicans. Obviously there will be some movement back to them. But the Montana race is a very local race, and is not impacted by national trends.

        by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

  •  Alot can happen in 18 days...

    and polls change like the wind... I'm not setting my hopes on the polls, I'm setting my hopes on the vote.

    by Soul on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:16:45 AM PDT

  •  All polls don't show great results.

    There are more polls than ever in this election cycle. There's no reason to expect every single poll is going to have amazing news for Democrats, or horrible news for Republicans.

    I think these polling firms also want to help the GOP and create a "Republicans are coming back" narrative. The media has been waiting for their chance to do this again.

    There are a lot of things to worry about in this election. Polls should not be one of them.

    by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

    •  Thanks James...

      This helps coming from you.

      by RichM on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:48:15 AM PDT

  •  Ix-nay on the uck-fay

    or didn't you ead-ray this site yesterday?

    by jgoodfri on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:25:47 AM PDT

    •  did you?

      That was about diary titles.

      by mswaine on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:50:52 AM PDT

•  We'll have to see if this is an abberation

  All the other polls in october are:

  Tester up 7 (Mason Dixon)
  Tester up 4
  Tester up 7 (Rasmussen's last one)
  Testerup 11

  The tester up 11 may be an abberation as well.  I think think this is a 5+ point race for Tester.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:03:16 AM PDT

  •  Whichever poll - he's still ahead! Keep cheering.

    n/t

    by Last Best Chance on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:14:01 AM PDT

  •  M-D was taken in late September

    Therefore, I would consider their poll out of date. I would like to see how their next poll will show Tester, if and when one if released.

    by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:24:58 AM PDT

•  I am not worried about this poll. I watched the

  debates and the Papers in Montana seem fair to Tester. I don't see how he loses.

  by ameri on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:03:56 AM PDT

•  Keep your hand on the rudder...

  and GOTV, donate and audaciously take the fight to 'em.  That's all that can be done.  Organize, call, canvass, plead, cajole, drive voters, etc.  

  by mayan on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:04:31 AM PDT

  •  You said it all! GOTV! n/t

    by Palmetto Progressive on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:06:37 AM PDT

•  VOTE TWICE!

  That'll fix it!

  by Whiskey Sam on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:06:22 AM PDT

•  As with commenters above

  I don't understand this. I watched clips of that ridiculous debate, where audience members out-and-out laughed at Burns. It actually sounded exactly like a sitcom laugh track at two points. How is this possible?

  by jamfan on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:08:41 AM PDT

  •  Never. Ever.

    Underestimate the stupidity of a chunk of the population.  There's stupidity that most of us can't even imagine out there.  Scary...that's why we must GOTV.  It's a race to see who will transport more of their supporters to the polls.  NOTHING will be easy.  These guys will NOT give up the wealth and power that they have without a VERY bruising (and quite possibly unfair) fight.  Just the way it is.  Now, let's win this!!

    by mayan on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:16:23 AM PDT

  •  Bush's job approval in MT is also up

    SUSA has him at 50% in MT, HIGHER than a month ago, even though his national job approval in SUSA dropped a point. Of course, given the way it's polled MD-Sen and MO-Sen recently, I wouldn't be surprised if that figure is bullshit.

    by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:20:24 AM PDT

•  Rasmussen seems to be out of step

  with other polls.  I don't know why but I find it consistently off the scale compared to others.  On the RCP site (it's conservative but informative with facts) they give the combined average of all polls for all races.  

  by kaff on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:14:14 AM PDT

•  Don't panic

  I suppose it is possible that we peaked too early.  (Lamont's numbers lead me to think that.) But I see no good news for the gop anywhere over the next two weeks.

  Here's hoping that dems have a solid and well thought out GOTV.  It all comes down to that now.  The votes are there we just have to get them to the polls.

  by baltimoremom on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:15:00 AM PDT

  •  MT is much different than CT or anywhere else

    The race centers on Burns and people being sick of him. I guess it's possible people suddenly think he should stay around, but I doubt they will move in enough numbers to reelect him.

    Lamont's numbers weren't peaking too early, they fell because he ran a bad campaign and let Lieberman walk all over him. Tester did not do that with Burns.

    I think people are way too eager to see this poll as a huge trend against all Democrats.

    by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:33:37 AM PDT

    •  Tester isn't fucking up like Lamont

      Lamont effectively suspended his campaign for the rest of August, a la John Kerry when the Swiftboat Veterans went after him. Tester hasn't done anything that stupid. Just curious...do you think he comment about wanting to repeal the Patriot Act is the reason for why his poll number dropped? I don't think it is, but I'm wondering how things are looking in Montana.

      by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

      •  I doubt it

        I don't think the Patriot Act is very popular in Montana. If there is any narrowing the ads from Racicot may be a reason, and people who want their pork.

        by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:42:23 AM PDT

    •  it isn't just this poll

      Senate races are tightening all over according to maybe good, maybe bad polls.

      Drawing correlations is what we do.

      by baltimoremom on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:48:02 AM PDT

      •  Not all over, or close

        In Ohio, Brown has widely expanded his lead in most recent polls. Casey is holding steady. So is Cantwell.

        Tennessee has always been a tight race.

        Klobuchar continues to dominate in Minnesota.

        Menendez has moved into a lead in New Jersey.

        Allen is not increasing his lead in Virginia, forcing him to remain competitive with Webb.

        1 poll had a pro-Burns result in Montana, and 1 poll in Rhode Island had a pro-Chafee result.

        That's about it. Polls are going to get tighter as a race goes on, but for the most part the polls are solid.

        by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:18:58 AM PDT

•  Senate will be close

  All of the GOP'ers who are being hammered by Sean Hannity and everyone else are finally coming home, holding their noses, and will vote GOP.  It's going to be close in alot of these races, I think.

  Let's just do what we can and see what happens.  We have to work for it.

  • Chris.

  by Northern Lad on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:15:05 AM PDT

•  GOTV will be the decider

  start making calls and getting your friends and family out.

  by sleestax on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:17:29 AM PDT

  •  yes, e mailed friends in NY Massa district

      to remind then.  and i will do more.

    by oceanview on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:16:49 AM PDT

•  How is Burns CLOSING the gap?

  Every time he opens his mouth his profound and utter suckitude is underscored.

  Not to mention, he's not only no rocket scientist, he's not even a slightly-above-average student of physics at your average community college.

  Not to mention, he is, to coin a phrase, a truly unholy horsefucker riding the one-way trebuchet down the slimy ice luge to the pits of darkest hell.

  by brownsox on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:17:53 AM PDT

  •  There is something naturally assholish about

    his basic demeanor. You know when you can just tell a guy is an asshole even if you don't know that person very well? Burns fits that description.

    by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:21:40 AM PDT

•  This is what happens

  when you challenge an Incumbent.

  I don't get the people shaking thier heads and asking how this could happen.  Congress went into recess.  The incumbents came home and the war chests opened.  You think incumbents got their first office in a slapfight?  These people know how to win and have the resources to wage a serious campaign.

  We're in the final 18 days!  Clever ads about haircuts and rural newspaper endorsements are great in August but this mid-October.

  It is now a ground-war and we knew we'd be outmatched in the ground-war.  

  But we can still win.  This is our fight to lose.

  NOW FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  by Wisper on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:18:23 AM PDT

  •  Are the commercials about the Patriot Act working

    ?

    Tester made his comment almost a month ago, and the 10/11 Rasmussen poll (the previous one) still showed Tester up by seven. Has Tester done anything to shoot himself in the foot, or has Burns done something to improve his stance with voters?

    by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:23:29 AM PDT

    •  It's just 1 poll

      The Rasmussen poll out of Florida has Crist only up on Davis by 4%. I doubt that Republicans in Florida are going OMG OMG WHAT DID WE DO WRONG. They know an outlier when they see one.

      by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:25:50 AM PDT

      •  True

        Also, there was an August Rasmussen poll showing Tester and Burns tied, but the next poll taken had Tester up 11%. I hope this poll is just an outlier.

        by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:27:17 AM PDT

        •  It very well may be

          but I'm sure there is some sort of movement that shows Burns trying to close.

          He's got 18 days.  You have to assume he is pulling out every stop and calling in every favor from fund-raisers, lobbyists, 527s, RNC, RSCC, PACs, the state-level party, other GOP officials in non-competitive elections, media outlets, redmeat blogs, etc.

          The man has been in office for 18 years.  He has a lot of friends.  He has a lot of money.  He has a lot of friends who all have a lot of money.

          Let him surge.  Let him spend.  Let him try.

          Tester will still take him down.

          by Wisper on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:36:45 AM PDT

•  This race is going to be close so get used to it.

  Yes, Burn is an idiot & yes this will be a great year for Democrats to pick up seats.  However, lets remember that Burns is a three term incumbent in a deep red state.  Even if Tester wins, it will probably be by on only 2-5 points.  Hopefully the closeness of this poll will motivate MT Dems to work a little harder to defeat Burns.  Unfortunately, national dems have been overconfident on this this race lately, also it seems like Tester has been unable to put Burns away.  

  by AndTun1 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:23:30 AM PDT

  •  It's both parties, not just Democrats

    The GOP Senate committee has pretty much written this race off. The race will be close, but I don't think Burns has a shot.

    by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:30:43 AM PDT

•  montana - the 41st state; sending 41.01 to tester

  by skyterrain on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:32:22 AM PDT

•  Everyone Please Study The Margin of Error

  The way it works is, each candidate's total could be higher or lower by that amount. So, when it comes to the difference between them, you have to double the margin of error to allow for all possibilities.

  Most of these Senate polls have an MOE of plus or minus 4%. So, if this poll has a lead of 3 points for Tester, it is NOT inconsistent with the poll that had him leading by 11.

  We could all save ourselves a lot of agita if we come to grasp this simple fact: even candidates leading by 6-8 points or possibly more can have some polls that show them tied or even slightly behind. In this case Tester is ahead, it's fine, expect these kinds of fluctuations in the polls.

  BTW, anyone know how to make a plus/minus sign on a PC? I can do it on my Mac but at work I'm forced into degredation.

  by Davidsfr on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:34:29 AM PDT

  •  Lets see if this works

    Margin of error ±4%

    by Wisper on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:39:20 AM PDT

    •  Hold down the ALT key

      and type 0177 on the numeric keypad.

      by Wisper on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:39:42 AM PDT

      •  Why Are PCs so complicated

        On the Mac it is option and the plus sign/equal sign key.

        by Davidsfr on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:06:27 AM PDT

    •  well, yes and no

      it is off from the poll having him up by 11 because a MOE of 4% on each candidate plus the 2% difference in the poll would have a maximum lead for Tester of 10% inside the margin.  Ok, so it's off by 1%.  It definately is consistent with the polls that had him up by 7.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:41:05 AM PDT

      •  No, it is not off.

        4 points doulbed equals 8 points, the difference between 3 and 11 is 8. If either poll had an even larger margin of error there would be even more potential overlap. In other words, if Tester were up by 4 from what Rasmussen shows, and Burns was down by 4, Tester would lead by 11. Voila!

        by Davidsfr on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:05:33 AM PDT

•  I want to hear what other pollsters say

  Despite what Kos says, I think Rasmussen sucks. He had Bush up huge against Gore in the last week and he always has Bush's approval about 5 points higher than everyone else does.

  by Tipsy McStagger on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

  •  He's changed his formula since 2000

    He was pretty accurate in 2004. Also, the reason why Bush's job approval is higher is because he offers "somewhat" and "strongly" options for approve and disapprove, which allow for more nuanced responses.

    by Progressive Moderate on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:37:34 AM PDT

•  Another poll

  This one released two days ago had Tester ahead by 11.  

  http://www.greatfallstribune.com/...

  by Paleo on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:35:05 AM PDT

•  This is October

  The last 2 or 3 weeks are always a bit volatile as voters finally focus in a real way on elections. Burns IS an incumbent in a GOP state and, while Tester is going to win, it won't be a blow-out.

  by RandyMI on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:35:32 AM PDT

•  Bullshit

  Even the Rasmussen polling article says the following which this diarist leaves out:

  When "leaners" are included, Tester leads 49% to 46%.  Leaners are undecided voters who opt for a candidate when asked a follow-up question.

  Don't base your view of the upcoming election on a single poll no matter which way it is trending.

  by Cat Whisperer on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:58:39 AM PDT

  •  49 to 46 and 48 to 46

    ...are both tossup sets of numbers.

    by Eric J in MN on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:14:02 AM PDT

    •  But you are basing your

      diary on a single poll.  Tossup or not --- a single poll is not worth this attention.

      by Cat Whisperer on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:04:36 AM PDT

•  remember

  the 1992 Election?  Remember how Bush was supposed to have closed the gap with Clinton toward the end?

  The polls start to tighten...but remember that the Big Dog won going away.

  Fact:  incumbents who can't poll at 50% this close to the election are historically in big trouble, and that is where Burns is.  Big Trouble.

  by onanyes on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:13:38 AM PDT