The last two weeks have shown an huge erosion of McCaskill's position in the polls:
MasCaskill Talent
Ramussen 10/26 48% 50%
LATimes 10/23 45% 48%
SurveyUSA 10/23 45% 48%
Mason-Dixon 10/19 46% 43%
Rasmussen 10/12 44% 45%
SurveyUSA 10/11 51% 42%
Is this real or an artifact? I report, You decide.
Dems v. Repubs
The Survey poll of 10/11 showed 32% Repubs, the Mason-Dixon poll of 10/19 showed 35% Repubs, the Survey of 10/23 38% Repubs. On a similar front, Bush approval was 38% in the SurveyUSA 50-state poll of 10/17, 42% in the M-D poll of 10/19 and 47% in LATimes poll. Are these increasing Republican numbers a result of changed samples, changed minds, or how the likely voter model rates the relative turnouts?
Stem-cell amendment
The Survey poll on 10/11 showed the amendment passing 57-27%. The poll of 10/23 showed 43-36 with particular deterioration of the numbers among males. The last night of the poll was the first night of the Micheal Fox poll and (I think?) before the Danforth ad.
The World Series (and playoffs)
We all know that the Cards have been in the Series since 10/21 and in the playoffs before then. Quote the mystery pollster:
"While the small shift to Talent may well be real, poll consumers ought to keep in mind two words when it comes to surveys conducted in Missouri the week: World Series.
"The World Series gives pollsters fits, especially when we have to poll states with a hometown team -- like the St. Louis Cardinals -- playing for all the marbles. The games draw huge audiences in the home markets of the contenders, and no one wants to stop watching the game to complete a telephone survey. As a result, pollsters typically experience lower response rates, particularly among younger men. Complicating all of this even further in Missouri is the high-profile exchange of television advertisements on stem cell research that aired during the World Series gaemes (an ad on behalf of Claire McCaskill featuring Michael J. Fox and a response by the Cardinals' Jeff Suppan and actors Patricia Heaton and Jim Caviezel).
"What effect any of this might be having on the Missouri results (or whether it has had any effect at all) is a matter of pure speculation. However, I can tell you that some of the screwiest internal polls I have seen in my career were fielded during past World Series. So perhaps a few more grains of salt than usual are in order this week."
***
Update: I should have put "huge erosion" in quotes. My own view of the race is that there has been no fundamental change in this race in 6 months, that the changes in poll numbers have been from sampling and temporary enthusiasm of a particular week's polls, and that every headline state-wide race in Missouri going back to 2000 has been extremely close. McCaskill's advantages of this year's climate (on Iraq and stem-cell research) and the fact that new voters are trending Democratic probably balance the fact that Talent is an incumbent this time, has more money, and the slight red tilt Missouri has recently had in state elections. We will probably have to wait late in the night on November 7th before we know who won.