Skip to main content

After reading a post that broke down the polling for the AR senate race along partisan lines, I thought I would use HuffPo's create your own poll aggregator to see if there is a similar trend among the other 2014 senate races.  Unfortunately there seems to be a dearth of polling in most of the races, especially of the nonpartisan kind (sometimes only one or two), so it was difficult to get any meaningful results.  They do, however, have 2012 polls with the create your own feature, so I decided to separate the the (D), (R), and unaffiliated polls to see how they stacked up versus reality.

Here's a quick breakdown of the closest states along with the national numbers separated by partisan affiliation.  Note that I included Rasmussen, We Ask America, and Gravis in the (R) column as they are most definitely (R) affiliated, and did not include any internet polls.  The numbers given are % Obama-% Romney.

State - (D) polls  - Nonpartisan  -      (R) polls - Actual Result - (D-A) - (NP-A) - (R-A)
OH           3.8                 3                  1.2              3              .8          0       -1.8
FL            2                  -2.4               -.6              .9             1.1       -3.3     -1.5
VA           3.4                 .1                  .1              3.9            -.5       -3.8     -3.8
WI           4.6                 5.1                1.4             6.9           -2.3      -1.8      -5.5
IA            7.1                 4.4                 2              5.8             1.3      -1.4     -3.8
CO           4                    .8                  .1              5.4           -1.4      -4.6     -5.3
NV           4.7                  3.5                2.9            6.7             -2       -3.2     -3.8
PA           5.2                  3.3                2.3            5.4             -.2       -2.1    -3.1
NH           2                     2.5                2              5.6             -3.6     -3.1     -3.6
NC          -2.2                 -1.4              -5.7            -2              -.2        .6      -3.7
National    2.2                   .5                -.7             3.9            -1.7      -3.4    -4.6
AVG                                                                                     -.8       -2.4    -3.7
MEDIAN                                                                                -.5       -3.1    -3.8

It's pretty shocking when you break it down.  The dem pollsters were the best pollsters, off by an average of less than a point, and that less than one point error was in favor of Romney.  The nonpartisan pollsters were actually closer to the republican pollsters than the dem ones oddly enough.  I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that the dem polls were dominated by PPP, which is an excellent pollster, although the other dem polls were roughly in line with PPP's results.  The republican pollsters were dominated by Ras, one of the worst pollsters, although again the other (R) pollsters had similar results to Ras.  

With that in mind, what are the best (ie Dem) pollsters saying about the 2014 senate races?

KY: Grimes +1, GA: Nunn +4.3 (v Kingston), NC: Hagan +3.2, AR: Pryor +.5, LA: Landrieu +.7, CO: Udall +3.1, IA: Braley +5, MI: Peters +5.7, AK: Begich +5 (v Sullivan)

Note that there aren't a lot of polls out there, and 90% of these are from PPP.  I'd like to do the same thing with the 2010 races, but the create your own feature was not available for those races.  Long story short, it seems like the democrats are fairly well placed to mitigate their losses in the senate, and I for one believe the chances of the republicans taking over the senate  have been vastly overblown.  Hopefully there will be an increase in polling volume in the near future to see if these numbers hold.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The reality-based community (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's surprising in one way and not in another. The right-wing in general is so extremely averse to evidence-based arguments that it was bound to affect them adversely. But I used to give them credit for a kind of low cunning that would want to know the truth (on some matters at least) even if they didn't want to publish it.

    We, on the other hand, would always rather know we're losing which at least offers the possibility of taking action to counteract the trend.

    I'm reminded of an astute observation I read a few years ago, I think in The New Yorker, but I don't remember the article. It went something like this:

    If you give conservatives an unfavorable poll result, they want to shoot the pollster. If you give one to liberals, they want to shoot themselves.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:34:37 PM PDT

  •  I think we most likely hold the Senate this turn (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton

    I'm skeptical about a GA pickup, but Kentucky has a good vibe, IMO.

    I'm happy that Kay Hagan is bouncing back, and I think Mark Pryor will hang on, too. That's great news about Begich being up 5 points. I won't cry too much over Mary Landrieu, but even she may hang on.

    So South Dakota is pretty surely a loss. West Virginia is a long shot. And I'm not too confident about Montana. But where does the GOP get their remaining seats? They need 7, don't they assuming we have zero pickups?

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:41:47 PM PDT

    •  keep in mind (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demi Moaned, Gary Norton

      there is almost no polling in AK, the one poll was from PPP a long while ago.  That being said I think Begich should be okay.  The polling out of GA looks favorable as PPP just came out with a new one that has Nunn up 4 on Kingston and up 7 on Purdue.  If we pickup either KY or GA it will be virtually impossible for the republicans to take the senate.

    •  The GOP needs a net of 6 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demi Moaned

      That means they have to win one of the following


      Personally I don't think they'll be that close in CO, IA and MI so that leaves them with realistically 7 states and they have to win 6 while not losing any.  Of those 7, Dems are in front in four of them and Dems are in front in two GOP held seats which means Dems will lose a net of one seat.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:09:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Looking back at the 2012 polls (0+ / 0-)

    it is interesting to see how all of the polls, even the D-based polls underestimated the Obama win in several states: NV, NH, CO, WI and even VA.

    You can see the same trend in the national polls from 2012 -- even the D polls had an anti-Obama bias.  Most polls were predicting essentially a tie, and the D-leaning polls had Obama +2.2.  The final result was 3.9.

    What accounts for this -- is it the adage that a presidential election will tend more to registered voter numbers, while the above numbers are presumably for likely voters?  Or did OFA really have great success in bringing the less-than likely voters in to the polls?

  •  You get the congress you pay for. (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks to the Right Wing Supreme Court that gave us Citizen United of the USA. Unfortunately the Koch Bros is spending $500 million to take control of the Senate that needs to be factor in polling. The Democrats billionaires are afraid of the Koch Bros or secretly support their cause. It sucks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site