McAuliffe pulls away from Cuccinelli as Quinnipiac finds a 2012 style gubernatorial electorate

Terry McAuliffe and Creigh Deeds during a 2009 Democratic Primary debate for Governor. Photo courtesy of A.P.

Quinnipiac University is out with their fifth survey of the 2009 Virginia Governor's race, this time showing Democrat Terry McAuliffe with his highest survey margin yet over Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

If the election for Governor were being held today, and the candidates were Terry McAuliffe the Democrat and Ken Cuccinelli the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Terry McAuliffe (D)  --  43%
Ken Cuccinelli  (R)  --  38%
Unsure/Other  --  20%

The results may surprise some, considering the barage of negative press McAuliffe has received since Quinnipiac's last poll in March. But either Virginia voters are tuning out stories about McAuliffe's preference for Washington fundraisers over the birth of his children, or they just don't care. Because the Democrat has seen a 5 point gain in his support since March, while the Cooch has dropped 2 points.

So what gave McAuliffe his largest lead of the Virginia Quinnipiac survey yet, especially in light of the perceived negative press?

An initial glance at the crosstabs do little to explain the mystery, as both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli are winning similar portions of their own base, and Independents. In fact, Cuccinelli is actually doing slightly better than McAuliffe with his base, the opposing party, and Independents.

But a look at the demographic and partisan make-up of Quinnipiac poll respondents sheds light on McAuliffe's rise. Simply, the current electorate is decidedly 2012-esque.

The chart below documents every Quinnipiac Virginia Governor survey taken this season, including the partisan identification of the respondents of each poll.

As you can see, the most recent survey found Democrats with a 10 point partisan identification advantage over Republicans. That advantage is strong enough to give McAuliffe a 5 point lead over his challenger, despite both candidates performing equally well among their own party's base and Independents.

Not only does this month's Quinnpiac poll feature the largest party I.D. advantage for Democrats to date, but if it holds through November, it would represent a net 14 point shift from the last Virginia Governor's race in 2009.

That year, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell defeated his Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds in a near 20-point landslide, and Republicans turned out in much larger numbers than Quinnipiac now finds. In fact, that year, it was the Republicans that held a 4 point partisan I.D. advantage over the Democrats (37% R, 33% D, 30% I).

What would the new Quinnipiac poll look like had their findings detected an electorate as Republican as 2009, all other findings remaining the same?

Not surprisingly, a 14 point shift in party I.D. (from D +10 to R +4), produces a net 10 point shift in Ken Cuccinelli's favor (from a 43-38% deficit, to a 45-40% lead).

Is Alaska ready for a Palin comeback? They're not ruling it out, according to Harper Polling

Incumbent Senator Mark Begich (D) (left) could be facing fmr. Governor Sarah Palin (R) in his first reelection battle next November. Photo on left courtesy of Loren Holmes, photo on right courtesy of A.P.

GOP survey group Harper Polling is out with a new 2014 Senate Republican Primary Poll of Alaska, sponsored by the Tea Party Leadership Fund. And there's some encouraging news for Sarah Palin fans -- home-state Republicans still regard the former Governor and Vice Presidential nominee fondly, enough-so that they'd be willing to put her back in elected office next year:

If the Republican Primary election for U.S. Senator were held today, who would you vote for? Joe Miller, Sarah Palin, or Mead Treadwell?

Sarah Palin  --  32%
Mead Treadwell  --  30%
Joe Miller  --  14%
Not Sure  --  24%

In a one-on-one race with the only candidate to have announced an exploratory committee for 2014 so far, Joe Miller, Palin would lead her former protege 52-19%, with 29% undecided.

Given the public opinion beating Palin took after resigning as Governor of Alaska in the Summer of 2009, followed by brutal media treatment in the aftermath of the Tuscon Arizona shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D), it may seem somewhat surprising to see Palin positioned to win her party's nomination for office again in her home-state. But among Alaska GOPers, her favorability rating is a strong 62/30%, she's viewed as the most likely to "fight for conservative values" by 20 points, and as the "strongest person to take on liberal Democrats in Washington" by 16 points.  But as the cross tabs will indicate, Harper Polling is finding a much more "conservative" GOP Senate primary electorate than the one PPP found in the immediate aftermath of 2010's contentious battle between Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski.

On August 24, 2010, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) was NARROWLY defeated by Palin-endorsed Joe Miller for the GOP nomination for Senate, 51-49% (though Murkowski refused to concede the race until 1 week later). The rest was history, as Murkowski went on to wage a successful write-in campaign that November, defeating Miller (R) and McAdams (D) by a small margin.

In the aftermath of that highly contentious Republican primary battle, PPP conducted something like an exit poll, though instead of polling Alaskan primary voters as they left the polling booths, they simply called them at their homes the following day.

In that survey/exit poll of the 2010 Miller v. Murkowski primary battle, 59% of respondents identified themselves as Conservatives, 37% as Moderate, and 4% as Liberal. Now certainly, political environments can change, question wording can yield different results, and pollsters can just be wrong. And based on the disparate ideological I.D. findings of the two polling firms, one has to believe that one of those three things happened.

While PPP found just 59% of the August 2010 Alaska GOP primary electorate to be conservative, 84% of Harper Polling respondents claimed to be conservative. While PPP measured 37% of the 2010 Alaska GOP primary electorate to be Moderate, Harper Polling found just 14% identifying as such. While PPP found 4% identifying as Liberal, Harper Polling found 1%.

And as it's the habit of this blog, let's see what the new Harper Polling survey would have shown had they found a GOP primary electorate more like the one PPP says showed up when Miller narrowly defeated Murkowski in 2010:

Lt. Governor Sean Treadwell and former GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller both see their numbers improve under a 2010 turnout-scenario, while Sarah Palin's decline.

Suffolk University MA Senate Special Election poll appears to be an outlier

A Thursday, March 7, 2013 Boston Herald spotlight on the 2013 Massachusetts Senate Primary and Special Election

Suffolk University released their first MA Senate special election survey late last week, and found notably better news for the Democratic nominee than the first four post-primary surveys have shown. With the race just six weeks away, Ed Markey leads Gabriel Gomez (R) 52-35%, according to a survey taken May 4-7:

On June 25th the General election for U.S. Senate will be held. The three candidates listed on your ballot are Gabriel Gomez -- Republican, Ed Markey -- Democrat, and Richard Heos -- Twelve Visions Party. For whom would you vote or toward whom do lean at this time?

Gabriel Gomez  (R)  --  35%
Ed Markey  (D)  --  52%
Richard Heos (TVP)  --  1%
Undecided/Refused  --  12%

If Suffolk is right, then Gomez must be struggling to perform as strongly with crucial groups as Scott Brown in his successful January 2010 special Senate election. The cross tabs certainly bare that out as well.

While Suffolk finds the racial make-up of the 2013 special election to be very similar to that of the 2010 contest, Gomez is currently performing much weaker with white voters than Scott Brown. The latter won this group 55-44% in 2010, while the former only manages 35% in the Suffolk poll (to Markey's 53%). Considering that white's make up 85% of Suffolk respondents, an 18 point deficit with whites would demolish any Republicans chances, very quickly.

Fortuntaely for the Gomez campaign, however, is the fact that Suffolk is the only post-primary MA special election pollster so far to show Gomez trailing so much among white voters. Consider the chart below:

The three pollsters to sample this race following the primaries found Markey leading Gomez among whites by no more than 3 points.  If you average the four pollsters, Markey leads Gomez among whites 46-39% , and 54-25% with non-whites. As noted in the final row of the chart above, this won't quite cut it for a Republican upset in June.

In terms of partisan identification in the Suffolk poll, while Gomez looks strong with his own party, he's not doing nearly well enough among Democrats and Independents (the only winning formula for a Bay State Republican). He only picks up 12% of Democratic voters, while barely carrying Independents 43-41%. At the same time, 19% of Republicans say they'll back Gomez's Democratic opponent.

Compare those numbers to Scott Brown in 2010, and you'll see why Gomez is in trouble. Brown manged to win 17% of Democrats, while only losing 5% of Republicans to Coakley (D). But that's not what won it for him. It was his very impressive winning margin among Independents that gave him his Senate seat., carrying them by a whopping 31 points (65-34%). Since the primary, Gomez has averaged a 46-35% lead among Independents.

So while PPP, OnMessage, and Emerson College have shown Markey with impressive leads among independents, they're not large enough for him to win the race. Meanwhile, MassINC and Suffolk see no Independent advantage for Gomez:

Gov. Nikki Haley looks strong in SC-1, But Not As Strong As In November 2010

Gov. Haley (R - SC), 2nd from left, pictured with staff for Vogue photo-shoot in 2012. Photo courtesy of Norman Jean Roy & Vogue.

In all the hysteria surrounding the circus that was the South Carolina First Congressional Special Election, a little-noticed poll finding from PPP's now infamous "Colbert-Busch surging" April survey surely got the attention of both Gov. Nikki Haley and her likely 2014 opponent State Senator Vincent Sheheen (D).

In the same poll where PPP found Elizabeth Colbert-Busch with a 9 point lead over Mark Sanford, Gov. Nikki Haley led  Sheheen by a margin of 44-38%; much smaller than the margin by which Mitt Romney carried the first district in 2012 (58-40%), and indeed, smaller than the margin Mark Sanford eventually won the district (54-45%).

Not only that, her 44-38% lead over Sheheen in a heavily Republican district represents quite the deterioration in her support since election night 2010.

Unfortunately for researchers, determining Haley's support in the 2010 Governor's race by congressional district is NOT easy. For starters, the boundaries of District 1 were entirely different when Haley was first elected in November 2010. And to make things MORE difficult, South Carolina does not provide gubernatorial results by congressional district (because SC districts rarely follow actual county borders). But thanks to Harry Enten of The Guardian and the South Carolina Election Commission, I was able to track down the Haley v. Sheheen results in every precinct that makes up the CURRENT District 1. Through that research, it was determined that Nikki Haley defeated Vincent Sheheen for Governor in CURRENT-DAY SC-1 by a margin of  58-40% (the same margin by which Romney carried the district against Obama). See the table below for South Carolina Governor Results in EACH county that is at least partially contained within the 1st district: (for a complete tabulation of the 2010 Governor votes in each 1st congressional district precinct, go here.)

Now you can see why 44-38% in a district she carried by 18 points bodes very poorly for Haley, especially considering that her overall winning margin in 2010 was just four points, or 51-47%.

But not so fast. Wasn't that April PPP poll widely canned in the aftermath of the SC-1 election? Remember, that poll that showed a wild fluctuation to a very Democratic friendly electorate for one survey, before returning back to it's nearly identical electorate from before in the final poll?

If you agree with The New Republic's Nate Cohn and The Guardian's Harry J. Enten's take on tha April "Colbert-Busch surging" poll from PPP, then Nikki Haley can take solace in the fact that she's likely doing a bit better in SC-1 than a 44-38% lead over her Democratic challenger.

To see exactly how well she COULD BE DOING, let's simply reweight the April PPP racial I.D. numbers and ideological I.D. numbers to the two survey findings that fell more in line with the 2012 SC-1 presidential electorate (their 1st and final SC-1 poll).

The chart below takes a look at how Nikki Haley's numbers would have looked against Vincent Sheheen in the 1st District had the racial identification of the respondents looked like PPP's March and May surveys:

As you can see, Governor Haley would've had as much as a 9 point lead over Sheheen (44-35%) had PPP found an SC-1 electorate like they had in March.

The Roller Coaster Electorate - A Guide to PPP's South Carolina Special Election Polling

Photo courtesy of rawstory.com

Last night, reputable polling firm Public Policy Polling (D) had one of their worst misses in months, while newcomer Red Racing Horses did little to advance their stature.

They were the only two polling firms to release public surveys on the South Carolina 1st Congressional District special election between Mark Sanford (R) and Elizabeth Colbert-Busch (D). And neither was able to see that the infamous "Appalachain Trail" Governor was about to make a triumphant landslide return to Congress.

To be fair, it wasn't an easy outcome to guess given Sanford's luck over the last three weeks.  He was abandoned by the national Republican Party, he was competing against a pseudo-celebrity challenger, he was being outspent 5-1, and embarrassing details about his divorce to Jenny Sanford were hitting the press.

Nonetheless, The Guardian's Harry J. Enten has a great post-mortem on the pollster failings in this race, specifically PPP's 2-week old finding of Colbert-Busch leading Sanford by 9 points, which as Enten notes, has the dubious distinction of being one of the worst polls taken in any special election since 2004.

Enten's piece, as well as a twitter debate between The New Republic's Nate Cohn and a Daily Kos tweeter, prompted me to take a closer look at the shifting electorate reported by PPP over the three polls and six weeks they surveyed this special election. 

As the chart below indicates, as brief as it was, the SC-1 special election was somewhat of a roller-coaster ride according to PPP, in terms of both who led the race and who PPP expected to comprise the electorate:

The race started in late-March with the Democrat at a very, very small advantage, which was unusual considering the partisan leanings of the 1st District, as well as the fact that PPP poll respondents looked awfully similar to the 2012 presidential electorate; they supported Romney over Obama by 56-40% (similar to the actual 58-40% margin), conservatives greatly outnumbered moderates and liberals by a 2-1 margin, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 15%, and African Americans only made up 12% of the electorate.

Massachusetts Senate: Gabriel Gomez (R) exhibiting similar demographic strengths to Scott Brown 2010

Massachusetts Republican Senate nominee Gabriel Gomez campaigns in Shrewsbury, MA in February, prior to his 15 point primary win last Tuesday. Photo courtesy of AP/Winslow Townson

Last week long-time Democratic Congressman Ed Markey successfully defeated his pro-life, Obamacare opposing primary challenger Stephen Lynch 57-43%, while on the Republican side, newcomer ex-Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez defeated opponents Mike Sullivan and Dan Winslow 51-36-13%.

Fortuanately for Republicans, early polling on the race had indicated that of all the possible match-ups for the special election, a Gomez vs. Markey battle would be the most competitive. Gomez (R) performed better than Sullivan or Winslow in all pre-primary polling against Markey OR Lynch, while Lynch performed stronger against all 3 potential GOP opponents than Markey. So in terms of all the different potential match-ups, the Republicans lucked out, as a new Public Policy Polling (D) survey confirms:

The candidate for US Senate are Republican Gabriel Gomez and Democrat Ed Markey. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

Ed Markey  (D)  -  44%
Gabriel Gomez  (R)  -  40%
Undecided  -  16%

Prior to his primary win, Gomez had trailed Markey by 15 and 19 points. Since his win, two polls have shown the race within at least 6 points, WNEU and now, PPP.

In the special election three years ago, loser Martha Coakley (D) never relinquished her lead over eventual winner Scott Brown (R) until about 2 weeks before the actual election. This year's election is still 6 weeks away. So obviously, things look pretty good at the moment for Gabriel Gomez. He's starting ahead of where Scott Brown was in polling at this point in 2010, and has ample time to move ahead of Markey (or perhaps, move further behind).

The two most recent, non-presidential-electorates in Massachusetts took place in 2010. Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley (D) 52-47% that January, while Gov. Deval Patrick (D) won reelection against Charlie Baker (R) and Tim Cahill (Independent) 48-42-8%.

How does the 2013 special election electorate compare to the one that catapulted Brown to victory in January 2010, and the one that helped Patrick survive for a 2nd term that November? They're similar in some, but not all ways.

For example, consider the racial identification PPP gound in the 2013 Senate poll:

Information compiled from 2010 Brown v. Coakley exit polling, 2010 Patrick v. Baker v. Cahill exit polling, and 2006 exit polling.

Fun With Nate Silver's New Interactive Map: Democrats many paths to 270 in 2016

President George W. Bush held Democrat John Kerry to just 53% of the Latino vote in 2004. But even if Republicans replicate Bush's performance in 2016, they'd have to maintain their 2012 margins with white voters to win.

In the 2012 election, Democrats captured a historical 72% of the Hispanic vote, leading many pundits to speculate that Republicans could have a difficult time capturing the White House in 2016...or perhaps, ever again.

In light of the emerging debate surrounding the effect of immigration reform on Presidential election results, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver released an awesome interactive map yesterday that allows users to tamper with various demographic and voting distrubition scenarios to produce certain election results WELL into the future (2048, to be exact). And based on what I've seen from the map, it's pretty difficult to create a plausible scenario where the GOP would win in 2016, much less 2048.

Off the bat, I'll note what Nate Silver pointed out in his article yesterday: "Population growth and changes in voting patterns will have much larger effects than how unauthorized immigrants are treated."

In other words, playing around with the percentage of immigrants that could hypothetically become citizens as a result of immigration reform, as well as the percentage of immigrants that could wind up actually voting, effects the results VERY, very little. I'm talking fractions of a point (which kind of blows a hole in Politico's heavily debunked analysis from last week that immigration reform could create an electoral bonanza for Democrats.)

As a result, I left most of Nate Silver's assumptions remain (which were all derived from a 2012 election baseline), tampering only with white, black, and Hispanic demographic vote distribution.

SCENARIO #1:
The first scenario below shows the GOP winning the 2016 presidential election by a narrow 286-252 electoral college votes, and an even narrower 49.6 - 48.6% popular vote win. But getting to this result requires some pretty optimistic assumptions for the GOP. The Democrats share of the white vote would have to drop from 39% to 37%, their share of the black vote would have to drop from 95% to 90%, and their share of the hispanic vote would have to drop from 72% to 67%:



Regarding the black vote: Democrats attracted between 83-90% support from African Americans in presidential elections from 1984-2004. But the election of one of their own in 2008 boosted those numbers to their now near-unanimous 95%. With another non-African-American Democrat running for President, it's possible to see the African American vote returning to pre-2008 levels of 90% or less for Democrats in 2016.

Hurricane Sandy's Other Legacy: Did Late-Deciders Throw The 2012 Election To Obama?

President-elect George H.W. Bush greets the man he defeated by 8 points 1 month prior at his home in Dec. 1988. According to exit polls, Dukakis was just coming alive in the final days of the campaign. He defeated Bush among the 15% of voters that made up their mind in the final week by an impressive 55-43% margin. Photo courtesy of The Atlantic.

Yesterday morning,  Chris Christie took to MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'  to praise the President for his handling of storm aide since Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on October 29th. In response to a question from host Joe Scarborough, Christie replied:

 "Listen, the President's kept every promise that he made. And the fact is that...that's what I was saying at the time. What I was saying at the time is I was asked about how was the President doing and I said 'he's doing a good job. He's kept his word.' And so, everybody knows that I have about 95% level of disagreement with Barack Obama on issues of principle and philosophy. But, the fact is, we have a job to do. And what people expect from people they elect is to do their job. And that's why they hate Washington so much..."

Nevermind the context of the comment. The bolded section is what received the blaring Drudge Report headline. And if anything gets remembered from this MSNBC segment during primary season 3 years from now, it won't be Christie's eloquent defense of his actions in the days following Hurricane Sandy. It will be the continued praise of a President loathed by Christie's base.

But putting aside how Republicans feel about whether or not Chris Christie actually cost Mitt Romney the Presidency in 2012, a much more basic question needs answering: did Hurricane Sandy flip the election to Barack Obama? Because if it didn't, Republicans can blame Christie for providing comfort to the enemy at most, but NOT for costing them the presidency.

The simple answer to to the above question is no; Hurricane Sandy did NOT flip the election to President Obama, at least not if you believe the exit polling. And as a result, no, Chris Christie did not cost the GOP the election in 2012. Consider the chart below:

2004-present info compiled from CNN and Roper Center. 1976-2000 info compiled from Best & Krueger's Exit Polls. 1984 exit polls did not include a question regarding the timing of respondents vote decision.

Obama apparently won among voters that decided BEFORE the final few days of the campaign by a margin of 51-47%. But among the 9% of Americans who said they made up their mind in the final few days of the campaign, Obama's margin over Romney was even greater (50-44%).

Midterm vs. Presidential Demographics: GOP can't count on 2010 turnout in 2014

Reid photo courtesy of A.P.

Throughout the 2012 Presidential election, the likely racial make-up of voters who would make an appearance at the polls on election night was a source of intense debate among pollsters and the media.

Republicans hypothesized the Obama camp would be unable to replicate the record-breaking minority turnout they generated four years earlier, when Obama became the first Democratic President since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win a majority of the popular vote (and by a much larger margin than Jimmy). Democrats believed their GOTV operation was top-notch and superior to Team Romney's; besides, white voters as a percentage of the electorate had dropped in every presidential election since 1992, while minority voters have been on the rise.

In the end, Republicans were right on one thing, but dead-wrong on everything else. Obama indeed failed to match his 2008 near-landslide defeat of John McCain with Mitt Romney. But he won anyway, and Republicans lost the demographic-debate battle. Not only did minority voters match their turnout numbers from four years earlier, they exceeded it.

Even worse for the GOP, a near-impossible to deny trend in presidential demographics was further confirmed last November- namely, that whites have dropped as a percentage of the electorate in every presidential election since 1992, while non-white voters have increased.

Fortunately for Republicans, the next election will not be a presidential one. 

But does the news really get better for the GOP just by virtue of the fact that the upcoming election is a midterm? What, if anything, do these presidential trends tell us about what we can expect one year and a half from now?

Well, if midterm demographics follow the same pattern presidential demographics followed in 2012, they tell us a good bit.

The chart below compiles racial turnout numbers for every midterm election since 1982:

Number in parentheses represents the % change from the preceding presidential election. Information courtesy of Best and Krueger's Exit Polls; Surveying the American Electorate, 1972-2010.

Several pieces of data from the chart stand out.

Despite Gosnell Trial, slew of new state restrictions, public opinion still mostly pro-choice on abortion

Dated January 22, 1973. Photo courtesy of veracitystew.com.

Over the last few weeks, Americans have heard a flurry of stories regarding abortion (or not). From the mass infanticide that occurred at the hands of Dr. Kermit Gosnell at a Pennsylvania abortion clinic, to tough new restrictions being enacted in four states, the always-controversial topic has returned to the center of public debate. And according to at least one source, a narrow majority now think abortion should be illegal with or without exceptions, even as 53% say they support gay marriage.

But contrary to NBC's recent finding, a close look at the entirety of abortion polling over the last two years indicates Americans are generally more supportive of abortion rights than not, with less than a quarter supporting a blanket ban. However, as often the case, abortion polling data is highly predicated on question wording/phrasing.

This article takes a look at the often complex nature of abortion polling from January 2011 to present, using surveys compiled from pollingreport.com, argjournal.blogspot.com, and other assorted internet searches. 
Now, back to question wording.

Opinions on abortion are all over the map, depending on how the pollster chooses to phrase the question and frame the debate. For example, opposition to the procedure tends to run a bit higher than average when pollsters specifically offer the rape/incest/life of mother exception as an answer option. In fact, the above referenced NBC/WSJ poll showing 52% opposing abortion with or without restrictions specifically asked: "Which comes closest to your view on abortion--abortion should always be legal, should be legal most of the time, should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be illegal without any exception?"

Over the last two years, 5 polls have been taken in which the abortion question contained some variation of the rape/incest/life of mother option, and by a 50-48% margin, respondents felt abortion should be illegal with or without exception. 48% of respondents said abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances:

* Marist asks: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion on abortion: 1) abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy. 2) abortion should be allowed only during the first 6 months of a pregnancy, 3) abortion should be allowed only during the first 3 months of a pregnancy, 4) abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest , or to save the life of the mother, 5) abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother, or 6) abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance."                                                                                                 ** CBS asks whether abortions should be 1)"permitted in all cases," (35%) 2) "permitted with greater restrictions," (13%) 3) "only in cases of rape/incest/save woman's life," (27%) 4) "only to save woman's life," (10%) OR 5) "not permitted at all." (11%)

There is only one other abortion question phrasing that yields a net negative number of people supporting legal abortion. When both CNN and Gallup pollsters asked respondents whether they felt abortion should be legal under any circumstance, most circumstances, a few circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances, an average 58% of respondents came down more on the pro-life side, while just 39% felt abortion should be available under any or most circumstances:

Chris Christie's Gubernatorial Opponent Slowly, But Surely Chipping Away, Luring Back Wayward Democrats

Christie at a campaign event in December 2012. Photo courtesy of N.J. Star-Ledger

Nearly 6 months after Hurricane Sandy ravaged the Jersey Shore and sent Governor Chris Christie's re-election prospects soaring, survey findings are in firm agreement: Christie is still the heavy, heavy favorite to win, but Democratic challenger Barbara Buono is very slowly, but surely chipping away at his lead w/ traditional Democratic voting blocks.

Since the rare Northeastern Hurricane made landfall late last October, the moderately popular Chris Christie not only saw his job and personal ratings skyrocket, but saw virtually every serious, potential challenger to his governorship step aside in the wake of his soaring popularity. That is, every challenger but one, longterm state legislator named Barbara Buono (D). And until last month, it looked as though Christie might hold onto a rock-solid 40-50 point lead against the unknown Buono.

Then came a Fairleigh Dickinson poll showing a modest, though definite decline in support for Christie on the general ballot question. Since then, 2 more pollsters, Quinnipiac and Rutgers Eagleton, have confirmed that Buono is gaining, slowly, slightly, and surely; especially when you look at her support among Democrats and blacks, two voting blocks she has to nail down in order to give Christie a serious run for his money
The table below documents every poll released on the Christie v. Buono race, and was compiled from argojournal.blogspot.com, TPM Poll Tracker, and Huffington Post Pollster. Results among all general election voters, Democrats, and African Americans are provided:

*Fairleigh Dickinson's demographic cross-tabs provide a breakdown for white and non-white voters, not white and black voters. Red/"CC" indicate a Chris Christie lead, Blue/"BB" indicate a Barbara Buono lead.

Breaking down the poll results in the above chart by pollster, Rutgers Eagleton shows a discernible drop in support for Christie since their last poll (62% to 57%), as well as an appreciable rise in support for Barbara Buono (20% to 27%). In their January poll, Quinnipiac had Christie leading Buono by an impressive 41 points, or 63-22%. Two polls and two months later, Christie had fallen to a 35 point lead, 60-25%. And as mentioned above, Fairleigh Dickinson has seen Christie's lead dissipate from 43 to 36 points.

Coattail Effect: How far can a Governor's job approval carry his or her party's presidential nominee?

Governor Bob McDonnell (R) (left) has an enviable 51/29% job approval rating back home in Virginia, yet the Republican candidate for President lost to the President by 3 points. Meanwhile, Wisconsin GOP Governor Scott Walker (right) had a decent 51/46% job rating, yet Romney lost his state by 7 points.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell became one of the most prolific campaign surrogates in the 2012 election, crisscrossing the country on Mitt Romney's behalf. Not only was he a popular home-state Governor, but he just happened to be the chief executive of one of the most hotly contested swing-states in the nation. That's a helpful combination to have around. While popular Republican governor's like Chris Christie and Susana Martinez were good faces to have associated with the Romney campaign, their home-states of New Jersey and New Mexico were never really in contention. They didn't pack the same one-two punch of Virginia's Bob McDonnell.

Obviously, there's a reason we seldom saw or heard of Florida Governor Rick Scott barnstorming across the state with Mitt Romney, or Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett holding local town-halls with Paul Ryan. Both of them averaged 39/45% and 35/46% job approval/disapproval ratings respectively in the final two months of the campaign.

But does the actual evidence suggest that a Governor's job approval/disapproval rating can affect Presidential election results on a state level? Unfortunately, the data is not terribly clear.
The table below contains a lot of information, so let's break it down piece by piece. It compares the job approval/disapproval ratings for every U.S. governor over the final two months of the 2012 Presidential campaign to actual election results, as well as actual election results to Obama/Romney's favorable/unfavorable ratings. In order for a particular state Governor to be included in the chart, he or she must have had at least one job approval assessment in the September and October before the election. That's why a few Governors, like Alabama, Mississppi, Wyoming, etc are missing. Red entries indicate either a Republican Governor, a Republican election win, or a net state-based positive favorability rating for Mitt Romney in the presidential election. Likewise, blue entries indicate Democratic Governors, a Democratic election win, or a net state-based positive favorability rating for Barack Obama. Since exit polling was only conducted in 31 states in 2012, not every state will include an Obama/Romney favorability assessment. Polling information was compiled from tpm poll tracker, pollster, and various internet searches:

For an easier to read, larger version of the above table, click here.

Of the top 10 most popular Governors in the country (based on polling averages taken from September 1-November 6 2012), 5 were Democrats, and 5 were Republicans, in 5 blue states, and 5 red states. Of the 10 least popular, 5 were Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 liberal Independent, in 9 blue states, and 1 red state. This stat seems to suggest red-state residents (those states that voted for Romney in the last election) tend to be bigger fans of their Governors (whether they be Democrats or Republicans) than blue state residents.