Search Results for ‘march poll’
As the election countdowns begin, we’re starting to see some more frequent polling data, which is a relief after the snazzy, yet frustratingly out-of-date 2006 Election Guide the New York Times has had up for the past few months. Sure it is color-coded and has interactive features which allow users to act out their fantasies regarding the November results, but they’re using polls from March.
The Wall Street Journal and John Zogby released polling data on Monday showing Nussle leading Culver 46-43. The Nussle campaign’s email, after employing a bizarre analogy comparing the gubernatorial race to the upcoming Cy-Hawks game (is Nussle ISU or UI? I have no idea…), was cautiously optimistic:
We are prepared for this race to go down to the wire - and we know the only poll that matters in the one on Election Day.
Even so, it’s worth looking inside the WSJ numbers, and the news is not good for Chet Culver.
(The IRP offers a more triumphant and less credible analysis.) Of course, looking inside the numbers would reveal that they are within the margin of error, just as has been reported in a KCCI poll released Wednesday that shows Culver up 48-43, with a 4 point margin of error.
Given that is seems unlikely that Nussle would lose three points while Culver gained five in the span of a few days (would that it were so), let’s assume that the differences arose from the fact that Zogby is a conservative pollster, KCCI being more liberal. So what’s the take home lesson? Surprise, surprise, it is going to be a close race.
Update: the Register just released a poll today (September 17) that shows Nussle and Culver tied 44-44. It offers some interesting demographic analyses.
September 15th, 2006
When we (and other Iowa Blogs) posted a call to support Boswell in Barbara Boxer’s “Whom should we give money to?” poll, you responded. We were pretty sure Boswell would lose, since he was at second-to-last place, but then he jumped, and this weekend, he was declared the winner with 31% of the votes. I won’t claim that bloggers did it all, but we certainly made a difference, and that’s something we can all be proud of.
In general, Iowa political blogs — in particular, progressive Iowa blogs — seem to have improved significantly since I started watching them closely in January. I think all of us have seen our traffic increase, and that has kept us interested in it. In particular, I’ve seen Iowa Progress’s traffic go from 0 (we were only founded in March) to over 1,000 visits per week. Most surprising, perhaps, is the fact that we get a ton of our hits from outside Iowa. That means that people who are looking for places to send money are listening to us, and we’re filling a niche for them that may not have been filled before us.
It also means that potential presidential campaigns are listening to what we have to say. And that much is clear from the interviews that Drew (Feingold, Warner) and the folks at Political Forecast (Warner) have done with potential candidates. I’ve complained about the quality of the interviews in the past, but I still think that they’re interesting and that they set an important precedent for 2008 that candidates can’t afford to ignore us.
We’re growing, and people in the business are recognizing it. State-wide campaign staffers have said things like “I honestly think any candidate that ignores what is being said in the blogosphere and power of the web is a losing candidate.” The stakes are constantly rising.
But unfortunately, today Drew announced that he won’t be blogging at DrewMiller.net for the next several months. This is a blow to our blogosphere in Iowa, but it won’t be fatal. We have a void to fill, and I know all of us bloggers are going to try our best to fill it.
May 14th, 2006
Other blogs already have this, but the Rasmussen numbers have been released for their March poll of Iowa. It’s frustrating how little polling is done here. These are really the only reliable polls, and they only happen once a month.
Here are some interesting facts that don’t have to do with the campaigns in particular but are kind of … yeah:
Most Iowa voters think that most politicians would change their vote for a contribution. But, as in other states we’ve polled, a majority also don’t see this is as a reason to institute publicly funded campaigns.
When asked about the abortion issue, 61% say abortion is morally wrong most of the time while 25% say it isn’t. A plurality of 45% would support a South-Dakota type ban, making abortion illegal except when the life of the mother is at stake.
Uh oh.
April 5th, 2006
