Despite the fact that the executive committee of the Alaska Libertarian Party previously voted 5-0 not to accept Lisa Murkowski as their candidate for U.S. Senate, this story stubbornly refuses to die. And that's primarily because of their own candidate David Haase, who, according to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, personally met with Senator Murkowski on September 7th, 2010. In this Anchorage Daily News story, Murkowski confirms she met with Haase after friends of hers -- without her direction -- approached his party, asking if they would consider a Murkowski candidacy. She said she had an interesting discussion with Haase but made clear she's not interested in changing her "political stripes."
Haase has been more sympathetic towards the idea of stepping aside in favor of Murkowski than his fellow libertarians. Haase's reported price is for Murkowski to embrace his positions regarding the Federal Reserve. Haase has previously been quoted as saying, "Let's take the Federal Reserve, nationalize it and take that income earning capacity and turn it over to the people to finance Social Security and Medicare".
Also prolonging the libertarian story are the results of two recent polls which show that a Murkowski third-party candidacy would be competitive. An August 27-28 Public Policy Polling survey shows Joe Miller leading, but with only 38 percent of the vote to 34 percent for Murkowski and 22 percent for Democrat Scott McAdams (crosstabs HERE). And an Aug. 28-Sep. 1 Dittman poll commissioned by Andrew Halcro shows Murkowski actually leading a three-way with 37 percent vs. Miller with 31 percent and McAdams with 19 percent (crosstabs HERE).
Interestingly enough, the common denominator of the two polls is that not only does Scott McAdams finish third, but a DISTANT third. This implies that many of Murkowski's supporters are sufficiently unhappy with Joe Miller's primary victory that they are turning to McAdams simply out of sheer frustration. In a straight-up contest with Joe Miller, McAdams only trails by single digits.
Alaska Republican pundits are clearly split over the prospect of a Murkowski third-party candidacy. While Paul Jenkins of the Anchorage Daily Planet rejoices at the prospect, saying that Miller is "too easily is painted a far-right tea party whack-job and a Sarah Palin clone who channels Joe Vogler and tilts at windmills", Alec Gimarc reminds us that Murkowski lost because she was perceived as too liberal for the conservative voters of her party, and came across as proud of her liberal ideas. He believes her stubbornness did her in. He suggests that had Murkowski merely embrace Ballet Measure Two, the parental notification abortion initiative that passed by a narrow margin, that would have been enough for her to pull out a narrow victory over Miller.
As for the Alaska Libertarian Party, its chairman, Scott Kohlhaas, acknowledges that discussions with the Murkowski camp have largely included conversations about the Libertarian Party’s future and philosophical common grounds they have with Murkowski. He said it’s remarkable how much both Murkowski and Miller have touted their libertarian credentials. However, he views the continuing discussion as a distraction which isn't necessarily doing anything to benefit the Libertarian Party. He said the party’s priorities are on maintaining its ballot status and electing one of its three candidates to the Legislature. Kohlhaas himself is running for the House District 20 seat in Anchorage against a career Democrat, and with no Republican opposition, has a chance to make serious inroads. Lisa Murkowski's addition to the Libertarian lineup remains unlikely at this point.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Congressional Budget Office Reports America's Annual Deficit Will Be $1.3 Trillion For 2010; Obama Growing National Debt Twice As Fast As Bush
McClatchyDC reports that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the annual budget deficit for 2010 will be $1.3 trillion. That's $27 billion less than the CBO predicted in March 2010, and $71 billion lower than the 2009 deficit. Measured as a share of the total economy, it's 9.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the second largest in the last 65 years. The worst was in 2009, when it measured 9.9 percent of the total economy. This is also posted on McClatchy's Planet Washington blog.
Read the 112-page CBO report HERE. You can read a shorter executive summary HERE.
The CBO projects that during the next few years, federal budget deficits would decline as a share of GDP if the current-law assumptions about fiscal policy in CBO's baseline came to pass. This includes the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to sunset. Under those assumptions, the deficit would drop to 7.0 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.2 percent in 2012 and then would reach a low of 2.5 percent of GDP in 2014. For the rest of the 10-year projection period, deficits would range between 2.6 percent and 3.0 percent of GDP, close to the average of 2.6 percent of GDP experienced over the past 40 years.
In response to the initial report, some smart-aleck posted the following comment to the McClatchy story:
O.K., fair enough. That means that the overall national debt under Bush grew by $4.9 trillion over an eight-year period. That's an average of $612.5 billion per year. In contrast, the national debt under Obama is now currently at $13.5 trillion according to the ticker on my sidebar. That's $2.9 trillion in ONLY two years, an average of $1.45 trillion per year.
The national debt has grown over twice as fast under Obama than under Bush. Try again, lefties.
Read the 112-page CBO report HERE. You can read a shorter executive summary HERE.
The CBO projects that during the next few years, federal budget deficits would decline as a share of GDP if the current-law assumptions about fiscal policy in CBO's baseline came to pass. This includes the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to sunset. Under those assumptions, the deficit would drop to 7.0 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.2 percent in 2012 and then would reach a low of 2.5 percent of GDP in 2014. For the rest of the 10-year projection period, deficits would range between 2.6 percent and 3.0 percent of GDP, close to the average of 2.6 percent of GDP experienced over the past 40 years.
In response to the initial report, some smart-aleck posted the following comment to the McClatchy story:
O.K., fair enough. That means that the overall national debt under Bush grew by $4.9 trillion over an eight-year period. That's an average of $612.5 billion per year. In contrast, the national debt under Obama is now currently at $13.5 trillion according to the ticker on my sidebar. That's $2.9 trillion in ONLY two years, an average of $1.45 trillion per year.
The national debt has grown over twice as fast under Obama than under Bush. Try again, lefties.
Nate Silver Shows Why Lisa Murkowski Lost On His FiveThirtyEight New York Times Blog; Too Liberal In A Conservative State
Found the following graphic posted on the Salt Lake Tribune's Out Of Context blog. It originates from FiveThirtyEight, a blog by Nate Silver recently absorbed by the New York Times. The purpose is to show which Republican senators match the partisan makeup of the states they represent. Utah Senator Bob Bennett and Alaska's Very Own Lisa Murkowski are in blue because they lost their reelection bids. Note that both senators are both below the line, slipping into a more "liberal" territory than is expected someone supported by the more conservative electorate in both states, although Silver acknowledges that Alaska is somewhat idiosyncratically so. Viewed in another way, this graphic shows that Bennett and Murkowski are in the same partisan ballpark as most Republicans in the Senate, though they come from states more conservative than most.
The graphic above plots the ideological positions of Republican senators. Along the horizontal axis is the partisan orientation of the state, ranging from more liberal (left) to more conservative (right), according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index. On the vertical axis is a statistical representation of the senators’ voting records, according to their DW-NOMINATE scores. These scores run from -1 (very liberal) to +1 (very conservative); the more conservative senators are plotted toward the top of the chart. Finally, the dashed line represents how conservative we would expect a Republican senator to be, based on the partisan composition of her state. The further below the dashed line that the senator appears, the more liberal he or she is, relative to the state. Those far below the line, from a Republican point of view, are arguably not pulling their weight, and are frequently labelled as "RINOs".
And this was the primary contention of Joe Miller and his supporters during the primary election campaign; namely, that Murkowski was a RINO. Bennett's defeat in Utah was almost anticlimatic; solid conservative opposition to him arose nine months in advance and polls showed him clearly in trouble long before the Utah State Republican Convention in May 2010 where he got knocked out in the second round of delegate voting. In contrast, Murkowski was almost blindsided; she had no serious opposition until Joe Miller jumped in late in April 2010; by the time she reacted and adjusted some of her political positions, Miller had built up too much of a head of steam, and propelled past her on August 24th.
The lesson learned: In this era of strong conservative backlash fueled by Tea Party activism, any Republican Senator who is considered too liberal in a conservative state could be in jeopardy. Orrin Hatch is starting to sweat bullets in Utah. If we were to plot Joe Miller on the above chart, he would likely fall significantly on the other side of the line, closer to Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn.
But because we are an "idiosyncratic" state here in Alaska, that could potentially backfire on Miller. Nate Silver is one of the few who takes Scott McAdams' challenge seriously; he notes that McAdams is already within single digits of Miller. Miller can and probably will defeat McAdams, but he must take him seriously.
The graphic above plots the ideological positions of Republican senators. Along the horizontal axis is the partisan orientation of the state, ranging from more liberal (left) to more conservative (right), according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index. On the vertical axis is a statistical representation of the senators’ voting records, according to their DW-NOMINATE scores. These scores run from -1 (very liberal) to +1 (very conservative); the more conservative senators are plotted toward the top of the chart. Finally, the dashed line represents how conservative we would expect a Republican senator to be, based on the partisan composition of her state. The further below the dashed line that the senator appears, the more liberal he or she is, relative to the state. Those far below the line, from a Republican point of view, are arguably not pulling their weight, and are frequently labelled as "RINOs".
And this was the primary contention of Joe Miller and his supporters during the primary election campaign; namely, that Murkowski was a RINO. Bennett's defeat in Utah was almost anticlimatic; solid conservative opposition to him arose nine months in advance and polls showed him clearly in trouble long before the Utah State Republican Convention in May 2010 where he got knocked out in the second round of delegate voting. In contrast, Murkowski was almost blindsided; she had no serious opposition until Joe Miller jumped in late in April 2010; by the time she reacted and adjusted some of her political positions, Miller had built up too much of a head of steam, and propelled past her on August 24th.
The lesson learned: In this era of strong conservative backlash fueled by Tea Party activism, any Republican Senator who is considered too liberal in a conservative state could be in jeopardy. Orrin Hatch is starting to sweat bullets in Utah. If we were to plot Joe Miller on the above chart, he would likely fall significantly on the other side of the line, closer to Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn.
But because we are an "idiosyncratic" state here in Alaska, that could potentially backfire on Miller. Nate Silver is one of the few who takes Scott McAdams' challenge seriously; he notes that McAdams is already within single digits of Miller. Miller can and probably will defeat McAdams, but he must take him seriously.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan Calls For Union Concessions To Resolve An Expected $18 Million Budget Gap, But Offers 162 City Executives 3 Percent Raise
Update: Title of post changed after publication of story revealing that 162 city executives would get a three percent pay raise.
These are the type of stories that can drive otherwise perfectly sane Republicans straight into the arms of the Democratic Party, such as what happened in November 2008 when by a world-class fluke, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. To help resolve a prospective $18 million municipal budget gap, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan is calling on the public sector unions to make a fresh round of concessions in wages and/or benefits, otherwise the alternative will be to hike property taxes. But he's also calling for pay raises for 162 city executives, a decision that the Anchorage Daily News now claims will cost the city $456,260 in 2011. Media stories by the Anchorage Daily News and KTVA Channel 11. An updated ADN story reports that 162 executives will be affected.
It should be noted that current Senator Mark Begich, when he was mayor, set this entire chain of events in motion by giving the unions sweetheart deals.
Mayor Sullivan made his proposal in preparation for the municipal budget to be submitted to the Assembly on October 1st. Sullivan is proposing that the unions agree to either reduce their work weeks from 40 hours to 37.5 hours for less pay to give up performance incentive pay, or even forgo contractually-embedded pay raises. And there is legitimate wiggle room for the unions. As Dan Fagan points out in The Alaska Standard, city workers are clearly overpaid and overbenefited when compared to many private sector workers. For example, APD officer Thomas Gaulke has earned $265,190.87 in salary and benefits (much of it undoubtedly in overtime pay). IBEW union member Robert Reese, who works for the city-owned Municipal Light & Power, is paid $210,639.38 in total compensation. Fagan claims that while the average Anchorage private sector worker earns $48,087 a year, the average full-time city employee costs taxpayers $118,065 every year.
Yeah, I'd say there's a HELL OF A LOT of wiggle room for the unions to make concessions.
But then Dan Sullivan knocks the wind out of his own sails by proposing that city executives get a three-percent pay increase. Wait a minute...we're getting ready to ask labor to make concessions, but then offer pay raises to management? What gives here? To be fair, here's the full explanation published by mayoral spokeswoman Sarah Erkmann:
O.K., there's some logic there. The executives took a five-percent cut, performed better than expected, so now Sullivan wants to give them back part of that cut. But you don't propose pay raises for executives at the same time as you ask labor to take cuts. You share the sacrifice.
Anchorage Assembly Chairman Dick Traini, who occupies the same part of the political spectrum as Lisa Murkowski, is scratching his head over the deal. "I just find it odd timing when we are telling unions, that have binding labor contracts with the city, this summer their employees may be laid off [and] that we are going to [give] pay increase[s] to the executive staff doesn't make a lot of sense," said Traini. Even the conservative Anchorage Daily Planet now questions this move, saying "If the city is at least $18 million in the hole, and the administration is about to ask workers to reduce their hours to make ends meet, why is anybody in city government - union or executive - getting a raise?"
Traini's right -- it doesn't make sense. But it's a continuation of the "celebrity economy" we've run for over 20 years. The application of prosperity theology to the economy has destroyed the once-careful balance that existed between Wall Street and Main Street, which afforded prosperity to the maximum number of Americans. Fifty years ago, an American with limited formal education and without reams of identity documentation could walk into a plant, get an AFFORDABLE job, and proudly call himself a worker, not only paying his own way, but accruing savings as well. Those days are gone, buddy, thanks to outsourcing and international labor arbitrage. That economy has become grossly distorted in favor of Wall Street, which demands we subsidize success, and which has encouraged illegal aliens to flood our country, driving down the value and compensation of jobs. We saw CEOs get million-dollar performance bonuses for laying off thousands of workers in one fell swoop. Republicans promoted this activity, and what did the Democrats offer in response? Affirmative action programs and the creation of protected classes out of every American who wasn't a White male. Democrats for the most part promoted polarization and division.
These are NOT conservative values, people. Plutocracy is NOT a conservative value. Lisa Murkowski didn't understand this, voted for TARP, and it cost her. Dan Sullivan needs to reconsider his proposal for executive raises, and to abandon it. Let the sacrifice be shared.
These are the type of stories that can drive otherwise perfectly sane Republicans straight into the arms of the Democratic Party, such as what happened in November 2008 when by a world-class fluke, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. To help resolve a prospective $18 million municipal budget gap, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan is calling on the public sector unions to make a fresh round of concessions in wages and/or benefits, otherwise the alternative will be to hike property taxes. But he's also calling for pay raises for 162 city executives, a decision that the Anchorage Daily News now claims will cost the city $456,260 in 2011. Media stories by the Anchorage Daily News and KTVA Channel 11. An updated ADN story reports that 162 executives will be affected.
It should be noted that current Senator Mark Begich, when he was mayor, set this entire chain of events in motion by giving the unions sweetheart deals.
Mayor Sullivan made his proposal in preparation for the municipal budget to be submitted to the Assembly on October 1st. Sullivan is proposing that the unions agree to either reduce their work weeks from 40 hours to 37.5 hours for less pay to give up performance incentive pay, or even forgo contractually-embedded pay raises. And there is legitimate wiggle room for the unions. As Dan Fagan points out in The Alaska Standard, city workers are clearly overpaid and overbenefited when compared to many private sector workers. For example, APD officer Thomas Gaulke has earned $265,190.87 in salary and benefits (much of it undoubtedly in overtime pay). IBEW union member Robert Reese, who works for the city-owned Municipal Light & Power, is paid $210,639.38 in total compensation. Fagan claims that while the average Anchorage private sector worker earns $48,087 a year, the average full-time city employee costs taxpayers $118,065 every year.
Yeah, I'd say there's a HELL OF A LOT of wiggle room for the unions to make concessions.
But then Dan Sullivan knocks the wind out of his own sails by proposing that city executives get a three-percent pay increase. Wait a minute...we're getting ready to ask labor to make concessions, but then offer pay raises to management? What gives here? To be fair, here's the full explanation published by mayoral spokeswoman Sarah Erkmann:
Upon my coming into office, executives took immediate five percent, across-the-board salary reductions. Since that time, they have worked diligently to find efficiencies and savings within their respective departments. Many have done so successfully. It is only fair to allow them to recoup a portion of their initial salary losses with this modest three-percent increase. This is possible only because of the savings that executives have found within their existing 2010 budgets; no new funds are available, and costs will be absorbed within their existing budgets. In examining department expenditures to date, all budgets are being managed so that this increase will be covered. I believe in performance-based recognition, and that is exactly what these increases represent. It is worth pointing out that these same executives remain at a deficit from where they started since taking their initial salary cuts, while many other municipal employees have received much larger increases during that same time period, mostly due to contractual obligations.
O.K., there's some logic there. The executives took a five-percent cut, performed better than expected, so now Sullivan wants to give them back part of that cut. But you don't propose pay raises for executives at the same time as you ask labor to take cuts. You share the sacrifice.
Anchorage Assembly Chairman Dick Traini, who occupies the same part of the political spectrum as Lisa Murkowski, is scratching his head over the deal. "I just find it odd timing when we are telling unions, that have binding labor contracts with the city, this summer their employees may be laid off [and] that we are going to [give] pay increase[s] to the executive staff doesn't make a lot of sense," said Traini. Even the conservative Anchorage Daily Planet now questions this move, saying "If the city is at least $18 million in the hole, and the administration is about to ask workers to reduce their hours to make ends meet, why is anybody in city government - union or executive - getting a raise?"
Traini's right -- it doesn't make sense. But it's a continuation of the "celebrity economy" we've run for over 20 years. The application of prosperity theology to the economy has destroyed the once-careful balance that existed between Wall Street and Main Street, which afforded prosperity to the maximum number of Americans. Fifty years ago, an American with limited formal education and without reams of identity documentation could walk into a plant, get an AFFORDABLE job, and proudly call himself a worker, not only paying his own way, but accruing savings as well. Those days are gone, buddy, thanks to outsourcing and international labor arbitrage. That economy has become grossly distorted in favor of Wall Street, which demands we subsidize success, and which has encouraged illegal aliens to flood our country, driving down the value and compensation of jobs. We saw CEOs get million-dollar performance bonuses for laying off thousands of workers in one fell swoop. Republicans promoted this activity, and what did the Democrats offer in response? Affirmative action programs and the creation of protected classes out of every American who wasn't a White male. Democrats for the most part promoted polarization and division.
These are NOT conservative values, people. Plutocracy is NOT a conservative value. Lisa Murkowski didn't understand this, voted for TARP, and it cost her. Dan Sullivan needs to reconsider his proposal for executive raises, and to abandon it. Let the sacrifice be shared.
Joe Miller's Got A Lot Of Work To Do; Rasmussen Shows Him Leading Democrat Scott McAdams By Only 6 Points
Joe Miller hasn't got long to bask in the success of his takedown of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski. A Rasmussen poll just released on September 1st, 2010 shows that Democratic challenger Scott McAdams is well within striking distance. This follows closely in the wake of a Public Policy Polling poll which showed Miller leading McAdams by only 8 percentage points.
Rasmussen's survey of 500 Likely Voters in Alaska was conducted on August 31st, 2010, just hours after Murkowski conceded.
-- Joe Miller: 50 percent
-- Scott McAdams: 44 percent
-- Some other candidate: 4 percent
-- Undecided: 2 percent
This is only a 6-point lead despite the fact that Joe Miller has received far more media exposure than Scott McAdams. It explains why Rasmussen has moved the Alaska U.S. Senate race from Solid Republican to Leans Republican in their Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Rankings. Other findings of concern:
-- Joe Miller is viewed Very Unfavorably by 33 percent, while Scott McAdams is viewed Very Unfavorably by only 18 percent. On the other hand, more people view Miller Very Favorably than McAdams. These results might well reflect that fact that Miller's greater publicity means more people have formed hardened opinions about him one way or another.
-- McAdams has stronger support among Democrats than Miller does among Republicans. Although 90 percent of Democrats back McAdams, only 79 percent of Republicans support Miller. In addition, McAdams holds a 22-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party.
Scott McAdams is not letting any grass grow under his feet, either. On September 1st, he made his cherry appearance on a national pundit show, subjecting himself to an inquisition by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (the video is accessible HERE). Some of McAdams' liberal supporters weighed in on Mudflats; while one person said McAdams delivered very credible responses about his experience and his platform, another said McAdams seemed canned and flat, just repeating his talking points, and had difficulty adjusting to the six-second delay. Some panned his attire. But some are even hinting at getting Lisa Murkowski to endorse McAdams. This must be prevented. The Anchorage Daily News also published a good article about McAdams HERE; Alaska Dispatch has a better article HERE.
Joe Miller has clearly established his base in Greater Fairbanks and the Mat-Su, as shown on these maps. He probably will make no progress in Bush Alaska, and can expect only marginal progress in Southeast Alaska. This means he must concentrate on Anchorage -- particularly South Anchorage, which is the more conservative part of town. If Joe Miller can keep his base and deliver South Anchorage, he'll win on November 2nd.
Rasmussen's survey of 500 Likely Voters in Alaska was conducted on August 31st, 2010, just hours after Murkowski conceded.
-- Joe Miller: 50 percent
-- Scott McAdams: 44 percent
-- Some other candidate: 4 percent
-- Undecided: 2 percent
This is only a 6-point lead despite the fact that Joe Miller has received far more media exposure than Scott McAdams. It explains why Rasmussen has moved the Alaska U.S. Senate race from Solid Republican to Leans Republican in their Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Rankings. Other findings of concern:
-- Joe Miller is viewed Very Unfavorably by 33 percent, while Scott McAdams is viewed Very Unfavorably by only 18 percent. On the other hand, more people view Miller Very Favorably than McAdams. These results might well reflect that fact that Miller's greater publicity means more people have formed hardened opinions about him one way or another.
-- McAdams has stronger support among Democrats than Miller does among Republicans. Although 90 percent of Democrats back McAdams, only 79 percent of Republicans support Miller. In addition, McAdams holds a 22-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party.
Scott McAdams is not letting any grass grow under his feet, either. On September 1st, he made his cherry appearance on a national pundit show, subjecting himself to an inquisition by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (the video is accessible HERE). Some of McAdams' liberal supporters weighed in on Mudflats; while one person said McAdams delivered very credible responses about his experience and his platform, another said McAdams seemed canned and flat, just repeating his talking points, and had difficulty adjusting to the six-second delay. Some panned his attire. But some are even hinting at getting Lisa Murkowski to endorse McAdams. This must be prevented. The Anchorage Daily News also published a good article about McAdams HERE; Alaska Dispatch has a better article HERE.
Joe Miller has clearly established his base in Greater Fairbanks and the Mat-Su, as shown on these maps. He probably will make no progress in Bush Alaska, and can expect only marginal progress in Southeast Alaska. This means he must concentrate on Anchorage -- particularly South Anchorage, which is the more conservative part of town. If Joe Miller can keep his base and deliver South Anchorage, he'll win on November 2nd.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Public Policy Polling Indicates Sarah Palin Takes A Back Seat To Mitt Romney In Alaska Presidential Polling
Sarah Palin's endorsement may have been instrumental in propelling Joe Miller to victory over Lisa Murkowski, but it doesn't mean that Alaska Republicans necessarily want to see her become President. In fact, Public Policy Polling's (PPP) August 27-28 poll of 805 Alaska Republican primary voters indicates that Palin takes a back seat to Mitt Romney in her own state.
Read the full six-page output along with crosstabs HERE. This is a subset of the same poll which showed Joe Miller leading Scott McAdams by 8 points. Here are the basic numbers:
-- Mitt Romney: 20 percent
-- Sarah Palin: 17 percent
-- Mike Huckabee: 17 percent
-- Newt Gingrich: 16 percent
-- Ron Paul: 10 percent
-- Undecided: 11 percent
-- Someone Else: 9 percent
The crosstabs reveal an interesting dichotomy. Although 51 percent of respondents have a Favorable opinion of Sarah Palin vs. only 40 percent Unfavorable, only 24 percent think she should run for President in 2012, while a whopping 62 percent say No. This implies that even many Palin partisans question her qualifications for the Presidency. This theme is echoed in PPP's analysis of the numbers.
However, Conservatives4Palin is criticizing the poll because they think PPP exaggerated Lisa Murkowski's strength several months ago. They don't buy the fact that Miller could have indeed come back from 40 points down in July to defeat Murkowski, so they believe the pollsters in general were under-representing Miller's strength. Of course, the alternative could be that Murkowski did have the support, but that it proved to be exceptionally shallow, in which case any credible alternative could have taken the support away from Murkowski. And that's what I think happened.
What I do know is that PPP's call of Miller being 8 points up on Scott McAdams is similar to Rasmussen's call of Miller being 6 points up on McAdams, and Rasmussen is a reputable pollster.
Read the full six-page output along with crosstabs HERE. This is a subset of the same poll which showed Joe Miller leading Scott McAdams by 8 points. Here are the basic numbers:
-- Mitt Romney: 20 percent
-- Sarah Palin: 17 percent
-- Mike Huckabee: 17 percent
-- Newt Gingrich: 16 percent
-- Ron Paul: 10 percent
-- Undecided: 11 percent
-- Someone Else: 9 percent
The crosstabs reveal an interesting dichotomy. Although 51 percent of respondents have a Favorable opinion of Sarah Palin vs. only 40 percent Unfavorable, only 24 percent think she should run for President in 2012, while a whopping 62 percent say No. This implies that even many Palin partisans question her qualifications for the Presidency. This theme is echoed in PPP's analysis of the numbers.
However, Conservatives4Palin is criticizing the poll because they think PPP exaggerated Lisa Murkowski's strength several months ago. They don't buy the fact that Miller could have indeed come back from 40 points down in July to defeat Murkowski, so they believe the pollsters in general were under-representing Miller's strength. Of course, the alternative could be that Murkowski did have the support, but that it proved to be exceptionally shallow, in which case any credible alternative could have taken the support away from Murkowski. And that's what I think happened.
What I do know is that PPP's call of Miller being 8 points up on Scott McAdams is similar to Rasmussen's call of Miller being 6 points up on McAdams, and Rasmussen is a reputable pollster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)