« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

On Chuck DeVore and Polling

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 11th, 2010 at 11:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Much is being made by this comment I made on CNN tonight.

I stand by it.

But don’t let it distract you from the fact that I also stand by Chuck DeVore.

What I said and what I meant is that the election is four weeks away in California. In two more weeks I’ll check again and see what the polling shows. I believe Tom Campbell would be a terrible nominee. His closeness with disreputable people who’d be happy to see us all dead is too much for me.

So if Chuck DeVore is not viable, then I’m with Carly Fiorina.

But unlike many, I think Chuck DeVore is viable and has a pulse, which is why I’m not abandoning Chuck. In fact, the only one in the race flatlining right now is Carly Fiorina.

Consider Marlin Stutzman — two weeks before his election he was at 8% in the polls. A week before the election he was at 18%. He actually got 30%. It can happen.

What I see in the California polling is Carly Fiorina sinking and Chuck DeVore rising. And what I’ve seen all along is that Chuck continues inching up and Carly continues dropping.

So here we arrive at the moment where we need some intellectual consistency: I’ve said all along conservatives cannot split their vote and see a bad candidate get elected. I’m practicing what I’m preaching in this reassessment.

But can others say the same? If Carly keeps dropping and Chuck keeps going up, in two weeks will people get off the Carly bandwagon and jump to Chuck?

They sure as heck better.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Josh Painter

    All the changes in the two SUSA polls are minor and well within the margin of error:
    TC CF CD
    SurveyUSA 5/06 – 5/09 548 LV 35 24 15 Campbell +11
    SurveyUSA 4/19 – 4/21 538 LV 34 27 14 Campbell +7

    - JP

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    You might want to dig a bit deeper on those numbers.

  • Richard Mullins

    With 23% undecided in this poll, there is plenty of chances.

  • zollistar

    This is true in business, in life — and in politics.

    I’m standing behind Chuck DeVore. I’ll keep working on his behalf.

    I agree: we CANNOT continue to split votes. We have to stand tall specific candidates and remain standing.

    Thanks for your leadership, Erick.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    That’s exactly the task before us.

  • SteveLA

    Give a week for the news of all the new Fironia endorsements to get noticed by the general public, the latest one by survey USA just occurred over the weekend and it’s not clear how much notice the undecided voters took of that endorsement. I’d also like to see what the folks from the Field Poll have find out. They tend to be more accurate from what I have seen.

    Carlie did look like the proverbial empty suit in the debate, I’ll give you that much.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So when Fred collapsed in the polls you publicly jumped ship for Romney right away as an anybody-but-McCain move, right?

    Oh wait, you didn’t.

    Did you even know we HAD a primary before Palin spoke up?

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    The big two that matter here are CA Pro-Life Council and Palin.

    CA Pro-Life Council came on May 4th.
    Palin came on May 6th.
    Poll was conducted May 6th through the 9th.

    I think it’s fair to say the news was already at maximum saturation. And Carly still slipped.

  • SteveLA

    Joshua

    Well you’d have a point if all the undecided voters were part of the base that is going to be swayed by only the Pro-Life league. You seem to forget that Palin also attracts the Tea Party folks in CA, who are more motivated by other issues besides the Pro-Life issue. There’s a lot of RP RP RP types in the Tea Party out here in CA, and it’s not at all clear if Palin’s endorsement will matter to them based on fiscal matters.

    My guess, that 23 percent of the undecided are mostly not the Pro-Life core voters for DeVore who already had made up their mind and those folks are the ~15 percent that shows in current polling.

    A week, maybe two when more polling is done will show which way the undecided are jumping.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    …. if the endorsements were almost certainly at maximum media saturation, and hence public attention, when the poll was taken.

    And they were.

  • SteveLA

    Call it one week, maybe two and Field and others will be reporting, then we’ll see what the trend is.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    For what reason, I don’t know.

    This race has been underway with the present three major contenders since mid-January. There have been multiple major polls taken in the intervening four months.

    So yeah, you can start discerning trends now.

  • conservativecrusade

    the fall of Carly and worry more about Tom still being the leader in the group. Carly’s falling numbers and Chuck’s slowly rising numbers does little to keep Tom from being the elected nominee. If Tom stays on top, CA conservatives will have to choose between a dog poo pile in Boxer and a sugar coated pile of dog poo in Tom.Not much of a choice.

  • swanie

    Of course we know that Chuck is the ONLY conservative and the RIGHT person in this race…but here’s the other thing that we MUST KEEP IN FOCUS…California (and the country of course) have been damaged BADLY by RINOs. We’re almost better off surrounded by the darn liberals because we can take aim and shoot on every issue. RINOs, on the other hand, have us “eating our own”! This is SO VERY IMPORTANT and now more than ever because we have the right momentum. The stars are alighned for conservatives right now and we better work our butts off for Chuck! Every conservative living in Calif. should be on the phone, email, waving sign, giving money….WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO GET THIS GUY ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. And by the way, I understand the estalishment GOP is a little “miffed” at us “grassroots” folks right now because they have no way of truly polling the “undercurrent” (i.e. Bennett, etc). Bummer.

  • Adjoran

    Two weeks before the election isn’t really time enough to consolidate the support – barring something dramatic like an agreement between Fiorina and DeVore to drop out and endorse whichever of them is ahead, which I don’t see happening. What poll do they wait for?

    Without something big like that, just starting a shift to one or the other of the non-Campbell candidates is too slow to help, IMO.

    Too little, too late. Maybe it will have some CYA value for some, though.

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    Carly Fiorina isn’t going to give the likes of you or the Tea Party or Sarah Palin the time of day in the general. She’ll take us for a ride now, but…think Scott Brown.

    You must know that in your heart of hearts.

    So, sooner or later, it’s not about you.

    There’s a lot of things you can do for Chuck DeVore right now. Throwing Campbell red meat that says you consider DeVore or Fiorina basically interchangeable parts is not one of them.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Look at the history of how CA GOP primaries shape up: there’s plenty of examples of them doing so very, very late.

    The archetype is Bill Simon’s 2002 primary win on the gubernatorial side. He polled at 13% just one month before primary day: and only took a plurality six days(!) before election day.

    Elections aren’t over til they’re over. In CA-Sen this year, every campaign — including Chuck DeVore’s — knows it will be a fight to the end, and winnable til then, too.

  • feevert

    Uncoverage.net has a thorough & well-researched expose on what a tangled web carly is weaving to undermine Chuck DeVore. Everyone should read it. & then vote for Chuck. Because he is indisputably the best candidate.

    I mean, how often do you get to vote FOR someone, instead of just against the other guy?

  • SirGladiator

    Erick’s comments are spot on, and my sentiments exactly. We all know that DeVore is the best candidate, there’s no logical reason to debate or deny that, its clear as day. However what’s also clear as day is that Fiorina is a MILLION times better than Campbell, that Campbell is a liberal democrat, and that he’s leading this race by a fairly sizable margin right now while Conservatives are splitting their votes between Fiorina and DeVore. So if the candidate in third continues to be the candidate in third, at a certain point he really needs to drop out for the sake of beating a single liberal with a single conservative. Erick apparently believes that point is two weeks out. I’d probably feel comfortable with it being further out than that, given that early voting will prevent some folks from switching from one candidate to another two weeks out, but still, with two weeks out if the candidate in third place, whoever that is, drops out, we should at least have a fighting chance to win this thing, and the stakes are way too high to give up without a fight. If neither Conservative drops out before election day, it could be VERY hard, if not impossible, to overtake the lone liberal in the race. We need somebody to be a Statesman, and put the Conservative movement ahead of his or her own ego. We can’t afford another Indiana.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    DeVore’s polling against Boxer (keeping an eye on the prize for a moment) is worse than Fiorina or Campbell. If you look at the RCP average, Chuck is getting trounced. When you take this exercise one step further and look at some of the general voter polling, it makes you cogitate on who can actually span the demographics and gnaw at Boxer’s weaknesses.

    Scary version is that Fiorina and DeVore keep cannibalizing each other and Campbell gets the nod.

    Frankly, it looks like all this Godzilla v. Rodan nonsense will give us the worst possible candidate, and King of Monsters, Campbell. That does not serve any conservatives agenda.

  • gunslingr45

    I?ve said all along conservatives cannot split their vote and see a bad candidate get elected.

    I hope your talking about California. because it happened here in In. We got coats instead of Stuzman. The conservative vote got split 3 ways here with the meatheads giving coats like 40%.
    OK he’s not terrible, but bad. But when you think of the usual Washington crowd, Lugar, McCain, bad is not so good.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    No idea where you’re getting this. Latest Rasmussen hypothetical versus Boxer has Campbell doing best against her, DeVore just behind Campbell, and Fiorina just behind DeVore. DeVore posted his first superior performance versus Boxer back in …. September ’09. This is not a new development.

    Please, reference to data is useful.

  • BA Cyclone

    In a political field where many people see the opportunity to get elected as an “R” and therefore we have a crowded field of legitimate candidates, it would serve the voters well to hold a 2-person runoff in the primary and assure a 50%+ winner.

    I think the crowded fields lend themselves to the candidate with the best name ID, rather than the candidate that might win the most voters overall in the primary in a 2-person slate.

    And I think that would further lend itself to consolidation of support behind the primary winner for the general.

  • BA Cyclone

    In a political field where many people see the opportunity to get elected as an “R” and therefore we have a crowded field of legitimate candidates, it would serve the voters well to hold a 2-person runoff in the primary and assure a 50%+ winner.

    I think the crowded fields lend themselves to the candidate with the best name ID, rather than the candidate that might win the most voters overall in the primary in a 2-person slate.

    And I think that would further lend itself to consolidation of support behind the primary winner for the general.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Here are the <a href=”http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/other/2010_california_primary.html”RCP head-to-head matchups in which DeVore is trailing.

    Here are the <a href=”http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/california_senate_race.html”RCP v. Boxer in which Chuck is trailing.

    By the way, have I mentioned my utter contempt for polls?

    Please, reference to data is useful.

    Let me correct this for you. Please reference to data which is useful. Or perhaps, “Please reference to data which is useful”?

    By the way, I was simply mentioning this in the context of Eric’s argument, which hopefully was based on “useful” data. I think Chuck should fight to the end.

    Oh, and you were much nicer and less stressed before your current engagement.

    Now, go and win this race.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    “DeVore?s polling against Boxer … is worse than Fiorina or Campbell.”

    Except that it isn’t now, as we see.

    Then you said, “If you look at the RCP average, Chuck is getting trounced.”

    Except he’s not: that average, which is pretty useless analytically, shows him a mere 1.5% behind Fiorina. Yet you use the word “trounced.” To that, I use the word “nonsense.”

    Then you affirm your contempt for polls, having engaged in an argument on poll interpretation. Well.

  • Locked and Loaded

    As a formerly uninvolved onlooker, let me help:

    Please, (a) reference to data is useful. The (a) is not really needed, is it?

  • Locked and Loaded

    As a formerly uninvolved onlooker, let me help:

    Please, (a) reference to data is useful. The (a) is not really needed, is it?

  • Locked and Loaded
  • Marcus_Traianus

    Boxer (D) Fiorina (R) Spread
    45.0 41.3 Boxer +3.7
    Boxer (D) Campbell (R) Spread
    44.0 43.0 Boxer +1.0
    Boxer (D) DeVore (R) Spread
    45.5 39.8 Boxer +5.7

    Furthermore, in the primary;
    Campbell (R) Fiorina (R) DeVore (R) Spread
    29.2 22.4 11.0 Campbell +6.8

    What I responded to, dear friend, was Erick’s post and the specific subject. That was, if you recall, his comments which appeared partially (or entirely) based on polls. I therefore stand by my opinion Erick’s comments were “fair”, based on his interpretation of the data from an purely objective, parochial standpoint.

    I also stand by my opinion that polls are “contemptible”, which this dialogue proves is conjecture worthy of consideration. Especially since my personal, non-scientific inclination is to believe that Chuck will surge in the next few weeks. My only worry quite frankly is not Carly. It is that Campbell appears to be gaining in viability. For the moment, a reason for that particular factor eludes me and I despise the unknown. Mostly because you must give undo respect to what you do not know and therefore react somewhat defensively and often, wastefully. In this finicky voter environment, in a state such as California, that would keep me up at night.

  • conservativecrusade

    to an already expensive process. We as voters need to make our choices the first time and accept the results. But in cases such as CA where you have three running, one liberal, one moderate, and one conservative, we have to make sure that when one of the latter two become non-viable, we push for them to drop out so that the liberal does not take the seat even if they have a “R” beside their name. I personally think that a candidate should fight hard and keep fighting until they realize that they can not win, and then get out and endorse whoever is best out of those left. And if they choose to stay in the fight after it is obvious they can not win, we should write them off for good as they have chosen to push their own agenda further rather than pushing for what is best for the voters, the state, and the country.

    Let me explain what I mean. In SC we have 4 conservative candidates running for governor. We are lucky that there is no moderate or liberal candidate in the running. But lets say there was a liberal names Jim. Jim is running ahead of the other 4 with 40% of the vote. The closest conservative is running at 25% with the next at 18%, and the last with 5%. The remaining are undecided. We are 4 weeks out of the primary. The last two, even if one is the favored candidate of RedState or the teaparty, should drop out and pull behind one of the final two conservatives. Now we are two weeks out. The final two conservatives left should look at the polls and see who is best fit to win. The other should drop out and fall behind the last conservative in order to keep SC from having a liberal “republican” governor. Now the last conservative has more than enough votes to beat the liberal. Problem is, way too many times our candidates are unwilling to set aside their pride and do the right thing which cost us a potential conservative seat in favor of a liberal. Same goes when you have a conservative, a moderate, and a liberal such as in CA. Someone has to do the right thing and do their part to make sure the liberal does not win. Having multiple primaries settles nothing and since it is well known that votes held outside of main voting times never have a real good turnout and the victor would not be the winner based on popular opinion. They would win based on low turnout, hence making them only the winner by default.

    If either Carly or Chuck do not make the right decision when winning is no longer possible, CA and the country will have either Boxer to deal with it, or a no better choice in Tom. I hope Chuck gets a huge surge in the next few weeks and Carly drops out and throws her support behind him, but I also hope that if he does not get the surge, he drops out and gets behind Carly. Maybe if this happens we can keep both Boxer and Campbell from crapping on this country even more than what has happened to date.

  • BA Cyclone

    You state the essential problem yourself:

    “Problem is, way too many times our candidates are unwilling to set aside their pride and do the right thing which cost us a potential conservative seat in favor of a liberal.”

    We are depending upon the charity of a primary candidate to drop out in advance of the actual primary. This is a difficult challenge at best, especially in an area where even primary polling is a difficult science. In many, many primaries you cannot legitimately or persuasively tell a candidate 4 weeks out “you have no chance at the nomination”.

    You might as well say that we just need to tell all the “conservative voters” they need to vote for Candidate X, so the conservative vote is not divided.

    I can appreciate that it creates an extra cost, and a significant one, for the party at the local and state levels. However, I think the benefit of assuring a consolidated, viable candidate that is most representative of that electorate would be well worth it.

    The qualification would need to be a voting calendar that the initial primary is early enough, the secondary runoff is within say 4 weeks of the initial, and that sufficient time then remains before the general (6 months?) that the eventual candidate is not weakened vs. the opponent just due to the calendar.

  • BA Cyclone

    You state the essential problem yourself:

    “Problem is, way too many times our candidates are unwilling to set aside their pride and do the right thing which cost us a potential conservative seat in favor of a liberal.”

    We are depending upon the charity of a primary candidate to drop out in advance of the actual primary. This is a difficult challenge at best, especially in an area where even primary polling is a difficult science. In many, many primaries you cannot legitimately or persuasively tell a candidate 4 weeks out “you have no chance at the nomination”.

    You might as well say that we just need to tell all the “conservative voters” they need to vote for Candidate X, so the conservative vote is not divided.

    I can appreciate that it creates an extra cost, and a significant one, for the party at the local and state levels. However, I think the benefit of assuring a consolidated, viable candidate that is most representative of that electorate would be well worth it.

    The qualification would need to be a voting calendar that the initial primary is early enough, the secondary runoff is within say 4 weeks of the initial, and that sufficient time then remains before the general (6 months?) that the eventual candidate is not weakened vs. the opponent just due to the calendar.