« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Rasmussen Polls the California Senate Race

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  March 16th, 2010 at 02:03 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Chart

The California Republican primary race to determine Barbara Boxer’s challenger is getting heated. And while all of us in the state have our biases and preferences, here’s what my cold, hard math says about Rasmussen’s latest poll.

As with last month, the poll again covers all three likely challengers to Barbara Boxer. It shows Fiorina 40/Boxer 46, DeVore 40/Boxer 46, Campbell 41/Boxer 43. All have a Margin of Error of 4.5. Running these numbers through my handy, dandy poll analyzer I get the following winning percentages: Campbell 41%, DeVore 25%, Fiorina 25%.

Stunning, isn’t it? My instinct, and I think the instinct of most who look at a poll like this, would say that a shift of a couple points of voters would not be so much of a big deal. But as it stands, my model and this poll show Campbell with a 15% better chance of beating Barbara Boxer. And these numbers have barely changed from a month ago.

Beyond the math, I have to conclude that Fiorina’s message has taken root. She has positioned herself from the start as a steadfast conservative, and her attacks on Barbara Boxer and Tom Campbell have come from the right. As a result, she polls equivalently with Chuck DeVore against Boxer. The voters seem to be giving her words the same weight as DeVore’s voting record.

It has to be substance becuase it’s not name recognition that distinguishes Campbell from Fiorina. Take a look at the favorability ratings. While a full third of those polled have no opinion of DeVore, Fiorina and Campbell are nearly tied at 24% and 23% respectively. It’s not loathing of Fiorina’s record at Hewlett Packard dragging her down, either, because Campbell and Fiorina are tied at 15% very unfavorable.

No, I’m convinced the issues are driving the polling in this race. DeVore runs on his conservative record, Fiorina positions herself as someone just as conservative, but Campbell is on the record as being to their left on key Republican issues like marriage and abortion.

In a close race, winning a few points could be all the difference. It’s now up to California Republicans to decide whether Campbell represents them enough, and whether he will be able to tap into enough voter enthusiasm for the price to be worth it.

Cross-posted from Unlikely Voter.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Oz

    and someone who lived in California, I think that Campbell is probably the only one who can win this (I’d much prefer Chuck, but I just don’t see it).

    Hopefully Fiorina and DeVore will split the conservative vote in the primary and Campbell will get a chance.

    My stand on moderates is that they are about CONTROL first and foremost and taking out Boxer for Campbell will cut into Democrat control.

  • Oz

    and someone who lived in California, I think that Campbell is probably the only one who can win this (I’d much prefer Chuck, but I just don’t see it).

    Hopefully Fiorina and DeVore will split the conservative vote in the primary and Campbell will get a chance.

    My stand on moderates is that they are about CONTROL first and foremost and taking out Boxer for Campbell will cut into Democrat control.

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

    What’s control if control means backing mass infanticide and redefining “marriage” into a celebration of sodomy?

  • GT350

    Mass Infanticide and sodomy are day-to-day events here in the Bay Area. Actually, that’s tame compared to the goings-on during the Folsom Street Fair in SF (google it, but not on a work computer). We don’ t like it any more than you do.

    Unfortunately, I think the worst candidate on our team, Campbell, is likely also the most electable and best able to send Barbara Boxer home. So it’s a matter of finding the least worst alternative.

    I would prefer to vote for Ronald Reagan, but if he’s not available, I’ll vote for the one best able to send Babs Boxer home.

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

    Born in Long Beach, lived in La Palma, Westminster, Moreno Valley, and a brief stint in Pasadena.

    I know what it’s like here. :-)

  • JSobieski

    What the analysis misses is how the candidates interact with each other in a campaign. Campaigns are highly dynamic. Polls at this point are primarily name recognition and stature metrics. DeVore’s numbers are pretty impressive given he is a lot less well known.

    Any Republican is going to start off behind Boxer. Who is more likely to zing her in a debate? Who is going to champion the right issues to chip away at her support while keeping Republicans unified. A triangulation strategy will not work against Boxer. Hi, I am like Boxer, but a just a bit more to the right is not going to work. When people want an ice cream sunday, they aren’t going to get one with sugar free fudge and sugar free ice cream when they can get the real thing.

    Campaigns are very dynamic, and the problem with looking at poll numbers at this point is that the numerical differences are small but the differences in the campaign strategies could be tremendous.

    Remember 2008? McCain polled better against Obama than anyone else, but that didn’t mean that McCain had the best chance to win—it just meant that he would start out with a deficit that was less.

    In other words, I don’t buy the premise,

  • http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com Don’t Tase Me Bro

    Neil, replacing Boxer with Campbell would be a definite improvement. You can’t possibly deny that. A RINO in a liberal state is still far better than a full fledged socialist moonbat. I believe in the true conservative when we can have it, but moderates have their place as well. We can’t have Tom Coburn in every state and we certainly won’t get him in Cali.

    The left has been able to get their agenda passed over the years through incrementalism, not over night. Conservatives need to learn the same discipline.

  • Castor

    And in November there will be no improvement.Thjings will be worse.
    At that time the people will accept taking Dr. Devore?s strong medicine to save the state and the country. Campbell may look good now,but we have a long journey yet until the primary.
    Don?t count Chuck out. He can take on Boxer and win.

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

    The primary is between Campbell, Fiorina, and DeVore.

  • JSobieski

    is the relevant question.

    If that answer is yes, the followup question is–is he worth it?

    Not convinced on question 1, probably yes with respect to question 2.

    Of course, Boxer turned down an award from CAIR, and Campbell . . . is arguably to the left of Boxer on being obblivious to the Islamo-Fascists

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

    DeVore…. he has the Prop. 8, TEA Party, and pro-life coalitions to tap into nationwide.

  • GT350

    than NorCal crazies.

    At least your crazies are better-looking. The crusty, hairy, unwashed post-hippie crazies in Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco are just noxious.

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

    Field Poll 2-11-2000: Feinstein 55, Campbell 35.

    Election day 2000: Feinstein 56, Campbell 37.

    No. Upside.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    With all due respect, this is one big pile of nonsense – simply an excuse to wimp out again on basic principles. Has the Ahhhnold (R?) fiasco taught you nothing?

    If you can’t muster the gumption to show bold colors and clear contrasts in 2010, you never will. Get a spine so you can stand up for something worthwhile.

    2010 is a teachable moment. People are paying attention like they won’t many other years. As such,nominate someone (DeVore) who can articulate a clear contrast of visions and a positive conservative message. Give CA a real choice. Boxer-lite would be such a waste of an opportunity.
    If CA rejects a real choice like DeVore, that’s their problem. Conservatism can rise despite CA. And conservatism can rise much more effectively without Campbell becoming our next Specter.

    Neil, come on. You’re usually so much better than this!

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

    You know I already endorsed DeVore right? :-)

  • Aaron Gardner

    Neil is still 100% behind DeVore.

    This is just a non-biased analysis of the polling that is out there.

  • Bill S

    Maybe try reading Neil’s diary history?

    Sheesh.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    Please step away from the pre-2010 conventional wisdom when doing poll analysis.
    I think you just swung and missed bigtime today.
    Admittedly, hcr puts me in no mood for tolerating signs of political weakness at the moment. ;o)
    Go forth and be bold.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …who Boxer wants to run against?

    I want her out, and who she fears most is that one of three she wants out first. Do any of you folks know this? That’s news I can while you ramble on about what you like.

    Edify me.

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

    My poll analysis is rooted in math, not conventional wisdom.

    It’s garbage like this that made me launch Unlikely Voter to begin with. I need sound thinking about polls in order to make good decisions as an activist.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    “No, I?m convinced the issues are driving the polling in this race.”
    Some of this analysis has the potential to be off the mark. In the case of DeVore, his level of strength despite the fact that he is the least known of the 3 candidates in question lends itself to an interpretation of an upside potential for Chuck that the others don’t have.

    Maybe Neil felt the need to bend over backwards so as not to look like he’s interpretting too rosily for DeVore. Understandable, but it came across as opening the door wide open to raising the white flag on some basic issues.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    VB

  • Return to Revolution

    The math is what it is but here’s why I’d continue to support DeVore also. If nothing else, its a good test for the state given the political environment: if DeVore can’t win now, he probably can’t win ever (at least for a senate seat).

    In PA, I’m glad we have Toomey running. PA is seen as a purple-ish swing state but has gone democrat in every presidential election since 1988 and seems increasingly blue in other areas (Santorum booted in 94, Obama wins by a wider than expected margin, etc). IfToomey can’t win in a toxic environment for dems, especially in light of Specter’s gaffes and ill-advised party switch, then PA is really turning blue. Personally, I think he can win and am glad to have the opportunity to elect a real conservative. PA will come back around.

  • Return to Revolution

    likewise, for CA I think DeVore can pull it off. NJ gives hope!

  • hickorystick

    I’d love to see DeVore win the primary, and he may yet, but having a good Plan B is prudent. Campbell is far and away the best Plan B. Plan C would be burn your bridges, with Fiorina tied to the superstructure. ?

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    ?No, I?m convinced the issues are driving the polling in this race.? ain’t math. I understand the math emphasis and the desire for sound thinking. But there’s still interpretation behind your math.

    Your interpretation opened the door for a RINO line of argumentation that I don’t cede ground to – NOT that I think you are a RINO! I just prefer to argue against opening doors for RINOs…

    Voter familiarity with the candidates and the starkly different 2010 mindset are parts of this mix that are underplayed in this analysis.

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

    If you think I’m lifting a finger for a left wing, pro-terrorist extremist like Campbell, you misjudge me.

    I vote for the Republican in the general but that doesn’t mean I get off my chair to help all of them.

  • hickorystick

    Campbell is guilty of not running background checks on his associates. Wanna make a trade? I throw Patty Murray into the deal.

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

    But he won’t get one thin dime from me, and if you think it’ll be different for the Prop 8ers, the pro lifers and the TEA partiers, well, you’re going to be shocked when he loses by 10 points in November.

    Which is why we have to stop Campbell NOW.

  • Tom_Holsinger

    Campbell always looks good and finds a way to lose. DeVore does a lot better in this poll than I thought he would, especially being tied with Fiorina in name recognition.

    I’m for anyone who can beat Boxer, but Campbell’s dreadful record at the close of campaigns makes me nervous.

  • hickorystick

    just as I have good reasons for not liking Fiorina. If you don’t give him a dime, I understand. Outside of DeVore, It’s a hard call. I worry about travelling down the Moderate road again, but would make exceptions to steal away a blue seat.
    Guess it comes down to which will happen first, the country going broke, or getting struck by a lightning bolt. Fiorina, won’t support more than one leg of the conservative stool, military, which is why McCain endorsed her. I’m not even sure how much help she will be with that. She probably supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and Affirmative Action for selecting Generals.
    I would like to see more of Campbells record on military matters. Fiscally, he is more conservative than Boxer, and will vote with Republicans. Fiorina would be a major trouble-causer, and would make it difficult to keep the caucus together.

  • hickorystick
  • JSobieski

    Will Campbell or Florina be someone who fights? A McCain type campaign will fail.

  • JSobieski

    nt

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

    You mean overlooking “Death to Israel” to write in defense of Sami Al-Arian?

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

    What explains the current results? Fiorina and DeVore poll identically, Campbell running ahead of them by a good margin?

  • eburke

    Tom Campbell, the same moderate/liberal candidate that wants to run against Babs “I’m dumber than a box of rocks please call me senator” Boxer has already run previously against DiFi where he got his clock cleaned?

    And this is the guy that conservatives are supposed bail on DeVore for because of the ‘electability’ meme?

    You can’t be serious.

    Actually, I’m sorry….*they* can’t be serious. Are they daft?

  • eburke

    you might want to check out Neil’s post upthread about Cambell’s stellar showing against DiFI and then reconsider you reasoning.

  • eburke

    into my “Obama’s gonna get it anyway fund” and send Chuck another contribution. IIRC, you’ve got a link which attributes donations to you so if you want to park that puppy on their, I have a transaction I’d like to conduct. (If that’s ok w/you :-) )

  • proudgop

    what year did he run against Feinstein?

    what type of campaign did he run? did he even have funds to be on air in October another words?

    thanks

  • acat

    Who do Boxers’ campaign managers want to face would be better – I’m not convinced Boxer herself is that involved in the campaign.

    That said, the Boxer campaign probably fears DeVore or Carly most, and would like to run against Campbell.

    In both cases, it’s much easier to clearly differentiate between Boxer and either Carly or DeVore. Either could come up with the same lightning-in-a-bottle that Brown found in Massachusetts.

    Carly made a lot of people unhappy at Lucent and HP – and she was at or near the top of both, did a great CEO-as-rockstar bit, and walked away from both with a lot of coin while stockholders (and that really means 401k-holders) got burned. The attack ads are easy to write. While Carly may not excite the conservatives or tea partiers overmuch, the woman and cancer-survivor bits should help with the independents she’d need to carry to win

    DeVore is almost the mirror of Carly here. He’s been around Cali politics a while and has a record that should be even easier to mine to find those votes he’s cast that “hurt people”, but he excites the conservatives, he’s disconnected (somewhat) from the Repub apparatus, but – like Brown in Mass – behind-the-scenes support as well as “outsider” or “local boy” status could help.

    I’m not a Californian and could be misjudging this rather badly, but .. my guess is the Boxer campaign would like to run against Campbell.

    Mew

  • acat

    We’re still before the primary. (Illinois primary was very early this year…) While the candidates are trying to get their names and statements out there, it’s still early days and name recognition counts for a lot.

    As Campbell has run before, he’s got name recognition, even if he doesn’t have competence. Carly is polling well, she also has name recognition – remember she was a CEO-as-rockstar at HP – and she’ll get some traction out of being a woman and being a cancer survivor.

    The question I’d look at is what trend DeVore is showing. Is he stuck, or are his numbers improving? Is his message getting out?

    I’m of the opinion that Mark Kirk will be the next Senator from Illinois – because the Illinois Repubs went with a safe choice, but the Dems went with a crook. I would imagine that, if the California Republicans go with a safe choice against Boxer, she’ll keep the seat.

    Mew

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    “It shows Fiorina 40/Boxer 46, DeVore 40/Boxer 46, Campbell 41/Boxer 43. All have a Margin of Error of 4.5.”
    Is this the basis for you saying Campbell is “running ahead of them by a good margin?”
    That’s making a mountain out of a mathematical molehill. We need to be careful not to overstate in our analysis – ignoring the very limiting and humbling reality of the margin of error. (By the way, kudos for stating the margin of error. Most skip it outright.)
    This pitfall is all too easy to fall into – and pollsters & reporters encourage this mentality since accentuating slight differences “sells alot more newspapers” than proper interpretations of margins of error.
    Another pitfall is reading too much into a poll when we’re this far out from a primary. We don’t have to move toward a discussion of possibly settling for Campbell based on this poll. We can take great encouragement that DeVore is looking very competitive at this stage and see if there is a discussion (to the extent that issues may be driving the results for Fiorina – which I question) about a consolidation of conservative support behind DeVore or Fiorina instead of having a split to let the RINO through.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    “If you think I?m lifting a finger for a left wing, pro-terrorist extremist like Campbell,…”

  • 6eorge Jetson

    I’m willing to “shoot the three pointer” w/ DeVore. While AnyoneButBoxer is better than Boxer, isn’t a RINO dressing himself in Conservatism until the political winds change.

    Keep in mind that anyone assessing Scott Brown’s chances in December using the cumulative probability function above would have given him a one-in-a-gazillion chance at winning. Sometimes the process isn’t normal.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    Go Chuck!

  • joecollins

    I’m a California voter and I’m voting DeVore.

  • http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com Don’t Tase Me Bro

    You’re quoting a poll from ten years ago in a completely different political environment against a completely different candidate. The latest Rasmussen showed Campbell trailing Boxer by only two. Fiorina and DeVore trail by six, which of course is not bad either.

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

    I give an overview of my model in my Specter/Sestak post, which I’m going to link from my About page today.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    …braving the possibility of Lord Pollington’s punishment, I must strongly caution you.

    The original poll from which your winning percentage estimates come shows all results to be within the margin of error. There is no statistical significance. That means you simply can’t conclude that Campbell is “running ahead of them by a good margin” by amplifying statistical insignificance to look like a big % difference. It appears that your math prowess (which is commendable) is causing you to throw off the shackles of restraint that a Stats 101 definition (of MOE) would impose upon you.

    Interesting math problems to tinker with in your spare time, but this is no basis for accurate or useful statistical analysis. Sorry…

    And this just deals with the math-based part of your analysis.

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

    Your comment here gives no support to a claim that you have the foggiest idea what the margin of error in a poll represents, nor that you know what “statistical significance” is.

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

    Watch for a future post at UnlikelyVoter and maybe at RS xposted, but the margin of error is a description of the variance of the distribution.

    It’s not a gray area where all results within that range are statistically equivalent.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    …I thought you knew that stuff and just needed to be reminded to consider the concept. FYI – to make sure we’re clear, I was not talking about the Specter-Sestak race but the CA race stats not being significant.
    To satisfy your question of my credibility: In CA, if DeVore polls at 40% to Boxer’s 46% with + or – 4.5, then we are 95% confident that the true population proportion of Chuck’s support on that date was somewhere between 35.5% and 44.5% while Boxer’s true proportion was somewhere between 41.5% and 50.5%. (Note that the overlap in percentages makes even this 6 point spread in point estimates statistically insignificant in terms of being able to declare Boxer definitively ahead. Totally uninteresting, yet accurate analysis here. Sure, it is more likely that the true population proportion for Boxer is higher than that for DeVore, but you don’t have statistical significance so you can’t make any strong statements there.) Meanwhile, Campbell polled 41% to 43% so Campbell’s pi (so you know I know a Greek symbol, too) with 95% confidence is somewhere between 36.5% and 45.5%. Now, we might stretch it just a bit (I’m starting to get a bit queazy doing so) to compare and say that support for DeVore (v Boxer) is somewhere between 35.5% and 44.5% compared to support for Campbell (v Boxer) is somewhere between 36.5% and 45.5%.

    Nothing much to write about. No basis for your claim and the analysis that follows.

    Neil, I like much of your contributions elsewhere. Really I do. Let me back off a bit and apologize for pulling out the “spine” arsenal on you yesterday. My excuse: the analysis hit me at a moment of particular “intoleration” for any slight mentions of settling for RINOs. I’m in no mood for that generally in the 2010 context, but I’ll chalk up the moment to the hcr frustrations. Maybe you can empathize with that.
    But on your end. The math gets too fancy by half. Doesn’t wash. Sorry…

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    “It?s not a gray area where all results within that range are statistically equivalent.”
    True – ala the bell curve features…

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

    That’s the kick. The results of a well-done poll will show up as a bell curve around the true value.

    But do we assume that the actual results are predicted to be in a bell curve around the polled value?

    That’s what my math does. But it’s untested.