Margin of Σrror

Margin of Σrror -

Category Archives: New York

Bill de Blasio’s diverse coalition could clinch contest for New York mayor | Harry J Enten

Given New York’s ethnically divided politics, De Blasio leads the Democratic mayoral primary with historically broad support

Long-time followers of New York City politics know that the vote in city-wide elections usually breaks down along racial and ethnic lines. In this year’s comptroller race, for instance, Eliot Spitzer is winning black voters and losing white voters by a wide margin. The mayoral race, however, is a far different scenario.

The latest trio of mayoral polls puts Bill de Blasio just south of the 40% needed to avoid a runoff with likely second-place finisher Bill Thompson, who is 15pt to 20pt behind. De Blasio has made a late charge, but what’s truly surprising to me is how De Blasio is getting to 40%.

De Blasio is trying to hold together the most diverse coalition in modern history to win the Democratic primary for mayor. In the latest Quinnipiac poll (which is far from perfect, though will have to do), De Blasio is at 44% among Hispanic voters, 40% among white voters, and 37% among black voters. This is despite Thompson being black. So, given the margin of error on subsamples, we could say that De Blasio looks to be scoring equally well among all the main racial and/or ethnic groups.

Compare this racial coalition to that of the last white Democrat to win a mayoral primary, Mark Green in 2001. Green took 83% of whites, 29% of blacks, and only 16% of Latinos on his way to winning a runoff against Freddy Ferrer, who is Hispanic, 51% to 49%. The same racial divisions were evident to some degree in 2005 when Ferrer beat Anthony Weiner, in 1997, when Ruth Messinger defeated Al Sharpton, and in 1989, when David Dinkins topped Ed Koch.

Put another way, De Blasio is trying to achieve something unprecedented. A non-Jewish white candidate has not finished first in the Democratic New York mayoral primary in 44 years. De Blasio may be many things, but he’s not black or Jewish. For those us who use history as a guide, the lesson is that the only tradition that endures is the tradition of change.

Many have ascribed De Blasio’s winning coalition to the fact that he’s become the anti-Mike Bloomberg. De Blasio has run to the left in this Democratic primary – seemingly a smart move in a field crowded with competitive centrists. Yet, the data indicate that De Blasio’s edge is not necessarily down to being an anti-Bloomberg.

De Blasio is doing about as well with Bloomberg backers as he is with those who dislike the departing mayor. In a Public Policy Polling survey completed on Sunday night, De Blasio is at 37% among those who approve of Bloomberg and at 39% with those who disapprove. That matches a Marist poll conducted just a few days earlier.

My own guess is De Blasio has masterfully parlayed a mixture of biography and political positioning into broad appeal. De Blasio’s a white Brooklynite who promises to pay attention to the outer boroughs; this allows him to be competitive with moderate and conservative outer borough whites. He’s the most liberal of the major contenders: hence his backing from white progressives. His stances on policing, and astute ads featuring his biracial son, allow him to bring minorities into his coalition.

That is a team of voters who have brought De Blasio to the verge of winning the primary. The question is whether or not he’ll actually get to the magic 40%, to win outright in the first round. With De Blasio at 36%, 38%, and 39% in recently released polls, and with somewhere between 8% and 10% of voters undecided, it seems quite possible that he’ll make it – should the undecided vote break his way.

I still urge caution. In the last five competitive mayoral primaries, one of the two leading contenders received what they polled in pre-election polls but got no more. The other leading contender picked up the vast majority of undecideds. Normally, it’s the leading candidate of color who picks up the most support. The complicating factor is that Thompson is trailing among blacks by 10pt to 15pt, depending on the survey. So, who knows if history will hold?

Adding to the confusion is potential under-the-radar momentum for Bill Thompson. Thompson’s 25% in the Quinnipiac poll and 20% in the Marist survey are his two highest percentages in those surveys to date. He’s picked up 5pt in the last week per Quinnipiac, while De Blasio has dropped 4pt from 43% to 39%. If that is real momentum (and I don’t know if it is), then it could lead to a much closer election night than most predict.

Finally, there have been two instances in the past 16 years where a candidate fell short of 40% on election night yet reached it once absentee votes were counted. It took weeks before Messinger was declared to be over 40% in 1997. By then, they even held a runoff debate between Messinger and Sharpton!

De Blasio likely has got be more than 0.3pt on either side of 40.0% on election night for us to be confident that absentees would clinch it. The fact that De Blasio’s best numbers have come in the final weeks suggests that absentees may, in fact, be less likely to go for him than ballots cast on election day. That means that, unlike those who straddled 40% in years past, De Blasio is more likely to fall back, than spring forward in post-election day counts – if it’s on a knife edge.

Of course, none of this will matter if Bill de Blasio reaches 41%. If he does, it will cap a remarkable two months for the public advocate. If he doesn’t, Thompson’s likely to give him a good fight in the runoff, regardless of early polling. His favorables are as good as De Blasio’s, and Thompson has a tendency to close well.

But enough with my analysis, let’s hear what the voters have to say.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

It may be Labor Day weekend, but union power is waning | Harry J Enten

Union membership is decreasing in America and so is the political influence of unions in elections

It’s Labor Day weekend. For most, the weekend marks the end of the summer. A last hurrah before football starts and the kids go back to school. You’ll notice I haven’t mentioned anything about “labor”. That’s cause while labor’s political influence is still poignant, it’s clearly not the powerhouse it once was.

Why do I say that?

1. Union household percentage is dropping

Politicians would fear labor if they made up a large percentage of the electorate. The 2012 exit poll put labor at 18% of the electorate. That’s not small, especially considering that union households went for Obama by 18pt. Indeed, the gap between union and non-union households is about the same as the gender gap we always here about.

The issue is that 18% is a far cry from the 34% unions made up in the 1976 election.

The percentage unions have made up in exit polls have dropped by 8pt since 2000 alone. 2000 marked a momentary spike that soon abated and the gradual decline continued. It’s been over a point drop per election on the whole. Year alone predicts 88% of the variation in union membership from election to election – meaning that there’s a powerful relationship between years gone by and the decline of labor as a percentage of the electorate.

As union households make up less of the electorate, there’s less of a reason that politicians need to adhere to their arguments. Republicans have to make less of an outreach, and Democrats don’t need to pander nearly as much. The populist appeal of Al Gore in 2000 may seem like a distant memory for future generations.

2. Union backing can be a bad thing … in New York City

No one expects that in a Republican state like Mississippi that being backed by a union is a good thing. Few people belong to unions in that south. One would think, however, that union backing would be a good thing where unions grow off the trees. In the largest city in the state with the most union members, labor should dominate.

That simply isn’t the case in New York City. The (Democratic) candidate backed by labor for New York City mayor has lost in every election since 1993. Part of that is no doubt because of crime and not labor negotiations. A good sized portion of it is, however, people who don’t belong to unions are overwhelmingly fearful of too much union influence and overly generous city contracts.

Republican (or whatever Mike Bloomberg is calling himself these days) mayors won’t bend, and people love it. While Democrat Bill Thompson won union households by 20pt in 2009, non-unions voted for Bloomberg by about 15pt.

In 2013, all the major newspapers in New York City passed over Thompson for the Democratic nomination. They didn’t do so because they thought he was unqualified. They did so because they didn’t like that he was backed by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). Did I mention the Democratic candidate backed by the UFT hasn’t won a primary in a generation?

If unions can’t win in New York, where can they win?

3. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said “screw you” and won

The Wisconsin budget dispute of 2011 and subsequent recall of 2012 was perhaps the biggest blow to labor in a long while. Republican Governor Scott Walker led a Republican controlled legislature to make major changes to Wisconsin law. They limited collective bargaining of all non-emergency personnel to close a budget shortfall*.

Democrats and unions went crazy. They protested and staged sit-ins. Walker and the Republicans didn’t care. The Democrats and unions went to court and lost. They decided to force Walker into a recall election.

Walker not only won the recall in 2012, but he won it rather easily. He expanded his 6pt win in the prior election to 7pt in the recall. This was despite a very turnout among union households. They made up 32% of the recall electorate versus 27% in the prior gubernatorial election. In other words, a pretty large chunk. Walker was able to overcome this larger turnout by expanding his margin among non-unions households from 13pt to 22pt.

And make no mistake, the result was all about collective bargaining. 52% of voters approved of limiting collecting bargaining for government workers and of Walker’s handling of it. Walker won pretty much all of these voters, while losing the rest.

Conclusion:

The nation will celebrate labor this weekend, yet labor has to be worried politically. They are still a force in American politics, though their power is steadily waning.

*Note that this was a major difference between changes made in Wisconsin and the less successful efforts in Ohio. The lesson is people are less likely to stand for cuts to firefighters and policemen.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

NYC mayor race: two weeks to go and the five questions that will matter | Harry J Enten

There’s a three-way brawl to make the runoff to be the next mayor. These five issues are key to predicting who will survive

The New York City mayoral race is turning the bend with the first round primary only two weeks away. The current polling indicates a close race between Bill de Blasio (to my surprise), Christine Quinn, and Bill Thompson to make the top-2 runoff, which is required considering that no candidate will reach 40%. To me, the winner will be determined by knowing the answer to these five questions.

1. What is the ethnic makeup of the electorate?

A pattern emerged in the last round of polling: de Blasio led among whites, Quinn led among Latinos, and Thompson led among blacks. Given this split, it’s important to know what percentage of each ethnicity/race will make up of the electorate.

The problem is pollsters cannot seem to agree on the question. Quinnipiac’s last poll put whites at 40%, blacks at 35%, and Latinos at only 15%. Marist’s had whites at 41%, blacks at 28%, and Latinos at 21%. The latter would bode better for Quinn given the current polling, while the prior would be a big boost for Thompson’s campaign.

My own estimate is that Marist is closer to the mark here, though both might be a little high on the percentage of whites who show up.

2. Will blacks actually vote for Thompson?

Perhaps the biggest surprise of this campaign season has been the supposed lack of black support for Bill Thompson, the only African-American in the race. A recent Marist poll had him only at 22%. This would be highly unusual given the high amount of black support he got in the 2009 primary and general election. Even in her doomed campaign of 2005, C Virginia Fields won a third of black of voters.

A look at past polling biases shows that minority candidates do better in Democratic primaries in New York City than the final polls suggest. In addition, Thompson yanked in his highest percentage of black voters in the last Quinnipiac poll at 39%. The fact is he’ll likely need that support in order to make the runoff.

My belief has been that he’ll get it, though history is meant to be broken.

3. Does the New York Times endorsement of Quinn make a difference?

Newspaper endorsements don’t usually matter, but the Times could be different. In fact, the only other paper I know that people believe holds the same sway is the Washington Post. Times readers are overwhelmingly Democratic and tend to be well-educated. In other words, they are prime voters in a Democratic primary for mayor.

These voters are de Blasio’s base. While many of them will likely be unpersuaded by the Times, not everyone (much to my dismay) pays that close of attention to elections. And despite what the candidates like to claim, the ideological differences between them are not very large. Add on the fact that many voters choices aren’t locked in, and it’s the perfect recipe for a chunk of voters to be swayed an endorsement.

4. Do Sal Albanese + John Liu + Erick Salgado + Anthony Weiner’s vote percentage equal 25%, 20%, or even less?

Christine Quinn has been at 24% +/- 3pt in 12 of the last 13 polls. In other words, she seems, at this point, to be stuck in neutral. It had seemed that getting at 25% would be enough to guarantee her a spot in the runoff. The reason is that the four candidates listed above were pulling in 25% of the vote, which meant that only de Blasio or Thompson, not both, could mathematically get over 25%.

The latest polling, however, indicates that Albanese, Liu, Salgado, and Weiner are not only falling short of 25%, but also 20%. Given that Quinn doesn’t seem to be picking up any steam and with a decent percentage of the electorate undecided, it seems possible that both de Blasio and Thompson can pass her.

Keep in mind that Quinn hasn’t been in any place but first or second in any poll over the past two years, though the last Quinnipiac poll was the closest she’s come to not making the runoff.

5. Does anyone actually show up to this thing?

I don’t think anyone has a clue about how many people vote on September 10th. A little less than 500,000 people showed up to vote in the last competitive Democratic primary for mayor in 2005. A little less than 800,000 showed up in 2001. In 2009, an uncompetitive primary produced only 330,000 voters.

The evidence suggests that a smaller turnout is probably best for Bill de Blasio and Bill Thompson. de Blasio’s base of white well-educated liberals would show up in a blizzard, while Thompson has a lot of organizational support from unions and the few elected officials who actually hold sway over their communities.

Quinn’s core Latino support is less reliable to show-up. Even in Marist’s more optimistic Latino turnout model, the percentage they make up of the electorate falls from a registered to likely voter sample.

Conclusion

With two weeks to go, it’s anybody’s ball game in the New York City Mayoral race. If you know the answer to these five questions, you probably know who is still around after 10 September.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Why Bill De Blasio won’t get to runoff in NYC’s Democratic mayoral primary | Harry J Enten

Liberal darling De Blasio has the hype, but expect black voters to make Bill Thompson challenger to frontrunner Christine Quinn

Those following the New York City mayoral race know there’s a Bill de Blasio boomlet going on in press circles. De Blasio, the city’s public advocate (an ombudsman of sorts), has seen favorable coverage and support from the Huffington Post, the Nation and the New York Times. And he has clearly ramped up his campaigning to take advantage of Anthony Weiner’s further embarrassment.

So, read the papers and blogs, and you’d think De Blasio was on his way to earning his spot in a runoff against the vulnerable first-round frontrunner, Christine Quinn.

The problem is that the data and history continue to suggest it’s former comptroller Bill Thompson who is more likely to make the runoff. If you haven’t heard of Thompson, it’s likely because he lacks the pizzaz of others. There has already been a black mayor in New York, and Thompson is middle-of-the-road in a primary context.

The primary polling

Still, Thompson is the candidate who is currently in second place when looking at all the polling data. Per the HuffPollster aggregate, he’s at 17% – 3pt ahead of de Blasio and 8pt behind Quinn, who is well behind the necessary 40% to avoid a runoff. Thompson, not De Blasio, has gained the most ground over the past two months. He’s widened the gap between de Blasio and himself by 2pt.

The idea of a De Blasio boomlet has come from two individual polls. I’d trust the aggregate. The reason is because the sample sizes on individuals polls can be quite small. Take the most recent Marist survey, for example. The poll had only 320 likely voters, which carries a theoretical margin of error of 5.5pt. Given the difficulties of polling New Yorkers, the true margin of error is likely closer to 6.5pt. Thus, De Blasio’s 4pt jump from Marist’s prior poll is not statistically significant.

That’s why it wasn’t surprising to see De Blasio’s seeming “momentum” come crashing back to earth by placing 5pt behind Thompson among definite primary voters in the most recent New York Times/Siena survey. An aggregate that looks at all the data won’t be fooled by one or two individual polls.

Democratic coalition-building

It’s no accident that in every single Democratic primary since 1989, a minority candidate has placed no lower than second. There’s a reason why the last time a white non-Jewish male won a Democratic mayoral primary was in 1969, when current runoff rules were not in effect. Ethnic politics in New York has always been the name of the game in New York City.

Somewhere near 30% of the primary electorate will be African Americans. White males will comprise only a little more than 15% of the vote. White males who aren’t Jewish will number even fewer. Thompson has a natural ethnic voter base that De Blasio cannot match.

De Blasio has been doing best among white liberals, unsurprisingly. His two best percentages in the recent Marist poll were among whites and Manhattanites, despite his being from Brooklyn. The issue is that there are just not enough of these voters. White liberals will make up less than 20% of the electorate, and Quinn is making a play for them, too. She’s been doing best among Manhattanites at 32%, and whites at 31%, in the most recent Marist survey.

There’s some notion that De Blasio could eat into Thompson’s black base – after all, De Blasio is married to a black woman. De Blasio’s first big TV advertisement starred his biracial son, Dante.

So, De Blasio is the most liberal viable candidate. I’m wary.

Take a look at the 2009 public advocate map. De Blasio won a few black neighborhoods around his Park Slope home, against his Manhattan-based main opponent, Mark Green, who is not black. He also lost Bed-Stuy and Brownsville in Brooklyn. Outside of Brooklyn, De Blasio lost every single black neighborhood. He lost in Harlem in Manhattan, Jamaica in Queens, and Wakefield in the Bronx.

De Blasio’s best numbers were in the white areas around Park Slope and in Manhattan. This result matches the polling from this year, as to where De Blasio’s strongholds are.

Without looking at the polling, you’d think De Blasio would do worse among blacks this time around. Thompson has the vast majority of black endorsements and, being from Brooklyn, he can eat into De Blasio’s showing there.

And – wouldn’t you know it? – the polling backs this up. De Blasio has placed no better than fourth among blacks in any recent New York City poll. There is little sign at all that he has any “momentum” in this community.

Thompson, meanwhile, won 76% of blacks when he lost to Mayor Bloomberg in 2009 – 21pt higher than his showing among any other racial group. He won 80-90% in black neighborhoods, as he took 71% of the vote against a nominal opponent in the 2009 primary. This comports with Thompson leading (or in a statistical tie) among black voters in every single post-Weinergate poll.

Polling biases

At this point, Thompson hasn’t pulled away into a clear second because he’s only taking about 25% and 35% of the black vote in recent surveys, while running in the mid-teens among whites. I’m willing to bet that he’ll end up doing better among black voters. Why?

Take a look at this table from prior primaries since 1989.

The margin between polls at this point (a month before the primary) and the final poll shows that the candidate who ends up in second has always closed the gap between the frontrunner and himself. Undecideds tend to break toward the non-frontrunner in New York City primaries.

The minimum change was 7pt in 1989 when incumbent Ed Koch closed a 14pt deficit at this point to 7pt in the final New York Daily News poll. Al Sharpton in 1997 and Freddy Ferrer in 2001 each took 18pt off the leading candidate’s margin. If such a pattern continues, the final data may show Quinn and Thompson in a first-round dead heat.

The other bias is that the final primary polls have consistently undervalued the minority candidate. The leading minority candidate has closed when losing, or widened when leading, the margin on the closest candidate.

You get an idea why when looking at the final polls from the 2009 general. They only had Thompson taking the black vote by about 40pt – but he ended up taking it by a 53pt margin.

This seems to be a fairly consistent finding. Minority candidates take a higher percentage of the minority vote than pre-election polling indicates.

Thompson has both biases working in his favor. My guess is most of Thompson’s rising black vote will come from those who had supported the fading Anthony Weiner.

Conclusion

That’s why I’ll take Bill Thompson to advance in the runoff. He has the polling, demographics, and history on his side. Now, De Blasio is close to Thompson and historical precedent is made to be broken, but the evidence suggests that Thompson is more likely to make it.

I should also add that with about 25% of the primary electorate undecided, and De Blasio only 11pt behind Christine Quinn, it’s conceivable that De Blasio could also make it over Quinn, who is only polling in the mid-20s. Polling from past primaries suggests that frontrunners stay at about the same level in polling from August to September.

At this point, however, a Quinn-Thompson runoff is the most likely outcome.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Anthony Weiner’s post ‘Carlos Danger’ numbers are junk | Harry J Enten

Running against a weak frontrunner in Christine Quinn, Weiner had a golden opportunity to be New York mayor. Not any longer

Until now, Anthony Weiner’s political comeback from his original sexting scandal had been going very much to plan, probably exceeding even his own expectations. But with the new round of “Carlos Danger” revelations, that smooth progress is well and truly finished.

The Marist polling organization, which has tended to be the most favorable to Weiner, has him dropping 9pt, to 16%, and now behind first-placed Christine Quinn, on 25% among registered Democratic voters.

To be sure, these latest polls are not good news for Quinn, either. She trails in a possible runoff match-up with Bill Thompson, even as she was tied with Weiner.

The real problem for Weiner, however, is that numbers under the hood are even more devastating. Weiner had seen his favorable rating jump from 34% in February, to 45% in April, to 52% in June. That number has now tanked, to 30%. His unfavorable rating, meanwhile, has jumped to 55% among registered Democrats. That, folks, is simply not going to work.

More than this, the bigger obstacle for Weiner actually has nothing to do with him. It involves the other anti-Quinn candidates. Remember, Quinn is disliked by a substantial portion of the Democratic primary electorate. The anti-Quinn vote is looking for someone, really anyone, who can beat her. That has been Anthony Weiner, thanks to his high name-recognition.

The latest polling, even pre-scandal, shows that other non-Quinn candidates have been moving up. Bill Thompson, with a strong African-American base, hit 20% in a Quinnipiac poll among likely voters just before the “Danger saga”. Marist just placed him at 14% among registered voters. Both of these are the highest numbers he has scored in these polls since Weiner got in the race.

Bill de Blasio doesn’t have the same ethnic base, but progressives love him. He has put up a 14% and 15%, respectively, in the last two polls – also his highest to date with these pollsters.

About the only good news Weiner can take out of the wreckage of his polling numbers is that more Democrats want him to stay in the race than wish him to drop out. This suggests Weiner just might be able to recover, again. The problem is that the 47% who want him to stay in is lower than the 53% that said he deserved a second chance last time around (just two months ago).

I should caution also that a one-night poll after such a jarring admission may not be the most accurate. Opinions about Weiner may not be fully-formed. His numbers may slide even further given even further negative press since the Marist poll was conducted. It’s also possible, though not likely, that they could bounce back. But we should remember that while only 40% of New York City Democrats wanted him to run just before he got into the race, over time his numbers went up and his favorable rating climbed steadily.

Moreover, one-night polling in a city that is notoriously difficult to survey isn’t likely to lead to the most accurate survey. In the comptroller race with Eliot Spitzer, which should be mostly unaffected by Weiner’s PR problems, Marist had very different numbers than Quinnipiac. Marist had Spitzer ahead by 12pt with likely voters, while Quinnipiac had Spitzer ahead by just 4pt.

All of these reservations aside, it’s clear Weiner’s in a heap of trouble. It will now be up to either Bill de Blasio or Bill Thompson to step in and fill the anti-Quinn void. Weiner had a golden opportunity to exploit Quinn’s electoral weakness; it looks as though he’s blown it.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Anthony Weiner’s post ‘Carlos Danger’ numbers are junk | Harry J Enten

Running against a weak frontrunner in Christine Quinn, Weiner had a golden opportunity to be New York mayor. Not any longer

Until now, Anthony Weiner’s political comeback from his original sexting scandal had been going very much to plan, probably exceeding even his own expectations. But with the new round of “Carlos Danger” revelations, that smooth progress is well and truly finished.

The Marist polling organization, which has tended to be the most favorable to Weiner, has him dropping 9pt, to 16%, and now behind first-placed Christine Quinn, on 25% among registered Democratic voters.

To be sure, these latest polls are not good news for Quinn, either. She trails in a possible runoff match-up with Bill Thompson, even as she was tied with Weiner.

The real problem for Weiner, however, is that numbers under the hood are even more devastating. Weiner had seen his favorable rating jump from 34% in February, to 45% in April, to 52% in June. That number has now tanked, to 30%. His unfavorable rating, meanwhile, has jumped to 55% among registered Democrats. That, folks, is simply not going to work.

More than this, the bigger obstacle for Weiner actually has nothing to do with him. It involves the other anti-Quinn candidates. Remember, Quinn is disliked by a substantial portion of the Democratic primary electorate. The anti-Quinn vote is looking for someone, really anyone, who can beat her. That has been Anthony Weiner, thanks to his high name-recognition.

The latest polling, even pre-scandal, shows that other non-Quinn candidates have been moving up. Bill Thompson, with a strong African-American base, hit 20% in a Quinnipiac poll among likely voters just before the “Danger saga”. Marist just placed him at 14% among registered voters. Both of these are the highest numbers he has scored in these polls since Weiner got in the race.

Bill de Blasio doesn’t have the same ethnic base, but progressives love him. He has put up a 14% and 15%, respectively, in the last two polls – also his highest to date with these pollsters.

About the only good news Weiner can take out of the wreckage of his polling numbers is that more Democrats want him to stay in the race than wish him to drop out. This suggests Weiner just might be able to recover, again. The problem is that the 47% who want him to stay in is lower than the 53% that said he deserved a second chance last time around (just two months ago).

I should caution also that a one-night poll after such a jarring admission may not be the most accurate. Opinions about Weiner may not be fully-formed. His numbers may slide even further given even further negative press since the Marist poll was conducted. It’s also possible, though not likely, that they could bounce back. But we should remember that while only 40% of New York City Democrats wanted him to run just before he got into the race, over time his numbers went up and his favorable rating climbed steadily.

Moreover, one-night polling in a city that is notoriously difficult to survey isn’t likely to lead to the most accurate survey. In the comptroller race with Eliot Spitzer, which should be mostly unaffected by Weiner’s PR problems, Marist had very different numbers than Quinnipiac. Marist had Spitzer ahead by 12pt with likely voters, while Quinnipiac had Spitzer ahead by just 4pt.

All of these reservations aside, it’s clear Weiner’s in a heap of trouble. It will now be up to either Bill de Blasio or Bill Thompson to step in and fill the anti-Quinn void. Weiner had a golden opportunity to exploit Quinn’s electoral weakness; it looks as though he’s blown it.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Will Weiner be a winner and can Stringer make Spitzer a loser? | Harry J Enten

The Democratic primaries for New York mayor and comptroller are warming up – with two scandal-ridden candidates in front

The latest surveys from Marist and Quinnipiac have Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer leading the mayoral and comptroller primaries respectively. But will that hold?

Democratic mayoral primary: Weiner v Quinn v the rest

For the first time in the campaign, one can easily paint a picture that would have Weiner winning both the primary and the runoff. Weiner leads by 25% to 22% over City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the Quinnipiac survey released on Monday. It’s not the top line, however, that should make Weiner smile. It’s the fact that Quinn is in her weakest position yet against Weiner for the runoff, which will be held if no candidate reaches a threshold of 40% in the first round.

Quinn’s net favorable rating among Democrats is only +5pt. This is an amazing 50pt drop since January. It’s also a 16pt decline from just late June. Weiner, on the other hand, has a +6pt net favorable rating. That’s stayed relatively steady, if not risen somewhat, since he entered the race. Marist’s poll in late June, which had Weiner ahead by 5pt, discovered an even higher rise in his favorables.

Though Quinnipiac didn’t specifically poll the runoff, previous surveys by Marist indicated that Weiner was actually outperforming Quinn relative to their favorable ratings. So, I would guess that Weiner is probably ahead in a runoff against an opponent who is actually more disliked than he is.

Quinn’s weakness is not any personal life foible. Most likely, it’s because of outside campaigns linking her to Mayor Bloomberg, who is disliked by a substantial portion of the Democratic electorate, especially for her approval of a rule-changing extra term for Bloomberg. It will be difficult for her to unite the anti-Weiner vote in a runoff.

So Weiner, at this point, has to be considered the favorite in a runoff.

The most likely way Weiner could lose is if either current Public Advocate Bill de Blasio or former Comptroller Bill Thompson reach the runoff. They’re both polling in the low teens in the first round – well behind Quinn. But both have far higher net favorables (+30pt or more), depending on whether you look at Marist or Quinnipiac. Their problem is the same: each is relatively unknown, with about 50% of those surveyed expressing no opinion of them, per Quinnipiac, as opposed to only 20% having no view of Weiner.

Both De Blasio and Thompson will benefit from the city’s public financing system, which will allow them to get their name out there more. The question is whether they will really break through in the media. That could prove difficult given that the press will likely focus on the Weiner-Quinn dynamic, as well as on Spitzer in the comptroller race.

Thompson likely has the best chance. I believe that surveys are underestimating Thompson’s share of the black vote (he is the only African-American candidate). I still think that’s the case, but any underestimation effect would not be so great as to change the current ordering of the top line in either the Marist or the Quinnipiac polls, which have him at least 7pt behind Quinn. He’ll need to get closer than he is currently to count on any survey under-count effect putting him over the top.

All this said, New York City mayoral primaries have a tendency to break late. This is especially the case when all the candidates are relatively close together. Today’s polling isn’t necessarily predictive of tomorrow’s.

Spitzer v Stringer for comptroller

A very different dynamic is at play in the comptroller race. Spitzer leads Scott Stringer 48% to 33% (Quinnipiac), and 42% to 33% (Marist), respectively. He has a better net favorable than either Quinn or Weiner at +21pt. Do a better net favorable and a bigger lead mean that Spitzer is more likely to win?

That is one way to look at it. Indeed, I’d be the first to admit that I’m surprised that Spitzer is polling so well despite his sex scandal past. Still, I’d argue that the one-on-one dynamic against Stringer puts him at an inherent disadvantage: it’s a zero-sum game and if Stringer moves up, he’ll eat into Spitzer’s numbers. In the mayoral race, the dynamic is different: De Blasio or Thompson may be able to take votes off each other, or off either Weiner or Quinn.

Spitzer enjoys the best name recognition of any of the candidates in either race, with only 15% not holding an opinion of him per Quinnipiac. Stringer has the lowest name recognition, with 63% saying they didn’t know how they feel about the current Manhattan borough president. That low number almost certainly will not hold as the contest heats up.

While elected officials and labor unions are split as to who they support in the mayoral race, they are almost uniformly behind Stringer in the comptroller election. Stringer will have raised at least $5-6m including matching funds. The press will also likely pay more attention to Stringer in this race than to either De Blasio or Thompson in the mayoral primary, because he’s the only opponent Spitzer has. That should help Stringer boost his name identification hugely.

As Stringer’s name recognition goes up, his polling against Spitzer should as well. Spitzer is up by 35pt among black voters in the Quinnipiac poll, yet 72% have no opinion of Stringer. Spitzer leads by 20pt among Latinos, as 76% have no opinion of Stringer. The one racial group Stringer does lead Spitzer among is whites, partially because a much lower 46% have no opinion of Stringer. Among all groups, Stringer has a better favorable to unfavorable ratio. His ratio overall is a little better than 3:1, while it is only about half that for Spitzer.

This graph by Mark Blumenthal tells the story.

Stringer’s deficit by borough is directly related to how well Stringer is liked. Where he is best known and liked, in Manhattan, he is polling the best. Where he is least liked and least known, in Queens and Staten Island, he is polling the worst.

In short, I don’t think Spitzer’s lead is as strong as the top line suggests. It should fade as Stringer becomes better known. Weiner’s advantage over Quinn is more secure, but he has to look out for the better-liked De Blasio and Thompson. With public financing of candidates the rule and most voters not yet tuned in, anything can still happen.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Will Weiner be a winner and can Stringer make Spitzer a loser? | Harry J Enten

The Democratic primaries for New York mayor and comptroller are warming up – with two scandal-ridden candidates in front

The latest surveys from Marist and Quinnipiac have Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer leading the mayoral and comptroller primaries respectively. But will that hold?

Democratic mayoral primary: Weiner v Quinn v the rest

For the first time in the campaign, one can easily paint a picture that would have Weiner winning both the primary and the runoff. Weiner leads by 25% to 22% over City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the Quinnipiac survey released on Monday. It’s not the top line, however, that should make Weiner smile. It’s the fact that Quinn is in her weakest position yet against Weiner for the runoff, which will be held if no candidate reaches a threshold of 40% in the first round.

Quinn’s net favorable rating among Democrats is only +5pt. This is an amazing 50pt drop since January. It’s also a 16pt decline from just late June. Weiner, on the other hand, has a +6pt net favorable rating. That’s stayed relatively steady, if not risen somewhat, since he entered the race. Marist’s poll in late June, which had Weiner ahead by 5pt, discovered an even higher rise in his favorables.

Though Quinnipiac didn’t specifically poll the runoff, previous surveys by Marist indicated that Weiner was actually outperforming Quinn relative to their favorable ratings. So, I would guess that Weiner is probably ahead in a runoff against an opponent who is actually more disliked than he is.

Quinn’s weakness is not any personal life foible. Most likely, it’s because of outside campaigns linking her to Mayor Bloomberg, who is disliked by a substantial portion of the Democratic electorate, especially for her approval of a rule-changing extra term for Bloomberg. It will be difficult for her to unite the anti-Weiner vote in a runoff.

So Weiner, at this point, has to be considered the favorite in a runoff.

The most likely way Weiner could lose is if either current Public Advocate Bill de Blasio or former Comptroller Bill Thompson reach the runoff. They’re both polling in the low teens in the first round – well behind Quinn. But both have far higher net favorables (+30pt or more), depending on whether you look at Marist or Quinnipiac. Their problem is the same: each is relatively unknown, with about 50% of those surveyed expressing no opinion of them, per Quinnipiac, as opposed to only 20% having no view of Weiner.

Both De Blasio and Thompson will benefit from the city’s public financing system, which will allow them to get their name out there more. The question is whether they will really break through in the media. That could prove difficult given that the press will likely focus on the Weiner-Quinn dynamic, as well as on Spitzer in the comptroller race.

Thompson likely has the best chance. I believe that surveys are underestimating Thompson’s share of the black vote (he is the only African-American candidate). I still think that’s the case, but any underestimation effect would not be so great as to change the current ordering of the top line in either the Marist or the Quinnipiac polls, which have him at least 7pt behind Quinn. He’ll need to get closer than he is currently to count on any survey under-count effect putting him over the top.

All this said, New York City mayoral primaries have a tendency to break late. This is especially the case when all the candidates are relatively close together. Today’s polling isn’t necessarily predictive of tomorrow’s.

Spitzer v Stringer for comptroller

A very different dynamic is at play in the comptroller race. Spitzer leads Scott Stringer 48% to 33% (Quinnipiac), and 42% to 33% (Marist), respectively. He has a better net favorable than either Quinn or Weiner at +21pt. Do a better net favorable and a bigger lead mean that Spitzer is more likely to win?

That is one way to look at it. Indeed, I’d be the first to admit that I’m surprised that Spitzer is polling so well despite his sex scandal past. Still, I’d argue that the one-on-one dynamic against Stringer puts him at an inherent disadvantage: it’s a zero-sum game and if Stringer moves up, he’ll eat into Spitzer’s numbers. In the mayoral race, the dynamic is different: De Blasio or Thompson may be able to take votes off each other, or off either Weiner or Quinn.

Spitzer enjoys the best name recognition of any of the candidates in either race, with only 15% not holding an opinion of him per Quinnipiac. Stringer has the lowest name recognition, with 63% saying they didn’t know how they feel about the current Manhattan borough president. That low number almost certainly will not hold as the contest heats up.

While elected officials and labor unions are split as to who they support in the mayoral race, they are almost uniformly behind Stringer in the comptroller election. Stringer will have raised at least $5-6m including matching funds. The press will also likely pay more attention to Stringer in this race than to either De Blasio or Thompson in the mayoral primary, because he’s the only opponent Spitzer has. That should help Stringer boost his name identification hugely.

As Stringer’s name recognition goes up, his polling against Spitzer should as well. Spitzer is up by 35pt among black voters in the Quinnipiac poll, yet 72% have no opinion of Stringer. Spitzer leads by 20pt among Latinos, as 76% have no opinion of Stringer. The one racial group Stringer does lead Spitzer among is whites, partially because a much lower 46% have no opinion of Stringer. Among all groups, Stringer has a better favorable to unfavorable ratio. His ratio overall is a little better than 3:1, while it is only about half that for Spitzer.

This graph by Mark Blumenthal tells the story.

Stringer’s deficit by borough is directly related to how well Stinger is liked. Where he is best known and liked, in Manhattan, he is polling the best. Where he is least liked and least known, in Queens and Staten Island, he is polling the worst.

In short, I don’t think Spitzer’s lead is as strong as the top line suggests. It should fade as Stringer becomes better known. Weiner’s advantage over Quinn is more secure, but he has to look out for the better-liked De Blasio and Thompson. With public financing of candidates the rule and most voters not yet tuned in, anything can still happen.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer test how forgiving New York voters are | Harry J Enten

Weiner’s running for mayor, Spitzer for comptroller, both trying for a comeback from sex scandal. But Weiner’s way looks clearer

Sometimes, when the electoral gods seem spent, they bless us with the unexpected. Enter former New York Governor and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer surprised more than one person last night with his sudden announcement that he’s going to run for New York City comptroller. The move adds more former “sex scandal” excitement to a New York City election season already featuring the comeback of Anthony Weiner.

Spitzer resigned from office in 2008 after paying a prostitute and transporting her across state lines, since which he has worked as a CNN and Current TV host. But as Ben Smith wrote last night, a comparison with Weiner’s “sexting” disgrace is an error. The two affairs were nothing alike: Weiner’s tweeting may have been inappropriate, to say the least, but did not cross a line, as Spitzer did. More to the point, the races each has entered are completely different.

We cannot possibly know how Spitzer will shake up the comptroller’s race, or whether Spitzer’s entry will, in some way, affect Weiner in the mayoral race. To do so, we’ll have to wait for polling at the end of the week. At first glance, though, Spitzer’s run seems less likely to succeed than Weiner’s. Here are five reasons why.

1. Weiner’s problem was the sex scandal; Spitzer’s was not

The last poll in 2011 before Weinergate had the then congressman with a slim single-digit lead in the mayoral primary. That tends to match up with the last poll of his aborted 2009 run. Weiner’s net favorable rating in New York City at that point was +18pt, with 55% of voters not holding an opinion of him. That suggests he had room to rise.

Spitzer, on the other hand, was quite disliked before his scandal. As Smith points out, Spitzer made few friends, with governing style that was characterised in his phrase “I am a fucking steamroller”. The month before scandal hit, Spitzer’s net approval rating in New York City was -17pt – and almost everyone had an opinion of him. Only 23% of New York City voters wanted him to seek re-election (pdf), while 51% preferred someone else.

The point is that even if Spitzer gets people to concentrate on him, instead of the sex scandal, they might start remembering how little they liked him.

2. New Yorkers viewed Spitzer’s scandal as worse than Weiner’s

When asked whether or not Weiner did something illegal, only 13% of New Yorkers said yes. This is likely the reason why 51% of New York City residents said he should not resign, after his scandal.

Spitzer faced a far more judgmental public, as 36% of New York City residents thought he should face criminal charges – 23pt higher than Weiner. Then, 62% of New Yorkers wanted him to resign – nearly 50pt higher than Weiner. And 54% of them wanted him impeached, if he didn’t resign.

If voters are reminded of Spitzer’s scandal, it’s a lot worse news than it would be for Weiner.

3. Weiner fills a void in the mayoral race, unlike the comptroller contest

The mayoral field in New York City was notably weak. The onetime frontrunner Christine Quinn was disliked by many labor groups and was quite vulnerable because of her former support for Mayor Bloomberg (in particular, his extension of term-limits). There was and is no establishment candidate in the mayoral race. That allowed Weiner to take advantage of a chaotic situation with his superior name-recognition.

The comptroller race is the exact opposite. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer was running alone, with no opponent in sight. All his major opponents had quit the field, and he had gobbled up many endorsements. Stringer is also the establishment candidate, yet seems well-liked by progressives. Spitzer doesn’t have the same ideological hole as Weiner does to squeeze through.

4. Spitzer has less time to get 50% of the people to like him

All Weiner needs to do in the primary on 10 September is to get about 22-23% of the vote; that gets himself a spot in the runoff. That’s not that difficult to do purely on name-recognition. In fact, Weiner is already polling at 25% (per Marist).

Spitzer, however, needs to get 50%+1 of the Democratic electorate to go for him on the first try. There will be no runoff, as he’s facing only one serious opponent. I’m not sure New Yorkers will be ready for a quick come-on.

5. Spitzer’s going to face attacks immediately

The split field in the Democratic mayoral primary gives Weiner an additional edge: no one wants to attack him. Outside of minor candidate Sal Albanese, attacks from Democrats on Weiner have been non-existent. Even Albanese’s attacks have focused mostly on policy (and not the sexting affair).

The reason is probably two-fold: opponents think they can beat Weiner in a runoff and they don’t want to be seen getting in the mud, which would allow another candidate to sneak by. That has allowed Weiner to establish himself in the race as someone who can make it past the first round.

In contrast, Spitzer has already faced tough words from the Stringer campaign. Unlike Weiner, Spitzer was not welcomed to the campaign. Stringer has implied that nothing is off-limits in the contest. That’ll give Spitzer little chance to tell voters why they might like him better now – before they’re reminded why they didn’t before.

None of this means Spitzer can’t win or won’t win. We need that poll before we can see whether he really has a shot at it. But at first glance, his road back to office is a lot more rocky than Weiner’s.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds