What the Virginia governor’s race tells us about the 2014 midterms | Harry J Enten

Against trend, Democrat Terry McAuliffe is set to win. After running a strong conservative, Republicans should take a hint

I’m hesitant to read too much into elections that don’t occur during the midterms or presidential election years. If off-year elections were all that predictive, Democrats would have done well in the 2002 midterms. Still, Republicans should pay attention to what’s looking increasingly like a Democratic win in the making in the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election; that ought to make them at least a little worried for the 2014 midterms.

Historically, whichever party is in the White House loses the Virginia gubernatorial election, just as the White House’s party loses House seats in midterm elections. The last time this did not happen was 40 years ago, in 1973.

Moreover, Virginia’s voting patterns these days mirror the nation’s nearly perfectly. President Obama won nationally and in Virginia by 3.9pt. Democrat Tim Kaine won his 2012 senatorial race with 53% of the vote, while Democrats nationally took 54% of the senatorial vote. Both elections featured electorates in which whites now make up 70%, or a little more, during presidential years, and closer to 75% in non-presidential years.

That’s why we’d expect, all other things being equal, the Republican candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, to win Virginia’s gubernatorial election. And voters in Virginia did appear, at first, likely to follow the historical pattern. The first two polls which accounted for the higher white turnout in off-year and midterm elections had Cuccinelli leading Democrat Terry McAuliffe by 3pt and 10pt, respectively.

Then, something started to happen at the end of spring: voters got to know Ken Cuccinelli. Groups supporting McAuliffe and McAuliffe himself, aided by his background as a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee and for Bill and Hillary Clinton, pounded the airwaves – pointing out Cuccinelli’s very conservative positions on contraception, gay rights, and now, the government shutdown.

The result is that McAuliffe has jumped ahead to a mid single-digit lead with a little less than a month to go before the election. Polling at this point has generally been reliably predictive of who will win.

Now, it would be one thing if McAuliffe were winning because of some factor or factors unique to the state of Virginia, but I don’t think we can claim that. The incumbent Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, has faced criticism on grounds of ethics, yet his approval rating is relatively high. McDonnell also led McAuliffe in a pollsters’ hypothetical matchup, if he could have run again.

McAuliffe himself isn’t exactly Mr Popularity. His net favorable ratings are, at best, even, though most polls have his favorable rating below his net favorable rating. In other words, he’s not exactly the type of candidate you’d expect to break an election history pattern in a positive way for his party.

No, the real problem for Republicans in Virginia is Cuccinelli. While McAuliffe may rank slightly below a net positive favorable rating, Cuccinelli’s net favorable is 15-20pt in the red.

Voters simply think Cuccinelli is too rightwing: 43% of voters believe he is too conservative, which is up significantly from when he led in the polls in spring. That compares with only only 35% who believe McAuliffe is too liberal (and that’s more or less where it had been earlier in the campaign).

Therein lies the issue for Republicans nationwide, Cuccinelli embodies their present identity in many ways. Both are becoming deeply unpopular for conservative positions, and both are partying with Ted Cruz – even though they probably know that it doesn’t look good from the general electorate’s point of view.

Meanwhile, McAuliffe looks a lot like Democrats nationally. Both are not well-liked (you could even say, disliked), but they’re not seen as extremist – and, crucially, they look great when compared to the other guy.

None is this is to say a McAuliffe win means Democrats in the 2014 midterms are going to break the historical loss trend – as McAuliffe looks as though he’s going to do in Virginia. In fact, I don’t think Democrats will win seats in the House and will almost certainly lose some in the Senate. It would be a victory of sorts, though, if they can keep any losses to a minimum.

So, Republicans should have a bit of a sinking feeling when looking at Virginia. When presented with the choice between ugly and uglier, Virginians seem to have decided to go with ugly. This may not end up being predictive of next year’s midterms, but it should be unsettling, to say the least, to Republicans nationally.

Harry J Enten

‘Cuch’ wins barbecue test in Virginia, but ‘T-Mac’ leads gubernatorial race | Harry J Enten

Virginians find the Republican Cuccinelli likeable – but for his conservatism. On the issues, they prefer the Democrat McAuliffe

Before Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner in New York City, the clown show of 2013 was supposed to be the swing-state Virginia gubernatorial election. Republican Ken Cuccinelli (Cuch) holds deeply conservative views, including his belief that “homosexual acts” are wrong, while Democrat Terry McAuliffe (T-Mac) is seen as unlikable – as demonstrated by the fact that he left his wife alone as she was delivering one of their children.

The question that has marked this campaign is whether it would be Cuch’s extreme policy positions, which, many would argue, the GOP suffers from nationally, or T-Mac’s personality deficiencies that would ultimately be too much for Virginia voters to bear. In my view, issues will trump personality, and that favors the Democrat.

Horserace polling at this early point hasn’t historically given us a good idea of who is going to win. Most voters simply aren’t paying attention. They have no clue, for example, who Republican Lieutenant Governor candidate EW Jackson is, despite much insider discussion of his very conservative social positions.

Yet, Quinnipiac has a very interesting way we can compare the issue v personality problems both gubernatorial candidates have, and see which is more predictive of how the voters feel about the two. On the issues, they asked whether each candidate is too conservative, liberal or about right. Obviously, the percentage of “don’t know” is high given most voters haven’t tuned into the race. For those who have, however, it’s clear that Cuch is going backward.

The percentage of those who think Cuccinelli is too conservative rose by 5pt over the past two months, to its all-time high of 33%. Almost all of that increase is from voters who had previously not registered an opinion. Among independent voters, whom Cuch must win, the percentage of those who thought he was “too conservative” is up from 29% to 38%. The percentage of independents who think he is “too conservative” is now 4pt higher than those who think he is “about right”.

T-Mac has no such problems. The percentage of those who think he is “too liberal” is up 4pt, but that’s mirrored by a 3pt rise in the percentage of those who think he is just right. Voters are 10pt more likely to think he is “about right” than “too far to the left”, versus only a 4pt gap for Cuch between about right and too conservative. Independents are 8pt more likely to say T-Mac is “about right” than “too liberal” – again, much better than how Cuch registers for “too conservative”.

But what about T-Mac’s personality issues? We can test that using the barbecue test. Voters were asked who would they rather have a conversation with at a cookout. The BBQ question is an offshoot of the “who would you rather have a beer with?” It’s trying to measure “comfortability” or the “regular guy” index of the candidates. You’d expect Cuch to do better here, and he does.

Cuch still holds that “personal” edge over T-Mac. Despite thinking Cuch is more conservative than T-Mac is liberal, voters give Cuch this test by 38% to 34%. He is ahead among independents 37% to 34%, even as independents are increasingly thinking that he is too extreme on the issues.

It’s fairly clear, however, that it’s issues not the regular guy index that’s what is shaping perceptions of the candidates. How do I know? Look at the favorability of the candidates. Favorability is very important because no other measure predicts general election match-ups as well as it does in swing states.

Cuch’s unfavorability is up 6pt in the past two months, from 24% to 30% – only slightly better than his favorability of 31%. That’s nearly identical to the 5pt rise in those who think that Cuch is too conservative. Among independents, Cuch’s unfavorability is up 5pt to 30% and now is greater than his favorability at 29%. That 1pt difference among independents is similar to the 4pt difference between “too conservative” and “about right”.

T-Mac’s favorability is up to 30%, from just 22% two months ago. His unfavorable rating is only up 2pt, to 19%. The 11pt difference between the favorability and unfavorability matches the 10pt gap between “just right” and “too liberal” on the issues question. T-Mac stands at 28% favorable to 21% unfavorable with independents. This 7pt gap is nearly the same as the 8pt gap between “about right” and “too liberal” on the issues question.

Therefore, the best measure for predicting the winner in Virginia is looks like being the issues test, and not the “BBQ test”, in Virginia. Voters may not think Terry McAuliffe is a regular guy, but that doesn’t seem to matter. The campaign is developing on the grounds McAuliffe would prefer, and not the one Ken Cuccinelli would favor.

Voters overall, and independents specifically, think McAuliffe is right on the issues; increasingly, they believe that Cuccinelli is not. That makes McAuliffe favorite.

Harry J Enten

‘Cuch’ wins barbecue test in Virginia, but ‘T-Mac’ leads gubernatorial race | Harry J Enten

Virginians find the Republican Cuccinelli likeable – but for his conservatism. On the issues, they prefer the Democrat McAuliffe

Voters overall, and independents specifically, think McAuliffe is right on the issues; increasingly, they believe that Cuccinelli is not. That makes McAuliffe favorite.

Harry J Enten

Where are the Polls?: Virginia’s 2013 Race for Governor

Today marks a very strange anniversary. It has been exactly one month since any poll has been released in the Virginia Governor’s race. The last poll in this race, conducted by Rasmussen from June 5th-6th, was released June 10, 2013.

The dearth of polling in this race is strange for several reasons. First, the race for governor is shaping up to be a close one this year in Virginia. In fact, the Real Clear Politics polling average has the race as an exact tie right now at 42.4% of the vote for both Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. With such a close race shaping up, one would expect more frequent polling of this race.

Second, a number of polls have been conducted in other states during this time period. All the stranger is the fact that the states where polls have been conducted in this time period either do not feature major elections until 2014 such as Montana and Ohio or feature races that are not particularly close such as New Jersey (both Governor and Senate).

Third, during the same period in both 2005 and 2009 several polls were released in the Virginia Governor’s race (although there was an odd lull in polling from mid-August to early September in 2005). As the number of firms conducting public polls (and total number of polls) seems to have substantially increased in the past few years, the lack of polling this year in Virginia becomes even stranger.

Fourth, there are several other clear reasons to poll the state of Virginia besides the governor’s race. Both the extreme statements made by Lieutenant Governor Candidate E.W. Jackson and the scandal(s) surrounding Governor Bob McDonnell have also dominated the news in Virginia in recent weeks. Certainly Virginians (and all Americans) would find poll questions related to those topics to be of interest as well.

At this point, I don’t have a clear explanation for the lack of polling in Virginia, but I will offer my best conjecture for why we have not seen more polls in recent weeks. I think part of it stems from the fact that the race is, to quote Public Policy Polling, a “lesser of two evils race.” In other words, this race does not feature a widely popular candidate such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Newark Mayor and Senate candidate Cory Booker (nor is there even a candidate in the race as, let us just say, entertaining as Anthony Weiner for New York City Mayor).

If this race is truly a race between the “lesser of two evils” as Public Policy Polling posits, then the race will be decided by underlying partisan dynamics and the ability of each side to turn out their base in what is likely to be a low turnout election. Such conditions are generally not a recipe for great interest from the public. Therefore, with a general lack of interest from the public, there is not a great incentive for polling firms to go out of their way to poll this state.

We certainly will see polls out of Virginia in the weeks and months to come. Nevertheless, the current situation is puzzling and is at least worthy of mention.

A 2012 Senate Parallel in the 2013 Virginia Governor’s Race

The 2013 race for Virginia Governor is already shaping up as one for the ages. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is (by almost any measure) the most conservative nominee for Virginia Governor in modern electoral history, while Terry McAuliffe is a candidate with a number of flaws and is seen by many as too much of a political insider. Adding further intrigue to the race, the recent nomination of ultra-conservative Bishop E.W. Jackson as the GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor has meant trouble for the Cuccinelli campaign.[i] Nevertheless, this race is still anyone’s game. Ken Cuccinelli has a number of devoted supporters who are very enthusiastic about his campaign; few would characterize Democratic enthusiasm for Terry McAuliffe as being as deep and wide.

So what do the 2012 Senate races (as the title of this piece suggests) have to do with the 2013 race for Virginia Governor? Let me explain. In four of these Senate races—Missouri, Indiana, Montana, and Ohio—a conservative-leaning (and with the exception of Ohio, Libertarian) third party candidate received between 4.5 and 7 percent of the vote of the vote. The presence of these conservative-leaning third party candidates on the ballot likely cost Republican candidates votes—and in the case of Montana, the presence of the Libertarian may have cost the race for Republican Denny Rehberg. (A Libertarian also pulled around 4.6 percent of the vote in the Arizona Senate race, although Republican Jeff Flake still defeated Democrat Richard Carmona.)

Like the aforementioned 2012 Senate races, the 2013 Virginia Governor’s race features a conservative-leaning third party candidate in addition to the two major party candidates. This candidate, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, could play the role of spoiler in this race by pulling a similar percentage of the vote as the conservative-leaning third party candidates in the 2012 Senate races.

There are several reasons to suspect that Sarvis could pull a similar percentage of the vote as his 2012 Senate race counterparts. First, according to recent polls both Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli have upside down favorability ratings with the overall electorate and also suffer from popularity issues within their own party. In other words, a substantial number of voters are ambivalent about both candidates and are thus still up for grabs.

Second, Mr. Sarvis represents a credible alternative for disaffected Republican voters and has the potential to pull votes away from Ken Cuccinelli. No other third party candidate appears on the ballot, so an equal threat does not exist for Terry McAuliffe. By any measure, Robert Sarvis is at least as credible as the 2012 Senate candidates who received between 4.5 and 7 percent of the vote in their respective races. Of note is the fact that Sarvis was the Republican nominee for State Senate in 2011 against Democratic State Senate Leader Dick Saslaw.

Sarvis may appeal to disaffected Republicans who do not want to vote for Ken Cuccinelli. Once again, this would be similar to 2012, where some Republicans could not bring themselves to vote for controversial nominees Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri. (The 2012 GOP candidates in Montana and Ohio, while conservative, were nowhere near as controversial as Mr. Akin and Mr. Mourdock).

Come Election Day 2013, history may repeat itself as Terry McAuliffe is elected Governor of Virginia with a plurality of the vote. Here Montana may serve as the best guide to overall vote percentages; like Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), Terry McAuliffe may receive somewhere around 48 or 49 percent of the vote. While not a majority, this could be enough to win the election for Mr. McAuliffe if Robert Sarvis pulls several percentage points from Ken Cuccinelli and thus serves as a spoiler in this race.

[i] Note: In Virginia, unlike other states, the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor run separate campaigns and thus do not appear together on the ballot as a ticket.

Same-sex marriage could take decades to be legal in every state | Harry J Enten

Unless the federal government or supreme court act, southern states will most likely oppose gay marriage for the foreseeable future

The gay marriage movement is racing forward faster than ever, and with a new burst of life. This week, Minnesota became the third state to pass same-sex marriage this year, and the twelfth state overall, but most surprisingly, this was a state that, according to polls, was willing to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage a year ago.

Minnesota won’t be the last state to make do a quick turnaround. National polling indicates that the majority support for same-sex marriage is picking up by 2pt per year. Among states, gay marriage is popular in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and many others.

Indeed, demographic models indicate that if put up for a vote, same-sex marriage would become legal in all but six states by 2020! Even Mississippi is projected to be up to near 40% support on the issue, gaining a little over 1.5pt per year. So the whole thing should be over soon, right? Not likely.

Unless the federal government or supreme court acts, it could take years and years for many southern states to legalize same-sex marriage.

As Nate Cohn notes, there’s reason to believe that the demographic models are off in the south. The south has a far higher percentage of white evangelicals than any other part of the country, and these voters have been very slow to change their views. The great majority of young, white evangelicals still oppose gay marriage, unlike other young voters.

State polls show a number of southern states running behind where the demographic models indicate where they should be.

Indeed, some states have shown very virtually no change since they approved constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. At the rate Arkansas is moving, it will take more than 20 or even 30 years for the majority of voters to be in favor of same-sex marriage. In Kentucky, only 30% of voters 18-29-years-old are in favor of gay marriage.

The problem, however, is not just that it will take a while for a majority of voters to support same-sex marriage. All the southern states except for West Virginia have a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage, which requires an amendment to repeal the previous one. The process for doing so in many southern states requires a majority in the state legislature, which is to say that voters can’t just petition to get something on the ballot.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia can only get an amendment on the ballot with approval from the state legislature. West Virginia doesn’t allow referendums or initiatives to be voted upon, so it has to start in the legislature there, as well. Only Arkansas and Mississippi let voters directly pass a constitutional amendment.

The states that require legislature approval have very stringent rules, too: either a constitutional convention can be called, which is almost impossible, or the legislature can pass the amendment before sending it to the voters.

Alabama, Kentucky and North Carolina require +60% of each chamber of the state legislature to approve an amendment, just to get it on the ballot. A simple majority of voters must then approve. Right now, Republicans control over 60% of the seats in at least one chamber of all these state legislatures.

Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas require two-thirds of each chamber to approve an amendment for the ballot. Then, the amendments need a majority vote from the people. Republicans control over 55% of each house of these states.

Tennessee and Virginia require a majority of each chamber of the legislature in one session, then it must be voted upon again by the next legislature, which means an entire election must go by. In Tennessee, two-thirds of each house must then approve for it to be placed for a majority vote of the people; Virginia only needs a majority. Tennessee Republicans control 70% of each state chamber. Virginia Republicans hold two-thirds of the seats in Virginia.

The bottom line is that with the exception of Arkansas, Mississippi and Virginia, any southern state with a ban in place would need at least 60% each of their state houses to reverse the ban. Republicans have at least partial control of all the legislatures near the border and in the deep south. Many of these states were won over recently, as the last remnants of the Yellow Dog Democrats bit the dust. Change seems rather unlikely, except perhaps for peripheral states, like North Carolina and Virginia. The only one that isn’t Republican controlled, West Virginia, is so conservative that Joe Manchin, one of only two Democratic US senators who doesn’t personally support gay marriage, calls it home.

Republican control is a big deal because though the rest of the country has moved, Republicans, especially southern Republicans, have not. Only 26% of Republicans support gay marriage. The percentage of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage rose by 15pt over the past decade; the percentage of Republicans favoring gay marriage only rose by 3pt over the same period. That’s a growth rate of only 0.3pt a year.

Specific state polling is no more comforting to those looking forward to change. Support for same-sex marriage in these states is as follows: 10% of Georgia Republicans, 11% of Louisiana Republicans, 12% of Kentucky Republicans, 12% of North Carolina Republicans, 9% of South Carolina Republicans, 14% of Texas Republicans, and a quarter of Virginia Republicans.

With the exception of Virginia, it’s pretty clear that southern Republican support for gay marriage is lower than among Republicans nationally. As such, it’s difficult to see how support among southern Republicans will hit 50% anytime before 2040. It’s hard to imagine more than the stray Republican voting for same-sex marriage. Polarization is at all-time high, and politicians are more afraid about losing primaries than general elections. Republicans have no need to vote for same-sex marriage.

Thus, unless the federal government jumps in, most, if not all southern states won’t legalize same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Most of their citizens don’t want it, and by the time they do, most Republicans still won’t. Considering you’ll need a majority or supermajority of state legislators to get the bans reversed, and that Republicans have a strong hold over these chambers, same-sex marriage in the south doesn’t have much of a chance anytime soon.

Harry J Enten

Polls at this point in the Virginia governor’s race tell us very little | Harry J Enten

Virginia’s governor race is being billed as a test case for 2016, but you can’t read much into polling data this early

Virginia’s 2013 gubernatorial election may not have particularly appealing candidates, but the race has taken on extra meaning because of the state’s swing status in presidential elections. The race pits a so-far unlikable Democrat, Terry McAuliffe (aka T-Mac), against a exceptionally conservative Republican, attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (aka Cuch). Are swing state Virginians willing to elect a person, Cuccinelli, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood and has labeled the Environmental Protection Agency an “agency of mass destruction”? McAuliffe, on the other hand, was a long-time Clinton fundraiser and adviser, and his run is seen as a test of the Clinton name and organization for Hillary’s possible run in 2016.

From two polls produced this week we can make similar conclusions with different results. An NBC/Marist poll has T-Mac up by 2pt among registered voters and down by 3pt among likely voters. A Washington Post survey has Cuch up 5pt among registered voters and 10pt among likely voters. You’ll note that the overall results are different, but that the gap between the registered and likely voters is the same.

Right now, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Quinnpiac has polled registered voters three times since January, and each of their results fell in between the registered voter numbers from Marist and the Post. Likewise, a Christopher Newport University survey from January had a similar 4pt gap between registered voters and likely voters. Off-year elections tend to feature more Republican friendly electorates, given that African Americans and young people are a lower percentage of the electorate than in presidential year elections.

But does this current polling actually tell us anything about what will happen on election day? Not really. At this point in 2009, all but one scientific poll had eventual winner and current Republican Governor Bob McDonnell winning by 9pt or less. A few polls even had Democrat Creigh Deeds ahead by mid-June, but most had McDonnell ahead by about 5pt. With a few exceptions – notably from SurveyUSA, which consistently showed double-digit McDonnell leads by early August – most surveys continued to show a single-digit McDonnell lead through September. McDonnell won by 17pt.

You think that’s unusual? Go back to the 2005. Through this point in the campaign, not a single poll had the eventual winner, Democrat Tim Kaine, ahead. A few polls had him down as much as 10pt, while the majority had him behind by mid-to-high single digits. Republican Jerry Kilgore trailed in only one public poll, all the way through early October! Tim Kaine, of course, went on to win by 6pt.

Overall, the polling at this point and through September has been off by about 10-15pt the last two elections. Given that Cuccinelli has a 4pt lead in the HuffPollster aggregate, either candidate could win. Perhaps Cuccinelli will win by a margin greater than 4pt, maybe less, maybe exactly that. Or maybe T-Mac will come out on top.

You might be tempted to look at the candidates’ favorable ratings, but I wouldn’t make too big a deal of those either, as they merely reflect the ballot standing of each man at this point. The important point is that both feature positive net favorables. Given that over 30% of voters have no opinion of Cuch, and over 40% have no opinion of T-Mac, the favorable ratings of these candidates will change. In 2005, Jerry Kilgore had a higher net favorable than Tim Kaine, which could be seen in the ballot test. He ended the election with a lower net favorable rating and lost. In 2009, Bob McDonnell had a net favorable rating equal to Creigh Deeds in early polling, which was reflected by a tight race in the ballot test. McDonnell ended up with a much higher net favorable rating, and indeed, he crushed Deeds.

What about the difference between the likely and registered voter results? The number one polling lesson from 2012 was that when likely and registered voters disagree in elections with high voter turnout, you should go with the registered voter results. Obviously, an off-year affair is not a high turnout election. Still, I was curious to see if over the past two cycles, pollsters have tightened the electorate, keeping in mind that only a few pollsters release results among both registered and likely voters, and most don’t.

Among those who report results from different screens, it’s not really clear that pollsters who use a likely voter screen are getting more accurate results than those that only polled registered voters. A 2009 October Virginia Commonwealth University poll had McDonnell winning by 18pt among likely voters and 16pt among registered voters. Neither was more accurate than the other. A 2009 October Roanoke College poll had McDonnell ahead by 17pt among likely voters and by 19pt among who said they were certain to vote (who we’ll call “definite” for the sake of clarity). In this instance, the looser screen ended up being closer to the final result.

In 2005, tightening the electorate did pollsters no favors either. An October Diageo/Hotline poll found Kaine winning by 2pt among registered voters, 1pt among likely voters, and down by 2pt among definite voters. Kaine, as mentioned, won by 6pt. An October Roanoke College poll had Kaine winning by 8pt among probable voters and 10pt among definite voters. Again the looser screen performed better than the more selective one.

What about earlier in the campaign? In 2009, an August Washington Post poll had McDonnell up by 15pt among likely voters and by 7pt among registered voters. Clearly, the likely voter result was closer to the truth – in this case, at least. In 2005, the opposite occurred. An early September Washington Post poll had Kilgore up by 7pt among likely voters and by 4pt among registered voters. Earlier in the campaign, SurveyUSA showed a dramatic rise in Kilgore’s lead from 4pt to 10pt between May and June when switching between registered and likely voters. Other polling companies showed a consistent race, which means that the far less accurate June result was almost certainly because of a change in the electorate being polled.

Thus, I’m not really sure there’s much to take from the recent polling data on the Virginia gubernatorial race. Yes, Ken Cuccinelli likely has a small lead at the moment, but that edge probably means very little. The difference between the registered and likely voter screen may be instructive, but we can’t yet be sure when to trust it. Tighter voter screens have not proven to necessarily be more accurate in either the 2005 or 2009 Virginia gubernatorial elections.

We can only sit back and allow the campaign to unfold.

• A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the leader of The Washington Post’s survey of the Virginia gubernatorial race and has been corrected accordingly

Harry J Enten

Why the ‘daring’ Virginia redistricting plan may not be such a bad thing

Republicans played a dirty game, but the result is likely a Virginia Senate that better emulates statewide voting patterns

Republicans in the Virginia State Senate passed a daring redistricting plan on Monday. I say “daring” because the only way Republicans were able to get the bill through the evenly divided senate was to bring it up for a vote when a Democratic member was at President Obama’s inauguration. Democrats are rightly infuriated, but is the result really so terrible for the people of Virginia?

First off, I think we can all admit it’s bad PR to jam a bill through when a member is gone. To make matters worse, the missing Democratic member was a civil rights leader attending the inauguration of the first black president. That’s why you had both the Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling coming out against the redistricting plan.

Any good Democrat will also say the people elected a 20-20 split, and yesterday only 39 members were present. Republicans decided not to play by the rules and in doing so defied the will of the people.

On the other hand, it’s not like the Democrats haven’t played a similar redistricting game before. Eleven Texas Senate Democrats actually left the state in 2003 to prevent a mid-decade redistricting, which is unusual in that redistricting usually, though not always, takes place in the beginning of the decade after the census. There’s nothing wrong with mid-decade redistricting, yet Democrats departed to avoid a quorum call because without the Democratic members there weren’t enough senators to actually conduct Senate business. Eventually, a quorum did take place and Republicans got their redistricting.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas redistricting was legal with one minor Voting Rights Act (VRA) exception, and I’m guessing that the Virginia plan is too. Diluting minority voting power, which is a violation of the VRA, is usually the pitfall of many redistricting plans. As Kenton Ngo pointed out on Twitter, “If VA Republicans were smart enough not to touch the already cleared [Voting Rights Act] districts, the plan will likely stand. Dems are toast.” Not only did Republicans not take away any black majority seats, but part of their gerrymander was to actually create another black majority seat. That’s to say they concentrated black Democratic strength into one district to get a black senator, which ensures that majority white districts become more Republican.

If the Republican plot was politics as usual, will it create a senate that doesn’t reflect the majority of Virginia voters? In other words, will Republicans be getting more seats than they deserve given the statewide vote for senate? Republicans were able to pick up about 10 more seats in the United States House of Representatives in 2012 because Republicans controlled redistricting in a lot of states. This redistricting, along with natural Democratic concentration in the cities, helped Republicans maintain a 33-seat majority even when losing the nationwide vote for the house by a point.

The old Virginia Senate districts were drawn by Democrats in 2011 in an effort to try and maintain their then four seat majority. Republicans were up in arms and for good reason. Republicans were only able to win 20 out of 40 seats in 2011, despite the fact that they won the statewide vote for senate 57% to 40% in the 2011 elections. That result is far more skewed than it was for the national house in 2012. If percentage of vote equaled percentage of seats, Virginia Republicans should have won 23 to 24 seats in 2011. Usually, though, in single member districts, the curve is more responsive and 57% of the vote would result in something like 60-65% or 24 to 26 of the 40 seats.

The new districts are more likely to mirror the statewide vote for state senate. One estimate from Ben Tribbett has Republicans winning up to 27 seats in a good Republican year. This isn’t terribly far off from the upper range of the responsive curve for the 2011 elections, and it certainly is closer to statewide vote than the actual 2011 seat makeup. My friend Sean Trende puts the estimate at locking in a Republican majority by two to three seats. This would actually be at the lower end of the proportional curve, but still closer to what we’d expect than the actual 2011 seat makeup.

Thus, while Virginia Republicans may have done something dirty, it’s hard for me to be up in arms about it. They’ll certainly take hits for it in the press and from Democrats. At the end of the day, however, the result is likely a Virginia Senate that better emulates statewide voting patterns. And while I think they probably will, the only question left is whether or not the courts find it legal.

Harry J Enten

Pick your pollster and take your choice in Virginia’s gubernatorial election | Harry J Enten

Two polls both show Democrat Terry McAuliffe in a narrow lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli, but one calls it ‘a tie’. How so?

When you think of political polls, the first thing that probably comes to mind is one candidate winning and another losing. After all, we tend to judge a pollster’s performance on whether they are right or wrong in predicting the winner. Top lines, however, don’t always tell the whole story. Never has this been clearer than in two polls released over the last two days for the Virginia gubernatorial election.

The two polls, released by Public Policy Polling (PPP) and Quinnipiac, are statistically similar at first glance. Democrat Terry McAuliffe leads Republican Ken Cuccinelli in both surveys. His advantage is 5pt per PPP and 1pt per Quinnipiac. This spread fits with the two prior polls in the race that had McAuliffe ahead by 4pt and 1pt, given the margin of error.

The correct read on this race given the four polls is one in which McAuliffe seems to be holding a slight lead, with a long way to go before election day. That, however, was not how either PPP or Quinnipiac described the race in their respective write-ups.

PPP said, “McAuliffe opens 2013 with a lead over Cuccinelli.” The release quoted president of Public Policy Polling Dean Debnam saying, “Ken Cuccinelli’s unpopularity is really the story of the race at this point.”

Quinnipiac countered PPP’s headline with “Cuccinelli, McAuliffe tied as Virginia governor race begins.” Peter A Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll, went on to note that while the “candidates for governor have run statewide previously, voter memories are short and they are little-known to Virginia voters.”

How is anyone supposed to make sense of the differences presented here? You’d think PPP and Quinnipiac were polling two different races, despite relatively similar headline figures. But if we look under the hood, it turns out that things becomes even more complicated.

The reason PPP regards Cuccinelli as unpopular is that they find he is. His net favorable (favorable minus unfavorable) is -16, with 73% of voters registering an opinion of him. PPP often finds politicians with lower favorables than other polls, but even when controlling for pollster, Cuccinelli is seemingly deeply unpopular. Of the 126 current major statewide office holders PPP has polled over the past few years, Cuccinelli would rank seventh lowest, or be in the bottom fifth percentile. Heck, he can’t even get to 50% favorability within his own party, with a favorable rating of just 48% among Republicans.

Quinnipiac, on the other hand, sees Cuccinelli as relative unknown because he is in their polling. His net favorable is +8, with only 59% of all voters holding an opinion about him. Cuccinelli also hits 64% favorability among Republicans. Part of that is question ordering, whereby Cuccinelli is identified as a Republican before favorability is asked. Still, you’d expect that ordering to drive up his unfavorables among Democrats and independents. Instead, Cuccinelli’s unfavorables are 20pt lower among both of these groups in the Quinnipiac survey.

PPP and Quinnipiac simply don’t jibe. What’s more bizarre is the rest of each of the polls tends to match up fairly well, or, if anything, would suggest that McAuliffe would do better in the Quinnipiac poll. The Quinnipiac survey, at 69%, is 4pt less “white” than PPP, which should favor the Democrat McAuliffe. The Quinnipiac universe is significantly younger, with 44% of voters under 45, compared with only 36% from PPP, which should also favor the Democrat McAuliffe. And if you’re into this sort of thing, Democrats hold a 7pt lead in self-party identification, per Quinnipiac, which is greater than the 3pt edge PPP finds.

What’s more, distinctions between the other possible candidates besides Cuccinelli are relatively minor in the two polls. Both have McAuliffe being unknown by 50%-plus of the electorate. His net favorable of +7 is actually higher in Quinnipiac, though that’s not surprising given that PPP generally has politicians with lower favorability overall. The possible Republican-turned-Independent candidate Bill Bolling is unknown, by an even greater number of voters. He has a net favorable of about +10 in both polls. Bolling takes about 15% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way in both surveys.

The only real difference is that PPP shows McAuliffe expanding his lead to 8pt when Bolling is included, while Quinnipiac shows it shrinking by 1pt to a tie. The explanation for this divergence is quite simple. Both Democrats and Republicans pass over their party’s candidates equally, to go to Bolling in Quinnipiac’s poll, while only Republicans leave their man, Cuccinelli, in PPP’s survey. This makes sense given that Republicans are a lot more opposed to Cuccinelli in the PPP universe.

So, we’re presented with two polls, from Quinnipiac and Public Policy Polling, for the same race that are the same on top, but different inside. I throw up my hands in puzzlement for why this is. All I can say is that Democrat Terry McAuliffe is a relative unknown and has a small lead in the Virginia gubernatorial election. Republican Ken Cuccinelli’s high net unfavorability per PPP, and decently high net favorable rating per Quinnipiac, simply can’t be explained – beyond saying it’s statistical noise.

Harry J Enten

What early polling can – and can’t – tell us about 2013′s key US elections | Harry J Enten

In races like the New York mayoral election, most candidates’ lack of name recognition makes early polling highly unreliable

Polls taken early in the election season are a most interesting phenomenon. The media loves them, while some think they are a waste of time.

The record shows that early surveys can tell us a lot about where a race will end up in the case of midterm House and even Senate elections. But in the 2013 elections, early polling is, at best, a very rough guide, and at worst, can tell us absolutely nothing.

Let’s take a look at the history of polls from early to late in the campaign for past contests in the races being held this year. The Massachusetts special election upcoming later this year may or may not feature Republican Scott Brown. The polls at this point have him ahead of almost all his opponents, except for, perhaps, Governor Deval Patrick.

The issue here is that none of his opponents is really well-known, which is why I wouldn’t dismiss any of them at this point. The plurality of voters have not formed an opinion on possible Democratic candidates like Mike Capuano, Ed Markey, or Stephen Lynch. The same holds true for possible Republican candidate Bill Weld.

As for the history, at this point in the 2010 Massachusetts special Senate election, Scott Brown was down 30pt to eventual Democratic nominee Martha Coakley. In fact, he was still down by 30pt with only two months to go. Yet he went on to win by 5pt.

Some might say 2010 was an exception, but just look at another special election, a year later, for West Virginia governor. The only pre-primary poll in that race had eventual Democratic candidate Earl Ray Tomblin ahead of Republican candidate Bill Maloney by 33pt. Tomblin would only retain the governor’s mansion for the Democrats by a little less than 3pt.

The bottom line is special elections can turn on a dime, especially when name recognition is low.

Another place where name recognition may be affecting early polling is in New Jersey. I already discussed how current polls that show Chris Christie well ahead of his Democratic opponents are likely inflated by a post-Sandy bounce. One would expect that his approval rating will eventually fall back to a still impressive mid 50s level.

That’s exactly where polls put another incumbent Republican Christine Whitman in 1997. Whitman led then relatively unknown state senator Jim McGreevy by about 15pt in early data. Whitman’s approval rating and polling lead held into the final month; but then, McGreevy rapidly closed the gap and only lost by 1pt.

Pre-Sandy polls put Christie ahead of declared Democrat Barbara Buono by a similar 16pt. Christie actually led by only 6pt over possible Democratic candidate Richard Codey. Christie is, no doubt, the favorite, but New Jersey is a Democratic state – and the last Republican with a good lead nearly lost.

Right next door to New Jersey is the New York City mayoral race. Early surveys have the probable Republican candidates down by 50pt to a generic Democrat in this Democratic bastion. Maybe that will hold, but I’m betting it won’t.

You don’t really have to look far to understand that polling in New York City mayoral elections is about as reliable as the subway after midnight. They were well off in 2009 and that was not an anomaly.

Polls had Democrat David Dinkins ahead of Republican Rudy Giuliani by 20pt two months out in 1989, and by 14pt in the closing weeks. Dinkins won by 2pt.

Republican Mike Bloomberg overcame an early 40pt deficit because of the 9/11 attacks to beat Democrat Mark Green in 2001. Democrat Freddy Ferrer was ahead of Bloomberg by 8pt in March of 2005. By November of that year, surveys had Bloomberg leading by 30-40py. Bloomberg took the race by 19pt.

And, of course, we don’t even know who the Democratic nominee will be for mayor this year.

Finally, in the great Commonwealth of Virginia, early gubernatorial surveys have Democrat Terry McAuliffe barely ahead of Republican Ken Cuccinelli. As in Massachusetts, however, over 45% of voters have no opinion of either candidate. There is also talk that Republican Lt Governor Bill Bolling may run as an independent, which could really throw this race for a loop.

Early surveys in the last two Virginia gubernatorial elections were off the eventual margin by 10-15pt. In 2005, Democrat Tim Kaine trailed Republican Jerry Kilgore by 5-10pt through the summer of 2005. It was only in the final months that he pulled ahead and won by 6pt. In 2009, Republican Bob McDonnell was ahead of Democrat Creigh Deeds by mid single digits through the early fall. He ended up winning by 17pt.

Thus, in the four marquee races for 2013, early polls should be taken with a big grain of salt. In all four cases, we have examples in the past 15 years of early polls being anything from 15pt to upwards of 30pt off.

That’s not to say the early polls won’t be right this time. It just means that if they are, there will definitely be some luck involved.

Harry J Enten

Margin of Σrror

Category Archives: Virginia

What the Virginia governor’s race tells us about the 2014 midterms | Harry J Enten

‘Cuch’ wins barbecue test in Virginia, but ‘T-Mac’ leads gubernatorial race | Harry J Enten

‘Cuch’ wins barbecue test in Virginia, but ‘T-Mac’ leads gubernatorial race | Harry J Enten

Where are the Polls?: Virginia’s 2013 Race for Governor

A 2012 Senate Parallel in the 2013 Virginia Governor’s Race

Same-sex marriage could take decades to be legal in every state | Harry J Enten

Polls at this point in the Virginia governor’s race tell us very little | Harry J Enten

Why the ‘daring’ Virginia redistricting plan may not be such a bad thing

Pick your pollster and take your choice in Virginia’s gubernatorial election | Harry J Enten

What early polling can – and can’t – tell us about 2013′s key US elections | Harry J Enten