PPP claims Rand Paul and Jack Conway are tied 43% to 43%

[MRoCkEd]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/kentucky-senate-race-knotted.html

The poll results:

* Jack Conway 43%
* Rand Paul 43%
* Undecided 14%

Crosstab Highlights:

* 37% Approve of Obama’s job performance, 58% disapprove
* 31% support health care reform, 60% disapprove
* 31% find Jack Conway favorable, 29% unfavorable, 40% not sure
* 34% find Rand Paul favorable, 42% unfavorable (hmm), 24% not sure
* 36% think the media is treating Rand Paul fairly, 42% unfairly, 23% not sure
* 16% think Rand is too liberal, 26% too conservative, 45% about right, 13% not sure
* 36% think Jack is too liberal, 7% too conservative, 42% about right, 15% not sure
* 68% support the Civil Rights Act, 7% don’t, 25% not sure (!)
* 9% think private business should be able to discriminate on race, 83% don’t, 8% not sure
* 68% think the law should require serving disabled customers, 19% don’t, 13% not sure

Past PPP Results:

May 1–2, 2010 Rand Paul 41% Jack Conway 40% Undecided 19%
-- The latest poll isn't much different than this.
December 18–21, 2009 Rand Paul 42% Jack Conway 36% Undecided 22%

[RM918]

Thing was basically a push poll.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Last poll Public Policy Polling did gave Rand Paul all of a one point lead: so after over two full months and rounds of negative media coverage; Conway has risen all of one point in the democratic poll that favors him more than any other pollster. And even then he can't lead take a lead of any kind.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2q3u5xl.jpg

[Brett85]

This was also taken over the 4th of July weekend. How accurate can that be?

[itshappening]

not worried about this, November is a long way. Rand needs to make sure he doesn't get involved in a personal battle with Conway and make this a referendum on Obama, Reid, Pelosi

[Matt Collins]

How accurate were their polls during the primary?

[bobbyw24]

Why isn't Rand surging? Perhaps he stumbled a bit with his impolitic answer regarding the Civil Rights Amendment (he decline to say whether the government should enforce integration at the level of private institutions), and his comments about how the unemployed should just get lower-paying jobs may not have gone over well, either.

This will appall people, but if you're an investor, and your interest is the short-to-medium term, you should probably welcome the bloom coming off the tea party rose. Yes, we probably need to do something severe about the deficit, but if you own stocks, you want stimulus and spending. You don't want to see demand retrenchment.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-is-no-longer-leading-his-kentucky-senate-race-2010-7#ixzz0svK5DkUQ

[RonPaulFanInGA]

not worried about this, November is a long way. Rand needs to make sure he doesn't get involved in a personal battle with Conway and make this a referendum on Obama, Reid, Pelosi

Yeah. I wish Paul's campaign didn't already blow the "dangerous allies" line on Grayson; who let's face it would not really have been an ally of Obama's in the U.S. Senate. Conway, however...

Obama's approval rating among just democrats is only 58% in Kentucky. Geez.


How accurate were their polls during the primary?

Well, they were the first pollster to give Rand Paul a double-digit lead, in December 2009. A lead, that we now know, never was relinquished in any independent poll following it (though Johnson paid for an internal that had Paul up eight over Grayson.) I think their last poll before the primary in very early May had Paul up 18 over Grayson: the same poll also that gave Paul that iffy one point lead over Conway that was really inconsistent with other polls.

[South Park Fan]

The crosstabs show that this survey had 52% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 11% Independents. The 2008 results (when Democratic turnout would presumably be much higher than in 2010) were 47-38-15, so we are supposed to believe that Democratic turnout will be higher in 2010 than in 2008. Using the crosstabs, if this race had the same partisan breakdown as in 2008 (which is probably being too kind to Conway), Paul would lead 44-41.

[itshappening]

Conway is way too liberal for Kentucky, once the campaign is underway Rand should pull clear but lets use this to focus and motivate supporters

[itshappening]

Why isn't Rand surging?

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-is-no-longer-leading-his-kentucky-senate-race-2010-7#ixzz0svK5DkUQ

Peaking too early is not a good idea, there will be a campaign and we will win the argument and the race.

[itshappening]

The crosstabs show that this survey had 52% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 11% Independents. The 2008 results (when Democratic turnout would presumably be much higher than in 2010) were 47-38-15, so we are supposed to believe that Democratic turnout will be higher in 2010 than in 2008. Using the crosstabs, if this race had the same partisan breakdown as in 2008 (which is probably being too kind to Conway), Paul would lead 44-41.

2010 is going to be unlike any year for a long time, alot of angry voters will be showing up to cast their votes against Obama and Reid, especially in Kentucky

I think the 58% disapproval is more along the lines of how it will go. At the moment, people are still asleep, not interested in politics, 4th of july etc.

[lordindra3]

Guys, remember, PPP is a liberal slanted polling company. Its great for primaries as they have no hat to throw in, but now there is a reason to push for Conway. At least thats my 2 cents. I could be wrong.... However, Rasmussen, Ill take as a bit more realistic.

[specsaregood]

Guys, remember, PPP is a liberal slanted polling company. Its great for primaries as they have no hat to throw in, but now there is a reason to push for Conway. At least thats my 2 cents. I could be wrong.... However, Rasmussen, Ill take as a bit more realistic.

Of course the liberals say the exact opposite in regards to PPP and Rasmussen.

[sailingaway]

The crosstabs show that this survey had 52% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 11% Independents. The 2008 results (when Democratic turnout would presumably be much higher than in 2010) were 47-38-15, so we are supposed to believe that Democratic turnout will be higher in 2010 than in 2008. Using the crosstabs, if this race had the same partisan breakdown as in 2008 (which is probably being too kind to Conway), Paul would lead 44-41.

That is the key. That plus the questions asked showing the intent was more of a push poll indicate they are trying to 'influence the debate' as an acknowledged Dem polling firm, rather than to get the real scoop. It is early enough that a dramatic change by time of the vote could be written off.

Also, note that MORE GOP voted for Rand and came out for that primary than EVER came out for a primary in Kentucky's history. If anything, the number of Dems should be much lower next to GOP and Independents. Particularly independents, who I think will vote in unusual numbers, for Rand.

[low preference guy]

That is the key. That plus the questions asked showing the intent was more of a push poll indicate they are trying to 'influence the debate' as an acknowledged Dem polling firm, rather than to get the real scoop. It is early enough that a dramatic change by time of the vote could be written off.

I think the first question is whether they'll vote for Rand or Conway. Then they ask the "push-poll questions", so they don't influence the first choice.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thing was basically a push poll.

I'm guessing that you aren't very familiar with PPP?


Guys, remember, PPP is a liberal slanted polling company. Its great for primaries as they have no hat to throw in, but now there is a reason to push for Conway. At least thats my 2 cents. I could be wrong.... However, Rasmussen, Ill take as a bit more realistic.

PPP is run by radical leftist people who do anything and everything they can to elect Democrats and prevent Republicans from holding office, but their polling arm may in fact be the least bent of any pollster I have encountered. AFAIK they consider that the best way to ensure Democrat victories is to return polling results as acurately as physically possible, and they stick by that.

[Distinguished Gentleman]

PPP might feel it would be good for donations if democrats thought he could win.

[GunnyFreedom]

PPP might feel it would be good for donations if democrats thought he could win.

I'll say again that PPP, albeit a partisan organization, does not manipulate their polls. I'll stop repeating myself from here on out, however, as it appears to be falling on deaf ears.

[low preference guy]

I'll say again that PPP, albeit a partisan organization, does not manipulate their polls. I'll stop repeating myself from here on out, however, as it appears to be falling on deaf ears.

Their polling assumes that more Democrats will vote in KY in 2010 than in 2008. I'd say that's enough evidence their poll is not believable.

[sailingaway]

I'll say again that PPP, albeit a partisan organization, does not manipulate their polls. I'll stop repeating myself from here on out, however, as it appears to be falling on deaf ears.

Then how do they give DEms such a big share, even more than they had in 2008, a huge Dem voting year? When the GOP are the ones with the historic turnout in the primary this year?

Sounds pretty manipulitive to me.

[GunnyFreedom]

Their polling assumes that more Democrats will vote in KY in 2010 than in 2008. I'd say that's enough evidence their poll is not believable.

That would be about the extent of manipulation they would allow themselves, but it would not be intentional -- if they are making such an assumption it's because they actually believe it. Clear signs of living in an echo chamber.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then how do they give DEms such a big share, even more than they had in 2008, a huge Dem voting year? When the GOP are the ones with the historic turnout in the primary this year?

Sounds pretty manipulitive to me.

I know the people who own PPP. Personally. They are quite serious about wanting their polls to be as accurate as physically possible, such an error reflects an error in judgment and not an intentional manipulation. They may well be partisan hacks and brainless demophiles but the idea of intentional manipulation of a poll would leave them apoplectic and rolling on the floor in seizures.

[sailingaway]

That would be about the extent of manipulation they would allow themselves, but it would not be intentional -- if they are making such an assumption it's because they actually believe it. Clear signs of living in an echo chamber.

Even their comments say this is a bad year for Dems. so what is their justification for projecting MORE dem turnout than in the biggest dem vote year in recent history?

[low preference guy]

That would be about the extent of manipulation they would allow themselves, but it would not be intentional

Whether their intentions are noble or not, the polling is trash nonetheless.

[GunnyFreedom]

Even their comments say this is a bad year for Dems. so what is their justification for projecting MORE dem turnout than in the biggest dem vote year in recent history?

Who knows why he'd make such an assumption, he could be privy to some "secret plan" to increase Dem turnout that has not been revealed to the general public for all I know. The two people who run PPP are eyeball-deep into the DNC.

[GunnyFreedom]

Whether their intentions are noble or not, the polling is trash nonetheless.

That would be a radical departure from their historic accuracy.

[low preference guy]

That would be a radical departure from their historic accuracy.

Well, that will be just one more victim of the upcoming Randslide.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, that will be just one more victim of the upcoming Randslide.

IIRC they had the most accurate prediction of the primary Randslide of all pollsters.

Best strategy would be to take these results for what they are worth given PPP's history, and redouble efforts to increase GOP turnout and retriple efforts to win over Democrats.

To assume that a PPP poll is fundamentally flawed would be a mistake.

[low preference guy]

IIRC they had the most accurate prediction of the primary Randslide of all pollsters.


No, that would be Magellan Strategies (R).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_republican_primary-1153.html

Plus, this is not a primary, it's a general election, and they have a dog. Whatever they say about wanting accuracy, assuming that the Democrats will have more participation than in 2008 shows they don't mean what they say.

[sailingaway]

No, that would be Magellan Strategies (R).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_republican_primary-1153.html

Plus, this is not a primary, it's a general election, and they have a dog. Whatever they say about wanting accuracy, assuming that the Democrats will have more participation than in 2008 shows they don't mean what they say.

Note that pre primary they only had Rand one point ahead of Conway, to begin with.

I do think we should run as if Rand is 10 points down, but I think the breakdown of voters is junk.

[AJ Antimony]

Look at how many voters don't know who Jack Conway even is.

This race is over as soon as Rand starts telling voters that Conway is the liberal Democrat candidate who is a big fan of Obama, Obamacare, and Cap and Tax.

[TheDriver]

Look at how many voters don't know who Jack Conway even is.

This race is over as soon as Rand starts telling voters that Conway is the liberal Democrat candidate who is a big fan of Obama, Obamacare, and Cap and Tax.

Don't forget about Jack being pro-choice. The democrat party (in Kentucky) is split down the middle on pro-life vs pro-choice. Amnesty is another big sore spot for Jack.

[aclove]

Their assumption of heavy Democratic turnout may simply be based on the voter registration in Kentucky, which is heavily in favor of the Dems. Whether those Dems will actually vote for Conway is another question entirely.

[low preference guy]

Their assumption of heavy Democratic turnout may simply be based on the voter registration in Kentucky, which is heavily in favor of the Dems.

Those registrations numbers didn't change much from 2008, so there's no reason to assume the dem turnout will increase in 2010. On the contrary, every poll of voter enthusiasm shows Republicans having an increase from 2008.

[sailingaway]

PPP says they don't weight by party in their polls.

See comments now to the KY poll, " Dustin Ingalls said...
"How did you arrive at the breakdown of Dem voters v GOP and Independents given there were far more GOP and Independent voters showing up even in 2008 - a mega Dem voting year?"

We don't weight for party. If you look at the McCain-Obama numbers, the margin is actually slightly larger for McCain--15 points--than what he actually got in 2008--14 points. Also keep in mind that self-reported party ID is different from actual voter registration. "

Yeah, but McCain was the reason GOP stayed HOME.

So in any event, the numbers don't really seem very useful.

[Chieftain1776]

This sucks but given the all out ongoing media campaign against Rand it's not too bad.

Also, remember that PPP is saying that Rick Perry is "tied" with some Democrat in Texas. Does anyone really believe that a Republican will lose Texas to a Democrat?

[sailingaway]

This sucks but given the all out ongoing media campaign against Rand it's not too bad.

Also, remember that PPP is saying that Rick Perry is "tied" with some Democrat in Texas. Does anyone really believe that a Republican will lose Texas to a Democrat?

I don't know. He was for the toll road. He is much hated. I won't buy it if PPP is the only one saying it, though.

[Chieftain1776]

I don't know. He was for the toll road. He is much hated. I won't buy it if PPP is the only one saying it, though.

They are the only ones saying it. In fact it's got the same spread as Kentucky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2010)
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6295/perryt.jpg

As I said in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2761786&postcount=5) they're underestimating the conservative turnout:


The thing about PPP and every polling outfit (with the lone exception of Magellan) is that they missed the Rand/Grayson end results by 7 points.

Unless you assume that all the undecided PPP had left at the time, 7%, were going to Rand then they were wrong. I think the polls are still under-counting the conservative vote/turnout.

Even Survey USA says it's a 6 point race and that was only a week after the "controversy". I think the 11 points Adams had wasn't spin but an accurate number.

Also I looked at the polls for Obama/McCain (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php) and even in a landslide year he was down for months at a time in the beginning and even down in September for two weeks. He wound up crushing McCain in a Democratic year. Even then he lost in Kentucky by double digits.

I think we're okay. If it's tied in October then I'll be really worried about losing this seat to a liberal Democrat like ObamaWay.

[Chieftain1776]

I really do want to see Magellan Strategies poll this one though... they were the only ones that got the turnout near perfect. They're also good comparison to PPP since they're a Republican pollster that does public polling just like PPP is a Democratic one.

[Galileo Galilei]

Rand's Intrade number has not changed. He is still at 69.9%.

[South Park Fan]

I don't believe the Democratic lean in the partisan breakdown is intentional. At least they were willing to share their crosstabs so that a more accurate picture could be obtained if you looked. If I had to guess, I'd say Rasmussen's +7 projection will be closer than PPP's tied projection.

[libertybrewcity]

-push poll.

-turnout will be much greater for those anti-dem voters as well as republican, libertarian, and independent voters. those will make up for the grayson die hards that refuse to vote.

-since ppps last poll in may for this race, rand has gone up 2 points while conway has gone up 1. if this continues, rand will be up 45-42, 47-43, etc.

-Rand is doing great and hasn't really started campaigning that much it seems like. Once the ads roll in, endorsements roll in, volunteers take to the streets, and he starts crossing the state, he will surely move up. a campaign is hard work!

[libertybrewcity]

and hopefully mongiardo can do some damage to conways campaign.

[sailingaway]

Ok, I'll admit. This poll should scare the shit out of Rand. It seems he's not listening to anyone and he's not prepared for public speeches/and or interviews. He also chose to flip on his plan from not taking bailout money. He broke the promise and he's dealing with his own supporters slamming him for it.

Honestly, I'm not excited with the campaign as I was on May 1st. There is no attack (substance wise) on Conway. It's just Rand feeding the media machine with quotes. Jack's sitting back and dodging media with zero punches being absorbed. His plan all along was to rope a dope and then hit hard to sink Rand. Guess what.... he hasn't had to rope a dope since Rand's not throwing punches.

Also, a common quote of "This is how Trey ran against us" is great and all.... but, this is how he ran against Dan Mongiardo and Jack won! This time Jack has the media in his corner. Rand better get some bombs dropped soon.

Granted no one on here wanted to discuss Conway so, I'm sure this is a board of campaign consultants. Mine..... ATTACK and STICK TO YOUR WORD!

Rand is one point back from where he was relative to conway just before the primary, per this pollster. So that means there was no impact, in the polls. I agree with you that the impact is there nontheless, and point to approval ratings.

I also agree that if he wants to be considered different, he has to act accordingly. It is his Dad's record, not his speeches, that got him his following.

That said, if the pledge was a dumb mistake and he can't not take support from McConnell, given his position, I'll forgive it and hope his other supporters will. However, he is giving his supporters very little to get excited about, the way he is running his campaign currently. And the WAY his campaign trotted out illegal immigration today reminds me very much of those putrid ads in his Dad's campaign. It is a necessary issue, but not an uplifting one.

Can't he pitch against the Patriot Act and FISA? THAT is uplifting.

[TheDriver]

All the spin aside....

Rand Paul has a great chance at winning the seat. Whether he has a small lead or is dead even, it's a great position to be in.

I see no reason to think Jack Conway is going to win this. His only issue is he isn't Rand Paul. The DNC, Conway, and/or the media has been effective running Rand Paul's negatives up.

Still 4 months to election day....

[MsDoodahs]

I wonder if PPP is angling to win the slot at daily kos which has opened up now that Kos has axed research 2000?

hmmmm......

[sailingaway]

I wonder if PPP is angling to win the slot at daily kos which has opened up now that Kos has axed research 2000?

hmmmm......

LOL!

Seriously, though, this poll was put out a week after it was taken, it was taken the same time as the Rasmussen poll. The Rasmussen poll was also one point down from its prior poll, but otherwise consistent, and had Rand with a lead. The Survey USA poll a week earlier than the first of those Rasmussen polls gave Rand a similar lead as Rasmussen, so it is PPP that is the outlier, and the amount of change between the PPP and Rasmussen polls is similar.

The problem is the drop in approval rating.

I do think it matters that that weekend was when all the press about the DC fundraiser was out, and people hadn't worked through that issue. Hopefully that one point drop PPP and Rasmussen show, as WELL as the favorables drop, will recover as Rand gives people positive things to talk about.

[thomas-in-ky]

Look at how many voters don't know who Jack Conway even is.

This race is over as soon as Rand starts telling voters that Conway is the liberal Democrat candidate who is a big fan of Obama, Obamacare, and Cap and Tax.


Don't forget about Jack being pro-choice. The democrat party (in Kentucky) is split down the middle on pro-life vs pro-choice. Amnesty is another big sore spot for Jack.

Exactly. Set aside the weighting of party turnout... and assume for a moment that the cross tabs are correct. This poll is telling us (confirming for us) that the voters don't know Jack Conway, and that Conway is on the wrong side of the issues for a slew of KY democrats. Mongiardo was the bullet we dodged (crazy eyebrows notwithstanding). When the conservative democrats unwrap their surprise from the primary, they're not going to be happy.

The question in my mind is whether conservative KY democrats (1) stick head in sand and vote for Conway, (2) stay home, or (3) cross parties to vote for the pro-life, pro-gun, anti-obamacare conservative in this race. Conway will have the liberal democrats (half of KY democrats?). But I suspect the conservative democrats will fall fairly evenly into options 1, 2, and 3... many deciding in the last week or so of the election.

When KY republicans find out who Jack Conway is... Katie bar the door! Conway will be great for Republican turnout here in KY. They (we) will crawl through broken glass to vote against a pro-choice, gun-grabbin', tax-and-trade, socialized-medicine democrat in 2010. *edit* and if I may add, Conway will be good for Republican voter registration in KY! *edit*

[jmdrake]

I wonder if PPP is angling to win the slot at daily kos which has opened up now that Kos has axed research 2000?

hmmmm......

Well the axed "Research 2000" for being inaccurate. So PPP can only win that slot by being as accurate as possible.

Anyway, all of this misses the point. Every poll shows Rand was significantly hurt by the latest round of attacks. And it shows this race is actually tighter than right now than the race with Grayson turned out to be. (I predicted that and nobody believed me. Not to toot my own horn, but I've been attacked on this subforum several times for saying things that ultimately turned out to be true.) Rand's struggle will be winning over independents without doing anything to upset neocons he pandered to in the primary too much. And before I get attacked again I'm not saying Rand is a neocon. But he was certainly careful not to offend any of them. And Conway still has a nasty card to play. But I'm cautiously optimistic that he won't play it.

[DarkReign]

If Rasmussen puts Rand at 49% with a +/- 4.5% margin of error, and the PPP has him at 43% with a +/- 3.9% margin of error, then Rand's still most likely ahead of Conway. According to Rasmussen, assuming the worst margin of error the lowest percentage he could have is 44.4%, and the highest he could have from PPP (within the margin of error) is 46.9%.

So even assuming PPP is accurate here, this puts Rand's more likely percentage at round 45-46%. The following quote from their results page makes me think that PPP is much more inaccurate, however: "Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify."

Source (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_KY_706.pdf) for the quote.

It's also important to note that PPP has consistently given Rand lower percentages throughout his campaign, even before the primary. This most recent poll actually puts Paul 1% higher than their last poll, so keep that in mind.