Possible Castle Write-In Drops Coons (D) Below 50% Against O’Donnell (R)

[Flash]

49% to 40%

From Eric Dondero:

If Mike Castle runs as a write-in, which looks increasingly likely, Republican Christine O'Donnell pulls within only 9 points of ultra-leftist Democrat Chris Coons.

Just released from Rasmussen:
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Delaware voters finds Coons with 49% support, while O’Donnell earns 40% of the vote. Castle, a longtime congressman who lost to O’Donnell in the state’s GOP Primary, picks up five percent (5%). Another five percent (5%) remain undecided. (See toplines).

Polling for write-in campaigns is always challenging, so results should be interpreted with caution. For this survey, Rasmussen Reports asked respondents about a choice between Coons and O’Donnell without mentioning Castle. That is the choice voters will see when they enter the voting booth. However, when response options were offered to survey respondents, Castle’s name was mentioned.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/09/breaking-rasmussem-has-christine.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/delaware/election_2010_delaware_senate

[libertarian4321]

This is silly.

There is a HUGE difference between the results you will get while calling people and asking "Do you prefer candidate A, B, or C" and the results you will get when people go into a voting booth and see only candidates A and B mentioned. People are far more likely to support alternate candidates in polls than to actually vote for them.

Even if candidate "C" mounts a "write-in" campaign, most voters won't even consider him when they actually go to the polls. He not only has to overcome the "He can't win so I'll vote for the lesser evil" thing that third party candidates face, he also has to overcome the fact that HIS NAME ISN'T ON THE BALLOT (and that is huge)- not only will the voter have to favor him over the "lesser evil", they'll have to remember to do the write-in, then figure out how to do it (not always easy on some machines).

Has anyone ever seen a write-in candidate get even 1% in a race? I can't recall a write-in candidate ever getting even near 1%. Let alone 5%.

[nate895]

This is silly.

There is a HUGE difference between the results you will get while calling people and asking "Do you prefer candidate A, B, or C" and the results you will get when people go into a voting booth and see only candidates A and B mentioned. People are far more likely to support alternate candidates in polls than to actually vote for them.

Even if candidate "C" mounts a "write-in" campaign, most voters won't even consider him when they actually go to the polls. He not only has to overcome the "He can't win so I'll vote for the lesser evil" thing that third party candidates face, he also has to overcome the fact that HIS NAME ISN'T ON THE BALLOT (and that is huge)- not only will the voter have to favor him over the "lesser evil", they'll have to remember to do the write-in, then figure out how to do it (not always easy on some machines).

Has anyone ever seen a write-in candidate get even 1% in a race? I can't recall a write-in candidate ever getting even near 1%. Let alone 5%.

The way they deal with this is telephone surveys is by asking "Will you vote for O'Donnell, Coons, or another/write-in candidate?" If you say "write-in" then they will ask who if there is a major write-in campaign.

[libertarian4321]

The way they deal with this is telephone surveys is by asking "Will you vote for O'Donnell, Coons, or another/write-in candidate?" If you say "write-in" then they will ask who if there is a major write-in campaign.

I'm guessing that is not the tactic they used here, since there is no major write-in campaign in the Delaware race. Yup, that's another reason this is silly- Castle has not said he was going to do a write-in campaign.

[nate895]

I'm guessing that is not the tactic they used here, since there is no major write-in campaign in the Delaware race. Yup, that's another reason this is silly- Castle has not said he was going to do a write-in campaign.

Well, that is one thing that makes it difficult to poll these kinds of races. However, if anything, I think this poll underestimates his support. Murkowski is a lot less popular is Alaska than Castle is in Delaware, so I doubt he is getting that much less of the vote compared to Murkowski's 27%. Not to mention few are going to have trouble spelling "Mike Castle."

[libertarian4321]

Well, that is one thing that makes it difficult to poll these kinds of races. However, if anything, I think this poll underestimates his support. Murkowski is a lot less popular is Alaska than Castle is in Delaware, so I doubt he is getting that much less of the vote compared to Murkowski's 27%. Not to mention few are going to have trouble spelling "Mike Castle."

It's got nothing to do with spelling the name.

It's about write-in campaigns in general. I don't care if his name was as simple as "Joe Blow" - they just don't work. The people who would vote for a write-in guy would need to 1) be aware of the campaign 2) really like the guy 3) overcome their preference to support their party 4) be willing to support a candidate who has ZERO chance of winning (e.g. overcoming the "lesser evil" argument) 5) choose to cast the write in ballot and finally 6) figure out how to do a write-in.

Will some people get through these steps? Sure, a few hard core supporters will, but not many. I've never heard of a write-in campaign cracking 1% in a contested race (both major parties represented)- maybe Castle would be the first if he ran (he isn't running at this point, and it would be political suicide to do so)- maybe Castle could do it, but it would take a miracle of Biblical proportions for him to get more than a percent or two.

Again, if someone knows of a race where a write-in cracked 1%, let me know. Write-in's normally get ridiculously low percentages- if you look at candidates like Chuck Baldwin, his vote percentages in states where he had "write in" status, and where he even campaigned for write-in votes, were a tiny fraction of what he got in states where he appeared on the ballot- even in states like Texas where you'd think he'd do well.

Like I said, there is a huge difference between speculating what a guy's support might be in a theoretical setting (or on a phone poll) versus what it would actually be if he ran a "write in" campaign where voters actually had to go through the process and cast the vote.

Not that it matters much, we are all deeply screwed no matter who wins this race.

Ironically, if I lived in DE, and I was faced with a choice of these two clowns (Coons and O'Donnell) and there was no Libertarian, I'd probably cast a write in- though I'd probably write in my own name or "Mickey Mouse" rather than waste my vote on either of them.

[nate895]

It's got nothing to do with spelling the name.

It's about write-in campaigns in general. I don't care if his name was as simple as "Joe Blow" - they just don't work. The people who would vote for a write-in guy would need to 1) be aware of the campaign 2) really like the guy 3) overcome their preference to support their party 4) be willing to support a candidate who has ZERO chance of winning (e.g. overcoming the "lesser evil" argument) 5) choose to cast the write in ballot and finally 6) figure out how to do a write-in.

Will some people get through these steps? Sure, a few hard core supporters will, but not many. I've never heard of a write-in campaign cracking 1% in a contested race (both major parties represented)- maybe Castle would be the first if he ran (he isn't running at this point, and it would be political suicide to do so)- maybe Castle could do it, but it would take a miracle of Biblical proportions for him to get more than a percent or two.

Again, if someone knows of a race where a write-in cracked 1%, let me know. Write-in's normally get ridiculously low percentages- if you look at candidates like Chuck Baldwin, his vote percentages in states where he had "write in" status, and where he even campaigned for write-in votes, were a tiny fraction of what he got in states where he appeared on the ballot- even in states like Texas where you'd think he'd do well.

Like I said, there is a huge difference between speculating what a guy's support might be in a theoretical setting (or on a phone poll) versus what it would actually be if he ran a "write in" campaign where voters actually had to go through the process and cast the vote.

Not that it matters much, we are all deeply screwed no matter who wins this race.

Ironically, if I lived in DE, and I was faced with a choice of these two clowns (Coons and O'Donnell) and there was no Libertarian, I'd probably cast a write in- though I'd probably write in my own name or "Mickey Mouse" rather than waste my vote on either of them.

Write-ins break 1% all the time. Strom Thurmond won a Senate Race as a write-in, here is a list of significant write-in campaigns on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate#United_States

[parocks]

Castle will probably not do a write in, and seeing a poll with him at 5% will not make him decide to do so.

It's better for Christine if he's not in the race. There's no reason to think that he wouldn't just just attack Christine if he was in the race.

If Castle attacks Christine, the votes go to Coons.
If Coons attacks Christine, the votes don't go to Coons.

9% behind with over a month left is no problem for Christine.

[libertarian4321]

Write-ins break 1% all the time. Strom Thurmond won a Senate Race as a write-in, here is a list of significant write-in campaigns on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate#United_States

I don't see a single example on that page of a candidate winning as a write-in for a contested general election

You will note that almost all of those examples were primary campaigns, not general elections.

On top of that, the couple of cases where a general election was won were under extremely bizarre circumstances (candidates dying at the last minute knocking the primary winner off the ballot, race not contested by both parties, etc), not a straight forward race between major party candidates.

The only significant write-in win for a general election (it was NOT contested- there was no Republican in the race) was Strom Thurmond a LONG time ago (1954) and under extraordinary circumstances- the Dem candidate died late in the campaign and Thurmond won as a Dem write in over the last minute appointed replacement candidate. Essentially, it was a primary between a widely reviled appointed substitute Democrat versus a popular write-in Democrat.

The only way I can see a write in winning a contested race might be in a congressional race where one party was dominant. Say you had a case where a district was overwhelmingly Republican and the nominated Republican was caught on film engaging in homosexual sex with donkeys. In that case, a popular Republican write in might beat the nominated and scandalized Republican nominee and the throw-away Dem candidate.

Other than that, it probably ain't going to happen.

[nate895]

I don't see a single example on that page of a candidate winning as a write-in for a contested general election

You will note that almost all of those examples were primary campaigns, not general elections.

On top of that, the couple of cases where a general election was won were under extremely bizarre circumstances (candidates dying at the last minute knocking the primary winner off the ballot, race not contested by both parties, etc), not a straight forward race between major party candidates.

The only significant write-in win for a general election (it was NOT contested- there was no Republican in the race) was Strom Thurmond a LONG time ago (1954) and under extraordinary circumstances- the Dem candidate died late in the campaign and Thurmond won as a Dem write in over the last minute appointed replacement candidate. Essentially, it was a primary between a widely reviled appointed substitute Democrat versus a popular write-in Democrat.

The only way I can see a write in winning a contested race might be in a congressional race where one party was dominant. Say you had a case where a district was overwhelmingly Republican and the nominated Republican was caught on film engaging in homosexual sex with donkeys. In that case, a popular Republican write in might beat the nominated and scandalized Republican nominee and the throw-away Dem candidate.

Other than that, it probably ain't going to happen.

No one ever disputed that it was rare, and I never said Castle could win. I simply said that it rarely does, in fact, happen. Also, I said that write-ins can break 1%. Christine O'Donnell herself got 4% as a write-in in Delaware.