Polls and consequences
Update: I'm laughing at my self now, and not just because of the ludicrously bad round of golf I played after work yesterday. I wrote this post and then began thinking, "Wow, that feels sort of familiar." That's for good reason. Forgive the semi-rerun folks. -mb
----
The folks at Public Policy Polling put out their latest survey Monday, among other things focusing on immigration, gas prices and potential political outcomes related to Speaker Jim Black.
Click here for the news release and a copy of all the questions.
The biggest grain of salt to take with these numbers - other than the polls automated methodology - is this: people may feel one way or another about a particular issue, but they may not necessarily back a candidate based solely on how they respond to that issue.
For example, the survey says that 81 percent of "likely voters" would favor candidates who backed tighter immigration controls. But how many of those respondents are going to vote solely on the immigration issue? If a candidate favored tighter immigration controls but also stumped for a big tax increase on the middle class (silly example, but hang with me) which issue is likely to drive more votes? I'm thinking that tax thing.
That brings me to the survey's question 5:
Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who wants to keep Jim Black as Speaker of the House? If more likely, press 1. If less likely, press 2. If it makes no difference, press 3.
The respondents answered:
More likely.............. 14%Less likely ............. 50%
No difference ........... 37%
What's interesting, if it holds true for the population at large, is that those numbers weren't affected much by whether a respondent was a Democrat or a Republican.
So the question becomes, is that enough to drive votes from one House candidate to another come fall? Will the Democrats who backed Black during their last caucus pay a political price? Is all this enough to prompt moderate democrats to defect in some house districts?
With the primaries still a week off, I think it'd be hard to make the case that any of the fall campaigns have become one-dimensional yet, even if a few of the primaries themselves seem to be.(Reg. Req.)
But this poll seems to be evidence that the Black issue - rightly or wrongly - has become a scale tipper for moderate and unaffiliated voters.
It wouldn't prompt someone to vote for a candidate whose views are noxious to their own - an ardently pro-choice Democrat, for example, is not going to cross party lines to back a stridently anti-abortion Republican, no matter what. But if the candidates are roughly equivalent in their views, or an incumbent has a knock or two against them already, the Black question might tip the campaign.
This is going to matter most in true swing districts and districts that can swing due to vagaries of voter turn out, enthusiasm, weather and what not. I would put House 57 (now held by Democrat Rep. Pricey Harrison) firmly in that latter camp.
Harrison is a freshman, and in 2004 wrested the district from Republican Joanne Bowie during an expensive and contentious race. Signs point to this year's election being another hard fought battle.
I am tempted to think that the three other Guilford Democrats, particularly Maggie Jeffus in House District 59, might see some effects of the Black controversy as well.
District 59 reaches out through northeast Greensboro to the northeastern corner, taking in some Republican leaning precincts both in the city and in the county. From my perspective, Jeffus doesn’t seem particularly close to Black – compared to some other Democrats – but hasn’t really distanced herself much either. However, I'd want to see more out of this race from both sides before saying that the Black issue will be at play in the bottom line.