Friday, August 24, 2007
New Poll On 7th District Race
UPDATE: I missed this on my first read of the article, but an anonymous commenter was kind enough to point out what I had missed: a .pdf file of the poll. I've got to agree with the commenter, the Enquirer article wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, given the data available.
I'm going to take a few minutes to digest all the numbers, and then I'll have a new update.
UPDATE II: I've changed the title of the post. The poll doesn't so much show the district "turning blue," but it does have valuable-- and encouraging-- data.
Really, just ignore the original post below. The poll was conducted by the Glengariff Group, Inc. July 24-28, 2007, so Mark Schauer isn't mentioned. It has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.
Here are some significant findings:
President George W. Bush: Approve-- 25% Disapprove-- 74%
Congress: Approve-- 15% Disapprove-- 85%
Favorable/Unfavorable/Never Heard Of
Tim Walberg: 42% - 33% - 25%
Joe Schwarz: 43% - 25% - 32%
Jim Berryman: 15% - 12% - 73%
David Nacht: 4% - 8% - 88%
Sharon Renier: 11% - 9% - 80%
Re-Elect Tim Walberg: 22.8%
Consider Someone New: 35.7%
Definitely Someone New: 18.7%
Generic Congressional Ballot
(Note: NOT a party identification, as suggested in the Enquirer article.)
Democratic Candidate: 36%
Republican Candidate: 29%
Independent Candidate: 12%
If a candidate supported President Bush's "stay the course" policy in Iraq, would you:
Strongly Support: 22.8%
Somewhat Support: 14.5%
Somewhat Oppose: 9.2%
Strongly Oppose: 47.8%
Hypothetical General Election
Schwarz (D): 43.9%
Walberg (R): 40.5%
Walberg (R): 37.4%
Schwarz (I): 23.5%
Berryman (D): 23.4%
Hypothetical Democratic Primary
(Note: Berryman doesn't appear to have been offered as an option.)
There's more in there, too, but this is a lot of data I've listed, and what I believe are the most important findings. Now, my thoughts:
This is a very Schwarz-centered poll, meaning that either Schwarz asked for it to "test the waters," or someone urging Schwarz to run commissioned the poll. There's nothing anywhere in the document I saw stating who commissioned it.
Also, it's worth noting that Jim Berryman was not listed when the Democratic primary was polled with Schwarz as a candidate. Is that based on the assumption that Berryman would drop out in favor of Schwarz? It's possible.
Also worth noting is the bit about Iraq. As long as Walberg stands by Bush, it hurts him with a majority of the electorate. Any Democratic candidate would be wise to make an anti-war message central to his or her campaign.
Overall, Democrats appear to be in good shape, though the other candidates will have to work hard on name recognition. If they can define themselves with the voters, rather than letting Tim Walberg label them as evil "liberals," they could easily build upon that generic ballot lead.
Of course, a lot of this changes with Mark Schauer's entrance into the race.
The Battle Creek Enquirer is reporting on a new poll conducted by the Glengariff Group, Inc. of Michigan's 7th District. I'd love to see a copy of the poll and its results, if there's anyone out there reading that would be willing to share. From the Enquirer article, there were three items polled: the presidential race (Clinton vs. Giuliani only), one congressional match-up (Schwarz as a Democrat vs. Walberg), and partisan self-identification.
Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, would edge out in the 7th District U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., 45 percent to 43 percent, the poll showed.Congressional results:
If Schwarz, a Battle Creek Republican, were to run as a Democrat, the poll shows him beating U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, 44 percent to 41 percent.Now, those are two hypothetical scenarios that really don't have a lot of value, in my opinion. Clinton and Giuliani have yet to win their respective nominations, and a lot can happen before either of them do. As for the hypothetical Schwarz-as-a-Democrat, it is significant because it shows that someone-- perhaps Schwarz himself-- is interested enough to do polling.
The surprising result from the poll, however, was this:
The poll, taken July 24 to 28, showed 36 percent of voters in the seven-county district identified as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans and 12 percent independent.If the poll is accurate, the district went from solidly Republican to lean-Democratic.
So it looks like Walberg is actually beatable by a number of democratic candidates. I would like to see Schauer's poll numbers. You know the one he claims to have paid for that showed he was the clear candidate for the Democratic Party. Looks like it is anybody's show here. I again go back to my previous statements about choosing the most viable candidate with an eye on the entire political landscape.
Schauer has a long history of "bending" the truth. He claimed--right up to a few weeks ago-- that he had no desire to run for Congress but that his wife encourage him to run. Today, he claims there has been a "deafening roar" of support for months.
Mark Schauer tweaks the truth as often as the Reverend Walberg. They are one and the same and both are consumate politicans who are totally out of touch with reality and the mainstream.
Forgive me for my anger, but I am so disgusted by what passes as "good representation" in government these days. If Tim Walberg and Mark Schauer are the best shots their parties have at securing my congression seat, then I will consider a third party or an independent for my next vote.
I need a rubber-stamp democrat (Pelosi clone) as much as I need a rubber stamp republican (Bush clone) as much as I need a swift kick to the groin.
"He claimed--right up to a few weeks ago-- that he had no desire to run for Congress but that his wife encourage him to run."
The story I heard is that she resigned her position at a senior center a month ago to work on his campaign. I just didn't buy the excuse she gave at the time and I knew he would eventually jump in.
I'm seeing some of the same double speak as Walberg has done here.
Make sure to read the actual memo from the pollster.
A few curious observations:
1) If you read this memo carefully it is clear that this was a poll conducted by a Republican polling firm on behalf of Joe Schwarz. No where in the article is this made clear.
2) Mark Schauer was tested no where in the poll. I suspect because he cleans Walbergs clock better than Schwarz and beats Schwarz in a primary.
3) Notice how Berryman is tested in the head to head race with Walberg and the three way with Schwarz but mysteriously disappears in the primary race for the Democratic noimination. More possible bad news for Schwarz.
It is clear that the BCE didn't do it's homework on this one and is releasing slanted pro-Schwarz proaganda without referncing the source. Come on folks, you're better journalists than that.
"Maverick09" do you mind if I call you Matt? If you are so concerned with going back to DC perhaps you and your boss should have done the work to win your primary last year.
Folks, lets be clear Schwarz is a Bush/Engler Republican and has no place in our party.
I am really getting disgusted with the tone that is developing on this site. If you'll note, it started when Schauer's fan club started weighing in. You're not making the case for your candidate. You're just insulting a lot of good people who would like to see better for the 7th District.
"Folks, lets be clear Schwarz is a Bush/Engler Republican and has no place in our party."
Agreed. Schwarz is old news.
I get the feeling that a lot of Schwarz dinosaurs and other republican hacks have been trolling this blog lately.
Let's not forget that Joe Schwarz's first reaction when his back was up against the wall last spring was to run straight into the arms of George Bush:
"Adding to the growing list of prominent Republicans backing his re-election, President George W. Bush today announced his endorsement of U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Battle Creek).
'Congressman Joe Schwarz is common sense for Michigan,' said President Bush. 'I appreciate
his hard work, especially on education, national security and health care. 'Joe is a fine Republican who deserves reelection.'”
And let's not forget how excited he was to have George Bush and Dick Cheney pay him a visit back in 2004:
Ok, let me just make sure I have the rules straight. To participate on this blog, you have to:
1. Love Mark Schauer
2. Hate Joe Schwarz
3. Not give a crap about the work David Nacht, Jim Berryman and Sharon Renier have done for the Democrats
All those who violate these rules will be duly insulted.
And here I thought we were supposed to be keeping tabs on Tim Walberg.
You have got to be kidding me! Since the Schauer rumor's broke he has been attacked on this site more than Walberg. Take your crocodile tears elsewhere.
In response to this:
"Ok, let me just make sure I have the rules straight. To participate on this blog, you have to:
1. Love Mark Schauer
2. Hate Joe Schwarz
3. Not give a crap about the work David Nacht, Jim Berryman and Sharon Renier have done for the Democrats"
1. Yes, I love Mark Schauer. Sue me.
2. No, I don't hate Joe Schwarz. He's just a George Bush/Dick Cheney Republican whose day has passed.
3. If David Nacht, Jim Berryman or Sharon Renier are serious about winning this race, I'd love to hear more from them. And if they have supporters commenting anonymously on this site, I'd love to hear from them as well about why they think their candidate of choice should win.
I just have a low tolerance for unsubstantiated attacks on a candidate I happen to support.
Your analysis of the poll memo is dead on. Thanks for taking the time to look at the source data and report on it accordingly. I only wish the Battle Creek Enquirer had done the same.
To the Anonyomous post at 7:54 PM
"I got all choked up and I threw down my gun
And I called him my pa, and he called me his son,
And I came away with a different point of view.
And I think about him, now and then,
Every time I try and every time I win,
And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him
Bill or George! Anything but Sue! I still hate that name!
You call me whatever you like, it matters not to me. When your ready to enter the discussion with something other than "anonymous" you might have some relevance and you might be worth reading.
Of course, to be active and already supporting a candidate, you have to be emotionally attached.
I'm not at that stage, and would encourage the Dems to not have a primary. I think it would be best for the party and the citizens in the 7th District.
Schauer is the strongest candidate; this is an indisputable fact. Candidates and supporters alike need to just suck it up and deal with it. It's not fair that Sharon didn't get the support she needed, but that's so much spilt milk now. We have the political reality of the present--not the hypothetical or wishful thinking.
Clearly the race has changed. A Schauer candidacy nullifies that poll.
Schwarz could ever win a Democratic primary? Whatever. Sorry guys. Schwartz might pretend to be moderate, but I'm guessing if push came to shove (i.e. there were a committee chairmanship involved) he'd be more than careful.
If you think an anti-middle class, pro-war, pro-wire tapping Republican could win a primary against Mark Schauer, please find your way to the looney bin.
Now, we here on the Dem side are all about including new people, but we don't like it when our elected officals pretend to represent the peeps and then screw us with tax breaks for the super rich and hike up our own tax rates. That's what Schwarz would be--a pseduo-Dem.
But that's not what this site is about. We need to oust Walberg. He is WRONG for the district and wrong for Michigan.
We need representation with a proven track record of getting the job done. Schauer works tirelessly to serve the people he represents. Ask anyone from the people playing cards at the local senior center to the CEO of Eaton or Kellogg. You'll get the same answer:
"Mark Schauer helped me get the job done."
"2) Mark Schauer was tested no where in the poll. I suspect because he cleans Walbergs clock better than Schwarz and beats Schwarz in a primary."
Maybe they didn't test Schauer's name because he promised his fellow deomcratic senators as well as Jim Berryman that he would not run. Maybe the people who did the poll trusted Schauer to keep his word.
I was favorably predisposed to Schauer from the get-go, since when I moved to Marshall I was pleasantly surprised that my State Senator wasn't a Republican.
BUT - I'd be more loving of Schauer if he actually took the time to respond to ANY of my e-mails. I've received responses from officials ranging down to the City of Marshall and up to U.S. Senators, but nothing from Schauer except a campaign mailer last year. I've only sent him a few e-mails but still . . . I would at least expect someone to click on "reply".
Republican State Rep. Wenke ALWAYS writes me back promptly despite the fact that I might sound like a pinko to him sometimes. I enjoy giving these guys a good chuckle while at the same time throwing some mind expansion at them. Wenke and I agree to disagree on a lot, but we both agreed that the attempted lynching of SVSU by the Gary Glenn crowd and some other Republican House members this past spring was out of bounds. This was over SVSU's production of the semi-controversial play "Angels in America".
Is everyone else getting replies from Schauer and just li'l ol' me isn't? Do I have to be one of the in-crowd like they have over at michiganliberal? That blog seems more and more like a clique to me all the time. And it's not so much left wing as it is a Democratic blog. The Green Party gets short shrift and after I saw the demographic survey, other than the surprising amount of nontheists over there, it seems far too bourgeois to pass as left. They actually had a category "what's your favorite airline?" WTF is that about? Pass the Grey Poupon.
Of course none of this means that I like Walberg, but as long as I choose someone different from him, that's the point.
Without question the most interesting item from the poll in my mind was Renier's numbers. After running in 04 and 06 how is it possible that 80.3% of respondents never heard of her.
Please Sharon give up this fantasy that you have with being elected.
Yes, Michael, Michigan Liberal is a clique of people who repeat the Democratic talking points and then criticize the MSM for not repeating them enough. They blatantly favor some Dems over others, like Schauer. This site will soon become just like that unless Fitzy stops it.
You all are so pathetic and are the very reason why our party self destructs over and over.
I mean, all of you Schauer cronies -- and yes, that includes you Ken -- who hide behind your anonymous posts who pretend that your candidate isn't a hypocritical, self-promoting politician are as delusional as the rest of the Lansing core who are personally vested in the politicians they promote.
Seriously, you can't tell me that you don't see the commercial. "Mark Schauer is a different kind of politician...he'll not only lie to his friends but he'll lie to his colleagues to promote his own political career." (And yeah, you professional spin people will make it sound a lot worse than that.)
If Schauer had an ounce on integrity, he would resign his post as Minority Leader so that our caucus could focus on the budget discussions and fighting the "reforms" being pushed by Bishop and co. And since when did saying "Well, John Engler did it" become an acceptable response for Democrats.
As for the poll, which is clearly being pushed by the Schwarz folks, there is a very simple way to make them go away. Just post the Schaer poll and let it speak for itself.
If the Schauer poll shows that Berryman, Nacht and the rest of our candidates are far behind and that Schauer's support among our base is greater than that being demonstrated in the Schwarz poll then let's put this discussion to rest and FOCUS ON WHAT MATTERS MOST...eliminating Tim Walberg and the morally righteous, non-Michigan brood that has bought the 7th Congressional district for their own narrow, self-serving purposes.
Until that sole issue once again becomes the focus on this site, I will ecourage those who like me want to see nothing more that the defeat of Tim Walberg to turn their energy elsewher.
I find it interesting that you spend three paragraphs attacking Schauer, then spend the last paragraph saying that you won't come back here until the attacks stop.
Let's be clear:
1.Schauer is running.
2.I happen to believe, with or without a poll, that he is the strongest candidate.
3. I also happen to believe that this is a valid forum to discuss the primary, but that it is not a valid forum for Schwarz/Bishop cronies like Marsden to attack the man that will be the Democratic nominee
The comment on August 26, 2007 11:24 AM, is not me. I have changed my display name to avoid confusion.
Great...glad to know Schauer is running. It still does not dismiss the fact that he has broken a promise and is using John Engler as justification to why he won't step down from his post as Minority Leader...which he won on the promise of not running for Congress.
Fair enough, that you believe he is the strongest candidate. But for those who don't and read articles in which Mark Schauer himself says he has data that shows he is the best of all candidates to defeat Tim Walberg --the stated goal of this blog -- then those of us, not sure of who the best candidate is have an equally strong claim to say "show us the data that suggests Berryman and Nacht can't get the job done."
The Schwarz data -- and no one has suggested that the poll didn't come from him or some group associated with him, so I accept that as truth -- shows him in a favorable position. Obviously, you would expect it to...and I'm not saavy enough or schooled enough to know how to disprove or interpret differently the numbers that were presented here on this blog...but it looks interesting.
Now, to your third point...I don't seem to have the knowledge that you do but if someone is using the site to solely attack any candidate -- other than Walberg -- for no other reason than pure spite, then I share in your sentiment.
Although you are convinced that Senator Schauer is the best candidate, I do not share your viewpoint. My earlier post and those brought up in this one are not "attacks", as they are based upon statement made by him and his supporters, both in the paper and on blogs. Nothing that I state is fabricated nor exaggerated for effect but merely highlight some weaknesses in a candidate that many are trying to showcase as the inevitable one. In fact your words belie that belief...and I quote "that it is not a valid forum for Schwarz/Bishop cronies like Marsden to attack the man that will be the Democratic nominee."
How do you know he will be the nominee? There are others out there running too and while your faith in Senator Schauer's eventual success is to be applauded by his inner circle, there are plenty who question whether he is the wisest or best choice.
To the question that you are probably asking yourself, I don't know who I will support with my vote. I have some real problems with Senator Schauer, but can admit that were he to step down from his post as Minority Leader that it would move me in the "correct direction" (as defined by whom you have chosen to support.)
To conclude on a lighter note, if it wasn't for Mike Bishop...I wouldn't have been clued in to BFM, which in turn landed me here.
I still like the coffee shop better (there's more to look at and you know people by name), but as long as the discussion remains focused on beating Tim Walberg/CFG and as along as people recognize that we can disagree on candidate's qualifications without being disagreeable (another reason I like the coffee shop better)then it's all good.
I keep repeating the point, but I'm sure a soul on this board understands it.
If you like Schwarz, Schauer or Berryman, fine.
However, I think anyone with any real knowledge of how these things tend to work out, knows nothing-and I mean nothing, on a blog is going to change what the party leadership in both Lansing and Washington is going to do to "decide" this situation for us.
If any of you get a chance, you should read Lee Iacocca's new book on the state of America:
"Where Have all the Leaders Gone?"
He pulls no punches in calling the Bush administration what it is and after today's Gonzales firing/resignation his words ring even truer.
Do youself a favor and go out and buy this book. I sort of wish Lee was running he could do twice the job of anyone running today!
Thought somebody might want to read the actual story on this:Post a Comment
So, where's the poll, Mark? If you got it, let us see it. Otherwise why should we think you'll win?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008