tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post1938878609695045357..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-235612478831274272009-06-22T00:26:50.903-04:002009-06-22T00:26:50.903-04:00On a slightly unrelated note, I'm sure the Dem...On a slightly unrelated note, I'm sure the Democrats would be much happier if it was Torsella rather than Sestak in the race. This way there would be a primary challenger to keep Specter in line without risking a House seat. (Why did I think Torsella was a former congressman?)Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-69686581581578965942009-06-21T22:57:41.676-04:002009-06-21T22:57:41.676-04:00...but Thompson was/is an actor!
Thanks for the v......but Thompson was/is an actor!<br /><br />Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rob. On many levels, this is an apples and oranges comparison (2010 to 2004), but there are some parallels. <br /><br />The obvious generalizable relationship here is that the polling will tighten as election day approaches (all things being equal and sans economic collapses). You also have several other factors to control for. I've already alluded to a couple. Specter's imperiled this time in a completely different way. He's confronted with having voters of a different party get used to him (That's why that <a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_1_1_aa&usg=AFQjCNGy3n5Kj7v5cZzEQDA1e-LeuzGVqQ&cid=1262933325&ei=9vA-SojTG52Q9QTuku7kAw&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.washingtonpost.com%2Fthefix%2Fsenate%2Fsestak-calls-specter-flight-ri.html" rel="nofollow">"flight risk"</a> comment was ingenious.). And also that Sestak isn't even formally in the race yet.<br /><br />But you two have hit on something that I've left off (ah, peer review): candidate quality. It is more than being unknown; it's what you bring to the table. Both Sestak and Toomey are/were in the House, so they are on a level playing field in terms of how political scientists usually define quality (past offices held).<br /><br />The bottom line is that Sestak is already in a better position now than Toomey was in March of 2004. And truth be told, much of that is due to Specter's switch raising awareness of the race.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-48944582641687942542009-06-21T22:08:38.698-04:002009-06-21T22:08:38.698-04:00Well, Obama was a much better candidate than the f...Well, Obama was a much better candidate than the former senator from Tennessee.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-15915884833455035892009-06-21T10:12:10.324-04:002009-06-21T10:12:10.324-04:00Very convincing, particularly when you present the...Very convincing, particularly when you present the data with Toomey. However, usually when there are undecideds and a candidate-to-be-named later, the undecideds break more evenly. It is easier to be wary of someone when they could be running against an unknown candidate or someone who has not officially announced. Relatively unknown candidates have trouble getting traction. Obama did it against Clinton in 2007/2008, but Fred Thompson did not do so well.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.com