Riley Poll is Actually Bad News for Smith (if it means anything at all).

Jon Isaacs

This is an excerpt from the Oregonian’s blog report on the recent released tracking poll by Riley Research:

Riley said he was most surprised by the level of bipartisan support for Smith, who faces re-election next year:

A total of 54 percent of the poll respondents rated Smith's job performance favorably. Among those giving him a satisfactory job rating were 57 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Democrats.

"His support is almost dead even" between the two parties, which is a good sign for someone who has to run statewide. Riley said Smith's recent opposition to the Iraq war has helped him with Democrats and hasn't hurt him much among Republicans.

"He's played it very shrewdly from a political standpoint," Riley said. Anyone looking to challenge him, either in the primary or in the general election, might be dissuaded by such numbers, he said.

Say what?

Let’s be honest. The fact is this one question really doesn’t tell us anything about Smith’s potential vulnerability in 2008. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

But since Riley has decided to tout his findings as great news for Smith and the Oregonian is going to report that these numbers are going to dissuade potential challengers, than let’s point that out for what it is – bunk.

By any meaningful standard, the Riley poll is really BAD news for Smith. Here's why -

Smith’s 57% approval among Republicans is incredibly weak.

Riley’s quote in the third paragraph above is complete nonsense. Smith would much rather have his R support be in the low to mid 60’s even if that shot his #’s among D’s down a few points. If Smith’s approval rating among R’s is really this low he’s going to have a base problem next year.

For now, 54% Dem approval is somewhat impressive. But these numbers point out the ongoing dilemma facing Smith. He’s spent the past four months doing nothing but pander to liberals and moderates and he still only has a 54% approval rating among Democrats. What’s going to happen to that number once Smith starts trying to get his conservative base to come home?

Smith’s 54% approval rating is actually a drop of four points from a comparable poll done in January.

Survey USA’s January Oregon Senate approval rating poll, taken 1/12 – 1/14, had Smith’s numbers at 58% approval with 62% of D’s and R’s approving. If we take both of these polls at face value Smith has actually dropped in every category since January. His eight point drop with Democrats is a statistically significant.

In support of my point in bullet #1, take a look at Wyden’s approval ratings in the same January Survey USA poll. He received 52% approval from Republicans and a whopping 76% from Democrats. Now those are healthy numbers.

Smith has a huge problem with Independents/Non Affiliated Voters.

I made the point in my last post that the key to the 2006 Democratic wave was independents breaking for Democrats big time. For the time being, Republicans have completely lost this group of voters. Smith has a terrible 44% approval rating among independent voters. In the Survey USA poll it was 52%. Another eight point drop. This is a real problem for Smith.

If you take him at his word, all of Smith’s flip flopping, contradictory positions and explanations really show that he’s a thoughtful, independent decision maker. So far, independents aren’t going for it. In fact, if we take both of these polls at face value Smith’s numbers among Independents are dropping. Unfortunately, the only voters falling for his ruse at the moment are Democrats.

The bottom line is neither of these polls really tells us anything.

Here are some approval ratings for you from June 2005: George Allen – 53%, Conrad Burns – 50%. Those are results from Survey USA’s 2005 monthly US Senate approval rating polls. Both numbers are within the Riley poll 4.5% margin of error. We all know that these are ratings for former US Senators.

If Riley truly wanted to rate Smith’s vulnerability he would have done the following -

1. More accurate approval ratings. The poll should have given those taking the survey five options instead of three for rating Smith’s job performance – it should have asked strongly fav/unfav and somewhat fav/unfav. This would have given us some idea of the intensity and depth of Smith’s support. I suspect that much of Smith’s Democratic support is soft that will be easy for a well funded opponent to move to their column. Interestingly, Riley did provide five approval options in the question about Kulongoski’s healthy kids proposal.

2. Re-elect rating. Riley should have asked respondents whether they planned on voting to re-elect Smith or voting to replace him. I suspect this number would have been in the low to mid 40’s. This is an important rating because it gives us an idea of whether or not Smith’s job approval is translating into votes for re-election. Any US Senator with a re-elect rating below 50 is in trouble.

3. Head-to-Head match-ups. I’ll bet money that there are at least three head-to-head match-ups if tested today would show Smith trailing or tied - (candidates who have not unequivocally removed themselves from the race). Smith v. Defazio. Smith v. Blumenauer. Smith v. Bradbury. My hunch is that a potential upstart candidate such as Steve Novick, who admittedly would start with a severe name ID disadvantage, would start in the low 40’s v. Smith with plenty of room for growth. In my view, head to head questions would give us the biggest sense of Smith’s vulnerability. When voters are given a choice where do they go?

By Jon Isaacs March 16, 2007