Digging Into The Smith Numbers
Jeff Alworth
Survey USA has new monthly numbers out for Gordon Smith. The very brief, ho-hum summary: Smith received a large bump in the polls when he announced his opposition to the surge in January,* but in the past three months, his approval numbers have hovered around 50% and disapproval at 40%. If you're a bottom-line type you can stop reading now. If you're interested in how the numbers break down, and where we're seeing movement, keep reading. For poll geeks, it's intriguing stuff.
Men and Women
Typically, Republican support is more masculine, Democratic support more feminine. In 2000, women supported Gore 54% to 42%; men supported Bush 53% to 43%. After 9/11, that trend was interrupted, but women still favored Kerry by seven points. In Oregon, however, Senator Smith enjoys more support from women. Looking at the variance between approval and disapproval over the past three months, the number has ranged from 12% to 20%. The numbers are much closer for men, from a high of 8% to a low of -1% this month (indicating slightly higher disapproval).
Party Identification
It's not surprising that the gap between approval and disapproval is higher among Republicans than Democrats. Over the past three months, Republican approval was 20%, 20%, and 33% higher than disapproval. Among Dems, the gap was 8%, 1%, and 1%. But here's the interesting thing: while Democratic support has been relatively consistent over the past year (with the exception of the anti-surge bump), Republican disapproval has grown. Through last November's election, the gap between approval and disapproval was around 40% (roughly 65% approved, 35% disapproved). But now, while his approval ratings have stayed fairly high--around 60%--his disapproval is in the mid-30s. Independents, who were more critical of Smith prior to the anti-surge bump than either Dems or Republicans, have been volatile since.
Age
The aggregate numbers aren't particularly revealing for age groups--until you look at the trend lines. Approval and disapproval among young voters (under 34) has been about even, in the mid-40 over the past year except, predictably, for the anti-surge period. Of all age groups, they were most responsive to Antiwar Smith. Approval among older voters (over 55) has consistently been in the mid-50s to low sixties; among voters 35-54, it's been a little lower, in the low fifties.
But here's the interesting thing. For voters under 55, the arc of support was mostly flat, with a spike around the anti-surge talk. But with older voters, support peaked last September and has been coming down since then.
Analysis
Gordon Smith is walking a tightrope right now. While his overall
numbers look consistent, there are turbulent waters under the calm
surface. A number of voters responded positively to his anti-surge
talk in January, but he lost support among Repubicans for it. Since
then, his numbers have slowly been returning to 2006 patterns, except, surprisingly, among Republicans. Within his own party, discontent is on the rise.
He continues to enjoy more support among women and Democrats than
might be expected for a red senator in a blue state--but despite
growing disatisfaction with the war and the GOP in general, these
numbers don't seem to be wavering too much. On the other hand,
independent voters are anything but stable; polling in January showed a
22% positive gap in approval, but in February, it was a 12% negative
gap. In March it was positive again, and in April, a dead heat. It
appears that independent voters are looking at Smith more closely than
Dems or Republicans. What do they hope to see?
Finally, one riddle in all of this is the declining support among older voters. Smith saw support peak in September and fall off since. What had attracted older voters in the fall, and why are they now turning away from Smith? Any ideas?
I know some think Smith is going to be a choice pick for defeat in '08, but I see surprising strength here. The good news is that, if the Democratic candidate can appeal to women and make the case to Democrats about why Smith hasn't been doing a good job, there are a fair number of voters to peel away.
_______________________
*Or whatever. He played both sides of the issue (he's against it, no wait, he's for it), but was mainly represented as a "critic." Whatever the reality, the polls show that Oregonians thought he was against it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 2, '07
Given Smith's non-position on Social Security and Medicare, it's simply shocking that voters over 55 poll strongly for Smith.
Willamette Week nails Smith's weakness on that issue--tax cuts for the wealthy have been funded by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3312/8503/
Opponents need to paint Smith as an absentee Senator who parachutes into the state every six years for elections and refuses to hold open meetings with constituents. The result? He does not represent or even understand Oregonians' interests on critical issues like guaranteeing Social Security benefits.
May 2, '07
Until the Democrats come up with a credible opponent, potential voters will lack a reason for turning their backs on Smith.
Smith attended a "town hall" meeting in Redmond a couple of years ago with his buddy, Wyden, but the pablum he was allowed to get away with spouting made the event a waste of time.
3:37 p.m.
May 2, '07
Man, I only wish LoadedO had done something similar in the last two days!
Oh wait...
:)
Actually, yours does some breakdowns I didn't mess with--but it's instructive to me to see that his Iraq bounce is basically gone.
3:59 p.m.
May 2, '07
Torrid, we may be the only two people who actually find this stuff compelling. But perhaps with both our blogs commenting on it, it will give the numbers a kind of rarified glamor they might not otherwise have had. Ummm....
4:03 p.m.
May 2, '07
Actually, as I was writing up the wonky version, Carla was doing a more humanoid accounting. So as a bit of an experiment, when I noted the poll results in a blurb on MyDD, I explained about the two stories and provided a link to each.
You can guess the result, but linkwise "short, sweet" kicked "wonky, detailed"'s ass like a redheaded burger-selling clown. (Nothing particularly against Ronald McDonald, but I'm sure redheaded stepchildren are tired of the beatdowns).
May 2, '07
Thank you for the article and linked information.
The conclusion I reached after reading this material is that Gordo is going to be extremely difficult to beat in '08 without a blockbuster Dem candidate that can win back the defecting Dems, Women, Seniors, etc.
Does anybody know how the AARP rates Gordo?
4:40 p.m.
May 2, '07
No Senator at 50% this far out is "extremely difficult to beat."
4:52 p.m.
May 2, '07
I find these poll numbers very encouraging for Dems. If Smith doesn't have strong support amongst Republicans he is doomed. At this point before a campaign is really underway the Dem constituents that are supporting him are doing it in the abstract. Women, gays, enviros, etc. will not stay with Smith through a campaign in this environment. Keep in mind that Chafee was loved in Rhode Island and had much better polls than Smith and he lost. He lost because he was a Republican who voted for Republican leadership that gave Bush a rubber stamp. It didn't matter how Chaffee voted after his first vote and I think we can make Oregonians come to the same conclusion about Smith.
May 2, '07
I defer to the expertise of others, but if I was reading the poll correctly, Gordo is running at about 50% approval in Portland metro and only slightly below 50% among labor union members. I would have expected him to be weaker in those demographics. His strength there causes me to conclude that for whatever misguided reasons, he seems to have legitimate cross over appeal and therefore will be extremely difficult to beat.
Maybe it is the fact that he has no high profile opposition? A rusty 1988 Impala is a popular car if your alternative is "no car".
May 2, '07
It's not just that Smith has no high profile opposition--he hasn't had any opposition at all since 1996. The 2002 campaign was a joke. Back then Democracts couldn't even associate him with the Enron and PGE debacles (Smith was the Senate's no. 3 recipient of Enron largesse.) Given the fact that Democrats seem to have no plan whatsoever to start holding Smith accountable, Smith may well continue his retirement in the Senate for another six years. Yes, there is no Democratic candidate yet, but that should not prevent the Democratic Party from building the case against Smith. Changing public perceptions takes time, and the case needs to be laid out step by step and repeated and repeated. It should have begun by now.
10:12 p.m.
May 2, '07
Smith is only strong against nothing. That's why they say an incumbent polling under (or even near) 50% this far out is in trouble. Put him up against a real opponent, a Democrat in good standing, and watch the Dems come home.
Some have been discouraged by Smith's strong numbers among Democrats, but I think this is actually a good thing. He's depending on those votes. If we can put up a Democrat that can provide a credible, progressive alternative, the Dems will come home, and when they do, Smith is in a world of hurt (though some of his skeptical R's will come home too, when faced with a real live left-of-center opponent).
10:48 a.m.
May 3, '07
No question, Gordon has problems among some Republicans. And this poll confirms that if the Democrats nominate an immigrant-bashing, pro-war candidate who belives global warming is a myth, he or she could steal those Republican votes right from under from Gordon.
Steve Novick, are you taking notes?
May 3, '07
No matter who runs against Gordon Smith there needs to be a political ad made with a graph showing what happens to Gordon Smiths' voting record when he's approaching another election. It would show Smith immediately after he's elected voting with the republicans and Bush 93% of the time, or whatever it is. Then graph it over the years and like a year or 2 before he's up for reelection it starts falling rapidly to like 74%. And just show this pattern from the last election and running up to this one to illustrate the amazing morphing from far right nutcase to good ol' Mr. Moderate, Gordon Smith. It wouldn't take much, just 2 easy to read charts would do it, and run them over and over again. It'd tick off both sides of his supporters. Please, somebody do it. His record is out there. Just make it public.
May 3, '07
Thank you Jack. Your insights are always appreciated. I do disagree about D's needing a pro-war candidate since polls are showing more R's shifting anti-war and loyalty to Bush won't be an '08 factor.
May 3, '07
http://www.stopgordonsmith.com/
3:37 p.m.
May 3, '07
Great snark Jack.
Seriously though, they can always stay home.
Better yet, the circular firing squad that is the right-wing movement in this state (cough CfG cough) could always nominate a truly wing-nutty third-party alternative. Sizemore and Starrett, I believe your cell phones are ringing...
4:24 p.m.
May 3, '07
Thanks "Democrat." I was about to post the same link.
The DPO is definitely doing some stuff in opposition to Gordon Smith. They've begun, and from what I hear, there's a lot more to come.
The party just elected new officers recently, and the new Exec Director is supposed to start any day now (if Trent hasn't already). I'd expect to see more coming soon.
You just have to remember that it's not as easy for the party to just come out with something to say on Smith. They have to every t crossed and every i dotted -- they have to have their sources for every little thing they say. Otherwise it damages their credibility.
It's quite easy for all us activists out here to say something. It's completely different when the Party does.
Like I said, expect to see more soon. But in the meantime you can head over to the web site, http://www.stopgordonsmith.com/ and sign up for updates so you'll know what's going on.
May 3, '07
I am an over 55 Independent. Would someone who is a member of the Democratic party please explain to me why some prominent members of that party are so supportive of Smith and that they would want their name in the paper about it?
9:09 p.m.
May 3, '07
Honestly, I don't see them as prominent members of our Party. At least one he's listed is actually a registered Independent.
9:27 a.m.
May 4, '07
Brian, that's genius. Someone should get on it!
2:13 p.m.
May 4, '07
Nate, I can't argue that the self-destructive elements of my political party are perhaps Gordon's most serious problem. That's why I think it is so revealing that in the SurveyUSA poll, one of the groups with the largest negatives toward Gordon are those who think global warming is a myth.
At the same time, a Democratic nominee that attacks Gordon for being too conservative is likely to bring those anti-Gordon conservatives home. Remember all those anti-Kulongoski union folks who refused to endorse Ted in the primary? It didn't talke them long to come home once Republicans nominated Saxton.
With DeFazio out of the race, who is the Democratic candidate who can make conservative Republicans say, "He (or she) would be no worse than Smith"?
2:15 p.m.
May 4, '07
I don't think conservative Republicans are the issue for Smith. Many of them will come home, sure--but some of them won't, in larger numbers assuredly than before.
<h2>The real issue is how many Dems and NAVs will vote for Smith, IMO. And in that vein, painting Smith as the Bushbot he generally is, is the wise move.</h2>