In the wake of Keith Crisco’s untimely death, the world of North Carolina politics needs some levity. Fortunately, PPP has seen fit to provide it in their latest poll on the Senate race, the first since the primary. The poll is garbage. Notably, it has Sean Haugh, the Libertarian, taking an incredible 11% of the vote.
Repeat after me: Sean Haugh is not going to get 11% of the vote in November. He doesn’t even have 11% now. Haugh actually ran before, in 2002 in the Bowles/Dole race, where he received a whopping 1.45% of the vote. He’s on track to get the same amount this year, perhaps slightly more because I do agree that both candidates will be very unpopular by the end of this.
Why am I confident that Haugh doesn’t have 11%? Because, for a third party candidate to get that much support, it would have to be in the wake of a very bitter primary. Tillis won the nomination outright last Tuesday; no segment of the GOP had time to become hostile toward him. Now, if there had been a runoff, a divided party would be almost a certainty, which is why it was so crucial that Republicans not have one. Repeat after me, once again: There is no conservative discontent with Tillis. Actually, that’s not accurate. There’s always some discontented people out there. Let’s just say that Tillis has as much a problem with the conservative base as Burr did in 2010, so, not one at all.
With that said, let’s get to the analysis. Now that the primary is over, my job becomes a little easier. No longer do I have to track the change in Edward Kryn’s favorable rating from last month. Onward to the poll!
General election
Kay Hagan – 38% (-5)
Thom Tillis – 36% (-5)
Sean Haugh – 11% (+11)
PPP finds Hagan with a slim lead. But look closer. The 2012 presidential result among the sample is a tie, 48/48, meaning that this electorate is even more favorable to Democrats than it was two years ago. That’s highly unlikely to be the case in November. Once PPP switches to a likely voter model, Hagan’s advantage is likely to disappear. Even adjusting the poll to fit 2012 standards probably brings about a Tillis lead.
Favorable/Unfavorable
Hagan 38/49 (-11) -4
Tillis 30/46 (-16) +3
Voters don’t like either candidate. Hagan’s job approval actually dropped 4 points from last poll, and Tillis’s favorable rating increased. This will be very much a lesser of two evils contest. In fact, I don’t think there’s a precedent for both candidates being so disliked. The negative feelings toward these candidates on the part of the electorate is likely to intensify as the election draws nearer and we get absolutely swamped with campaign advertisements.
The poll also looks at the Hudson/Levinson race. But the numbers aren’t important, at all, this early in the race. Republicans have a good chance of taking out Hudson this year, with turnout likely to favor their party. Does Levinson have a banjo and a catchy campaign tune?
Averaging the Polls (Rasmussen + PPP)
Hagan – 41%
Tillis – 40.5%
Haugh – 8%
This is a true toss-up race. Yes, in the end, Haugh could prove to be a significant factor, but any third party candidate would be in a race this close. While these numbers jibe with conventional wisdom on the race, personally I think both polls are junk and should be tossed out. I’m going to go with my intuition on this race and say Tillis is up by a couple points, assuming a reasonable midterm turnout model, but Hagan is very much still in the game and will be until November.
Hello, silly PoliticsNC: Haugh just polled 11% again.
I think this Libertarians Can’t Possibly Win mantra is just the public face of you demopublicans. I think in private you are worried enough to be strategizing how to siphon more votes from Haugh than the other demopublican does.
Look at Somalia.
*I* for one, believe they can win, but I think most people think the consequences of living in the show “The Walking Dead” are so horrific that they just pretend its not possible.
@Ray–Huh, ran out of ‘reply’ blocks, but anyway…
I knew tilting at this particular windmill would be pointless, however…
There are three (3) names on the ballot, but only two stand a chance of being elected.
Go up to Watauga County or down to Columbus County. Find a little country store to stop at and pull yourself up a stump and wait a bit. Ask the first person that comes in what they think of Sean Haugh running for Senate. The first thing you’re going to get is a tilt of the head and a single utterance of, “Who?” Then, right after you answer that question with, “he’s the Libertarian candidate,” that look you get will be somewhere between pity and derision. That’s not me, that’s common sense. This state nor this country is ready or willing to branch out on political parties. Doesn’t mean that they won’t at some future point in time; but 2014 isn’t it.
However, in the final analysis, we each have a vote and it is ours to cast as we see fit and as our conscience and convictions guide us.
Cast yours as you see fit and I’ll do the same.
“only two stand a chance of being elected.”
I won’t believe you mean it until you put your money where your mouth is. Pledge half of everything you own to the Libertarian Party, payable if Haugh wins.
Voters will be exactly as ABLE to elect Haugh as they will be able to elect either of the demoplublican candidates. His chances are 100% if enough people support him and 0% otherwise. Same as Hagan or Tillis. It is currently a three-way tie with zero votes apiece.
You are uttering guesswork, I am speaking facts.
You purport a wager on a game of chance; illegal here since it is not connected with the Education Lottery. And this is the second time you’ve proposed it. Although, you offer nothing of yours in return if Haugh loses. Strange that.
No, you’re pontificating that he has an equal chance and prefacing that on the singular premise of his being on the ballot. Well, lots of names appear on ballots.
But you go right ahead sir and more power to ya. Come the first Tuesday in November though, we’ll find out who’s crystal ball is broke.
Wager, shmager. I didn’t say Haugh will win. YOU say Haugh will LOSE. But you put nothing of value up for risk, for YOU to lose, in the event that YOUR breezily “certain” prediction doesn’t come true. How about ONE percent of your wealth, instead of 50 or 11? How about HALF a percent? Not even HUNDREDTH of a percent?? Beacause sir, talk is cheap! SHOW how confident you are in your claim. BACK UP your claim, with something, anything, greater than zero. Otherwise we should presume you are just another demopublican hot-air artist.
How about hold all libertarians and conservatives financially responsible for AGW denial climate damage? I’ll take that wager.
Presume anything you like. It’s your fantasy; if you’re going to believe it you might as well live it.
I do not put much faith in these polls, but Haugh’s 11% is consistent with the 100%+ growth in the LPNC since 2011, the 1,000+ libertarian student groups organized by Students for Liberty in the last 5 years, the organizational development occurring so rapidly within the LPNC and the fact that over 75% of the newly registered Libertarians in NC are below the age of 30. The future is coming. You should grow with us, not against us.
“both candidates”
“either candidate”
“both candidates”
Humorously transparent attempts at paradigm self-reinforcement! Now just how high does Haugh need to poll before you’ll deign to start saying “the three candidates” and “any candidate” like a respectably objective journalist? Maybe if he outpolls Undecideds, who are up 15-11 over him now? MAYBE?
Maybe when libertarians stop thinking that gold is the panacea to all economic woes and that their special RandGoldOwl knowledge makes them smarter than all scientists on earth.
These polls are fine. It’s this website that’s “garbage.”
Bless your heart Travis.
“Repeat after me: Sean Haugh is not going to get 11% of the vote in November.” Repeat after me: You are not going to put your money where your mouth by agreeing to donate 11% of your wealth to the Libertarian Party if Sean Haugh gets 11% of the vote in November.
“Haugh … in 2002 [for U.S. Senate] received a whopping 1.45% of the vote.” So, the Demopublicans, who were 82.6% of the electorate in 2002, had a tally share (98.55%) equal to 1.19 times their electoral share. Current demopublican share of the electorate is 72.9%. 72.9% x 1.19 = an extrapolated tally share of only 86.93% this time. Leaving over 13% for Haugh.
The big beaming pic of Kay is a PRECIOUS illustration of how much you wish your article did not have to be about Sean!
So, what’s your point? Regardless if Sean pulls 11%, 13%, or 20%, he still looses. And while you may not see it, think it, or believe it as such, those votes he siphons off can actually go toward making sure Tillis and his agenda don’t make it to Washington.
So while you sit committed to the alternative to the status quo two party system we have and that Kay is not in the best interest of North Carolina and its’ people, take stock of the fact that she is the best choice with a chance of winning. Difference.
My point, duh, was that the original poster’s reference to 2002 can actually support the reasonableness of the poll result.
What prize do you get if you vote for the winner? I didn’t know that’s how it worked. I thought it was about instructing our government.
If you support the Welfare-Warfare State you have two qualified options. Those of us who’d prefer economic and civil liberty have Sean Haugh and our current what, 13-20% to build on, with five full months to go. And this with approximately zero name recognition, money and media coverage compared to the pro-debt pro-war running mates Thom and Kay. Let Sean into the debates and you risk him smoking them like a cheap cigar.
Well gee, perhaps you should have lead with that point rather than that infernal caterwauling. However, since that is your point, let’s look at it. Lessee, candidate Haugh ran in 2002 and garnered 1.45% of the votes cast. He’s running in 2014 and is, being generous and using your projected numbers, going to pull 13% of the votes. That’s 12 years and 11.55% in popularity. At that rate, candidate Haugh should be a viable contender somewhere around, what, 2040? Don’t misconstrue. I watched his video, seemed like a down to earth guy. But until the day that he or any Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or some other splinter political party is actually electable, a vote that way is a vote wasted.
You don’t like or care for the two party system. Many voting now, counted as independent, profess or are maligned as showing no small amount of disdain for either democrats or republicans based on the hubris of each and how politics is played. People want choices. Fine. Lets load up the ballot with 4 or 5 candidates for each office from different parties. Simple majority wins. You now have a candidate as a 22% vote getter, if 5 are on the ballot, winning elected office. Is that better? Is that the will of the people?
What prize? Thom Tillis remaining in North Carolina and not adding to his fortune and those that think he’s cute on the national stage.
You still think John Q. Public leads Government? Why don’t you read the following;
http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf
Just to be clear, I’m not a fan of welfare or warfare. However, both are necessary at times. But when you put extremists in charge and give them a voting majority, you run the risk of extremist policy; like the $450m budget deficit that NC is facing or the PATRIOT Act. And the politicians don’t suffer, the people do and by people, I mean flesh and blood, not corporate entities.
“until the day that he or any Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or some other splinter political party is actually electable, a vote that way is a vote wasted.”
Three and only three people are electable to the seat. That’s how many names will be on our ballots. That’s the number of choices we have. Your insistence on saying only two could possibly win seems to imply you think the election is rigged.
If everyone wasted their vote on Haugh he would win.
But when conservatives are lying and screwing up so badly in their anti government/kill government agenda, who in their right mind would vote for the even MORE conservative libertarian candidate?
Oh right.
A conservative maybe.
Civitas commissioned a poll of 600 likely voters just prior to the primary:
http://www.nccivitas.org/2014/pollputstillisinlead/
The Libertarian share in that one vis a vis the November US Senate election was 8%. How many data points does it take to draw a trendline? PPP, Rasmussen, and Civitas/National Research make three with an average for the LPNC candidate of 8%.
(In the Civitas/National Research poll, go the the crosstabs PDF and scroll down to p. 26 to see the US Senate results.)
Just don’t count the people that say Haugh or Libertarian. Then you’ll get the poll result that your bias is comfy with.