Leslie Up 7 Points Among Most Likely Voters

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/21/2008 9:45:28 PM

The following information is based on a telephone poll by Global Strategy Group of 400 randomly selected registered voters in the 11th CD who say they definitely or probably will vote in the 2008 Democratic primary on June 10. Interviewing was conducted May 18th through May 20th, 2008.



Among Democrats who voted in two or more previous primaries -- the most likely voters -- Leslie Byrne is leading Gerry Connolly 44%-37%. Among Democrats who voted in ANY past primary, it's Connolly 37%-Byrne 35%, a statistical dead heat.



Among the "two or more" previous primary voters, Leslie has a net favorable of +53 points, while Gerry has a +41.  Among Democrats who voted in ANY past primary, it's Connolly +47% and Byrne +45.

More discussion by the pollster on the "flip."

UPDATE: Just to clarify, since the trolls seem to be out in force, this poll covered all four candidates in the 11th CD race, but only Gerry's and Leslie's numbers were included in the polling memo.

Three weeks out from election-day, the race for the Democratic nomination in Virginia's 11th congressional district is a statistical dead heat. Leslie Byrne garners the support of 34% of likely voters to Gerry Connolly's 37%. The race has tightened considerably since Byrne has begun to communicate with voters. Byrne has an advantage with the voters most likely to turnout this year, with no other major contest on the ballot. She bests Connolly by seven percentage points (Byrne 44%, Connolly 37%) among voters who have voted in multiple past primary elections. Byrne also leads among women. However, more than one-in-four likely primary voters remains undecided. As a result, the race is likely to hinge on effective communication in the final weeks.

At this point in the race, almost all likely primary voters are familiar with both major Congressional candidates: 96% recognize Byrne's name, and an equal percentage know Connolly. Perhaps more surprising is that most likely primary voters have favorable impressions of both candidates. Connolly's favorable and unfavorable ratings are both slightly higher than Byrne's (Byrne: 50% favorable/10% unfavorable, Connolly: 54% favorable/13% unfavorable). Byrne is viewed most favorably by repeat past primary voters. Connolly fares better with young men than among any other major demographic subgroup. There is a marked gender gap: women favor Byrne, and men favor Connolly, by similar margins.

The gender component is also evident in vote support. Byrne leads by 5% among women, while Connolly leads by 12% among men. Among those under 40 and those over 60, Byrne and Connolly are tied (under 40: 35%-35%, over 60: 32%-33%). Soft and undecided voters are more likely to be women and older, two groups that favor Byrne, suggesting she still has room to grow among those who deciding in the final days of the campaign.

Conclusion. Leslie Byrne is well positioned going into the last weeks of the primary campaign. The race is a statistical dead heat 34%-37%, with Byrne poised to gain support as the groups with which she's strongest formulate their opinions on the race. With nearly three-of-ten (28%) likely voters undecided and almost half (46%) not firmly committed to the candidate they currently support, the race is likely to hinge strongly on effective communication with voters.


Comments



motivated voters (jsrutstein - 5/21/2008 10:10:54 PM)
Angry voters, and there's a lot to be angry about, will turn out and will favor Byrne, because Connolly represents the establishment.

Hopeful voters, and as Barack Obama has demonstrated, there's a lot to be hopeful about, will turn out and will favor Byrne, because Byrne can more convincingly make the case that she's the candidate for change, especially on the number one issue, the war.

Women voters, especially those who are looking to express their frustration at Hillary Clinton falling short in her race, will turn out and will favor Byrne for obvious reasons.

There may be some, primarily men, who favor Connolly for sexist reasons, but perhaps Byrne will get a little lucky and:

1) sexist attitudes will correlate with stupidity and laziness and these voters won't turn out; or,

2) older men in this category will turn out, but they'll tend to be married, and their wives will cancel out their votes.

If Webb v. Miller could only bring out 20,000 voters in the 11th District in the 2006 primary, I don't think we can expect much more this year.

I still believe that the oft-stated reasons for voting against Byrne - "I have a problem with her personality," or "She lost the seat in 1994," or, "she lost the Lt. Gov. race" (this is the lamest of all reasons, primarily because she did really well in the 11th District) - mostly are politically correct cover stories for sexism, and that won't be motivation enough for these voters to turn out in numbers great enough to counter both the angry and hopeful voters.



Exactly (Just Saying - 5/21/2008 10:22:07 PM)
"I still believe that the oft-stated reasons for voting against Byrne - "I have a problem with her personality," or "She lost the seat in 1994," or, "she lost the Lt. Gov. race" (this is the lamest of all reasons, primarily because she did really well in the 11th District) - mostly are politically correct cover stories for sexism"

It's the "Bitch" meme cloaked in more palatable language, and it's gross.



the do-over effect (jsrutstein - 5/21/2008 10:50:56 PM)
Did you hear about Republican race baiter Alex Castellanos on CNN last night defending the use of the word "bitch" to describe certain women and characterizing Hillary Clinton as abrasive, aggressive, and irritating? (there's a video clip and story by Jason Linkins at the politics page at HuffPo)

I really think there's something to the notion that Dems who got stuck in the ice storm in February and couldn't vote for Clinton, and even those who favored Obama and then and still do, but see a chance to express gratitude and admiration for Clinton's hard fought race and her new found populist message will see a real opportunity to show up on June 10 and vote for Byrne.

I also think that the more savvy voters, who are the type who will make an effort to show up for a primary like the one on June 10, are pretty sure that the winner of the Dem primary will be our next Congressperson.  It may not be fair, but psychologically, Connolly will be viewed as the ugly male Republican, like Bush and McCain, and certainly not either as the attractive male Democrat, like Obama, or like the attractive female Democrat, like Clinton.

On top of the motivated voters who show up to vote for Byrne, there may be motivated voters who show up still undecided, and when they do a gut check, they'll probably go with Byrne.  



Critism does not equal sexist. (acluka - 5/22/2008 12:23:32 PM)
"I still believe that the oft-stated reasons for voting against Byrne - "I have a problem with her personality," or "She lost the seat in 1994," or, "she lost the Lt. Gov. race" (this is the lamest of all reasons, primarily because she did really well in the 11th District) - mostly are politically correct cover stories for sexism"

What annoys me about this argument ( and by extension, the Hillary/Sexism and the Obama/racist argument) is that you can't have a valid critism about someone without it become about Gender or Race.

Bryne... she has lost several races in her political carreer. To bring that up is not sexist, nor is is lazy. She has had an issue with maintaining an office after she has been elected to it. She was re-elected twice in the 1980's and in 1991 for her Delegate seat, but since then she has had trouble maintaining her job either through re-election defeats, or by re-districting. To put it in another light... In her 22 years of public service, she has a 7-3 win/loss record... and since 1992, she is 3-3.

Also, she may have won the 11th-CD in 2005 while running for Lt. Govenor, but Davis was re-elected in 2006 by the same group of people, so by simply saying she is a shoo-in based on three year old numbers is dangerous.

Whether Bryne wins or lose this race will not be based on her gender, but how she runs her campaign. That is why Hillary lost her race, not because of her gender, but because she ran a poor campaign.

And for me... the fact that she couldn't win in 2005 is important. Because the tactics that lead to her defeat in 2005 could come back again.



Based on your last point... (Lowell - 5/22/2008 12:32:21 PM)
...I take it you're not supporting Creigh Deeds for Governor in 2009?  Also, as (former governor and soon-to-be-US-Senator) Mark Warner always likes to remind people, he lost the first time he ran for office, in what he likes to call his "silver medal race."


I never said... (acluka - 5/22/2008 12:48:58 PM)
that I wouldn't vote for her. I am just saying it is a concern.

Bill Clinton lost races in the past as well... so I am not someone who thinks you need a perfect record in order to win. However, in the last 16 years, she is 3-3, and it is worrying. There is a way to defeat her, and it has been done three times.  

I also have no clue who Creigh Deeds is... I would have to research him first.  



Sen. Deeds ran for LG in 2005 (Lowell - 5/22/2008 2:55:38 PM)
and lost by 300 or so votes to Bob McDonnell. He's now running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.


Attorney General n/t (aznew - 5/22/2008 3:46:26 PM)


Win-Loss is deceiving (Eric - 5/22/2008 1:14:40 PM)
While a perfect (win) record is certainly a fine achievement, it shouldn't be used as any significant factor in judging a candidate.  How they run campaigns, who their opponents are, and even the direction of the prevailing political wind are much more important indicators.

As has been previously noted, Connolly's perfect record is tarnished by the fact that he's been cherry picking his battles.  



but isn't.. (acluka - 5/23/2008 7:59:38 AM)
Being able to pick the correct battles to fight is not a  good trait to have? Know when to hold em', know when to fold 'em type of fashion? I don't know if that means his record is tarnished.

Leslie has lost by large and small margins in the past. She has also ran very clean, and dirty campaigns as well. But I agree, it is something you look at.  



Bigger picture (Ron1 - 5/23/2008 8:41:51 AM)
Aaron, in the abstract, the answer to your question is easy. But let's get real about how our government has been run the past 8 years -- absolutely no leadership by the Congress, very few people exhibiting the leadership necessary to find a way to end the occupation of Iraq.

Do you think another go-along-to-get-along Democrat in the House is going to help with that problem? The Senate is/was chockful of people that always put political expediency first, with absolutely no accountability for how their votes and actions have led to disaster -- including many Democrats.

Leslie lost her seat in '94 in no small part because she voted for the Clinton tax increases to balance the budget AND she voted against NAFTA. Those were the right votes, and yet she got tossed out of office in the Republican wave of '94. So was she right? I'd say unequivocally, yes. And if the Congress had more people like her, people willing to stand up for what they believed, consequences be damned -- well, we'd be in a far different place in this country, wouldn't we?

We know where Leslie stands, and know how she'll operate. Can we say the same thing about Gerry?  



Yes you're correct (acluka - 5/23/2008 3:02:14 PM)
I believe that there are things that you must stand up for. Depending on your believes and principals, you need to stand up for what you believe in as right, and not bend.

I also believe that a person needs to be able to compromise, because there are times that even if you cannot get what you want, there is something grander and more important in supporting than exactly what you want. Bipartisanship is NOT a dirty word, and your words can easily be skewerd into "If he bends he's no good." I think that, as a Government, if we compromised more, we'd be better off.

My perception of Byrne is that she is much happier in not compromising at any level and refusing to work in a bi-partisan fashion. That may be great for a lot of people who agree with her on 90% of all issues, but I am just hesitant. I am sure I am wrong and people will show me the various ways she has worked with Republicans (outside of voting against NAFTA), but my perception is that her campaign has been anti-biparitsanship.

And I am not saying that Gerry is a Messiah either, I don't care much for him either and hasn't really shown me anything novel or worthwhile to go and vote for him in a primary.  

...

This argument is great... but it does pivot away from the original point, that Gerry chose his battles in terms of elections and he won them pretty easily, and that is not entirely a bad thing.  



I would not be so quick to write-off (tx2vadem - 5/22/2008 1:19:27 PM)
discrimination as a factor in elections.  How big a factor they are or will be in elections is difficult to predict.  Part of the problem is that people are not completely open about their individual prejudices.  If their vote will be based on this prejudice, they are unlikely to freely admit that.

My only issue really is with your statement that: "That is why Hillary lost her race, not because of her gender, but because she ran a poor campaign."  I don't dispute her campaign was not run well earlier on in this process, but I don't think you can eliminate sexism as a factor in her performance.

Otherwise, I agree that critiques in and of themselves are not inherently racist or sexist.



You can never fully eliminate (acluka - 5/23/2008 7:32:32 AM)
Prejudice from the situation, there are people out there who will not vote for Hillary and Leslie because of their Gender. There are people who will not vote for Obama because of his race. However, that doesn't mean that any critism lobbied at the candidate is due to a bias of some sort.

I was simply responding to the comment that any critism against Byrne is sexist and lazy.

I have voted for women before, and I will vote for women again, and I really hope to see a female president in my lifetime (for what's it worth). I just don't know if I will vote for this woman.  



But... (Just Saying - 5/22/2008 2:54:21 PM)
she won the 11th congressional district in 2005. So now what?


Just because (acluka - 5/23/2008 7:39:14 AM)
She winning the district in 2005 doesn't make this a shoo-in for her. She won the district in 1992, only to lose it in 1994... 2 years and the landscape changed dramatically. I think it is a positive thing for her to carry the district in 2005, but not a slam dunk argument.

My overall point is... she has lost three times, and that her opponents (both Republican and Democrat) know this, and will use the same (or similar) tactics that lead to her defeat in 1994, in 1996, and in 2005 to try and beat here again.  



Look (Just Saying - 5/23/2008 9:37:19 AM)
There is at least evidence that Leslie can win this district because she's won it before-- twice.

Gerry has NEVER won this district. Leslie isn't a shoo-in, but neither is Gerry. There's more evidence that Leslie can win than there is that Gerry can win.

And the most important point is that it's Gerry (who has no proof he can win in this district)who keeps running around saying Leslie has an electibility problem.

It's BS.



There is Evidence (acluka - 5/23/2008 2:49:03 PM)
That she has one the District Twice, and LOST it once.  There is evidence on both sides of the argument. You can say, "look at 2005!" and someone can say, "look at 1994!"

She may have the advantage, but the "evidence" is muddy at best.

Oh God, I don't even LIKE Gerry... ugh.  



Right (Just Saying - 5/23/2008 10:02:34 PM)
You know what there is no evidence of? That Gerry can win this district....


So, she's batting... (Lowell - 5/23/2008 10:06:20 PM)
.667?


Let's not get cocky (Populista - 5/21/2008 10:33:29 PM)
polls mean nothing in a race this close. It will come down to who can turn out their suporters.

Let's hit the ground. 20 days left.  



Nobody's getting cocky (Ron1 - 5/21/2008 10:38:54 PM)
but there's been some bad mojo 'round these parts the last few days, so it's good for the ground troops to have the proper motivation to see this thing through.

Me, personally -- I'm unavailable through next weekend, but hereby promise to average at least 2 hours a day for Leslie on the phone or on the trail once the calendar turns to June.

[ot: Populista, whereabouts are you from?]



Who's getting cocky? (Lowell - 5/21/2008 11:17:17 PM)
This race is neck and neck, we need Leslie's supporters to work their butts off the next 19 days.


COMMENT HIDDEN (Robespierre'sGhost - 5/22/2008 12:16:22 AM)


Umm... (NGB - 5/22/2008 8:04:00 AM)
Wasn't she up 10 in her last poll, so isn't it terrible news that she has lost 13% in her internals in the last months?


Hardly (Just Saying - 5/22/2008 8:17:50 AM)
First of all, it wasn't in her last poll...it was her poll from January. That was six months ago.

This race was always going to tighten, everybody knows that.

But if the Connolly campaign wants to force the issue, I think the Byrne camapaign would be perfectly willing to concede the point. Sure, Connolly has "surged ten points!"

The bottom line is that with three weeks to go this race is a dead heat and that's a problem for Connolly considering that he's been running around town claiming to be winning by 20 points.



It's fascinating that Byrne and Connolly are tied among self-IDing liberals (Silence Dogood - 5/22/2008 3:29:40 PM)
Along with the fact that they're both highly popular in the same sample, this ideological tie makes it's pretty clear that a scientific survey of the district does not reflect at all the sort of opinions you see presented on the blogs.


Not that surprising really.... (Just Saying - 5/22/2008 5:15:24 PM)
the kind of opinions you see on the blogs are reflective of politically engaged voters who tend to participate in elections regularly. Amongst those types of voters Leslie has a 7 point lead-- exactly what you would expect it to be.

What this poll actually shows is that according to the population sample, the more often someone votes the more likely they are to vote for Leslie.

That can't make the Connolly camp very happy at all, especially considering there will probably be pretty low turnout on June 10.



Haha (Silence Dogood - 5/22/2008 6:05:40 PM)
Yeah I suppose I should have figured someone would say that the natural implication of this is that most survey respondents are dumb and aren't politically engaged.

But let's dig down to the cross tab for voters who have participated in more than one primary election.  Gerry clocks in with a very respectable 62% favorability rating compared to Byrne's statistically-similar 64%.  His unfavorables are highest in this cross-tab and are 10 points higher than Leslie Byrne's--but it's still only 20%.  That means that among the most politically engaged Democrats living in the 11th District, only one in five has anything bad to say about him.  The overwhelming majority likes him just fine--even a lot of Dems who are probably going to vote for Leslie anyway.  Likewise a lot of Connolly's voters also like Leslie just fine, too.

Just go along with it, man.  You're going to be a much happier person when you realize your hatred is out of place and just let it go.  Lots of good Democrats support Byrne but respect Gerry, and they probably have better blood pressure.



Um, first of all... (Just Saying - 5/22/2008 7:17:35 PM)
I'm a woman. I realize that when speaks intelligently and with confidence that leads most men to believe they're interacting with a man so I'll be forgiving...but you might want to be careful with your assumptions.

And yes, there are plenty of voters who like both Gerry and Leslie just fine. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I have hatred of Gerry Connolly. I don't.

I think he's an opportunist and will be a milquetoast Democrat in Congress and would much prefer Leslie. But I certainly don't hate him.

I would like to know how he reconciles being against the war with his employment with a company like SAIC, though.



To answer your last question (tx2vadem - 5/22/2008 8:54:51 PM)
Because money talks.


Exactly.... (Just Saying - 5/22/2008 10:41:40 PM)


so.... (acluka - 5/23/2008 7:42:05 AM)
You will not vote for Connolly in the General if he wins the primary?

just curious.