Polling – Page 5 – monoblogue

A meaningless poll?

As you may have noticed the last few days, my sidebar had a poll which asked: if the election were held today, who would you support for Maryland’s GOP Senate nomination?

Well, I pulled the poll earlier today since it had run its course, and here are the results (drum roll please…):

Eric Wargotz, 2,116 votes (44.87%)
Daniel Bongino, 1,711 votes (36.28%)
William Capps, 831 votes (17.62%)
Corrogan Vaughn, 38 votes (0.81%)
Robert Broadus, 10 votes (0.21%)
Rick Hoover, 9 votes (0.19%)

One person wrote in “Bolton”, who I take to mean John Bolton. I didn’t know he was a Maryland resident.

As I’ve said all along, this was far from a scientific poll because I allowed repeat voting – in fact, I encouraged it. To that end, I did a spreadsheet (printed in .pdf form) which shows how the poll evolved over time as I broke out the numbers by timespan. There you can see where repeat votes were racked up for the various candidates, so it’s easy to tell that someone came in and stacked the poll to help out a particular candidate over a span of time. (It made for some incredible page view numbers, too – thanks!)

Yet I think the numbers aren’t all that far off from reality. Let’s look at a few facts here.

In a ten-person primary race last year, Eric Wargotz received less than 40 percent of the vote. His main competition was a political newcomer who quickly became a TEA Party favorite in Jim Rutledge – together they pulled about 70 percent of the vote, with no one else attaining a double-digit percentage.

This is a six-person race at the moment, and Wargotz has just under 45% in this poll. Realistically, that’s close to his base of Republican support from last year and it’s probably good enough to win. Running in second place? Well, he’s a political newcomer who should be able to count on a lot of support from the TEA Party since he has the backing of another popular fiscal conservative in 2010 gubernatorial hopeful Brian Murphy. Daniel Bongino has 36 percent, which roughly parallels Eric’s nine-point win in 2010.

Too, the chief remaining votegetter is William Capps, who probably wouldn’t poll 18 percent in reality but would likely draw a high single-digit number based on a little name recognition. Since there will likely be more candidates in the mix, his overstated number here would probably erode a bit to a more realistic number among the latecomers who may split about 10 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the bottom three are probably pretty close to their actual base of support since they are perennial candidates who haven’t shown well before.

My theory in doing this poll as I did is that people who are passionate enough to attempt to rig an internet poll to their chosen candidate’s advantage exist in the same relative number as support in real life. In other words, the person (or persons) who voted continually hundreds of times for Eric Wargotz exist in direct proportion poll-wise to those who would do the same for Bongino, Capps, et. al. so the poll may have some relative validity. (And quite honestly, if it drives a few extra people to my website that’s good for me.)

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the support for these people at this early stage isn’t all that far off the mark. I would say Bongino and Capps may be outperforming reality by five to ten points here, but remember there is no “undecided” in my polling to cloud the picture. Toss that group in and almost everyone would lose a dozen points or so.

Suffice to say that the race can’t be conceded to the guy who has the most name recognition (Eric Wargotz) quite yet. It may turn out to be yet another plurality race won by attrition. The early primary will be to Eric’s advantage, of course, but by no means is he a lock for the nomination.

A wild polling ride

As you may have noticed, I’ve placed one of my infamous political polls in the sidebar.

My recollection from when I did this last year was that my polls may not necessarily be the best indicator of public sentiment, but they are pretty good at seeing how passionate backing for a candidate is. For example, I’ve been tracking interim totals over the time the poll’s been up to see the ebb and flow of trends.

I put the poll up late Wednesday evening. When I went to bed early Thursday morning there weren’t a lot of votes yet, but I did find out someone in the Capps campaign reads the site. The totals at that point: Capps 7, Bongino 3, Wargotz 1.

So I woke up Thursday morning and went about my day. Checking in at 4:00 that afternoon, the updated figures were: Bongino 20, Capps 16, Wargotz 1. Someone woke up the Bongino camp, I guess.

But then Thursday evening there was a concerted Eric Wargotz push, so much so that when I went to bed around midnight the revised totals were: Wargotz 63, Capps 25, Bongino 20, Vaughn 3, Broadus 1, and Hoover 1. Someone got the others on the board about 24 hours into the poll (although Broadus was added to the poll on Thursday afternoon.)

The roller-coaster ride continued this morning as the Capps forces went back to work: Capps 160, Bongino 105, Wargotz 94, Vaughn 35, Hoover 5, Broadus 4.

But then the Capps surge stopped and Bongino is trending – as of this moment it’s Bongino 166, Capps 160, Wargotz 94, Vaughn 35, Broadus 5, Hoover 5. In other words, over the last 7 hours all but one vote went to Bongino.

Obviously I don’t do a scientific poll. But as I noted above one thing this does measure to some extent is the passion and organization behind a candidate. I figure that people who are out to stack a poll such as mine exist in proportion to the actual support they have in the population, give or take a few. (I can also tell you it’s making my page load number huge today – normally I get about 1.3 to 1.5 page loads per reader; today it’s about 3.5 per.) So if there’s only 1 person in 100 who would stack a poll for Rick Hoover vs. 40 who would for Eric Wargotz, that’s probably how the poll should work too, more or less. And my readership likely trends a little more conservative than the average GOP voter.

It’s a lot of fun for me to watch, though, and it makes for an interesting post. That’s what counts.

Odds and ends number 30

It seems like I’m doing these quick-hitter articles more frequently; whether it’s because I’m attracting more interesting news or getting the attention span of a 14-year-old is the question. Now what was I saying?

Oh yeah. Let’s start with the public service announcement that’s part of the “Keep Jim Fineran Occupied Act”:

Due to extreme heat and drought conditions, County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., has issued a burn ban order for Wicomico County effective immediately. Pollitt took the action on the advice of his Burn Ban Committee. The group is composed of representatives of the County Health Department, the Forestry Service, Emergency Management Services, fire fighters and a local meteorologist.

Of course, there are exemptions so one can still fire up the grill and watch the fireworks after Shorebirds games. (If the ban is still in effect next month the July 4th fireworks will go on.)

It seems to me that Rick Pollitt has wised up on that account, since I recall a few years back that fireworks displays were part of the burn ban and the Shorebirds had to scrub a couple slated shows.

Speaking of which – the next resolution the county needs is to provide an exemption from the 11 p.m. curfew on fireworks. It seems like several times a season the Shorebirds manage to play their extra-inning marathons on fireworks nights and if an inning starts after about 10:40 the fireworks can’t go on. That’s ridiculous.

Now it’s time to go national. For all his faults, Newt Gingrich can sometimes get to the heart of the problem:

To make Washington smaller, we as citizens must become bigger.

We must persuade one person at a time, one family at a time, and one community at a time that we have better solutions than the corrupted, collectivist policies we’ve seen from Washington.

Because the renewal of America can only begin with you, this will be your campaign.

As someone who has been in public life for nearly forty years, I know full well the rigors of campaigning for public office. I will endure them. I will carry the message of American renewal to every part of this great land, whatever it takes.

Next Monday, I will take part in the first New Hampshire Republican primary debate.

The critical question of how we put Americans back to work will be asked of me and the other Republican candidates.

It is the most important question of this campaign.

For Newt, though, a close second in “critical” questions will be who’s going to run his effort. There’s a lot to like about Newt, but perhaps his time has passed him by. I’ll still be interested to hear what he has to say about issues but his intangibles are a definite minus.

Now we come to an interesting dichotomy. This was an e-mail I received from the Barack Obama campaign – I like to get these for laughs. (My editorial comments are in bold.)

We’ve been working on bringing new people (illegal aliens and others dependent on government) into the political process. That will be the story of our campaign from start to finish. (Aside from the billion dollars you plan on raising.)

But right now there’s a concerted effort being made in states from New Hampshire to North Carolina to Ohio to make sure fewer people (Democrats) vote in 2012.

Here’s how they’re doing it: In some crucial battleground states, more than 50 percent of ballots are cast as part of early voting, which makes voting an easier and more flexible process. In 2008, a third of voters nationwide cast their votes before Election Day. (Something tells me this includes absentee ballots, which have nothing to do with early voting.)

These voters tend to be working families and young people, and a whole lot of them voted for Barack Obama — in some states providing our margin of victory. (If they’re still working families, they’re lucky. The young aren’t generally among the working.)

So Republican-controlled legislatures are cutting the amount of time people have to vote early, restricting when and how organizations like ours can register new voters, and making the voting process itself more difficult by requiring new types of identification, which lower-income voters are less likely to have. (So we can’t commit fraud as easily. ACORN screwed the pooch for us.)

They’re doing this because they have cynically concluded that they do better when fewer people vote. (We do better when more informed people vote.)

That’s the opposite of the kind of politics we believe in, and of the kind of campaign we want to run. (Obama believes in raw power and eliminating the field before the vote is held. See Illinois.)

So when we talk about the work this campaign will do to bring new people into the political process — registering new voters, training new volunteers, building an organization — it’s not just the right thing to do. It’s absolutely urgent.

Help us protect the right to vote for all. (Whether they are legally entitled to or not doesn’t matter as long as they vote the correct way, right? That’s why you don’t work too hard to make sure military votes count.)

Personally, I’d love to see 100% of the informed voters turn out. While I think early voting is a crock and didn’t support the concept, the numbers last year proved that not all that many people in Maryland came out to vote early anyway. A state which has “shall-issue” absentee ballots for the asking doesn’t need early voting.

And it looks like voter ID is a losing issue for Obama. Here’s the other, more important half of the dichotomy:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Just 18% disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans support a photo ID requirement at the polls, as do 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party and 63% of Democrats. But then support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups.

Supporters of photo ID laws say they will prevent fraud at the polls; opponents insist the laws will discourage many including minorities and older Americans from voting.

By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think that letting ineligible people vote is a bigger problem than preventing legitimate voters from casting a ballot. (Emphasis mine.)

So how does that crow taste, Jim Messina?

Often I refer to the “nanny state” of Maryland, and a study released last week shows I’m pretty much right.

With a hat tip to my uncle Jay, I found out the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranked all 50 states on a variety of issues related to personal freedom and civil liberties. (Or maybe he reminded me of something I forgot.)

While Maryland scores reasonably well in the category of fiscal freedom – surprisingly, we are 11th while Delaware is 43rd – once we get to regulatory policy the numbers are more of what most would expect: Delaware is 20th and Maryland 44th. Yet in the economic freedom ranking Maryland is again ahead of Delaware, but not by much (28th compared to 33rd.)

The scary part comes when authors William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens calculate the personal freedom index, where Maryland is indeed the ultimate nanny state as we rank dead last. Delaware’s not much better as they rank 44th.

So what states are the most free? South Dakota leads the pack in fiscal policy and economic freedom rankings, Indiana is the standardbearer in regulatory policy, and I was sort of amazed to discover Oregon was tops in personal freedom. Yet the overall winner was the state whose very motto of “Live Free or Die” would suggest they would be on top: New Hampshire. Delaware is 39th and Maryland 43rd.

I do have a few quibbles with the author’s recommendations for Maryland to improve its rankings, because their number one priority would be to legalize civil unions. I think that’s a little bit too radical of a position to make top priority as their number two and number three suggestions are sound regarding marijuana laws and occupational licensing. Their analysis of Maryland as a nanny state is otherwise very sound.

Finally, a personal note of sorts.

There was a blogger awhile back who believed so strongly in his Alexa ratings after a number of “record days” that he thought himself mainstream media. In truth, I haven’t had any “record days” lately because my years of experience tell me political blog readership tails off during the summer, only to rebound after Labor Day.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see that my rank among websites reached a new low for me last week (like golf, a lower score is better.) Yesterday my U.S. Alexa number declined to 61,383 while my world rank reached a new low of 357,454.

Of course, when I compare this to Pajamas Media (U.S. rank 1,402) or even local media outlets like the Daily Times (U.S. rank 22,686) or WBOC (U.S. rank 23,789) I harbor no delusions of grandeur. (I am ahead of WMDT, though – their U.S. rank is 68,045. To me that’s sort of funny.)

But in the end I’m just a guy who writes and is blessed with a fairly solid readership. It’s the reason I write for Pajamas Media, because if I were a more obscure blogger no one would have read what I’d written and decided it was worth taking a chance on.

Unlike many in the writing field, I don’t have a journalism or English degree so I am essentially self-taught. God-given talent and years of practice and perfecting this craft got me to where I am insofar as ability goes, but it’s thanks to my readers that the word spread. It’s why I keep doing this day after day for not a lot of pay, because I enjoy putting together good things to read.

I have a lot of interesting items coming up over the next few weeks, so stay tuned. (No summer reruns here.)

Unsurprisingly uninspired

Whether it’s because we have over eighteen months to go until the presidential election and about nine until the first real votes are cast, or if it’s a field which draws little but yawns, there’s just not a lot of buzz going in about the Republican presidential field. I had a poll up for a week and drew a small response – less than 5% of my readership had an opinion.

I set it up for two questions: preference for those already in the field and a wish list of those one would like to see enter. If the primary were held today, the top votegetters among my readership would be:

Ron Paul (35.48%)
Tim Pawlenty (25.81%)
Herman Cain (16.13%)
Rick Santorum (12.9%)
Newt Gingrich (6.45%)
Mitt Romney (3.23%)

In the category of zero support were Fred Karger, Roy Moore, and Buddy Roemer. That’s no surprise.

I was a bit surprised with the results of poll number 2, which asked who respondents would prefer to see jump into the field.

Michele Bachmann (25.0%)
Donald Trump (13.89%)
Gary Johnson (11.11%)
Rudy Giuliani (8.33%)
Haley Barbour, John Bolton, Mitch Daniels, George Pataki, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan (5.56% apiece)
Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin (2.78% apiece)

Paul Ryan was a write-in, as was Herman Cain. Somebody didn’t pay attention to my first poll.

And no one wants Jon Huntsman in the race. You would think since I allowed multiple answers on the wish list poll that someone would back him, but I guess not.

The biggest shock to me was just how quickly Sarah Palin has fallen out of favor. Had I asked the question a few months back I’m betting that she would be the top vote-getter, or at least right up there with perennial libertarian darling Ron Paul.

But it seems to me that her outspoken populist angle is being usurped by – of all people – Donald Trump. It’s surprising that a guy who has donated thousands to Democrats is being considered as a conservative darling, but he has name recognition to spare and isn’t partaking in the political doublespeak many other candidates engage in.

Honestly, I think she may have missed the boat on 2012. Whether Sarah would prefer to bide her time and wait for 2016 (which assumes an Obama victory and an open seat) or simply decided a position as a political outsider and spokesperson for conservative causes – one who can still draw a crowd – better suits her situation, well, that I don’t know. And there may be a cagey reason for her to let Trump take all the slings and arrows for awhile, since he seems to relish the spotlight regardless of how harsh it may be.

In a way, it’s great to have so many choices and not have someone considered a frontrunner at the moment. This is a time where we need a contest for the Republican nomination because it serves as a placeholder for a contest for the soul of the party itself. While the TEA Party can help elect a candidate, there’s still a faction of establishment Republicans who need to be eradicated from the levers of power before a takeover is possible. That faction is the one calculating just who would be the ‘safe’ choice acceptable to the American people yet malleable enough to control once in office.

Assuming President Obama is a one-term president, the new Republican president becomes the de facto leader of the party. It will take a strong conservative to fight not just Democrats but the establishment Republicans fighting the rear-guard action to bring the party to the center – in other words, the “No Labels” types. (Someone like Senator Jim DeMint comes to mind, but I doubt he’s running.)

I know my readership has a political compass pointing somewhere between conservative and libertarian, as it likely reflects my personal opinion. So it’s interesting to see just what kind of push that Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson, who announced shortly after I created the poll) have here as opposed to the nation at large.

In the next couple weeks I’ll begin to compile the Presidential campaign widget along with ones for the Maryland U.S. Senate seat and First District Congressional seat. (In that case I think the key question is whether we’ll see a Harris-Kratovil threepeat.) I know things slow down around here for the summer (who wants to sit inside reading blogs? Heck, I’m composing this outside in the summerlike breeze) but there’s a lot of political events going on.

Now is the time to really pay attention, since those in power know summer is a political siesta. That’s when they try and get away with the most damaging stuff.

Tales from the voting booth

A quick update…

First, I can almost guarantee that I won’t have the results from Salisbury’s election first tonight because I have a job to do. It pays better than this site, although if the advertisers from another somewhat disgraced site wished to invest in mine this enterprise may make me more coin than my job.

Anyway, I voted today around 3:00. There were two items I found worth mentioning.

First, I asked about turnout at my polling place (Wicomico Presbyterian) and I was the 375th voter. If this is relatively accurate then I think turnout isn’t going to be much greater than 15 to 17 percent, and that doesn’t bode (no pun intended) well for the challengers. It’s the faithful voters who showed up in the primary who are voting in this election, too – so the results will likely be similar. Had there been 500 voters at the precinct I believe the challengers had more of a chance. Let’s hope I’m wrong on that one for Muir Boda’s sake.

If it were up to people who read monoblogue and Two Sentz, though, Muir would be a shoo-in. Here’s the results of our joint poll:

Muir Boda, 34 votes (38.2%)
Laura Mitchell, 22 votes (24.7%)
Terry Cohen, 14 votes (15.7%)
Orville Dryden, 13 votes (14.6%)
Tim Spies, 5 votes (5.6%)
Bruce Ford, 1 vote (1.1%)

Of course, I think the influence of having an ad for Muir Boda on my site and Laura Mitchell on Two Sentz just might influence the poll. If nothing else, I suppose that proves blog advertising works (see first paragraph above.)

Finally, I had a nice complement from the young lady who’s running Laura Mitchell’s campaign, or at least I presume she does. She thanked me for my fair coverage of the race, and not jumping into the rumor mill about Laura’s living arrangement.

Now maybe there was something to the rumor, but since the protagonist seemed to backtrack from it I doubt it. And hers wasn’t all that important of an issue, just like who Jim Ireton sleeps with was but a sidebar to the real issues surrounding the mayoral race two years ago. It hasn’t affected his job performance, although I was pretty skeptical about that anyway.

So after tonight’s count we will probably have an idea of who will be representing District 2 for the next 4 1/2 years, since the next time these seats will be contested will be the fall of 2015. Unless it’s close enough to require an absentee count and we end up in a tie, I think the top three in the primary will prove to remain in those positions.

If so, beware – it’s open season on landlords and other small businessmen in Salisbury.

Boda wins Council poll again

Perhaps this is more reflective of the preferences of my readership than of the actual future election, but Muir Boda was the choice of those who responded to my Salisbury City Council poll. In the real vote earlier this month, Boda finished fourth.

The conservative lean of my readership is also reflected in who the bottom three finishers were, as they all tied.

There were just 62 votes cast, with the lower number expected when I changed the poll rules a little bit to discourage frequent repeat voting. I may relent on this slightly for the next version, but the results were pretty much what I figured they would be.

Here’s the order of finish:

Muir Boda – 18 votes (29.03%)
Orville Dryden – 15 votes (24.19%)
Terry Cohen – 8 votes (12.9%)
Bruce Ford, Laura Mitchell, and Tim Spies – 7 votes apiece (11.29%)

Truthfully, when I advertise Boda and have been critical of Tim Spies in this space, I got the results I figured I would. But I’m going to do one more poll before the election, tweaking things a little bit more and perhaps utilizing Two Sentz’s blog to help weigh results more to the center.

Unofficial Salisbury City Council results have Dixon, Taylor out

Update: absentee ballots are counted Friday – the only rankings where that could prove a difference are Spies/Cohen and, more importantly, Ford/Dixon.

And then there were two…

If the unofficial results hold up, one of the monoblogue-endorsed candidates will be knocked out in the primary while another finished out of the top three.

According to the Daily Times, here is the unofficial order of finish – I believe this does NOT include absentee ballots since they only had to be postmarked by today.

Tim Spies – 540 (18.4%)
Terry Cohen – 532 (18.1%)
Laura Mitchell – 451 (15.4%)
Muir Boda – 409 (13.9%)
Orville Dryden – 304 (10.3%)
Bruce Ford – 277 (9.4%)
Joel Dixon – 275 (9.4%)
Michael Taylor – 150 (5.1%)

Even with the two-vote margin between sixth and seventh, it’s pretty clear that the real race right now is between two people – Laura Mitchell and Muir Boda. Any of the trio of Orville Dryden, Bruce Ford, or Joel Dixon would have to increase their voter base by half again to have a legitimate shot. On the other side of the coin, it’s clear that Terry Cohen and Tim Spies have worked together to corner a large percentage of the electorate.

What I would be most curious about insofar as the voter breakdown is which precincts were well-represented. I suspect the Camden area turned out well as always, which boosted the totals of Cohen and Spies. And just as it was in the last election the aspect of teams or slates may be introduced: in 2007 the sides generally were considered as Terry Cohen, Tim Spies, and Louise Smith against Gary Comegys, John Atkins, and Don Ewalt. In that case the Camden bunch had the upper hand, getting two of three elected against those candidates considered to be in the pocket of the Salisbury Area Property Owners Association, best known as SAPOA. However, we all know how the 3-2 votes tended to turn out in the last term.

Obviously Cohen and Spies are back, and Laura Mitchell may end up being considered as part of a tag-team against Boda, Dryden, and Dixon (if he can snatch sixth place over Bruce Ford.) Based on tonight’s results Camden could get the clean sweep, which would certainly elevate either Debbie Campbell or Terry Cohen to Council president and likely kill any effort for sanity in Council districts since three members – a majority – would live in the Camden neighborhood.

And now a note on my polling. I was almost vindicated on my prediction of Ford and Taylor being out, and absentees could still hold that true. Obviously Laura Mitchell polled much better once I added the Progressive Delmarva crowd and that aspect held true in the actual election, while Tim Spies also outperformed.

On the other hand, Boda and Dixon did worse in reality than my polling would have suggested, but it pegged Orville Dryden pretty well. I figured Terry Cohen would make it easily and I was right on that one.

So the next step is for the remaining six, five of whom are pretty obvious now, to catch their breath and try to claim a portion of the expanded voter universe – many more voters will partake in the April 5th election. But as it stands the next two years may be open season on the rental industry in Salisbury, and while some would consider this a good thing turning your back on a large segment of business activity may hurt the city in the long run.

The darkest of horses

Well, it looks like Michael Taylor got as many votes in my poll as he may get in the election at large Tuesday. (I’m only kidding – sort of.)

There are only two conclusions I can draw: either people REALLY liked my interview with the guy I posted Friday or they’re messing with my poll. Aside from the complete outlier of Taylor winning, the other seven candidates seemed to settle into the order they’ve had all along – the other notable trend is the waning popularity of Orville Dryden as he fell perilously close to missing the top 6 in the poll (assuming Taylor was an outlier, otherwise Orville finishes out of the money.) Tim Spies has also seen a downward trend.

My second possibility becomes more apparent when one looks at the pattern of voting – early on Taylor was in his usual bottom slot before he suddenly surged to the top in just a few hours. And once the field began catching him another spurt placed him well ahead again.

I am pleased that this poll had much more interest in a shorter timeframe, as 392 votes were cast.

And the final poll showed some stark differences due to the leftward influence of Progressive Delmarva. (I think it helped Laura Mitchell a lot, too.) Here’s how they stacked up, with their previous two poll finishes in (parentheses) beforehand.

(7,8) Michael Taylor, 85 votes (21.86%)
(3 – tie,2) Terry Cohen, 64 votes (16.33%)
(8,6 – tie) Laura Mitchell, 54 votes (13.78%)
(3 – tie,1) Muir Boda, 51 votes (13.01%)
(1,3) Tim Spies, 48 votes (12.24%)
(5,5) Joel Dixon, 36 votes (9.18%)
(2,4) Orville Dryden, 34 votes (8.67%)
(6,6 – tie) Bruce Ford, 20 votes (5.1%)

I think a more comprehensive (and perhaps realistic) picture occurs when the three polls I’ve done are combined.

Terry Cohen, 143 votes (17.8%)
Muir Boda, 134 votes (16.7%)
Tim Spies, 126 votes (15.7%)
Orville Dryden, 106 votes (13.2%)
Michael Taylor, 101 votes (12.6%)
Joel Dixon, 80 votes (10.0%)
Laura Mitchell, 70 votes (8.7%)
Bruce Ford, 43 votes (5.4%)

If I were to make a prediction, my guess would be that flipping Mitchell and Taylor around would probably put the actual order of finish pretty close – I think Taylor and Ford will be the two odd men out, while the three who have ran before make up your top three primary finishers. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Spies in second and Boda in third, though – it’s a hunch based on Camden’s voting strength. Orville Dryden will probably be the closest to the top three, but Mitchell or Dixon could end up in fourth as well – that order is the most difficult to figure out.

But before I wrap this primary coverage up I want to thank Two Sentz and those over at Progressive Delmarva for their assistance. There will be more polling over the five weeks leading up to the general election April 5th, but I may change a few poll parameters around based on how this went.

Odds and ends number 26

I have a bunch of stuff today which piqued my interest but only needs anywhere from a sentence to a couple paragraphs to take care of. So here goes.

Over the last few days as the Madison protests continue, we’ve had Big Labor flex its muscles in a number of locations around the country. Needless to say I can’t be everywhere at once, and I was working during the Annapolis protest.

However, my blogging cohorts have helped me out. With on-the-spot reports I feature my Potomac TEA Party Report friend Ann Corcoran from Annapolis and the excellent photojournalist who goes by the moniker ‘El Marco’ reporting from his hometown of Denver on his Looking at the Left website.

Corcoran also lets us know that the unions will be back with their Astroturf in Annapolis on March 14, with the intent of making this a bigger and better protest. (By the way, school is scheduled to be in session for Wicomico County students on March 14 so the teachers here risk the last preparation day for grade 3-8 assessment tests if they skip town to attend.)

Turning to national politics, the other day I was talking about the prospects of Ron Paul’s third Presidential bid. Well, the ‘money bomb’ on Monday for the Liberty PAC that Paul leads raised over $750,000 – the ticker inhabits the front page of the Liberty PAC site. Guess he can afford those plane trips now and, if I were a betting man, I’d wager an announcement of his 2012 campaign will occur shortly after (or even during) the Iowa trip.

Finally, let’s talk about a poll or two. This morning Rasmussen released a poll claiming that 67% of Americans don’t support the ‘cut-and-run’ Democrats in Wisconsin (and now, Indiana) – naturally, the only group which approved by a bare plurality (48-44) are those who self-identified as Democrats.

Speaking of those who identify themselves as progressives, I have some exciting news on a new experiment.

I’m working with Progressive Delmarva‘s ‘Two Sentz’ on a joint poll which will appear at both sites later this afternoon; it’s the final polling on the City Council primary race.

While I’ve found that the fundraising results roughly parallel the polling I’ve done insofar as the top contenders are concerned, it’s obvious my readership skews to the right. So in order to perhaps get a clearer picture of the electorate I figured I needed to add some lean to the left. So we’ll see what the results show when the poll ends on Monday.

And then we’ll all see just how accurate we were Tuesday night.

Boda surges to lead in new Salisbury Council poll

Well, the results are in from my second Salisbury City Council poll, and the winner is… my advertising fund. Well, how else would one explain Muir Boda moving from a tie for third in the first poll from late January to first place this time? At today’s Chamber forum Boda confided he had seen a good amount of traffic to his website from here. (That’s called a hint. I don’t guarantee any of the other seven would have the same result, but there is an ‘ads’ tab above.)

In truth, the poll showed essentially the same contenders as before, although instead of what looked like a four-person race it’s now perhaps five as Joel Dixon made a solid upward move to close the gap on the frontrunners. Conversely, the one who may need to worry most based on results would be Orville Dryden. His good first impression may be fading, although he still looks primed to survive the March 1st primary. And the survivor out of the bottom three (Ford, Mitchell, Taylor) has a steep uphill climb to make in the final five weeks if this poll is any indication of eventual results.

This poll was a somewhat shorter effort than the last one but there were still 162 votes cast. The order of finish is listed here, with the previous poll finish, percentage and percentage change from the initial poll following:

(3 – tie) Muir Boda – 37 votes (22.84% – up 4.37%)
(3 – tie)Terry Cohen – 33 votes (20.37% – up 1.9%)
(1) Tim Spies – 30 votes (18.52% – down 0.76%)
(2) Orville Dryden – 25 votes (15.43% – down 3.45%)
(5) Joel Dixon – 20 votes (12.35% – up 2.71%)
(6) Bruce Ford – 6 votes (3.7% – down 3.13%)
(8) Laura Mitchell – 6 votes (3.7% – down 0.32%)
(7) Michael Taylor – 5 votes (3.09% – down 1.33%)

A few other notes of interest:

As you’ll see in my rundown of today’s Chamber forum tomorrow, the format and questioning were very different from the initial effort last week. It’s possible that, with two remaining forums next week (AFP and NAACP) the finished product between the two for PAC-14 may not be aired until after the primary and edited to cut out the two bottom finishers. It was hoped, though, that the editing would be done for Tuesday.

I finally caught up to Michael Taylor today and he apologized for not answering my questions. I may do an audio interview (you could call it a podcast) with him early next week. However, it probably won’t take the exact same form as the questioning I gave the other seven. He may remain the lone candidate in the race without a website or Facebook page, though.

Having the split forum before the poll hurt most of the candidates who participated in round 1 – only Terry Cohen increased her percentage from the last poll. Meanwhile, my top gainers were two who participated today.

I’m working on enhancing the poll and broadening its scope for the final effort before the primary. Stay tuned to see if my effort bears fruit.

On the O’s: guarded optimism

As spring training begins for the local hometown teams, it appears fans are cautiously optimistic about the Orioles’ chances – at least that’s how they polled here.

Let’s do a quick review: since losing the 1997 ALCS to Cleveland, the Orioles have been among the most mediocre of franchises as they’ve endured 13 straight losing seasons – in fact, the 70-win mark has eluded them the last four. But the majority of those responding thought the revamped Orioles, who have added power bats like Derrek Lee, Mark Reynolds, and perhaps Vladimir Guerrero (assuming he passes a physical) would eclipse that number and maybe – just maybe – break that string of losing seasons.

But the optimism stopped there, as no one expected the team to win 90 games or make the playoffs. Perhaps that’s more due to the reputation of the American League East than actual talent level.

And there were a few who chose to be pessimistic, as 1/6 of those voting foresaw the moves blowing up in Andy McPhail’s face. They figured a 100-loss season wasn’t out of the question, and if neither Derrek Lee nor Mark Reynolds adjusts well to the American League, Vladimir is indeed in the coda of his career, and the pitching fails us it could happen. But I fall into the camp of thinking 81 or more wins is indeed possible. (Over 80% believed Baltimore should win at least 75 games.)

With the season now just around the corner, optimism is king and all 30 teams might fancy themselves World Series contenders. (Okay, maybe not the woeful – as in 57-105 last season – Pittsburgh Pirates. They’ve actually gone nearly two decades without a winning season, which is too bad because they play in a nice ballpark. And to think these two franchises tangled for a World Series crown twice back in the 1970’s – I remember the ’79 Series well although O’s fans might prefer to forget.)

Hopefully an improved major league teams pays dividends down the chain as well since the Shorebirds fans are overdue for a playoff team. I’ve seen one playoff game in six seasons here so consider me one who thinks it’s time!

The Orioles’ season starts on April 1 at Tampa Bay, with the home opener April 4 against Detroit. (Sorry about that home opening sweep by the Tigers; things will look up from there.)

Poll results:

62.5% believe the Orioles could finish with a .500 season (81-81)
20.83% foresee a 75-win season
12.5% think they’ll lose 100 games
4.17% believe they’ll only match the 66-96 mark last year’s team produced
No one saw the Orioles win 90 games, make the playoffs, or win the World Series

Cain raised to top in GOP poll

The former Godfather Pizza CEO pulled it out in the end, but a widely split GOP Presidential poll here drew votes for nearly twenty possible contenders. This goes to show that…we need to see just who will enter the field for sure, as Cain is the first reasonable contender to establish an exploratory committee.

This is how they finished:

Herman Cain (former Godfather Pizza CEO, radio host) – 10 (12.82%)
Gary Johnson (former New Mexico governor) – 9 (11.54%)
Chris Christie (New Jersey governor) – 8 (10.26%)
Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas, 2008 Presidential candidate) – 8 (10.26%)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House) – 7 (8.97%)
Sarah Palin (2008 VP candidate, former Alaska governor) – 6 (7.69%)
Rudy Giuliani (2008 Presidential candidate, former NYC mayor) – 5 (6.41%)
Michele Bachmann (Congressman from Minnesota) – 4 (5.13%)
Tim Pawlenty (outgoing Minnesota governor) – 4 (5.13%)
Mitt Romney (2008 Presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor) – 3 (3.85%)
Donald Trump (businessman) – 3 (3.85%)
Mitch Daniels (Indiana governor) – 2 (2.56%)
Jim DeMint (Senator from South Carolina) – 2 (2.56%)
Paul Ryan (Congressman from Wisconsin) – 2 (2.56%) – write-in
Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania) – 2 (2.56%)
George Allen (former Senator from Virginia) – 1 (1.28%) – write-in
Mike Pence (Congressman from Indiana) – 1 (1.28%) – withdrew
John Thune (Senator from North Dakota) – 1 (1.28%)
Haley Barbour (Mississippi governor) – 0 (o%)
Mike Huckabee (2008 Presidential candidate, former Arkansas governor) – 0 (0%)

If you look at your top 6 candidates in this poll, you’d find the TEA Party carried a great amount of influence along with the libertarian wing of the GOP (who would tend to support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.)

But would all of them be viable? Time will tell, but if you look at the top contenders from 2008 there’s little desire for a rewarmed candidate. Since I don’t consider Ron Paul as an ‘establishment’ candidate, the top votegetter among the group was Rudy Giuliani with 5 votes. Even combining the other 2008 aspirants (including Paul) they collected just 16 votes, which is barely 20 percent of the total vote. Mike Huckabee was shut out.

The only 2008 names which seem to have support are Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, who didn’t run for the top job four years ago but was added to the ticket just prior to the GOP convention. She polled reasonably well in this trial, but those who believe the nomination is hers to lose may want to think again.

Over the next month or two we’ll likely see the field shake out a bit as some of the bottom-feeders (and maybe a top name or two) decide to take a pass. The remainder of the contenders will likely begin getting their teams together for the busy times one year hence.