Author Archives: Jim Ellis

Nevada: A Target?

By Jim Ellis

May 8, 2020 — The Silver State of Nevada, with six Electoral College votes, has been regarded as a swing state in most 21st Century presidential elections, but in projecting the 2020 vote, it is routinely considered as a place destined to land in the Democratic column. But, could Nevada ultimately be in play for President Trump?

With a general election electoral vote map looking ever closer as we move toward November, introducing a new target could drastically change the eventual outcome or at least the campaign focus and strategy.

A new ALG Research poll (April 27-30; 76 likely Nevada general election voters) reports findings that are consistent with virtually all of the 2016 Nevada general election surveys. Last week, the firm found former vice president Joe Biden leading President Trump with a 49-45 percent spread. Such a margin and preference percentages fall into the same realm as all 31 polls conducted in Nevada from May through the November 2016 election.

When ‘16 ended, Hillary Clinton carried the state, but her margin was only 2.4 percentage points, meaning a 27,000-vote spread of more than 1.12 million ballots cast. And, consistent with the large number of polls that concluded a close race within the 40s would be the actual result, Clinton defeated Trump, 47.9 – 45.4 percent, validating the plethora of research conducted over the final five-plus months of that election cycle.

Four years ago, 13 different pollsters conducted the almost three dozen surveys, and in no instance did either Trump or Clinton ever reach the 50 percent plateau. On the other end of the spectrum, in just three instances did one of the candidates dip below 40 percent. Therefore, in 28 of the 31 studies logged within the 2016 Real Clear Politics polling archives, both candidates fell within the 40s, meaning this result occurred over 90 percent of the time. In terms of range, the span stretched from Clinton plus-7 to Trump plus-6, but the average between the two was only 2.7 percent, which is almost exactly the actual final total. This obviously suggests a competitive political battlefield.

Continue reading

Montana Shock Poll

By Jim Ellis

(Left) Montana Sen. Steve Daines (R); Gov. Steve Bullock (D)

May 7, 2020 — Montana State University at Bozeman’s research arm just completed a survey of their state’s electorate (April 10-27; 738 Montana adults, 458 likely Montana voters) and produced a surprising tally in the Senate race.

According to MSU Bozeman, Gov. Steve Bullock (D) has jumped out to a 46-39 percent lead over first-term Sen. Steve Daines (R) even with President Trump posting a 5.6 percentage point advantage over former vice president Joe Biden (46.3 – 39.7 percent) within the same sampling group.

Though Montana is viewed as a Republican state, and it generally performs as such in most federal races, the margins usually aren’t particularly lopsided, and Democrats have done well in statewide contests up until 2016. Except for Gov. Bullock’s 50-46 percent re-election victory that year, Republicans running in the wake of Trump’s 20-point landslide win over Hillary Clinton, swept the other races.

Several notes about this poll: first, the questioning period lasted 18 days, a very long time for a likely voter sample size of 458 individuals. Typically, such surveys are conducted over a three-day period. Such an implementation interval substantially increases the error rate.

Second, though the error factor is stated as 4.6 percent, the chairman of the university’s political science department, Dr. David Parker, stated in a local Helena KTVH television news story, that the Senate race is within the margin of error and in reality too close to call. While his conclusion may well be accurate, the ballot test shows a margin between Bullock and Daines of seven percentage points, meaning that the result is well beyond the polling margin of error. Therefore, Dr. Parker’s comments suggest the methodology actually yields an error factor larger than stated, which is more consistent with the elongated sampling time feature.

Continue reading

Sen. Loeffler’s Strange Response

Loeffler ad


By Jim Ellis

May 6, 2020 — As we have seen since the COVID-19 quarantines began, appointed Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) has been reeling politically. Her backslide began after news stories showed that she and her husband, New York Stock Exchange chairman Jeffrey Sprecher, made stock transactions of at least $18 million to better position themselves after receiving early Senate briefings about the potential coronavirus effects. She has now launched a $4 million response media buy.

Her ads, however, yield a rather unusual approach. While not mentioning the core attack against her, which is that she took personal financial action in response to receiving alarming policy briefings, the ad script indirectly underscores her extraordinary wealth. This may prove an ill-advised self-defense approach and it is difficult to see how the ad message begins to reverse a negative tide. (See ad at top.)

The Loeffler campaign media buy is divided among three similar television and digital ads, but they all emphasize that Sen. Loeffler is being attacked by liberals, that she has donated $1 million of her own money to COVID-19 hospital operations and is forfeiting her Senate salary for the benefit of coronavirus victims. In two of the ads, the narrator explains that the senator sent her private jet to bring back stranded individuals in foreign countries after quarantine bans were implemented.

Recent polling has projected Sen. Loeffler as being buried within the middle of a field of five significant candidates. In the latest poll, from the Cygnal research group taken during the April 25-27 period, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Gainesville) holds a 29-12 percent lead over Atlanta businessman Matt Lieberman (D), the son of former Connecticut senator and 2000 vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. In third place with 10.6 percent preference is Rev. Raphael Warnock, who pastors Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his father once presided. Sen. Loeffler then follows, virtually tying Rev. Warnock at 10.5 percent. Former US Attorney Ed Tarver trails the group with 4 percent.

Continue reading

Georgia’s Dual Senate Races

By Jim Ellis

May 5, 2020 — Georgia is the only state this year that features two US Senate races, and a new poll suggests that both are interesting.

The Peach State’s politics have garnered more national attention since 2018 as election results suggest that Georgia is moving closer to the ideological center. Still conservative, the 2018 governor’s election that saw Republican Brian Kemp slipping past former state House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams (who has since become a national figure and one of the contenders to be Joe Biden’s vice-presidential running mate) by just over one percentage point. Additionally, the Democrats gained a congressional seat in the Atlanta metro area and came within 419 votes of converting a second.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp appointed businesswoman Kelly Loeffler (R) to the U.S. Senate to succeed retiring Sen. Johnny Isakson, who is leaving office at the end of the year due to health issues.

A substantial increase in the state’s minority population, almost all of which is occurring in the Atlanta metropolitan region, during the past decade (Asian, plus-31 percent; African American, plus-17 percent; Hispanic, plus-14 percent) is the chief reason for the uptick in Democratic candidate support.

With this background, the Cygnal research organization released the results of their most recent Georgia statewide poll (April 25-27; 591 Georgia voters, all but six of whom say they are definitely or probably voting) and their data finds two competitive US Senate races unfolding.

The results reveal one incumbent in serious trouble and the other headed for a potentially competitive re-election battle. In fact, appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) trails not only US Rep. Doug Collins (R-Gainesville), who leads the jungle primary field by over 17 points, but actually places fourth in the field behind two Democratic candidates yet close enough to them to become entangled in a statistical tie. Sen. David Perdue (R) maintains just a six-point lead over the only Democrat tested against him, former congressional candidate Jon Ossoff.

Continue reading

Mail Voting Polarization

By Jim Ellis

COVID-19 virus

May 4, 2020 — The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected everyday life, going even so far as touching American voting procedures. Before the pandemic hit, for example, just four states conducted their elections exclusively through the mail (Oregon, Washington) or predominantly so, meaning having few polling places (California, Colorado).

With so many early primary states postponing their primary elections in conjunction with the disease precautions, we now see either all-mail systems, or including the mail option for all voters, being utilized for upcoming primary elections in 20 additional states, and the list keeps growing.

Predictably, progressive left voter organizations are using the pandemic as a catalyst to push for their long-term election systemic goals. Lawsuits around the country are being filed in such places as Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and several other states, to expand the all-mail option from the primaries into the general election. And, once the all-mail system has been instituted in places around the country, thus establishing it as an electoral fixture, the process becomes much easier to make permanent.

Additionally, we are seeing further lawsuits filed to include automatic voter registration, prohibiting the purging of registration names of people who consistently haven’t voted in multiple elections, and the controversial ballot harvesting idea that allows any voter to collect ballots and deliver them to election authorities.

The Pew Research Center just completed a nationwide survey, testing the population about their attitudes and perceptions of these types of procedural issues. It came as no surprise that the survey results produced rather polarizing responses from the self-identified affiliates of the two major political parties, since virtually every contemporary issue yields deep divides between the partisans.

Continue reading