Fortenberry Has Solid Lead

The National Journal (paid log-in required) is reporting a poll today showing 1st Dist. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry with a solid lead over former LG Maxine Moul.

The poll, from Public Opinion Strategies, conducted 9/6-7 and 9/9, surveyed 300 likely voters and had a margin of error of +/- 5.66%.

General Election Matchup
Fortenberry — 56%
Moul — 32%
Other/undec — 12%

Fav/Unfav
Fortenberry — 51% / 19%
Moul — 21% / 8%

This would seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that this is a very tight race…

(The Nat Journ also noted that Moul trails Count Chocula and the Trix Rabbit by double digits, but your high-brow Leavenworth Street would not stoop to printing such jocularity.)

20 comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Good. The Democrats are an extinct brand in this state. Socialist ways are gone away.

    Fortenberry represents a new wave of leadership and he has lots of potential.

  2. Anonymous says:

    From July 11th Democrat blog:
    “Although internal polling conducted for Moul by Margie Omero of Momentum Analysis found Fortenberry leading the challenger 48 percent to 25 percent, with 27 percent undecided, Moul’s campaign was heartened because the Congressman’s support failed to reach 50 percent…”
    http://www.nebraskademocrats.org/blog/646/moul-or-never

    Is it, therefore, safe to assume she is now disheartened?

  3. Anonymous says:

    always good to throw a little “Louisiana Hot Sauce” on top of the pot………I guuuhhhrrraahhhhnnnnteeeeee.

    The Anonymous

  4. Anonymous says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave

    When to elected office

    We decide to leave

    Forced out by Ben, because of sagging polls

    She claims she wasn’t forced to another role

    A lefty liberal, moderate she is not

    So she rubber stamps ‘rubber stamp’, ‘my vote is not bought’

    But lo and behold, she rubber stamps DNCC talking heads

    And now she finds herself down, many insurmountable steps

    So goodbye for good, olden Nebraska ‘Crats

    You’re as good as gone, and to Maryland may Rubin go back.

    Quote The Anonymous, Nevermore.

  5. Evil Pelosi says:

    While there is no question that Fortenberry will win this race by double digits, it’s a joke to publish a poll with a margin of error of +/- 5.66%. Everyone knows that any poll with a margin of error over +/- 3.5% is non-credible. Jeff, Lee and Adrian are all a lock for the 110th.

  6. Street Sweeper says:

    Well, after those bold predictions, let us address your contention about publishing this poll:

    The National Journal is a well-established and highly respected publication. The fact that they published the poll leaves us confident – particularly when they generally DO NOT publish some polls, such as the Rasmussen poll over concerns about their sampling. We here at Leavenworth Street are in favor of distributing more information, rather than less, so we post results from many sources, and let our readers decide how they want to gauge that information.

    Your statement that “everyone knows” about the degrees for margin of error is both condescending and silly. You may be an experienced pollster, or someone who just walked out of their first Stats class, but in any case, we’ll give this Wikipedia link about “margin or error” and let our readers find out the simple answer to your assertion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

  7. Street Sweeper says:

    Just in case anyone is considering this, and wants a little further info, the above commenter’s assertion, that the Margin of Error in the poll published by the National Journal is “non-credible”, is inaccurate and misleading.

    Margin of Error simply means how different the poll could be if another sampling was taken. This is based upon a mathematical formula, calculated from the entire likely voting population and then the sample size you are using. If you took a larger and larger sample size, your Margin of Error would lower (in theory, to zero, when you reached every likely voter). So the Margin of Error lets the reader gauge the numbers up and down.

    So you may critique the sample size as too low, or better yet, critique the questions asked, or how the sample itself was arrived at. But to critique the poll itself because it gives you the accurate Margin of Error (again based upon mathematical formulas) is plain wrong.

    We here at Leavenworth Street thank you for your time, and you can deposit your class tuition as you leave the room.

    (For advanced credit, we found this little essay to be helpful as well: http://www.queensu.ca/cora/documents/pollingisuma.pdf )

  8. Anonymous says:

    Does National Journal say if this is an R poll or an independent poll?

    Not that partisan polls aren’t reliable, but campaigns usually only release them when they make their candidate look good.

  9. Evil Pelosi says:

    SS- Why so confrontational? I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings with the “everyone knows” bit, I promise.

    However, the follow is from your source (which we all know is all so credible.) Sorry, I did it again. For those who are not aware, Wikepedia is not always the best source, wink wink.

    “The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one has that the poll’s reported percentages are close to the “true” percentages, that is the percentages in the whole population.”

    Again, all I was trying to convey in my original post was that this is a noticeably large margin of error and thus not the most credible source. BTW- I love the NJ.

  10. Street Sweeper says:

    Lisssen Evil Pelosi: I didn’t imply that you are a Nazi Communist; I just meant to say that no one can prove that you’re NOT a puppy molester.

    And I would agree that Wiki is not exactly the greatest source, but it was one of the first I came up with, and one of the better known. Hence why I added another source as well.

    But just b/c the “true percentages” are less accurate, doesn’t affect credibility.

    What should be taken more into account is that, I believe, this IS a Fortenberry poll, and I don’t know the exact questions that were asked. But we’re willing to take it at face value. Feel free to do else-wise.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Margin of error, statistically, is only a reflection of how many were polled. It has been oversold as something other, but when it comes to pure mathematics…it is reflective of the universe polled (N) – that’s it. As to whether it is credible…it is as credible as it is accurate (accuracy is NOT margin of error). Campaigns typically will take smaller polls this far out…what is telling is how the national apparati react (DCCC, NRCC, etc). The nationals are the ones who take the deeper polls this far out to gauge where to place their resources. There has been no disputation of the numbers – and I’ve not seen Moul in the mass media…that tells me something. Her favorables and unfavorables are non-existent, therefoe her ID is likely low. I’m sure DCCC polls have picked that up. If the national Dems thought this district was in play, they would have spent money to push her ID up by now. This has not happened. Follow?

  12. Anonymous says:

    What’s up with all the attitude of people leaving comments today? Combative, condescending, cynical… I could go to a dem blog for an overload that crap. Dang kids. Play nice or get out of the sandbox.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I have a national journal subscription and there is no such poll on their site. I called and asked and they said they had no poll. What kind of stunt are you trying to pull?

  14. Street Sweeper says:

    I have no idea how hard you may have looked, but when you do a search for “Fortenberry” on the National Journal site, you’ll get this link

    If you actually do have a NJ subscription, you should be able to access that link. Note that it’s not the NJ’s poll, it’s their story of the Public Opinion poll (as we stated in the post).

    And then for all of you out there following along who don’t have a NJ subscription, here’s a link to screen shot of the story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.