I have no issue with polls; they should be interpreted with caution, particularly where it's a multi-way race and there are demographic issues, such as no cell phones. We don't really have better options yet. Online polling is starting to be a viable alternative, and a number of online pollsters got results that were at least no worse than those of traditional pollsters in the recent US election.
On balance, if we are going to have polling, my wish is that it would be of higher quality. If someone posted a poll in the recent US Politics thread which was land-line only and only spent one day in the field, and had a same size under 500, someone would have noted that it was methodologically much poorer than the standard polling outfit.
Here, that almost describes all of the polls. I understand there are logistical difficulties and cost barriers, but I still think it's a problem.
With that said, to me the polls are telling a pretty consistent story right now. Crockatt will benefit from the vote split, and will likely win with a plurality in the mid-to-high thirties. If her GOTV effort is superior to Locke's, she may hit 40%.
The wild card is undecided voters and leaners. I don't buy that undecided voters automatically break for the challenger--history shows that to be nonsense. Usually a voter who is undecided going into the last weekend is not going to vote. The difference here is that I suspect some voters are waiting and seeing, and will break to the strongest challenger.
At that point, the true gap between Locke and Crockatt will matter a lot. If its 5% or higher, he's in trouble. If it's more like 2 or 3 %, then it could be a coin toss for him at best.
Those are just my feelings. I'll be voting for Locke and hoping for the best, but I wouldn't bet on his chances. At this point his best hope is an influx of strategic voters.
|