WSB/Landmark Releases Third Poll of the Day

Because it’s not enough to have just two. In addition to the Insider Advantage / Fox 5 poll and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll out today, WSB TV has theirs, conducted by Landmark Communications. Here’s their polling, with a margin of error of 2.9%.

Jason Carter 47%
Nathan Deal 44%

Michelle Nunn 46%
David Perdue 43%

Here’s Lori Geary’s report:

Today’s polling has been all over the map. We have African-American voters spread out over a ten point range. We have the GOP ticket ahead in some polls, but not others. To borrow Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other. The question is, which one is wrong? Or, which one is right?


  1. joejohns says:

    Either this poll is an outlier, or Landmark is picking up something the other pollsters are missing. Both reasons are possible.

    All of the polls are consistent in this one regard though….in the governor’s race, something serious is weighing Deal down like a rock. Each poll is understating or overstating it to a degree.

    • HueyMahl says:

      Hmmm. What could be weighing Deal down? I just can’t think what it could possible be? Oh wait, I know, it’s on the tip of my tongue. I think it starts with an E. Oops lost it again. What has Deal been in the news for lately?!? I wish I could remember – something about having to pay out a bunch of money in a lawsuit maybe?

        • joejohns says:

          With both Deal and Perdue being unable to open up commanding leads in what’s thought to be a Republican state, it may very well just be that Georgia has hit a tipping point despite what other data may suggest.

          But Deal, particularly, as an incumbent, is in dangerous territory with his numbers averaging as they are? And then you read about his DCH board replacements in today’s AJC feeding into the ethics storyline….I wonder who thought that was good timing to make those announcements.

          • Dave Bearse says:

            Don’t be silly. It’s only coincidence a DCH Board member whose term expired 14 months ago was terminated only hours after he didn’t vote to put additional millions in the pockets of prominent Deal contributors.

            It’s coincidence just like Sonny Perdue signing legislation giving himself, and perhaps only himself, a $100,000 tax break on a Friday, taking the tax break the following Monday, and saying he didn’t know that that element of the legislation, arranged for by very extraordinary means by his friend, neighbor and personal attorney, gave him the tax break.

            At this point nobody knows nothing about how that element of the legislation paying only certain nursing homes owners more money came to be. So who was the Larry O-Neal concerning the nursing home legislation?

            The DCH Board appointment situation highlights the poor practice of leaving appointments open enabling supposedly independent Board members to be removed on a moment’s notice.

            Want to fix that? Enact legislation that removes Board members from a Board when their term expires, unless re-appointed prior to expiration of their term. It’s a simple fix that won’t happen.

            Remember, the Georgia General Assembly doesn’t want to be held accountable for actually reading legislation that they vote on, and Governors like their shady deals.

        • HueyMahl says:

          Perdue is just not an attractive candidate. Comes off as just another corporate apologist, out to protect his ilk and pass laws at the expense of the majority of the electorate.

  2. FranInAtlanta says:

    Well, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee has decided that they don’t need to spend any more money here. Under normal circumstances, I would think it a mistake. However, their primary ad shows Nunn as being in Obama’s pocket which is positive for a number of people. Maybe if they quit running it, Perdue will get a foothold.

    • Bobloblaw says:

      Well given that Obama got 45% and can’t possibly be more popular today Id say there aren’t enough of those people to matter.

      • benevolus says:

        Well, she’s already done the ad saying she ran Bush’s foundation. This is the counterpoint, or counter-melody if you will.

  3. caroline says:

    Everybody should just say right now it looks like the governor’s race and the senate race are going to be squeakers. That is the big picture I am getting from all of them regardless of who leads in each poll.

    • John Konop says:

      I still think the GOP wins both races at the doc the day….The real take away is the GOP needs to change strategy to shore up votes with women and minorities….

      • caroline says:

        I don’t know. Normally in the sixth year of a presidency that is the case but the GOP is running like it’s 1998. To me they seem to ignore the fact that they’re asking for a 6 year term (Perdue) and Obama is going to be gone in two years. What exactly is he going to do if Hillary is President? What exactly does he stand for? I have not a clue and his history as a CEO is not a positive. So apparently he’s dropped that. Just seems like a lot of unenthused people this year and however that translates I guess remains to be seen. Screaming about Obama worked in 2010 but it just now seems like a yawner.

        • Bobloblaw says:

          “”I don’t know. Normally in the sixth year of a presidency that is the case but the GOP is running like it’s 1998″”

          Ahhh…no it isnt. The GOP now as a 3-4 point lead in the generic ballot. They are now leading in 6 Senate races that are held by Dems. Grimes has imploded in KY and Nunn is polling in the low to mid 40s.

          “”To me they seem to ignore the fact that they’re asking for a 6 year term (Perdue) and Obama is going to be gone in two years. “”

          This is the lamest excuse Ive ever heard in politics. Im sure you said the same thing about Bush back in 2006 when the Dems were running against him. In fact youve just managed to try and discredit the entire notion of the “Six year itch”. Something that goes back decades.

          “”Screaming about Obama worked in 2010 but it just now seems like a yawner.”””Which explains the competitive races in places like IA, CO, MI, NH. You know states Obama won.

          “”What exactly does he stand for?”” Are you talking about Nunn??? She is a she, not a he. She says she’ll support Israel if she gets enough Jews to give her money.

          • David C says:

            Meh. The “Sixth Year Itch” is somewhat overstated. If you look at “Six Year Itch” elections you usually have some overriding event mattering: Iraq in 2006, Iran-Contra in 1986, Watergate in 1974, Vietnam in 1966, a huge recession in 1958, Korea in 1950. In 1998 there wasn’t some great overriding political concern and in turn there wasn’t much of an itch. So far this year there doesn’t seem to be an overriding one either. Republicans are up 3-4 in generic ballot, but in 2010 they were up over 9 in the Real Clear Politics average before election day. In 2006 Democrats were up 11.5.

            Some of what you get out of a “six-year itch” is much more about the Senate. Certain Presidents come in with big coattails and sweep in some senators that can’t survive a midterm environment without a wind at their back. Certainly that was one of Reagan’s big problems in 1986: In 1980 Republicans won 12 seats and control of the chamber; in 1986 they lost 8 seats back (and with it, the chamber). The Democrats’ problems these days isn’t much of a national wave at all, but rather defending seats in deep red states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska that were carried over the line by Bush’s unpopularity, local scandals, long time incumbency, or attention being focused on vulnerable incumbents elsewhere. Republicans by and large aren’t expanding the map into blue states or swing states like Michigan, Colorado, or New Hampshire. This year, they don’t need to. But they will have to defend seats in those kind of states in 2016 with seats up in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin–all states Obama won twice–in addition to new South swing states like North Carolina and, potentially, Georgia.

            • Bobloblaw says:

              I do agree that part of the reason the Dems did well in 1998, was they didnt bring in any Senators in 1992 with Clinton’s 43% win.

              “”New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin–all states Obama won twice–in addition to new South swing states like North Carolina and, potentially, Georgia.””

              Remember something. There is no such thing as a “Swing state”. Any state can be a swing state depending on the national results. Since 2000, there hasnt been an election where one side or the other won by more than 7 points (the longest in modern history). So it looks like FL, OH etc are swings states. But they werent swing states in 1988, 1984, 1980 or 1996. In 1996, AZ was a swing state. In 1984, MN was a swing state. In fact the states move very consistently with the national result. Obama ran a smarter campaign in 2012 than Bush did in 2004. Bush focused on individual states, like OH. Obama focused on raising his national popularity, knowing that in certain important states his popularity would follow.

              FL is an R+1-2 state. Has been since the 1990s. Romney did about 1-2 points better in FL than he did nationally, getting 49.4%. Bush in 2004 got 52% in FL, again about 1 point better than he did nationally.

              I think in 2016, the GOP is in better shape in OH, PA and NH than people realize. First never assume anything about NH. It would not be inconsistent for Hillary to win by 10 and Ayotte to win by 10. OH has a very weak Dem bench and PA has a history of electing GOP incumbents even in good Dem years. Even Santorum won PA when Bush lost in 2000.

              In 2012 NC was GOP+3 in 2004 it was GOP+5. So it has changed a bit but that might be due to having a black candidate in 2012.

              It is difficult to know exactly in states like NC or even GA how much Obama increased turnout (or McCain and Romney depressed turnout) and what will happen when he is no longer on the ballot.

              • Is your definition of a strong bench Josh Mandel?

                Portman clearly is a strong candidate there, but I’m sure if people think the seat is winnable someone decent will turn up to run.

                • Bobloblaw says:

                  that was 2012. But the OH Dems are close to getting shut of statewide offices at the state level. Kaisch is up 30, plus the Sec State, Attorney Gen are GOP.

                  I am skeptically cautious now over NH. Still think Brown wont win, but it is looking better.

                  The states where the GOP will have problems in 2016 are two that no one is noticing. IA and AZ. I think Grassley will retire and so too will McCain.

                  • David C says:

                    The Dems are getting crushed in Ohio state elections this year in large part because Ed Fitzgerald is a walking disaster with a whole lot of scandals hitting him and running an awful campaign. He’s a lead weight, but the 2016 Ohio electorate will be very different. I’d say Kasich rolling to reelection is about as relevant to 2016’s senate race as Corbett losing by 30 next door is in Pennsylvania’s.

                    As to the swing state issue. You’re generally correct (assuming uniform national swing, etc) in that “Swing States” aren’t a given from cycle to cycle. There certainly are plenty of states that became swing or even D in the Obama elections that weren’t in 2000-2004: Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado. (Missouri swung the other way.) Others in the Great Lakes region that were close in a narrow Bush victory in 2000-04 swung away in 2008 and 12 with an increasing Democratic margin: MI, MN, PA, and WI. So there’s something to the idea that states can “swing away” as the national swing changes. However, since the minor-realignment under Clinton in 1992 and the Red/Blue divide of 2000, it’s been a relatively steady map. Democrats win the West Coast, Illinois, New England and the Midatlantic States. Republicans win the Great Plains and Deep South. They fight over the Great Lakes states, the Latin West, Florida, VA/NC/GA and there doesn’t seem to be much of a change coming: 2008 to 2012 was remarkably stable.

                    Assuming places like FL and OH keep their slight R lean relative to the natural popular vote (R+3 and R+1 respectively in 2012, although that shrunk from R+ 4.4 and R+2.6 in 2008) it would take a substantial Republican victory to keep them from being anything other than a tossup–and no matter what, each will see metric tons of campaign spending all election long, and both will have Presidential electorates that gave Democratic Senators larger margins than President Obama in 2012 (Nelson 55-42, Brown 51-45) despite being top Republican targets. Obviously it’s easier to win as an incumbent than a challenger, but those margins should make those assuming that both Rubio and Portman (assuming neither is on a national ticket instead) will automatically romp to re-election.

Comments are closed.