Georgia Governor Republican Primary Map

The following county map shows the results of the Georgia Governor Republican Primary race between former Representative Nathan Deal and GA Secretary of State Karen Handel which took place on July 20, 2010. Deal narrowly beat Handel with 50.2% against Handel's 49.8%.

As the map shows, it is no surprise that the race was very close. Deal carried most of the rural counties throughout the state; while Handel carried the population centers and suburbs of Atlanta, Savannah, Augusta, and Columbus. Handel was also able to carry many rural counties as well, mostly those near the population centers.

Kentucky Senate Democratic Primary Map

The following county map shows the results of the Kentucky Senate Democratic Primary race between KY Attorney General Jack Conway and KY Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo which took place on May 18, 2010. Conway barely won with 44% of the vote, to 43% for Mongiardo. The other votes in the contest were for minor candidates, of which they were 3.

As the map shows, Conway was able to win the contest by winning the major population centers of Louisville and Lexington, as well as many of the counties surrounding those areas. Mongiardo's support was primarily located in the southeast and southwest corners of the state.

This primary took place at the same time as the Republican primary which garnered nationwide attention because of the candidacy of Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul (R-TX). Interestingly, the Democratic primary actually garnered more votes than the Republican primary. Mongiardo was the Democratic Senate candidate in 2004, which he lost with 49% of the vote.

Arkansas Senate Democratic Primary Map

The following county map shows the results of the Arkansas Senate Democratic Primary Runoff between incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln and AR Lt. Governor Bill Halter which took place on June 8, 2010. Lincoln won the runoff with 52% of the vote, to 48% for Halter.

As the map shows, Lincoln was able to beat Halter by winning most of the population centers in AR, as well as many of the rural counties throughout the state. Halter's only stronghold was in the southwest portion of the state; while Lincoln's support was spread throughout most of the state.

This primary runoff became an important test for union groups and liberal activists because they invested millions of dollars into the Halter campaign, hoping that he would beat Lincoln. They were ultimately disappointed by his loss. The result proves that liberal groups should not spend their resources trying to get liberals elected to represent conservative-leaning states like AR.

Beware of partisan polling organizations

The American public is bombarded with poll numbers on a regular basis. The mainstream media tends to take the average of all these polls and then try to draw conclusions from that average. In theory, this may sound like a sound solution to ensure that partisan polls do not sway the average (since both liberal polling organizations and conservative polling organizations would be included, and therefore would cancel each other out). The problem with this is that, in my opinion, it gives those partisan polling organizations more credibility than they deserve.

For example, conservatives tend to point to polls done by Rasmussen Reports. I consider this to be a partisan polling organization because Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for George W. Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. Along with that, their polls tend to favor Republicans or conservative positions on issues in almost every poll they conduct, even when other polls show a Democrat or liberal positions on issues as being ahead or show a tie. Therefore, I do not trust polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports as being truly non-partisan.

Another example is when liberals tend to point to polls done by Public Policy Polling. I consider this to be a partisan polling organization because it was admittedly founded by a well known Democratic pollster and words many of their questions in a blatantly partisan way. Along with that, their polls tend to favor Democrats or liberal positions on issues in almost every poll they conduct, even when other polls show a Republican or conservative positions on issues as being ahead or show a tie. Therefore, I do not trust polls conducted by Public Policy Polling as being truly non-partisan.

One of the most accurate ways to find out how a particular race or issue is polling is by going to Pollster. This website lets you choose which polls to include in a chart of a particular issue or race. This website also provides clues as to which polling organizations are partisan and which are not. Polling firms with a (R) next to them are Republican leaning, and polling firms with a (D) next to them are Democratic leaning. This website allows the public to filter through all the spin that comes with so many polls, and get down to the non-partisan truth.

A perfect example of how partisan polls can make a difference in the overall average is the Job Approval numbers for President Obama (or any President since George H.W. Bush). If you take all Rasmussen Reports polls out of the average, the approval number jumps like 6% to 7%. If you take all Public Policy Polling polls out of the average, the approval number dips like 4% to 5%. Since most polling organizations conduct this poll every 3 days or so, taking an average is truly the best way to see a true trend.

In addition, I would also warn people to not trust polls conducted on the internet. Since the sample is largely dependent on where the polling organization puts their polls. In other words, the sample is not random, as it is with other types of polling.

In order to help readers decide which polling organizations are reliable, I have decided to make a list of those which I consider to be reliable. These are not in any particular order. I am using the list of polling organizations that Pollster uses for Job Approval Ratings for President Obama. I am picking non-partisan polling organizations from that list.

1. ABC/Post
2. AP-GfK
3. CBS/Times
4. CNN
5. Gallup
6. Ipsos/Reuters
7. NBC/WSJ
8. NPR
9. Newsweek
10. Pew
11. Quinnipiac
12. Time
13. USA Today/Gallup
14. Times/Bloomberg
15. InsiderAdvantage
16. SurveyUSA

A message to all visitors...

I just wanted to take a minute to explain my long absence from posting anything on here. I realize that I have not posted on here since January of this year. I apologize for the long delay. I had been extraordinarily busy with school since then. Then on March 31, my laptop crashed; which had all my data sets, graphs, maps, spreadsheets, calendars, etc on it. Fortunately, I was able to get a new laptop within a week, but I just now have the time to actually try to recover any files I had on my old computer.

I fully intend to start posting more things this summer. I look forward to posting more maps, especially regarding the upcoming midterm elections in November.

Thanks again to all those who view the blog, and I assure you I will be posting more things before the end of summer (before September).

2010 Senate Elections Overview

2010 Senate Elections Overview

The following map is of the U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2010. States colored blue have a Democratic seat up for election. States colored red have a Republican seat up for election. States colored purple have both a Democratic and Republican seat up for election. There is a listing of the seats up for election in 2010. Next to each state, there is the name of the current senator and the percentage they recieved in their last election Open seats are noted as such.

Democratic Seats (17)

1. Indiana - Bayh, 62%

2. Colorado - Bennet, Appointed

3. California - Boxer, 58%

4. Illinois - Burris, Appointed, Open Seat

5. Connecticut - Dodd, 66%, Open Seat

6. North Dakota - Dorgan, 68%, Open Seat

7. Wisconsin - Feingold, 55%

8. Hawaii - Inouye, 73%

9. Vermont - Leahy, 71%

10. Arkansas - Lincoln, 56%

11. Maryland - Mikulski, 65%

12. Washington - Murray, 55%

13. Nevada - Reid, 61%

14. New York - Schumer, 71%

15. Pennsylvania - Specter, 53% [Elected as a Republican]

16. New York - Gillibrand, Appointed

17. Oregon - Wyden, 64%

Republican Seats (18)

1. Utah - Bennett, 68%

2. Missouri - Bond, 56%, Open Seat

3. Kansas - Brownback, 69%, Open Seat

4. Kentucky - Bunning, 51%, Open Seat

5. North Carolina - Burr, 52%

6. Oklahoma - Coburn, 53%

7. Idaho - Crapo, Uncontested

8. South Carolina - DeMint, 54%

9. Iowa - Grassley, 70%

10. New Hampshire - Gregg, 66%, Open Seat

11. Georgia - Isakson, 58%

12. Florida - LeMieux, Appointed, Open Seat

13. Arizona - McCain, 77%

14. Alaska - Murkowski, 49%

15. Alabama - Shelby, 68%

16. South Dakota - Thune, 51%

17. Louisiana - Vitter, 51%

18. Ohio - Voinovich, 64%, Open Seat

Analysis

The 2010 midterm elections will be the first barometer of how the American people feel since Obama's election in 2008. That being said, Obama himself is not so much to credit or blame for whatever the results may be in 2010 because for the most part these races will be decided based on the concerns of that state. In order for Democrats to hold onto their 59 seat majority in the Senate, they need to either keep all of their seats within the Democratic party or pick up at least as many Republican seats as they lose.

The best opportunities for Democrats are (in no particular order): Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Ohio. Of these, the races the Democrats should focus their energy on are New Hampshire and Ohio. Kentucky is included because of the fact that it is an open seat and Democrats are likely to nominate a moderate candidate, and Louisiana is included because Democrats are likely to put forth a popular moderate candidate. The best opportunities for Republicans are (in no particular order): North Dakota, Arkansas, Nevada, and Colorado. Of these, the races Republicans should focus their energy on are North Dakota and Arkansas. Republicans are almost certain to win North Dakota because they are expected to pick the current popular governor to run, and Democrats have no prominent candidates up to this point.