There's still an uphill battle to be fought, but this is certainly a positive indicator that the battle is not only worth fighting, but can be won by Hurst.

Like with every Republican controlled district, the challenge will be convincing voters that change starts at home.  No matter how unhappy they are with the current government, often voters don't see their own representative as part of the problem.  And Davis IS part of the problem.

Change starts at home.

But not yet enough, if you read the post carefully, we still need some work to do.  Andy is Kicking Ass when people know about him.

So, in order for people to get to know him, YOU need to help, and there are two ways to do that below.

1) VOLUNTEER

2)CONTRIBUTE

Just wrote a diary about this, and how with all the support Andy is getting and now that we know that Davis is vulnurable, Andy deserves a spot on the combined netroots fundraising page.

You can read it here at Raising Kaine or over at MyDD.  Also, keep in mind that the folks that run MyDD are also the folks that run the national netroots page, so if you get a chance, shoot on over there and hit the recommend button (already #1 on the rec list there) or better yet, comment on why you think Andy deserves a spot there.

If you still have some clicks left in you, and you are a member of MoveOn.org head on over to their Action Forum and let them know that you think Tom Davis should be targeted by MoveOn.org.  (please use the 5 star rating, that's how they know you really care).

Remember, the better the campaigns up north do, the more time Jim Webb can spend in the southern parts of the state turning rural Virginia blue again.

Folks this is amazing stuff. I am sure that the Davis people will take note of it.(Hello Davis people if you're reading this)Everyone knows that Tommy has plenty of money and will spend lots of it to attempt to look like a moderate(His friends at The Washington Post will attempt help him too)--but his record of almost 90% with Bush shows otherwise. From what I hear Mr. Hurst doesn't take any voter for granted and will work hard to earn the publics vote. As NASCAR hall of fame announcer Daryl Waltrip would say at the start of a race,"Boogity, Boogity, Boogity, Let's go racing boys"

I guess its ok to announce now. I just dicovered there is a website called tomdavistruth.com. Please direct your independent and Republican friends here. The site is still being built but there is a lot of information there now. I am leaving the identity of those who are building the site confidential since I've heard that Tom is very vindictive.

These numbers aren't quite as good as people seem to think.  As most of you probably know, an incumbent with a "hard re-elect" of over 35% almost never loses.  Some pundits have said Tom Daschle was the first incumbent Senator EVER to lose with those type of hard re-elect numbers.

Here's what this tells me.  This race is teetering on the brink of being competitive but isn't just yet.  If Davis' hard re-elect stays in in the 37% range he will win with 53%+.  Drive that number down a few points and who knows.

Where I went to school, that was failing.

A 12-year incumbent with 35% is "good"?  Then why is Davis scrambling?  Do you have any references to back that up? Just curious...

I know I shouldn't assume everyone follows polls as closely as I do (since it was essentially my major).  Anyway, ask Jarding about the magic 35% hard re-elect number.  It is simply a maxim of polling that an incumbent with a 35% hard re-elect is almost unbeatable (except in the Daschle case).

Now, if the hard and soft re-elect were currently at 35% Davis would be in BIG trouble.  That would clearly be a failing grade.  This poll (without commenting on the source) tells everyone this race has a CHANCE to be competitive but isn't yet.  Probably helps both campaigns with fundraising and will make the race more interesting.

It's not just that only 37% of all likely voters say they will definitely re-elect the incumbent.  It's that so few are undecided.  So, 46% will consider or will definitely vote for someone else. That covers 83% of voters.  It's not as if Davis can make up much of the loss with undecideds.

Also, "Even when leaners are included in his vote total, Tom Davis fails to garner 50% of all likely voters" [and]... by a margin of 19 points, more voters believe things in this country are “off on the wrong track (45%)"

Davis, you don't even rate 50%, on or off the blog.  Start worrying.

This is not a bad statistic for an incumbent.  It's just another reason for the maxim "you can make statistics say whatever you want."  It's also why 35%+ in hard re-elect for an incumbent is so hard to overcome.  The only numbers that really matter are the hard re-elect and the hard not re-elect.  History tells us that incumbents sitting on numbers like Davis currently has (not even accounting for the source of the numbers) almost never lose.

As I said above, if the hard re-elect stays over 35% Davis gets 53%.  If the hard re-elect drops below 35% its anybody's ball game.

Speaking of making statistics any way you want... "This is not a bad statistic."

So you still want to make the bald claim that it's not a bad result for Davis?  I found a George Will column that says an incumbent should "worry about being below 50 percent [especially] against a largely unknown opponent." The American Conservative Union agonized over Bush's tough race in 2002 at "only 48%."  Daschle lost in 2006 when a poll about this much time before the election gave him 45%, an amount 8 points more than Davis.

This is not a poll on the Hurst website of self-selected respondents.  This is likely voters, by a national firm. You tried to shoot the messenger, but you missed.  You are busted.

I specifically did not attack the messenger.  And I also did not say the poll was bad news.  I simply said it wasn't as good as people assumed.  If you're familiar at all with polling theory and maxims you know that incumbents with hard re-elect above 35% almost never lose.  That's all I said.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I have no love for Davis.  I do have a great afinity for analyzing polls, however, and I was just trying to add my $.02 worth.  I apologize if you don't like it.  Like I said above, just ask Steve Jarding about the "incumbent with hard re-elect over 35%" maxim.  He tell you all about it.

Assuming the "poll" is the messenger, saying that Davis is vulnerable, you said it was not bad news for Davis.  So far you've added nothing to the conversation to suggest otherwise. You've accused the numbers of being manipulated to say what they want, but with nothing to back it up.  You're just tilting at windmills.  Daschle lost with 8 more points -- You suggest that is an anamoly, but again can't say why and have no facts. I looked at your other posts -- it's one thing to ask about the reliability of a conclusion, but you don't do that. You just repeat charges that something is not true, and we're supposed to accept it based on your anonymous "expertise."

I didn't mean to imply that the numbers were manipulated.  My point was that every poll has numbers that can be read numerous ways.  I didn't see anything in this poll that was manipulated.

It is unfathomable that what I'm saying is controversial except in the echo chamber world of RK.  It is a commonly known maxim to those that study polls that a 35% hard re-elect is the magic number.  That's all I'm saying.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Like I said in my first post, Davis at 37% hard re-elect puts him teetering on the brink.  He's not there yet but Hurst is close to where he needs to be.

I understand few here want actual analysis of a poll so I'll just stay quiet from now on.  Just don't be surprised when incumbents with current 37%+ hard re-elect numbers end up winning with approximately 53% of the vote.

I said the 46% will CONSIDER voting against Davis isn't that bad.  I also said it wasn't quite as good for Hurst as people here think.  That's all I said.  A little reading comprehension goes a long ways.  Take of the Webb/Hurst goggles and actually read my posts and you'll see I didn't say anything that controversial.  Certainly nothing Jarding or Saunders would disagree with.

Well?

So what is the poll numbers?  How far behind is Hurst?
How come these goddamn polls never have a simple: 

If the election were held today, who would you vote for:
Davis X%
Hurst X%
Undecided X%

How come it is always this vague crap?

Same thing for Weed and Feder.  Very vague on the actual poll.
No offense to you Rob, but can someone dig into this poll and figure out how many points ahead Davis is?

Look for donors among the gay communities of D.C., Arlington and Fairfax too.  I just read how Davis voted for the Constitutional Ban on Marriage...shows how much of a 'moderate' he is

Also...just keep drumming..while America and the World were in turmoil...he shoved steroids down our metaphorical throats.

There are a lot of people in DC who would like to get rid of him.  He is the decision maker for them in Congress. I don't know how that got started and in the early days he was really bad. He has softened some and is willing to listen to input but he still is the lord and master of DC.

They would love a nice liberal like Andy to be "watching over them."  But I wonder if that would suddenly be taken away and given to another stubborn republican.

 

According to this description, this poll sounds legit.  Global Stategies is well-known as a reputable polling company.  Also, these voters were not asked if they'd vote for a 6'2", 200-lb father with 3 kids who takes no PAC money, goes to church every week, volunteers for the Boy Scouts, and wants to bring the troops home (although that describes Hurst, for that matter).  The questions were not loaded.  Respondents said they would vote for ANYONE ELSE besides Davis.

Also, the contest is a dead heat among voters who know both candidates.  All Andy has to do is get his name out there and keep knocking on doors to make sure all NoVa voters know them both.