Noem v Herseth Sandlin

Maybe the last good poll for Representative Herseth Sandlin comes from Penn, Shoen, and Berland, courtesy of The Hill:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) leads Republican Kristi Noem 45 percent to 42, with 10 percent of likely voters undecided, according to The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll.

Well, a lead is a lead. I still can't help notice that Herseth Sandlin has yet to break 50%. There has been a bit of a controversy among pollsters over this question: is an incumbent below 50% likely to lose? Whatever may be true typically, in a wave year the answer is typically yes.

A ten percent undecided is a lot of undecided. If that ten percent breaks evenly, then HS wins by a hair. If it breaks six to four for Noem, it goes the other way. Perhaps South Dakota is somehow insulated from the larger national currents. That is what you have to believe to believe the Penn poll. They have Democrats more passionate about voting than Republicans. I am skeptical.

I also notice that the Penn firm has Pomeroy ahead in North Dakota. The only competing poll is Rasmussen, which has Berg ahead of Pomeroy by ten points. Maybe Rasmussen is biased toward Republicans, but biased by ten points?

Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon have Noem up by five and two respectively. Unless Dakota really is another planet, Noem has more reason to be hopeful.

I also notice that Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight rates North Dakota as an 83% chance of a Republican victory. He has reduced the chances of a Republican victory in South Dakota from the mid-seventies to 69%. That looks about right to me.

We're now in the zone. The last bits of information trickle in, but we mostly have to wait. I will be surprised if Noem doesn't win. Not shocked, but surprised.

Comments

[William]

According to Washington Business Forward, PSB's "reputation is largely as a Democratic political polling firm, closely associated with both President Bill Clinton's administration as well as the Senate campaign of his wife Hillary.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn,_Schoen_and_Berland_Associates

[unicorn4711]

I recently viewed the Spotlight on Northern interviews with all three candidates. It was useful to get a chance to meet the candidates with an at length discussion. I am not able to understand, however, how South Dakota's next Congress person (whomever that might be) can be so dismissive of cap-and-trade. I understand concerns about energy increases, especially in a time when there is great economic uncertainty, but higher carbon prices in the US would surely be a significant benefit to the development of nascent alternative energies like wind and ethanol. Kristi Noem mentioned that cap-and-trade may increase energy costs as much as 48%. Though that figure maybe true in the short-term, the long-term benefit of energy companies building wind plants and non-carbon based sources of energy to avoid paying carbon taxes would seem to benefit Kristi's desire to see the US have more domestic sources of energy. In short, for all the talk about domestic energy production, it seems as if all three candidates are unwilling to do what it would take to create the economic climate to make make wind energy and ethanol competitive with fossil fuels.

[unicorn4711]

Or, if the cap-and-trade is offensive, why not a more straight forward pigouvian tax on GHGs? The argument that we can't afford to transition to domestic, clean energy doesn't hold when you compare what countries like Sweden are doing. They are planning to achieve fifty percent of their energy from alternative energy by 2020. Are they broke? No. They loan us money. Germany, another leader in alternative energy, is also a top exporter of goods. The more I learn about the issue the more I begin to believe that the fossil fuel industry has undue influence on our campaigns.

[William]

unicorn4711

You appear to believe it's necessary for government to create an economic climate to make wind energy and ethanol competitive with fossil fuels. I fear government manipulation of markets results in higher costs and less innovation than free markets. I believe government should enforce reasonable rules to ensure markets are competitive, we all lose when government chooses "market winners" by imposing its political will on the marketplace.

"The free market mechanism has at times worked inadequately for oil because the government and the courts have failed in their duty: they have never defined and enforced property rights in underground oil."

A couple of links you might find interesting.
http://www.masterresource.org/
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/dear-peak-oilers-zimmermanns-functional-theory/
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/koch-energy-policy-i-1977/