The recently released internal poll memo from GS Strategy Group (GSSG) on behalf of Mark Kirk for Illinois finds that Tammy Duckworth leads Mark Kirk 42.7% to 39.6%. There are several items of note when analyzing these data.
1. An incumbent U.S. Senator is not only below 40% but is trailing his challenger in his own poll. No matter what else we attempt to understand from these data, it is clear that Kirk is extremely vulnerable and he knows it.
Two other publicly released polls found similar results, although these are quite dated. An Ogden and Fry poll in June 2015 found Duckworth leading Kirk 44%-27%. A PPP poll the following month saw Duckworth ahead of Kirk 42%-36%. Even if we take all of these polls at face value, Duckworth is still besting Kirk.
2. The GSSG poll indicates that Duckworth gets just 71% of Democrats while Kirk gets 72% of Republicans and that Duckworth leads by a small margin among Independents. If we allocate the undecideds along partisan lines, then Duckworth’s lead will increase because there are more Democrats in Illinois than Republicans.
3. If we assume that both the overall vote as well as the share that both candidates get among the partisan groups is correct, the party composition of the electorate must be 18.8% Democrat, 66.8% Independent and 14.4% Republican (no need to bore you with the math). That is far out of line with previous presidential years. In the last three presidential years, exit polls show the party split in Illinois to be:
Even when Kirk narrowly won in 2010, the exit polls showed party at 44% Democrat, 24% Independent and 31% Republican. The only conceivable way to concoct a partisan structure like in the GSSG poll is to only consider the strong partisans of either party to be affiliated with that party. That does not adhere to any standard polling reporting procedure.
4. The Chicago Sun Times reported that the GSSG poll showed Kirk leading among Hispanic voters 44% to 39% and trailing among Black voters, 12% to 70%. Both would represent enormous and unlikely increases from his 2010 results. Exit polls from 2010 (a race that Kirk won) show him losing Hispanic voters 27%-63% and losing Black voters 3%-94%.
It is difficult to believe that Mark Kirk has increased his support among these constituencies by such a large margin and still trails overall. The only way that works mathematically is if the race is extremely close among White voters, a constituency Kirk dominated in 2010, 64%-31%. If Duckworth is even remotely competitive among White voters, then Kirk is far more vulnerable than it seems.
5. Other key measures of Kirk’s political strength are glaringly absent. There is no mention of his job approval or favorable rating. Perhaps that is because after more than a decade as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and another five years as a U.S. Senator, Mark Kirk has failed to create a statewide profile for himself – he is invisible to many voters.
Kirk has been noticeably absent from Illinois recently. He failed to campaign during his primary and refused to debate a completely unfunded opponent who then earned a full 29% against him.
6. Other measures of the political environment are also absent. What is the presidential match up? That is one way to measure the potential validity of these results and it is not present. Perhaps these data are absent because Kirk and his team know that they will be dragged down by the presence of any Republican nominee, especially Donald Trump—a candidate that Kirk says “if he was the nominee, I certainly would” support him.
7. Polls results should never have decimal places. A decimal implies a level of precision that a sample of 600 likely voters with a stated margin of error of ±4% cannot achieve.
The GSSG poll memo is a clear sign that Kirk is in trouble, and that his only hope is to scare voters. His internal numbers show him to be weak. Moreover, Team Kirk seems unaware of details of his weakness with Independents and White voters.
The remainder of the memo is dedicated to laying out a serious of one-sided so-called issue positons from both candidates that he wins decisively. These are not an attempt to understand public opinion, but rather an attempt to signal to third party operators that they should raise the specter of an imminent terror threat from cloaked Syrian refugees. Once venerated Republican Mark Kirk is relying on fear tactics and a rescue from the Koch Brothers’ millions to win in November—an even more sure sign that we are well positioned to defeat him in November.
Kirk can make all the BS moves he wants (meeting with SCOTUS candidates who aren’t going to get a hearing, etc.), but he is a loyal, fear-mongering member of his party and that anchor is going to take him to the bottom.
Comment by Blue Bayou Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:11 am
This polling memo should have stopped after #1.
#1 says Duckworth is leading and has been leading in other recent polls. #’s 2-7 all say this is a bad poll (but even though we’re stepping all over our message whatever you do don’t forget #1).
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:14 am
This isn’t about Duckworth. It is about an incumbent who isn’t telling us why he should be reelected. When voters have to choose between a do-nothing incumbent or the boring challenger, they will choose the challenger.
Kirk must tell us what he has done for us for our votes. He is the issue in this campaign. People are too smart to get tricked into making a decision based upon anything else.
Can the stupid
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:18 am
At least he has stopped ****** about his military service.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:19 am
Kirk’s opponent will be one of my anti-Rauner votes this Fall. Munger’s opponent will be another. A sad state of affairs for a mostly republican voter.
Comment by Markus Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:29 am
The 29% for his unknown primary opponent is telling. Kirk has lost support from the core of his base and they will desert him this fall.
Comment by 13th Ward Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:36 am
==- The Captain - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:14 am:==
The point of 2 through 7 is that even under the most favorable (and most unlikely) conditions, Kirk still can’t pull it out.
In related news, someone (probably Duckworth) was in the field last night testing message responses to this race.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:39 am
This could be as much about Rauner as it is about Kirk. Many republican districts have no way to voice their rejection of Rauner other than vote against the Republican incumbent.
Comment by Markus Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:42 am
Very early.
Comment by Niblets Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:45 am
Stick a fork in Kirk.
He’s done.
Comment by Chicago 20 Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:45 am
“The 29% for his unknown primary opponent is telling. Kirk has lost support from the core of his base and they will desert him this fall.”
Or some Republicans are fed up with Rauner and will vote against Kirk (and Munger and ??) rather than for “What’s their name?”.
Comment by Markus Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:48 am
I think Kirk is in trouble but this isn’t why. In 1994 Roeser took 25% from Edgar and he went on to win 101 counties and won in a crushing landslide. In 2006 Eisendrath took 29% from Blagojevich and he went on to win re-election by a larger margin than he won his first gubernatorial race.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:50 am
If Trump gets the nomination and Rauner hasn’t moved off of his “poison pills” by the general election it could be an absolute blood bath for the Republicans and Raunerites in Illinois this year.
Comment by Gruntled University Employee Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:50 am
It should be a bit troubling to Artl and company that Kirk is below 40%…
I take the rest of this, from both Duckworth and Kirk as white noise… today.
Lots of work for both needs to be done.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:51 am
They are both weak candidates. …each has a record that will be difficult to defend. This race will win awards for most red white and blue bunting, waving flags and old veterans used as props.
Comment by Gordon Willis Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:53 am
I can imagine the flyer with a picture of Kirk standing between Rauner and Trump. To have any chance, Kirk would have to run against his own party.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 10:58 am
I don’t understand the reason for either Duckworth’s overanalysis of that poll or Kirk’s response to Obama’s endorsement. As for Duckworth, the only thing she should have said is that Kirk’s own poll has him losing. And for Kirk, who cares about the timing of the president’s endorsement. The fact is that he will campaign for Tammy and he is very popular in Illinois.
Comment by TominChicago Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:06 am
I think most voters D’s & R’s alike feel our state is best served by the Democratic party. I think Kirk’s loss will illustrate that.
Comment by cgo75 Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:08 am
After many years in the “military” as a Washington insider who could choose his non-combat, weekend or whenever convenient assignments, Kirk retired with a good conduct medal and 42 used VFW baseball caps to extol and exploit his manhood. Now he has to hide all his old posed campaign pictures showing him in the backseat of a jet and run against a true war hero, Question is will the soon to be former Senator Kirk be writing his war memories?
Comment by Roscoe Tom Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:10 am
so duckworth’s camp response is relying on 6 year old exit polling data. #genius
Comment by Peets Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:11 am
I’ve known Kirk for over 16 years. He has always argued for bi-partisanship D.C. and the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation flap is yet another example of his stances over the years. It infuriates the extreme partisans of the GOP, but he has been infuriating them for 16 years now, whether as a congressman or a senator. Democrats accuse that behavior of recent pandering, but to do so they ignore his long history in politics.
He has never lost an election. He is an expert in winning close or tight races. In a deep blue state, Duckworth should be crushing Kirk. She isn’t, in spite of her long winded rebuttal to the new Kirk poll. She is relying on strong partisanship, which makes sense in blue state.
With both sides prepared to dump tons of cash into this race, expect a lot of noise from both sides. Who has a better finger on the pulse of Illinois will win.
In my opinion, it will be Kirk in a nail biter.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:20 am
Louis G. Atsaves N
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:28 am
At best, Kirk has about a 35% chance of winning. He won’t run on his record, he will run on a fear campaign on what could happen if Duckworth wins. An example of this is if Duckworth wins there will be many Syrian refugees and a few of them will be terrorists and kill Americans.
One other thing that doesn’t play well with the Conservative base of his party is his D rating with the NRA.
Comment by The Dude Abides Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:32 am
Louis G. Atsaves - No offense intend but PLEASE!
In 2010, a year that had incredible headwinds against Democrats in general, Kirk barely beat one of the most flawed candidates ever. Giannoulias not only had the Broadway Bank collapse, he also had the Bright Star losses that were pinned on him. Kirk only beat him by 1.5%.
Comment by TominChicago Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:37 am
Even as a yellow dog dem, I have to acknowledge this is true:
===is a critical liability as it demonstrates a record of failure and mismanagement that hurt veterans, cost taxpayers and continues to be litigated to this day.===
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:48 am
Kirk’s done. In fact, he was done the day Duckworth declared because he lost his only edge over every other Dem in their primary, his military service (even with his abhorrent fluffing of his service record).
In a general election season when Tammy will walk parades with her prosthetic limbs along side her military husband, while Kirk either doesn’t show (he often didn’t even before his stroke) or rides in a car next to (?), Kirk’s service will rightly pale by comparison (and no, I’m not denigrating Kirk’s service, such as it was. However, his direct commission to the USNR was a purely political appointment, not earned, but granted in a process that passed over candidates that had served in the various branches of the military before obtaining advanced degrees but just happened live in Republican held districts. Recall that at the time of his appointment, Kirk worked for John Porter, a member of the Military Construction and the Foreign Operations subcommittees.).
Tammy’s story eclipses Kirk’s in every way. Kirk was the child of privilege and his career is that of the path of privilege, while Tammy earned her wings (or, rotors) and presents visible evidence of the price she paid.
Congressional races in the 10th after Porter’s term don’t relate to state-wide races. His race against Alexi was one child of privilege vs another who also had some military experience. Kirk won’t be able to fluff or play on that record this round. He’ll try to run on his legislative record, which everyone knows, makes state-wide voters’ eyes glass over almost immediately. And with Rauner as governor now, any issue connecting Tammy to Blago is blunted to the dullness of an old butter knife.
Maybe the only weakness she has right now is her staff’s tendency to over-communicate. Just say that Tammy’s ahead and drop the mic. Done.
This won’t be a nail or a tirebiter, Peorgie. Tammy by 6%.
Comment by Springfieldish Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:50 am
I am still trying to get my head wrapped around the notion that Kirk’s campaign would release such a damaging poll. It doesn’t do him any good. It allows Duckworth to cherry pick Kirk’s poll for her campaign, and it won’t cost her anything.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 12:07 pm
I live in the 10th and agree that you should never underestimate Kirk but there is only one conclusion that you can reach when Kirk’s own poll has him behind and under 40%, he faces a very steep hill to climb to retain his seat. Anyone denying this obvious fact is either delusional, in denial, or simply engaging in partisanship.
Comment by slow down Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 1:15 pm
If Tammy’s camp is so confident in the poll numbers highlighting her opponent’s weaknesses, why roll out Obama’s and Biden’s endorsements immediately after?
Kirk’s poll should startle her campaign more so than Kirk’s.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 1:59 pm
@Anon 1:59
Don’t overthink it, hoss. The Presidnet’s endorsment is not, and never would be, a response to the other side’s internal poll. Lay off the House of Cards binge watching.
Comment by Matt McGrath Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 2:31 pm
=== Matt McGrath - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 2:31 pm:
@Anon 1:59
Don’t overthink it, hoss. The Presidnet’s endorsment is not, and never would be, a response to the other side’s internal poll. Lay off the House of Cards binge watching.===
You’ve made a fairly strong case that you can use a little more supervision today. Not a big fan of Kirk, never was. Actually personally like Tammy, though not supporting her candidacy. If I were Artl, I’d hope you keep spouting.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 2:38 pm
McGrath’s latest comment cited by Rich above raises a good point. Just how in the world does Kirk expect to win in a blue state, in a Presidential election year, with Trump or Cruz leading the ticket? Add to that the fact Kirk is under 40% and there just isn’t any good reason to think Kirk will win. He could run a near flawless campaign and still lose by a few points.
Comment by slow down Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 3:10 pm
I think the DSCC is trying to bury Sen. Kirk early so the national money can go somewhere else, expanding the map.
Also, I never bought Kirk as an independent. Now, if he is the 60th vote on cloture to have an up or down vote on the SCOTUS nominee, I’ll at least consider to reconsider.
Comment by late to the party Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 4:27 pm
It would be lovely if Mark Kirk and Tammy Duckworth either one- or both- could clearly articulate why they should be elected to the U.S. Senate. In my opinion Kirk has definitely lost a step or two after suffering his stroke. Tammy is, well, boring and (possibly) because she is always being pushed and framed out by mentors she is one of the most un-instinctual people I’ve ever seen vying in politics at this level.
The one sure thing is that Kirk is and will always be more independent of outside influences than Duckworth is.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 5:09 pm
Matt McGrath’s logic is as crippled as his candidate.
Comment by Closet pollster Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 5:29 pm