« Destination Education Tour with Hector Balderas | Main | Dear Congressional District 1 Candidates »

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Congressional District 1 Race Latest Poll Results

Wow, what an interesting race for our New Mexico Congressional District 1. The race reminds me of a great horse race with the all out sprint to the finish line. However, let's face it, the correct analogy would be a one year marathon. We are down to the last 13 days today, and the most current poll shows a total shift of all positions in this hot race.

NM-1 breaking news in ROLL CALL according to the latest polling, Senator Eric Griego is in the lead with 35% of likely Democratic Primary voters in the race for NM's 1st Congressional District.  Here are the brand new poll numbers the story mentions:

**NEW** May 15-16 poll showed:
35% Griego
30% Lujan Grisham
28% Chavez

Feb 28 - March 1 poll showed:
37% Chavez
30% Griego
24% Lujan Grisham

The polling also revealed Griego has the highest favorable to unfavorable rating of the three candidates:
48-16 for Eric Griego
44-18 for Michelle Lujan Grisham
41-35 for Marty Chavez

(Details: Both were conducted by GBA strategies and included 400 Likely Democratic Primary Voters, MOE +/- 4.9%)

The following was released from the Griego Campaign:

“I’m proud of the surging support behind my campaign to fight for what we say we believe as Democrats,” Griego said.  “Our lead in the poll proves that New Mexicans want to elect a leader with a long, consistent record of taking on the status quo and powerful corporate interests to fight for reform and middle class jobs.”
“We’re winning because New Mexicans support Eric’s unwavering commitment to protect Social Security and Medicare, hold Wall Street bankers accountable, and fight for core Democratic values,” said Ed Yoon, Griego’s campaign manager.  “And we will win on June 5th because we are out-raising, out-communicating, and out-organizing our more conservative opponents.”

Then there is this poll released on NM Politics with Joe Monahan's blog this morning: Lujan Grisham polls 34.7%, Griego garners 33.9%, Chavez comes with 22.3% and 9% of the 728 likely Democratic voters in the 1st Congressional district who responded to the automatic phone poll said they were undecided. The margin of error in the survey is 3.62%.

This press release issued from Lujan Grisham Campaign:  

"Michelle has seized the momentum and is now tied for the lead in the race for Congress! Michelle has 35 percent of the vote, surging 11 points from February polling. She is tied with Eric Griego. Support for Marty Chavez, the former frontrunner earlier this year, has plummeted significantly, from 37 percent in February to 23 percent now."

Some of the interesting polling statistics that Joe Monahan shares with us on his blog are the following:

"Lujan Grisham, who has made direct appeals to women voters, actually trails Griego in that category, if only by a tad. Griego wins 37% of women to Lujan Grisham's 33%. Chavez gets 22%. But Griego gets 43% of liberals to Lujan Grisham's 34% and Chavez's 18%.
Democratic women are more liberal than Democratic men who tend to be more moderate.
Among men, Lujan Grisham edges out Griego. She gets 37% to Griego's 31%. Chavez gets 23% and the remainder are undecided,
Griego holds a slight lead among Hispanics, but they are bunched up among the three hopefuls all of whom are of Hispanic heritage. Griego scores 35%, Lujan Grisham 29% and Chavez 28%. Anglos give Lujan Grisham 39%, Griego, 34% and Chavez 18%." 

May 23, 2012 at 01:57 PM in Candidates & Races, Eric Griego, Martin Chavez, Michelle Lujan Grisham, NM-01 Congressional Race 2012, Polling | Permalink


Was this post written by the Griego campaign? His is the oldest poll of the four out there so his numbers are most likely to be off…Why not list out Marty and Michelle's polls like you did Eric's? How can anyone objectively come to this site anymore when we get hack job posts like this?

Posted by: Susan | May 23, 2012 2:57:18 PM

After looking at the polls released in the last two days and campaign activity, we can see who is releasing real numbers and who is in danger. Lujan Grisham was the first to release internal polling. This forced the other two campaigns to respond with their own numbers. Monahan also released the most recent poll he conducted independent of the campaigns. Lujan Grisham's numbers are very close to Monhan's numbers for all three candidates.

Lujan Grisham's vs Monahan's:
Lujan Grisham 35% vs 34.7% (spread of +0.3),
Griego 35% vs 33.9% (spread of +1.1%)
Chavez 23% vs 22.3% (spread of +.7).

Griego's vs Monahan's:
Lujan Grisham 30% vs 34.7 (spread of -4.7)
Griego 35% vs 34.7% (spread of +0.3%)
Chavez 28% vs 22.3% (spread of +4.7%).

Grisham is not only closer, but she did not release numbers that put her in the lead. It is easy to see who is releasing accurate data.

Additional information also leads me to believe the numbers released by Griego are not accurate and his campaign knows they are wrong. He started to attack the front runner with paid media. Front runners are never the first campaign to go negative. Griego went negative, so he must know something he is not willing to share. Is he distorting Lujan Grisham's record because she has momentum and is leading in the polls?

Read about the paid attack. http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/05/attack-on-grisham-solidifies-my-support-for-her/

Posted by: Susan | May 23, 2012 3:14:37 PM

These CD1 congressional campaigns are, if nothing else, entertaining!

The lights in the studios at KOAT hadn't even started to cool off Saturday night when I received three emails, one from each of the campaigns, claiming that their candidate was "the clear winner". Sorry, but if there was a "winner" at all it wasn't really "clear" to me who it was. Personally I thought Michelle had done the best, but it wasn't a "clear" win. It was more of a "win-by-a-nose" sort of win. Analysis the next day by pundits and political pros seemed to agree with my assessment.

Now we get these polls! Michelle released a poll, with attribution to the polling organization that had conducted it, that showed her essentially tied with Eric and Marty lagging far behind. Almost exactly 3 hours later I got an email from Eric's campaign touting a different poll, without any attribution to any outside organization like Michelle's had, that showed him with a fairly significant lead over Michelle.

Sorry Eric, but that poll looked like a set of numbers ginned up by somebody in-house, without any real polling actually having been done, just to be able to spin the campaign to look like they're succeeding. Monahan's truly independent poll seems to confirm Michelle's numbers. Eric appears to be slipping, and fabricating positive numbers when they don't exist is the sign of a campaign headed for the rocks.

Posted by: Sandi | May 23, 2012 4:17:19 PM

Excuse me, Susan, but Eric Griego has not gone negative. Some super-PAC did, and if you ask me it's about damn time. Michelle is spinning her record as a bureaucrat so hard it should be on the floor puking its guts out. In any case, candidates do not have control over PACs. Just ask Sheryl Williams-Stapleton. Candidates are not permitted to coordinate with PACs, per federal law.

If Eric were going negative, he would have asked her a question during the debate about why the Department of Justice sued her over the appalling conditions at the Ft. Bayard nursing home. He would have asked her why she went along with Gary Johnson's cuts to essential services and privatizing nursing homes. He would have asked her why she sent out a mailer using a picture of NARAL protesters when that group has not endorsed her. Believe me, there's plenty of dirt on Michelle, and if she is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will have a field day with her.

I haven't seen the Progress Kick mailer (which is curious, since I've received almost everything else), but it's curious that Diane Denish neither mentions the substance of the attack nor defends Michelle's record in any specific way. It simply conflates Eric and the unknown "Progress Kick" PAC, blames Eric for attacking Michelle as if she were Simon pure, and repeats the [refuted] campaign line that Eric has been ineffective as a legislator.

I think trying to decide which poll is "correct" is useless. We will know who wins on election day, and not before. Savvy users of statistical data, like Nate Silver of the NY Times, say that polling aggregates are more accurate than any single poll, even when you include polls which seem way off base. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

An aggregate of all the released polls indicates that the race is extremely close. Using polling data to suggest that Michelle (or Marty or Eric) is "winning" is foolish.

Internal polls are used to create a favorable impression for the candidate. Other candidates release their polls to blunt that impression. You're obviously support Michelle as strongly as I support Eric. I respect that. However, every time you try to blow smoke up my ass I'm going to call you on it. Count on it.

Posted by: Proud Democrat | May 23, 2012 6:07:17 PM

Wow proud Democrat,

I thought Democrats were opposed to Super PACs.

I cannot believe Griego supporters welcome Super PACs into a Democratic primary. I do not believe most Griego supporters believe as you do.

If Griego really believes money needs to be removed from politics, he should call on the Super PAC to stop the dirty attacks with unlimited campaign contributions. If he does not call on them to stop, his repeated demands for campaign finance reform are nothing but words.

Senator Griego, you have the opportunity to do the right thing. Please publicly denounce the dirty political attacks with Super PAC money.

Posted by: Susan | May 23, 2012 7:50:04 PM

Susan, practical politicians of both parties play by the rules in place at the time of the elections. You are asking Eric Griego to unilaterally disarm. That would be foolish.

The US Supreme Court welcomed Super PACs into the CD-1 race, not Eric Griego. Eric Griego is the only candidate in this race who has attacked corporate personhood and made reversing Citizens United a priority. Until the Supreme Court reverses itself or the Constitution is amended, Super PACs are here to stay, and candidates can't control them.

Even President Obama has a Super PAC. No candidate can afford to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules. If you believe that Michelle Lujan Grisham or Marty Chavez are not using every advantage available to them, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. They've both told some whoppers. To his credit, Eric Griego has been completely truthful. That's one of the reasons I support him, and not Marty or Michelle.

Moreover, the attacks in question are not dirty. They are truthful! Michelle Lujan Grisham did fire a nationally-respected infection control expert under dubious circumstances, and she was widely criticized for it at the time. She said that the expert didn't do a good enough job filing paperwork, or some such twaddle. I don't think it's as big a deal as Michelle's inept handling of the Ft. Bayard nursing home scandal, where people died in agony because of inept management, but it does show her history of being an autocratic manager.

Finally, Susan, why don't you respond to my actual points, instead of changing the subject every time I refute you? Is it because you're afraid of an honest debate, or because it's easier to take anonymous potshots at Eric Griego than to stand by your words? Anybody can find out who I am. Just follow the link. Nobody knows who you are, and until you disclose your identity you're just another intellectually dishonest troll as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Proud Democrat | May 23, 2012 8:46:51 PM

@ Proud Democrat: Perhaps Eric didn't mention the Ft. Bayard lawsuit because he was aware of the facts: 1) That the conditions at Ft. Bayard that led to the suit preceded Ms. Grisham's tenure as Secretary of Health; 2) That prior to the formal filing of the suit against the state the Department of Justice had commended her for her extreme cooperation in the six-month investigation of the conditions; 3) That after the suit was formally filed it took her four whole days to settle it by implementing a plan, based on that six-month investigation, to correct the deficiencies; and 4) That the Department of Justice commended her a second time for her hard work in expiditing the agreed-upon corrections. If that's sort of "plenty of dirt on Michelle" the Republicans will bring up, then Michelle's in good shape for the general election. All that dirt would fit into the same sized container as Eric's real record - a thimble.

I'll agree that Eric is more progressive than Michelle, and I love him for it. But sometimes reality sucks, and the reality of CD1 for the November general election is that it's basically a moderate district. About 25% of the voters in CD1 (the far left 25%) will vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is. About 25% (the far right 25%) will vote for the Republican no matter who the nominee is. The trick to winning is to appeal to the 50% in the middle. Eric has denounced them, ridiculed them and alienated them in every way possible with his outspoken comments to secure the 25% far left voters into his camp. He's made it impossible for most of the moderates and independents to embrace him. Janice Arnold Jones will get the lion's share of that middle 50% if Eric is the nominee. She's already courting them - even the ones with a (D) in their registrations - as we sit here talking about polls of Democrats.

Posted by: Sandi | May 23, 2012 9:35:30 PM

@Sandi: I've seen the memo. The DoJ commended Michelle only for not impeding their investigation, and for implementing DoJ's recommendations. Then they sued her for violating the residents' civil rights in her official capacity. They did not commend her for "cleaning up" Ft. Bayard herself, as she implies in her mailer.

If MLJ is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will be all over this. I can see the ads now in my minds eye... MLG killed my granny and withheld her pain meds!

You are absolutely wrong about the makeup of CD-1 voters; you pulled those numbers out of your hat. NM-1 is a Democratic-leaning district.

Janice Arnold-Jones is an extremely weak candidate. Any Dem will probably win in November, even Marty, so vote for the candidate you actually prefer.

Finally, Sandi, I challenge you, Susan, Terri, and any other MLG supporter to provide a link to your true identities, if you're not actually the sockpuppet I think you are.

Posted by: Proud Democrat | May 23, 2012 10:03:15 PM

The reason Eric is not attacking Michelle is that it is poor strategy to attack from the front. The reason Marty is attacking Eric is that he is losing badly, and he needs to shake things up. Don't take my word for it; ask any political professional.

Posted by: Proud Democrat | May 23, 2012 10:08:02 PM

Stop the bitching and GOTV for your candidate.

And if anyone is pissed with the $$ in politics, commit yourself to support Councilor Garduno who will be introducing a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment.

Posted by: Lora Lucero | May 23, 2012 10:29:45 PM

@ Proud Democrat: I believe the words "We particularly appreciated the assistance of Secretary Michell Lujan Grisham" go a bit beyond your interpretation of "not impeding their investigation". That is, unless the definition of "assistance" has changed recently. Republicans won't get much mileage out of "Granny died" charges considering the fact that the deficiencies causing those deaths preceded Michelle's tenure and she was the one who fixed them.

As far as the makeup of the district goes, if we're such a "Democrat-leaning district", how come we've only won the seat twice? Martin won in 2008 beating a barely literate shaved ape, and then managed a very slim (especially for an incumbent) 3.16% margin of victory for re-election in 2010 over a largely unknown and underfunded candidate. Prior to 2008 it was ALL Republicans representing us in Congress going back decades.

And if I had a web site to link to, like you do, I might. But I don't, so I won't.

Posted by: Sandi | May 23, 2012 10:34:32 PM