Those who follow politics all hear the stories about a campaign’s internal polls, reputedly far more accurate that those the various (and sundry) polling agencies release to the media. Sometimes, they take on the status of legend as those supposedly showing softness among Obama voters in 2008, with many likely to switch to McCain in the privacy of the voting booth.
And sometimes we wonder if they even exist, that they are really just a talking point for the campaigns to hint at a different sort of electorate that we hear about on the news, read about in the papers or on the blogs. Some of us with contacts on campaigns try to wheedle that information out, but those polls are guarded as holy secrets, to be shared only among the most devoted followers.
All that said, from time to time, you did get an idea what some of these polls are saying. If a party’s Senatorial campaign committee suddenly pumps a few million dollars into a state which normally supports its candidates, you can bet their internals show their candidate losing support. And if another such committee pumps money into a state that’s not normally friendly territory to its candidates, you can bet its nominee is picking up steam.
If a Democratic candidate sounds plaintive while the media bend over backwards to smear his Republican rival, you can bet his internals don’t look good. And if another Democrat darkly attempts to divert attention to social issues, you know his economic message is not winning over voters.
This suggests internal polling shows tight Senate races in Connecticut and California and Republican-leaning electorates in Nevada and Colorado.
You can help make the California race a little more amenable to a real reformer by backing her campaign.