Local pollster Ivan Moore has Sullivan down and Dunbar maybe up

Below is a summary from local pollster Ivan Moore’s most recent poll that shows Sen. Mark Begich up about 8 points against GOP senate candidate Dan Sullivan. Depending on what sample is used, the poll also has Rep. Don Young beating Forrest Dunbar by 2 percentage points, or losing to him by about 6 percentage points. Moore’s polls are at odds with other recent polls. Moore does polling for a number of different clients; however, he’s most well known for polling for unions. He declined to say who paid for this one, but did say that it wasn’t paid for by a candidate, a candidate PAC or independent group. “Just a regular run of the mill private client,” he said.  Here’s the summary:

Poll results!!!

600 sample of registered voters, fielded Friday 24th – Sunday 26th. MOE +/- 4%.

There are two likely voter subgroups for this survey, one fairly loose (544 sample), and one tighter (330 sample). I’m giving results for both screens for transparency. Suffice to say, the 544 sample suggests a 90% turnout, which is highly unlikely, even this year… while the 330 suggests a 55% turnout, which is historically very close to reality. Also the age distribution of the 330 sample is exactly what you would see if you combined Alaska census data for age with average turnouts by age group. In other words, the 544 gives us good sample size in our view of the electorate, the 330 is the closer modeling of turnout on election day:


544 sample: Begich (D) 48.3% Sullivan (R) 41.6% Other 6.5% Undecided 3.6%
330 sample: Begich (D) 50.1% Sullivan (R) 42.2% Other 5.3% Undecided 2.4%


544 sample: Dunbar (D) 42.6% Young (R) 44.4% McDermott (L) 9.5% Undecided 3.5%
330 sample: Dunbar (D) 46.1% Young (R) 40.6% McDermott (L) 9.6% Undecided 3.7%


18 thoughts on “Local pollster Ivan Moore has Sullivan down and Dunbar maybe up

  1. poyman

    Sorry Ivan… Doesn’t pass the smell test… Begitch is going down by 8 points or better…

    I’m surprised that RCP even considered your biased presentation that you called a poll… You should probably just stick with your partisan politics and leave the semi-objective stuff (like polling) to the pros.

  2. Anonymous

    It’s like shooting dumb fish in a barrel, this.

    The Miller/McAdams/Murkowski survey was fielded in September 2010, BEFORE Lisa had decided to run a write-in. I was the first pollster to ask the question properly (in my opinion), with two scenarios, the second of which you conveniently ignore.

    First question: If the 2010 General election for U.S. Senate was held today, and the candidates were ____________ (READ LIST), for whom would you vote for U.S. Senate? The names read were just Miller, McAdams and Haase (the Libertarian). No Murkowski. Respondents had to volunteer Murkowski’s name without any prompting. That’s the 18% result you quote above… not bad considering she hadn’t even started teaching people how to “spell her name”.

    Second question: If Lisa Murkowski ran a write-in campaign for U.S. Senate, would your vote stay the same, or would you write in Lisa Murkowski?

    Results were combined with the first set to produce the following result:

    Murkowski 43%
    Miller 36%
    McAdams 14%
    Haase 2%
    Undecided 5%

    Oh dear for you. The final results, six weeks later were Murkowski 40%, Miller 35%, McAdams 23%.

    I seem to remember the newly minted king of political poll analysis, Nate Silver, even credited me at the time with a “novel approach” to measuring the write-in.

    So, I’m sorry, I’m not even going to address your second point. It’s not worth my time. I’m going to get into the hot tub instead. It’s such a nice night.

  3. joe blow


    Miller 43%
    McAdams 28%
    Murkowski 18%


    Democratic former governor Knowles polled 46.1 percent in a general election race against Murkowski, who came in a close second with 43.9 percent. But with a 2 percent to 4 percent margin of error, the election still is anyone’s game, Moore said.

  4. Ivan Moore

    This post is the usual kind of uninformed claptrap that people who are politically motivated have been putting out for years. Why don’t you trot out the poll I released that showed Ulmer in the lead as evidence of my uselessness… oh wait, the poll that was done in SEPTEMBER of 2002. The reality is, I was polling nightly throughout the final two weeks of the election. About a week out, the bottom dropped out for Ulmer, as people across the state swallowed Franks Don’t Worry, Be Happy message. I was contracted to Ulmer’s campaign, and like a good soldier, let nothing of what I knew slip to anyone. Being loyal to my candidate was important to me. No predictions were made. All I ever did was wear an unrealistically optimistic demeanor in the final days.

    As for Berkowitz, he’s a friend of mine. I polled on his races, like I poll on all races, but I didn’t work on either of his statewide bids, let alone act as the political brains behind them.

    You seriously do know nothing. Certainly, you know nothing about who I am and what I do. Just the usual political smack talk.

  5. CPG49

    Isn’t Ivan Moore the pollster who 2 days before the Murkowski – Ulmer governor’s race the one who was predicting an Ulmer victory? Yes, it was.
    Well, Murkowski won in a landslide. Enough said about Ivan’s incompetence. Wait, I can’t help myself! He also was the political brains behind Ethan Berkowitz’s statewide bids. Ok, nuff said.

  6. John Q. Public

    Yesterday he said it was because he had a different client for the governor’s race, and had not obtained permission to release the results as he had in the Senate race.

  7. Anonymous

    Inquiring minds would like to know why Ivan hasn’t released the gubernatorial numbers…..has Walker slipped?

  8. Northern Observer

    Ivan Moore is wrong more times than not. Also, I find it incredibly interesting how “his” favorite candidates fair well in his polls.
    This methodology must have been developed in a proprietary manner in some British pub far off the beaten path as it appears not to be utilized by the main stream pollsters who have good reputations.

  9. Anonymous

    He might be right about Begich (for once), but Dunbar? Don Young needs to retire for sure, but Dunbar will blown out of the water.

Comments are closed.