Peter Schorsch
I respect Matt Isbell, the Democratic consultant best known for constructing data-driven political maps.
I enjoy his smarts and I especially enjoy his pluck. It’s not easy being a Dem operative in the Sunshine State. I respect and enjoy Isbell so much that on multiple occasions Florida Politics has published his work. I wish we published more of his work, in fact, so that with our broader platform, more people were able to read what about what he’s thinking.
However, in his most recent deep-dive — in which he argues “the map (of Florida Senate districts) is now expanded far enough where the path to a Senate majority becomes much more clear” — Isbell could not be more wrong. Perhaps irresponsibly wrong.
Isbell is so wrong that instead of shading the maps that accompany his analysis in blue and red, he should have colored them brown because, well, you get the picture.
Isabel’s not going to like what I write here. I got a preview yesterday on Twitter of what happens when you question his analysis. But it must be challenged.
For Democrats’ sake.
For Republicans’ sake.
The thrust of Isbell’s “Updated State Senate Rankings” is “that the State Senate map is growing as Election Day draws closer.” But the timing which underlies this supposed expansion is only my first issue with Isbell’s analysis. That’s because he’s updating rankings he established at the beginning of the cycle. A lot has happened since he first published his rankings. The chances of the Democrats have ebbed and flowed several times since then, as Florida Politics has reported on multiple occasions.
In fact, it was our reporting in March which first and clearly identified the real map the Democrats were working with headed into the meat of the election cycle.
But reading Isbell’s post, it feels as if Rip Vin Winkle has woken up and discovered that SD 22 or SD 24 might be in play.
The reality is those seats weren’t in play, then they were in play, but now are no longer really in play.
Just as the chances of the Democrats taking the Senate were non-existent at the beginning of the cycle, became a possibility at the start of candidate qualifying, but are not very strong headed into the final two weeks of the election.
Contrary to what Isbell suggests, the map is not expanding. It’s contracting.
And that’s the crux of why Isbell’s analysis, blaring from the top of Florida Playbook, is so dangerous.
“Matt just f*cking killed us,” said one Democratic consultant working in one of the genuine toss-up races. “We need every dollar we can get and this bulls*it report will force Senate Victory to going back and doling out the money ‘duck, duck, goose’ style.”
That consultant is right. Instead of the Democrats focusing on winning SD 16 (Amanda Murphy vs. Ed Hooper), SD 18 (Janet Cruz vs. Dana Young), and SD 36 (David Perez vs. Manny Diaz) — and reducing the GOP’s majority to 21-19 in the chamber, Isbell could gin up enough people into believing Democrats have a legitimate shot at shooting the moon.
The Democrats do have a straight path to 20-20, especially because of the situation in SD 14, but only if they win that seat and focus on winning just the three true toss-ups listed above.
But the Democrats could also come away empty-handed if they buy into what Isbell’s selling about an expanded map.
One place I have to agree with Isbell about is SD 14 and his decision to move it from “Safe GOP” to “Lean GOP.” This is the seat where Tom Wright, a Volusia County businessman, has replaced the late Sen. Dorothy Hukill as the Republican nominee. District 14 includes southern Volusia County and northern Brevard County. Hukill, a longtime lawmaker from Port Orange, faced only an unaffiliated candidate in winning the seat in 2016.
There’s no way to know how voters will react to Wright’s last-minute candidacy. Isbell believes that the selection of Wright, who has promised to self-fund his campaign, and the airing of negative ads against Mel Martin, the Democrat running for the seat, is an indication of the GOP being “nervous.” He’s probably not wrong.
But where Isbell is wrong is in several other places.
First of all, Senate District 8 should no longer be considered a toss-up, as Isbell contends. This is because Democratic nominee Kayser Enneking has trailed incumbent Republican by double-digits for in two separate polls taken a month apart. The most recent poll showed Perry up 49 to 39 over Enneking, who is losing part of her base to unaffiliated candidate Charles Goston, a former Gainesville City Commissioner.
Perry’s lead stems from his strong support among the Republican base compared to Enneking’s weaker support among SD 8 Democrats: Perry holds an 83-10 percent lead among GOP voters, while Enneking holds a 67-17 percent lead among registered Dems.
Isbell bases his assessment on SD 8 on Perry having a “narrow lead” in the polls with a ceiling “in the low 40s.” Because Isbell does not offer any data to support this, I’m not sure what he’s basing it on. Perry certainly cracked “the low 40s” in his 2016 campaign against Rod Smith, who is arguably the best known Democratic pol in the Alachua County-based district.
I’m not saying Enneking can’t win, but I am saying this race is not a toss-up. It should be viewed as, at least, a “Lean GOP” seat. And resource decisions should follow that guidance.
Senate District 22 is another seat in which the Democrats started the cycle with little hope of winning, then saw their chances improve, but now have a narrow path to victory. Like SD 8, the map expanded then contracted, contrary to Isbell’s analysis, which cites “internal polls” that “show a tied race” between Republican incumbent Kelli Stargel and Democrat Bob Doyle.
I am not going to doubt Isbell saw an internal poll that showed the race tied, as Florida Politics reported on polling conducted during the late Summer that showed Doyle either leading or tied with Stargel. But that was then and this is now. Two polls taken a month apart show Stargel with a commanding lead over Doyle. Accordingly, it’s simply ridiculous to rank this seat, as Isbell does, a “Toss-up.” It belongs in the “Likely GOP” category and resource decisions should, again, follow that guidance.
A third seat in which Isbell upgraded the Democrats chances is SD 24, where incumbent Jeff Brandes (a friend and client of mine) is so far ahead in fundraising and polling that even the liberal editorial board of the Tampa Bay Times did not waste its endorsement on his opponent, environmentalist Lindsey Cross.
I’ve been working in this district since I began my career in political consulting. I know this seat like the back of my hand. I can probably tell you how many yard signs are up on such-and-such street. I’m telling you there is little chance Cross will upset Brandes. If that happens, the blue wave will be so tall it will wash out almost every Republican in office.
In his post, Isbell cites a St. Pete Polls survey in which Brandes has a twenty-point lead, but is only at 39 percent. This is cherry-picking the data and I’m surprised Isbell would do such a thing. He’s not taking into account an October St. Pete Polls survey that found the lawmaker with an 11-point lead over Cross, 52-41 percent with the remaining 7 percent of voters in the Pinellas County district unsure how they’ll vote come November.
As for SDs 23 and 25, if you want to believe the Democrats’ chances of defeating Joe Gruters are improving, be my guest.
(For what it’s worth, I am also unclear why Isbell would discount the numbers from St. Pete Polls’s surveys since they were the most accurate forecaster during the primary election. Conversely, Isbell puts too much stock in Change Research, which, as Florida Politics reported, has had all sorts of problems polling down-ballot races in Florida, although it was the only pollster that had Andrew Gillum winning the Democratic gubernatorial primary. Then again, Team Gillum did fund that poll).
Offline, I asked Isbell how he could possibly upgrade the Democrats’ chances of winning these seats.
“I honestly feel the public polls are wrong,” he replied.
Isbell is certainly entitled to his opinion. And he’s free to point to other evidence, empirical or anecdotal, to make his case. But Isbell is a data guy. Actually, that doesn’t do him justice. He is THE data guy for the Florida Democrats. On a professional level, he can’t base his analysis on how he ‘feels.’
What is probably worst about all of this is that Isbell’s analysis led off Tuesday edition of Florida Playbook. So there will be some (especially those silly people who only read Playbook and not Playbook + Sunburn or just Sunburn) who will really believe there is an expanded map for Florida Senate Democrats. Isbell’s analysis will create a false narrative in some circles that six or seven or eight districts are in play, when, at best it’s four or five are and, probably, it’s just two or three.
Every dollar that flows into SD 8 because of Isbell’s analysis is one dollar less than what is being spent on behalf of Janet Cruz.
Every dollar that flows into SD 22 because of Isbell’s analysis is one dollar less than what is being spent on Amanda Murphy.
Every dollar that is spent on longshot races like winning SD 23 is one dollar less than what is being spent on toss-ups.
Florida Democrats would do well to, just this one time, to ignore what Matt Isbell has to say.
