-None has a favorability rating higher than 34% (Kelly Ayotte)
-6 out of 10 are seen unfavorably by more voters in their state than favorably
-Two have net favorability ratios of -10 or worse (Jane Norton and Roy Blunt)
-The average favorability for the 10 is 26%, while the average unfavorability is 28%.
Why are these folks doing so well in horse race match ups when they have little personal popularity? It's because their Democratic opponents are weak and/or because Barack Obama is unpopular in their states. They are definitely doing well because of the political climate rather than their own strength as candidates and that makes their positions highly susceptible to change if there's any sort of shift in public attitudes over the next six months. There are no Mark Warners or Tom Udalls in this group who would make for tough to beat candidates in any election year (with the exception of John Hoeven who we haven't polled on because of the inevitability of his victory.)
Here are the GOP candidates from strongest to weakest:
| Candidate | State | Favorability |
| Kelly Ayotte | | +10 (34/24) |
| John Boozman | | +7 (32/25) |
| Sue Lowden | | +7 (29/22) |
| Mark Kirk | | +1 (24/23) |
| Marco Rubio | | -1 (31/32) |
| Pat Toomey | | -2 (20/22) |
| Rob Portman | | -3 (16/19) |
| Rand Paul | | -7 (28/35) |
| Jane Norton | | -10 (25/35) |
| Roy Blunt | | -16 (25/41) |
19 comments:
Tom, on the mark! Ras now has Fisher ahead of Portman, Quinnipac too.
you mean just like the new democrats will be easy-pickings in 2010 and 2012 and 2014? Such is the nature of wave elections. And 2010 will be an anti-Democrat landslide bigger than anything seen recently.
Christian Liberty, if Republicans win Congress in 2010, 2012 and 2014 will be very good years for Democrats. When Republicans try to repeal Social Security, Medicare and healthcare and pass a national sales tax, people will start to see their true colors.
Also remember that it is the Democrats who are proposing a sales tax (VAT). How are you going to blame Republicans for a Democrat idea??
Structually, the election calendar will benefit Republicans in the House in 2012 and in the Senate in 2012 and 2014.
And the American people SUPPORT repealing Obamacare. Don't forget that the majority of Americans want Obamacare REPEALED.
-"Christian Liberty"
Pretty sure polls are now showing opposition to Obamacare AND opposition to repealing Obamacare. Yes, it doesn't make sense in terms of logic, but it does make sense in terms of status quo bias.
As for landslide elections, I would like to see what happens with the job and economic numbers between now and November. If we go on a run of averaging 250K+ per month (I'm hearing speculation as to a near-500K month next month), the Democrats might have a record to run on and can use that to mitigate losses; the GOP is still unpopular as the numbers show. The Dems will still lose seats in 2010, but it's the difference between a 20 seat/3 seat loss which still gives them substantial control and a 50+/7+ seat loss (House/Senate respectively) resulting in split control of congress or even total lost.
Additionally, a 20 seat house loss basic keeps the 218th voter in the House essentially the same place; and if Harry Reid loses (and even if he doesn't), I think the Dems might try to revoke the filibuster rules starting with the next congress if they are still in control.
The Mark Warner and Tom Udall this year are John Hoeven and Mike Castle, and I suspect Moran and Tiahrt will not have bad numbers.
For the rest... Republicans have not nothing better...
Christian Liberty, what will be the next republican war for balance the budget?
Rassmussen has a somewhat different twist on how the Republican/Democratic Senatorial candidates are doing in the states that you've listed. Rasmussen reflects the "strongly favorable" versus the "strongly unfavorable" approval ratings of both Republican and Democratic candidates in each race; thereby providing a relative comparison between the two. I've also included voter choices (numbers)between those same candidates to provide a clearer picture of each race. here they are:
Missouri (on 5/3)
Blunt(16/15) 50-42 vs
Carnahan(23/27)
Colorado (on 5/3)
Norton(17/21) 48-41 vs
Bennet(20/27)
Kentucky (on 4/28)
Paul(22/14) 48-32 vs
Mongiardo(15/19)
Ohio (on 5/5)
Portman(13/6) 42-43 vs
Fisher(13/13)
Pennsylvania (on 4/12)
Toomey(18/10) 50-40 vs
Specter(16/33)
Florida (on 5/3)
Rubio(18/22) 34-17 vs
Meek(10/17)
Illinois (on 4/28)
Kirk(14/10) 46-38 vs
Giannoulias(9/28)
Nevada (on 4/27)
Lowden(15/19) 52-39 vs
Reid(47/23)
Arkansas (on 4/26)
Boozman(26/9) 57-29 vs
Lincoln(18/48)
New Hamshire (on 4/7)
Ayotte(22/5) 50-35 vs
Hodes(19/34)
Using the above numbers, the average approval rating versus unapproval rating for the Republican candidate is +5.6% and
-12.4% for the Democratic candidate. In addition, every Republican candidate listed above, won out over his/her Democratic counterpart in all 10 races, as measured by +/- percentile differentials. Interesting!
Missouri is in deep trouble with Roy Blunt. He's the GOP poster boy, although he voted for TARP and Cash for Clunkers. He's definitely a Washington insider - exactly what we DO NOT need.
He's going to lose against Carnahan - I know it in my heart. She hasn't even begun to campaign against him. He'll go down in flames with his Big Government baggage and scandals.
I will vote for principle this year. I'll vote for Chuck Purgason who has experience in the MO Senate and a very clean record.
No. Polls are very clearly showing a MAJORITY supports REPEAL and a plurality STRONGLY supports REPEAL.
America wants Obamacare REPEALED ASAP.
If you even try to deny this, you must be delusional.
"Anonymous"
As has been the case EVERY SINGLE WEEK since Obamacare was rammed through against the will of the American people, a MAJORITY recognize that the bill will be BAD for America and a MAJORITY favor REPEAL.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law
"Anonymous"
The unemployment rate INCREASED. 17.1% (according to the Department of Labor) are underemployed; 22% according to John Williams (ShadowStats.com)
Real estate is still a wreck. Prices are likely to remain depressed or dip back down. And foreclosures are likely to surge again.
The economic picture (beyond the manipulated government data) will be even worse than today. Anyone running on the Obama economic policies will risk being soundly rejected, as they should be.
The reason GOP candidates may not appear very strong is that they have not proven to be conservative enough.
What does America want? America wants their politicians and their justices to be MORE CONSERVATIVE.
For example, "Would you like to see President Obama nominate a new justice who would make the Supreme Court more liberal than it currently is, more conservative than it currently is, or who would keep it as it is now?" (Gallup -- national adults)
42% MORE CONSERVATIVE
27% more liberal
24% keep it as it is now
06% no opinion
Then consider that the likely electorate would be even more conservative than a random sample of national adults.
America is looking for CONSERVATIVE leadership.
So, using your numbers, 51% of Americans are AGAINST a more conservitive Justice.
You republicans seem to get what "you" want confused with what "America" wants.
For instance, I am American and support our new Health legislation. So it really frustrates me when I here people such as yourself say "America supports repeal".
Republicans are just wishing it was 1994 again, they should stop looking to the past for their future.
"Christian" Liberty-
Using your logic, America VOTED for 'ObamaCare' when he was elected by majority vote (they actually voted for liberal health care reform, which is what he ran on).
Additionally, though FACTS are not entirely popular with some in your party, there is a strong, positive statistical correlation showing that since WWII, Democratic presidents (a.) create 2x more jobs, (b.) experience longer cycles of economic expansion, (c.) see far fewer recessionary periods (3 vs. 14) and (d.) expand the middle class. While correlation does not prove causation, the sheer size of the sample and disparity in numbers between the two parties seems to suggest there is some relationship....
So, you think Obama isn't doing a good job with the economy? All empirical data seems to point toward Democratic presidents having a much better effect on both jobs and the economy than their Republican counter-parts. Can you imagine how much worse things would be with a Republican in office?
Rasmussen over samples republicans. That's a well known fact. Pretending his polls are the law is absurd.
Whenever there's a poll that can't be backed up with later elections (things like this poll for example) his numbers are typically way off of everybody else.
So you can accept it as faith if you want but don't expect everybody to feel the same way about what he puts out.
Answering delusional anonymous comments,
2010 will be a BIGGER landslide than 1994. You left-wing lunatics will be wishing it were only as big as 1994.
Rasmussen is one of the MOST reliable of all pollers. The reason his polls have more Republicans is because more Republicans are enthusiastic about voting for Republicans (as Gallup confirms).
Obamacare (health Scare Deform) will make healthcare WORSE in every way. Only delusional morons and corrupt villians could possibly pretend otherwise. Obamacare is a suicide pact. Anyone who voted for this suicide pact is evil and should stop inflicting their stupidity on the rest of us.
Democratic policies destroy the economy (higher taxes, more regulatory burdens, more government spending). Republican policies (more freedom) always produce better economies.
Post a Comment