'06 SEN Polling update (6/29): Nelson up in FL, Webb down, Stabenow up

[TheVirginian]

The "tragic" fall of Katherine Harris continues in Florida as Katherine Harris is now projected to be down an astonishing 35 points to Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson. More interesting numbers out of Florida: Harris is almost guaranteed a win in the primary, as she has a 37-point lead on her nearest challenger, who happens to share the name of a notable former Florida politician. And a whopping 71% of respondents say that they are unsatisfied with the selection of GOP nominees for Senate. Bill Nelson's favorables are only at 48%, but his unfavorables are low at 14%. Meanwhile, that's almost reversed for Harris, who is viewed favorably by a mere 20% and unfavorable by a huge 58%.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/florida_poll_062806.htm

In Virginia, there have been three polls taken on the Senate race since the June 13th Primary where Jim Webb defeated Harris Miller for the right to take on Republican incumbent George Allen. The first, by Rasmussen, showed Webb down by only ten points, a decent sized bump following his primary victory. Other Rasmussen polls showed Webb down by around 15 points. The second poll, by Zogby, showed Webb down by only five points, only a slight narrowing from the pre-primary poll by Zogby done in March that had Webb down by 7, but a lot closer than any other poll was willing to give him. Today, however, SurveyUSA released a poll in Virginia that showed George Allen with a very comfortable 17-point lead, 56%-37%. Which of these polls is most accurate? Its hard to say, but generally speaking most people view the Rasmussen poll as the most on target.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=a1219515-4434-4f7b-b3fb-f02ae3cb0dfc&q=29152
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1134
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/virginiasenate061606.htm

Finally, a poll released last week by Strategic Vision shows a narrowing in the Senate race in Michigan, which only makes sense given that Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow has been hovering at a 50% approval rating for the last couple of years. Strategic Vision shows Debbie at a 48% approval rating, which is consistent, and also helps explain why Sheriff Michael Bouchard, the strongest GOP challenger, is within 13 points of her, 50%-37%. Bouchard's numbers have been steadily rising since he announced his intentions in February, and has since snatched up the majority of Republican endorsements as well as decent fundraising. As the race gets closer to November, expect these numbers to narrow even further, but barring any major disaster, Stabenow will stay on top, probably with a five-point margin come Election Day.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_062106.htm

[acmavm]

1. Didn't Katherine Harris's announcement about the dems in

Washington wanting her to win help? Or is it too soon to tell?

:sarcasm:

[TheVirginian]

2. Truth be told, no one cares about the FL race anymore.

As soon as it was sure that Katherine Harris was the nominee, the race went from an interest-generating possible-GOP-pickup to a third-tier race where the only excitement is guessing whether Nelson gets above or below 60% of the vote.

In February, this was one of the hottest races to watch. Now it ranks up there with Delaware, Massachusetts, and Mississippi.

[Supersedeas]

3. Stabenow must retain this seat

[Awsi Dooger]

4. The number that continually amazes me in the StrategicVision polls

Is percentage of people who expect another terrorist attack within the United States within the next 6 months. The yes is astonishingly high, 71% in the last few states I've looked at.

Does anyone realize how scary that is? No wonder Bush and Rove get away with playing to fear. The betting favorite would be no. Any knowledge of history and applied logic would make no a massive percentage to be true, especially within a narrow and specific window of six months. But the public thinks yes in big numbers. Frankly, looking at that number I'm shocked the administration doesn't make a bigger deal of that, no subsequent attacks on US soil in nearly five years. They certainly embrace all the other misleading or invented bullshit.

Also, from the Michigan poll the right track/wrong track number for the state is very high, only 27% right track. Not good news for Granholm. She may be in more trouble than I thought. In 2002 the incumbent govs with that type of unrest in the state were booted.

[Awsi Dooger]

5. Another new StrategicVision poll: Cantwell leads 47-43 in WA

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_063006.htm

Otherwise, not great numbers including Gregoire losing to Rossi 51-39 in a hypothetical '08 rematch.

And there's a 72% number, people expecting a homeland terrorist attack within 6 months. Only 10% say no and 18% undecided. 9/11 may impact the 2006 vote more than I anticipated.

[TheVirginian]

6. Maybe that's why Cantwell is sticking to her Iraq policy?

So as to not appear weak on national defense when 71% of Washingtonians fear a terrorist attack in the next six months?

[Awsi Dooger]

7. That must be it

I just sampled all the Strategic Vision polls and that terrorist attack number doesn't vary at all. I think it was 71-74% yes in every state. Incredible.

9/11 put us at a disadvantage in federal races but I thought that would wane this year. Shouldn't impact the gov races, so I hope DUers appreciate and priorotize those results. We'll no doubt get a heavy dose of fear tactics again this year and that might be enough in some red states.

However, we have damn impressive senate candidates this time. I finally saw Tester last weekend in that debate and he's a big, amiable, smart, well-spoken guy. Even Burns seemed to realize he couldn't attack Tester without coming across poorly.

[TheVirginian]

8. Yeah, the DSCC surely out-recruited the NRSC this year

McCaskill in Missouri, Webb in Virginia, Brown in Ohio, Tester in Montana, Ford, Cardin, Casey, Pederson, Klobluchar. Schumer knew what he wanted and set out to get it.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have some good candidates in McGavick, Steele, Ricketts, Corker, and Kean, but the lack of a viable candidate in Florida, Michigan, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are very large errors. And by not getting Jim Hoeven to run in North Dakota... that, I think, was a defining factor in shaping the races this year.

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Yeah, Rove has been turned down a few times in '04 and '06

I'm in Nevada and he wanted Jim Gibbons to challenge Reid in '04. But Gibbons' wife preferred the '06 gov race so it was a walkover. This year not only Hoeven but also Tommy Thompson didn't run. Plus he gets stuck with Katherine Harris, which I'm not-so-secretly hoping will have an impact on GOP turnout and therefore the gov race. Too bad Jeb has high approval numbers in Florida and Crist will no doubt try to piggyback.

[TheVirginian]

12. He also didn't get Capito in WV or Rossi in WA.

If Liddy Dole and Karl Rove had been able to recruit Rossi, Thompson, or Hoeven, and a strong candidate in Florida, then that would have been a GOP pick-up virtually in the bag, which would have made a Democratic pick-up virtually impossible.

Like I said, the Hoeven decision really I think set the tone from Republicans on the offensive to on the defensive. They're defending eight seats and only really attacking five, and one of those (Michigan) is a pretty weak attack. If they had been able to get Hoeven, it would have done wonders for the perception that the GOP is still in control. Now all everyone can talk about is how much they will lose.

[snowbear]

10. Virginian... which side of the isle are you on anyway?

...if you don't think Jon Tester is an INCREDIBLE CANDIDATE...

...if you don't think Bob Casey is royally kicking some InSANEitorum ass....

....if you think weasely Kean (after he got his ass handed to him in the debate the other night) is better than Menendez....

...and FINALLY- if you don't think Sherrod Brown is better than one of the most CORRUPT Senators in the United States...



I'm seriously wondering which side of the isle you're on? Seriously.. You just complimented some of the most pathetic Republicans in the nation.

[TheVirginian]

11. When it comes to watching elections, I like to be as objective as possible

Where did I say that they weren't good candidates? In fact, the entire point of my post was congratulating the DSCC on doing a damn fine job of finding strong candidates. Didn't I specifically mention Brown and Tester?

However, I am a student of politics and I love politics and campaigns, and my personal ideology isn't going to prevent me from recognizing good political skills when they're clearly evident. Mike McGavick is a strong candidate. Michael Steele is a strong candidate. You can deny this if you wish, but I fail to see the logic or the benefit in that.

I think Tester is great, and I think the DSCC is counting their lucky stars that he won the primary instead of Morrison. I think Casey is a bit too moderate, as any Pennsylvania Democrat could have clearly defeated Santorum, who is most definately on his way out.

I think Kean is a strong candidate with a strong record, and while I'm behind Menendez, I recognize the reality of the situation that he's been in office for less than a year and has ties to corrupt New Jersey officials (what NJ Democrat doesn't?). I think that Brown is a strong candidate, if somewhat liberal in a battleground state, but I don't think Mike DeWine is corrupt simply because he's an Ohio Republican.

If you're wondering which side of the aisle I'm on, I'm on the side that favors reality and calling a spade a spade. In the end, its the people like me that are actually able to take the partisan blinders off and get shit accomplished and win elections. You can't win an election by denying strong competitors and fooling yourself into an illusion where the Democrats can do no wrong and the Republicans can do no right.

[snowbear]

13. Okey dokey artichokie...

But Kean seriously is a little weasle.. http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[Awsi Dooger]

14. Good response, and BTW I've been asked the same question many times

And undoubtedly I'm on many ignore lists, since I'm seldom a cheerleader and don't fret Diebold.

Let me emphasize I really appreciate your analysis, TheVirginian. That point about Hoeven changing the dynamic is probably very accurate the more I think about it. Post '04 the conventional wisdom had Republicans on the offensive in this senatorial cycle. Which made sense considering the playing field, and that we netted +5 from this block in '00. I still can't put that aside in regard to this year's likelihood. Can we take +10 or +11 from a block of 34 seats over a 6 year period? Not likely.

Also, your point about a boost coming out of a competitive primary is very astute but seldom mentioned around here. Frankly, the Republicans are normally smart enough to avoid free-for-all primaries, like the one in Tennessee this year.

Who did you favor in Ohio? I thought Hackett had the better chance since I'm always looking for charisma while trying to oust an incumbent, especially one without horrid approval ratings. Plus he's more moderate than Brown which fits the state. I thought Hackett provided a much greater dispersal of the November result, probably anywhere from +5 to -5 depending on how his loose cannon approach played out, while Brown was likely to run a more predictable campaign and probably lose a very close race simply via being too liberal. I would still bet it that way although the GOP problems in Ohio may have more widespread ballot box impact than I estimated.

larissa is terrific, BTW. From Alaska, home of the once and future gov Tony Knowles.

[TheVirginian]

15. Ohio...

Now that we see the problems DeWine is facing in Ohio, its easy to look back at February when Hackett dropped out and ponder what could have happened. The harder thing is to apply that all the way to November.

I think the most important thing to remember about Paul Hackett is that he's an unknown quantity. We know where he stands on most issues, but we don't always know how he'll conduct himself, which is very important when you're trying to get people to fire someone and hire yourself. There was a concern that he wouldn't seem "senatorial".

I agree with your concern that Brown may be a bit too liberal for the state. I have the same concern, and I fear that once people sit down and sort through the evidence, they'll see that Mike DeWine isn't connected to the corrupt Columbus GOP establishment in Ohio, and merely happens to be a Republican in a state where most other Republicans are corrupt. That doesn't seem to be happening right now, though. Voter anger is being directed at all candidates on the other side of the aisle, Mike DeWine included, and there's little the guy can do to stem the tide. So it seems to me the biggest thing Mike DeWine is running against is a toxic political atmosphere, and as long as his candidate seems competant and a known quantity, like a current Representative, then he'll pick up the votes.

This is where Paul Hackett might have been a problem. Right now, the best thing for Brown and the worst thing for DeWine is for the press and for people to focus on problems with the Ohio state Republican party. DeWine has been trying to make this race about Brown's record, but he hasn't been aggressive about it, and has been playing a lot of defense. If Hackett were the candidate, I imagine he would attract a lot more attention to himself, which would take attention away from Mike DeWine and ultimately benefit it. Right now, voters are seeing a choice between "Mike DeWine, Ohio Republican" verses "Democratic politician". If Hackett were in the race, the choice would be "Mike DeWine, current Senator" vs "Paul Hackett, loose cannon".

[Awsi Dooger]

17. That's why I mentioned the loose cannon aspect

No doubt Hackett would be the focus of the campaign and that's not necessarily a good thing. It would be the number one high profile senate race in the country this year with Hackett as our nominee.

But really, none of the fundamentals have changed since November. We were debating that choice feverishly here, one thread after another. Most of the posters were on Hackett's side since he was the proverbial breath of fresh air who had stood up to Bush and been critical of him. The posters from Ohio generally favored Brown due to the more liberal track record and long time service. More senatorial, as you say. But I'm in Las Vegas and generally favor the gamble on greatness. Especially against an incumbent, where I'm convinced personality and charisma is vital to knock out that known quantity.

In early 2003 I wrote on DU that John Kerry "is just good enough to get you beat." I have many of the same apprehensions about Sherrod Brown. An impressive resume doesn't mean much to me when identifying the best possible nominee.

[Zynx]

16. That SUSA poll in VA is wrong since it gives Republicans a 44-32

registration edge over Democrats when at best they have a four point edge.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. Good catch, Zynx

I didn't even realize the crosstabs were available on those polls since there's no apparent link.

Obviously on over sample of Republican white males. Men were 52% of the survey when it should be reversed. The average income range skews high also.

I'll stick to my belief it's probably a 10 point race. Although I saw a newly released 46-39 poll number today.