NV Poll: Reid Would Lose to Lowden

[Willie99]

New poll in Nevada by Vitale & Associates (July 29-30, 510 LV, MoE +/-4.4%) shows incumbent Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid losing by six points to Sue Lowden, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party, 44-38, with 10% undecided.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/11/nv-poll-reid-would-lose-to-lowden/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

the 2010 elections are a long long long way off, but you can get a sense of the public's grass roots anger when the Senate Majority leader, one of the most powerful people in Washington (I would argue 3rd most powerful person), is losing in his home state.

Throw in the fact that the lifer from CT, Dodd, is in trouble, Biden's seat appears to be in play, Specter's seat is in play as well as a few others across this country, and it obvious that the political landscape as made a significant change for the worse for Democrats.

And it's nothing about a few extremists either.

I think Dodd usually won by 20+ points

 

[rolltide]

i agree Dodd and Reid are in trouble but highly doubt Specter has much to worry about. I know Specter has apparently lost a 20 point lead over Toomey but he has the backing of Eastern PA which is where the majority of votes are, not to mention he's got some major contributors like Comcast. Of course it would be ironic if Specter lost to Toomey since he left the GOP because he had no prayer of being the Republican candidate (Toomey was killing him in the polls) and thought a Democrat would be a shoo-in.

of course how anyone would vote for an 80 year old that is satisfied with continuing to be a junior senator is beyond me.

 

[BetIt]

Real tough map on the Senate side for the R's in 2010.

Decent writeup by Chuck Todd

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg

*** The battle for the Senate: Last week, we wrote that Republicans have history, the map, and the political winds on their side when it comes to next year’s House races. But the first two definitely AREN’T advantages when it comes to the 2010 Senate contests. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of just 2.6 Senate seats in that president’s first midterm, compared with 26 House seats. The worst showing for the president’s party was in 1946, when the Democrats lost 12 Senate seats. The second-worst showing was in 1994, when they lost 10 seats. The president’s party’s best showing came in 1962, when it gained three seats. In short, the party in control of the White House is much more likely to lose House seats in the midterms than it is Senate seats.

*** Democrats have the map advantage: What’s more, as we head into next year, the map certainly isn’t on the GOP’s side. Currently, Democrats have a 60-40 advantage in the Senate (with two independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, caucusing with the Dems). So Republicans will need to win 11 Senate seats to take back control of the chamber. But much of the 2010 Senate battleground will be fought on GOP turf. For starters, there are 19 Republican-held seats this cycle, versus 18 Democrat-held seats. More importantly, there are already six GOP-held open seats (FL, KS, KY, MO, NH, OH) -- and there will be seven if/when Kay Bailey Hutchison leaves her seat to run for Texas governor -- while Democrats have two (DE and IL). To put the GOP’s challenge with this map into perspective, the Cook Political Report identifies six toss-up contests (in CT, IL, KY, MO, NH, and OH), but even if Republicans win them all, they’ll net just two Senate seats. Of course, that would be enough to end the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority, but it wouldn’t be close to getting back control of the Senate.

 

[BetIt]

Followed up with a correction from Cook report.

On those Senate numbers Posted: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:10 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2010


From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
This morning, we showed you some of the numbers we crunched on Senate races and how historically the Senate shift is much narrower than for the House in a president's first mid-term.

Charlie Cook, one of THE smartest guys in the business on this, wrote us after we published arguing that it might be a better measure not to include, for example, 1946 -- Truman's first mid-term election after assuming the presidency a year earlier when FDR died.

"The way I look at it, it is a party’s first midterm election after taking office, or if a party holds onto the White House after eight years (e.g. 1988), the next midterm election," Cook writes. "I don’t make a distinction between the Kennedy and Johnson elections; Johnson simply carried over the Kennedy Administration, agenda, etc. So by my reckoning, 1966 is a second-term, midterm election. Part of it is being a purist, the other part is that making exceptions creates more problems. It’s rather extraordinary for a new president to win the kind of election (37 House seats gained) that LBJ/Dems did in 1964 (in part due to Kennedy’s death), thus setting Dems up for huge 1966 midterm (47 House seats) losses. It bends the numbers a lot."

When you take those out -- '46, '66 and '74 -- The Cook Report finds an even lower average loss of 0.4 seats for the president's party from the prior year.

If you take out 1946 and 1974, and include 1966 and calculate from the prior election year (not the previous Congress), the average loss is 1.3. Not a big difference. Point is, the historical trend for the Senate does not hold as compared to the House.

Here are the numbers with '66, but not '46 or '74 (from the previous election cycle):
1954: Eisenhower -1 (48 senators in 1952 to 47 in 1954)
1962: Kennedy +3 (64 in 1960 to 67 in 1962)
1966: Johnson -4 (68 in 1964 to 64 in 1966)
1970: Nixon +2 (42 in 1968 to 44 in 1970)
1978: Carter -3 (61 in 1976 to 58 in 1978)
1982: Reagan +1 (53 in 1980 to 54 in 1982)
1990: H.W. Bush -1 (45 in 1988 to 44 in 1990)
1994: Clinton -10 (57 in 1992 to 47 in 1994)
2002: W. Bush +1 (50 in 2000 to 51 in 2002)
Avg. Loss: 1.3

 

[BetIt]

This is as of July 30th according to Cook Report.

Reason NV is in the likely corner is because

a) No declared opponent yet
b) Reid has a huge war chest

2010 SENATE RACE RATINGS

July 30, 2009


Senate Lineup: 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independent(s)

Senators with names in parentheses are retiring.

The chart below provides a spectrum that analyzes the vulnerability (the chances of the seat switching parties) of the Senate races up this cycle.

Solid: These races are not considered competitive and are not likely to become closely contested.

Likely: These seats are not considered competitive at this point but have the potential to become engaged.

Lean: These are considered competitive races but one party has an advantage.
Toss Up: These are the most competitive races; either party has a good chance of winning.

<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #888 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #888 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #888 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" id=rrDem border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=645><TBODY><TR><TD class=rrTitle colSpan=7 align=middle>DEMOCRATS | 18 HELD SEATS


</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>SOLID D (12)
Lincoln (AR)
DE (Kaufman)
Inouye (HI)
Bayh (IN)
Mikulski (MD)
Schumer (NY-A)
Gillibrand (NY-B)
Dorgan (ND)
Wyden (OR)
Leahy (VT)
Murray (WA)
Feingold (WI)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LIKELY D (2)
Boxer (CA)
Reid (NV)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LEAN D (2)
Bennet (CO)
Specter (PA)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>TOSS UP (2)
Dodd (CT)
IL (Burris)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LEAN R (0)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LIKELY R (0)

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=92>SOLID R (0)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #888 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #888 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #888 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" id=rrRep border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=645><TBODY><TR><TD class=rrTitle colSpan=7 align=middle>REPUBLICANS | 19 HELD SEATS


</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>SOLID D (0)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LIKELY D (0)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LEAN D (0)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>TOSS UP (4)
KY (Bunning)
MO (Bond)
NH (Gregg)
OH (Voinovich)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LEAN R (1)
Vitter (LA)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #888 1px solid" vAlign=top width=92>LIKELY R (2)
FL (Martinez)
Burr (NC)

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=92>SOLID R (12)
Shelby (AL)
Murkowski (AK)
McCain (AZ)
Isakson (GA)
Crapo (ID)
Grassley (IA)
KS (Brownback)
Coburn (OK)
DeMint (SC)
Thune (SD)
Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Bennett (UT)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
* = potential retirement

 

[roadreeler57]

Reid & Palosi need to go.

 

[Willie99]

Election 2010: Pennsylvania Senate Election
Pennsylvania Senate: Toomey 48%, Specter 36%

Thursday, August 13, 2009

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ia/election_2010_pennsylvania_senate_election



BTW: a 20 point swing since the health care debate

keep on trucking boys, denial is very becoming

 

[BetIt]

It's tightened up but that poll has more to do with what's below than healthcare. A contested primary on one side not contested on the other. One side is seeing their base rally around a candidate, the other is seeing it divided. Both will see 90+% of their party vote in November.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republican voters now favor Toomey in a match-up with Specter, up from 68% two months ago. Specter draws 61% of the Democratic vote, down from 74% in June.

 

[Willie99]

that's big time spin Betit, IMHO.

I think the opposite is true, a primary battle keeps you in the news. I don't think Obama or Clinton suffered from the effect you're claiming here.

and it didn't tighten, it surged significantly. And that surge just happen to coincide with the health care debate.

I'm gonna have to respectfully stick with my version of the events. :toast:

 

[BetIt]

Not usually with your party. I think it exposes you to indy's and R's but it generally hurts you with your own party. It's been a pretty nasty primary too for being so early. You get Sestak supporters saying no way to Specter right now and vice versa. The primary ends they see the other choice they vote D.

If you want to argue it could suppress turnout among D's a bit, I'd concede that point.

I'd be more inclined to agree with Quinipiac polling last month which saw it tied.

Look how the 2 week campaign impacted Obama/Clinton in the weeks to the primary

What a difference two weeks of intense campaigning can make. The final two weeks of campaigning in the Pennsylvania Primary may not have changed the outcome of the Democratic race, but it helped John McCain in the Keystone State.

Two weeks ago, in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a nine-point lead over McCain and Barack Obama had an eight-point edge over the Republican hopeful. Now, however, Clinton’s lead is down to five points and Obama trails McCain by a point.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds McCain with a statistically insignificant 44% to 43% advantage over Obama. Clinton attracts 47% of the vote against McCain while the Republican earns 42%. In early March, McCain was essentially even with both Democrats.

Clinton is currently supported by 78% of Democrats, Obama by 65%. Among unaffiliated voters in the state, McCain leads Clinton by twelve and Obama by five. One bonus for McCain is that his support among Republicans has increased after two weeks of heavy Democratic campaigning. Once again, it appears that Obama and Clinton may provide the key to unifying the GOP base.

McCain and Obama are each viewed favorably by 51% of the state’s voters, Clinton by 49%. For Obama, that’s a six-point decline over the past two weeks. Clinton’s numbers are down four points. McCain has gained a point during the same two week period.

 

[Willie99]

Illinois Senate - Giannoulias vs. Kirk

Polling Data

<table class="data"><tbody><tr><th class="noCenter">Poll</th><th class="date">Date</th><th>Sample</th><th>Giannoulias (D)</th><th>Kirk (R)</th><th class="spread">Spread</th></tr><tr><td class="noCenter">Rasmussen Reports</td><td>8/12 - 8/12</td><td>500 LV</td><td>38</td><td>41</td><td class="spread">Kirk +3</td></tr><tr><td class="noCenter">PPP (D)</td><td>4/24 - 4/26</td><td>991 RV</td><td>35</td><td>35</td><td class="spread">Tie</td></tr><tr><td class="noCenter">Daily Kos/R2000</td><td>1/26 - 1/28</td><td>600 LV</td><td>38</td><td>30</td><td class="spread">Giannoulias +8</td></tr></tbody></table>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is his home state rejecting his policies?

change baby change