Google Ads


Site Stats

CA-Sen: Boxer With Solid Leads But Campbell Asserts Himself; SSP Moves to Likely D

by: Crisitunity

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 2:19 PM EST


Field Poll (pdf) (1/5-17, likely voters, 9/18-10/6 in parentheses):

Tom Campbell (R): 30 (NA)
Carly Fiorina (R): 25 (21)
Chuck DeVore (R): 6 (20)
Undecided: 39 (59)
(MoE: ±7.1%)

Barbara Boxer (D-inc): 48 (NA)
Tom Campbell (R): 38 (NA)
Undecided: 14 (NA)

Barbara Boxer (D-inc): 50 (49)
Carly Fiorina (R): 35 (35)
Undecided: 15 (16)

Barbara Boxer (D-inc): 51 (50)
Chuck DeVore (R): 34 (33)
Undecided: 15 (17)
(MoE: ±3.3%)

The Field Poll (it's become kind of cliched to refer to them as the "gold standard" for California pollsters, but their reputation precedes them) checks in on the California Senate race for the first time since September, with one big change: the switchover of ex-Rep. Tom Campbell from the Governor's race to the Senate race. It looks like Campbell knew what he was doing, getting out of the GOP governor's field where he was financially outgunned (as seen today, where it's barely newsworthy that Meg Whitman just fronted herself another $20 million), and immediately moving into the lead in the GOP field.

Campbell had released an internal poll last week that showed him leading Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore 31-15-12, suggesting that he was eating equally into Fiorina and DeVore supporters. But the Field poll suggests that this is almost coming entirely out of DeVore's share -- initially strange since there's a sharp contrast between Campbell's Silicon Valley moderatism and DeVore's O.C. conservatism. But it makes sense when you think that much of DeVore's support was coming from the seemingly ascendant libertarian side of the party (and that social conservatives have been unusually quiet lately), and many of them are likely to embrace the socially liberal but fiscally hawkish Campbell.

As for the general, Field sees little movement in the last four months in the Boxer/Fiorina and Boxer/DeVore matchups, suggesting that Barbara Boxer hasn't seemed to sustain much personal damage from the withering of the Democratic brand. As I'd feared, though, the amiable and well-known Campbell polls noticeably better against Boxer than the others -- at ten points, not enough to start hitting the panic button, but indicating that this race will need to be carefully monitored. (Rasmussen recently showed this a closer tace than that, but, well, what else is new.) Taking into account Campbell's apparent likelihood of winning the primary and the overall national environment, that's enough for us to move this race back onto the board at "Likely Democratic."

RaceTracker Wiki: CA-Sen

Crisitunity :: CA-Sen: Boxer With Solid Leads But Campbell Asserts Himself; SSP Moves to Likely D
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wouldn't be so sure of Campbell
Winning the primary. The GOP isn't in the habit of nominating moderates.

I have to wonder if Fiorina's perhaps connecting with DeVore's expected conservative base


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
He and Fiorina
 Will divide California's moderate Republicans while Devore wins by getting all the Conservatives. About Campbell, he keeps running and never wins and with people like that, by their third try, they will not succeed.

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....




17, CA-06,  


[ Parent ]
Apparently not, according to this poll
DeVore's support has cratered.

[ Parent ]
Campbell already won a statewide primary
but he is much more suited for Guv than the Senate.  

A lot of californians would love Campbell in office, but he never runs for the right office! Or for the right party.


[ Parent ]
Problem is
that it seems like DeVore's support went to Campbell.  It seems that DeVore support was basically anti-Fiorina.

Can't blame them, though.  I'd vote for anyone but the 42 million golden parachuted Carly Firedina.


[ Parent ]
I hope Boxer lives up to her last name
Boxer should win this race come November.  I don't see her becoming complacent.  


40, male, Democrat, NC-04

Ive been getting fundraising emails
since like 2007 when she thought she'd face Ahnuld.  She's rearing to go.

[ Parent ]
Same here.
And I'm glad she's one of the few Dems that is willing to put up a good fight. She also seems to be one of the few Dems that is learning the right lessons from our recent losses.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
Boxer's
won tough senate races even when Dianne Feinstein was considered liberal for California. Republicans think she's the Martha Coakley of California, they couldn't be even more wrong.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Hell no she isn't going to get complacent
Boxer is one of the best negative campaigners in politics.  Other Democrats should learn a thing or two from her.  She defines the race early, and just bashes the opponent.


[ Parent ]
While Campbell is a better candidate than Carly...
..what worries me about Fiorina is her pocketbook.  If the Republicans want to fight California I'd rather they be forced to pay for it and starve funds away from likelier pickup opportunities.

Course we have yet to know how much of her personal fortune that Fiorina got from HP while running them into the ground she is willing to spend.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


Fiornia pocketbook doesn't worry me.
First of all I don't think that Fiornia has that big of a fortune seeing as how he bascially ruined HP like you said, but yeah it would take a considerable amount of GOP resources to match Boxer's own fundraising, money that would at this point be better spent on the 7 races the GOP has a much better chance of winning. Altho maybe that new SCOTUS ruling today about coporate ads will help whoever the Republican is make up the difference.

[ Parent ]
I actually agree with this
If Fiorina garners the nod, Cornyn & Co. won't have to drop an unnecessary dime into the race; she can surely self-finance this thing (as could Meg Whitman and Linda McMahon in their respective races), and the NRSC can focus its' resources on tighter races. On the flip side, Tom Campbell would probably need some serious assistance to keep up with Boxer.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Maybe they wouldnt even bother with Campbell then
And hang him out to dry if he's the nominee.

[ Parent ]
Can Campbell still cut into high-tech areas?
He was one of the Silicon Valley congressmen for a time, which suggests to me that he can make inroads into high tech areas such as Silicon Valley and the Digital Coast.

In contrast, I suspect Fiorina's name is now loved like dirt in the Valley

It would be sorta like Bob McDonnell cutting into D margins in NoVa.


[ Parent ]
Boxer isn't taking this race for granted.
I think she pulled in almost 2 million dollars for Q4 (I'm not sure on the exact numbers) so on the fundraising front at least she isn't taking the race for granted.

Right now the GOP has already picked up MA and have an excellent shot at ND, NV, AR and CO and decent chances in PA, DE, and PA. If 2010 is looking real ugly, the GOP could sweep all of these races and keep all of thier vulernable seats (MO, OH, NH primarly as well as FL and NC secondarily). That would be an 8 seat pick-up since mid 2009 (when Spectar switched parties). The GOP will need 3 more races and CA is probably the easiest on the long shot bids. I agree with moving the race to Likely Dem. Boxer isn't as popular as Feinstein but she is holding her own very well in a nasty enviroment. I thought that Campbell moving to the Senate was foolish (If I lived in CA I could see myself voting for the moderate Campbell against boring Attorny General Brown for govenor but not against liberal Boxer). But I guess he can't compete with two candidates who seem to have an endless supply of money in the gubernetorial, while he has a chance against someone who also doesn't have money and someone who not as apt to use her own money.

I do say that if Campbell wins the GOP primary he very well could win it all if 2010 is looking nasty. Fiorna and Devore are much lower quality candidates and I suspect it would require some personal issues with Boxer herself for either of them to win. Being under 50% and only having a 10 percent lead is a warning sign that Boxer thankfully is taking seriously.


Um...boring?
Did you just call Jerry Brown boring? He may be a lot of things, but I don't think boring is one of them. It's the former Governor Moonbeam after all....

PS- We Californians tried electing a moderate Republican (the Governator) and he sucked--hard--mostly because he couldn't get any of the super-conservative Republicans in the legislature to go along with any of his plans. Like, at all. Ever. The less popular and well-known Campbell has a less than zero chance of making that happen.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


[ Parent ]
Jerry Brown is definitely not boring
His father, Pat Brown, is a different issue.  Back in 1962 when Pat Brown was running for office, Harry Truman told Pat to stop making so many speeches because he was too boring, hard to understand, etc.  Harry told him to say as little as possible and let Dick Nixon hang himself.

Dick Nixon hung himself and lost.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04


[ Parent ]
Campbell
Seems to be much more fiscally conservative than Arnold, though. but on social issues...absolutely the conservatives in the legislature will give him a hard time.

[ Parent ]
Boring is apt for Brown
This isn't the dude from the 1970s.

Nothing about a Brown candidacy now is revolutionary, exciting or sit-up-in-your-seat.  He's Jerry Brown... snore.

That's not to say boring is even bad in this environment.  Brown was never fiscally reckless, and I bet his dullness will play well in November... we know about Grandpa's quirks, but we trust him to watch the kids.


[ Parent ]
If she goes down it will be a very bad night.
A 2004 type of event would be say if we lost Delaware, Colorado, Nevada, and Arkansas.  With any losses in Pennsylvania or Illinois balanced out by taking a seat like Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, or North Carolina.

A 1994 type of event would mean we'd lose Delaware, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.  And two of the next tier of Indiana, New York (B), California, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Indiana seems the most likely to fall.  If I had to guess the next most likely I'd put Washington ahead of California.  But I pray we never get to find out.

A 1980 type of event would see all of them lose along with say Oregon.  Luckily the sky isn't falling and that would be extremely unlikely especially considering 1980 was a perfect storm that saw the oversized Watergate class of the Democratic wave of '74 running in a Republican wave year.  Unluckily 2004 seems like a very possible scenario right now.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


[ Parent ]
There's no viable R candidate in OR or WA Sen
At least not yet -

In Oregon, there was talk a while back about Gordon Smith running against Ron Wyden, but haven't heard a thing about that for months. So far, the only R running (AFAIK) is some retired engineer. I doubt Greg Walden (OR-02) will run. Perhaps John Lim might switch races, but that's just my personal idle speculation (he lost to Wyden in '98 by like 60-35)

In Washington, the biggest "name" running against Patty Murray (so far) is Clint Didier... some ex pro football player. However, I'd become concerned if Dino Rossi - or even Dave Reichert were to run - either could take down Murray in a "wave" election.


[ Parent ]
Murray seems a lot like Boxer
Republicans seem to consistently underestimate both. Murray has faced a Republican representative in all three of her campaigns for senate. Although her polling might seem tight, she always manages to win by a solid margin.

[ Parent ]
Im fine with 2004
All of their gains where in the South and was much more indicative of them finally switching to the Republicans.

[ Parent ]
Ill clarify a bit better
More indicative of the South completing their political realignment to the Republicans than an overall 2004 just sucked for us.  In fact, if it werent for the Texas mid-decade redistricting, we wouldve gained seats there.

If anything, 2004 was really only a good year for realignment and for Bush, not really Republicans in general.


[ Parent ]
Speaking of fundraising...
when are we going to get the final results for all the Congressional Q4 2009 fundraising numbers?  Or did I miss that post already?

[ Parent ]
The deadline for year-end reports is 1/31, so most of them have yet to be filed.


[ Parent ]
Stay Focused
If Boxer doesn't pull a Coakley she should be fine. But Boxer is way too savvy to quit running in CA. Shes's a little too liberal to be a shoe in every time she runs for re-election but as long as she campaigns and spends $30 million on the race she should be fine.


Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox