Google Ads


Site Stats

Rasmussen Reports, You Decide, Vol. 4

by: James L.

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 2:40 AM EST


Scotty don't!

CO-Gov (2/4, likely voters, 1/6 in parens):

John Hickenlooper (D): 49 (42)
Scott McInnis (R): 45 (45)
Other: 1 (5)
Undecided: 6 (6)
(MoE: ±4.5%)

CT-Gov (2/1, likely voters):

Ned Lamont (D): 41
Michael Fedele (R): 33
Other: 8
Undecided: 18

Ned Lamont (D): 40
Tom Foley (R): 37
Other: 9
Undecided: 14

Dan Malloy (D): 36
Michael Fedele (R): 35
Other: 9
Undecided: 21

Dan Malloy (D): 37
Tom Foley (R): 36
Other: 10
Undecided: 28
(MoE: ±4.5%)

NV-Gov (2/3, likely voters):

Rory Reid (D): 33
Brian Sandoval (R): 45
Other: 11
Undecided: 12

Rory Reid (D): 44
Jim Gibbons (R): 35
Other: 13
Undecided: 8

Rory Reid (D): 40
Mike Montandon (R): 36
Other: 14
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±4.5%)

OH-Gov (2/5-6, likely voters, 1/12 in parens):

Ted Strickland (D-inc): 41 (40)
Jon Kasich (R): 47 (47)
Other: 5 (4)
Undecided: 8 (8)
(MoE: ±4.5%)

OH-Sen (2/5-6, likely voters, 1/12 in parens):

Lee Fisher (D): 39 (37)
Rob Portman (R): 43 (44)
Other: 5 (4)
Undecided: 13 (14)

Jennifer Brunner (D): 38 (40)
Rob Portman (R): 42 (43)
Other: 5 (5)
Undecided: 15 (13)
(MoE: ±4.5%)

PA-Sen (D) (2/8, likely voters, 1/18 in parens):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 51 (53)
Joe Sestak (D): 36 (32)
Other: 4 (4)
Not sure: 9 (11)
(MoE: ±5%)
James L. :: Rasmussen Reports, You Decide, Vol. 4
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Rasmussen Reports, You Decide, Vol. 4 | 45 comments
Wow, comming from ras
There numbers look amazing

Im happy to see Joe Sestak is gaining ground on Snarlen' Arlen

And Fisher is Polling better than Brunner now?  I don't think 2010 is going to be as bad as everyone says, they forget that Iraq will effectively be a memory on election day if what Obama said last year about an august pullout is true, jobs and the economy will bounce back in general as well.

I've already seen polls that show that people don't like Repubs more than dems, its just that they aren't content with what dems are bringing to the table, hopefully they change their tunes if they want to hold onto their seats by passing a jobs bill and forcing REAL filibusters, not this Filibuster by proxy crap we have been seeing for more than a year now.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

I, on the contrary, is very glad
that Specter wins over Sestak by 15. Hope that will hold in May, and that in November Specter will beat Toomey again..

Concerning other polls: rather good for Democrats in CO-GOV, NV-GOV and OH-SEN. not so good in OH-GOV, CT-GOV

[ Parent ]
I don't understand...
I can see you not being have with the OH-Gov poll but CT-Gov poll, why? There both winning and since Ned Lamont will be the Dem nom he will be stronger in the GE than Dan Malloy. Are you not happy because he's hot posting Dick Blumenthal type numbers in the race?

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.
[ Parent ]
Lamont is a worst candidate i can imagine
 and IMHO  he will lose again as he did in 2006. At least - to Foley. He is "lazy spoiled brat"-type of candidate and managed to lose an election, which was almost won, to Joe Lieberman. In fact - if i would have a possibility to vote in Connecticut in 2010 and Lamont would be Democratic candidate - i would almost sure vote for Foley or third-party candidate.. I would not have any problems with Blumenthal or even Bysiewicz
[ Parent ]
It's no foregone conclusion that the economy will continue to improve
Krugman doesn't believe so:

Although unemployment has risen from 8.2 percent when the stimulus was passed to 9.7 percent today, Krugman thinks the legislation helped alleviate the recession's effects. "We would probably have 12 percent unemployment in the U.S. if we didn't have the stimulus," he said. Yet the seemingly long odds against additional government spending are leading Krugman to think we may well be headed for a double-dip recession - the contemporary counterpart to the slump that occurred in 1937, just as the U.S. economy was recovering from the worst of the Great Depression.

"We are caught in a situation more than a little reminiscent of the mid-1930s," Krugman emphasized. "How can we be replaying the past so badly?" he added. "That is the question that has worried me a lot."

Although I have never been a great political forecaster, I would venture a prediction that if there is a double-dip recession that starts before the election, the Democrats will lose both Houses of Congress as the price for their timidity if not paralysis in the face of a need for big government jobs programs like the WPA and CCC. But don't look now for boldness from either House, let alone the Senate:

The current Democratic legislative approach, Hill observers say, is to divide job creation into a few smaller bills, but none, in total, will have the scope that progressive economists at the Economic Policy Institute and others say is needed to revive the economy and bring back the millions of lost jobs. The $400 billion EPI proposal would create 4.5 million jobs in its first year, but the Senate is only considering an $80 billion bill, at best, even smaller than the House's $154 billion version.

The really sad thing is that the Democrats in the Senate - and by extension, the Democrats in the House, and the President - may end up looking less like the party of FDR than the party of Hoover, who from what I understand tried to do what he could but wasn't bold enough and failed miserably. And just as GW Bush and his collaborators (mostly Republicans but including some Democrats) couldn't claim any basis for ignorance on his application of "supply-side economics" of tax cuts and uncontrolled spending that ballooned the national debt and left nothing left for the rainy day that came, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress really need to be sufficiently diligent students of history to know what happened when FDR tried to balance the budget when the economy was still too weak to take it. With the difference that before he went on a budget-balancing kick, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that FDR and the Democrats had done a great deal more than just one large stimulus bill that wasn't associated with any new Federal jobs programs, as such.

If the Democrats get drubbed because they didn't do enough of the right things to get the economy moving and did too much of the wrong things, they will have only themselves to blame.

As for the filibuster, current Senate rules don't involve actual unlimited debate if there aren't sufficient votes for cloture, as I understand (again, please correct me if I'm wrong).

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Huge difference
There was popular support under FDR for big spending. Not so much today.
[ Parent ]
Well There Kind of Is
People still love big spending, otherwise you wouldn't see many people who voted against the stimulus wrapping themselves in what it brought. There are just relatively fewer people who will admit to liking it.
[ Parent ]
Possibly because
Before FDR, the government just plain didn't spend much money.  Also, just before FDR came into office, people really got to see a good example of where laissez-faire economics got them.  (Yes, the current recession is bad, but I don't see too many people starving in the streets right now.)

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent
[ Parent ]
I think they like big spending
But not the type of spending we did back in the New Deal era like Pan suggest we should do. We spent that much becuase we had to because of the Great Depression, despite the enployment rate were not at that point where the country is ready to accept the government spend that kind of money. I believe Conspiracy is right snd Pan is wrong like quoting Krugman of all people on this and thinking were going to lose both chambers. Conspiracy is right, there is a huge difference. I still think we will lost 30-35 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate. The WH will take a hit in '10 but it was expected with all Presidents going into their first midterm like Reagan in 1982.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.
[ Parent ]
You left out the context
Here's what I posted:

I would venture a prediction that if there is a double-dip recession that starts before the election, the Democrats will lose both Houses of Congress [emphasis added]

And I certainly stand by that.

As for real Federal jobs programs not being popular now, you're right that before the fact, there would be complaints about the amount of the spending and that the Republicans would try to block them and vote "No," but they'd promote the results just as they've gone to all the ribbon-cuttings of stimulus projects, and the programs would be very popular, once put into effect, because everyone would see how they not only gave people good jobs but also were making a difference in fixing and constructing the infrastructure of today and tomorrow. Not passing such programs shows a lack of courage, imagination, knowledge of history, and perspective on the part of the Democrats. It has cost the country, and it will hurt the Democrats at the polls.

P.S. Tangential question: What's your problem with Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, "of all people"?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying the federal jobs program
Being debated wouldn't be popular, it would like the stimulus but unless we see another great depression the country won't be ready so accept major government spending like what happened during FDR like what you want, so your wrong on that.

As for Krugman, I won't going into that because i'm not getting banned for partcipating in derailing a thread. I don't like him for the obvious reasons.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough for us to disagree on Krugman
And I concede that you're right that arguing about Krugman would be off-topic for this site.

However, my observation that trying to prime the pump in a half-assed way is likely to leave the Democrats in the worst of all worlds - blamed for deficit spending while not being credited for palpably improving the economy - is certainly on-topic, because I argue that it's likely to be the primary cause for their midterm losses.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
I agree on Krugman
It would be off topic and if we begin talking about him it would create 30 extra comments in this thread and would lead to a suspension and it's good for us to take a pass on that.

What i'm saying is that the jobs bill being would be popular like the stimulus that we can agree on but the government spending like what we did with the New Deal isn't popular because were not in a great depression and such. As for the midterms, sure the economy had to do with it, no question but I think some of it has to do with the fact we are coming off two wave elections and the midterm elections with the exception of '98 and '02 is when the party in power loses seats. So I think it's a mixture of the ecomomy and political tradition.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

[ Parent ]
I know what you're saying about FDR-style jobs programs
and largely disagree with it, as I outlined above.

I do agree with you on the factors involved in the likely 2010 Democratic losses, but I believe that how bad the economy is in November and what further steps have been taken to create jobs are the factors most likely to account for the difference between relatively small losses and the Republicans winning control of both Houses of Congress.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
And I largely disagree with you
That the public will go for large government spending like what happened in the 30's as I outlined it above as well. They went for it back then because the country was in a great depression and had nothing going for them. The economy is nothing compared to that, people today won't go for new deal like spending like Conspiracy says and I agree.

I'm glad we agree on thr factors of the midterm election losses but regardless I stand by what i've been standing by for months I don't see a Republican takeover of both chambers of Congress after we threw them out four years ago and have shown nothing that they can govern like how there solution to everything is less spending on anything and more tax cuts and I don't see the economy getting to the point where we see a takeover. I see a 30-35 seat House loss and 5 maybe 6 seat loss in the Senate and that's not bad.  

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

[ Parent ]
Its just really unfortunate
that the American electorate is just so damn ignorant and wont take the time to really pay attention and learn the issues.  They are currently so blinded by their disdain for politics and politicians and in these situations, you need an active government to take care of the situation, even when they are the ones getting blamed for it.

I suppose that's another problem in that people dont differentiate between the GOP and the Dems like they need to.  They hate all of us, even when they explicitly voted for change, they dont think anything actually changed.

We've all heard those dumb asses who say you need to vote for the candidate based on who they are, not on their party or even their issue positions.  To me, that simply says people dont pay attention to politics and dont see the policy differences.

All they see now is spending spending spending.  TARP under Bush, Stimulus under Obama, all this money that isnt actually making the economy improve (if only people understood not improving doesnt mean not helping).  What gets under my skin so much is that the AIG bonuses and shit are what is getting thrown in our face when way back when, it was the Democrats who argued for a TARP bill that made sure our money wasnt going to go to shit like that.

This is kind of the point where I just throw my hands up in there and go, fuck it.  My one hope is that with only 59 seats, we tie the GOP to as much legislation as we can because I'll be damned if we go down for something George Bush did.

[ Parent ]
Even though it was a rant Andrew
I couldn't agree more. Let's face it, the american electorate is stupid. They only pay attention to the media that's wired for Reublicans Christ man we got people where that thought with HCR doctors could kill their patients and the government will get inolved with their medicare despite the fact MEDICARE IS RUNNED AND STARTED BY THE GODDAMN GOVERNMENT, THERE WOULD BE NO MEDICARE IF IT WASN'T FOR THE GOVERNMENT. And don't get me started with the ones who think our President isn't a natural born citizen.

And your right even though the economy hasn't improved per se with TARP and the stimulus your right, it certainly helped a alot. TARP saved up from another depression and the simulus was good because cash was influxed into alot o states that could use to get get people back to work like construction jobs for example s your right there.

You have every right to be well I wouldn't sat angry but very very frustrated at our electorate because of how dumb they are. This was a good post and you made alot of good points in this. But seriously even because of this, don't give up.

BTW even though I say THE ELECTORATE wouldn't go for New Deal type spending. If the government proposed FDR like programs I would be a for that, i'm just saying the public won't go for it. I just wanted to clear that up with Pan.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

[ Parent ]
Let's try this again
Do you really disagree with me that if a program like the WPA or CCC were voted in, a majority of the public would oppose such programs AFTER they were put into operation? My argument is that people oppose such spending in theory but support it in practice if they see clearly that it's helping. My further argument is, if they don't see that the spending is helping enough, they oppose it for both deficit-hawk reasons and because it didn't clearly help them.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I disagree with you yes
Because I feel that people would be timid to support large FDR style government spending because they feel that we don't need to go into def con 5 like we had to in the 30's because we were in a great deprssion and were not now. I would support it because I know how much those programs you mentioned put people back to work (I'm a huge supporter of the New Deal and my grandfather would tell me that because of the WPA, a program yu mentioned put people back to work), but I think the majority of americans won't.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.
[ Parent ]
How do you figure
that Fisher is polling better than Brunner?  They are both down by 4%.

And it's not a trendline either, neither Dem candidate's support has fluctuated much throughout this whole race.  One poll Fisher will be up, the next poll Brunner, the next one it'll be a statistical tie.  That's just the nature of what we've seen thus far.  

Maybe at some point Fisher's money advantage will finally help him pull ahead, but again, based on what I'm seeing on the ground here in OH, there's just not a lot of enthusiasm for him.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

[ Parent ]
The point is
Portman hasn't moved further ahead as has been the case almost everywhere else. Even Robin Carnahan wasn't imune to it eventually.
[ Parent ]
Oh okay
I think I misunderstood the relation to the general election.  Yes, Portman is a fairly miserable candidate for Ohio because of his views on the economy and free trade.  Using Missouri as a baseline though, I'm not sure about that.  Carnahan has hung in pretty well.  There's only been one or two polls I've seen where she's been behind.  

Ultimately, I feel a lot better about the Dems picking up Missouri than Ohio, or anywhere for that matter.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

[ Parent ]
Seriously amazing
Considering it's Rasmussen, these numbers are very, very good in some races.

Interestingly, Rory Reid doesn't appear to be totally radioactive--he can defeat a generic R (Montandon) and the toxic Gibbons apparently, though not a credible candidate (Sandoval).  

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

[ Parent ]
Peak Backlash
If we are to take Rasmussen's numbers at face value, indeed those numbers seem to suggest a tiny beginning of a small rebound for Dems which reinforces my impression - that in hindsight MA will have marked the Republican backlash's peak and that the situation will be more "even" by November.
Agree
I think the race to watch for this is the Ohio Governor race.
Strickland was popular and won the race by a huge margin. His decline in popularity is not based on scandal or mistakes but purely based on a bad economy.

Kasich is an ultra right wing nut that is winning because he's not the incumbent. If Strickland keeps gaining ground (slowly) on Kasich then I think Democrats in most districts will be fine.

There are 2 types of Democrats that will lose this fall. The first kind are Democrats that pissed off their base (Reid, Lincoln) and they will get slaughtered by the left and right. The second kind of Democrats are Democrats that won seats in 06/08 that they had no business winning (ID-01) and most will lose unless they somehow get incredibly lucky.

[ Parent ]
OH
Good points on the OH-Gov. Despite still being down in the polls, this is the first positive movement for Strickland in months. However, he did make some mistakes this summer with some of the draconian budget cuts he proposed. He ended up alienating alot of reliably Democratic constituencies. He seems to rebounding from that somewhat and the 3C rail corridor, while not wildly popular is still putting him in the news in a positive light.

I'm wondering when we'll see a primary poll of the GOP Senate race. Ganley has been all over the airwaves since January and has been really pushing his teabagger credentials.  

33, male, Dem, OH-13

[ Parent ]
PA-Sen. Only 9% not sure
Apparently PA Dems have decided to hold their noses and accept Arlen.
Sorry, Joe, it's just not happening.
You have got to be kidding me.
At this same time in 2006, Joe Lieberman was beating Lamont 68 - 13 ( http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x129... )

Specter is winning 51 - 36.

Sestak is out preforming Lamont!  I think he can definitely pull it out.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
Very unlikely
And that's good
[ Parent ]
Can't compare
You can't pull out 2 primary competitions and compare then on equal footing.

Everybody in PA knows about the Sestak challenge and the Specter party change.

In 2006 nobody but the grassroots knew who Lamont was. Also, Liberman had all the party support until Lamont became a serious challenger.

Sestak has already made his challenge. He's known to the people and the party knew it would be a tough fight. Sestak has no room to grow, Lamont only had room to grow.

[ Parent ]
I have to say
Specter at 51% does not strike me as unbeatable.  These are terrible numbers for an established, well-known politician like him.
[ Parent ]
This yesr???
And with a lot of distrust to "recent convert" from ultraliberal netroots? He (Specter) does much better then, say, Parker Griffith in Alabama. And i am reasonably sure - will win
[ Parent ]
Specter
is a Republican Convert. And he gets 51%...I find that impressive.  
[ Parent ]
But he also
has establishment support. The whole expectations game just seems pointless to me. I think the bottom line is that Specter is the early favorite but Sestak is gaining. If I had to take a guess, I would say that Sestak is in a David Hoffman-esque situation, but that unlike Hoffman, his surge may be in time for victory. We'll see.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
A surge alone won't do it
He might get to within ten points, but barring Specter showing signs of senility or ill health, I don't think he'll poll closer.

That said, if he's within ten points, he could win it on an enthusiasm gap.

[ Parent ]
What's
the "other" in NV? Could it be people still want Goodman?
NV "other"
Could that mean "None Of The Above"?
I recall NV is the state that has that choice on their ballots.
[ Parent ]
General election numbers out for PA-Sen
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Same old story: Sestak and Specter both getting thumped, by pretty much the same margin. PA-Sen is not looking good unless the national environment improves and/or the Democratic nominee successfully paints him as too conservative, neither of which I would rule out at this early point in time.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

PA
What kind of numbers is Toomey pulling in of Democrats?  Don't we have a HUGE registration edge there?

29/D/Male/NY-01
[ Parent ]
I think it's something like 45/35/20 Dem/GOP/Indie


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Pretty easy for him to coast
When the Dems are trained on each other.
[ Parent ]
OH-sen
OK: Let's repeat the obvious just one more time:
Fisher crushes Brunner in fundraising, BUT is an an absolute DEAD HEAT with Fisher (against Portman) in the polls.

Ah, but what does that mean for the primary? The knucklehead DINO insider faction is ALL behind Fisher --but scared, really scared. Now that they don't have the Finkmaister's ass to kiss anymore, they're lost. And they thought that Keith Wilkowski was a shoo-in.

What rubbish
It means people have no firm opinion of any of the three candidates. And Portman has the CoH to turn that in his advantage, particularly against Brunner.
[ Parent ]
My Lord, I'm sick of this cheerleading for Brunner.
If all you can do is attack your opponent's supporters, you're really screwed.
[ Parent ]
To be honest....
...I don't find THAT much difference between the two of them in terms of what type of Senator they'll be.  Most of the differences people see are from that innate thing we have in all of us that when we see two slugs crawling down a path we instinctually root for one of them to slither past the crack on the sidewalk first.

Brunner superficially to me seems like a better candidate to present to the electorate.  Fisher seems staler. Unfortunately Brunner can't raise two quarters to scratch together.  I don't expect her to break fundraising records.  Don't even need to match Fisher.  Just do respectably.  Hopefully she can turn things around.

The way the DSCC and DCCC operate is even for incumbents you have to meet certain targets before they'll throw money at your race.  Just like the Lord they help those who help themselves.  I want us to be able to play offense and not just defense and that requires a candidate to raise the funds to put the race on the map.

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

[ Parent ]
Rasmussen Reports, You Decide, Vol. 4 | 45 comments

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

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox