Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

IL-Sen: Kirk Posts Slim Lead Over Giannoulias in Rasmussen Poll

by: James L.

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM EDT


Rasmussen Reports (8/11, likely voters):

Alexi Giannoulias (D): 38
Mark Kirk (R): 41
Other: 4
Undecided: 17

Cheryle Jackson (D): 30
Mark Kirk (R): 47
Other: 6
Undecided: 17
(MoE: ±4.5%)

Both Kirk and Giannoulias post reasonably good, but probably inflated, favorability ratings: Kirk's at 55-28 while Giannoulias has a comparable 51-33 rating. Somehow I doubt that either of these dudes are that well-known statewide, but this inflated name rec issue seems to be par for the course at Rasmussen's shop.

Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight recently had a very good post about the likely voter models currently employed by many pollsters, and the aggressively selective model used by Rasmussen in particular. In short, Nate views Rasmussen's model as close to a worst-case scenario for Democrats. However, I think we may need to prepare for the possibility that the worst -- or something in its realm -- could come to fruition next year.

RaceTracker Wiki: IL-Sen
James L. :: IL-Sen: Kirk Posts Slim Lead Over Giannoulias in Rasmussen Poll
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
IL-Sen: Kirk Posts Slim Lead Over Giannoulias in Rasmussen Poll | 41 comments
Interesting numbers in terms of party support
Giannoulias attracts only 63% of Dems, giving him more room to grow than Kirk, who has 71% of Republicans.  On the other hand Kirk does very well among independents, 45% to 18%.  

The independent number looks way to high for Kirk, but if it's a bad year guess it could look somewhat like that.  But as long as Kirk doesn't demonstrate a lot of cross over appeal and the remaining independents break reasonably evenly Giannoulias should win.  

"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."- Andrew Jackson

Much more room to expand
for Alexi.
It is fairly encouraging that he's only down three despite losing independents by so much and attracting only 63% of Dems


"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."- Andrew Jackson

[ Parent ]
Right...
I seriously doubt 83-84% know who Kirk or Giannoulias are. Rasmussen is completely useless.
Back in late April PPP found not nearly that many people had an opinion of either
57% had a positive or negative view of kirk, and 60% of Giannoulias.  I know comparing two different polling companies to look at movement isn't the best idea, but even so that's a pretty big discrepancy.  I doubt ethers' recognition could have grown that much in a non-election year.


"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."- Andrew Jackson

[ Parent ]
Same here
Rassy (my new nickname for it) polls are only useful when we get w/in 3 months of a general election. That won't be for another year.

Plus, I doubt that more than 50% of IL voters recognize Kirk or Alexi.

[ Parent ]
As an Illinois resident
I'll be waiting for a poll after the primary and one by a reputable pollster. Alexi should win this.  
[ Parent ]
Fishy Rasmussen Numbers
Just remember rasmussen just had Specter down by 12 and R2K had him up by 5, Giannoulias being down by 3 probably means Giannoulias is up by 14. In addition, its a bad sign that Kirk is under 50% against Cheryle Jackson.
Don't get so cocky
I doubt that among registered voters (as opposed to Rasmussen's particular likely voter screen) Giannoulias is actually down, but what is the electorate that will show up to vote going to look like?

If Baucus, Conrad and their merry band of high-rolling insurance lobbyists get their way and health care reform is either underwhelming or doesn't happen at all and meanwhile the economy is either still languishing or suffering a slow recovery (which would mean that the some of the most apparent indicators to the average person like unemployment or job growth wouldn't really be improving yet), things could be this ugly. Republicans would be rabidly energized to "take their country back," many Independents would want to send a message to Obama and Dem leadership, and some Democrats would be demoralized or feel conned due to the lack of progress.

Is that a probable scenario? I doubt anyone not on RedState thinks so. But possible? Don't kid yourself; it is.

[ Parent ]
The economy will be recovered by Nov. 2010
I'm not very pessimistic about the electorate turnout, for I feel the economy will be the determining factor in Democratic success:

These 2009 Governor races...we're in a whole lot of trouble...but the economy is getting better everyday, I won't be surprised if there is a wave of tangibly optimistic economic information coming in October...which could provide a boost of a few percentages.

2010 House races...we'll probably lose some house seats in red territory that we won in 2006/2008.

2010 Senate races...we'll probably gain a few seats just because it is 2004 senate seats that are up. If 2006/2008 senate seats were up, we'd probably lose quite a few.

2010 Governor races...we'll probably hold steady. Gain in California and Minnesota, losing WY (depends on term limit, I suppose) and more or less hold everything else.

2010 Legislative races...probably will be tough, but I don't think we'll go backwards.

2012 is going to be the big year. Gains in the house, and state legislatures. Senate we may hold steady with presidential coattails, same with governorship.

So basically we need to hold steady 2010 (message: bettering economy, health care reform) then win big in 2012 (message: fully recovered economy, a younger/liberal electorate, health care reform, presidential coattails).

[ Parent ]
If the Dems pass health care reform
with some public option (even if liberals are unhappy about how good it is) and the economy recovers, I don't see us losing more than about 5 net seats in the House, and not gaining at least 2 seats in the Senate.

If the above happens and a foreign policy win happens (some peace deal in the Middle East, or deal on Iran's nuclear program), the Dems may even gain seats in the House.  

Don't underestimate the foreign policy aspect on midterm elections.  It was why the GOP gained House seats in 2002 and didn't lose much in 1986.  It was why the Dems had such a great midterm in 1962 (-4 in the House, +4 in the Senate), and why the Dems didn't get crushed in 1978 (given how unpopular Carter was).

[ Parent ]
1986 isn't the best example
While the House losses were small that year for the GOP, their senate losses (a net loss of 7) were catastrophic.
[ Parent ]
1986 had some mitigating circumstances
In 1980, the GOP picked up 12 senate seats from the Democrats.  As a result, there were plenty of vulnerable GOP Senate freshman in 1986.
[ Parent ]
The GOP House battering came in 1982 with those vulnerable frosh.
[ Parent ]
Depends
If no health care reform is passed, the scenario you gave is likely.  The Dems would lose 25-35 in the House, and 1-4 in the Senate.

If a bad health care bill is passed, the independents would be split rather than leaning Repub because they would give the Dems credit for some reform. Repub turnout would be high.  Democratic turnout would be moderate, some would stay at home because they didn't get their public option, but others would come out with the hope that they can push the public option in future years.
The Dems would lose 10-20 in the House, and +1 to -1 in the Senate.

If the Dems get a spine and pass a decent health care bill, then you get high turnout from both Repubs and Dems, with independents probably split, but giving the Dems at least some credit for accomplishing some reform.  
This probably results in a pro-incumbent year, Dems lose a net 0-10 seats in the House, gain a net 1-4 seats in the Senate.

Two wild cards, this assumes that the economy will continue to improve slowly, as it is doing now.  If the economy tanks next year, these numbers could get worse.  Also if Obama obtains a major foreign policy victory, either a deal in the Middle East or one with Iran's nuclear program, then the Democratic support could go up substantially.

[ Parent ]
Your second scenario is the most likely
Though a year from now I'm doubtful no public option will cause too many problems with Dem turnout if the economy is in decent shape.
[ Parent ]
I by-and-large agree with this
I think it's still early, but it is, at the bare minimum, "possible."
[ Parent ]
Three possible scenarios
There are three possible scenarios for how this election turns out.
1. Cardin vs Steele
2. Menedez vs Kean
3. Klobuchar vs Kennedy

I mention the third because I think it might go like that. Everyone predicted the the Klobuchar vs Kennedy race would be a very costly and close election. The first few polls appeared like that. Then Amy Klobuchar surged and surged and surged in the polls and eventually crushed Mark Kennedy by 20%. I think that could be the case here, Giannoulias has room to surge and surge and surge in the polls.

None of them
As I wrote in the other thread the best comparison is:

Cornyn v Kirk, TX in 2002.

[ Parent ]
Well for it to be that way Alexi will have to give a lot of non answers
I paid little attention in 2002 (I was in high school and had a life!) I flipped through the channels one day and say Cornyn and Kirk having a debate. Cornyn gave non answers to every answer while Kirk was giving long, full explanations. I started yelling at the tv and ran out to go tell my dad about it.

I would hate to equate Alexi to Cornyn and make Kirk that intelligent to a mass audience.

[ Parent ]
One of many reason why Kirk won't win
Hmmmm
However, I think we may need to prepare for the possibility that the worst -- or something in its realm -- could come to fruition next year.

When did you become such a Debbie Downer James?  This comes off you saying how bad things will be for team blue over in the Daily Digest pertaining to the NC race, which was certainly more of a direct Debbie Downer sentiment and could be disputed while this quote is ambiguous and goes both ways.  (There is certainly plenty of reason though to be down on our chances so Im not discounting this sentiment, more so just asking.)

The healthcare debate sure is hurting and Obama saying a public option is no longer needed is certainly putting the Dems on the defense but it will still be all about the economy and if that is going ok, the American public will clearly be more trusting of the Democrats.  Guess we'll have to wait and see!

The direction that the healthcare debate
is progressing leads me to suspect that any health bill passed will be so craptacular that it may do more political harm than good. If a good healthcare bill with a public option passes, you'll see me doing handstands. Right now, with Baucus and Conrad stinking the joint up with their co-op bullshit, I'm not feeling much optimism.

Things can turn around -- there is still time -- but as of now, 2010 is not looking like it will be sexytime for Democrats, if you know what I mean.

[ Parent ]
Actually
the Obama administration said a public option is not off the table. Sebelius just misspoke. http://www.democraticundergrou...

Check out the 2010 California races and help us take back Red California!
[ Parent ]
You believe they're not pulling back, I've
got a bridge to sell you.

[ Parent ]
It's the economy stupid.
It's all going to come down to the economy.  Nothing else matters.

We've already seen signs that the stimulus is working, and I think that things will start to pick up again before November 2010.  But I'm not an economist, so it's up in the air.

All I'm trying to say is that the elections will be decided in their entirety by the state of the economy.  If we are better off, Democrats will win big.  If we continue to slide, I think the Republicans will see the dead cat bounce they are expecting right now.

Mad At Thad:  A Blog Devoted To Ousting Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Republican - Michigan

[ Parent ]
Generally yes, but...
bungling health care like it is being bungled (again) is a very bad thing.  It's not a coincidence 1994 happened after the Clinton health care debacle.

I didn't think Obama would be so stupid to repeat the same process, but if he does, that would be very bad for us.

Propose some damn thing, vote on it, win or lose, defned the position at the polls in 2010.

Losing a straight up vote on a public option would be the very best thing that could happen to us for 2010.  Voters support it, but they get confused by all the batshit, mealy-mouthed, do-nothingism that is going on.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

[ Parent ]
Fair points
The 1994 bungling certainly didn't help matters, especially when there was never an actual bill to be voted on.

I agree: pass something, fail to pass something, just bring it to some kind of vote.

However, I actually think it was the assault weapons ban and the 1993 budget that hurt us the most. The former alienated Southerners, Westerners, and rural Dems in general. It isn't coincidental that the biggest share of our losses (at least in the House) were in the South. The latter alienated moderate suburbanites (particularly in WA and the Northeast), but many of them came back into the fold (at least on the congressional level) when they got a look at the alternative.

[ Parent ]
1994
It was also right up against election that fall. It was kind of the coup de grace to everything else that had happened - the budget, the assault weapons ban, gays in the military, the Congressional scandals etc, etc.
[ Parent ]
Fair enough
But the defining issue will be the economy.  If job creation begins to happen and Obama can effectively direct credit for it to the stimulus bill and his economic policies, I see no way the Democrats lose big in 2010.  If it continues to slide, the Republicans will see a significant dead cat bounce.

Mad At Thad:  A Blog Devoted To Ousting Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Republican - Michigan
[ Parent ]
1994 was a result of
conservative Democrats in Congress not wanting to do anything anymore, stifling all Democratic initiatives.  And doing what Newt and his Republicans could bully them into.  There was no argument to be made for them with swing voters- the House Bank scandal undermined the last viable excuse, i.e. that at least they were more ethical.

The conservative Democrats were of no more use to anybody and they knew it.  That's why many of them retired in '94 and so many others were defeated.

[ Parent ]
Im certainly of the mindset
that whatever passes, it is going to be terrible for us politically.

If there is no public option, tons of Dems will vote no while it maybe being able to pass as a GOP-Dem compromise with enough GOP'ers voting for it.  But then that basically tears the party apart because I'll be damned if progressives are the ones fucked over in this debate, we're the ones who work the campaigns and get these people elected!

And then if there is a public option, this giant circus continues.

And the way it is progressing makes the Obama administration look weak, defeated, and not in much of a position to get what they want.  One giant fucking hot mess.

I cant decide if I had rather Obama have tackled healthcare later on.  They clearly tried to rush it through so that the GOP couldnt do exactly what they are doing but as the same time, if they had planned on a more extended period of time to get this thing done, it wouldve been viewed more positively by the electorate, there could have been a lot more educating the electorate on what the bill actually does, etc.  I think the Obama administration figured they'd be able to use his political capital on this and get it done.  Wrong, healthcare seems to be an issue that needs to be more of a conversation with the American people, its complicated and easy to distort.  It's personal as people can literally die based off of what gets passed and that conversation wouldve been crucial.  Ugh, now I imagine Obama doing some big prime timer before anything really got started and going on the offensive instead of the defense.

One giant hot mess.

[ Parent ]
Most likely scenario
The House passes the public option while the Senate passes co-ops. In conference the compromise is closer to the Senate version but not enough House liberals vote against to kill it.
[ Parent ]
Good point
I concur.
[ Parent ]
No bill at all will do the most harm
Strictly politically speaking.

"The damage to Obama from such a move would be significant, a sign that he didn't have the political capital to push his top legislative priority through a Democratic Congress. For the party, it could send a signal to voters that Democrats are too fractious to govern effectively ahead of the 2010 midterms."

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

[ Parent ]
And he's lucky
he put Hillary in his cabinet, if he completely failed on healthcare and didnt even get a bill to pass, any bill, I think we'd see plenty of people wanting to get her into the race against him in 2012 and it be extremely vocal.  Id certainly give her a once over if that were all to transpire.  The GLBT community is already quite a bit miffed at him, I certainly had a little bit of buyers remorse voting for him in MN's caucus instead of HIllary when it became apparent that the GLBT community would have to go up in arms over his lack of action and silence.  (Freakin best year ever for gay rights across the country and he didnt say a fucking word, even with Pride just around the corner.)
[ Parent ]
You think she would have suck her neck out like that?
No chance. If she were president now it would be the same. Lots of mythical hindsight on both sides with regard to Hillary Clinton.
[ Parent ]
stuck

[ Parent ]
IL
As pessimistic as I may even be, I find it extremely hard to believe we will lose this seat.  If we do lose this, We can expect to lose a net 4-5 seats in the Senate, something I don't see happening.
Your worst case
However, I think we may need to prepare for the possibility that the worst -- or something in its realm -- could come to fruition next year.

In all likelyhood though the worst case for the Democrats still will probably have them in control with healthy margins. 58 or so in the Senate, probably around 2005 GOP House numbers.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

And out of all those house gains
A very large portion of those would come from Democrats who already vote against the party on major pieces of legislation so I doubt the vote margins would really radically change for those types of bills.
[ Parent ]
IL-Sen: Kirk Posts Slim Lead Over Giannoulias in Rasmussen Poll | 41 comments

Copyright 2003-2009 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

Search the SSP archives:

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

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox