The D-trip is out with four new internal polls showing Democratic incumbents in the lead.
KY-06: Grove Insight for the DCCC (9/7-9, likely voters):
Ben Chandler (D-inc): 52
Andy Barr (R): 38
(MoE: ±4.9%)
NM-02: Anzalone Liszt for the DCCC (9/7-9, likely voters):
Harry Teague (D-inc): 51
Steve Pearce (R): 44
(MoE: ±4.9%)
OR-05: Grove Insight for the DCCC (9/7-9, likely voters):
Kurt Schrader (D-inc): 42
Scott Bruun (R): 29
(MoE: ±4.9%)
PA-12: Grove Insight for the DCCC (9/7-9, likely voters):
Mark Critz (D-inc): 48
Tim Burns (R): 41
(MoE: ±4.9%)
People really should have put more faith in that independent poll that had him ahead. This is happening quite a bit now, people assumed to be dead aren’t dead at all.
Only NM-2 do I consider a serious Republican pickup opportunity.
I wish they would have released numbers for PA-12 regarding the Gubernatorial and Senate races.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!
Srsly, this is good numbers for PA-12 and NM-2, yet the pundit class says these are toss ups or surely lost.
Stupid, so stupid.
…for using the word “new” and missing that these polls are more than 2 months old with the “7/9” date.
But then I clicked the link and saw the polls were conducted “9/7-9,” not “7/9.”
I’ve just been hearing that the cap and trade vote and the heated town hall meetings and was counting Teague for dead.
So I’ll take them with the appropriate grain of salt, but nonetheless this is some welcome good news. I guess this coming “Red Tide” isn’t as big and bad and scary as the RNCC wants us to believe. 😉
30% undecided seems a little high no?
NM-02 is a district very close to my heart as I grew up there and still have lots of family there. That said I really don’t see any way Harry Teague wins that race absent a very large turnout in Las Cruces. Things that are working against him are the following:
1) Strong Republican tilt of the district. Picture the bottom half of New Mexico as a district. All of the counties that border Texas are oil rich and vote like Texas which contributes to the strong Republican lean. Pearce while not loved in the district (heck Tom Udall the Liberal from Santa Fe beat him here but please understand that the Udall name is gold in NM) is a good enough name to win in a strong Republican year.
2) Teague needs a strong turnout in Las Cruces which is where New Mexico State University is. However, Susanna Martinez is from Las Cruces and should be able to do above average for a Republican there.
3) Teague has the story of his businesses kicking their employees off of health care, that is not going to help his cause at all.
4) Teague can self-fund as he is very rich but it is unlikely to be enough. He is liked but given the current climate I see Pearce winning this one by 6-9 points.
second two polls worry me. Being near 40 in your own poll is not a good sign. Critz being that close in his own internal is not comforting either.
that these are the best 4 polls that the DCCC had on hand out of some larger number of districts that were polled? They may have polled some other districts but did not release results for those that came out bad.
Particularly Chandler. And I’m glad DCCC realizes that allowing the GOP to fill the narrative with their internal polls.
Still, if you follow the “5% rule” which admittedly I don’t think is hard and fast, you have to be concerned about NM-2 and PA-12.
Think about it, they are silent until around Labor day, they let the NRCC release their polls through the summer, dems are doomed, etc. Build this narrative they don’t combat except by the candidates within each seat.
Then, when people start paying attention, begin to unleash their narratives, start showing their cards, and suddenly “D.O.A.” dems start looking pretty good, they come back, and the narrative changes to “GOP snags defeat from jaws of victory.” It knocks them on their heels, and they suddenly have to unexpectedly, fight back on their own narrative they had established all summer.
Good job, Van Hollen. I knew I liked you for a reason (besides how well you played special elections, and how better you spread your resources in 2008 than Rahm in 2006)
Imagine if Democrats had convinced Paul Hodes, Brad Ellsworth, Paul Hodes, and Charlie Melancon to run for reelection rather than go for highly risky Senate runs in what was likely to be a very tough year.
Then imagine if Democrats had worked harder to convince Dennis Moore, Brian Baird, Marion Berry, John Tanner, Bart Gordon, and Bart Stupak to run for reelection?
We probably would have won all of those seats unstead of being highly favored to lose every one of them and would have kept the House 220-215, rather than likely losing it 225-210 as Nate Silver says.