Author: DavidNYC

So how many people here are going to see Star Trek?

Rasmussen Reports (5/6, likely voters, no trendlines):

Rick Perry (R-inc): 42

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): 38

Other: 7

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4%)

Baselice & Associates (R) for Rick Perry (5/3-4, “Republican primary voters,” no trendlines):

Rick Perry (R-inc): 39

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): 45

Other: 7

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4%)

Interestingly, in the Baselice internal, KBH led by 11 when the question was presented without titles, but Perry was up by one with titles (ie, Governor, Senator). Of course, there won’t be titles on the actual ballot. In any event, you have to wonder about that Rasmussen survey, given that Perry’s own poll shows him behind. Still, I’m rooting for a close race here, and it looks like that’s what we may have.

(Hat-tips: Trail Blazers Blog & Political Wire)

Quinnipiac University (4/28-5/4, “Ohio voters”, March in parens).

Republican gubernatorial primary:

Mike DeWine (R): 35 (32)

John Kasich (R): 23 (27)

Kevin Coughlin (R): 2 (2)

Undecided: 37 (37)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

Democratic & Republican Senate primaries:

Lee Fisher (D): 20 (18)

Jennifer Brunner (D): 16 (14)

Tyrone Yates (D): 4 (6)

Undecided: 59 (46)

(MoE: ±4.7%)

Rob Portman (R): 29 (31)

Mary Taylor (R): 8 (14)

Tom Ganley (R): 8 (n/a)

Undecided: 54 (52)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

Gubernatorial general election matchups:

Ted Strickland (D-inc): 51 (51)

John Kasich (R): 32 (31)

Undecided: 16 (15)

Ted Strickland (D-inc): 48 (50)

Mike DeWine (R): 36 (34)

Undecided: 14 (12)

(MoE: ±3%)

Senate general election matchups:

Lee Fisher (D): 42 (41)

Rob Portman (R): 31 (33)

Undecided: 26 (24)

Lee Fisher (D): 41 (41)

Mary Taylor (R): 29 (31)

Undecided: 28 (25)

Jennifer Brunner (D): 40 (39)

Rob Portman (R): 32 (34)

Undecided: 27 (25)

Jennifer Brunner (D): 38 (38)

Mary Taylor (R): 29 (31)

Undecided: 31 (28)

(MoE: ±3%)

Not a whole lot of motion in the ocean, but nice to see the Dems doing well. One caveat: Fisher and Brunner are both unknown to about 50% of the population, but Portman is unrecognized by two-thirds.

Public Opinion Strategies (R) for RNC Committeeman Bob Asher (5/3-4, likely voters, no trendlines). Primary results:

Tom Ridge (R): 59

Pat Toomey (R): 21

Peg Luksik (R): 2

Undecided: 17

Tom Ridge (R): 60

Pat Toomey (R): 23

Undecided: 16

(MoE: ±4.6%)

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 57

Joe Sestak (D): 20

Undecided: 22

(MoE: ±5.2%)

And general election matchups:

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 41

Tom Ridge (R): 48

Undecided: 10

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 49

Pat Toomey (R): 40

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±3.7%)

Amusingly, POS was Specter’s pollster (they parted ways (PDF) after his switcheroo)… and now they’re showing him trailing Tom Ridge in a general election matchup. A little post-breakup revenge polling? Ridge, who’s supposedly “50-50” on a race, also seems to have something of a Santorum problem: On various official documents, he’s listed his residence in Maryland, not Pennsylvania. This guy was governor and he doesn’t even want to live in the Keystone State any longer? Jeez.

Anyhow, POS also has the first primary tests we’ve seen, with Ridge pounding Toomey. Doubtless Toomey’s weak ID among Republicans is holding him back – 50% either have no opinion or have never heard of him. With movement conservatives already taking aim at Ridge, these numbers would be sure to change by the end of what would be a bruising, year-long primary.

Among all voters, meanwhile, Specter clocks in with a 50-40 favorability score, while Sestak has just a 15-3 rating. If Sestak mounted a serious campaign (presumably with labor backing), this too would change. Sestak has been talking pretty tough, though I’m a bit concerned that SEIU’s Andy Stern might be using him to put pressure on Specter over EFCA. At the same time, Joe Torsella is apparently trying to gather anti-Specter Dems into his fold. But would Torsella, an acolyte of Ed Rendell, really stick it out against Specter, given that Fast Eddie pledged a clear primary to Arlen?

Specter, though, is making it harder and harder for Dems to stomach him. In fact, it seems that everything he’s said since his switch has been designed to alienate rather than embrace his new party. He reiterated his newfound opposition to Employee Free Choice; said he’d still oppose Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel; declared he would not be a “loyal Democrat”; voted against Obama’s budget; denied he was committed to the President’s healthcare plan (contradicting Obama himself); said the one vote in his entire career that he publicly regrets was his vote against Jeff Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship; and then this gem:

There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

He’s since tried to walk that back, hilariously claiming he “conclusively misspoke”. I think Markos got it right – Specter seemes to be rejecting his (D) transplant. He’s starting to piss me off more as a “Democrat” than he ever did as a Republican.

Marist Poll (4/28-29, registered voters, late Feb. in parens). First, the NY-Gov primary matchups:

Andrew Cuomo (D): 70 (62)

David Paterson (D-inc): 21 (26)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 75

Rick Lazio (R): 14

(MoE: ±6%)

And the general election matchups:

David Paterson (D-inc): 32 (38)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 56 (53)

David Paterson (D-inc): 37

Rick Lazio (R): 40

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55 (56)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 38 (39)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 67

Rick Lazio (R): 22

(MoE: ±3%)

Paterson losing to Rick Lazio? That Rick Lazio? Oh man. Please, just make it stop. Believe it or not, though, it actually gets worse. In response to the question “Who would you rather have as governor right now?”, voters prefer Eliot Spitzer over David Paterson by a 51-38 margin. Yeesh.

Sigh. Okay. The Senate side primary head-to-heads:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 36

Carolyn Maloney: 31

(MoE: ±4.5%)

George Pataki (R): 48 (56)

Peter King (R): 36 (32)

(MoE: ±6%)

And the general:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 38 (45)

George Pataki (R): 46 (41)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 42 (49)

Peter King (R): 31 (28)

(MoE: ±3%)

Marist unfortunately doesn’t offer any explanation as to why Gillibrand’s numbers have dropped. Her approvals have worsened, from 18-32 to 19-38. But on that question, Marist is a strange outlier from all other outfits – no one else has Gillibrand under water like that.

As for a potential primary challenge, Marist showed Gillibrand with almost identical numbers a few months back against the other Rep. Carolyn (McCarthy of Long Island). But I’m convinced that Steve Israel is by far the most likely to actually show up, and is the only person I think would have any kind of chance.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (5/1-3, likely voters, late March in parens):

Terry McAuliffe (D): 30 (18)

Brian Moran (D): 20 (22)

Creigh Deeds (D): 14 (15)

Undecided: 36 (45)

(MoE: ± 4.1%)

This is a big jump for T-Mac from the last PPP poll, which actually had him trailing Moran. But this is now the second survey in a row (SUSA’s was the first) to show McAuliffe with a sizable lead. Still, there are a ton of undecideds and just a month left to go in the race – a lot can happen.

Susquehanna Polling & Research (R) for PEG PAC (“end of last week”, registered voters, no trendlines):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 38

Tom Ridge (R): 39

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 42

Pat Toomey (R): 36

(MoE: ±2.8%)

PEG PAC describes itself as “Pennsylvania’s oldest pro-business political action committee and the affiliated PAC of the Pennsylvania Business Council (PBC)”. I personally don’t know much about them, but I think the remarks of PBC’s president tell us everything we need to know about where their political biases lie: “We don’t know how [Specter’s] positions and voting might change now that he has joined the Democrat Party.” Democrat Party, huh? And Susquehanna is a Republican firm, FWIW.

Anyhow, the Ridge numbers are pretty similar to the Quinnipiac poll we saw yesterday, but this poll makes Toomey out to be a lot more competitive. Color me skeptical – though Dave Weigel does report that Toomey claims to have already raised half a million bucks since his April 15th entrance. In any event, Research 2000 will have a new poll out soon, so I’m waiting for that. And unlike the two surveys we’ve seen so far, it will test both the D and R primaries.

Speaking of Dem primaries, the anti-Specter sentiment appears to be heating up from labor quarters. SEIU’s Andy Stern said yesterday, “It is hard to imagine any union supporting a candidate in the Democratic Party for the US Senate who doesn’t have strong positions on both healthcare and Employee Free Choice.” An AFL-CIO official said something similar. Personally, I like Stern’s framing – yet another flip-flop on EFCA from Specter (were one to happen) would hardly be soothing and would not constitute a “strong position.” So this leaves the door open for a primary challenge even if Specter does change his mind for the umpteenth time. And I increasingly think I’d like to see that challenge.

From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room:

Arizona state Rep. Bill Konopnicki (R) is again weighing whether to get into the state’s 1st congressional district race, according to the Arizona Capitol Times. …

But don’t look for news from Konopnicki anytime soon. He sounds like he’s content to wait a few months to see how Kirkpatrick does. It should also be noted that he opened an exploratory committee last cycle, only to opt out.

There’s also the matter of just how excited he does – or rather, doesn’t – sound. According to the Capitol Times:

Konopnicki said he isn’t interested in serving in Congress unless Republicans take back the majority in the 2010 elections – something that will be difficult to predict in time to mount a serious campaign.

“I’m not interested, quite honestly, in going and being the minority party,” he said.

This is obviously good news for Kirkpatrick, and you have to admire Konopnicki’s candor – most politicians are smart enough not to mouth off like that. But Konopnicki’s bout of honesty just demonstrates how salient this issue is. Around the country, Pete Sessions and his NRCC are trying to dig up candidates to take on Democrats and return the GOP to majority status. There are undoubtedly plenty of state senators, county DAs and rich businessmen who would make decent if not good candidates.

Yet every last one of them has to contend with the near-certainty that even if they win, come January 2011, they’ll go to DC as members of the minority, and likely stay that way for some time. Meanwhile, Democrats hold out the enticement of being in the majority – and have landed at least two major recruits, as well as several more “mid-major” names. It’s hard out there for an NRCC chair.

Quinnipiac University (4/29-5/3, “Pennsylvania voters,” no trendlines):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 53

Pat Toomey (R): 33

Undecided: 10

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 46

Tom Ridge (R): 43

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±2.9%)

Specter gets an impressive 77-8 approval rating among Democrats, though that may fade as the afterglow wears off. His overall approvals jumped a bit, too, from 45-31 to 52-34. Former Gov. Tom Ridge, though, has an even better 55-19 rating – but if Arlen Specter was hopeless against Pat Toomey in a GOP primary, does the also-moderate Ridge really have a shadow of a chance? Nonetheless, he’s apparently considering a run.

On the Democratic side, meanwhile, Rep. Joe Sestak continues to seriously explore a challenge to Specter. Appearing yesterday on CNN, he said of Specter, “I’m not sure he’s a Democrat yet,” and acted undaunted by Obama’s support for party-switchin’ Arlen. Sestak’s also apparently meeting with SEIU’s iconoclastic leader Andy Stern. The labor movement is of course deeply unhappy with a different Specter flip-flop: his shameful decision to abandon the Employee Free Choice Act.

Unsurprisingly, Specter also appeared on the Sunday talk shows, and he just provided the script for Sestak’s (or Joe Torsella’s, or Patrick Murphy’s, etc.) first attack ad. Specter supposedly told Obama over the phone last week that “I’m a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.” But he told David Gregory yesterday:

I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary, just like the Republican contest, is closed, a fact Arlen already seems to be ignoring.

(Hat-tips: Political Wire & Politico)

McLaughlin and Associates (R) for the Civitas Institute (4/21-23, likely voters, March 2009 in parens):

Roy Cooper (D): 34 (41)

Richard Burr (R-inc): 35 (38)

Undecided: 32 (21)

(MoE: ±4%)

So down at the skunkworks at SSP Labs, the boys and I spent some time trying to figure out why on earth both Cooper and Burr would show drops like this from the last survey – especially Coop. Our initial diagnostics came up empty, but after scoping out the innards, I think we’ve come up with something.

You might have noticed that the very first line of this post refers to a polling outfit called “McLaughlin and Associates,” a Republican firm from Alexandria, Virginia. I’m not familiar with them, and in fact, I’ve never seen Civitas identify McLaughlin as their pollster.

More importantly, McLaughlin changed the wording of the horserace question from what Civitas had been using in the past. In other words, we don’t have a true trendline. The old question:

“If the election for United States Senate were held today and the candidates were republican Richard Burr and democrat Roy Cooper, for which would you be voting?  If not sure/unsure/refused… which candidates are you leaning toward: republican Richard Burr or democrat Roy Cooper?”

And the new question:

If the election were held today, which one of the following best describes how you are likely to vote in the election for United States Senate between Richard Burr, the republican candidate, and Roy Cooper, the democratic candidate?

The choices were “definitely X,” “probably,” “lean,” and perhaps “undecided.” The key change is that the old poll actually pushed leaners – it doesn’t look like the new one did. And the less-than-traditional phrasing of the new question seems a bit wonky to me. I’ve never really seen a straight horserace question tested in quite that way before. All in all, an unusual set of choices by Civitas, but it looks like our dedicated gang of greasemonkeys has at least solved this mystery.