Tag: Polls

• NM-Sen (PDF): What happens if you took a poll and no one answered? That’s what this Tulchin Research poll (taken on behalf of the Defenders of Wildlife) feels like to me, what with its sample size of just 213 likely Democratic primary voters. If you’re trying to figure out the margin of error, you’ll need to start counting on your other hand – it’s 6.7%. Anyhow, the results, such as they are: 1st CD Rep. Martin Heinrich: 32; Lt. Gov. Diane Denish: 25; 3rd CD Rep. Ben Ray Luján’s: 15; State Auditor Hector Balderas: 5; and 24% undecided. I think it’s very unlikely that the field would develop this way, but I still think these “round up the usual suspects” polls can be valuable – if they have enough respondents, that is.

• OH-Sen: This kind of speculation is always seriously moronic… but hey, I live to serve. So in case you want to imagine a world where the Republican presidential nominee wins next year, and he’s picked Sen. Rob Portman as his running mate, Roll Call is happy to indulge your grim dystopian fantasy about a suddenly open Senate seat in Ohio come Jan. 20, 2013.

• WV-Gov: Democratic State House Speaker Rick Thompson just earned the endorsement of two teachers’ unions:  The West Virginia Federation of Teachers and the West Virginia Education Association. The primary here for this oddly-timed special election (necessary because of ex-Gov. Joe Manchin’s Senate victory last year) is coming up very soon, May 14th.

• CT-05: Kevin Rennie mentions a couple of possible Democratic prospects to replace Rep. Chris Murphy, who of course is running for Senate. One is 28-year-old pr strategist Dan Roberti, whose father Vincent was once a state rep. The other is CNBC reporter and former local news anchor Brian Schactman.

• NV-02: A piece in the WaPo has 2006 and 2008 Dem nominee Jill Derby sounding pretty interested – she said she’s considering forming an exploratory committee. (Ridiculous as that sounds – I mean, she’s considering whether to consider? – that actually counts as pretty aggressive talk in this hyper-cautious age.) The story also mentions another possible name, Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, as well as noting that state Treasurer Kate Marshall (whom we flagged as another potential candidate yesterday) calling the race “absolutely winnable.”

• NY-26: Republican Jane Corwin has her first ad out (NWOTSOTB), in which she repeatedly touts her supposed small business credentials but doesn’t mention that she’s a Republican. In some not-so-happy news, New York’s Green Party is saying they are likely to endorse Ian Murphy, the guy behind the fake David Koch call to WI Gov. Scott Walker, as their nominee. That means they probably won’t cross-endorse whoever winds up being the Democratic nominee… and that signals a long four years ahead of us. (Thanks to scoring 50,000 votes in last year’s gubernatorial election, the Greens get an automatic ballot spot in every race in the state through 2016.) Green Party co-chair Peter LaVenia says he doesn’t think that Murphy will “siphon votes” from the Dem… oy, christ, this is giving me nightmarish flashbacks to debates with idiotic Naderites in 2000. I can’t do this again.

• Wisconsin Recall: Let’s talk about Randy Hopper. If you’ll click the link, you can hear a ridiculously misleading radio ad that he’s just gone up with. The lying isn’t the point – it’s the fact that he’s on the defensive, a place you never want to be. And he knows, it, too – which is why he’s gone out and hired Jeff Harvey, who most recently managed Rep. Dave Reichert’s (WA-08) successful campaign last year. That’s a pretty big gun to bring in to a state lege race, so how can Hopper afford something like that? Well, state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and several lackeys (including recall target Alberta Darling) were in DC last night, picking up cash at a high-dollar fundraiser held at Haley Barbour’s lobbying firm (more-or-less in exchange for gunning through that infamous bit of right-to-work legislation). The optics couldn’t be better! But cold, sweet cash can move mountains.

In related news, HuffPo’s Sam Stein tries to track down elusive information about the state of the attempted recalls of Democratic senators. It sounds like it’s going poorly: An uncoordinated mess by different groups which launched different efforts at different times. The Wisconsin Republican Party has refused to get involved, and apparently the recall has been whittled down to just three target senators (from the original eight). I would not be hugely surprised if they would up with zero.

• Philly Mayor: This is pretty funny: Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter faces no real primary opposition, but he’s still trying to bounce the crazy brother of former Mayor John Street, Milton, from the ballot. Among other things, Nutter is alleging that Street doesn’t meet the residency requirements, which say that candidates have to live in the city for three years prior to the election. Where was Street? Serving a 30-month sentence in federal prison on tax evasion charges – in Kentucky.

• SF Mayor: SurveyUSA has a poll out for the San Francisco mayoral race slated for this November. SF uses instant run-off voting (IRV), so SUSA asked people to pick their first, second, and third choices. Interim Mayor Ed Lee (who filled in for Gavin Newsom when he won the Lt. Gov. race last fall) says he isn’t running but actually gets the most first-choice votes. Here’s the full field:

Ed Lee, interim Mayor, 17%

Michaela Alioto-Pier, former Board of Supervisors member, 12%

Leeland Yee, State Senator, 11%

David Chiu, Board of Supervisors President, 10%

Dennis Herrera, City Attorney, 9%

Bevan Dufty, former Supervisor, 8%

Click through the link to see second and third choices.

• DCCC: Steve Israel talked a bunch with the Hotline about candidate recruitment. The most interesting thing is his “alumni association” of former members of Congress who are thinking about running again. He holds “semi-regular” (Hotline’s phrase) conference calls with “the vast majority of former members.” Israel says that in recent weeks, interest and attendance has spiked, and I have to guess that recent Democratic enthusiasm inspired heavily by protests in the Midwest has been a factor. Israel also insists that ex-MoCs who have closed down their campaign accounts or taken lobbying jobs are not necessarily taking themselves out of the game; he sympathetically argues that some folks simply need the cash. Of course, optics aside, K Street might just seem a lot more comfortable than the campaign trail grind to many of these folks

• DNC: The usual unnamed Democrats are telling Politico they think Ted Strickland is a “strong contender” to replace Tim Kaine at the DNC if the latter decides to run for the Senate in Virginia. I think the world of Strickland, but I’d hate to see his considerable talents get muzzled at the DNC. I just don’t think that a proud populist is going to be able to speak his mind while at the Obama DNC.

• Votes: Dave Catanese has a run-down on the House members seeking (or likely to seek) statewide office and how they voted on the most recent temporary budget bill. A big swath of Republicans voted “no” (i.e., against their party), after having previously voted for the prior continuing resolution, likely out of fears of getting teabagger (because the bills don’t cut spending enough). Meanwhile, several Democrats in the same boat all voted “yes.”

• WATN?: My word:

A seven-count indictment accuses Tom Ganley, a high-profile auto dealer and onetime congressional candidate, of kidnapping a 39-year-old Cleveland woman and having sexual contact with her.

Ganley, 68, faces three felony charges of gross sexual imposition, and single counts of kidnapping, abduction, solicitation, and menacing by stalking, according to Ryan Miday, a spokesman for County Prosecutor Bill Mason.

Redistricting Roundup:

• Mississippi: Looks like Lt. Gov. and gubernatorial aspirant Phil Bryant is getting his ass handed to him. Bryant attempted to interfere with the state Senate’s attempt to draw a new map by instead offering his own. Bryant’s plan was rejected by the Senate (which we noted on Tuesday). Now, the Senate’s original plan has been adopted by the House. So it looks like an incumbent-protection deal has been reached, with the Democratic-held House and the Republican-controlled Senate each getting their way. But even with a Dem gerrymander, you’ve got to believe it’s only a matter of time before the House falls, too.

• General: Politico has a piece discussing the GOP’s overall strategy of playing it safe with redistricting this decade, and to avoid “dummymanders” like the one in Pennsylvania which proved (at least temporarily) disastrous to the party.

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos.)

We asked our pollster, Public Policy Polling, to test the waters in all eight Republican-held state Senate districts in Wisconsin which are currently the target of recall efforts. PPP went into the field over the weekend, and the numbers we got back are very interesting. I’ve summarized the key results in the table below.

We asked a battery of questions in each poll (links to full results are at the end of this post). One basic question asked whether respondents approve of the job performance of each senator-those numbers are in the first two columns after each incumbent’s name. Four senators have negative ratings, and one is even-not particularly welcome news for Republicans.

We also asked whether respondents support or oppose the idea of recalling their senators. As you can see in the next pair of columns, this question doesn’t test as well-pluralities say they favor recall in just three districts-but in a way, it’s the least important question we asked. As long as canvassers collect enough valid signatures, a recall election will happen automatically under Wisconsin law. So while this is helpful information to have, it is far from dispositive, especially when contrasted with the next pair of columns.

“Vote Incumbent” and “Vote Democrat” summarize data from our most critical question. We asked poll-takers whether, in a hypothetical election that would be held later this year, they’d support the incumbent (whom we mentioned by name), or his/her “Democratic opponent.” (This sort of question is often described as testing a “generic Democrat.”) Here, the results give us reason to be cautiously optimistic.

Three Republican incumbents actually trail “generic Dem”: Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, and Dan Kapanke. Two more have very narrow leads and garner less than 50% support: Rob Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf. And one more, Alberta Darling, holds a clear lead but is still potentially vulnerable. (Two recall-eligible senators, Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman, sit in extremely red districts and look to have safe leads.) These numbers suggest we have a chance to make five and possibly six recall races highly competitive.

But a key thing to remember, though, is that if any of these senators have to face a recall election, we’ll need an actual candidate to run against each of them. In that regard, Wisconsin’s recalls are very different from California’s, where in 2003 voters were simply asked if they wanted to remove Democratic Gov. Gray Davis from office. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected (with less than a majority) by means of a separate ballot question. In my view, California’s system makes it easier to boot an office-holder, because at bottom, the first question simply asks if you’d prefer some other-any other-alternative. If your answer was “yes,” you then had your choice on the second question, whether it was Arnold (R) or Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) or Gary Coleman (?). In Wisconsin, if a recall election makes it on to the ballot, there is no California-style first question-we go directly to a head-to-head between candidates (with a possible stop along the way for primaries). So for a recall to succeed, we’ll need to convince voters to support a real live Democrat-and that means we’ll have to recruit some good candidates.

As the recall process moves forward, you’ll want to bookmark this link and keep it handy. It’s a chart of the 2004 & 2008 presidential results in each state Senate district in Wisconsin. While not a perfect measurement, the presidential numbers offer a clear baseline for a rough-cut assessment of how competitive each district is likely to be. Of course, many other factors are involved, but if you click the link, you’ll understand immediately why Kapanke is in such trouble – he’s in the bluest district held by a Republican, one that went 61% for Obama and 53% for Kerry. A little further down the list, you’ll see that Olsen, Cowles, Hopper, Harsdorf, and Darling all occupy districts with roughly similar presidential results that hover in swingy territory, so you can see why at least the first four are at risk. Darling’s stronger performance is somewhat surprising, given that senators in comparable districts all do worse, but even she is not out of the woods. Bringing up the rear are Lazich and Grothman, who holds the most Republican seat in the entire state. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which either of them could fall.

One final detail: You’ll notice that in the table up above, the last column reads “Number of Responses.” That refers to how many people actually completed our poll when we called them. If you’re familiar with electoral polling at all, those numbers are simply eye-popping, particularly for state senate districts. Our target was 600 to 800 respondents per poll, and yet we got well into the two thousand range for all but one of them (and even that outlier had over 1,300). What does this mean? The only reasonable conclusion is that an unusually high proportion of Wisconsinites are tuned into this conflict, and when given the opportunity to make their opinions heard, they jumped at the chance. While we can’t yet say for sure whether the enthusiasm gap has been erased, we do know that folks in Wisconsin are very definitely paying attention.

And so, of course, are we. As the situation warrants, we’ll revisit these districts and test the poll numbers again. For now, though, we wait on the outcome of the petition drive to force these recall elections in the first place. Then the battle will really begin.

Full Results: Cowles | Darling | Harsdorf | Olsen | Hopper | Grothman | Lazich | Kapanke

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/10-13, Ohio voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49 (43)

Jon Husted (R): 34 (38)

Undecided: 18 (18)

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49 (43)

Jim Jordan (R): 30 (35)

Undecided: 21 (22)

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49 (40)

Mary Taylor (R): 30 (38)

Undecided: 21 (22)

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 48

Josh Mandel (R): 32

Undecided: 21

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 48

Steve LaTourette (R): 30

Undecided: 22

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49

Drew Carey (R): 34

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Some days, I get out of bed and have to think about which Republican it is I hate the most. Usually, though, I don’t, because it just winds up being John Kasich. But today, if Public Policy Polling is right about these numbers, then John Kasich is my new BFF – and Sherrod Brown’s, too. I always like seeing a d-bag like Kasich suffer, but when that also helps a great progressive like Brown, well hell, it’s a great day for America! Tom notes three key points:

1) There are more undecided Republicans than Democrats, so these mostly no-name GOP candidates have more room to grow – but at 48 or 49 points, Brown is already very close to victory.

2) In December, Brown was tied among independents with his potential opponents. Now he has sizable leads – for instance, 18 points against Lt. Gov. (and former Auditor) Mary Taylor.

3) Similarly, Democrats are coming home. Brown was just 75-15 among members of his own party versus Taylor; now he’s 86-3. Brown may not have much crossover appeal, but at this point, neither do the Republicans.

I’ll add another observation: PPP asked respondents whom they voted for in 2008. The answer: 49% Obama, 46% McCain. That’s very close to Obama’s actual 4-point margin. While I’d bet that not all of these Obama voters will pull the lever for him a second time, this does demonstrate that the 2012 electorate is looking a hell of a lot more like 2008 than 2010. If that holds, then we might not do too badly.

I love do-over polls, especially when they show numbers like this, and especially when they feature John Kasich.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/10-13, Ohio voters, no trendlines):

Q: If you could do last fall’s election for Governor over again, would you vote for Democrat Ted Strickland or Republican John Kasich?

Ted Strickland (D): 55

John Kasich (R-inc): 40

Undecided: 5

Q: In the election for Governor last year did you vote for Democrat Ted Strickland or Republican John Kasich, or did you not vote in the election?

Ted Strickland (D): 49

John Kasich (R-inc): 46

Didn’t vote/don’t remember: 5

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Kasich’s job approval (the first tested by PPP) is a truly miserable 35-54. PPP also posed a question on SB5, a bill which would institute “right-to-work” in the state of Ohio. This legislation, once law, would almost certainly go before the voters in the form of a ballot question, probably this November. It’s definitely helping to drag Kasich down:

Q: If Senate Bill 5, which would limit collective bargaining rights for public employees, passes the legislature and is signed by the Governor there may be a statewide vote this fall on repealing the bill. Would you vote to repeal Senate Bill 5 or would you vote to let the law stand, or are you not sure?

Would vote to repeal SB5: 54

Would vote to let the law stand: 31

Not sure: 15

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Once again, I’ll let Tom have the final words:

Of course the reality is that Democratic leaning voters did this to themselves to some extent. It’s a small sample but among those who admit they didn’t vote last fall, Strickland has a 57-13 advantage over Kaisch. It was a similar story in Wisconsin the other week where Tom Barrett led Scott Walker 59-22 among those who had stayed at home in 2010. Democratic voters simply did not understand the consequences – or didn’t care – of their not voting last fall and they’re paying the price right now. But the winners of that realization in the long run may be Barack Obama, Sherrod Brown, and Herb Kohl – these states are already looking politically a whole lot more like 2008 than 2010.

(Please give a warm welcome to brownsox (aka Arjun Jaikumar) who is joining our horserace superteam – promoted by DavidNYC)

Pretty reasonable numbers, but a dodgy-looking sample.

Western New England College (PDF) (3/6-10, Massachusetts voters):

Michael Capuano (D): 38

Scott Brown (R-inc): 51

Elizabeth Warren (D): 34

Scott Brown (R-inc): 51

(MoE: ±4.5%)

The toplines are pretty much in line with what other pollsters have shown, like PPP. Brown has a solid lead, hovering around 50%, while his prospective opponents aren’t especially well known (one difference between WNEC’s poll and PPP’s is that Mike Capuano, tested in both polls, has impeccable 30/14 favorables in WNEC’s poll and pretty lousy 26/27 favorables in PPP’s).

Brown also leads Elizabeth Warren, who WNEC decided to poll for reasons best known to them (though check out those 17/3 favorables – Mike Beebe, eat your heart out!)

Like a lot of university polls, though, WNEC’s sample seems bizarre – 34% Democrats, 12% Republicans and 47% independents (the remainder responded “something else”). That’s very low on Democrats for a Massachusetts poll – the 2008 exit polls were 43% Dem, 17% Republican, 40% indie. Still, the toplines are close enough to everybody else’s numbers that they seem likely to be accurate. So the question is, can Brown lose?

He’s popular, but unlikely to get much more popular than he already is, especially as he continues to vote with Republican leadership to cut jobs and slash Medicare benefits. And popular Republicans can lose in Massachusetts in Presidential election years – ask former Governor Bill Weld, who ran for the Senate after receiving an eye-popping 71% of the vote in his 1994 reelection. Weld lost to John Kerry by seven points, 52% to 45%, helped in no small part by Bill Clinton’s 33-point romp in Massachusetts.

So sure, Brown can lose. He starts in a strong position for reelection, though, and it will take an exceptional campaign to unseat him.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Missouri voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Jay Nixon (D-inc): 45 (47)

Peter Kinder (R): 38 (39)

Undecided: 17 (14)

(MoE: ±4.0%)

Tom notes that Nixon is unusually popular – and has unusual crossover appeal:

Nixon has well above average approval numbers for a Governor in our polling, with 47% of voters happy with the job he’s doing to 31% who express disapproval of him. Nixon’s numbers have an unusual pattern by party. Only 60% of Democrats like what he’s doing while 24% disapprove. That’s a tepid level of support from within his own party. But he has almost as many Republicans – 32% – who approve of his performance as there are – 40% – who are unhappy. It’s rare to see any politician come that close to breaking even across party lines. And he has very solid numbers with independents as well at a 48/26 spread.

These numbers, while great, are still a good bit removed from those absurdly gaudy POS numbers that showed Nixon with a 61-26 approval rating. I’m much more inclined to believe PPP’s numbers. Kinder’s favorables, I should point out, are just 25-24, but half the state still doesn’t know him, so he has upside. Tom also points out that Nixon’s lead with independents is just 3%, a far cry from the 30+ he beat Kenny Hulshof by in 2008. So I think you gotta give the edge to Nixon, but just given that this is Missouri here, it looks like it’ll be competitive.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, “usual” Maine Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 43

Scott D’Amboise (R): 18

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 10

Undecided: 28

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 33

Republican Jesus (R): 58

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4.7%)

I agree with Tom: These numbers are not good for Snowe, not at all. D’Amboise and Dodge are truly at Some Dude levels, with only 5% and 2% (two percent!) favorables respectively, and yet the incumbent manages to score only 43% of primary voters. Moreover, as Tom reminds us, “Lisa Murkowski’s approval with Republicans in January of 2010 was 77/13 and Mike Castle’s in March of 2009 at an identical point in the cycle was 69/24.” As I’ve been saying all along, if the Tea Party Express or the Club for Growth throws down here, Snowe is in a heap of trouble. (By the way, “Republican Jesus” is the technical term for what PPP calls “a more conservative challenger.”)

This is all very poignant for Snowe, because, look:

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Maine voters, no trendlines):

Emily Cain (D): 20

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 64

Undecided: 16

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 18

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 66

Undecided: 17

Emily Cain (D): 33

Scott D’Amboise (R): 33

Undecided: 34

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 29

Scott D’Amboise (R): 36

Undecided: 35

Emily Cain (D): 32

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 30

Undecided: 37

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 29

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 33

Undecided: 38

(MoE: ±2.8%)

Those are some massive numbers for an incumbent in a swing state. And note the crossover appeal – Emily Cain, for instance, does 13 points better against the nobodies (fellow nobodies?) than she does against Snowe. Yet Snowe might not even get the chance to have this fight. But like Yoda said, there is another….

Emily Cain (D): 17

Scott D’Amboise (R): 21

Olympia Snowe (I): 54

Undecided: 7

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 15

Scott D’Amboise (R): 20

Olympia Snowe (I): 56

Undecided: 9

Emily Cain (D): 15

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 19

Olympia Snowe (I): 56

Undecided: 10

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 13

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 19

Olympia Snowe (I): 57

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±2.8%)

In this hypothetical scenario where Snowe runs as an independent, she also posts huge numbers, peeling from both sides. I’ll turn it over to Tom once more to provide the closing words:

If Snowe continues on as a Republican this is a race that an ambitious Democrat who doesn’t have a ton to lose should really look at. Obviously if Snowe emerges as the Republican nominee you’re going to lose and you’re going to lose by a lot. If Snowe ends up running as an independent you’re probably going to lose and you’re probably going to lose by a lot. But if Snowe stays the course and gets taken out you might become Chris Coons – a guy who was willing to throw his name in the hat when it looked impossible and ended up coasting to an easy general election victory.

For Snowe there’s a hard route to reelection and an easy one – it’ll be interesting to see if she sticks with the hard one.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Missouri voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45 (45)

Sarah Steelman (R): 42 (44)

Undecided: 14 (12)

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45

Todd Akin (R): 44

Undecided: 11

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 46

Ed Martin (R): 40

Undecided: 14

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45

Ann Wagner (R): 36

Undecided: 19

(MoE: ±4%)

Tom Jensen takes the words right out of my mouth:

Less noteworthy than the difference between McCaskill’s single point lead against Akin and her nine point advantage against Wagner is that McCaskill’s support shows no variation from 45-46% across the four match ups. The Republicans get varying levels of support pretty much directly in line with their name recognition: 44% know Akin, 44% know Steelman, 34% know Martin, and only 26% know Wagner. The GOP field is largely anonymous at this point.

McCaskill’s leads, even as small as they are, shouldn’t be particularly reassuring for her. There are at least twice as many undecided Republicans as Democrats in each match up, suggesting that once the GOP candidates become better known they will probably catch up to her pretty quickly.

One thing to note, though, is that the gathering field for the GOP represents something of a B-team, especially with Akin unlikely to get in. And while the group as a whole, as Tom notes, is mostly unknown, they all have negative favorables among those who do know them, except for Steelman, who doesn’t fare much better with a flat even 22-22. I think a Steelman-Martin primary could be extremely toxic, and something McCaskill has to be rooting for.

If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that PPP has a 38D, 37R, 25I sample. That’s a lot less Dem than the 40D-34R that the 2008 exit polls had it as, but a little better than the than the 39R-37D 2006 exit polls.

Braun Research for cn|2 (2/28-3/1, likely voters, Sept. 2010 in parens):

Steve Beshear (D-inc): 48 (44)

David Williams (R): 38 (38)

Undecided: 13 (15)

Steve Beshear (D-inc): 53 (49)

Phil Moffett: 28 (29)

Undecided: 17 (19)

Steve Beshear (D-inc): 53

Bobbie Holsclaw: 27

Undecided: 19

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Those trendlines are pretty ancient (more than half a year old), yet little seems to have changed since last September. These numbers look quite good for incumbent Dem Steve Beshear, and in fact aren’t too far off from PPP’s late October survey. One note of caution, though, is that Braun’s Kentucky polls were fairly favorable to Dems last cycle; their final KY-Sen numbers showed Rand Paul up seven (he won by 11.5).

Braun didn’t test the GOP primary, but state Senate President David Williams (running on a ticket with the perfectly named Ag. Comm’r Richie Farmer) is widely considered to be the frontrunner. In an internal poll from last month, Williams’ ticket took 47% to just 9% for teabagging businessman Phil Moffett and 10% for Jefferson Co. Clerk Bobbie Holsclaw, the only woman in the race. We haven’t seen any other responsive internals which might contradict this one… though hope always springs eternal. Still, don’t hold your breath for too long – the Hotline takes a long look at the many ways in which Moffett’s candidacy differs from Paul’s, and I’m inclined to agree with most of them. In particular, note that Paul himself says he won’t endorse in the primary.

This poll also included a test of the Kentucky Attorney General’s race, which gives us a good chance to check up on our old buddy Jack Conway:

Jack Conway (D-inc): 52

Todd P’Pool (R): 33

Undecided: 14

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Conway looks to have a very nice lead over Vulcan ambassador Hopkins County Attorney Todd P’Pool. P’Pool was more of a second choice after SoS Trey Grayson, who lost the 2010 GOP senate primary to (of course) Rand Paul), decided Harvard was a better fit for him than the Bluegrass State.

Virginia and Rhode Island don’t have a lot in common, except for the fact that PPP just put out Republican primary numbers for both states this week. So we figured we’d bundle `em up into one post.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (2/24-27, VA Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

George Allen (R): 67

Bob Marshall (R): 7

David McCormick (R):3

Jamie Radtke (R): 4

Corey Stewart (R): 3

Undecided: 18

(MoE: ±4.9)

This is disappointing news for anyone – such as myself – hoping to see George Allen get teabagged. In a one-on-one matchup against Republican Jesus (aka “someone more conservative”), Allen wins by 52-25 – impressive numbers, and far better than anyone else PPP has asked this question of. The important thing to remember, though, is that in 2010, the most important factor in whether an establishment candidate could be successfully teabagged to death was the involvement of the Tea Party Express. Though they’re a bunch of grifters who keep the lion’s share of what they raise for themselves, they’re also capable of changing elections. The Club for Growth can do this, too (and did so, in the NY-23 special), though they seem to be playing ball with the GOP bigs more often these days.

If Allen doesn’t cheese off TPX, or if they simply decide he’s too strong, then he may well just cruise to the nomination. I have a hard time seeing Bob Marshall gaining much traction (i.e., raising much money) without some outside help. (Anyhow, the most interesting news out of Virginia is just how well Obama is doing there: 48-42 over Mitt Romney and bigger margins against everyone else.)

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (2/16-22, RI Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

Don Carcieri (R): 44

Scott Avedisian (R): 12

Buddy Cianci (R): 12

John Loughlin (R): 12

John Robitaille (R): 12

Allan Fung (R): 6

Catherine Taylor (R): 2

Giovanni Cicione (R): 0

John Robitaille (R): 31

John Loughlin (R): 24

Scott Avedisian (R): 21

Allan Fung (R): 14

Giovanni Cicione (R): 3

Catherine Taylor (R): 2

Undecided: 6

(MoE: ±6.2)

As Tom notes, Carcieri, the immediate past governor, actually performs the worst of all Republicans against Whitehouse. However, no one’s actually confirmed a run, so who knows who the GOP nominee will be. (For what it’s worth, Romney, the former governor of next-door Massachusetts, unsurprisingly cleans up in the presidential race.)