|
Senator by Net Approval: Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) ................. 59/28 (+31) Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) ...... 54/32 (+22) Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) .................... 48/29 (+19) Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) .......... 49/32 (+17) John Boozman (R-Arkansas) ............... 40/27 (+13) Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) .................. 43/30 (+13) Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) .................. 38/28 (+10) Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) ............... 46/38 (+8) Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) .................. 43/36 (+7) Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) .............. 39/33 (+6) Rob Portman (R-Ohio) * .................. 38/32 (+6) Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) ......... 33/28 (+5) Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) * ................ 37/36 (+1) Marco Rubio (R-Florida) ................. 40/41 (-1) Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) * ............. 34/36 (-2) Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) ............. 30/35 (-5) Patrick Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) * ....... 36/46 (-10) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) * ................. 32/55 (-23) (Poll results as of 2014.11.06, unless otherwise noted by *) Overall, I expect another Democratic surge up from these numbers by Election Day 2016, since current polling represents a nadir for Democrats and since the Republicans have about zero likable people who can win the Primaries, whereas the Democrats are going to have likable primary candidates coming out the wazoo (Biden, Castro, and Schweitzer would all be fun presences in the race; Clinton's been quietly improving her charm for years and is twice as clever as any Republican opponent.) Expect Democrats to ride the Nominee's coattails on up, especially once Billary starts packing their usual wallop on the trail, while the Republicans ride their inevitably douchey Nominee's coattails straight into disappointmentville. Highly popular governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri) is term limited in 2016. If he runs for Senate, he will almost certainly crush unpopular incumbent Roy Blunt (R), whose approval rating was at 37/36 (+1) in 2012. Harry Reid has survived very low approval ratings for several terms. If he pulls one out again, good for him. If he loses, Dems will find someone better. It's win-win, unless Republicans retain the Senate. Nameless_Steve has issued a correction as of 18:29 on Nov 11, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Thanks for those poll numbers. Do you have a site that does that work for you that you could link me to? I'd love to add it to the OP. If not, and you took the time to compile that: (1) thanks for doing that, and (2) please continue doing it periodically. I got all except for the asterisked ones from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/2016-senator-approvals.html, and were from states with a well-polled election in 2014 and a senate election in 2016. Other approval ratings I had to google individually (Portman and Johnson's approval ratings were from 2014 Spring, and Reid's and Blunt's from 2012) as you can see by the several I missed. All were from PPP for consistency. Nameless_Steve has issued a correction as of 00:56 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Popular Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), who has handily won five senate contests in a row since 1986, will be 80 when she chooses whether to run again in 2016. Maryland's governor has the power of appointment to fill empty Senate seats. If Mikulski doesn't retire, she'll be a shoo-in to win. If she does, a Democrat is practically guaranteed to keep the seat, but the race will sap resources from the DSCC. If this is the case, narrowly defeated Gubernatorial candidate (and current Lieutenant Governor) Anthony G. Brown may have a decent shot at becoming the first Iraq War veteran to hold the office of United States Senator.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Tom Cotton's going to get this distinction when he's sworn into office in January. You know what, I should have known that and totally derped out. I looked Cotton up on election night-- and was surprised to find he doesn't sound like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
In 2013 November, PPP showed Toomey's approval rating to be 36/46 (-10). http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/11/christie-tops-hillary-in-pa-toomey-endangered-for-16.html#more This was during a Republican dip after the Cruz shutdown, but it's practically impossible to overcome those kinds of numbers from his position. Oddly, a Quinnipiac poll taken in 2013 April showed Toomey's approval rating to be 48/34 (+14), with the extra support coming from 41% of Democrats approving. Did Toomey really drop 24 net points in seven months? In any case, PPP's numbers are more recent and PPP is the more accurate polling organization. (edit: I updated the table to include Toomey's numbers) Nameless_Steve has issued a correction as of 18:40 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:So you're saying what we need to do is get a legalization measure on all of the other 46 state's ballots in 2016? 2018. That's when we'll need high voter turnout. (...pun intended)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Troy Queef posted:Yeah, Nixon's kinda got a massive millstone called "Ferguson" around his neck. So much so that black Dems from NoCO allied themselves around the GOP candidate for STL County Exec (who lost, but it's going to a recount so who knows) in the recent elections because at least he promised to do something about getting justice for Mike Brown, and he's already had a diss track written about him by one of the main protest leaders that takes him to task (it's available here: https://soundcloud.com/tef-poe/war-cry-produced-by-dj-smitty-jay-nixon-diss-record). Ah, yes, the well-worn double-edged sword of campaign promises that obviously violate separation of powers. In this case, a promise to prevent the massive impending failure of the judicial branch. I don't know much about Missouri state law, regarding the relationship between the governor's mansion and local law enforcement, but would a call from the governor get a killer cop fired directly or indirectly? What could and should Nixon have done, realistically?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
You mean an elected Democrat asked himself the question "how will doing the right thing be misinterpreted by racist morons?" and bumbled and missed the opportunity?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Imagine if Clinton had FDR'd and been reelected President for the rest of his life. The country would be in a much better place, and would have stopped caring after the ninth or tenth intern he had sexual relations with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:2008 still would have happened and we'd either be in McCain's 2nd term or Obama's first. Maybe Iraq doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what other history-changing events would have been prevented. If we got health care reform, it probably ends up looking the same. Or it doesn't happen at all if Clinton never wins back the house there's a GOP president. Then again, maybe the GOP doesn't move so far right and wins with the 2000 McCain rather than 2008's version? I honestly believe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Bush received "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" and thought it was routine; Clinton would have had the hindsight to know it was not. Even if 9/11 had occurred under a Democrat, there would have been no Iraq War and no Bush tax cuts, so by the time the housing and financial bubbles popped, there wouldn't have been a deficit and the national debt would have been much lower. The Recession would have been much easier to fix with a budget surplus going into it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I put together a little graph that shines a bit of light on the 2012 elections: Nice work. Does this include Senators Sanders (I-VT) and King (I-ME)? Can I use it somewhere else on the internet?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. By your logic, Clinton did "worse than nothing" as President, because Bush ruined his surplus and the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
What? No. I'm making a statement about leadership, which is timeless. Germanicus was a good emperor, even if Caligula wasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies, whereas the great majority of Roman citizens were experiencing the greatest opportunities for class advancement in their life. You're missing my point (and, yeah, Nero was a much better emperor than he gets credit for, but Caligula... eh) It was a rhetorical example. (I did say "even if") You said: My Imaginary GF posted:Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. If leader A does a good job, leader A does a good job. If Leader A is succeeded by Leader B, and Leader B does a bad job and ruins A's good work, it doesn't make A a failure. Therefore, Dean was a good DNC chair regardless of what Schultz has done or will do. The 50 state strategy cost no more than the traditional "focus on big purples" strategy-- like both parties don't blow their entire warchest each election-- and it actually probably would have cost less in the long term. Think of it like a garden: you tend to state parties enough for them to grow strong, while the candidates develop better and better incumbent advantage. Eventually, you'll have local favorites who've successfully survived waves, and the state starts turning blue. In the meantime, Republicans will have to fight you all over the place, which takes away money from the big races and increases the chances of Republicans creating loonies that dominate the news cycles with crazy comments, poisoning the well for others-- somewhat like in 2010, but to a greater extent. It's not like you need to conserve the 50 state strategy to be used as a surprise. It will work whether or not they know it's coming.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:That isn't how states turn colors. Debates, speeches, and public appearances do affect people's opinions. Plenty of conservatives in this country have never met or heard a real, live, persuasive liberal. That's part of the problem. Maybe we can change minds a few opinions at a time, or at least get conservatives to understand and respectfully disagree with us. For example, you can't say the Kennedys' presence wasn't at least partially to credit for why Massachusetts turned into one of the bluest states.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:You can't base a majority on trying to endlessly redraw IL or maybe NY if they're lucky for a good map, especially as they lose population. You shouldn't base a majority on redrawing anything, period. For both moral and strategic reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
If Russ Feingold (D-WI) wins, can we make Reid's replacement as the next Senate Democratic leader instead of current frontrunner Chuck Schumer (D-BAG)? Or is there some arcane Senate rule where if you lose and recover your seat, you have to start all over at the back of the line?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
My money's on Jane Kelly for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. As a fellow Iowan for whom Grassley has pushed in the past, her selection is either going to make Grassley look hypocritical, foolish, and disloyal to Iowa; or there will soon be a new liberal SCOTUS. Win-win. PPP has Grassley at 47/44 approval for March 1-2.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Yeah, the senate deadlines have yet to be passed. Its why I always bring up the possibility of Rubio admitting defeat and pulling a Rand. Course that would take him out of the running in a contested convention. For some reason Carson looks like he'll be endorsing Trump tomorrow (it can't all be because he hates Cruz, right?) so maybe he's positioning himself for the Florida run he's currently avowing. I think he'd be an "okay" candidate in the fall though Murphy would be particularly well suited to beating him. The Florida Senate deadline is May 5. Rubio already said he won't run even if he drops out from the Presidential race. It wouldn't be unusual for a politician to change their mind about such a pledge, but then again Marco does hate his job.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Obama endorses Senate, Attorney General candidates in Pennsylvania
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What conversation can you start with a Coors or Bud Lite? Well, you could start a friendly debate over which one tastes more like piss.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Maryland Democrats apparently can't make up their drat minds for who will win their safe senate seat. These polls are all the hell over the place, with a week to go: These sporadic polls have been bouncing back and forth so far beyond the MoE that I have no idea what to make of them. I'm also wondering whether the still-continuing Presidential nomination fight will have any effect on this closed primary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Why are these Italians crossing the border wearing fake mustaches and brand new political t-shirts? Also, Mike Pape looks like the kind of guy who would ineffectually promote abstinence-only at a school assembly and then diddle a couple kids on his way out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:If Clinton wins the whitehouse + senate, Obama will take Garland off the table, while saying something amazingly smug about as the GOP wanted the people have spoken and clinton will get to select the new nominee. I hope he pulls Garland after the election and nominates Eric Holder instead. That would be perfect.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:We have our first scandal in the PA race. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Another important thing to remember about not removing the filibuster in 2006 or 2008 is that they had yet to be on the receiving end of the ridiculous usage of the filibuster at that time. It had been getting steadily over used since around Clinton, but under Obama it just got patently ridiculous. While obviously the only moral filibuster is my filibuster, we've reached the point where almost all legislation needs to have at least 60 votes to pass, and that's loving idiotic. I like this chart, but it was Bush 43 and Bush 41. The 39th President was Carter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 03:57
|
|
