September Senate Approval Numbers from Survey USA
SUSA is up with their September numbers.
Republicans:
Bad news for Coleman who hangs around the mid-40's in extremely vulnerable territory, again very near a net-negative approval. Especially bad news when you hold Coleman's 46-45 next to Senator Amy Klobuchar's 62-32.
These are the most shocking new numbers. Domenici's steady fall seemed to have levelled off in the low-50's. Are these atrocious numbers just an outlying blip or a sign of more pointed disapproval? We won't know until next month's numbers establish a new trend or evidence that it was just a blip. But very intriguing.
McConnell continues to hover right around that 50% danger mark.
After spending time flirting with the 50% mark, Roberts' approval has shifted back up into traditionally safer territory.
Not much new with Sessions. If he stays above 55%, he should be very comfortable.
Smith spends his fifth consecutive month with an approval under 50% and his fourth consecutive month with a disapproval above 40%. Classicly vulnerable.
Democrats:
Harkin keeps the head above 50%. Probably not low enough to tempt Tom Latham to gamble his House seat on a Senate challenge.
Kerry also stays above 50%. I wonder how low his approval would have to go before the NRSC committed funds to Massachusetts?
Republicans:
| Norm Coleman | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 46 | 47 | 43 | 48 | 51 | 53 | 48 |
| Disapprove | 45 | 44 | 48 | 41 | 42 | 41 | 43 |
Bad news for Coleman who hangs around the mid-40's in extremely vulnerable territory, again very near a net-negative approval. Especially bad news when you hold Coleman's 46-45 next to Senator Amy Klobuchar's 62-32.
| Pete Domenici | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 41 | 52 | 55 | 51 | 52 | 54 | 68 |
| Disapprove | 54 | 41 | 41 | 42 | 42 | 38 | 25 |
These are the most shocking new numbers. Domenici's steady fall seemed to have levelled off in the low-50's. Are these atrocious numbers just an outlying blip or a sign of more pointed disapproval? We won't know until next month's numbers establish a new trend or evidence that it was just a blip. But very intriguing.
| Mitch McConnell | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 51 | 50 | 48 | 52 | 54 | 53 | 54 |
| Disapprove | 40 | 43 | 44 | 42 | 39 | 40 | 39 |
McConnell continues to hover right around that 50% danger mark.
| Pat Roberts | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 57 | 54 | 52 | 51 | 52 | 48 | 51 |
| Disapprove | 32 | 33 | 34 | 37 | 36 | 39 | 36 |
After spending time flirting with the 50% mark, Roberts' approval has shifted back up into traditionally safer territory.
| Jeff Sessions | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 56 | 59 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 54 | 58 |
| Disapprove | 34 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 31 | 36 | 32 |
Not much new with Sessions. If he stays above 55%, he should be very comfortable.
| Gordon Smith | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 48 | 46 | 48 | 47 | 48 | 51 | 54 |
| Disapprove | 42 | 44 | 43 | 45 | 39 | 41 | 37 |
Smith spends his fifth consecutive month with an approval under 50% and his fourth consecutive month with a disapproval above 40%. Classicly vulnerable.
Democrats:
| Tom Harkin | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 53 | 57 | 55 | 51 | 56 | 57 | 53 |
| Disapprove | 40 | 35 | 38 | 38 | 36 | 38 | 40 |
Harkin keeps the head above 50%. Probably not low enough to tempt Tom Latham to gamble his House seat on a Senate challenge.
| John Kerry | 9/25/07 | 8/21/07 | 7/24/07 | 6/19/07 | 5/24/07 | 4/24/07 | 11/22/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve | 52 | 47 | 52 | 50 | 47 | 54 | 48 |
| Disapprove | 42 | 45 | 42 | 46 | 47 | 41 | 50 |
Kerry also stays above 50%. I wonder how low his approval would have to go before the NRSC committed funds to Massachusetts?
posted by Senate2008Guru | 7:44 PM
11 Comments:
I guess New Mexico voters didn't like Dominici's big flip flop on the War. Remember, in the summer he mumbled how maybe we needed a change or something, and then in Magical September he voted for more of the same with Bush just as he always has done.
Objects in motion tend to remain in motion, and Dominici's got some very nice downward momentum going on.
Our dreams of the NRSC committing money to defeating Kerry, Harkin and Lautenberg are never going to come true, simply because they are too broke and have too many seats to defend. The best we can hope for is that rich self-funding candidates will appear and throw money down the sink-hole, giving us the pleasure of watching rich Republicans waste money that isn't the publics for a change, but not actually affecting any other races.
How late is the NM primary? Late enough for Richardson to jump in after the Democratic nominee is decided? I know he'll be tempted to hold out for a VP spot, but he is like Warner, an ambitious strong-willed guy who doesn't like waiting for other people to make his decisions for him. If Dominici's numbers stay low, how can he refuse to take him on?
Richardson is an executive. I doubt he'll jump into the senate race. He likes being in charge, not being one of 100.
ari - Richardson didn't terribly mind being 1 out of 435 in the House for a while. You never know.
I just get the impression that he has gotten accustomed to having power.
In the absence of Richardson, is there anyone in New Mexico who could give Domenici a good fight?
Udall!
What will it take to get Udall in the race? And what will happen to his House seat if he vacates? I don't know enough about New Mexico's individual districts, so I am asking informatively, not rhetorically.
To get Udall in the race, I don't know. He'd get in if Domenici resigned or announced a retirement. I don't know if he'd challenge Domenici heads up, as much as I'd like to see that. Maybe another two months of Domenici's approvals in the 40s to show that it isn't a one-time outlier.
From what I've gathered, Udall's House seat is reliably Democratic, Pearce's district leans conservative, and Heather Wilson's is the swing district.
Do you have anything to back-up your assertion that Udall would run for an open seat? I haven't seen anything that indicates Tom Udall is interested, in any circumstance, in running for the Senate.
VA, I think the fact that Udall challenged Domenici before is a sign that he is open to moving up to the senate, however, the longer he stays in his House seat, I think that window slowly closes. He is only in his 5th term, so it isn't like he's chairing any committee's yet. Usually that is the big line you draw where you have a significant seniority position in the house.
I would agree with guru that Udall won't challenge Domenici again, but if it were an open seat I think he would consider it. I think he's made public comments saying that, but I couldn't swear to it. (Exactly Mark Warner's position Virginia. If John retired, Mark would run, if John ran for reelection, Mark wouldn't challenge him).
JTM--What are you talking about?
Udall lost two elections to Congress before being elected Attorney General in NM in 1990 and served two terms, before running for Congress and winning in 1998, beating freshman Republican Bill Redmond. Pete Domenici was elected to the Senate in 1972 and won re-election five times, most recently against Gloria Tristani in 2002 and Art Trujilio in 1996. When did Tom Udall ever challenge Pete Domenici in any capacity, or ever run for the Senate before?
Post a Comment
<< Home