|
Title: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: Miles on May 23, 2014, 10:10:37 AM Article. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2014/georgia/election_2014_georgia_senate)
Nunn (D)- 47% Kingston (R)- 41% Nunn (D)- 45% Perdue (R)- 42% Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: Tender Branson on May 23, 2014, 10:16:33 AM 47-41 actually vs. Kingston.
Dominating ! Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: illegaloperation on May 23, 2014, 10:26:46 AM Boom!
Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: free my dawg on May 23, 2014, 01:50:25 PM Funny that they didn't poll the runoff.
Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: GaussLaw on May 23, 2014, 04:32:20 PM Has Nunn even been attacked seriously yet?
Once AFP starts running ads against her, she'll plunge. Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: windjammer on May 23, 2014, 04:38:09 PM Has Nunn even been attacked seriously yet? Once AFP starts running ads against her, she'll plunge. Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: moderatevoter on May 23, 2014, 04:44:16 PM Actually, Windjammer, from what I've heard, AFP stopped airing ads in Arkansas a while ago. Why? I don't understand, but apparently they did.
Nunn completely botched her response on Obamacare (so much so that MSNBC called it out as being horrific) and her original (pre-flip flop) answer on the Veterans Affairs situation won't help her either. She has not dealt with a lot of attack ads so far, but I don't expect her numbers to go up. Not to mention this is Rasmussen. Title: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn with Slight Lead in Georgia Post by: ElectionAtlas on May 23, 2014, 04:46:09 PM New Poll: Georgia Senator by Rasmussen on 2014-05-22 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=13220140522016)
Summary: D: 47%, R: 41%, U: 9% Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2014/georgia/election_2014_georgia_senate) Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 23, 2014, 04:57:08 PM Funny that they didn't poll the runoff. Indeed, because it''s the runoff that decided everything. Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: windjammer on May 23, 2014, 04:57:21 PM Actually, Windjammer, from what I've heard, AFP stopped airing ads in Arkansas a while ago. Why? I don't understand, but apparently they did. Nunn completely botched her response on Obamacare (so much so that MSNBC called it out as being horrific) and her original (pre-flip flop) answer on the Veterans Affairs situation won't help her either. She has not dealt with a lot of attack ads so far, but I don't expect her numbers to go up. Not to mention this is Rasmussen. Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: Maxwell on May 23, 2014, 05:11:35 PM Money in politics works... but only to an extent. If a candidate has already spent so much, then it doesn't matter how much more money they spend: for example, Jon Corzine spent $50 Million for a Senate seat he only won by 3 (and outspent his Republican by a margin of, I think, 10-1). On the other side: If a candidate is so doomed, money can't fix that. Blanche Lincoln outspent whoever the Republican was by 9-1, and lost by one of the largest margins an incumbent has ever lost by.
However, no candidate is doomed or has already spent beyond a crazy amaount here, so money is fairplay, but that doesn't necessairly mean the candidate with the most money will win. Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up Post by: windjammer on May 23, 2014, 05:16:57 PM Money in politics works... but only to an extent. If a candidate has already spent so much, then it doesn't matter how much more money they spend: for example, Jon Corzine spent $50 Million for a Senate seat he only won by 3 (and outspent his Republican by a margin of, I think, 10-1). On the other side: If a candidate is so doomed, money can't fix that. Blanche Lincoln outspent whoever the Republican was by 9-1, and lost by one of the largest margins an incumbent has ever lost by. However, no candidate is doomed or has already spent beyond a crazy amaount here, so money is fairplay, but that doesn't necessairly mean the candidate with the most money will win. Well, seriously, I don't think money has no influence as well. I mean, it only works when people don't have any name recognition. The GA primary, the PA primary,... All of them didn't have a great name recognition, that's why big money worked so well for Wolf and Perdue. But in some other states, it doesn't work at all. I mean, Mark Pryor, even if Afd seems to have ended their attack, he has really been extremely attacked, and no change for him basically if we compare with his situation 6 month ago. Simply because Pryor has a great namer recognition (senator + his father)! |