Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2014 Senatorial Election Polls => Topic started by: Miles on May 23, 2014, 10:10:37 am



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: Marxist-Cornpopist Thought 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: Chief Justice 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.
Yep, like Mark Pryor ;)


Title: Re: GA: Rasmussen: Nunn slightly up
Post by: ModerateVAVoter 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: Dave Leip 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: Coolface's deceased great-granduncle 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: Chief Justice 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.
As you know, I don't think she will win at all. But seriously, attack ads against her won't be the cause, I mean, big money works so well in politics... Whitman, Alameel, Macmahon, they all failed miserably!


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: Chief Justice 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)!