2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[pbrower2a]

I can now say something of the 2016 Senate race in Missouri: the incumbent Roy Blunt is extremely vulnerable. 


SAFE R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa (unless something happens to Grassley)
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

LIKELY R:

Alaska (unless Murkowski loses in a primary -- see Lugar in 2012)
Arizona (assuming that nothing happens to McCain)
Arkansas (despite low approval for Boozman)
Georgia
Kansas (close at times in 2014)
Kentucky (should Paul run for the Presidency and abandon the Senate)
Louisiana (depends upon the jungle primary)

LEAN R:

Arizona (health of octogenarian incumbent)
Indiana (potential trouble)
North Carolina (unless Burr gets a competent opponent, then LEAN D)

TOSS-UP:

Florida
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania

LEAN D

Colorado
Missouri (flip)

LIKELY D:

New Hampshire (flip)
Wisconsin (flip)

SAFE D:

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois (flip)
Maryland
New York
Oregon
Vermont

[pbrower2a]

Parkinsonism kills. It also gives one the appearance of erratic behavior due to involuntary twitches of muscles.

Retirement watch. 

[pbrower2a]

PPP. New Hampshire:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Approval polls only.





White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       5     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    2      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
other   10      2

[pbrower2a]

Oh no, now he's spamming this thread as well... Also, Bennet's approval numbers are worse than that.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet gets a 41 - 34 percent approval rating and voters say 40 - 32 percent that he does not deserve reelection in 2016.

But how can you not trust someone who makes such accurate predictions

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90583.msg1911811#msg1911811

Early in 2009. I then saw Barack Obama as the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. I thought the skill sets very similar. One thing was certain: he wasn't going to be the New Jimmy Carter or the New Herbert Hoover. For a time he was one of the most effective Presidents ever, and I saw him likely to ride a bull market 

I saw one pattern unlikely to change: that although the mean result in electoral votes since 1900 is around  62% for winners, nobody got close to that. I could discuss why that pattern held despite demographic change, change in electoral laws, historical events, technology of campaigning, and the technology of the media. But that is a mathematical model not to be explained here. 

Barack Obama was going to win with 310 or fewer electoral votes or was going to win with 360 or more, with a Texas-sized void (Texas has 38 electoral votes) in between the possibilities.

That pattern failed in 2008, with President Obama winning 332 electoral votes -- just about in the middle of the void.

I didn't see the rise of the Tea Party.   

[pbrower2a]

Rubio is retiring, so no sense in listing his approval. Also you should have 'Democratic' instead of 'Republican' in the light orange and red parts of the key.

I have made the change in identifying "orange" with Democrats apparently running for re-election.  I thought that Senator Rubio could rescind his talk of retirement if his chance to win the Republican nomination for President became insignificant -- which explains why I have his ratings up. Of course if he misses a filing deadline to run he is retired. Boxer, Coates, Mikulski, and Reid seem to have age as a reason for retiring. Rubio is still rather young.

[pbrower2a]

Its favorable vs. unfavorable, so I can't use it on the map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/LouisianaPollSeptember2015.pdf

If running for reelection for the US Senate, he would be in trouble.

[pbrower2a]

New category -- incumbent likely running for another office. So far this applies to Florida and Louisiana. Party to be shown.  Color will be tan.

Approval polls only.





White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       5     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[pbrower2a]

Marquette University Law School. Wisconsin:

Approvals:


Johnson- 27/36/37

Ugly, but consistent with him having an abysmal 30% approval rating with which one does not get re-elected in a swing state.

PPP, NC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/09/mccrory-burr-ahead-in-nc-races.html

Comment: I see him vulnerable both to a primary challenge and, once the Democrat gets his campaign rolling, the Democrat in the general election. He is not as obviously doomed as Kirk in Illinois or Johnson in Wisconsin, but he is in a bad spot. Should 2016 be a Democratic wave, then he goes down. NC leans R, but probably not enough to rescue an incumbent Senator with approvals in the low-to-mid 30s.   

Approval polls only.





White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       5     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[pbrower2a]

PPP, Senator Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/10/toomey-leads-narrowly-for-reelection-presidential-matches-split.html#more

 

Approval ratings involving at Toomey show wide swings between pollsters. I believe neither the 28% that  shows nor the 51% that the most recent pollster showed. I'd guess  that his approval is somewhere about halfway between those, around 40%. Such is still awful for an incumbent, and such indicates that Senator Toomey is vulnerable.  Barely elected in a Republican wave year, he has his work cut out for him to remain in the Senate in a year unlikely to offer a Republican wave.

If PPP is right about the match-ups, then Senator Toomey is behind where he needs to be at the start of his campaign.

Quinnipiac, Connecticut:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=2290

Super-safe. Need I say more?

Approval polls only.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    2    0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[pbrower2a]

My projection:

*flip, so far all R to D
N  new Senator, same Party

[pbrower2a]

Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin

1.
In the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat, if the election were held today, for whom would you vote? 
(ROTATE NAMES):
Republican Ron Johnson 40%


Democrat Russ Feingold 51%

Other (vol) <1%


Neither, will not vote (vol)  1%

Not Sure 7%

http://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Fall%20WI%20Survey%20Release.pdf

This is a turnover.

Approval rates:

President Barack Obama approval 51%, disapproval 47%.
Governor  Scott Walker approval 39%, disapproval 60%. 
Senator Ron Johnson approval 38%, disapproval 39%.
Senator Tammy Baldwin approval 48%, disapproval 35%. 
US Congress approval 13%, disapproval 79%.

Approval polls only.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    2    0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[pbrower2a]

I'm curious as to why Indiana is always on the Lean R list. Even Missouri I can understand, but I don't see much of an explanation of why the Republican presidential nominee would perform so much better than the Senate nominee.

Lean R because it is Indiana. But only Lean R unless the Republican is a popular incumbent. Indiana is not extremely partisan, and a Republican who goes too far can lose. This time the incumbent Republican Governor is struggling in polling.

Indiana has been slow to follow Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio in the Democratic trend because it is more rural than those other three states.

[pbrower2a]

Ohio, Zogby/Bowling Green State University

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bgsu.edu/bgsupoll

Approval polls only.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    2    0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[pbrower2a]

Utah: Utah Policy, Mike Lee (R-UT)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/7152-poll-mike-lee-55-jonathan-swinton-25

I don't expect to see many Utah polls, and I would guess that an incumbent up by 30% over his most credible challenger and appearing to have 55% of the vote looking like his this early, he is extremely solid. He probably has an approval rating at the least in the low 50s. I estimate that his approval at the least is in the low 50s. This is an estimate, and a conservative one from someone who dislikes his politics.   

Ultra-safe -- about as safe as Schumer (D-NY).

Approval polls only.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    3    0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  8      2

[pbrower2a]

My projection:

Safe 80%
Likely 50%
Weak 30%

white -- toss-up
* flip

[pbrower2a]

Kansas, Jerry Moran (R):

11% very satisfied
31% somewhat satisfied
24% neutral
20% somewhat dissatisfied
15% very dissatisfied

Not the usual language of approval and disapproval, but it seems close enough. We see few Kansas polls. This is NOT solid, and Moran probably wins because he is in Kansas. But he does have some campaigning to do. "Very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied" add to 42%. Above water. I am treating this as approval with "neutral" as undecided.

https://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedFiles/executive/docking/Kansas%20Speaks%20Report%202015%20.pdf

Approval polls only.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    2      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    3    0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  7      2

[pbrower2a]

I have been slow to recognize that Marco Rubio will not run for re-election. I have waited for a definitive statement,and here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus the change for Florida. The approval rating for Rubio is no longer relevant to who wins the race for the US Senate from Florida in 2016.  

Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    2      0
45-49    0     2
50-54    2    0
55-59    1      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  7      2

[pbrower2a]

In view of the abandonment of any effort to get re-elected to the current Senate seat that Marco Rubio now holds, I can now conclude that the Democrats have a better chance of winning the seat in 2016:

My projection:

Safe 80%
Likely 50%
Weak 30%

white -- toss-up
* flip

[pbrower2a]

Iowa. Chuck Grassley down to 50%. This is likely statistical noise.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_110415.pdf 

Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    2      0
45-49    0     2
50-54    2    0
55-59    1      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  7      2





[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

PPP, New Hampshire:


November 30-December 2, 2015
Survey of 990 New Hampshire voters

New Hampshire Survey Results

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Kelly
Ayotte’s job performance?
 40%
Approve
..........................................................
 42%
Disapprove
......................................................
 17%
Not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_120715.pdf

Slight, but insignificant, improvement over the last poll in NH -- but still awful.

Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.


White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       5     0
40-44    4      0
45-49    0     2
50-54    2    0
55-59    1      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  7      2

[pbrower2a]

Iowa -- Senator Grassley is at 53% approval, according to PPP.

What happened to the map?