CA: Rasmussen: Boxer narrowly leads

[RI]

New Poll: California Senator by Rasmussen on 2010-10-21

Summary: D: 48%, R: 46%, I: 3%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Whacker77]

I guess until Boxer clears 50%, this one is worth watching.  This race could hinge on the early races.  If there is a big wave in the early time zones, it might affect a few votes.  I think that's stretch though.

[Meeker]

California votes heavily absentee. Even if Fiorina can pull into the lead sometime late next week that may be too late.

[Sbane]

I know it's become popular these days to point out that Boxer can't hit 50, but the fact is that she doesn't need to hit 50 to win. If minor candidates got up to 4% of the vote in the senate race and up to 6-8% in the governor's race, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Ronnie]

Hey, not bad.  I'm still weary of Carly's odds in the end, but this is encouraging.

[Vepres]

I know it's become popular these days to point out that Boxer can't hit 50, but the fact is that she doesn't need to hit 50 to win. If minor candidates got up to 4% of the vote in the senate race and up to 6-8% in the governor's race, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

It's never good for an incumbent to be below 50 consistently this late in the game.

[Franzl]

I know it's become popular these days to point out that Boxer can't hit 50, but the fact is that she doesn't need to hit 50 to win. If minor candidates got up to 4% of the vote in the senate race and up to 6-8% in the governor's race, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

It's never good for an incumbent to be below 50 consistently this late in the game.

Not good, no....but assuming that third parties take a good deal of the vote.....the "safe" minimum that Boxer needs is definitely under 50.

[DrScholl]

Boxer being under 50 isn't that much of a problem, a lead is a lead and she's maintaining a consistent one. And as I've stated before, Fiorina's support is not moving at all.

[J. J.]

I have a felling that the control of the Senate will be up in the air until after midnight.

I'd still predict that the Democrats hold it, however.

[Rowan]

I don't know if anyone noticed it or not, but Boxer is under 50%.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't know if anyone noticed it or not, but Boxer is under 50%.

[Franzl]

I have a felling that the control of the Senate will be up in the air until after midnight.

I'd still predict that the Democrats hold it, however.

Sounds like your 1.5% margin in Pennsylvania 2 years ago...

[Psychic Octopus]

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

Not that I think she will win. My money is on Boxer wins by a margin of two points, and laughably, Carly will probably do better then Megasaur.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't know if anyone noticed it or not, but Boxer is under 50%.

So what? There are also 4 minor party candidates on the ballot.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

[Mr.Phips]

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

If that rule was true, Bruce Lunsford, Ronnie Musgrove, Tom Strickland and Jim Martin would all be in the Senate today. 

[Psychic Octopus]

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

If that rule was true, Bruce Lunsford, Ronnie Musgrove, Tom Strickland and Jim Martin would all be in the Senate today. 

Ah, I see. It's just something I heard recently... In any case, I say Boxer wins.

[California8429]

Minor party candidates are always overrepresented in polling. And they are very likely to vote anti-incumbent these people that say they'll vote minor but don't. Plus undecidedes will break to anti-incumbent and the momentum for the last month is on Fiorina's side IMO. And republicans are more active in non-presidential years, plus huge fall in democratic young voters this time around, plus a few empty ballots in this race or all races coming from democrats...

This race will probably be 49.5-48.5 ish for Fiorina.

[sg0508]

CA's 3rd parties usually get at least 2-3% points and normally, they are a liberal party that would siphon support from the democrats.

[Sbane]

I know it's become popular these days to point out that Boxer can't hit 50, but the fact is that she doesn't need to hit 50 to win. If minor candidates got up to 4% of the vote in the senate race and up to 6-8% in the governor's race, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

It's never good for an incumbent to be below 50 consistently this late in the game.

48% is 50% in California. Lots of third party strength here and I expect it to be even stronger this year.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CA's 3rd parties usually get at least 2-3% points and normally, they are a liberal party that would siphon support from the democrats.

They can get a fair amount more than that. For example, they got 8.4% in the 1994 Senate race, despite that being a close race.

[Rowan]

Boxer is under 50%.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Boxer is under 50%.

[J. J.]

I have a felling that the control of the Senate will be up in the air until after midnight.

I'd still predict that the Democrats hold it, however.

Sounds like your 1.5% margin in Pennsylvania 2 years ago...

Two races on the west coast, CA, WA, and I'm predicting an eight seat gain in the Senate.

Nine possible seats east of the Rockies, PA, WV, IN, IL, AR, WI, NE, CO, NV.

Late night Senate determination isn't too much of a stretch.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Isn't there an old "rule of thumb" that undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent? If that is so, then Carly may have a chance after all.

The "undecideds break 2-1 against the incumbent" rule, along with the "incumbent under 50% is in trouble" rule, is arbitrary and silly. I'd like to see quantitative data on either.

If that rule was true, Bruce Lunsford, Ronnie Musgrove, Tom Strickland and Jim Martin would all be in the Senate today. 

a "rule of thumb" is not a hard and fast rule. it seems to hold true often enough that it is plausible to consider among other indicators.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/250399/embattled-incumbents-those-final-poll-numbers-are-often-painfully-accurate