KY: McConnell internal is identical to PPP poll, which the Senator ridiculed

[Tender Branson]

The campaign released a poll, conducted by longtime pollster Jan van Lohuizen, showing McConnell leading against Judd, but only by a four-point margin, 47 to 43 percent. They later shared numbers further down the poll where they tested various opposition arguments against her, including the fact that she "lives in Scotland" and "doesn't own a home in Kentucky," believes the "era of the coal plant is over" and "thinks it is unconscionable to breed." When those attack lines are posed, large pluralities of Kentucky voters said they would be much less likely to vote for her. And after all the oppo arguments are tested, McConnell emerges with a 56 to 36 percent lead.

Despite the bullish tone of the memo, the very fact that McConnell's team is spending money to game plan strategy against the actress suggests they are taking her candidacy very seriously. In 2008, Republicans working for then-Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman presented similar strategy memos mocking the candidacy of then-comedian Al Franken, who later knocked off the incumbent.

But it is also evident that their concern lies more with McConnell's own standing, and less about Judd's political potential. The poll showed McConnell job approval rating at 51 percent, decent but hardly commanding numbers given that it's an internal poll. The campaign hired Rand Paul's former campaign manager Jesse Benton well before the 2012 elections ended, in order to head off any prospective primary challenger. And it doesn't take an internal poll to understand that Judd's cultural liberalism would be a very tough sell in the Appalachian heartland. The bigger concern for McConnell is if a more conservative Democrat, like Rep. Ben Chandler or Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, decides to jump in the race.

Van Lohuizen's Voter/Consumer Research firm surveyed 600 likely voters between December 10-13, and has a four percent margin of error.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2012/12/mcconnell-team-privately-rooting-judd-on-21

Raw Story's David Edwards reports on how campaign manager Jesse Benton has dreamed up this sinister White House-polling firm cabal for the purpose of preventing Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) reelection:

    A poll released by the left-leaning firm on Tuesday indicated that only 37 percent of Kentucky voters approved of McConnell.

    [...]

    But in an email published by the Louisville Eccentric Observer on Thursday, McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton implied that Obama and other Democrats had conspired with PPP to fix the poll.

    “Barack Obama and his allies told us what they were going to do,” Benton wrote. “They think if they can manufacture a difficult reelection for Senator McConnell back home in Kentucky then they can push our Leader around in Washington.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/mitch-mcconnell-poll_n_2295798.html

[Talleyrand]

He's very smart. I bet he intentionally skewed the data to make Judd appear closer than she actually is so she'll actually jump in and be crushed. And this'll prevent a stronger Democrat from running in the primary since they'll know they won't be able to compete with her money.

[Landslide Lyndon]

He's very smart. I bet he intentionally skewed the data to make Judd appear closer than she actually is so she'll actually jump in and be crushed. And this'll prevent a stronger Democrat from running in the primary since they'll know they won't be able to compete with her money.

I doubt it. If his internal numbers are so weak against Judd then who tells us that bigger names, like Ben Chandler, won't smell blood in the water and decide to roll the dice? 

[politicallefty]

I think Senator Bennet needs to pay a visit with Governor Beshear. McConnell is quite obviously in danger, but it would still take a strong challenger to take him out. Taking him out in 2014 would be nothing less than a massive victory for Democrats.

[pbrower2a]

37% approval? What would Nate Silver think?

http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2010/03/nate-silver-debunks-another-polling.html



(This applies to races of 2006, 2008, and 2009 for incumbent Governors and Senators, but such observations as I have indicate that it held as well for the R wave election of 2010 as for D wave elections of 2006 and 2008).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

When an incumbent Governor or Senator has an approval rating of 48% he is doing well enough if it is April going into the election year. Unless the incumbent is appointed (the record for appointed incumbents winning re-election is awful) one usually gets to find why the pol won in the first place.

Once in office an elected Governor or Senator has a voting record, and that will rarely please large majorities. Challengers can carp at will at an incumbent's record. So who fails?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Ted Strickland, the Governor of Ohio seeking re-election in 2010, lost to John Kasich who had a well-funded, well-organized stealth campaign behind him. Such happens. Usually the challenger doesn't have such advantages). A 35% chance of losing often turns into a loss.

Of course thing can go well for an incumbent -- a weak challenger, an economy turning from weak to strong or even mediocre, more than the usual political savvy. Things can also go wrong -- like a breaking scandal, an unusually-strong opponent with a well-organized campaign, misconduct by the campaign, or an economy going into the tank.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This surprises me. I would have expected a reversion to the mean, with the weaker incumbents gaining more than the stronger ones or especially the strongest ones losing some ground. Maybe politicians don't stop campaigning for re-election just because they have approval ratings in the  60s or higher. Once a spirited campaigner always a spirited campaigner. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

George Allen ran a terrible campaign. He even got tripped up on the ancestry of his mother. He used a racial slur. His campaign staffers beat up a heckler. He also faced an unusually-strong opponent who ran a superb campaign during a campaign season in which any incumbent Republican with a problem lost.

...I see few incumbent Governors and Senators running for re-election when their approval ratings are in the mid-thirties or lower. Most such pols either decline to run or get defeated in primary elections. In 2006 such incumbents as Senators Burns, Talent, DeWine, Chaffee, and Santorum were in deep trouble. In 2008 so were Stevens and Dole, both of whom lost. In 2010 Governor Strickland was in trouble -- and Senators Feingold and Lincoln were in deep trouble.  In 2012 seemingly no incumbent lost a Senate seat or a Governorship.

Unless Senator Mitch McConnell can shore up support in the next two years through legitimate achievements he will be defeated in a re-election bid should he choose to run. Sure, he has power as  the Senate Minority Leader -- but he has achieved practically nothing, as shown in his abysmal approval rating in Kentucky, one unusually low for an incumbent Republican in the Senate. He bet everything politically on the defeat of President Obama in 2012 and lost that bet. Rick Santorum was Senate Majority Leader in 2006 and had failed to deliver the goods -- and lost. But, you say, he is from Kentucky which shows much tolerance for right-wing incompetence and extremism. Of course. But Ted Stevens could lose a Senate seat in Alaska, then a very strong R state, in 2008 because of hints of scandal. 

You see it here first -- unless Senator Mitch McConnell can resuscitate his approval rating through valid achievements before January 2014 he will go down to defeat 56-44 should he run for re-election.  He is now the most vulnerable of Republican Senators to defeat in 2014, not that there are many vulnerable ones. (Far more Democrats now seem vulnerable).   

[Vosem]

Unless Senator Mitch McConnell can shore up support in the next two years through legitimate achievements he will be defeated in a re-election bid should he choose to run.

lol

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Rick Santorum was Senate Majority Leader in 2006 and had failed to deliver the goods -- and lost.

Santorum was never ML. Tom Daschle was Minority Leader in 2004 and lost to John Thune by 4,000 votes.

[morgieb]

pbrowler makes interesting points but against Judd (at least) his point is probably moot.

[pbrower2a]

Unless Senator Mitch McConnell can shore up support in the next two years through legitimate achievements he will be defeated in a re-election bid should he choose to run.

lol

I say what I say even if it is counter-intuitive. Mitch McConnell is now in a bad position for running for re-election. Kentucky is not exempt from the assumption that Senators do some good for the state or get defeated.

The pattern suggests that Mitch McConnell is in deep political trouble. It can vote for Democrats statewide, so a reasonably-strong Democrat can defeat him if he remains similarly unpopular. He has one year in which to get into the range of approval in which he can win.

The good news for him is that he has a year in which to get himself in a position in which to win.  The bad news for him is that he has done little for Kentucky, as the polls show. He has to deal with a President whose defeat was his first priority. The bad news is that he isn't going to get any unsolicited help from a President who got re-elected despite his efforts.



    

[Badger]

Is Ashley Judd really the best candidate Dems can think of running here?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Is Ashley Judd really the best candidate Dems can think of running here?

Agreed. Obviously Grimes or Conway would be better.

[HappyWarrior]

Is Ashley Judd really the best candidate Dems can think of running here?

Agreed. Obviously Grimes or Conway would be better.

If Grimes runs I think we'd have an amazing chance to pick up this seat.

[Mehmentum]

I have to agree.  When it looked like this was completely safe, I figured it would be okay to have her run, but these approvals give me hope that a stronger candidate could possibly win this.