PA-PPP: Toomey leads

[Keystone Phil]

Pbrower is slobbering over 28% in one poll. And drawing comparisons to Corbett which literally no one with any sense of PA politics would do. What a sad, sad clown.

The 28% would be disastrous if, say, 50%+ disapproved. There will be plenty of defining on both side but guess which one is the incumbent with two more years in the term and more money. Hint: not Sestak.

[IceSpear]

Still looks like a toss up to me. A 40-36 lead tells us essentially nothing considering each person is basically guaranteed at least 45% in the end. If it was something like 49-45, that would be more meaningful. The extremely low name recognition for everyone in this poll is fairly strange, and actually makes the race more unpredictable.

Also, why did PPP test a bunch of people who aren't going to run? Even Tweety...really guys?

[pbrower2a]

28% approval for an incumbent Governor or Senator is horrible. He can't crack 45% support against potential opponents still comparatively unknown.

From February 2010:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html


To be sure, having an approval rating at 28% twenty-two months before the election isn't quite as bad as having a 27% approval rating nine months before the election... but not even Barack Obama can campaign his way out of that level of disapproval.

I call it here: Republicans are going to cut their losses with Senator Toomey very fast. He's a bad fit for Pennsylvania, barely getting elected in the wave election of 2010, the sort who loses in a high-participation Presidential election.  They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

I'm not calling a Democratic wave yet. 

[Maxwell]

28% approval for an incumbent Governor or Senator is horrible. He can't crack 45% support against potential opponents still comparatively unknown.

From February 2010:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html


To be sure, having an approval rating at 28% twenty-two months before the election isn't quite as bad as having a 27% approval rating nine months before the election... but not even Barack Obama can campaign his way out of that level of disapproval.

I call it here: Republicans are going to cut their losses with Senator Toomey very fast. He's a bad fit for Pennsylvania, barely getting elected in the wave election of 2010, the sort who loses in a high-participation Presidential election.  They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

I'm not calling a Democratic wave yet. 

Probably intentional, but you do leave out the fact that Blanche Lincoln at 62% disapproval.

[Miles]

^ An interesting pro-Democratic take on this I heard was that Toomey is at 40% in the horse race, like Pryor was stuck in the low-40's. Still, Pryor was putting up those numbers in towards the end of a very closely-watched race; this PA race hasn't really got off the ground yet.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Tom Corbett held one head-to-head lead over Tom Wolf. January of 2013. Nobody in Pennsylvania knew who Tom Wolf was.

In fact, nobody knew who Tom Wolf was for another 13 months. That's how long it took him to take a lead over the awful Allyson Schwartz in a primary poll (an election where he won in a blowout).

In that timeframe with low name recognition, he still managed to beat Corbett in six out of six polls - the last one by 19 points.

And Pat Toomey leads the same man he defeated last time - not some guy with literally zero name recognition.

Toomey is far from a lock obviously. Nothing is a lock 20 months away. But Johnson and Kirk are in much greater danger than he is. Sestak has a great shot, but this is not a blowout either way. Corbett got defined by a number of things relating to the state in 2013 but not because his opponents pinned them on him. Toomey can easily be careful in a 2015 Senate with a lame duck President. He doesn't have to manage any crises or worry about purity and can tailor himself however he chooses. Surely, the party will let him in an effort to keep the seat.

Miles with a great comment on timing of the polling too.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

28% approval for an incumbent Governor or Senator is horrible. He can't crack 45% support against potential opponents still comparatively unknown.

From February 2010:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html


To be sure, having an approval rating at 28% twenty-two months before the election isn't quite as bad as having a 27% approval rating nine months before the election... but not even Barack Obama can campaign his way out of that level of disapproval.

I call it here: Republicans are going to cut their losses with Senator Toomey very fast. He's a bad fit for Pennsylvania, barely getting elected in the wave election of 2010, the sort who loses in a high-participation Presidential election.  They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

I'm not calling a Democratic wave yet. 

Let's go over a few things.

First, Your philosophy is that an incumbent Senator needs 44% approval - two years before the election - to have a realistic chance of winning, correct? So, you assert that Toomey, who is at 28% approval, has only a 1% chance of victory, just like CA republicans. Would you also say, that Burr, who is only 3 points higher in approval, at 31%, only has a 1% chance of Victory? Would you also say that Bennet, who is at 30% approval, has that same 1% chance. Would you say that Isakson, at 39%, is a serious underdog? I doubt you would. Approval Ratings are not death sentences. Furthermore, Toomey's approval rating doesn't matter, because his opponents - those that will actually run, Rendell isn't going to - aren't any more well-known than he is, and don't have high favorability either. Sestak, the current likely nominee, is at 20% favorability - lower than Toomey. And yet you think the PA race is Safe D. How silly.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NC_12102014.pdf\ - burr approval
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/2016-senator-approvals.html - the others

You then assert that Toomey is the most vulnerable. He isn't. That title belongs to Johnson, who unlike Toomey, has not made any attempt at all to give out a moderate image. Toomey has made occasional glances toward bipartisanship and even joined with Manchin on a gun bill, Johnson hasn't done that at all. Also, likely candidate Russ Feingold is leading Johnson by 6 in the latest poll, as opposed to Sestak, who again, is trailing Toomey by 4 and can't even get 40 of the electorate to commit to voting for him.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_WI_423.pdf

You'll notice there that Johnson's favorability is higher than Toomey's, yet Johnson polls worse than Toomey. Approval ratings aren't clear cut pictures, and I agree, early polls aren't either. But I'll trust early polling over early approval ratings - which indicate for both Toomey and Johnson that that a sizable portion of the electorate doesn't have an opinion of them - leaving them plenty of room to grow.

I would also say that Kirk is more vulnerable than Toomey. Not only because Illinois is so democratic that a dog with a D next to its name would likely hit 40%, but also because several of the potential candidates against Kirk are great. Lisa Madigan is a popular attorney general. Cheri Bustos is a popular swing-district representative who just survived a republican tsunami, and Duckworth is a veteran (just like Kirk) who easily survived the republican wave, winning by essentially the same margin she did in the democratic wave of 2012.

We'll come back to this when the democratic % of the vote in CA is far higher than it is in PA, and maybe then you'll realize how terribly wrong you are.

[Keystone Phil]

They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

Ok, listen, you're seriously going to get a moderator warning for trolling. It was bad enough that you said the party would essentially automatically concede the seat but this was just the icing on the cake.

But I do want to sincerely thank you for making this comment. It removes any question as to whether or not you're a total joke poster. 

[pbrower2a]

28% approval for an incumbent Governor or Senator is horrible. He can't crack 45% support against potential opponents still comparatively unknown.

From February 2010:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html


To be sure, having an approval rating at 28% twenty-two months before the election isn't quite as bad as having a 27% approval rating nine months before the election... but not even Barack Obama can campaign his way out of that level of disapproval.

I call it here: Republicans are going to cut their losses with Senator Toomey very fast. He's a bad fit for Pennsylvania, barely getting elected in the wave election of 2010, the sort who loses in a high-participation Presidential election.  They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

I'm not calling a Democratic wave yet. 

Let's go over a few things.

First, Your philosophy is that an incumbent Senator needs 44% approval - two years before the election - to have a realistic chance of winning, correct? So, you assert that Toomey, who is at 28% approval, has only a 1% chance of victory, just like CA republicans. Would you also say, that Burr, who is only 3 points higher in approval, at 31%, only has a 1% chance of Victory? Would you also say that Bennet, who is at 30% approval, has that same 1% chance. Would you say that Isakson, at 39%, is a serious underdog? I doubt you would. Approval Ratings are not death sentences. Furthermore, Toomey's approval rating doesn't matter, because his opponents - those that will actually run, Rendell isn't going to - aren't any more well-known than he is, and don't have high favorability either. Sestak, the current likely nominee, is at 20% favorability - lower than Toomey. And yet you think the PA race is Safe D. How silly.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NC_12102014.pdf\ - burr approval
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/2016-senator-approvals.html - the others

You then assert that Toomey is the most vulnerable. He isn't. That title belongs to Johnson, who unlike Toomey, has not made any attempt at all to give out a moderate image. Toomey has made occasional glances toward bipartisanship and even joined with Manchin on a gun bill, Johnson hasn't done that at all. Also, likely candidate Russ Feingold is leading Johnson by 6 in the latest poll, as opposed to Sestak, who again, is trailing Toomey by 4 and can't even get 40 of the electorate to commit to voting for him.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_WI_423.pdf

You'll notice there that Johnson's favorability is higher than Toomey's, yet Johnson polls worse than Toomey. Approval ratings aren't clear cut pictures, and I agree, early polls aren't either. But I'll trust early polling over early approval ratings - which indicate for both Toomey and Johnson that that a sizable portion of the electorate doesn't have an opinion of them - leaving them plenty of room to grow.

I would also say that Kirk is more vulnerable than Toomey. Not only because Illinois is so democratic that a dog with a D next to its name would likely hit 40%, but also because several of the potential candidates against Kirk are great. Lisa Madigan is a popular attorney general. Cheri Bustos is a popular swing-district representative who just survived a republican tsunami, and Duckworth is a veteran (just like Kirk) who easily survived the republican wave, winning by essentially the same margin she did in the democratic wave of 2012.

We'll come back to this when the democratic % of the vote in CA is far higher than it is in PA, and maybe then you'll realize how terribly wrong you are.

Toomey is simply the first incumbent Senate Republican shown after the 2014 election -- and he is not doing well, to put it mildly. I have not seen post-election polls involving Illinois or Wisconsin yet; I see Kirk an Johnson likely to be in the same position as Toomey -- very poor fits for their states in which they are Senators. Show me post-2014 polls for Johnson and Kirk, and I may have a numerical (and even stronger) justification for saying that they go down to defeat, too.

Nate Silver applies the  44% threshold early in the electoral season.  Yes, someone with a 42% approval rating may have (let me guess) a 20% chance of winning re-election if much goes right -- excellent campaigning,  political events going favorably after being horrible, a weak opponent, and perhaps a huge infusion of support by 'independent' organizations flooding the media with last-minute smear campaigns. Being a Republican in a state that Republicans lose rarely or a Democrat in a state that Democrats rarely lose helps, too.

On the other side, having an approval rating of 47% (again I am guessing) might imply an 80% chance of winning. That is also a 20% chance of losing, so if one has ten incumbents, half of whom have approval ratings of 42% and half of whom have approval ratings of 47%, one of those with an approval rating of 42% will win and one of those with an approval rating of 47% will lose if results imitate the most likely result of random chance.  So if political events go badly, an incumbent becomes a weak campaigner, the challenger is unusually strong, and an opposing front group floods the media with a last-minute smear campaign... a 70% chance of winning can completely dissipate. 

Silver does not mention scandals. (I am going to guess that voters are the last to know. The politician is often secretive, which likely hurts his approval rating before his bad deeds are exposed). Journalists generally do not align themselves with politicians in trouble, so the tone of voice from a nearly-neutral broadcast journalist about Barack Obama can be very different from that for Rod Blagojevich.

With an approval rating of 28%, Toomey is clearly in deep trouble in any effort to get re-elected. He may not be in as spectacularly bad shape to lose a re-election bid as  Santorum was in 2006 (abuse of power within the Senate) or Corbett in 2014 (getting connected somehow to a horrible scandal of child abuse).  He needs to get his approval rating up to at least 40% to have a real chance at re-election. But that is going to be difficult. He will be vulnerable to negative ads about his positions. He can't run from his right-wing voting record.

We saw lots of incumbent Democrats up 44-41 or so early in 2014... and they still lost. They generally had low approval ratings, in part because they fit their states poorly.

A guess that the Republicans may have a better chance of winning an open seat in California is ... well, a guess on which non-zero probability is bigger. It's rare that I could call a Senate race against an incumbent this early. I just lack the imagination to see how Senator Toomey can be re-elected.

[Keystone Phil]

You certainly lack something in your head but I wouldn't say it's the imagination that's missing...

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

You certainly lack something in your head but I wouldn't say it's the imagination that's missing...

Maybe we can attribute the horrific eyesores pbrower calls 'maps' to this mental dearth.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

When Quinnepiac calls this race and start polling we will see how Toomey fairs. For now, tossup, tilt G o P.

[The_Doctor]

Casey and Toomey could be a long time duo. Toomey will always have tougher races but Pennsylvania always seems to give both parties a chance. Poll results don't mean anything right now, especially when 1/3 of the electorate has no idea whats going on.

I assume that Pennsylvania goes Democratic by 3-4%, if it goes Democratic. I go off the 2012 results and don't see why these wouldn't hold as a ceiling.

If something is a ceiling, then it should never go above it. Pennsylvania has gone Republican many times before, therefore its not a ceiling.

I meant President. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican for President since 1988.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Oh, and pbrower, to prove to you even more that approval ratings/favorability ratings mean little, I'd like to point you to three individuals. First, Sen. Mary Landrieu. Her approval in February 2013? 47-45. She loses by 12. Second, Sen. Mark Pryor. His favorability in October 2013? 46-37. Loses by nearly 20 points. Third, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who had 37-55 approval in December 2012. Wins by 15 points. (Hagan was also popular in early 2013, but I decided not to go into her here because her loss was so narrow and wouldn't have happened in a non-tidal-wave year. The other three races would have had the same winner even in a 2012-style climate.)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_LA_213.pdf
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_KY_121112.pdf
http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/14/arkansas.html

For you to sit there and say "An incumbent with ~47% approval has an 80% chance of winning! Someone in the 30's has a <15% chance. Silver! Silver!", just sounds silly. And it's not like Silver's some great god these days. Look at his gubernatorial predictions:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-day-left-the-most-competitive-races-for-governor/

Maine, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, and Maryland are all wrong. Yes, these are races that a lot of people got wrong, but the whole hype with Nate Silver was that he was better than the typical predictor.

If we look at his senate predictions, we find that, just like the average predictor, he got the races in KS and NC wrong.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

Nate Silver was an excellent predictor in 2008 and 2012, on the presidential level in both years, and in 2008 at the senatorial level. But his 2014 forecasts were decidedly average in all areas. (This gets worse in the sports section, home to his terrible world cup forecast......)

Notice how Sabato, who for what it's worth actually beat Nate Silver in 2014 Senatorial Forecasts (Sabato got KS right), has this race (PA) where it should be, at a pure toss-up.

Bottom Line - Toomey's approvals suck, yes, but his likely opponent not only trails in the polls but also has favorables 8 points worse than Toomey's approvals. I've Illustrated that you're analogy of High Approvals = Amazing! Low Approvals = Death Sentence! was not only untrue in several places in 2014, but also amounts to saying that the race in CO is Safe R, the race in NC is Safe D, and that the race in GA is Likely D, assertions you probably don't agree with.

Oh, and before you point to Begich as an example of your below 44% = Disaster! analogy (Begich was at 42/41 approval in July 2013), keep in mind that he, like Hagan, only lost because of the tidal wave and would have survived in a smaller rep. wave. So, not a good example to use. Again, the three races (AR, LA, KY) I pointed out above would have had the same winner in not only a neutral year, but a 2012-style political climate as well.