NM: Rasmussen: Heinrich leads Wilson by 2%, Balderas and Wilson are tied

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

New Poll: New Mexico Senator by Rasmussen on 2012-02-14

Summary: D: 45%, R: 43%, U: 7%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

1* In thinking about the 2012 Election for U.S. Senate suppose you had a choice between Republican Heather Wilson and Democrat Martin Heinrich.  If the election were held today, would you vote for Republican Heather Wilson or Democrat Martin Heinrich?



Martin Heinrich (D) 45%

Heather Wilson (R) 43%

Other  5%

Not Sure  7%





2* What if the Democrats nominate Hector Balderas?  If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Republican Heather Wilson or Democrat Hector Balderas?



Hector Balderas (D) 44%

Heather Wilson (R) 44%

Other 3%

Not Sure 9%

[redcommander]

Didn't expect the race to be so close.

[King]

The primary isn't until June and there has been ZERO campaigning done on either side. No ads, no interviews. All three have kept out of the spotlight.

Once Wilson reminds people who she is this will be a landslide.  The only thing I'm worried about is Balderas upsetting Heinrich. Heinrich is far more impressive, but Balderas is more of a guy NM Dems would choose.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yeah, NM seems like the type of place where Santorum and Romney would both do terribly, albeit for different reasons. It's going to be tough for Wilson to overcome.

[Lief 🗽]

The primary isn't until June and there has been ZERO campaigning done on either side. No ads, no interviews. All three have kept out of the spotlight.

Once Wilson reminds people who she is this will be a landslide.  The only thing I'm worried about is Balderas upsetting Heinrich. Heinrich is far more impressive, but Balderas is more of a guy NM Dems would choose.

Do people not like Wilson? I thought she was fairly popular, with her whole moderate hero schtick.

[Miles]

Didn't expect the race to be so close.

It's Rasmussen...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Didn't expect the race to be so close.

It's Rasmussen...

[krazen1211]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

Yes...that theory worked very well in 1984 for the 5 open seats that the Republicans lost. It was almost 6 as McConnell barely held on.

[Mr.Phips]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

Yes...that theory worked very well in 1984 for the 5 open seats that the Republicans lost. It was almost 6 as McConnell barely held on.

Politics were far less polarized in 1984.  Even then, McConnell was a unexpected pickup for Republicans due to Reagan's big win and Jesse Helms held on thanks to Reagan's big win.  Republicans had long conceeded Howard Baker's old seat Tennessee to Al Gore and didnt even run a real candidate there. 

If Obama wins big, im betting that the only seats Republicans pick up are Nebraska and maybe Montana and North Dakota, while  Democrats will gain Massachussetts and Nevada and maybe even Arizona, for zero net gain for either party. 

[tpfkaw]

Didn't expect the race to be so close.

It's Rasmussen...

Rasmussen has been more favorable to the Dems than the average of late (they have higher approval ratings for Obama than Gallup and have him performing better nationally than most other pollsters).  This poll has him up 55-37 over Santorum and 55-36 over Romney.  I don't see any reason to consider it inaccurate for now (though this is probably about the peak for Wilson).

[krazen1211]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

Yes...that theory worked very well in 1984 for the 5 open seats that the Republicans lost. It was almost 6 as McConnell barely held on.

Politics were far less polarized in 1984.  Even then, McConnell was a unexpected pickup for Republicans due to Reagan's big win and Jesse Helms held on thanks to Reagan's big win.  Republicans had long conceeded Howard Baker's old seat Tennessee to Al Gore and didnt even run a real candidate there. 

If Obama wins big, im betting that the only seats Republicans pick up are Nebraska and maybe Montana and North Dakota, while  Democrats will gain Massachussetts and Nevada and maybe even Arizona, for zero net gain for either party. 

There are obviously large exceptions to that, such as the open seat in West Virginia.

[Badger]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

Yes...that theory worked very well in 1984 for the 5 open seats that the Republicans whlost. It was almost 6 as McConnell barely held on.

What are you talking abot? The gop only lost 3 seats that year; only. 2 were incumbents, and more importantly there was only a net gain of one.

[krazen1211]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

Yes...that theory worked very well in 1984 for the 5 open seats that the Republicans whlost. It was almost 6 as McConnell barely held on.

What are you talking abot? The gop only lost 3 seats that year; only. 2 were incumbents, and more importantly there was only a net gain of one.

Hmph, I should rephase, all 5 weren't open. There were open seats in:

West Virginia (Rockefeller)
Tennessee (Gore)
Massachusetts (Kerry)

and of course the 2 incumbents in

Iowa (Harkin)
Illinois (Simon).

The fact that Reagan won all these states certainly did not lead to us winning the Senate seats, not make much headway in defeating Democratic incumbents.

[Mr.Phips]

Heinrich has the backing of national Democrats and seems to be an able politician. He survived 2010 without much effort despite representing a swingish district.

And with Obama dominating the state he will have a much more favorable terrain this time.

Yes...that theory worked very well in 1984 for the 5 open seats that the Republicans whlost. It was almost 6 as McConnell barely held on.

What are you talking abot? The gop only lost 3 seats that year; only. 2 were incumbents, and more importantly there was only a net gain of one.

Hmph, I should rephase, all 5 weren't open. There were open seats in:

West Virginia (Rockefeller)
Tennessee (Gore)
Massachusetts (Kerry)

and of course the 2 incumbents in

Iowa (Harkin)
Illinois (Simon).

The fact that Reagan won all these states certainly did not lead to us winning the Senate seats, not make much headway in defeating Democratic incumbents.

In Massachussetts and West Virginia, Republicans didnt even make a serious play for those seats.  In Massachussetts, they nominated a nobody who lost to Kennedy by 22 points two years earlier and in West Virginia they nominated a nobody.  Those two races were only close because of Reagan's landslide.

In Iowa, the Republican incumbent had a lot of personal problems and I dont know what happened in Illionois. 

Again, politics were also much less polarized and you had less straight ticket voting the way you do now.