PA-PPP: Toomey leads

[JRP1994]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/01/pennsylvania-senate-race-looks-competitive.html

[moderatevoter]

Too many undecideds.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Rendell doing even better relative to dem rivals than even I was expecting, and I was quite high on him. Obviously Sestak-Toomey is the only noteworthy race though atm - subject to change.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The most surprising thing in that poll IMO is that Chris Matthews only has 43% name recognition in Pennsylvania.  How is that even possible?

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

The most surprising thing in that poll IMO is that Chris Matthews only has 43% name recognition in Pennsylvania.  How is that even possible?

Because only staunch, partisan democrats watch his show.

[Miles]

The most surprising thing in that poll IMO is that Chris Matthews only has 43% name recognition in Pennsylvania.  How is that even possible?

Because only staunch, partisan democrats watch his show.

I like him...

[henster]

Toomey's anonymity is a bad omen for him he needs to be fairly popular to hold on in a state like PA.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Toomey's "moderate image" doesn't work when no one knows who he is. Key for Sestak will be to define Toomey first.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The most surprising thing in that poll IMO is that Chris Matthews only has 43% name recognition in Pennsylvania.  How is that even possible?

Because only staunch, partisan democrats watch his show.

Even if that's true, you would think people would know who he is.

[The_Doctor]

Good for Toomey. This is encouraging for us holding Pennsylvania. A lead is a lead; and the electorate probably will still hold for Toomey if their first impression of Sestak is to give Toomey the lead. His approval rating is a bit worrying, but it's very good news that Sestak - with an evenly split approval rating, among the 40% that do recognize him - trails Toomey, who is slightly underwater.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It depends on how well our nominee carries the state, which I believe will be more like 8-9 pts instead of 5 or 6. Nevertheless, it looks competetive in our outlook in taking control of PA in 2016.

[free my dawg]

Key for Democrats in general is playing the defining game.

[DrScholl]

40% is a terrible number for a Republican incumbent going into a presidential year

[dmmidmi]

Bob Casey is still riding his dad's coattails.

[The_Doctor]

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.

[Maxwell]

Those unknowns are pretty crazy.

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

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

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.

He's talking about the democratic ceiling not the republican ceiling. He was likely rebutting OC's post, which said that an 8-9 point presidential result in PA is a real possibility.

[Keystone Phil]

That amount of "no opinion" responses just doesn't make sense. But whatever. Full results:

Approval: 28% to 35%. 37% have "no opinion."

He leads Shapiro by 12%, Nutter by 7%, Kane by 6% (she led by 2-4% since taking office), Chris Matthews by 4% and Sestak by 4%.

Only one Dem leads: Rendell up by 3%...and he isn't running.

Sestak goes back to being relatively unknown with only 40% having an opinion on him.

Toomey's "moderate image" doesn't work when no one knows who he is. Key for Sestak will be to define Toomey first.

That goes both ways. Sestak doesn't have bucket loads of money to define himself or his opponent this early.

But this is all fairly moot. By the time this campaign is finished, after the insane amount of money that will be spent on advertising, Pennsylvanians will know both of them. Trust me.

40% is a terrible number for a Republican incumbent going into a presidential year

It's January...2015. Not quite "going into" 2016 yet.

[pbrower2a]

Approval at 28% after four years in the US Senate -- he's almost certainly going down. The 2016 electorate will not be so favorable to Toomey as was 2010.

According to Nate Silver's famous study, an incumbent Governor or Senator needs 44% approval at the start of the campaign to have a reasonable chance of being re-elected in a binary election. He has a long way to go to shore up support to be able to campaign to victory. A politician wins while in campaign mode and can't govern or legislate in campaign mode.  So he is going to make some tough decisions that can't satisfy everyone who voted for him.

To be sure he has not abused power as Rick Santorum did as a Senator... and he hasn't committed himself to such a losing proposition as did former Governor Tom Corbett. But he doesn't have to lose 60-40 to lose a Senate seat.

In match-ups with comparative unknowns he gets no more than 44% even if he is ahead. This is ominous. Those unknowns can run against Pat Toomey's record of supporting absolute plutocracy.

Extremists might win one statewide election in Pennsylvania. One election -- and lose the next.

     

[Free Bird]

Approval at 28% after four years in the US Senate -- he's almost certainly going down. The 2016 electorate will not be so favorable to Toomey as was 2010.

According to Nate Silver's famous study, an incumbent Governor or Senator needs 44% approval at the start of the campaign to have a reasonable chance of being re-elected in a binary election. He has a long way to go to shore up support to be able to campaign to victory. A politician wins while in campaign mode and can't govern or legislate in campaign mode.  So he is going to make some tough decisions that can't satisfy everyone who voted for him.

To be sure he has not abused power as Rick Santorum did as a Senator... and he hasn't committed himself to such a losing proposition as did former Governor Tom Corbett. But he doesn't have to lose 60-40 to lose a Senate seat.

In match-ups with comparative unknowns he gets no more than 44% even if he is ahead. This is ominous. Those unknowns can run against Pat Toomey's record of supporting absolute plutocracy.

Extremists might win one statewide election in Pennsylvania. One election -- and lose the next.

     

Lolpartisanhack

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

We're 2.5 months since that PPP poll that found Michael Bennet at 30/35. RIP Senator. I guess Burr, Rubio, and Isakson are as good as dead too. Some people are just unknowns. That's often a good thing.

I also love all the "define the opponent first" strategists. That's not exactly easy to do. They'll be trying to do the same thing. It worked with a guy like Corbett because he was defined so far out that opinions were so ingrained. If you try to define the opponent, you're going to end up with a Hagan/Tillis type race. Or perhaps Shaheen/Brown, I should also offer so you realize you shouldn't be so cocky.

[Xing]

Clearly a lot of undecideds, that's all we can really conclude for now.

[Keystone Phil]

Key finding of this poll: pbrower still absolutely clownish. Very few undecided on that point.

[pbrower2a]

Approval at 28% after four years in the US Senate -- he's almost certainly going down. The 2016 electorate will not be so favorable to Toomey as was 2010.

According to Nate Silver's famous study, an incumbent Governor or Senator needs 44% approval at the start of the campaign to have a reasonable chance of being re-elected in a binary election. He has a long way to go to shore up support to be able to campaign to victory. A politician wins while in campaign mode and can't govern or legislate in campaign mode.  So he is going to make some tough decisions that can't satisfy everyone who voted for him.

To be sure he has not abused power as Rick Santorum did as a Senator... and he hasn't committed himself to such a losing proposition as did former Governor Tom Corbett. But he doesn't have to lose 60-40 to lose a Senate seat.

In match-ups with comparative unknowns he gets no more than 44% even if he is ahead. This is ominous. Those unknowns can run against Pat Toomey's record of supporting absolute plutocracy.

Extremists might win one statewide election in Pennsylvania. One election -- and lose the next.

     

Lolpartisanhack

If anything it is the 28% approval rate that is laughable. Pennsylvania statewide politics are fairly easy to watch, and they have some clear patterns.

...I just gave you a tool for arguing that an incumbent Republican is in good shape. If at this stage he has an approval rating near 50% he is doing OK for now. I saw Santorum go down in 2006 and Corbett go down in 2014... from Michigan.  Santorum and Corbett were known commodities as their re-election campaigns went down. It's Nate Silver, and his model explains 2014 well. The Democratic incumbents who went down were shaky at best. So if you see someone like Ron Johnson (R-WI) with an approval rating of 47%... he's not in bad shape.

I spoke only about Toomey this time. Most politicians whose approval ratings are below 35% either choose not to run or lose a primary contest, so Nate Silver doesn't say much about him as a group.  In view of what you just said you need to refute Nate Silver and not my partisan rhetoric. Senator Toomey should be well known in Pennsylvania.  I can't see how Toomey campaigns his way out of his image as a Hard Right figure in a liberal-leaning state.

We're 2.5 months since that PPP poll that found Michael Bennet at 30/35. RIP Senator. I guess Burr, Rubio, and Isakson are as good as dead too. Some people are just unknowns. That's often a good thing.

I also love all the "define the opponent first" strategists. That's not exactly easy to do. They'll be trying to do the same thing. It worked with a guy like Corbett because he was defined so far out that opinions were so ingrained. If you try to define the opponent, you're going to end up with a Hagan/Tillis type race. Or perhaps Shaheen/Brown, I should also offer so you realize you shouldn't be so cocky.

Precisely. Define the incumbent as a crook, an extremist, or a failure and win. That's how Reagan defeated Carter, who was neither an extremist not a crook.

It may be early... but count on plenty of material on Burr from PPP. Everyone will be polling Florida.

So what does early polling on Toomey say about the chances of the Republican Party to hold the Senate? Only one seat. He's one case, as was Corbett last year; anyone who drew any inference on how the GOP would do nationwide from how Corbett was doing was a fool.

I am confident at this stage that if any Republican incumbent in the US Senate goes down, it will be Pat Toomey. He could be the only one who goes down based upon the polls since the 2014 electoral disaster for the Democratic Party.