Talk Elections

Cassidy led Landrieu 57 percent to 33 percent in the survey conducted Nov. 24-25 by WPA Opinion Research for Independent Women’s Voice.

His victory would bring the number of Republican Senate seats captured in this year’s midterm elections to nine, topping off the new GOP majority at 54 seats.

The poll of 500 likely voters had an error margin of 4.4 percentage points.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/cassidy-crushing-landrieu-by-24-pts/article/2556926

New Poll: Louisiana Senator by Wilson Perkins Allen on 2014-11-25 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=22220141125169)

Summary: D: 33%, R: 57%, I: 0%, U: 10%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/cassidy-crushing-landrieu-by-24-pts/article/2556926)

WPA knew how to poll Maryland:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=201560.0

But do they know how to poll LA ?

Great poll!

How so ? Did you change to KCDem (R) ?

Although I do personally hate to see Landrieu lose, it's nice to see the people of Louisiana embrace the reality that party is far more important that individual candidates. Perhaps one day people in the more civilized, Northern states (I'm looking at you, Maine) will get their heads out of their Inks and draw the same self-evident conclusion.

No, but it's accurate!

You may have a point in legislative elections that choose the party that will have the (slim) majority and therefore the power to decide what reaches the floor, but in Gubernatorial/Presidential races, candidates definitely do matter, as what a moderate will sign/veto is far different from what a radical will sign/veto, and those laws that are signed will determine the future of the state or country.

If those Senate Democrats just passed the Keystone XL Pipeline bill....

Cassidy might only be up by 22...

()

Yeah Landrieu could have at least been within single digits w/ Keystone XL and could've won.

The Dems were dumb to reject it.

LOLOOLOLOL

()

Eh, Landrieu still was only trailing by single digits in a lot of the pre-GE polling.  She might have been able to hold up better with the Keystone vote.  It definitely would've given her positive PR, and the Dems might not have given up on her so much.

We tried this crap with Pryor, Lincoln, etc.

It didn't work because the voters aren't buying it.

Look, let's face it. The NON-GA deep south is safe republican now, and there's nothing anyone can do to reverse it - even GA relies on getting huge black turnout and support and probably consistently getting 28-30% of whites while holding down white turnout. It took a while for the downticket races to catch up with presidential trends due to famous family names, poor challengers, luck, and Bill Clinton, but they've caught up now and there's nothing anyone can do.

The rest of the non-GA/AZ republican states may go the same way - democrats should be very nervous about Tester, McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Donnelly. Manchin can hold his seat, but if he retires, its gone.

Clinton's numbers in MT also do not look good at all. Its the type of red state where Obama 2008 > Clinton (and ironically the Obama of today). Rehberg also made a lot of misteps and there was a vote split effect occuring. The one thing that bodes well for Tester is that the GOP has a limited bench of strong candidates.

Democrats aren't exactly considering those races safe ::)


and Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Tester are all probably in a better position than Manchin to win reelection.

Donnelly, who won only due to a bad republican nominee, is less vulnerable than Manchin? LOLOOLOLOL

this level of trolling is not very surprising coming from a royalist.

West Virginia is the new Arkansas, there is no longer a base for national democrats to compete. See Rahall, Nick.

These numbers are old, but Manchin only had a 46/44 approval rating:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_WV_925.pdf

Indiana and North Dakota, on the other hand, have a base for Democrats to win.

Junk poll!

The answer is clearly No.