but Obama's approvals are even worse now than they were during the election. Add that to the fact that it will be a midterms climate (meaning less young people), and what we get is that the sample is reflective of a 2012 climate, not a 2014 climate.
If another credible pollster reflects the same results, I will back down on my criticism of this poll.
Approval ratings usually dip significantly for just about any incumbent Governor or Senator -- so much that an
elected incumbent with so little as 44% approval at the start of the campaign season has roughly a 50/50 chance of winning the next election. As a rule, incumbents campaign to get re-elected, and not only as a habit.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule/Relating to Senate and Gubernatorial elections of 2006, 2008, and 2009:
There's nothing about 2010, the Tea Party election. I suspect that Democratic incumbents were generally in trouble.
Relevance to this election for the US Senate seat in Montana -- practically none. Walsh is appointed, so he has yet to prove his ability as a campaigner for a Senate seat. This race is still for Daines to lose. In view of US Senate races in Indiana and Missouri in 2012, such is possible if Daines takes extremist positions.
7% is a good, if not insurmountable lead for a challenger. It can be blown.
