Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

CA: 2010 Sen Ratings (SurveyUSA 11/4)


SurveyUSA
11/4/09; 500 adults, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(SurveyUSA release)

National

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barbara Boxer: 33 / 37 (chart)
Carly Fiorina: 11 / 24
Chuck DeVore: 8 / 15
Al Ramirez: 10 / 12

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

Trying to unseat Barbara Boxer? Voted against going to Iraq and had she been on the senate finance committee with true Democratic senators with guts like John Kerry and Bernie Sanders, we would have passed a health care bill a few months ago. Boxer has a job until she retires. "Carly Fiorina? Good luck".

____________________

Field Marshal:

I hope so. California is going down the tubes and electing someone with intelligence and accomplishment in Carli Fiorina won't do anything to stem that decline. Keep the same ol' junk in power and suffer the consequences. People need a capitulation point in order to see the error of their ways. Its the old Frog in a pot of boiling water analogy.

____________________

Xenobion:

Its easy to point and laugh at California for the state it is in and to somehow collectively put all of its problems on Barbara Boxer for some moronic reason, but she's been in office since 1992 and generally been a boon to environmental legislation in the Country.

California saw many economic high points under her time in the Senate but I guess we won't give her any credit for that. Which honestly we shouldn't because she's a National Senator and not in a position of power to actually reverse many of the problems California faces.

____________________

Stillow:

Boxer is very vulnerable. Look at he 33 percent favor rate. Those are Jon Corzine numbers....

All incumbants, especially Dems are vulnerable in 2010....CA is in really bad shape. I saw the last couple months of the year the CA g'ment attached an extra 10 percent surcharge on taxes.....take take take. CA is out of control, there will be a day of reckoning. Incumbants wil lpay a price. Obviously we cannot make an accurate prediction on this race at this time, but Boxer is by no means a shoe-in.

Low favorability, a state thats falling apart and incumbant status will all work against her in 2010.

Fiorina coming in with business expereince and actual private sector accomplishments will be very dangerous to Boxer.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Field,

Right, so we should blame Tim Pawlenty for our bridge falling down, for our massive deficit, etc. In fact, under Pawlenty we've had TWO massive deficits. He used billions set aside from the tobacco settlement that was supposed to go to children to fill the hole that he created about 6 years ago. Now, instead of dealing with our current deficit he gerrymanders the numbers so the deficit shrinks some while he is governor and then explodes when he leaves office.

So yes people do get what they vote for. Incompetence exists just as much on the right as on the left.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Stillow is also right. Boxer is vulnerable, but she's still the one to bet on as of this moment.

It seems that incumbents could be in for a rude awakening on both sides of the aisle next year.

Finally, it will be interesting to see if DeVore can beat out Fiorina. I would not be surprised if good Republican candidates lose primaries by nominating more conservative candidates, which, in places like California, will be a detriment to unseating someone like Boxer. (I'm not claiming Fiorina is a good candidate, she has yet to campaign, but she is fairly moderate and a former CEO so she has good credentials for a state like California).

____________________

Xenobion:

Any Cali politican pretty much starts favorables at 45% and as you can see Fiorina starts with 2x the amount unfavorables. She won't get far, she campaigned for Palin and being from California that's political suicide.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Boxer's disapproval is 12% higher than her approval. Fiorina's disapproval is 118% higher than her approval.

I think Boxer's in the better position.

____________________

Stillow:

Fiorina's favorability is not important right now. Fiorina woudl be the challenger who does not have the name recognition Boxer does. You can gauge if an incumbant is really vulnerable by looking at her approval and favorability, inthsi case Boxer is in trouble. Anytime an incumbant is under 50, they can be taken out........

____________________

platanoman:

Carly Fiorina is a terrible candidate. The last rasmussen poll had her up by 10. Plus, I think California will have a Democratic governor, so I think there will be a big turn out.

____________________

platanoman:

Boxer up by 10. And THAT WAS RASMUSSEN.

____________________

LordMike:

Carly Fiorina singlehandedly destroyed HP, while shipping every job she could off to India in the process. She testified to congress that, "Americans don't deserve good jobs." (direct quote). There is no way that the person who destroyed one of California's great companies is ever going to make it anywhere in CA politics. There are going to be literally hundreds of thousands of current and former HP employees and retirees busting their behinds to see her go down in flames. It will not be pretty.

____________________

Stillow:

Again, you guys miss the obvious.....elections are about the incumbant. If they are under 50,then Mickey Mouse has a shot of beating them. Already on blogs I am seeing libs say no way that can happen, no way htis can happen. this state is blue, they would never do this or that. Boxer cannot be beaten...

Short term memory loss? NJ is your example of what an anti incumbant vote looks like. A year ago no one even put NJ in a remotely competitive slot...boom....conservative wins.

Same old stuff you ugys hav ebeen syaing forever now. You need to open your eyes and look at whats going on with the anti incumbant trend in this country. CA is in a total fiscal disaster...just like in NJ, eventually those who caused it pay hte price...and in CA that would be liberals...just as it was in NJ.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"CA is in a total fiscal disaster"

LOL, Stillow, Boxer is not part of the state government.

Corzine's disapproval was upwards of 55-60%. There's no comparison there.

____________________

Stillow:

Aaron....newsflash, Boxer is a state wide elected official. Her votes in DC have impacts on CA economy.....and the national economy. A highly enlightened liberal thinker like yourself should know this.

Incumbants below 50 are in trouble. You guys spent the last 6 months laughing at me, mocking me, etc for my thoughts on NJ and VA....so I do not mind yo doign the same about 2010 incumbants.......fine by me...so far I like the score.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

But if you want to do comparisons: So far, every head-to-head poll has shown Boxer up by 10-15 points. And yes, we're talking Rasmussen. Corzine never enjoyed that kind of lead, except in one Zogby poll.

If Fiorina can tie Boxer to some sort of corruption scandal, she may be vulnerable, I'll give you that. But it will take something dramatic like that to unseat her.

Being former CEO of HP probably doesn't help Fiorina.

Chris Christie's favorables were 53-25 according to Rasmussen in January '09. A damn lot better than Fiorina.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"You guys spent the last 6 months laughing at me, mocking me, etc for my thoughts on NJ and VA"

I try not to mock you. I actually try to make reasoned arguments with you but it's like talking to a brick wall. As for NJ and VA, we all knew where those were headed, especially VA. Deeds never led more than 1 or 2 polls and those were in May right after he won the primary. And the only way Corzine had any hope of winning was if Daggett pulled republican votes away. He was down by 10-15 points this past summer.

____________________

LordMike:

"year ago no one even put NJ in a remotely competitive slot"

What are you talking about? A year ago, Corzine had significantly negative approval ratings. He was a major underdog in this race months before Obama was even nominated. much less elected.

____________________

Stillow:

Most people out there don't know who Fiorina...in an election contest her numbers would change...and with Boxer below 50, then yes she can be beaten. When your below 50, that means more than half don't like you or think your doing a bad job.....Fiorina has 12 months to beat on Boxer if she decides to run full steam ahead with this.

To simply say Fiorina has no chance is absolutely no different than saying NJ would never vote for a conservative a year ago.

It will come back to bite you hard like it did a few days ago.

When you a year out from an election, you don't look at the topponent, you look at the incumbants numbers to determine if they are beatable or not. Take someone like Jindal in LA who polls up in hte high 60's....he would be considered quite unbeatable....look at Boxer down in the 30's....she would be considered very beatable....its about the numbers. The challenger always has an advantage in a campaign when hte incumbant is not that popular.

____________________

Stillow:

LordMike

Go to the pollste rmai npage and look at the chart, at the beginning it had corzine ahead....and th entire past year every lib on here said christie cannot win. NJ doesn't vote for conservatives. Corzine hasn't run his ads yet, Obama campaigning for corzine will carry him to victory....dozens of excuses were posted on this site why christie could not win.

Every time I pointe dout corzine approval rating and how it was making him vulnerable....the same exact thing is true with Boxer, look at her numbers, they are lousy. That makes this seat obtainable for the GOP....especially if the anti incumbant mood continues to strengthen by next november which I think it will.

____________________

platanoman:

Umm Stillow, I think Corzine was weak. But, this is different story. You and your conservatives think Burr from NC is ok because it's a "Republican wave". She's vulnerable. But, I think Fiorina is a terrible candidate. And I think California is going to vote for a Democrat Governor. So, I think that will give Boxer the edge.

____________________

Xenobion:

Stillow I think Boxer is fine. SURVEYUSA decided to make a neutral category that is why both of their favorables are down. Boxer polls regularly at about 50%. Her unfavorability polls at about 44%. Those are great re-election numbers as an incumbant senator. In the end they end up getting the lionshare of the undecideds throwing her in 60% territory.

____________________

platanoman:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik5-2009nov05,0,5859115.column

These are the kind of articles I see on Carly Fiorina. Another California Republican running for public office who doesn't bother to vote.

____________________

platanoman:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik5-2009nov05,0,5859115.column

These are the kind of articles I see on Carly Fiorina. Another California Republican running for public office who doesn't bother to vote.

____________________

Stillow:

Ahhhh, the mind of a liberal is a fascinating instrument.....

____________________

Xenobion:

You got me. I'm actually afraid of Fiorina and everything she stands for. I'm afraid she'll be the next Sarah Palin. lol :p

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

I give you credit for you called NJ correctly. You were right and I was wrong, with that said it should be pointed out that the biggest reason for Corzine's loss was that the democrats stayed home. According to the exit polls the people that voted in NJ said they voted 51-49 for McCain and obviously Obama crushed McCain in NJ. I voted for Corzine holding my nose for the bottom line he has been a mediocre governor who has not kept his promises (If Chris Christie were not against abortion I would have voted for him). I think Daily Kos summed it up correctly by stating that if you don't do what you say will do you will not be rewarded. Virginia was a lost cause for the dems almost from the start, but NJ and NY-23 should serve as a wake up call to both parties which is that apathy and arrogance is a loser and that nobody's vote should be taken for granted.

____________________

Stillow:

lat...thats part of the game though. If you have crappy candidiates your side won't show up. NY 23 had crazy circumstances to it...that was just all wacky up there. I agree with James Carville that it was a fluke based on the circumstances and the seat will go back to the reds next november.

The energy the Dems had in 06 and 08 has shifted to the GOp for 2010. The comparisons to to 1993 and 1994 are creepy.

In 1993 you had republicans win in NJ and VA....jut like 2009. You have Dems tryign to pass a health care bill which doe snot have majority support, just like 1993.....You have a democratic president for the first time in years, just like 1993. You have an energized oppsotion just like 1993.....history is repeating itself almost exactly.

No incumbant will be secure in 2010. Exit polling I saw said people were sick and tired of taxes and the g'ment taking there money.

Obama has done one good thing, he has energized republicans and conservatives.

____________________

lat:

I want to see what the landscape look like 6 months from now before commenting...

BTW- How about the fact that Mike Bloomberg almost lost!

____________________

Stillow:

Ya, I was shocked Bloomberg won by such a tiny margin.....that one we can agree on...with all the cash he spent he should have won by 20 points.

I was also shocked and disappointed to see Maine repeal same sex mairages.....there just seems to be a slight +3 - 5 point majoirty in the nation which oppose gay mairage. But that majoirty is laid in brick cus it hasn't moved.

____________________

lat:

The courts are going to have to decide this. On abortion and gay rights you and I are in lockstep Stillow. It is absolutely disgraceful that people would vote to take away a civil right, but that is why we have courts. I also object to the whole notion of putting these types of issues up for a vote in the first place. What is the point of having represenative government? If you don't like what your representative did than vote them out.

____________________

Gopherguy:

I'm sorry to say for all the liberals, but Stillow is right. Anytime an incumbent is under 50 warning signs go up. Fiorina's numbers are low across the board because people don't know her. She'll have to get her name out and define herself. How she's defined will play a big role.

Boxer is obviously the favorite to win, but wait until we get polls a month or two before the election next year to proclaim Boxer is the automatic winner.

____________________

NJVoter:

Stillow:

"Short term memory loss? NJ is your example of what an anti incumbant vote looks like. A year ago no one even put NJ in a remotely competitive slot...boom....conservative wins."

You haven't been following NJ race close enough, except maybe for polls here. I live in NJ, and let me tell you.. Chistie is nowhere close to a conservative, in fact he is not even a moderate, he is a very Liberal Republican, he has all Guilianni advisors working for him, he maybe fiscally concervative but very liberal on social issues, he almost lost a Republican primary for that reason. His views on education, health care, immigration are identical to Corzine, even his position on gay unions is the same as Corzine's was when he ran 4 years ago.

It's a wild dream to think that conservatives can win blue states. california will not be any different.

____________________

NJVoter:

Stillow:

"Ya, I was shocked Bloomberg won by such a tiny margin.....that one we can agree on...with all the cash he spent he should have won by 20 points."

I was shocked as well, so I called my mom who lives in Staten Island the next morning, and just as I thought, it turnes out that noone went to vote! None of her friends that vote in every election bothered to show up. It's a typical case when people "assume" that a candidate will just win. I think the turnout was in 20%'s. It would of been very dissapointing if he lost. I grew up in NYC.

____________________

Stillow:

NJVoter:

I had to read what you wrote twice...you may be the first person I have seen call Christie a liberal. He is very conservative fiscally and is center right on social issues. Putting social issues aside because I do not care about those, he is very fiscally conservative. he is going to cut the budget, and cut taxes....which is what NJ desperately needs....

To call Christie a liberal is very odd. I have seen hi mspeak numerous times and he is about as liberal as I am....which isn't very much.

____________________

NJVoter:

Trust me Stillow, I have watched this race in my state from the very beginning, he is a liberal Republican. I happen to like fiscal conservatism, being a Democrat. But all conservatives where accusing Christie as being just as liberal as Corzine in the primaries. It's not until he won the nomination that he started getting support of right wing talk shows and media. He is a lawyer, and a prosecutor, so he can make himself sound as whatever he needs to be at a particular point. Forget social issues, Google Christie + immigration just to name one. Yes he is pro-life, but thats about it. His first appointment, that leaked yesterday: for attorney general... a registered Democrat. Watch him turn even more to the left once he gets into office. The only way he can govern NJ is to trade his fiscal proposals for other liberal agendas.

____________________

RAG2:

Oh, Stillow:

I think you talk and condescend too much. You're so conceited and self-righteous. You're "always" right about everything, and people like me are "always" wrong, huh? Well, I got news for you: The world ain't black and white, you ain't God and I ain't Satan. Has it EVER occurred to you that a liberal might know a thing or two that you don't when it comes to wisdom?

I'll grant you that my side might occasionally be wrong about something or other, but at least it doesn't make a career out of lying. I just love rebuting your diatribes because you're so FOS, and a great BS historical revisionist to boot. I've noticed that when I correct you about something, you almost never have a response. Could it be you've met your match?

____________________

RAG2:

PS, Stillow:

Get a GD spell-checker. If you're so much "smarter" than all of us "libs" (as you so affectionately put it), then why can't you spell?

____________________

RAG2:

PPS, Stillow:

Most of your blogs are little more than Ann-Coulter/Sean-Hannity GOP hack talking points mixed with classic "anti-lib" bullying--full of character attacks--not information. But when someone confronts you with hard data, you seem to clam up, or simply repeat what you said before without really anything new to indicate you've really paid attention. You verbal bullies are all the same: You can dish it out, but you can never take it!

____________________

RAG2:

(Apparantly, Stillow goes to bed before midnight (after which I usually go online), and doesn't recheck "old" blogs.)

____________________

RAG2:

In case you're reading Stillow, Boxer's UNfavorables are ALSO well below 50%!

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR