Pollster.com

Look at those favorable/unfavorables. Makes no sense. Maybe Scott is trying to overcompensate. Does he read our comments? lol

750 LV? What, did they keep polling until Kirk closed back in? After months and months of 500 LV samples, that seems a bit odd.

My mom is 57 years old and has never voted for a Republican in her life. She's leaning towards voting for Kirk. She is a hardcore liberal overall but she likes Kirk's liberal stances on abortion and gun control, and she is tired of seeing crooks from the Chicago machine like Giannoulias getting elected in this state.

I am undecided right now, but if pressed to choose I would probably go Kirk, then Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones (who, unlike many third-party candidates, has the smarts and the experience required for the job), then Giannoulias. If it had been David Hoffman instead of Alexi, I'd be for Hoffman without hesitation.

Look at the chart on this race and notice that this is one instance where Rasmussen results bounce around the trend line with no apparent bias. Also notice that all pollsters for this race are using LV data.

The fact that Kirk is trailing by a couple of points despite having better favorables than Giannoulias also makes sense - in fact that is what makes it such a tight race in a state where the Democrat's candidate would normally lead by more.

Nice way to cut off your nose to spite your face, Chris.

Kirk's problems with his truthfulness about his past has given Alex G. this lead, about 7 points with the Rasmussen bias factored in.

Kirk is a big liar,if he lied so many times about his Military record what makes you think he wont lie about what he do in the Senate?This poll is coming from Rasmussen so i don't trust it,but Kirk is desperate he is running so many negative ads in Illinois,because that's what Republicans do.The Moderate Republicans are under so much pressure to satisfy the right-wing and Fox News,so you can expect Kirk and a few other Moderate Republicans to vote against the Obama administration 98% of the time.

melvin: If Kirk shouldn't be elected, what about Dick Blumenthal Vietnam "veteran"?

Obama's replacement will be a lock step liberal from Chicago. I'm liberal as hell but this is quite predictable because Cook County will save the G-man. Why can't we have Blago as the senator? There won't be another Scott Brown Special in Illinois.

I predict a loss of 4-5 senate seats.

Democrat failures (4) These 4 are in the bag!
Arkansas- Blanche
North Dakota- Dorgan
Delaware- Biden being VP
Indiana- Bayh Retiring

Democrat holds- (4)
Nevada - very strong (Angle nuttiness)
Illinois - very strong (Cook county save)
Penn. - strong (Philly will save the Dems)
Colorado- Tossup (Norton/Buck are weak)

**West Virgnia- If election is in 2010 the GOV will win the seat.

Democrat Pickup Potential (2)
Ohio- Tossup
Mizzou- Leans Republican

Charlie Crist Special (1) - he will vote like Scott Brown, The Maine Twins, Joe Lieberman, and Ben Nelson--pissing off both parties. I definitely support that over Rubio.

2012 Democrat Hot Seats/Pickups (3)
Lieberman- Connecticut
Brown- Massachusetts
Ensign- Nevada
Hutchinson- If she retires in Texas

2012 Democrat tough holds
McCaskill - Mizzou (50-47 margin in 2006)
Tester- Montana - (49-48 margin)
Webb- Virginia (50-49 margin)

Democrat competitive holds
Nelson Nebraska- (64-36 margin)
Brown Ohio (56-44 margin)

The Republicans along with big business is working together to try in destroy the Democrat party.A report from USA today just came out showing big business with almost 900 Billion dollars in the bank,enough to hire 2.7 Million people immediately. You can bet The top people in the Republican party have told big business to hold off hiring until they regain back power and all 3 branches of govt.I have been saying this all year that big business do not want to see the Democrats stay in power,so they is not going to hire anybody until the GOP regains power.The Federal govt needs to investigate this,because big business is getting Billions of federal dollars.Now we know why the unemployment rate is still high,because big business is doing this intentionally to help the Republican party.

Dave: I agree with you Blumenthal is a big fat liar who should be replaced by Ned Lamont.Blumenthal is a embarrassment to the Democratic party who needs to step down,because Lamont will serve the party better as a Senator then a Governor.

Dave,

Haven't you heard? Lying, deceit and craziness only applied to REPUBLICAN candidates. Clearly you didn't get the memo.

Chris V:

Your mother should look at Kirk's recored. He voted against healthcare reform and against stronger financial regulations. He can afford to be pro choice on abortion when his stand changes nothing and pro gun control when his stance again doesn't influence the issue.
Note the latest Supreme court ruling.

dj needle: I think you can add Kentucky and NH as potential Dem pick ups in 2010. I'm not saying it will happen, just saying those races are very competitive.

This is pretty surprising for this race. But I won't be favorable towards Rasmussen even if they show a (D) in the lead. The favorables don't match up.

Lealan Jones polled at 14% last time he was mentioned in a poll. I don't understand why a professional pollster would leave him out of the polling question. Third party candidates are big factors and do influence the outcome in this state.

Favorables don't have to match up. Something similar was polled a couple of weeks ago in Boxer/Fiorina race. Job approval was higher than favorables for Boxer. It's voters policy preference vs. personal favorability. I can see where Il voters may like Kirk more personally, but prefer to vote for a more liberal candidate with a slimier personality. Not inconsistent.

Rasmussen clearly finds a nice pool of voters who are more conservative leaning. This is evident on the favorables. I agree that Alexi isn't the most dynamic candidate or an overly popular one, but the unfavorables of kirk have not been good either. It is the favorables and unfavorables, as well as health care polls, Arizona's law and others that don't ad up with Rasmussen.

Perhaps they might be accurate on many actual elections, if the election were held today, but I do question them on the favorable and unfavorables, when other pollsters don't show things always better for the GOP candidate.

"Chris V.:
My mom is 57 years old and has never voted for a Republican in her life. She's leaning towards voting for Kirk. She is a hardcore liberal overall but she likes Kirk's liberal stances on abortion and gun control, and she is tired of seeing crooks from the Chicago machine like Giannoulias getting elected in this state."

Well if that were someone I knew I would tell them especially not to vote for Kirk. He may indeed be moderate, and could be voting with Dems some of the time, but balance of power means everything. If things went really bad for the Dems, and they lost 9 seats, and election night Kirk and Alexi had such a close race there had to be a recount; if Kirk wins, there goes the senate. That means Inhofe is chair of the environmental committee; scary thought! I would tell your aunt this possible scenario, and I doubt when election day comes, she'll make the right decision and not vote for Kirk or the Green candidate.

If Lincoln Chafee in RI, a senator I truly like had won, Dems wouldn't have regained the senate in 06.

I think djneedle83 is right on about their predictions. I think CO will be the Dems best pickup chance if they are well organized, but I think Fisher can win in Ohio since Strickland gets strong endorsements, and lots of True blue older voters near Cleveland. The cleveland area will be the key to Fisher and Strickland winning. Colorado seems to have a lot of younger people who lean left, but turnout in midterms in CO isn't always that great because as Reagan would say "It's youthful inexperienced voters" don't always turnout.

Wins in Washington, NV, IL, WV and WI are a must.

For 2012, I think Mccaskill will probably win, and if he isn't challenged in the primary, Webb would probably win. Nelson in Nebraska could lose if the governor runs; he could face a Byron Dorgan type situation, and Tester will have a very tough time in MOntana, being a 10 plus Republican state.

Ensign if he doesn't resign will lose and I would not say that Kyl isn't beatable. If a good immigration law is passed in the meantime, and Hispanic turnout is strong, Kyl could be finished.

The biggest question is how the H*LL does a Republican close in within 2 points in a state as liberal as IL, esp to succeed Obama's old seat? Sure, blame the candidate (e.g. "Coakley was snubbing voters"), blame the campaign ("not enough GOTV"), blame the numbers ("no polls meaningful before Labor Day"), blame the pollster ("Rass is totally R house effect") but any Republican that can run a toss-up race state-wide in IL should be an omen for a wave election. (Obama won by ~25%), and now it's barely D+2 ?! And I'm a registered Dem myself.

If you guys think McCaskill, Nelson, and Tester will win in 2012, you're nuts. McK won by 2 points in a HEAVY dem year. Nelson is basically despised in the state for his HCR vote. No way he gets within 20 points of his challenger. I still say he will switch parties next year but that won't save him.

Losing Ben Nelson? I call that addition by subtraction.

I don't think I've seen a year when so many senate seats are competitive.

Field Marshal: If you think Brown and Ensign is going to win and 2012 you're crazy.

Mccaskill won in a midterm year, and I predict with stronger turnout, her chances will be better in 2012.

Coakley ran a bad campaign, and a similarity I see between her and Rand Paul, which is the only similarity between the two, is Paul seems to feel he is entitled, and so did Coakley, but the other similarity I see is Coakley assumed Brown was anti-choice, and associated him as supporting many GOP platform issues, he had to mention in the debates, were not true. When I saw Rand Paul, speaking for Conway as supporting many energy policies, and other liberal policies, Conway, in several cases said he didn't support Cap and trade and other issues pertaining to the coal industry. It would be nice to see an upset in KY this year.

Farleft: You got a point there,Mccaskill did win in 2006,and youre right Farleft the base will turn out much better then they did in 2006,because Obama will be on the ballet.

Plus Missouri is a swing state with a high Black population and 2 major cities, making it have more diverse. Not sure if Nebraska and Montana will change a whole lot in their attitudes between now and 2012. They are more set in their ways.

Xenobion:

This is pretty surprising for this race. But I won't be favorable towards Rasmussen even if they show a (D) in the lead. The favorables don't match up.

I don't think it's a big shocker that the favorables don't match up. Giannoulias isn't a hugely popular Democrat in the state which is reflected in the favorable numbers. At the same time, Cook county is heavily democratic and generally has a distaste for any Republican, regardless of whether he/she is more liberal than the typical Republican. I suspect voters in Cook county will hold their noses and vote Giannoulias because of the general distaste for the Republican party, and because of that the Dems will hold onto this senate seat by about 4-5 points.

Republicans have the potential to pick up 10 seats. The issue is if they can do all of them. I'm inclined to think it will be more like 7 or 8. There are the obvious ones (ND, DE, Arkansas and Indiana). Then there are the likely to win ones (PA, CO). The test will be how well they can do beyond these. I didnt think I would be saying this, but out of the remainder Washington looks the best. Patty Murray isnt that strong and there is a libertarian streak in Washington. I think we have a better chance of winning there than we do in Nevada, Cali, Illinois or Wisconsin, but those 4 are certainly not impossible.

I have too much faith in the President and the American voters that even though the GOP will have a good year, the senate will stay in Democratic hands. At best for the GOP, they would have to win all the seats they have to defend including Rubio beating Crist in Florida, and they will likely pick up ARK, IN and ND; more than likely DE; Colorado, IL PA,too. That is 7 right there. Both Feingold and Murray losing would be tough. WV is possible, but the GOP has an unknown candidate, VS a popular governor.

Paleo:

Nice way to cut off your nose to spite your face, Chris.

Kirk's problems with his truthfulness about his past has given Alex G. this lead, about 7 points with the Rasmussen bias factored in.

Posted on July 28, 2010 10:19 AM

If I decided to never pick a political candidate who had "problems with truthfulness," I wouldn't have anyone on the ballot to vote for.

The Kirk Vietnam "controversy" is just more of the usual media nonsense that focuses on the sensational stuff like "POLITICIAN CAUGHT IN LIE!!!!!!!!!!!" instead of grinding it out on the more important stories...because, you know, that stuff is just so boring!

Blumenthal did exaggerate the truth, and what he said about serving in the Vietnam war effort was misleading. I think his wording was not clear, but again Reagan did pretty well for himself and he stated numerous times he was a Veteran, and hinted he was in WW2 but never actually was.

Kirk on the other hand went further and talked about medals he recieved. That was a clear concocted lie. Blumenthal might just fabricate the truth.

Lets say I worked on Patty Murray's campaign and make calls from home, and in a speech I actually stated I was in Seattle and was an organizer out there; it would be a lie I spent time as her campaign aid, but wouldn't be a lie that I helped in the effort. That seems to be what Blumenthal's mistake was in his speeches.

Mogando669:

The biggest question is how the H*LL does a Republican close in within 2 points in a state as liberal as IL, esp to succeed Obama's old seat? Sure, blame the candidate (e.g. "Coakley was snubbing voters"), blame the campaign ("not enough GOTV"), blame the numbers ("no polls meaningful before Labor Day"), blame the pollster ("Rass is totally R house effect") but any Republican that can run a toss-up race state-wide in IL should be an omen for a wave election. (Obama won by ~25%), and now it's barely D+2 ?! And I'm a registered Dem myself.

Nonsense. This has little to do with a "wave". If that were true there'd be no chance in MO or KY or NC at all. Some politics is clearly local (or loco...in KY, for examle) and IL is one of those places in this cycle.

The Dem candidate is considered unethical by a high percentage of voters (see Ras' stats on that), even higher than Kirk, who lied through his teeth 10 times now (and counting) about military service and teaching career. Kirk's biggest lie, btw, is that he's a still-closeted gay (though he's now been outed by the same guy who outed Foley AND Craig...before the fact in both cases) who voted against DADT; ironic because, if he admitted his homosexuality he'd be discharged from the military that he loves so much and, from his campaign literature, seems to love him so much.