Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KY: 49% Paul, 47% Conway (SurveyUSA 9/21-23)

Topics: Kentucky , poll

SurveyUSA / Courier Journal-Bluegrass
9/21-23/10; 611 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(SurveyUSA release)

Kentucky

2010 Senate
49% Paul (R), 47% Conway (D) (chart)

 

Comments
Aaron_in_TX:
____________________

lat:

Looks like that poll from a few days ago showing Conway down by 3 wasn't an outlier after all. Here is my scenario for a great outcome on election day.

1. All the tea party candidates for Senate lose (Miller, O'Donnell, Toomey, Buck, Paul, Angle) and if one or 2 of them squeak by I'll live with it.

2. The GOP wins marginal control of the house so that Obama can spend the next two years turning Johhny Bonehead and his henchmen into spam.

3. Stillow, Field Marshall, and StatePolly realize their taxes are going up and will go berserk about it. Lol!

____________________

Dave:

So, Paul has lost 13 points in a little less than a month? Seems unlikely, unless the drug treatment thing is really dragging him down.

____________________

Field Marshal:

SUSA's polling has been crazy for the last few months.

lat,

Why would i go berzerk? I want him to raise the taxes on the rich. It will mean less jobs are created during the next year or two and possibly cost him his reelection bid. All so he can pilfer $40 billion in revenues and use it as a populist issue. Good luck.

____________________

JJC:

@lat

I think you're doing a little bit of wish casting.

The TEA party candidates are ahead - some by double digits - in almost all races, and tied in Nevada. O'Donnell is the only one behind, and that may change if Castle does a write-in. In wave elections, the benefiting party wins about 70-75% of all toss ups.

RCP Average
Miller: +15
Rubio: +10
Buck: +2.4
Toomey: +6
Ron Johnson: +8
Paul: +8.4

In the House, there are 97 democratic seats that are competitive.

Likely GOP: 4
Lean GOP: 27
Toss up: 37
Lean Dem: 29

In contrast, only 6 GOP seats are competitive.

Likely Dem: 1
Lean Dem: 2
Toss up: 1
Lean GOP: 2

Let's say the GOP wins 75% of toss ups (Past wave elections have shown this to be about the average gain for the benefiting party), that's 27 seats.

Let's say they'll win 90% of learners (again, going off past wave elections). That's 24 seats.

And lets say they win 5% of lean dems. That's about 2 seats.


All together that's 53 seats. Minus the vulnerable GOP seats and that's a gain of about 50 seats.

The GOP has it's highest generic ballot advantage ever and a monstrous enthusiasm gap. On the other hand, the democrats have virtually everything going against them. At this point I think the best Dems can hope for is holding on to the senate, because the House is already lost.

In my opinion, I think the GOP will pick up between 50-65 house seats, and 8-9 senate seats.

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

Just like when Clinton raised taxes on the rich that was going to doom him for re-election right? Oops!

JJC,

50 house seats gained? Perfect! I want the GOP to win the house. Obama needs an enemy and Johnny Bonehead is the perfect foil.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The one and only instance and the economy he raised the taxes in was much stronger and different than this. Plus, his tax rate increases were much more marginal and later combined with the more potent cap and div rate cuts he made.

I do agree with you on the house. There is nothing helping the GOP more than the moron speaker Pelosi. Every time she opens her mouth, GOP recruitment rises. My hope is for the GOP to make significant gains in both chambers but leave them in control of the Dems. 2 more years of them in control passing their crazy bills and the GOP could nominate a Big Boy statue and it would win.

____________________

JJC:

"Just like when Clinton raised taxes on the rich that was going to doom him for re-election right? Oops!"

Same tire old talking point. Any honest person knows that revenue gained under Clinton was a result of a gridlock congress that halted spending, plus many spending cuts that the GOP implemented. Raising taxes on the "rich" (AKA business owners) decreases revenue and slows down economic growth. That's just fact. When businesses (mostly small businesses) are paying high taxes, they can't hire more people or expand.

In fact, many of them have to either raise there prices or lay off people to pay for those taxes. Doing either will decrease profit. The less profit, the more businesses have to lay off people and raise prices, which will in turn decrease profits even more. Meanwhile, the people who are laid off no longer have money, don't pay taxes, and don't spend. That means less revenue for the govn't, but more importantly less people are spending money in the economy. It's a downward spiral that kills jobs and halts economic growth. That's only compounded when congress not only continues to spend, but increases spending, plunging us further into debt.

The only businesses that can easily afford higher taxes and won't be affected are big corporations like Wal-Mart and Mcdonalds, which is why these corporations favor higher taxes. It kills their competition (small business) and forces people to shop at theirs.

But you go ahead and support raising taxes on those "evil rich people" who probably hate children and murder puppies. After all, Grandma's Bakery, Bob's Gardening service, and Jenna's Hair Salon DESERVE to be taxed for their greedy wealth. It's only fair, right?

____________________

Dave:

SUSA poll party ID that showed Paul up 15 (Dems, Reps, Indies): 47/42/10
This poll: 51/38/12

Has something really happened in the past month to make you think the party ID needs to be changed like that?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Puh-leez. DSCC poll taken a day earlier had Rand+3.

Rand's got this by double digits. It's ovah..

____________________

richard pollara:

Republicans who are measuring the drapes should take note of the latest InTrade odds on the Kentucky Senate race. As of this morning, September 26, Paul was a 9 to 1 betting favorite. This should be a real red flag to those who are predicting huge Republican gains in November. On the morning when the most reliable polling firm in the country shows the race to be statistical dead heat, Paul is still a 9 to 1 betting favorite. It shows a disconnect between popular perception and reality. The last time the odds seemed so out of line was a few days before the Texas Democratic Primary. I wrote about it on Pollster back then. Obama was a 3 and sometimes 4 to 1 odds on favorite to win even though all the polling showed it to be very close.

If you accept the premise of politicians as stocks is Rand Paul overbought or over sold? The next Microsoft or toxic asset? No guarantees.... but betting against Paul seems to be a much safer bet than betting against the Steelers!

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Anything I can do to convince you guys on the left to spend money on this race? If I asked please would you waste money here so its not used in other races where you actually have a shot?

____________________

Stillow:

...and yes its funny that for weeks you lefties have been slamming SUSA as a bad pollster...now suddenly they are great!

Like clockwork!

____________________

StatyPolly:

Measuring the drapes?

They're hung already. Perfect fit too.

____________________

Dave:

Okay, so let's say you guys get your wish and the Republicans take back the House. I have two questions then. First, why does everyone assume it will be like Clinton vs. the Republicans in the 90s? Isn't there an equal chance it winds up like Bush vs. the Democrats in '06?
Second, let's assume Obama is able to set up Boehner as his "enemy"? What gives you faith that Obama will be able to defeat this enemy? I mean, which issue has he come out on the right side of so far in his time in office?

____________________

lat:

JJC,

I have been in the highest tax bracket for years so spare me the woe is me crap. You folks arguing over fiscal policy on here crack me up. Newsflash- both parties suck ass on fiscal policy and will continue to do so! What you are arguing about is tax policy at the margins and at the end of the day who cares. As a civil libertarian listening to people like O'Donnell, Angle, Paul. etcm scare the shit out of me with their social issues. Wake up!

____________________

JJC:

"As a civil libertarian listening to people like O'Donnell, Angle, Paul. etcm scare the shit out of me with their social issues. Wake up!"

A lot of people hide behind the libertarian brand when they want to sound smarter or more independent. I'm guessing you're one of them. O'Donnell's, Angle's, and Paul's views on social issues are in the mainstream. You guys have to go all the way back to high school to dig up dirt on O'Donnell. It's pathetic.

It is the lefties who are in the extreme. Don't tell me to "wake up" when anyone with an ounce of faith "scares the shit" out of you.

____________________

lat:

I am not hiding behind anything! They can practice their faith privately however they choose, but don't tell my best friend (who is also gay) that he can't marry, don't try and regulate my daughter's uterus, don't say as Sharron Angle did that a teenage girl who gets raped by her father that she should simply "make lemonade out of lemons" and have the child, don't say as Christine O'Donnell does that masturbation is a sin and one should not partake in it, etc....

____________________

lat:

And by the way JJC I am Christian and even go to church every so often these evangelical nuts don't know the meaning of being Christian (although they pretend to).

____________________

Stillow:

lat - How is that any different than a liberal telling me I have to have g'ment run HC so they can make my choices for me...or liberals telling me wheather or not I can own a firearm to protect my family....or a liberal coming into my home and telling me what light bulbs or applainces I must own...or a liberal telling me what I have to eat and feed my kids in the name of fighting obesity, or what kind of car I have to drive. or liberals taking my money which is earned and givento people who did not earn it.

I've told you before, both sides simply have there own little bag of ways they like to control our behavior, which neither of them are entittled to. A liberal should have no more right to tell me I cannot own a firearm than a conservative can to tell u whom you can marry.

The country is about 50/50 on pro life and pro choice. I am pro choice, but absoltuely object to tax payer money being used for abortion....

As far as your gay marriage comment, we've been down this road before...many many liberals also oppose that....In CA for example where 52 percent of the state opposed it...that included a lot of liberals. So while percentage wise more cons may object to gay marriage, neighter side has a monopoloy on that viewpoint.

IMO lat you are a only a social libertarian when its convenient for you...you ingore all the ways libs take away our freedoms and want to control our behavior and focus only on cons. When both sides are qually guilty and both use there own views to modify and ultiamtley control our behavior to fit there narrow views of how we all should behave on a social level.

IMO there is no difference between someone telling me who I can marry which disrupts my persuit of happiness or someone telling me I cannot own a firearm to protect my family against a would be scumbag breaking tino my home....

Its almost liberal micromanagement vs conservative macro management. To put it bluntly, its none of your damned business who I marry, what I eat, who I sleep with, what i drive or how I choose to spend my money. Get out of my damn business and out of my damn pocket.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

I am with you on firearms. I have no problem with reasonable gun control (waiting periods, background checks, etc.), but people certainly have the right to own firearms as they choose.

____________________

Stillow:

lat - I wish liberals felt as you. There are always exceptions to the rule. I know a lot of cons who are pro choice as long as there are reasonable restrictions...like no partial birth abortions or late term abortions, etc. But overall, both sides are simply control freaks with there own respective ways of making us conform to there desires.

____________________

BH:

I think it's hilarious guys like lat are doing cartwheels after a poll shows his preferred candidate isn't down by 10 or more.

Five weeks guys..that's an eternity one way or the other.

____________________

BH:

Dems are going to throw out the kitchen sink over the next 5 weeks, but what so many do not realize is that electorate cares about two things: Jobs and the Economy.

Clearly, the Dems are very weak here after blowing a trillion with nothing to show for it, which is why we're seeing the circus come to town this campaign season with the usual personal attacks - ironically, the same thing Repubs. tried in '08.

But ultimately, the Dems. can't defeat Paul in KY without a major scandal.

____________________

williame123:

@BH

"I think it's hilarious guys like lat are doing cartwheels after a poll shows his preferred candidate isn't down by 10 or more."

What is hilarious is your attempt to deflect attention from the fact that a Democrat is competitive in a DEEP RED STATE in a bad year for Democrats. This would be analogous to Scott Brown being competitive in MA in 2008 or Jim Webb being competitive in VA in 1994.

____________________

Cederico:

This poll is not suprising to me in that I have argued here many times that Conway can win this race.

Simply put...Kentucky is a state of conservative Democrats that votes GOP for president because the DEM nominees are usually more liberal. Conway is a mainstream KY DEM who has already won big statewide in 2007 and he is just a dang good candidate. That is why he is running so close despite Obama being toxic in the state.

Don't forget the DEM candidates for Senate in KY have run very close in recent elections. In 2004, Dan Mongiardo almost upset Sen. Bunning getting 49% of the vote, while in 2008 McConnell had a near death experience against Bruce Lundsford who got 47%.

What Conway needs to get over the top is one or two issues he can hammer Paul on relentlessly. He can win this race.

____________________



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