Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

UT: 2010 Sen (Deseret 11/19-23)


Deseret News / KSL-TV / Dan Jones & Associates
11/19-23/09; 408 adults, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Deseret News: 2010 Sen, Obama)

Utah

U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett has seved 18 years in office. Bennett is running for re-election next year. Do you believe Bennett should eb re-elected, or is it time to give someone new a chance to serve?
27% Re-elect Bennet, 58% Give someone new a chance, 7% Depends on who runs

2010 Senate
31% Bob Bennett (R), 14% Sam Granato (D), 5% Cherilyn Eagar (R), 4% Tim Bridgewater (R), 4% Fred Lampropoulos (R), 3% Mike Lee (R), 1% James Russell Williams III (R)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 38 / 60
Congress: 27 / 70

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

Why does Utah need to even do a US Senate poll? Like any Democrat would ever have a chance to win in that state? 38 percent Approval for Obama really isn't that bad for a state like Utah considering they are 80 percent Mormon.

____________________

Xenobion:

Despite this overwhelming poll to give someone else a chance it will probably be Bob Bennett again.

____________________

Berge20:

Is the first question phrased in a way that will skew the results toward "Give someone new a chance"?

Trying to learn from you guys on this stuff, but that was my knee jerk reaction (that it was a poorly worded question)--but lord knows it may be totally standard.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yeah, he got 69% of the vote last time around. Don't see that slipping at all in this political environment.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am sorry if anyone is from Oklahoma, and if you think I am insulting your senators I do apologize, however, Inhofe has denied that Climate change even exists and he has made trips to Uganda to meet with their leaders. It is a mission trip for his Christian Church. The government wants to make homosexuality a crime and the sentence could be death. Inhofe, has made a fool of himself to the International community by using bullshit and lies to make Global warming not a problem. My point is that there are conservatives I can like personally, but Infofe, has no friends on the other side of the isle. He wouldn't even meet Sotamayor just because he was picked by Obama. I really liked JC Watts who was a conservative Rep from Oklahoma. Being Conservative, likeable and African American, he would bring diversity to the party. Just out of curiousity I sent a letter of support to some of his supporters. Unfortunately he wouldn't run.

____________________

al of arabia:

@farleft - LOL, I'm not sure that making fun of climate change skeptics is the best course of action given the recent email releases. It's quite possible that the whole idea of global warming has been a fraud froom the beginning. Even if it wasn't designed as a fraud there is at least enough doubt there for reasonable people to question whether there is man-made global warming.

____________________

LordMike:

Oh, please... One email out of hundreds of thousands taken out of context as part of a deliberate smear campaign that has already been debunked... If we only held Bush to the same standards,we'd have never invaded Iraq. There is a lot more evidence for WMD's in iraq than has been against global warming.

____________________

Cyril Washbrook:

@Berge: polls which ask people to choose between [x candidate] and "someone new" tend in general to have a skew toward the latter. Only in cases where the incumbent is really popular or where they haven't been in office for very long would you see an endorsement for the "re-elect" option.

If you think about it, it's somewhat intuitive. Let's take your "average", run-of-the-mill incumbent - he or she may have roughly even job approval, or perhaps slightly better than average. Now, let's say you're given the option by a pollster of electing someone else. That pollster doesn't actually nominate anyone else - it's just a hypothetical candidate with any number of undescribed characteristics, vices and virtues. It's quite possible for the respondent to imagine in their minds an idealised candidate: a candidate more appealing and inspiring than the incumbent, and crucially, a "breath of fresh air". Who would you go for - the real incumbent with all their flaws or weaknesses, or the hypothetical candidate who can bring new energy and who may well match your ideals far more closely than the incumbent?

That's not to say that everyone would automatically visualise an ideal candidate, but that's certainly how respondents would lean. It's a lot easier to be attracted to "something new" than to be attracted to a particular, real candidate.

____________________

Berge20:

@Cyril

Thanks

____________________



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