Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

WV: 48% Manchin, 42% Raese (Rasmussen 8/29)

Topics: poll , West Virginia

Rasmussen
8/29/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

West Virginia

2010 Senate
48% Manchin (D), 42% Raese (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
John Raese: 60 / 31
Joe Manchin: 73 / 26

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 29 / 70
Gov. Manchin: 70 / 29

 

Comments
JMSTiger:

We'll see, but I have a very hard time believing Manchin will be in a close race. The wave would have to be 50 stories high for him to be in trouble.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Yes this one I find very hard to believe.

____________________

ErikEckles:

This is probably just Rasmussen being silly, but Dems can't afford to have another Martha Coakley moment.

This race will see whether voters are angry at just the federal Democrats (the Administration but especially the Congress), or the Democratic Party more broadly.

____________________

Von Wallenstein:

i'm as conservative as they come, but there's no way manchin loses this race. he's in the back pocket of the mining industry and has a 73% favorability rating. boxer, murray and feingold are legit takeover targets, but i can't see W.Va. voting against mansion

____________________

StatyPolly:

And it's an indication of a 40 story high wave that it's even within 6 points. I was just browsing the web for long snorkel shops to post here. Because I care.

What's more, this is a special election, and the winner will be seated for the lame duck session.

What's more-er, the winner will be up again in quick two.

What's more-est, should Manchin win, as expected, I doubt he'll be voting with Dems a whole lot, since he's gotta run again so soon.

Kinda GOP pick up either way. Same as in FL. Same as in AK. And probably a few more places.

____________________

Jose Ortiz:

Remember guys, popular governors don't always win in states where the other party is dominant.

See Hagel-Nelson 96'

____________________

Mogando669:

"This is probably just Rasmussen being silly, but Dems can't afford to have another Martha Coakley moment."

exactly - the same responses i'm seeing here is nearly identical to Rass first showed Coakley+9. Guess who was laughing in the end?

____________________

Von Wallenstein:

but you're not going to see manchin insulting mountaineer football fans the way coakley did bruins fans at the new year's day game at fenway

____________________

nick283:

Manchin's a popular guy. Republicans just need to nationalize this race and drive home the point that a vote for Manchin is a vote for Harry Reid to stay as senate majority leader (provided he wins his race of course).

____________________

Field Marshal:

Raese can win this if he hits the airwaves with Manchins pro-Obamacare stance since its so very unpopular in WV. He needs to tie Manchin to Obama as much as he can. Still going to be a long shot for him. Even still, Manchin will be semi-tolerable dem (if there is such a thing) similar to Evan Bayh, Lieberman and Nelson.

____________________

ErikEckles:

Mogando669:

"exactly - the same responses i'm seeing here is nearly identical to Rass first showed Coakley+9. Guess who was laughing in the end?"

At the same time Dems shouldn't take this for granted, Republicans shouldn't be unrealistic. Being a super popular governor is an exponentially better starting point than being a moderately popular Attorney General.

____________________

nick283:

True Erik, but this is also a state that went for McCain by 13 rather than Obama by 26. Raese is fighting on much friendlier turf than Brown was.

____________________

Von Wallenstein:

also, manchin isn't the vile human being that coakley is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html

____________________

What a lot of you misunderstand is that while W. VA has voted Republican for president in the last 3 elections, it is an overwhelmingly Democratic state on local, and even other federal campaigns. And prior to Bush/Gore, it was also the most reliably Democratic presidential state in the 20th Century.

Typically, on the local level, Republicans don't have much of a chance here. It hasn't had a Republican Senator since 1959 and has had only 1 GOP house member (current incumbent Shirley Capito) in the last 30 years or so.

____________________

nick283:

True, but the democrats who have been getting elected to the federal offices have been there forever. I don't think any of them have been there less than 20 years.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

There is clearly a racial element in WV, LA and TN, against Obama and his anti-coal or drilling policies. I remember Clinton had similar policies questioning coal as a dirty energy source. I mean he didn't want to ban it or anything and neither does Obama. It just seems like when Bill Clinton tries to explain something to southerners it has seemed to get through, but Obama says almost the same exact thing and his approval is just like this.

____________________

seg:

nelcon1551:
"Typically, on the local level, Republicans don't have much of a chance here."

Excellent points, and I would be surprised if Manchin lost. However, Obama has extremely high unfavorables in WV. That makes a loss for Manchin at least possibls, if for no other reason that it will depress dems turnout. I don't think there are any tight races for Congress.

Machin does not have a deep following that will be highly motivated to go out to vote for him. He has made the right noises but it would be hard to find for most voters to name a single accomplishment that matters to them.

The state is weathering the dismal economy fairly well, but I think it likely that many attribute that to coal revenues, not anything he has done.

In very many words, I am saying that his support may be wide but shallow. On the other hand, how many even know who Raese is?

____________________

nick283:

Yes, clearly a racial element... Thats why Tennessee and West Virginia both voted for Bush against Kerry by right about the same margins as they voted for mccain against barack obama. I mean i know throwing out the race card is easier than looking at what happened, but these states have been moving away from democrats for a while.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

I see that statypolly is going into all kinds of contortionist moves to try and soin the West virginia Senate race into a Republican seat.
Nice try, but those of us who believe in facts about West Virginia know otherwise.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

That should be "spin"

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Farleftandproud

When did Bill Clinton, during his Presidency, come out against coal and oil drilling? Sounds like you are making stuff up again to suit your racial paranoia/obsession.

____________________

Mogando669:

"Farleftandproud:

There is clearly a racial element in WV, LA and TN, against Obama and his anti-coal or drilling policies...but Obama says almost the same exact thing and his approval is just like this."

Sure, everytime people are against obama (or any black politician) it must be racial. no wonder people like sharpton, burris, davis can essentially get away with murder.

____________________

tennesseedem:

Tennessee, Louisiana, and West Virginia have been moving away from the Democratic Party ever since the Democrats have moved toward more intellectual and coastal Democrats (Obama, Kerry) rather than the populist, big labor Dems of the past. It's not a racial thing, although yes, there are certainly some people who don't like Obama for who he is. The Dems love to blame their electoral problems in socially conservative states on racism/sexism/whatever-ism because it absolves them of any ideological responsibility for losing their traditional base in blue-collar America.

Oh, and by the way, Manchin will win in a landslide. He's no Martha Coakley.

____________________

CompCon:

Obama has a 29% approval and it's not a racial thing no matter what the race-baiter moron farleft has to say about it.

That means there are only 29% that want a senator to go to washington to help this president that most absolutely despise. Don't discount how much people want Obama stopped.

If manchin doesn't come out and attack Obama more than the republicans, he is not going to waltz into office. They might like him as governor but they will hate him as just another Obama toadie.

This will be especially true the closer the republicans come to taking the senate. Now that it is a real possibility, WV doesn't want to make manchin the 51st vote for democrats. They want Obama's socialist agenda stopped.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Did Raese promise the people of West Virginia free Mountain Dew for life or something? Weird and Surprising poll imo.

____________________

Juan Chin:

What happened to Manchin's huge lead?? Perhaps is has something to do with Manchin trying to outsource 600 jobs - railroading state employees which he is great at doing. Maybe it has to do with his lavish parties in his party tent which sits on the mansion lawn. Or it has to do with his plan for a "Fat Tax" on all overweight state employees. Perhaps it has to do with West Va. Univ. giving his daughter a degree she never earned and then he denied knowing anything about it. Or the secretary of the Dept. of Administration arguing people should rise when Manchin enters a room. Or the eight employees of the state Dept. of Human Resources who all went on a training trip to the Bahamas. Best of all . . . it most likely has to do with the guy (good old boy Earl Ray Tomblin) who will replace Manchin if Manchin is elected to the Senate. Nobody really knows how the succession laws work in WV because the state constitution is very vauge . . . just how the career politicians like Manchin and Tomblin want it.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Cute rant Juan. But how that differs from every other politician's actions in office is not explained.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Tennessee, Louisiana, and West Virginia have been moving away from the Democratic Party ever since the Democrats have moved toward more intellectual and coastal Democrats (Obama, Kerry) rather than the populist, big labor Dems of the past."

Oh, it's been happening for far longer than that. I would pinpoint the beginning of the shift in the early to mid-1960s. But it was clear long before Kerry. It was clear in 1988, and again in 2000 when Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

Conversely, the republican base used to be Massachusetts and New York. The last republican speaker of the house before Gingrich was Joseph Martin of MA. Back then it was democrats using the "coastal elite" slur.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Yes, clearly a racial element... but these states have been moving away from democrats for a while."

A racial element is probably already incorporated in these states voting patterns and has been for a while. Just because Obama is black doesn't mean people are so stupid that they didn't know the democrats are the party of blacks and have been since civil rights. If you have a problem with blacks, you've probably been voting republican for years. I find it hard to believe any white racist would knowingly vote democrat, knowing that vote contributes to gov't welfare for poor blacks. That's not to say that some dems aren't racist, many probably are. However, if I believed blacks were inferior, I don't think I'd vote democrat knowing that vote advanced black interests.

The racial problem with Obama is not simply that he's black. Obviously conservatives will accept blacks without reservation - ie: Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell - as long as they adhere to conservative orthodoxy.

But where Obama becomes other is that he's from a liberal area, Chicago, had a liberal job - social worker/comm. organizer, has an elitist academic background, untraditional upbringing... all of that AND he's black (well, half, but maybe that's worse). Basically, black + liberal = bad. It fits the negative stereotype a lot of conservatives have against liberals. A white person with that background would have similar problems with conservatives as Obama but we wouldn't be hearing about Kenyan muslim or birth certificates. That line of criticism can't be anything but racist, imo, but everything else is a more generalized form of bigotry that everyone in America seems to have against people who don't agree with them on everything.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Dont forget that people in West Virginia cling to guns and religion and antipathy to those who aren't like them.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
I am surprised you would be this intellectually lazy. For tonight's HW, I suggest that you re-read deTocqueville and write a comparison between what he said and the Tea Party (and most conservatives here) are saying. You will find that we all are simply on agreement of a "less is better" approach to government. DeTocqueville warned that the democracy's greatest dangers would be: (1) the federal government, and (2) the realization by part of the electorate that they could simply vote to take from another part of the electorate rather than earn it themselves.

Indeed, the persistence and strength of our view is probably the only thing truly exceptional about our democracy.

I read a very interesting article a couple of weeks ago on American populist movements. Other than William Jennings Bryan, they were all very similar to the Tea Party in beliefs and in their rebellion against a socio-political elite that had become estranged from the populace.

That is exactly what we keep telling you about the anger against the liberal elites in this country, which is a white against white fight, not a whites against blacks (who are marginalized even within the dem party). Obama not coincidentally is a orugula-eating, urban cosmopolitian who perfectly represents the liberal, white establishment in this country. We rebel against him as the leader of an elite we increasingly despise and who clearly despise the populace as a whole.

In other words, there are true differences of opinion, here, not contrived rationalizations suddenly drummed up against a black president. I am sure you recall that conservatives despised both Kerry and Clinton, not to mention Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. As I recall, all are white.

You are welcome to disagree with our view of the dangers posed by a powerful federal government that seems posed to politicize more and more of our lives, but please do not short-circuit the discussion by saying that we are all lying about our true motivations. And if we are not lying, perhaps the good citizens of this country are not, either.

On that point, as James Webb would tell you, Appalachian whites rarely owned slaves, certainly far less than Bostonians did at one point. For that reason, there are few blacks in Appalachia and therefore less of history of racism. When I was growing up I saw vastly more racism in the lowlands than in the mountains. For that matter, I saw much more of it in Texas than in Appalachia.

Appalachian politics have always been strikingly affected by displays of patroitism. Whites nevertheless have always been notably more overtly patriotic than most other Americans. According to Webb, throughout our history and to this day, they are highly over-represented in the military, even more so than other groups with similarly high levels of poverty.

It is certainly true that race is central to most American problems and a source of many conflicts, as it is in every other society on earth that I am aware of. However, that does not mean that every reaction liberals do not like is all about race.

Furthermore, as I have stated here several times, racism is in every state and in every city in this country (and the world). I challenge you to show me a major city in this country that has equal black-white incomes. I challenge you to show me a single one that does not have blacks forming a downtown ghetto. Show me one where there is no racial gap in education.

In short, the problems of blacks in this country are the same in Seattle as they are in Chicago, Mobile, or Austin. The differences in degree are marginal compared to black-white differences.

It is comforting to liberals to blame all this on racists in benighted sections of the country. If only that were the truth.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

@Seg, I think you missed the point of my post earlier. I didn't blame racists for anything, nor do I think the tea party or other opposition to Obama originates from racism.

Plus, I've read Tocqueville several times, thanks. What should be remembered with him is that he visited "the good side of the tracks" almost everywhere he went and was escorted by well-off or middle class benefactors. He dwelled very little on conditions in the south, even though he spent about 6 weeks traveling through it, he only talks about it in one short chapter. The south was a 3rd world country compared to the north in 1832. Tocqueville conveniently ignored that.

It should also be remembered that he had political motives for his work back in France.

We can argue later whether or not he was in favor of "smaller gov't" since in Chapter 5 he seems to argue that universal democracy inevitably leads to more expenditures and that's not necessarily a bad thing. He also compares France's expenditures to America's, finding little to compare, he does in the footnotes slightly criticize the French system of maintaining roads, for example, in favor of the American way. He seemed to like the "American System," or publically funded internal improvements. Something that would be considered liberal today.

"Other than William Jennings Bryan, they were all very similar to the Tea Party in beliefs and in their rebellion against a socio-political elite that had become estranged from the populace. "

Ha. The financial reforms the Farmer's Alliance or the Grangers wanted was nothing like what the Tea Partiers want. The Ron Paul-ish desire to go back to the gold standard would have been anathema to them.

Those populist movements were specifically focused against the CORPORATE elite, ie: sweetheart deals that large railroads would give to particular industries while charging small farmers exorbitant prices. The populists WANTED government regulation of those industries ie: the Sherman anti-trust Act.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
Perhaps I conflated your comments with those made by others. Thank you for responding. I have only a few minutes so I will respond quickly.

I read deTq recently. If you did not, I think you might benefit from a refresher. DeTocquille claimed he visited homes of every estate. About the south, he was sharp and pointed in saying that leaving aside the inhumanity of it, slavery greatly reduced the energy and iniative of non-wealthy whites since: (1) they could not compete on wages, and (2) manual labor was degraded in their eyes to work fit for a slave.

I particularly remember a passage where he crossed a river from a non-slave state to a slave state and found it remarkable the difference in industry and prosperity on each side.

In NE, he marveled at the reluctance of those industrious folks to involve any level of government in their projects, which he thought the secret of their industry and compared many, many times to people in Europe who passively waited for government action to solve problems for them. He considered European gov ripe for takeover by democracy, but feared what the result would look like.

On populists, the point has always been to return power to the people from the socio-political elite, whoever they were. They have also always emphasized that the people should make decisions, not "experts" and lifelong politicians.

Go to go.
Thanks

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"In NE, he marveled at the reluctance of those industrious folks to involve any level of government in their projects, which he thought the secret of their industry"

He definitely liked the localized politics of new england. At the town level the government was involved heavily and only went up to the state level when necessary. Plus, puritan culture included a "help your neighbor" aspect that reduced the need for state intervention.

____________________



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