Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only Republican who can hope to make California Senator Barbara Boxer break a sweat. Of course, the first obstacle to the Governator’s candidacy could be the GOP primaries, as conservatives would be sure to try and derail him, but would Schwarzenegger really stand a chance if he made it to the general election?
Research 2000 is the first polling outfit to test that question, and it found a competitive race: Boxer leads Schwarzenegger 49% to 40%.
For an incumbent to post a single-digit lead and to stay under 50% is always a sign of vulnerability, and there is no question that Boxer is not the most entrenched of Senators: Her approval rating is a mediocre 48% (against 46%), leaving no doubt that she could be beaten. In other words, a Boxer-Schwarzenegger dual would be competitive.
On the other hand, Arnold’s numbers are not that promising. The Governor is not your average challenger; he is very well known, already polarizing and has thus little room to grow. The usual rules that test an incumbent’s vulnerabilities (particularly the 50% threshold) are thus less relevant in a Boxer-Schwarzenegger match-up. Furthermore, Schwarzenegger’s own approval ratings are very low (only 42% of respondents approve of his performance, versus 51%), and that raises obvious questions as to his electability.
In fact, given how much hope some Republicans have put on a Schwarzenegger candidacy and given the presumption that he would be a very tough opponent for Democrats to beat, this poll’s results should be more comforting than worrisome to the Boxer camp.
—
Meanwhile, Rasmussen released a poll of New York’s Senate race. The results contradict Wednesday’s PPP survey that found Caroline Kennedy leading Rep. Peter King by only 2%: Rasmussen shows Kennedy in a far more comfortable position, leading King 51% to 33%.
I see no reason to take this as a sign that Kennedy would start a re-election race in a good position if she were appointed. On Wednesday, I commented on the PPP poll by writing that “Kennedy carries one of the most famous last names in American society, she has high name recognition, and she was supposedly a darling of the Democratic base; King, by contrast, has low name recognition and most respondents can only situate him based on his party affiliation… A poll released in such a context should have found very favorable results for Kennedy.”
The same analysis holds true for Rasmussen’s poll. Testing a Boxer-Schwarzenegger match-up two years before the election can lead to valuable results since both candidates are very well known; all a Kennedy-King poll tests is Kennedy’s vulnerability and her own numbers give her little comfort: She hovers around the 50% mark, less than 50% think she is qualified for the job and only 21% think that she would have been considered if she was not named Kennedy.
—
Finally, ARG offered us the cycle’s first look at New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg’s vulnerability. The Granite State dramatically swung blue over the past three cycles, and Gregg is one of the last state Republicans who is left standing.
Three Democrats are mentioned as possible contenders, and it is a shame that ARG did not test Gregg against Governor John Lynch, the least likely to make a run but probably the strongest challenger if he does so. However, ARG did match up the incumbent against the state’s two Democratic congressmen. Gregg crushes Rep. Carol Shea-Porter 54% to 35%; he beats Rep. Paul Hodes 47% to 40%.
Since Hodes and Shea-Porter each represent half of the state, they have enough of a profile to make these numbers valuable, and Gregg’s modest lead against Hodes should be enough to confirm to Democrats that the Senator is vulnerable.
On the other hand, Gregg is clearly not as endangered as Democrats might like, as his large margin against Shea-Porter attests too. Perhaps most interestingly, Gregg gets 30% (against Shea-Porter) and 22% (against Hodes) of the Democratic vote. That is a number that the Democratic nominee can hope to improve during the campaign, but it is also a measure of Gregg’s entrenchment and moderate reputation. In Maine, Republican Susan Collins held on to such level of support throughout the 2008 campaign.
ARG is not the most reliable pollster in NH. They were all over the place in the 2008 race between Sununu and Shaheen. The only thing this poll shows me is that Gregg won’t be blown out by a Democrat at this time. BTW, Gregg beats Hodes by 47-40, and not 47-30 in this poll.
Research 2000 doesn’t rank highly in my mind as a polling firm, but it does give at least some hints at what a Schwarzenegger canditancy would do. IMO, I actualy pretty much doubt that he would lose in a GOP primary, seeing as how he would overwhelmingly be favored by national Republicans and realistically he is strongest the GOP could probably find. Any other Republican who can even remotely match the Governater in statewide appeal are going to run for the 2010 California Gubernetorial race.
On New York, the Rassmussen Poll is good news for Caroline Kennedy. Had Rassmuessen also shown Kennedy polling weakly like PPP, then her chances of getting appointed would be finished, but this result shows that while she does have weaknesses, the overwhelming Democratic nature of New York is a massive crutch that she can lean on. I’m interested in why Rassmuessen didn’t poll Cumuo as well: if he had done much better than Kennedy in Rassmusssen then it would have definitly cofirmed that he would be the far stronger candidate. One of the biggest assets that Kennedy would have in New York would be Obama: if he is still popular in 2010 then it’s almost a given he would help give her a payback for her endorsement of him in the Democratic primary. Obama’s popularity would likely help Bennet in Colorado for the same reason.
On New Hampshire, it is interesting that Paul Hodes is polling much stronger Shea-Porter in New Hampshire despite the fact that his district is more Democratic than Shea-Porter’s. It probably points to the fact that Hodes is pretty strong on his own, while Shea-Porter was heavily reliant on National Democrats for her wins. In terms of comparing Gregg to Collins, Hodes is actually in a much better position than Mike Allen was very early in the campaign season, and he probably would keep the race pretty competive, although if he was to defeat Gregg it would be a mild upset at this point.
The contradictory results of the PPP and Rasmussen polls on Kennedy-King suggest that public opinion of Caroline is still fluid. I agree that the Rasmussen poll doesn’t mean she would start the race in a strong position. However, Taniel’s earlier statement that the PPP result was an “unmitigated disaster” now seems premature.
With regards to Andrew Cuomo, I don’t think he is still under serious consideration. According to the NYT, Paterson asked 6 candidates to submit a 28-page questionaire: Caroline Kennedy, Steve Israel, Carolyn Maloney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jerrold Nadler and Thomas Suozzi. Cuomo’s name was conspicuously absent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/nyregion/06disclosure.html?_r=1&xid=rss-page
I didn’t believe that King was within 2 points of Kennedy, and the Rasmussen poll shows a considerable different perspective.
With the economy tanking as bad as it is, I want the best candidate available for 2009 and 2010, without regards to the 2010 election. Even if we run the risk of losing this seat in 2010, we need someone who can work with other Senators to provide a glimmer of hope for the U.S. I have my reservations about Caroline Kennedy, but she may be the best choice for NY now–I really have no idea if she is or not. I don’t believe that Patterson will (or should) pick her IF there is a better viable choice than Kennedy. My reservations with Kennedy is her lack of legislative experience, but on the plus side, she appears to be bright and not someone who will lash out with partisan rhetoric.
Is Kennedy electable in 2010 IF she is appointed? Yes, she is. The more important question, at least with me, is if she is the best choice to be appointed as US Senator? I’m relying on Patterson to make that decision.
Indeed, for Kennedy to be only 2 points ahead of King was probably an outlier. I would say that rather she would start out 8 point ahead of King at a minium, and probably more likely to be around Rassmussen’s number. It is important to know that New York is heavily Democratic, and King would have to nearly crush Kennedy everywhere outside New York City by margins similar to how Kennedy (and Democrats in general) crush Republicans in New York City in order to actually win statewide.
My bias is for a qualified woman to succeed Hillary. Both Carolyn Maloney and Kirsten Gillibrand would bring some specific strengths into the race. Maloney was elected to Congress in 1992, so she’s experienced, knows how Congress works and what the key issues are. She could hit the ground running quickly and has a very strong record on women’s rights.
In the short time she’s been in Congress, Gillibrand has proved to be an excellent fundraiser. She represents an upstate district which adds geography diversity. And she’s only 42, so she could potentially serve in the Senate for a long time, gaining the needed seniority to become powerful.
Caroline Kennedy’s strengths and weaknesses I’ve discussed before, so I won’t rehash them here.
Paterson will have to decide who the best candidate is. And, of course, he must consider who will benefit him the most politically. At the surface level, Maloney would please feminists. Gillibrand would please upstate NY. Kennedy would please the U.S. Senate leadership and, I suspect, the Obama Administration.
Another factor is that Peter King is strongly pro-life.
http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Peter_King.htm
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=26968
A staunchly anti-choice man running against a pro-choice woman (Gillibrand, Kennedy or Maloney) isn’t going to sit well with NY voters. Maloney, with her long record on women’s issues, might be in the strongest position to hammer home this point.
Another update — it looks like Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown has gotten the Senate questionnaire as well. Cuomo still isn’t talking.
http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/544549.html
If Gillibrand left her House seat, it would likely go Republican.