Senate polls find Carnahan remains stable, Lincoln struggling to stay afloat

In Missouri, Carnahan stays stable despite deterioration of Democratic brand

Whether the GOP will enjoy a big enough wave to defeat many incumbents remains an open question, but what is less debatable is that non-incumbent Democrats will have their work cut out for them. Candidates running in open Senate seats (Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner, Paul Hodes) have seen their numbers decline, while those challenging GOP Senators haven’t been unable to capitalize on an anti-incumbent sentiment the way Republican challengers have.

As such, it speaks to the strength of the Carnahan brand that Missouri’s Secretary of State hasn’t followed the fate of her Democratic colleagues: A new PPP poll gives her a narrow 43% to 42% edge against Rep. Roy Blunt, the same margin PPP found all the way back in January. Against state Senator Chuck Purgason, she leads by a larger 42% to 35%.

“In a normal election year Carnahan would probably cruise to election given that divergence in the candidates’ popularity,” writes PPP in its analysis. I do not fully agree with that assessment. She might have cruised in an exceptionally strong Democratic year (even then, Jay Nixon’s triumph in the 2008 gubernatorial race is explained more by intra-Republican divisions than by than by the blue wave, given that John McCain won the state) but Missouri has demonstrated enough of a red-leaning and Blunt is strong enough a Republican candidate that the race would have been unlikely to be decided by more than a few percentage points in any cycle.

That said, there is no question that Carnahan is significantly weighed down by the national environment and the deteriorating of the Democratic brand (which makes her ability to stay stable that much more impressive). Obama’s approval rating in Missouri is low (42% to 58%). While respondents have a dismal view of the GOP, most of those who mistrust both parties are opting to vote for Blunt - a drastic reversal from what we saw in 2006 and 2008, though one that is to be expected. This allows Blunt to take a 44% to 32% lead among independents, even though his favorability rating among that group is a dismal 23%.

In Arkansas, Lincoln stays afloat but remains vulnerable

Robin Carnahan’s poll numbers might look identical to what they were in January, but the same cannot be said of Blanche Lincoln. A new poll released by Zogby (it was conducted for a conservative group) finds the Arkansas Senator edging out state Senator Gilbert Baker 41% to 39%. Given the name recognition differential, that’s a very worrisome margin for the incumbent.

But the poll does contain two pieces of excellent news for Lincoln. First, her favorability rating is positive (52% to 38%).Second, she decisively leads Senator Kim Hendren by a convincing 45% to 29%. That is a meaningful finding, since it indicates independents and Republicans aren’t so committed to ousting her that they’ll rally against just any challenger - something other polls have suggested they might do. (I am not sure how to explain the difference between those two match-ups since the two Republicans have a similar favorability rating: 22-7 for Baker, 24-9 for Hendren.)

Zogby asked respondents how they would vote if Lincoln supported the health-care bill in the Senate and found Baker leading Lincoln 49% to 37%. I find this a ridiculous question to ask. For one, voters won’t go in the booth just moments after having been told a single piece of information about one of the candidates - especially when the health care vote will take place 10 to 11 months before Election Day. Second, Lincoln is all but certain to vote “no” on final passage; the question is only whether she’ll support cloture. Republicans will then claim that a procedural vote is equivalent to a substantive one while Lincoln will insist it does not; the former argument might very well win out, but never as unambiguously as Zogby’s question makes it sound.

That’s not to say that Lincoln won’t face major problems because of health care reform: The poll finds that only 29% of respondents support the bill, while 64% oppose it. As problematically, 48% of respondents say it would make them less likely to vote for Lincoln if she supported the bill (major caveat applies, as I explained above) while 18% say more likely.

Furthermore, a PPP poll released earlier this week that tested Lincoln’s numbers only in AR-02 found very worrisome numbers for the Senator: 49% of independents think she is too liberal and she trails Baker 42% to 37%; this is Arkansas’s most Democratic district we’re talking about…

The twist for Lincoln is that she is in very serious danger of being Creigh Deedsed if she is responsible for sinking health care reform. Why? PPP finds that AR-02’s Democratic voters give Lincoln very low marks: While 78% approve of Obama’s performance, 75% Snyder’s and 63% Pryor’s, only 43% approve Lincoln’s - mainly because she is too conservative. That’s a very low number that raises obvious questions as to whether Democrats will bother going to the polls next year or whether so many of them did in Virginia (don’t forget that this Senate race will be the main political attraction next year).

Add that the fact that Lieutenant Governor Brian Halter is still not ruling out the possibility that he’ll challenge Lincoln next year, and the senator might have as much to lose if she emerges as health care’s slayer as if she comes to look like its enthusiastic champion. Supporting cloture while opposing the bill is probably her best way out of this, as it would help her avoid base anger while giving her arguments with which to rebut the GOP.

2 Responses to “Senate polls find Carnahan remains stable, Lincoln struggling to stay afloat”


  1. 1 Gerard

    I’ve been doing some analysis on why Sen. Lincoln is vulnerable this year. She was reelected in 2004, another good Republican year, with 55% of the vote versus 44% for her conservative opponent, winning by almost 100,000 votes. Bush took 54% of the vote that year in Arkansas, versus 44% for Kerry. Bush had 572,000 votes versus 469,000 for Kerry, for a total of 1.04 million votes. In 2008, McCain almost 59% of the vote, versus almost 39% for Obama, 638,000 votes for McCain versus 422,000 for Obama, for a total of 1.06 million votes cast, only 20,000 more votes than 2004, but a huge margin. (Who knows how big a margin Hillary Clinton would have had.)

    However, Sen. Mark Pryor, running for reelection for the first time in 2008, was virtually unopposed, except for a Green Party candidate, and garnered about 80% of the vote. (He was first elected to the Senate in 2002, being the only Dem. that year to oust a Republican Senate incumbent, taking the seat by 8 points. He was already a statewide official, Attorney General, and his father had been a popular US Senator too.)

    Also in 2008, none of the 4 US House members, 3 Dems and 1 GOP had any major party opposition. They all got at least 70% of the vote against Green Party voters. The first district in fact was totally unopposed and so no vote totals were even counted. Interestingly enough, the Green Party had its best showing in the 2nd district, although Rep. Snyder got just over 70%.

    Senator Lincoln has been struggling with the health care reform, while Pryor came out in support of the public option. In the 110th Congress, Pryor voted with the Democrats 86% of the time, Lincoln was at 89%, not too different. So, for Senator Lincoln to be vulnerable this year is due to several reasons, the overall national climate, but also it can be argued that she isn’t as popular as Sen. Pryor, which is her own fault, basically.

  2. 2 Nathan

    I believe Jay Nixon’s election as Missouri governor had more to do with his personal resume and popularity than partisan affiliations. He’s liked and respected in Missouri, and had been Attorney General for more than a decade, routinely picking up close to 60% of the vote regardless of the broader political landscape. Carnahan, though fairly popular, cannot count more than half of Missourians as part of her electoral base the way Nixon can. Just as important, she’s running for Senate, not governor or AG. Congressional races focus on national issues which, in MO, does not favor Dems most cycles. This race is more reminiscent of Nixon’s ‘98 run against Senator Bond than his ‘08 landslide win, though Carnahan is not running against an incumbent.

Leave a Reply