NEW SENATE POLLS: Stevens (AK) Endangered, Udall (NM) A Sure Pickup?

Rasmussen, who seems to be competing with SurveyUSA in the battle to be the most prolific pollster of the 2008 cycle, is out this morning with a pair of Senate polls which paint a very intriguing picture of what might be a painful 2008 cycle for the GOP.

In a diary earlier this week, I looked at the perilous situation for the Republican Party in the House. With these two polls and a host of other recent surveys, it becomes readily apparent that the Senate is an equally target-rich environment for the Democratic Party.

Numbers and analysis past the jump....

ALASKA SENATE RACE (April 7; 500 Likely Voters)

SEN. TED STEVENS (R) 46%
ANCHORAGE MAYOR MARK BEGICH (D) 45%

Stevens leads by just one, and is well under the 50% comfort threshold for endangered incumbents. Stevens has mediocre stats on favorability, with 50% favorable, and 47% unfavorable. Begich is surprisingly well known, with just 9% not having an opinion about him. His fav/unfav is much more positive, with 56% favorable and 35% unfavorable. Most importantly, in a state with a lot of independent voters, Begich is much more well regarded by non-affiliated voters.

NEW MEXICO SENATE RACE (April 8; 500 Likely Voters)

REP. TOM UDALL (D) 54%
REP. STEVEN PEARCE (R) 40%

REP. TOM UDALL (D) 56%
REP. HEATHER WILSON (R) 36%

This is one of the first polls I have seen with a significant difference in the outcome, dependent on whether Pearce or Wilson is the Republican nominee. Either way, however, it is a double-digit Democratic lead, and a pickup for the Democrats if it comes to pass. Worth noting: Rasmussen, just like in the presidential race, has seen their polls yield results more amenable to the GOP than other pollsters. So, if THEY have this race at 14-20 points, it would be very interesting to see what other pollsters have on this contest.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Add these polls to other recent surveys, and you see a very heartening trend for Democrats. Democrats have comfortable leads in GOP-held seats in Virginia and New Hampshire. Democrats have the lead(polls vary on the level of comfort) in Colorado. Democrats are within striking distance in Minnesota and Oregon, and are running "A"-caliber candidates in other states like Maine (Tom Allen), Kansas (Jim Slattery), Oklahoma (Andrew Rice), and Texas (Rick Noriega).And we are only playing defense in one state: Louisiana.

•  Tips, Comments, Recs, Love, Hate....

  I'd love to see new polling out of Texas and Oklahoma, but there has not been any for quite some time.

  Markos, care to fire a quick phone call over to Research 2000??!!??

  :)

  by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:09:46 AM PDT

  •  Oklahoma?

    I'd rank that as one of the Repubs 10 safest states - Dems stand a better chance of picking up Craig's Idaho seat than Oklahoma!

    by newdem1960 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM PDT

    •  Not Sure About That....

      I should have included LaRocco in Idaho, who is a solid candidate.

      But Oklahoma might prove competitive down the line. State senator Andrew Rice is running a really legitimate campaign, and the incumbent senator (Jim Inhofe) is not exactly a superstar. His chief contribution to the U.S. Congress is being the pre-eminent leader in global warming denial among the 535 members of the legislative branch.

      by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:52:10 AM PDT

      •  The state went strongly for Clinton

        I doubt Republicans and Inds in OK are going to bail Obama out. Rice's website indicates he's a decent guy, but not this year I don't think.

        by newdem1960 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:08:50 AM PDT

  •  Excellent work as always

    I count on you for the best polling reports and commentary.

    I may be suffering from irrational exuberance in voting 8+, and your hard numbers help hold me within reason. ;-)

    OTH You shouldn't be rushing things in OK or TX. We have excellent candidates there, but coming from far behind in both states, so they need time to grow.

    Democratic activists in Texas all support Rick Noriega, but earlier this year most attention was focused on the primary. That turned out well for party-building and organizing, but the media was watching the super-stars, not any Senate candidates.

    I'm sure half the voters in the state could not tell you two sentences of info about Noriega at this point. And paid media is HUGE costly in Texas, with 20 or so media markets including  Dallas-Ft Worth and Houston, both among the 10 top in the US. Noriega isn't raising enough money at this point, that's for sure. But many donors will only turn their attention to this race after the Presidential nominee is chosen.

    Let's say Obama becomes the de-facto nominee months ahead of the first Tuesday in Nov. People say Texas just might, might, just might be in play, but only if Obama can raise his popularity among Hispanics in Texas. Quick and easy way to work on that would be for him to campaign, fund-raise, and appear with Noriega in El Paso, Laredo, the Valley, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and Houston. Those actions would raise Obama's standing among Noriega's compadres substantially, and it would certainly raise Noriega's name recognition and media coverage across the state, while energizing Texas Democrats to work harder for him. After that let's see if serious money starts to come in.

    Long winded as ever, I say, it's far too early to look for any  meaningful polls in this Texas race.

    by Woody on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM PDT

•  Can you say "Filibuster-Proof"?

  I'm beginning to get optimistic.

  by Jimdotz on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:17:34 AM PDT

  •  Can you say "Lieberfool-proof?"

    by oak510 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:20:33 AM PDT

    •  The magic number is 61.

      59 Democrats, 1 Socialist (Bernie Sanders), and 1 Connecticut for Lieberman.

      by Jimdotz on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:30:08 AM PDT

    •  I would love to see my Senator

      Holy Joe, become irrelevant.

      by JohnMac on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:39:18 AM PDT

•  Good Diary

  First, thanks for posting this.  Second, a minor quibble:

  This is one of the first polls I have seen with a significant difference in the outcome, dependent on whether Pearce or Wilson is the Republican nominee.

  I don't see a lot of statistical difference between Udall's 54% against Pearce and 56% against Wilson.  I know the spread is 14% in the former and 20% in the latter, but I'm not sure how significant that is.  Moreover, and I'm working from memory here, I think Pearce has outperformed Wilson by several points in previous polls, so this should come as no surprise.

  by feebog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:25:42 AM PDT

  •  I Dunno....

    a six-point spread on the margin is getting close to exceeding the margin of error (which would be +/- 4%).

    The biggest disparity I thought I saw before was around 3 points, but I, too, am working off memory.

    Pearce does a much better job at retaining conservatives than does Wilson. Not surprising, given that he hails from the district where most of the rock-ribbed Republicans in the state reside.

    by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:47:55 AM PDT

    •  I checked a Poll From October 2007

      As far as I know, one of the earliest polls showing match ups with a number of potential candidates.  Udall was leading both Pearce and Wilson by 18 points, so there appears to have been a little tightning with Pearce, and a little pulling away from Wilson.

      For sure, either way, this is great news for Udall.  I just don't get the Alaska race.  I know it is a Republican state, but at this point, given all we (and they) know, Stephens should be down by a lot.  I would guess this race will depend on the ongoing investigation.  Given the Bush Administration's track record, I would not be surprised to see the investigation dragged out past November.  That may or may not be a good thing, depending on what comes out, and whether there are any further trials or convictions.

      by feebog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:26:51 AM PDT

      •  There Are Competing Interests In Alaska...

        It is a pretty conservative state, but it is also a state where bringing home the bacon is a prerequisite of the job. Stevens and Young have been particularly adept at that (Bridge to Nowhere, anyone).

        So, despite the corruption charges, he does have nearly 40 years of...ahem...constituent service to fall back on. The fact that these races are even close is remarkable. Young and Stevens have won in landslides (seriously, 15 points is considered close) as long as half of the state has been alive.

        by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

•  You can never have a fool-proof majority

  because unfortunately, the supply of fools nearly always exceeds the supply of wise persons, even among your friends.  This fact is nicely reflected in the ancient Chinese saying: "a fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer".

  That said, the wise-to-fool ratio will be vastly improved with a substantial democratic majority (especially if it approaches the veto-proof margin).

  by cmoreNC on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:29:14 AM PDT

  •  If you make something fool proof

    then the world makes a better fool.

    Hence the warning on lawnmowers about not cleaning blade while engine is running...

    by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:00:58 AM PDT

    •  I Am Also Fond of The....

      "HOT!!!" warning on McDonalds Coffee, which stems from that multi-million dollar lawsuit from the woman who was burned when the coffee spilled in her lap while driving.

      by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM PDT

•  I worry about Alaska

  Didn't Stevens draw a primary challenge?  Either he or Young did.  I think the GOP will save whichever seat in Alaska by doing what they did with the Governor's race two years ago---ditching the corrupt incumbent in the primary.

  by cavebird on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:31:19 AM PDT

  •  Young has a primary.

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

  •  Young Is Being Primaried...

    By a couple of Republicans: state rep. Gabrielle LaDoux and lieutenant governor Sean Parnell. In typical Don Young fashion, he welcomed Parnell into the race by saying "I beat your dad, and I'll beat you, too."

    Young's probable opponent is state rep. Ethan Berkowitz.

    by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:45:31 AM PDT

    •  Diane Benson is also challenging Young.

      http://www.bensonforcongress.com/

      by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM PDT

      •  Benson is a Dem, if I wasn't clear. :)

        by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:50:03 AM PDT

      •  Correct, As Is...

        Former state party chairman Jake Metcalfe. Sorry, did not mean to slight Benson (who gave Young his closest race since 1994 during the last cycle). I know Berkowitz is considered "the favorite", but a three-way primary could prove incredibly competitive.

        by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:55:03 AM PDT

        •  np- Here's Phillip Munger's great diary on Diane.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          AK-AL Democratic Party Challenger Diane Benson Proposes New Route Up "Denali"

          by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:06:23 AM PDT

          •  Diane's the only native Alaskan in the race.

            And, she's a Native American woman, of the Tlingit People.

            by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM PDT

            •  Benson got 40%

              in 2006.

              by nrafter530 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM PDT

  •  Good diary by Celtic Diva on this.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:48:07 AM PDT

    •  Very Good Diary....

      I have actually been in a meeting with Congressman Young (it was a youth panel where he was the featured speaker).

      Everyone knows the type--if you like the guy, you say he is brash and feisty. If you dislike the guy, you say he is a total prick.

      by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM PDT

      •  I think there's lots of dislike in AK for Young.

        From what I gather. He's been there too long.
        Isn't there a federal suit against him, too?

        by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM PDT

        •  He Is Under Federal Investigation...

          As are a lot of Alaska politicians, from what I understands, for possible illegal connections with VECO.

          by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM PDT

•  I haven't heard...

  Has Begich actually announced?  Last I heard he was evaluating whether to run....

  by Gustogirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM PDT

  •  He Is Still In The "Exploratory" Stage...

    But the general consensus is that he will eventually make the plunge. Plus, in a press availability earlier this week, DSCC head Chuck Schumer seemed to imply that he was in, saying that Democrats were "in the lead" in Alaska.

    by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM PDT

•  D's picked up 12 Senate seats in '32.

  That's why I picked 8+.  Maybe it's a bit optimistic, but this election is shaping up like 1932.

  by lysias on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM PDT

  •  They Also Picked Up 90 House Seats...

    1932, as a model, might be a touch optimistic. But in a comment in my House diary (link is in this diary above), I pointed out that there are a critical mass of longshot seats that are at least marginally feasible.

    Basically, what this means--if we gain 30 seats, we could gain 60 seats. I suspect that the haul will be less than that (I currently have it at 10-15 seats).

    I also think the Senate will hold at between 3-6 seats. I think we'll probably lose one (for example, I have no faith in Louisiana right now, given the absolute drubbing the Dems have suffered there statewide, even before Katrina). And I just don't see us winning EVERY close race, like we did in 2006.

    by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:01:05 AM PDT

    •  We'll know Louisiana next month

      The May special election in the Baton Rouge district will tell us a lot about the outlook for November.

      But I think the "Louisiana is trending red" is out of date. Electing Bobby Jindal was the high point. And even that win may have unintended consequences.

      The Repubs conquered the former Confederate states like LA by running as the white party. The whole Southern strategy was to be less friendly to the rights and needs of black people than the Democrats. So of course the Repubs cornered the market on racist voters. Then in LA they nominated a dark-skinned man of Indian (South Asian) ancestry. I give them some credit for that breakthrough, but it could cost them on their fringe.

      Is David Duke a proud member of the Bobby Jindal party now? I don't expect to see him voting for Obama, but I expect that some like him could lose their enthusiasm for the Repubs. Meaning, fewer volunteers, fewer and smaller contributions, fewer votes. Meanwhile, of course, the racist Dixiecrats, who cheered George Wallace when he stood in the schoolhouse door screaming, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," well, to but it bluntly, they are dying off, and at a rapid rate.

      Remember that John Kerry took the majority of young voters, according to the exit polls in Mississippi. Young Southerners went to school with black kids,  cheered for black stars on the football and basketball teams, elected those black sports heros as their Homecoming Kings. At the same time they wanted to "be like" Michael Jordan, laughed at Eddie Murphy, listened to rap music by Snoop Dogg and Lil Wayne, got their adrenalin going with Wesley Snipes or got emotional with Oprah Winfrey, and came to admire Tiger Woods when they got older and took up that grown-ups game. With those voters in their 20s and 30s, the racial divide down South ain't what it used to be.

      As for Katrina. Did it really make Repubs more popular in Louisiana? I doubt it. And those black voters from New Orleans-- some moved to Houston, but more moved to Baton Rouge and Shreveport and to smaller towns and cites across the state, even to Jena (remember it was an uppity kid from NOLA who got in trouble first). With contests for the House seats in LA-06, LA-04, and even LA-01, with a strong possibility of an opening in "Dollar Bill" Jefferson's LA-02, and the Senate race on top of a Presidential election, the blacks in Louisiana will be strongly motivated to register and vote this November.

      Last, not least, I infer that someone had access to some very favorable polling -- probably from the DSCC or the Landrieu campaign -- to use when they recruited top, top candidates to run for those open seats in the Baton Rouge and Shreveport districts. I haven't seen the polling, but I "know" it's there. And what did those two incumbent Repubs know when they decided to quit their seats for lobbying jobs? They aren't acting like they feel a strong Repub rend at all.

      by Woody on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:56:59 AM PDT

  •  Eight?

    Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Alaska, what's the eighth seat?

    by nrafter530 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM PDT

    •  lightening strikes

      That must be when lightening strikes one of the other states. It looks like a stormy year ahead, with political climate change and all, so we can expect lots of lightening!

      by Woody on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:14:03 PM PDT

•  More chances to win

  We also have A-rated candidates in Idaho (Larry LaRocco) and Nebraska (Scott Kleeb), solid A's by quality of candidate, at least, though they are on very, very tough terrain. Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi-B probably has an even better chance, though on social issues he's disappointing. And even in Kentucky, with the primary still to come, we have well-funded candidates of somewhat mixed attractiveness, but again on tough terraine.

  A few of these currently low-ranked races will likely move into the top tier by the first Tuesday in November: Maine, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kentucky. This far out I won't slam the door on the outside chance that the races in Tennessee and Georgia might yet come alive.

  In wave years, the competitive Senate races break decidedly for one party or the other; they almost never split down the middle. The more races we can make competitive by November, the more we can expect to win. On the other hand, the winning party almost never takes them all. A good example was '06, when we swept through RI, PA, VA, OH, MO, and MT; but we fell short in TN and AZ despite strong candidates, vigorous campaigns, and big spending in those races. So in '08 I expect we'll grab 8 or 10 seats if we have a dozen competitive races by late fall.

  And we are only playing defense in one state: Louisiana.

  Defense in Louisiana? Not to worry. Mary Landrieu will win it. Offense is the intriguing question: "Diaper Dave" Vitter may have to resign at last, when the D.C. Madam case swings open his closet door. So do we have anyone on our bench in the Pelican State to fill that potential vacancy? Boasso, Foster, Chris John -- now a lobbyist, or who?

  I don't even see the Presidential race having much impact on the Senate races. The generic ballot favors the Democrats, and people want a change. Both Democrats offer a clear change from Bush. But if folks get deluded, not for the first time, and decide that somehow McSame is the change they want, or that the black candidate or the woman candidate is more change than they can handle, they'll still vote for Democrats for Congress.

  by Woody on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:25:17 AM PDT

  •  Wow...Thanks, Woody, I Totally Forgot About...

    Musgrove and Kleeb. I acknowledged LaRocco in a response to a comment above. Kentucky is going to depend an awful lot on the nominee, I think.

    Louisiana worries me, if because our statewide numbers have been so dismal in the past few years. One win: Mitch Landrieu for Lt. Governor. A lot of high-profile losses, including Jindal and Vitter winning without even needing a runoff. Newly minted Republican John Kennedy also outraised Landrieu in the first quarter.

    by Steve Singiser on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM PDT

    •  Again, relax about Mary

      You say:

      Newly minted Republican John Kennedy also outraised Landrieu in the first quarter

      .

      I say: Newly minted Republican John Kennedy barely outraised Landrieu in his first quarter

      In a race hyped by Karl Rove and the entire Repub noise machine, their turncoat candidate went out to gather all the low-hanging fruit -- and all he could haul in was a few hundred thousand bucks more than Mary got? And she's sitting on a war chest of a few million already.

      But if money should somehow ever become a problem in her campaign, the DSCC is first and foremost an incumbent protection organization, and this year the DSCC has plenty money if needed. The national Democrats sure don't want to lose a single incumbent.

      And they have to be looking at the South. There we have new-born hopes of nibbling away at House seats in Texas, LA, MS, AL, NC, KY, VA -- and a big bite of them in FL.

      A loss by Mary Landrieu would be demoralizing for us heading into 2010, when the South and the Border states are infested with Repub Senators ready to be knocked off. Let me excerpt from a list prepared last year by our friend SenateGuru:

      Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO), age 71 on election day, Fourth term, 56% last election, 51-43 approval ratings in '07, Bush 53-46

      Jim Bunning (R-KY), 79, Second term, 51% last election, 44-47 approvals, Bush 60-40

      Richard Burr (R-NC), 54, First term, 52% last election, 44-42 approvals, Bush 56-44

      Tom Coburn (R-OK), 62, First term, 53% last election, 50-38 approvals, Bush 66-34

      Jim DeMint (R-SC), 59, First term, 54% last election, 51-36 approvals, Bush 58-41

      Johnny Isakson (R-GA), 65, First term, 58% last election, 51-36 approvals, Bush 58-41

      Mel Martinez (R-FL), 64, First term, 50% last election, 43-46 approvals, Bush 52-47

      Richard Shelby (R-AL), 76, Fourth term, 68% last election, 60-31 approvals, Bush 63-37

      David Vitter (R-LA), 50, First term, 51% last election, 66-28 approvals, Bush 57-42

      Three of four of these are reaching retirement age and so could leave us open seats. Vitter would be lucky to be around in 2010, but if he is, he starts out infamously handicapped. Demographic changes make NC, GA, and Fl not quite the same states they were when these guys were elected. Nine vulnerable Southern and Border seats in the next election.

      So this year's Louisiana race is simply too important for us to lose. And we won't.

      by Woody on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM PDT