« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Rasmussen CA-SEN: Fiorina within MoE of Boxer.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  July 24th, 2009 at 09:04 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Although even Rasmussen has to say “It’s California.”

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Boxer attracts 45% of the statewide vote while Fiorina, her best-known possible Republican challenger, earns 41%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d vote for some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

In March, Boxer led Fiorina by nine, 47% to 38%.

Any incumbent who polls below 50% early in a campaign is considered potentially vulnerable. However, a Democrat running in a heavily Democratic state like California is often able to overcome weak poll numbers.

Which is very true: but it’s also Barbara Boxer. This is not a very good period of time to be reflexively supporting more taxes, less energy, and the imposition of health care rationing – and, given some of the topline results to this survey (MoE is 4.5%, by the way), you have to wonder how ‘heavily Democratic’ it is these days. On first reading, the results read as being more anti-incumbent than anything else: Fiorina isn’t even formally in the race yet, although these numbers are certainly encouraging enough. Chuck Devore (who is in the race) is probably finding them encouraging, too; people in California just aren’t happy with the status quo right now – and contra Rasmussen, you shouldn’t ignore sub-50 ratings if you’re a politician who wants to keep her job.

I’d assume that Senator Boxer is taking that into consideration, except, well.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • smitch61

    CA gives us Nancy Pelosi, and Boxer..Crazy, and both of them have some serious speaking issues…. I know, and Sarah Palin is stupid..I am not really sure what kind of Democrat you can be to look at these two and have any kind of pride whatsoever… Embarrassment would be a better word.

  • 10ksnooker

    The liberals are now eating the bones.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Fiorina isn’t even a novice politician yet, as she’s never run for office before.

    This could be her peak. Were she to run, the first time she opens her mouth on the campaign trail she’ll probably lose people. Which people she loses depends on whether she comes out pro-life or pro-abort, probably!

    Because California is heavily Democratic when the Democrats can polarize the electorate on abortion, which is most of the time. Of course, they couldn’t in 1994, thanks to illegal immigration. Maybe the economy will prevent them from doing it this cycle, regardless of who we run.

  • SteveLA

    Neil

    I’ve been in the technology segment of the CA economy for over 30 years and would also point out that the technology types are not going to be big fans of Fiorina ether. She did not exactly do a great job with running HP or integrating Compaq/DEC into HP.

    If anything, people working in technology fields are not all that dogmatic on issues like abortion, more leaning to libertarian point of view. I don’t see her doing well with my demographic ether way, no matter how she comes out on abortion.

    The winning issues for the next few election cycles in CA for Republicans in my view are not social ones anyway, it’s fiscal restraint, dealing with the state’s illegal aliens in an intelligent manner and issues that effect the pocket book.

    If there is a “wedge” issue brewing, it’s the initiative to define citizenship as meaning being born to legal residents of the state, which I support for no other reason than to force the issue into the courts to get resolution of the question. How or if R’s back that the initiative will be a major breaking point and point of contention that Donks will try to exploit.

  • bk

    but what about Boxer is even remotely appealing to libertarians when she is involved in having the government take over every segment of the economy? Even if a libertarian supports abortion more or less on demand, I doubt they’d favor mandated government funding of them or forcing Catholic hospitals and conscientious objector doctors to perform them.

  • SteveLA

    bk

    That’s the problem in a nut shell, the nuts that the Democrats put up against the weak sisters the R’s put up against them.

    I dislike Babs Boxer, and Di Fi, but there really has not been a serious challenger coming from the R side to vote for over the last few cycles. I usually end up voting for the weak sister R knowing that they will loose, or cast my vote for some third party.

    As to where the libertarian water’s edge on abortion is in CA, no scientific data involved but I’d guess pretty much where the law stands today with perhaps some enhanced parental notification improvements, at least in the general population who are libertarian leaning. Libertarian leaning is the key here, not full blown Krusty the Klown Libertarian.

  • IJB

    Most of those who label themselves that way are, in fact, Lefties, and that’s just as true of Steve’s “tech” types.

    The only real question in regards to CA is whether the number of weakly-leaning Lefties in CA (and there are a fair number of those) have had enough to try something different. That, really, is the only issue here.

    But if you’re looking for CA “libertarians” to save you… well, there simply aren’t enough of them anymore…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • The_Gadfly

    if I lived in California and she ran against Boxer or Feinstein, it might be the one time I’d vote for a squish with glee.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But we already won on that issue.

    I do agree that our chances of winning improve when we can a) keep abortion from being an issue and b) run good right-wingers who are strong on the other issues that make us Republicans.

    However until Roe and Casey are banished to history, you’re still generally going to need to be anti-abort to win a Republican primary in this state.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    What do we know about her on the issues at all?

  • IJB

    I actually have very little opinion on Fiorina, because I’ve only seen her on CNBC, first as the HP head, then as a McCain campaign flack. In that context, she comes off well enough.

    But I’d need to know more before I got any sort of definitive opinion on her.

  • DavidSage

    To really run a competitive campaign in California statewide for Senator, a Republican would probably need to raise at least $30 million dollars, and more likely $40-$50 million. I would much rather spend that money on on several states where there was a better chance of actually winning a Senate seat. Your money goes a lot further.

    With $30 million, you could do a lot of damage in several smaller states, even against established incumbents, in states that are much more receptive to Republicans in general. I would rather spend $8 million of that to knock off Harry Reid in a much cheaper state like Nevada.

    Since resources are finite, I would rather the Republican Party not and waste money on big, expensive blue states that at best would probably just elect some worthless RINO. Obviously if these candidates can raise money without taking away resources from other races, all the power to them.

    I would love to see Boxer get beat, but I really think it’s a waste of resources. I tend to feel like if California hasn’t figured out what an idiot Boxer is by now, they probably never will.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Money isn’t entirely fungible. Nor is effort.

    The best way to maximize what we’ve got, and to maximize our chances of winning, is to contend in every race, every time.

    It doesn’t mean the RNC or other organizations should pour money into every race equally, but you don’t pre-emptively surrender.

  • noufa

    That mentality is exactly why we’re stuck with Boxer in the first place. Part of why CA is solid Democrat is that Republicans haven’t put any resources into the state for the past 20 years. We can’t expect CA’s votes when we dismiss them as sour grapes. That’s shrinking the electoral map. It’s not working.

    CA has no entrenched political culture. Only nitwit transplants think of it as some hippy paradise. That myth explodes once you start looking for affordable living space. And it has a consistently low voter turnout. CA offers room for progress.

    10 years ago a Democrat President winning with North Carolina or Indiana was unimaginable. Democrats competed anyway, organizing rallying points for the small pockets of liberalism in NC & IN. There’s no guarantee that CA will likewise flip. But we need a sustainable political movement in our largest state.

  • DavidSage

    I have a satellite office in California, and I spend a great deal of time there.

    I really don’t think the problem is Republicans haven’t spent enough money there, it’s just that the population is overwhelmingly liberal. Arnold is probably about as conservative a Republican as you’re going to be able to elect statewide, and most of the time he has governed like a liberal Democrat.

    Presidential elections are a good indicator of how a state leans, and the fact that the Democrat candidate has won by double digit landslides for nearly two decades makes leads to believe that your dealing with a tough audience.

    I’m not saying abandon the state by any means, but if organizations like the RNC and NRSC throw money in this race, I feel it’s taking away resources from more winnable races in much cheaper states.

  • CowboyUp4419

    While it would be a large investment to wage a campaign in California to take Boxer down, it would also be a large sink for the Democrats if they have to spend time and resources to defend the seat. Your point about getting more bang for our buck in CT, DE, NV, etc is well made and I’m in total agreement with you but I don’t think we should totally write off California if it looks like Fiorina’s competitive.

    I don’t know; maybe my judgment’s just clouded by the gleeful vision of me doing a happy dance around my living room while Fox covers Boxer’s concession speech on election night next year.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    First, Boxer is far more vulnerable than Feinstein, who overall has a reputation for being a “moderate” Democrat and tends to have broader support. Boxer is viewed as far more liberal and her political base is more narrowly centerd in the Bay Area.

    That said, while the Presidential trends have gone strongly Democratic, 2010 will represent more of a general referendum on Democratic-dominated governance and will be a let-down from the excitement of 2008.

    In particular, what remains unknown is how strong of an anti-incumbent feeling there will be.

    We also see with the special election on the initiatives that the voters did not want to go along with business as usual. Depending on the performance of the economy and peoples perception of federal and state governance, and especially what Boxer becomes associated with in the voters minds, it is within the realm of possibility that enough voters may decide they’re willing to try something different that they will at least giver the Republican challenger a hearing.

    At that point, the candidate has to make the best of his opportunities.

    Certainly it’s uphill, but if Boxer continues to come up with precious video moments, a suitable Republican could have some strong openings.

    I’m not advising a massive party infusion at this time, unless the numbers start to look favorable, but I certainly would not want the party to stand in the way of donors investing in this race.

    In other words, a lot could happen between now and Nov 2010 – either favorable or unfavorable.