Toomey opens up 10-point lead on Sestak in PA
posted at 11:36 am on October 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Today brings good news and bad news on the Senate front of the midterms, and we’ll start with the good new in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey, whose mere presence in the Republican primary flipped Arlen Specter to the Democrats and into an ignominious end to his political career, now has a commanding ten-point lead in the latest Rasmussen poll. Toomey just misses the 50% mark, but then again, Sestak can’t get above 40%, either:
Republican Pat Toomey now holds a 10-point lead over Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak, the widest gap between the candidates since early April in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Pennsylvania shows Toomey earning 49% of the vote, while Sestak picks up 39% support. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, but a sizable 10% remain undecided less than three weeks before Election Day. …
Two weeks ago, Toomey, a conservative activist who formerly served in Congress, was ahead 49% to 40%, and earlier in September, he posted a 49% to 41% lead. Except for a brief bounce following his Democratic Primary win in mid-May over incumbent Senator Arlen Specter, Sestak has run second to Toomey in every survey since February.
Rasmussen has moved this race to its Solid GOP column, which appears reasonable given the lack of movement by Sestak over the last few months. Toomey has an overwhelming lead among independents, 54/13, which grows even larger when adding leaners, 62/15. Toomey wins among men and women and wins almost every income demographic except $20-40K. He has a solid favorability rating (54/36), while Sestak has grown unpopular at 43/48. Speaking of which, Pennsylvania voters don’t feel very happy about President Obama either, giving him a job approval rating of 39/60.
And this all happens in a sample of likely voters that has a D+8 advantage, 45/37.
Now for the bad news. In Connecticut, Linda McMahon has dropped back by double digits against Richard Blumenthal despite two good debates, according to Quinnipiac’s poll today:
Reversing a months-long decline in his lead in the Connecticut U.S. Senate race, Democratic State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has opened up a 54 – 43 percent likely voter lead over Republican former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 49 – 46 percent Blumenthal lead in a September 28 likely voter survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll. …
Independent voters shift from 49 – 44 percent for McMahon September 28 to 49 – 44 percent for Blumenthal today. Women back Blumenthal 63 – 32 percent while men back McMahon 52 – 46 percent.
The pollster concludes that McMahon may have peaked too soon, in September, and that her heavy advertising may be causing fatigue among voters. McMahon never led in this race, but she had been building some momentum in a normally deep-blue state. Blumenthal may be getting a bounce back due to his still-high personal approval ratings in the state as well.
Connecticut was always going to be a tough race to win in any case. It’s not over yet, of course, and this could very well be an outlier, although the Q-poll is normally a reliable indicator. Perhaps this comes in time to rally the troops for McMahon’s behalf, but it also means that calculations on Senate control that rely on Republicans winning this race may need to be adjusted accordingly.
Related Posts:










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2