* Rasmussen is out with its latest. With leaners…
Kirk: 44% [41%, 45%]
Giannouolias: 41% [37%, 45%]
Jones: 4% [9%, N/A]
Other: 4% [5%, 3%]
Unsure: 8% [9%, 8%]
It looks like people are finally starting to harden up and moving away from third parties, but this is just one poll.
* Initial preference…
Kirk: 39% [37%, 40%, 40%, 41%, 39%, 42% 46%, 41%, 41%, 46%]
Giannoulias: 36% [34%, 42%, 40%, 43%, 40%, 39% 38%, 37%, 44%, 40%]
Jones: 6% [12%, N/A]
Other: 4% [3%, 6%, 8%, 6%, 9%, 7% 5%, 8%, 5%, 4%]
Unsure: 15% [14%, 12%,12%, 10%, 12%, 12% 12%. 13%, 10%, 10%]
* From the pollster…
Kirk and Giannoulias have now run within three points or less of each other in seven surveys since early June.
But a lot of voters still haven’t made up their minds. Just 56% of those who support Kirk say they are already certain how they will vote in November. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Giannoulias voters say the same, along with 47% of those who support Jones.
Kirk has the backing of 80% of Illinois Republicans, while Giannoulias is supported by 71% of the state’s Democrats. The GOP candidate has a better than two-to-one lead among voters not affiliated with either party. Jones gets single-digit support from voters in both major parties and unaffiliateds.
If you’re wondering why Giannoulias is still talking to his base, that’s why.
* “I’m going to read you a short list of issues in the news. For each, please let me know which political party you trust more to handle that issue”…
Democrats lead on almost everything except their candidates.
* And here’s one that Raz didn’t publish…
Discuss.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 2:52 pm:
1 in 3 Illinois voters isn’t sure which party is more trustworthy on ethics. That sounds accurate given that “neither” wasn’t an option.
- shore - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 2:53 pm:
8 years in the wilderness and the republican party in the 5th biggest state in the country can’t find an agenda or platform to win on any of the big issues in the state. It makes you question what the leadership has been doing with its time since they clearly have not been winning elections.
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 2:56 pm:
Thanks for always checking out those tabs, Rich. Not surprising at all that Rasmussen would bury that info.
You know about these results, I have to say that as a Hoffman voter in the primary and despite how obviously flawed Alexi is as a candidate on paper and all the difficulties of his name and bank troubles and all of that, I really am impressed at how it’s late September and he’s somehow still in this.
I don’t know if it’s a credit to Alexi being a fighter or just the people around him are so much better than Quinn at a capitalizing on his opponent’s mistakes, but back in February I never would have thought Alexi was the one with a chance to win in the fall and Quinn all but left for dead.
Am I mistaken in giving Alexi credit here and Bill Brady is really that much better of a politician than Mark Kirk?
- John Powers - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 2:58 pm:
How about..recession was caused during Bush administration and the economic downturn was accelerated during the Obama administration.
jbp
- dave - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:01 pm:
The current economic problems cause is such a silly question, but it is sad and telling that the Dems win big with that question, yet somehow can’t figure out how to move that message.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:03 pm:
This is how it will end. A whimper not a bang.
This is a blue state. The GOP is ahead because voters do not see another option. They do not believe the GOP but they do not want the party in power either.
As soon as this economy rights itself Illinois will reevaluate any GOP office holders.So Brady and Brady better provee their mettle or they are gone in another term.
- A.B. - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:05 pm:
Let’s keep one thing in mind here….the Dems win big on the economy IN ILLINOIS. I’d be interested to see how those questions play out in the other 49 states. This might give us a better feel for how much influence Pres. Obama’s message carries in Illinois vs. in other states.
- Segatari - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:05 pm:
Apparently there’s still a lot of people who haven’t figured out how badly the Dems have performed on the economy, health care, taxes, immigration and corruption that they still think it’s gonna get better under them…which it won’t.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:06 pm:
===. I’d be interested to see how those questions play out in the other 49 states.===
Then go to another blog. Just sayin…
- Anon - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:08 pm:
==The GOP candidate has a better than two-to-one lead among voters not affiliated with either party.==
In a year where the GOP base is likely to be far more energized than the Dems, that’s bad news for Alexi. I’m not able to see the full breakdown of those polled, but if, like others, they’re basing the percentage of Dems, Reps, and Ind’s polled on recent elections, the 3% margin might be the small end in margin of error. Alexi needs his base to turn out in at least close to their usual percentage. If not, he’s sunk.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:12 pm:
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 2:56 pm:
“Thanks for always checking out those tabs, Rich. Not surprising at all that Rasmussen would bury that info.”
Really? Is Bush running?
Another week, another poll showing this race as a near tie. Look at the TPM chart, it will remain the same until something breaks in this campaign. What could have been an exciting race, this is Obama’s old seat after all, has turned out to be quite dull and boring. Unless something really gels in this race, this is what we will see until the end. 40 days more and it’s over, thank God.
hisgirlfriday also said,
“Am I mistaken in giving Alexi credit here and Bill Brady is really that much better of a politician than Mark Kirk?”
You’re on to something here. I’m betting that Brady’s staff is better, or at least Brady is better considering his staff’s advice, and that’s why Brady leads Quinn. That makes him a better politician than Kirk, who’s campaign is almost as lackluster as Quinn’s.
Actually, I think Alexi’s campaign is also uninspired, and he needs to firm up his efforts. If this is the best he can do, and for Obama’s seat in deep blue Illinois, and he still trails (within the margin, granted) the heat from the final days may collapse his campaign. Kirk’s money advantage is about to come into play.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:20 pm:
===Really? Is Bush running?===
Neither is Obama.
It’s kinda funny how you Bush guys are still so hypersensitive about your dude.
- L.S. - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:28 pm:
I get the feeling some of the “Blame the Democrats” wave that Brady/Kirk/Cross are counting on is starting to peak a month too soon. Don’t get me wrong, I still expect Brady to win and the GOP to have some pickups, but its looking less like a tidal wave, more like a typical mid-term course correction after one party did so well in the previous two cycles. It sure seems like Kirk has peaked and can’t create any real distance for himself.
- Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:35 pm:
Kirk will seal the deal in the debates and hammer it home on the airwaves all the way to election day; while the enthusiasm gap will adversely impact GALEXI all over the state.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:36 pm:
Look back at my posts, Rich. On numerous occasions I have blasted Bush for not vetoing spending bills. To both Bush’s and Obama’s (and McCain’s) credit, they pushed TARP. If we would have stuck to the original use of TARP (freeing the credit markets, all of those original financial firms have paid back their loans, with interest) and not used TARP as a slush fund to bail out non-financial companies (as Obama did with Chrysler and GM) and left things at that, I’m betting we’d be much better off than we are now. The housing bubble would have burst instead of still being artificially propped up like they are now, and recovery would be going at an accelerated pace.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:38 pm:
===“Blame the Democrats” wave that Brady/Kirk/Cross are counting on is starting to peak a month too soon.===
I heard that in 1994, too.
- Sue - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:40 pm:
Quinn can potentially ruin every Democrat’s chances - Madigan may end up becoming leader of the minority- It is unlikely that Quinn can do anything at this point to change the outcome of the Governor race- there is a reason he never was elected- he is a lousy candidate and a weak leader
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:40 pm:
Cincinnatus, that’s pretty much the GOP economic argument from 1931-32.
- A.B. - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:45 pm:
Rich -
Wow on the snark. Just sayin’ it would be interesting to see how our own perceptions compare to those from other states. In other words, how rosy are the glasses on the public from the president’s home state. Doesn’t that seem to be a natural question for a group of political dorks like the majority of us who follow your blog?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:46 pm:
===it would be interesting to see how our own perceptions compare to those from other states.===
Like I don’t have enough to do with this state? lol
- A.B. - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:48 pm:
“Like I don’t have enough to do with this state? lol
Ok fair statement. But we all appreciate you being the over achiever that you are.
- Thoughts... - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:49 pm:
===Kirk will seal the deal in the debates===
Riiiiight. Because folks out in voterland LOVE to tune in to US Senate debates. That’s where they make all of their decisions.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:57 pm:
When I see Alexi with only 70% of Dems, I’m not exactly shocked. It may just be my area, but it doesn’t seem like he’s reaching out much to local Dems to help get the word out. The campaign has been nearly invisible.
- Pelon - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 3:58 pm:
I can see why the “Current Economic Problem” question was left out. I wouldn’t pick any of those.
- Siriusly - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:05 pm:
HisGirlFriday - I’m sort of with you. I was a Hoffman backer and thought that Alexi would be toast by mid September. But here’s the difference between that race and the Gov’s race.
Alexi is a slightly better candidate than Quinn, but the issues played in his favor - Kirk exaggerations scandals have totally undercut his credibility (IMHO) on every issue. It also has undercut what should be his growing base in a GOP trending election.
Brady on the other hand has run a disciplined campaign and his anti-spending messages are perfectly timed for the mood of the electorate this year. And he’s running against a jellyfish of a candidate whose campaign resembles a two year old’s crayon interpretation of Starry Starry Night.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:13 pm:
Actually, AB, I can see your point and I think I can even see a good angle. We’ll see.
- It ain't over - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:18 pm:
There’s good news for Alexi, and Ds broadly, in this poll. At the height (seemingly) of R strength, voters still trust Ds more on most issues, including the dominant one.
Also, Alexi has more low-hanging fruit yet to harvest with only
71% of Ds on board. His path to breaking the virtual tie is easier than Kirk’s.
All of this suggests that visits from the Obamas are going to have impact.
Alexi has a real good shot, and Qinn’s not out yet.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:20 pm:
Rich,
You need to look back about 10 more years to 1920 to see how to come out of a recession. Hoover Hoovered. Look at Coolidge.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:22 pm:
Rather disheartening that majority accurately discern that economic problems cause under Bush, but still want to give the car in the ditch back to them what drove it there and have no plan to get it out–and made it worse by just standing by watching while others tried to get it out. Have trouble getting my brain around just what rational basis exists for Tea Baggers–which may be the problem–there may be no rational basis; only emotion.
- Siriusly - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:23 pm:
It ain’t over: I agree about Alexi and some of the legislative Dems, but I disagree about Quinn. He’s toast.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:24 pm:
Keep digging guys, you will find that pony
- Downstater - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:30 pm:
Cinncinatus,
You are absolutely correct. So few historians spend time looking at a perfect example of a quick extraction of a painful recession. In some writings, it’s described as the Forgotten Depression.
- Mannheim John - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:35 pm:
The semantics demand a little attention:
“The Recession which began under the Bush administration” does not attribute blame directly to Bush. Clearly the recession began under Bush. This can’t be denied by anyone of any ideological stripe. Whether one accords blame to Bush for that recession, is subjective, and thus a wide spectrum of opinions (not easily quantifiable by a poll) would probably result. The blind ideologues assign either 100% or 0% and the informed guy who reads a lot of economic theory falls somewhere in between, depending on from where he gets his information. So, although this sounds like the question is pushing you into a Bush slam, it actually gives some wiggle room to those of us who know the President isn’t entirely responsible for everything that happens everywhere in the world.
“Policies of President Obama” directly attributes the entire blame to Obama. This choice is for the hyper-partisan.
No one wants to answer “not sure” because it makes you feel stupid in the process.
Bottom line, it’s hard to maintain any intellectual honesty when you’re put in a box by the pollsters.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:45 pm:
“It’s kinda funny how you Bush guys are still so hypersensitive about your dude.”
Maybe we’re just hypersensitive about truth and fairness. After all, the economic recession before this one started under President Clinton, something that Democrats always seem to forget when talking about the phony projected surplus that Bush was supposedly “handed.”
And it should be noted that unlike the current resident of the White House, Mr. Bush had the class to let his predecessor drift into obscurity (despite Clinton’s best efforts to resist it) instead of using him as an ever-present whipping boy for every problem he had to confront.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:48 pm:
Tbat is completely insane GOP.
As late as 2007, the Bush White House was still blaming President Clinton for just about everything.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 4:52 pm:
Skeeter,
Examples please of Bush (not his minions or supporters) blaming Clinton directly by name for anything like the current occupant of the White House blames Bush.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:00 pm:
Skeeter, I’m talking about President’s here, not flunky staffers. Did the Bush White House Communications Department try to shift the blame back to Clinton for stuff? Sure. But it was hardly ever Bush himself doing it. Maybe you think that’s an unimportant distinction. And, all things being equal, maybe it is. But things aren’t equal, because Mr. Obama explicitly promised that he – HE – was going to user in a new era of politics that went beyond the pettiness of the past. And now he - HE (not just his spokespeople) – is constantly trying to remind people of what a terrible job his predecessor did. Not very classy, and certainly not helpful to the cause of moving beyond the pettiness of the past.
- MrJM - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:17 pm:
Rich,
Days like today really make me appreciate your usual banishment of national politics from this site. Thanks.
I’m looking forward to tomorrow and (presumably) less Obama vs. Bush vs. Clinton vs. Coolidge.
– MrJM
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:21 pm:
MrJM,
Hey! He started it!
;-{)>
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:25 pm:
Why wouldn’t people blame Bush some? Things went really south in September of 2008, if I recall.
That’s when the Ayn Rand-disciple finance Masters of the Universe ran crying to the Fed and Congress about how they’d screwed the pooch and needed to be bailed out.
The sad story is, Bush or Obama, it was the same small crew of Greenspan/Rubin screwups who were put in charge of making things right.
Most of the big, international bank investors in the initial collapse were made whole. Not 50 cent on the dollar, not 75 cent on the dollar, but whole. That was bipartisan.
You only wish that Obama would have let Volcker take his big shoes and kick the old cronies out of the room. Volcker is a guy who’s demonstrated he knows how to make you take your medicine.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:40 pm:
GOP and Cincy, you might try to use the ol’Google (or Bing). I found a bunch of instances in about two minutes.
Now get down off the high horse. You look like children up there.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:48 pm:
Skeeter,
You found links and posted none. “Nough said.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 5:51 pm:
Because even though I spent way too much time on this site the last day or so, ultimately, I really don’t care. I’m not your clerk. They are there. Use the Google. If you don’t believe me, well I guess we will all have to live with it.
- anon - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 6:47 pm:
How are the Obamas going to help Alexi? They did such wonders in the great progressive stronghold of Massachusetts getting Senator Coakley elected. Oh wait….
- Obamarama - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 7:18 pm:
Because this is the President’s home state and there are still 30% of Democrats who aren’t YET supporting Alexi. Alexi is getting smoked with independents so he needs to get people to the polls who vote Democratic when they actually vote. Answer your question?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 9:23 pm:
=Because this is the President’s home state…=
Odd that question to which you responded, Obamarama. People seem to want to forget (or don’t realize yet) that this is ILLINOIS. And while comparisons to other States or stats from across the Nation are interesting…and sometimes useful, it’s STILL Illnois.
“Tough State to ‘break into’ as WE all know”, isn’t it?
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 9:54 pm:
“How are the Obamas going to help Alexi? They did such wonders in the great progressive stronghold of Massachusetts getting Senator Coakley elected. Oh wait…”
Coakley lost because she didn’t know Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox. Also, Massachusetts was a Hillary state in the 2008 Dem primaries.
Illinois is Obama’s home state and Obama stumping with Alexi made him treasurer here just four years ago.
You really can’t compare the two situations.
- It ain't over - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 9:57 pm:
The REAL…
Exactly. Obama’s effectiveness in the MA Senate race is a very poor predictor of his impact on an IL election. (Obama lost the ‘08 MA primary 40-56)
I haven’t seen numbers on this, but would wager that Obama’s approval among IL dem voters would still be very high. Thus, he could provide a real boost to Alexi, Quinn, and others who have not shored up the base yet.
Now, he’s obviously got a few other fires to attend, so we’ll see how much time they’re able to spend here.
- Dirt Digger - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 11:15 pm:
Skeeter et al, let me help you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=george+bush+blamed+clinton
- Say WHAT? - Thursday, Sep 23, 10 @ 12:31 pm:
MrJM,
AMEN!