The Rasmussen poll of Maryland’s Senate race does not suggest it will be high on the list of possible upsets this cycle:
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Maryland finds Mikulski with a 25-point lead — 58% to 33% — over Eric Wargotz, a doctor and county commissioner who is perhaps the best known of her little-known challengers. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
Having said that, it’s worth noting that Mikulski’s number in this poll is a good chunk lower than her usual share of the vote; she won 65 percent in 2004, 71 percent in 1998, 71 percent in 1992, and 61 percent in her first Senate race back in 1986.
In this environment, could traditionally “safe” Democrats be running 7 to 14 points behind their usual level of support?
The reality of this particular race is that it is in Barbara Mikulski's best personal interest to retire. She's a feisty lady and brings in a ton of federal money to Maryland. We appreciate all of that. But at the end of the day I do not support the idea of being in the Senate as a lifetime appointment.
The bottom line is that her health is failing with age (and possibly stress) and her ability to engage voters and work for the best interests of Maryland's working people is questionable.
Dr. Wargotz is someone that many voters in Maryland recognize and support. Let's not give in to partisan voting this year and vote for a candidate that will be great for Maryland.
Great article Jim!
Best,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoshe
I think previous elections that were not at all competitive probably provide very little useful data. When someone wins an election by, say, less than 10 points, even if the winner was fairly predictable, at least the election is one where people are showing up because they believe it matters. When the election is a popular incumbent or, in an open seat, an already popular politician going up against an unknown or obviously flawed candidate, I think it’s probably a mistake to view a 30 point win as much different than a 40 or 50 point win. This is true of many House races as well as a number of Senate races, such as Mark Warner’s victory in 2008 and Obama’s in 2004. When races are so uncompetitive, a lot of people who would bother to vote in a close race (whether for or against the favored candidate) probably don’t, especially in midterm elections when the non-competitive races are at the top of the ballot. I don’t doubt that Mikulski will probably win a smaller percentage of the vote than she normally does, but whether she does or doesn’t, my hunch is that an X percent swing from one party to another in a non-competitive race probably doesn’t track very closely with the swing in a competitive race.
One thing I think we can say for certain though is that if Republicans can pick up Maryland, we’ve already picked up enough other Senate seats to retake the Senate, and we probably have picked up 100+ seats in the House too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat great news for Wargotz. I don't think that Pipkin was this close in the polls at this point 6 years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat great news for Marylanders!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe finally have a credible challenger emerge against Mikulski for 2010. My prediction is Wargotz will pick up steam and narrow the gap by the general election. I think the Maryland Republican, Independents and disgruntled Democrats have some hope here.