Harry Reid now leads in the Rasmussen poll, 45 percent to 43 percent.
The firm now classifies the seat as “Leans Democrat.”
I’ve talked to Nevada Republicans who aren’t giving up. Some of them say that Angle is getting a bit better at message discipline, focusing on emphasizing her message instead of getting drawn into what Reid and his allies want to talk about. She’s bringing in new staffers, and she still has an easier task, of simply convincing Nevadans she’s better than an incumbent whom they have decided they don’t like.
But this is an appalling poll result when Rasmussen finds 49 percent of Nevadans “strongly disapprove” of Obama’s job performance, and 48 percent “strongly disapprove” of Reid’s job performance, and 55 percent describe their financial situation as “getting worse.”
What’s hurting the Republican? For starters, an astounding 58 percent find Angle’s positions “extreme.”
If only someone had foreseen Angle’s challenges in the general election.
Beating an incumbent Senate Majority Leader is a tall order in any environment, but while 58% may view Angle as "extreme," half of Nevadans also view Harry Reid as "extreme." Looking only at the independents, Reid is viewed as the more "extreme," 55% vs. Angle's 52%.
And he is still stuck at 45%, and a lead within the poll's margin of error. It's difficult to imagine the undecideds or independents breaking for Reid.
Would it be better if Angle were leading? Sure. But this is not abysmal. It's a winnable race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know what's "abysmal"?
Jim Geraghty's coverage of Sharron Angle.
Seriously, what has happened to NRO lately? It reads more like Frum's RINO Forum than a conservative site. WFB would roll in his grave.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem in Nevada Tim, is that Reid can win with 45%. Nevada has a ballot line for "None of These Candidates". Meaning some of those folks that think both Angle and Reid are extreme may just vote "none of the above" leaving both sides well short of 50%. The independents and undecideds may not break to Reid, but they don't necessarily have to break towards Angle either.
As for the coverage - lay off it. Jim has been saying Angle was a poor choice for months. And he's entitled to a little "I told you so" time. Jim is still hoping for an Angle victory, but it's not "abysmal" to talk about how the Nevada GOP has seemingly squandered a race that should have been a rout. In a year when we've truly expanded the playing field to compete in California, Washington, and Wisconsin - and have put up strong candidates in over a dozen close races (enough to put control of the Senate in play) - we gave one back and put ourselves in a position where we have to pull resources from other states in order to save a state where we should be winning going away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I read the headline and then the first sentence, I assumed there was some sort of sarcasm involved, but evidently not. Down two points against the incumbent majority leader is "abysmal" and "appalling"? I'm missing something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe primary is over. The primary is over. The primary is over. What is the point of constantly knocking the Republican candidate who won the primary? There will be plenty of time for I told you so's after the general election. How about giving our candidate some constructive criticism instead of repeating Democratic talking points. Here is some breaking news: the primary is over. Get over it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereldim, good point on the "none of the above" option. I did not know that - although I note that less than 2% of Nevadans have actually chosen that option in the last four Senate elections. Nevertheless, this poll shows the race is within the margin of error, much as Thune-Daschle was in the summer of 2004 - the only time since 1952 that a sitting Majority Leader has lost a re-election bid. The people of Nevada have been voting to send Harry Reid to the Senate since 1986, and voting him to statewide offices since 1970. There was never a reason to believe this race would not be close, and that's all this poll shows it to be. I also would argue that the NRA's flirting with a Reid endorsement has helped prop up Reid's low standing. This poll only shows a close race, and that is not surprising or abysmal. It's way too early to say we "gave one back."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've got to agree with Tim and Apple, and a little bit with reldim.
Jim, this isn't an abysmal poll for Angle. If anything, it may show that she's stopped the bleeding. There have been other polls showing her down 8 or so. If she just lays low for a little while, raises funds and gets back on the offensive while proving to everyone she's not crazy, then she should be able to win. And yes, yes, Nevadans should've nominated Lowden or Tark, but really if you want to blame someone for that, blame Lowden and her boneheaded comment about bartering for health care. If she hadn't made that gaffe, she may have sailed to the nomination, but instead people thought Lowden may have been unlectable.
In any case, let's try to all support Angle. Yes, it's too bad we need to spend here, blah, blah, blah. But there's no use crying over spilled milk. Take up your arms and fight!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah - the "none of the above" option is pretty dumb to me (no offense to Nevada folks) - anybody know what happens if there's a freak outcome and "none of these" actually gets the most votes? Do they have another election with new candidates? Do they just declare that nobody was elected and the office is vacant?
I wouldn't read too much into past results. I'd want to see polls leading up to those elections and see what people thought of the candidates. I suspect there are few races in which both candidates are viewed as "extreme" by greater than half of poll respondents - so folks who think one guy is extreme just vote for the other candidate. In a race where both sides are viewed as extreme, voters might think "none of the above" is a good way to register their views. In a close race, even a situation where you get say 6% for third-party candidates and 5% for "none of these", a candidate only needs 45% to win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDave, good points, but I'm not sure what you mean by it being "too bad we need to spend here." Reid always had an enormous cash advantage and a longstanding strategy (announced well before the Republican primary) to carpet-bomb with negative ads. This would have been true no matter who the Republicans had nominated, and it is virtually inconceivable that Lowden or Tarkanian would not be facing similar challenges right now. Reid's intent was to paint any opponent as a crazy extremist.
The good news is that Angle outraised Reid last month, and now has no debt and a decent war chest.
This seems like one of those games you just try to take into the fourth quarter. If Reid hasn't put it away by then, Angle can win. She needs to avoid getting sucked into a defensive stance, to not fear running her own attack ads, and to keep the race nationalized - put Reid in the liberal extremist camp with Pelosi and Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbysmal? On what planet? A relative unknown is statistically even with one of the most powerful politicians in the country. He remains deeply unpopular, but has had time to portray her as an extremist. Wait until the Republicans begin leveling the playing field - nationally. I agree with those who say that perhaps this shows Angle has reached bottom. Reid has done his worst, and there she is, right by him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSharron Angle is doing about as well in her Senate race as Marco Rubio is in his Florida Senate race, but look at the difference in National Review's coverage.
Am I worried about Nevada (and also Florida)? You bet. But 'abysmal' is a strange word to use at this point, unless one cares more about "I told you so" than about pulling this one out. Although to be fair, Mr.G's three recent suggestions for the race were excellent.
The solution for the GOP is simple: Make the race about Dingy Harry, not about Ms. Angle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse