Matt Gunterman October 28th, 2007

You no doubt all seen the new Herald-Leader commissioned poll that finds the support of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) to continue its fast-paced erosion.

In short, it finds that McConnell’s unpopularity is now surpassing his popularity, and that all his potential Democratic opponents are sitting very pretty a year out from the election.

Here’s the quick breakdown:

McConnell v. Chandler: 46/41
McConnell v. Luallen: 45/40
McConnell v. Stumbo: 46/37
McConnell v. Horne: 45/34

What are the most telling findings of the polling?

First, that McConnell never gets above 46 percent support against any of the Democrats. Second, that that’s the case even against Horne, whose inclusion in the polling essentially represents — because of what I suspect is low name recognition across the state — the equivalent of “generic Democrat.” A majority of Kentuckians don’t want to vote for McConnell.

What’s the most inane comment in the H-L article? This one from Danny Briscoe:

[...]

Although Chandler and Luallen showed the same deficit to McConnell, Chandler is better off because he’s already endured barrages of harsh ads during the 2003 election, said Danny Briscoe, a Democratic campaign consultant.

“Ben Chandler’s had millions of dollars attacking him, Crit Luallen’s never taken a punch,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine if she had millions attacking her that she’d be in the position she’s in now.”

[...]

This makes no sense. Then why is Chandler sitting in the position he’s sitting in, even after the millions of dollars spent attacking him? Are we to imagine that negative advertising takes a person a set distance from some base? Did Chandler start professional life at something like 70 percent, and after decades of negative advertising he’s been eroded to 41 percent against McConnell? Because, you know, there’s never been a case in all of electoral history where a challenger defeated an incumbent by surviving (and actually gaining popularity) in the face of his or her rival’s relentless negative attacks.

Where do they find these inane people?

Plus, I’ve heard lots of people argue — and not that I agree with it — that a strength of a Luallen candidacy is that it’s harder to relentlessly attack a woman. I’m not so sure about that. It might be hard to attack them in the conventional sense, but there are ways of undermining people’s confidence by playing on stereotypes, whisper campaigns, and the like.

The thing to keep in mind here, I think, is the case of Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia. In 2006, Webb’s incumbent opponent Sen. George Allen (R) outspent Webb $19 million to $8.5 million.

In June of 2006, six months out from the election, Webb still trailed Allen 56 percent to 37 percent.

So, neither Horne, Stumbo, Luallen, or Chandler is in a bad position.

• 2008 KY U.S. Senate Race , Andrew Horne , Ben Chandler , Crit Luallen , Greg Stumbo , Jim Webb , Mitch McConnell , Opinion Polls
• Comments(4)