Daily Kos commissioned Research 2000 to poll a hypothetical Senate matchup between Chuck Grassley and Tom Vilsack. Click the link for the full crosstabs. Here are the eye-catching numbers:
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 12/8-10. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)
Grassley (R) 48
Vilsack (D) 44
Grassley’s approve/disapprove numbers are 57/36, while Vilsack’s are 55/36.
If I were running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, I would immediately commission an internal poll to check these numbers.
Republicans will try to dismiss this poll because Research 2000 is the firm hired by Daily Kos, the leading Democratic blog. But Research 2000’s final poll of the Tom Harkin/Christopher Reed Senate contest in late October was close to the mark, showing Harkin leading 57 percent to 37 percent. (Harkin beat Reed by 63 percent to 37 percent.)
As I’ve written before, taking on Grassley will be an uphill battle for any Democrat. However, I would love to see Vilsack take a shot at this race. A strong and well-funded challenge from Vilsack would in my view increase the chance of Grassley retiring in 2010.
UPDATE: A spirited debate about Vilsack’s chances against Grassley is going on in this thread at Swing State Project.
7 Comments
Wrong on Latham/Greenwald
I believe they were very wrong. Very very wrong.
They had that race at 5 points.
Latham prevailed by 22.
That’s not close.
bill-spencer Thu 11 Dec 8:53 PM
they polled a lot of states
and a lot of races and had as good a track record as other pollsters. No one nails every race. Ann Selzer had Obama leading Iowa by 17 a few days before he won by only half as much.
Presumably the IA-04 race was not as close as Research 2000 had it. That said, as I’ve written before, I do not believe Latham’s internals consistently had him 20 points ahead. His advertising strategy and his tactics in the debates were not those of an incumbent who is far enough ahead to ignore his opponent (as Harkin did in all his advertising).
I do believe Latham’s negative ads were effective and brought down Greenwald’s numbers in the last few weeks. Remember also that she was not even on the air.
desmoinesdem Thu 11 Dec 9:11 PM
Saxby
Why do you still have the “See if Saxby Chambliss is helping you” signature?
bill-spencer Fri 12 Dec 4:47 PM
haven't decided what to replace it with yet
Don’t worry, I have noticed that it’s time for a new signature.
desmoinesdem Fri 12 Dec 5:20 PM
Vilsack
I’m not sure Vilsack would like to risk his solid Iowa electoral record by taking on Grassley. Vilsack did see the writing on the wall and dropped out before the caucuses. It would be a closer race then Art Small gave Grassley, but I still think Grassley would prevail.
If not Vilsack why not a Bonnie Campbell or David Miles or someone else? I just have a feeling that this is going to be Vilsack or nothing situation.
moderateiadem Fri 12 Dec 6:30 AM
Vilsack is probably the only person
who even has a prayer of defeating Grassley. He’s won two statewide elections in the not-too-distant past.
Vilsack would also be taking a risk by not running. He could wait to see if Grassley retires in 2016, I suppose, but in the meantime he’d just be an attorney in private practice. What if Culver decided to run for Senate in 2016?
If Vilsack still has higher political ambitions, he should take this chance now.
desmoinesdem Fri 12 Dec 7:04 AM
I hear you there
It has been a widely speculated rumour that Culver has his eyes set on his father’s old senate seat, and Vilsack really is sinking away from relevency, it is either now or never for Tom.
pistachio Fri 12 Dec 1:30 PM