approval ratings for all Senators

[JI7]

some interesting things were Durbin's (especially compared to Obama's). Kerry and Boxer have similar numbers to Durbin. Lautenberg's are far lower than he deserves.

also Ben Nelson of Nebraska has higher ratings than Chuck Hagel.

Jay Rockefeller has higher ratings than Robert Byrd.

http://surveyusa.com/100USSenatorApprovalRatings061305.htm

not sure how accurate these numbers are. i'm guessing in comparison to the other Senator it might be accurate. but the actual numbers might be off.

[whometense]

1. I don't understand what this means.

Do you know who they polled? Was each senator rated in their own state? Or did everyone polled rate all the senators. Look like weird results to me - just don't know how to evaluate them.

[JI7]

2. they were rated or polled based on the people in their state

it's just a approval/disapproval thing.

[Mass]

3. Obama has not been a senator long enough for people to dislike him

He is still living on the effects of a non contested campaign (while Martinez, living on the effect of a very divisive campaign has very low ratings).

More generally speaking, this survey, with all the reservations I have on Survey USA, shows the obvious:

- those senators who do not express strong opinions have better ratings than the ones who who do. They irritate less people.

Kennedy may be the exception, but Kennedy works fairly well with the State Republicans, or at least has been spinned this way for the last year or so in order to make a contrast with Kerry.

It is notable for MA that Kerry is still 77 % positive among Democrats and that it is the approval ratings among Republicans (less good than Kennedy's ) that make him tank.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=403f0ec0-6441-410f-9040-5e42ea656d12

I also found these numbers fascinating. Contrarely to what some would want us to believe, Kerry rates nearly as well as Kennedy among liberal, and it is the moderate and conservative that makes the difference.

Conservative Moderate Liberal NOt sure
Kennedy 38% 64% 79% 57%
Kerry 27% 56% 74 66 %

[TayTay]

4. Ahm, Kerry is in good shape

I remember after Dukakis ran and then the Mass State economy went into the tank. That was not good. Dukakis couldn't get elected dog catcher. That was unpopularity. (Very bad. He was a pariah.)

For a brief and stupid period of time the Rethugs in MA thought they could tag Kerry with the bad Dukakis vibe in MA. Major MA papers thought that Kerry would be in for a terrible fight and that polls showed his vapid opponent, Jim Rappaport, coming in close on Kerry. Kerry would up wining that race 58-42, 2 points better than his first race.

Actually, Mr. Kerry's poll ratings went up 2 points this month. The latest measurement shows that his recent tour of western MA was good for him and his standings in the state. His recent swift and consistent action on trying to save Otis Air Force base on the Cape and his efforts to aid the devastated fishing industry (Red Tide) will also show MA that he is fully vested in helping the state.

People around here are a little insecure and skittish sometimes. (Maybe they are around where you are as well.) We all know Kerry is a good Senator. (he's on his 4th term.) But they want to see him and have him talk to the people. Then all is well. (Come back often, don't be a stranger. Let us know when you're going to be in the neighborhood agian and we'll put up a pot of coffee.) He is an excellent Senator and he has performed very well for the home state folks.

[Mass]

5. Yes, Indeed

Added to the last polls I saw last night on CBS 4, saying that at this point, he would be reelected with 57 % of the vote and that there are already some 36 % in MA who want him to run again for President in 08, I think the news of his dismise are largely exagerated.

[TayTay]

6. What people forget about MA is that we have Rethugs

Grover Norquist, acolyte of hell, is from Weston, MA. This disgusting example of Massachusetts Rethuggery is one of the chief architects of the 'starve the beast' approach to defunding government programs that help lower and middle-income people. Andrew Card, WH Chief of Staff (which apparently means chief getter of hamburgers for The Idiot King) was a one-time MA state Rep. (Who couldn't get elected to anything else due to his being a Rethug bastard.)

Rethuggery or plain old Republicanism has a hard claim on 30-35% of MA voters. Liberalism has a claim on 20-25% of MA voters. (They would rather be flayed alive than vote Rethug.) About 25-30% of MA voters are deeply inclined to vote Democratic because of union ties or because of past association. That means that we in MA fight over about 15-30% of the vote.

We are a blue state. (Maybe the bluest of the blue.) But to those of us who live here, it often doesn't feel like it. We wonder why outsiders see us as 'the liberal oasis' when we really are not. And it is a bit insulting to Sens. Kerry and Kennedy to think that they have an automatic lock on their seats. They don't. They work very, very hard to maintain those seats. Very, very hard.

[whometense]

7. Boy, do I agree with your

assessment.

The whole blue state/red state meme is really, when you come down to it, a matter of inches. We have our Peoples Republic of Cambridge, but Michigan has Ann Arbor, Colorado has Boulder, and they are not much different from Cambridge.

I'd like to think that we are maybe just a little more ornery about going along than in other places. But maybe someone else has a better explanation. Certainly the majority of our dems are much more lunchpail types than the Cambridge-y image conveys.

[ginnyinWI]

8. red/blue is really only rural/urban

and this happens in every state. Get out the rural vote, and the red votes go up, whichever state you're in. This is really a hopeful thing, because all the Dem candidate needs to do is visit every major urban center in every state, seems to me. Repubs need to comb the countryside! That's why they targeted churches to do that work for them, maybe. But we've got to get to every state like Dean says, even the southern ones--and hit those cities! :)

[beachmom]

9. Red, blue and purple districts

I think when you narrow it down to districts or clusters of districts, then you can stereotype a bit. My little precinct went 60 - 40% Bush - Kerry, but I actually live in a heavily Republican area, because they are the loudest and most visibly present. I thought the 40% for Kerry was a fantastic showing here, and makes me wonder how many Dems there really are. That or some military families were upset about the War and/or liked that Kerry served in Vietnam. Compare that to D.C. which went 90% - 10% Kerry - Bush. You're just not going to find many Repubs living in the urban areas of D.C.

But when you look at an entire state, with the exception of maybe Oklahoma, stereotyping is an oversimplification and simply false appraisal of the political mood. Even in states that had a big majority going to one candidate than the other. I think culture is something that can distinguish states a little better than politics. Here is a conservative, military, but very friendly Southern culture. I like the people here, but don't want to get into a conversation with them about abortion or gay marriage. I'm from Conn. which is far more liberal, BUT sometimes the people are stressed out and less friendly.

The pundits made a big mistake with this red state/blue state/purple state business but I guess we all tend to buy into it because it organizes everything into neat categories. People are far more complex than that.

[JI7]

10. so the Conservatives and Moderates approve of Kennedy more than Kerry?

[TayTay]

11. Nope

Theconservatives against both are about the same. Kennedy is a very powerful Senator and 'brings home the bacon' for MA which endears him to everyone else. That is why he can aproval ratings of 61%. (30-35 of the Conservtive Rethug block would never vote for him ever.)

Kerry has the same thing with the conservatives. But he tends to lose a little more of the libs because he tends to piss them off more.