Election 2010: California Senate

Incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer is now in a virtual dead heat with former Congressman Tom Campbell in California’s U.S. Senate race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Boxer leading Campbell 43% to 41%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.

Two other Republican hopefuls, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, remain within striking distance, but their numbers worsened very slightly this month.

Boxer now leads both Fiorina and DeVore by 46% to 40% spreads. Four percent (4%) opt for another candidate, and roughly 10% are undecided.

Voters not affiliated with either major party give a slight edge to Boxer in two of the contests but break even when Fiorina is the GOP candidate in the race.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Boxer, who is seeking a fourth six-year term, has the power of incumbency on her side in a state that trends Democratic. But worrisome for her is her inability to rise out of the 40s where she’s been stuck for months while her opponents have been gaining ground. Incumbents who capture less than 50% of the vote at this stage of a campaign are considered potentially vulnerable.

The good news for Boxer is that support for the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is stronger in California than it is nationally. That helps to explain why the anti-incumbency mood is slightly less pronounced in California than it is in many other states.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of California voters favor the Democrats’ health care plan, while 44% oppose it. These numbers include 32% who Strongly Favor the plan versus 38% who Strongly Oppose it.

As in the rest of the country, voters who Strongly Favor the plan overwhelmingly support the Democrat, while those who Strongly Oppose the plan just as overwhelmingly favor the Republicans in all three match-ups.

Fifty percent (50%) of all voters in the state agree that a better strategy for health care reform is to pass smaller bills that address individual problems rather than a comprehensive bill like the one now before Congress. But 40% think a comprehensive bill is better.

Unlike in many states, the plurality (49%) in California fear private health insurance companies more than the federal government when it comes to health care decisions. Forty-six percent (46%) fear the government more.

Forty-three percent (43%) say the president is doing a good or excellent job handling health care reform. Thirty-nine percent (39%) rate his performance as poor.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters in the state say it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November. Twenty-two percent (22%) disagree and say it would be better if most were reelected.

But 39% say their local representative in Congress deserves to be reelected, while 35% think otherwise.

Thirty-four percent (34%) have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement, but 40% view it unfavorably. Eighteen percent (18%) of California voters describe themselves as a part of that movement.

Troubling for Boxer is that while 19% of the state’s voters have a very favorable opinion of her, 32% view her very unfavorably.

For DeVore, very favorables are four percent (4%) and very unfavorables are nine percent (9%).

Eleven percent (11%) regard Fiorina very favorably, while 14% view her very unfavorably.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

Despite the state’s well-publicized budget problems, 50% of California voters think the economy will be stronger a year from now. Twenty-seven percent (27%) expect it to be weaker, and 18% say it will stay about the same.

Yet just 26% say it now possible for anyone who really wants to work to find a job. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disagree and say it’s not possible.

Obama won California in 2008 with 61% of the vote, and he remains popular in the state. Fifty-eight percent (58%) approve of the job he is doing as president, with 31% who Strongly Approve. Forty-two percent (42%) disapprove of the president’s job performance, including 34% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives Obama a job approval rating in California that is much better than findings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

In 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected nationally that Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama won 53% to 46%. Four years earlier, Rasmussen Reports projected the national vote totals for both George W. Bush and John Kerry within half-a-percentage-point.

In California during the 2008 campaign, Rasmussen Reports polling showed Obama winning the state by a 61% to 34% margin. He won 61% to 37%. Four years earlier, Rasmussen Reports polling showed John Kerry leading George W. Bush in California 53% to 43%. Kerry won 54% to 44%.

In the 2006 California governor’s race, Rasmussen polling showed Arnold Schwarzenegger defeating Phil Angelides 53% to 40%. Schwarzenegger won 56% to 39%. In the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Rasmussen polling showed Dianne Feinstein defeating Richard Mountjoy 58% to 35%. Feinstein won 60% to 35%.

See all Rasmussen Reports 2008 state results for president, Senate and governor. See 2006 results for Senate and governor. See 2004 state results for president.

Rasmussen Reports also has recently surveyed Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

I don't know who to support here. Campbell is kind of a weird guy and he supported tax hikes while running for the GOP governor's nomination--which he then blew off to run for Senate instead. And he's not likely to have enough money to compete against the money monster Boxer in the general. Fiorna on the other hand has fallen back in the polls somewhat but will have a ton of her own money to beat the crap out of Boxer with. In addition, she's shown she's media savvy which is so needed in a California race which is fought on TV almost entirely.

It also makes me sick to live in a state where a majority support Obamacare. The people here are sick in the head DemoKoolaid guzzlers. They're a bunch of mindless Obamatons. The sad thing is, most people here are too ill-informed to even know what's in the bill. It's just enough to know Democrats wrote it for them to support it.

In the primary, easy - DeVore. The only conservative.

In the general, easy - Anyone But Boxer.

The polls sow that Boxer can be defeated by any of the opponents.

I really don’t think Devore stands a chance in the general election. This is California, not Alabama. Down the line conservatives don’t win statewide races here, esp. in a political environment where healthcare is actually more approved of than disapproved of in California. In a sane state Devore would be the next Senator from the State of California. But this isn’t a sane state. So we probably have to either A) Accept someone who’s less than a down-the-line conservative or B) Accept Boxer’s re-election. I’m not willing to do B so I have to go with A.

A conservative would have lost by even more against Feinstein. Campbell was swampped because he had no money and Feinstein is popular in Californa and flooded the airwaves. Boxer is not popular. We shouldn’t blow the opportunity by nominating someone unelected by California’s electoral reality. Sorry, I would love nothing more than a staunch, Jim DeMint-type Senator for California, but it’s just not going to happen.

This is the same error that lead to RINO Ah-nold as Gov.
Did it help the GOP?

I dont think RINOs who dont stand for the principles of the party stand a chance either.

Marriage proponents oppose Campbell:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14680450?nclick_check=1

“A conservative would have lost by even more against Feinstein. Campbell was swampped because he had no money and Feinstein is popular in Californa and flooded the airwaves. Boxer is not popular.”

RINOs wont get any money in 2010. We have stopped funding hte NSRC thanks to RINO support... only candidates that the base likes will get money.

Campbell is weak candidate actually.
Fiorina isn’t much better and has weird ads, but woman v woman may help.

“I would love nothing more than a staunch, Jim DeMint-type Senator for California”

Than VOTE for one DAMMIT!
Sorry, but you need to vote for someone to represent YOU, and not try to triangulate to satisfy the sorry squishy voters who are too ignorant to agree with you.

How could Campbell have no money? He’s a squishy moderate type the RINOs love to fund. “He can win!” Oh yeah, and Matt Fong too, another squishy moderate (and he’s a minority, whoopee!), lost to that unpopular Boxer too.

Reality is what you make it. Keep voting for leftists in Republican clothing with false promises of winning and watch California sink even further than it already has by putting up these allegedly winnable “moderates.”

Keep putting these candidates up that screwed us in the latter years of the Bush administration that lead to the public having NO CONFIDENCE in the GOP practicing what they preach and electing Marxists like Obama. As if there hasn’t been enough of an exodus to third parties or non-affiliations, why let’s keep pushing these backstabbers to our contitutional rights, civil liberties, personal and fiscal responsibilty and see how that keeps turning out. Keep nominating empty-suited Schwarzenegger types who flash around money (Carly) or flash around faux fiscal conservative credentials (Campbell), and you’ll deserve what you get.

Stand for something instead of nothing.

Don’t imply I stand for nothing. I’m a staunch conservative. My being pragmatic and recognizing political reality doesn’t change that. I’d rather have a plate of 80% of what I want and 20% of what I don’t than a full plate of Barbara Boxer bullsh-t. Sorry, but this is California. You are not living in the land of reality if you think a strong conservative can win a statewide race. You cite Campbell and Fong as some evidence more moderate Republicans can’t win either. In both cases the RNC screwed them by withholding funds from their races. Feinstein and Boxer swampped them both with money and ads. The same will happen with Devore who won’t have the money to compete. Fiorna who is a solid economic conservative has a personal fortune she can bring down Boxer with. This is the hand we’ve been dealt in California. We can sit around wishing for better and never win a hand, or we can get real and play the cards that have been dealt us and not cry that it’s not 4 aces.

Than VOTE for one DAMMIT! Sorry, but you need to vote for someone to represent YOU, and not try to triangulate to satisfy the sorry squishy voters who are too ignorant to agree with you.

Sorry, not realistic in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. We can win with a Scott Brown type Republican. We cannot win with a nobody like Chuck Devore who takes a political posture more appropriate to Idaho than to California's political reality. My voting for a Jim Demint type isn't going to change anything in the general election because I'm well to the right of where most of my fellow Californians are. The unforunate reality is this state is politically dysfunctional and Jim Demint would be lucky to win 25% of the vote here. It's sad, but that's what's real. So we adapt to the political reality by going with candidates who can win rather than with our pipe dreams that will never come to pass until there's a massive population churn in this state. So I'd rather take a plate of 80% of what I want than a plate filled with 100% of what I don't.

And I might ad, being as Fiorna can win here she brings us one step closer to regaining the Senate majority. I think that’s probably worth the price of a few cross over votes with Dems, esp. considering Boxer would be voting with the Dems 100% of the time.

You want to fold aces and vote for that Joker Fiorina, you go ahead, just don’t expect me to follow along in your folly. Fiorina will be exposed for the empty-suit she is and her house of cards will fall.

You’ll deserve what you get with your so-called pragmatism.

Sorry, but Chuck Devore isn’t 4 aces. 4 aces is a near sure winning hand. He is a near sure LOSING hand. Fiorna may not win either, but she at least has a realistic shot at it and has plenty of $$$ to bring to bear against Boxer. That’s a huge advantage in a state like California where campaigns are won or lost on TV. Boxer wouldn’t even have to break a sweat with Chuck Devore. She can just spend the campaign season harranguing generals and black Chamber of Commerce members. Again, better a plate of 80% of what you don’t want than a plate of 100% of what you don’t want. What makes you so sure Fiorna would be some sort of liberal anyway? She’s likely to be more conservative than Scott Brown.

“Than VOTE for one DAMMIT! Sorry, but you need to vote for someone to represent YOU, and not try to triangulate to satisfy the sorry squishy voters who are too ignorant to agree with you.

Sorry, not realistic in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.”

Duh ... it’s completely realistic. In fact, that 2 to 1 Dem advantage is largely related tothe Cali GOP’s fear of good conservative candidates. They undercut real conservatives and dont we your guy may not win, but voting for the candidate that represents YOU is the only ‘realistic’ thing about votes.

“We cannot win with a nobody like Chuck Devore who takes a political posture more appropriate to Idaho than to California’s political reality.”

California loses when it doesnt have politicians like that, rescuing the state from stupid legislators.

“So we adapt to the political reality by going with candidates who can win” Fiorina?!? her campaign is bizarre. Campbell?!?

I believe that Boxer will continue to fade. I was happy to see Campbell pull within 2 points of Boxer. Campbell has the ability to raise more money, but Fiorina and DeVore will make strong candidates. Keep in mind that many of those polled on the phones could very well be illegals who can't vote anyway.

I’m ultimately going to support Fiorna. Though Campbell may appear by the polling to be the strongest candidate now, I think Fiorna has more long term potential. She has the money to compete and get herself better known whereas I think Campbell is going to struggle for money throughout the campaign. I just have a real sense he’ll fade over time whereas I think Fiorna has real potential to move up. In other words, I think Campbell has maybe hit the ceiling on his numbers whereas Fiorna has room, and money, to grow. She also has media savvy I think Campbell lacks. He’s a little academic and I think will not wear well with voters over time. In addition, I think our running a female candidate provides an advantage in having potential to draw female voters away from Boxer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.