GOP poll finds Blackburn margin shrinking against Bredesen

A political action committee that supports Republican Marsha Blackburn finds just a 3 percentage point margin between the congresswoman and Democrat Phil Bredesen in the U.S. Senate race.

That’s a drop from a 5-point advantage when the Committee to Defend the President polled the race in February, and a 9-point lead in December, The Tennessean reports. Both of those earlier polls also had Blackburn with more than 40% support.

PAC spokeswoman Amanda Head nevertheless declared “the future is still looking bright” for Blackburn.

“We will do whatever it takes to defend President Trump’s agenda from left-wing attacks and help Marsha as she prepares to support our president in the Senate,” she said.

The committee formerly known as the Stop Hillary PAC has said it plans to spend $1 million on TV and digital ads and to provide staff to help campaign for Blackburn.

The most recent poll of 551 likely voters was conducted over course of three days starting on July 9. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.


17 Responses to GOP poll finds Blackburn margin shrinking against Bredesen

  • James White says:

    Marsha’s voting records prove she is Deep State and controlled by the $$$Lobby$$$ and GOP party bosses.
    Anybody but Marsha !

  • Stuart I. Anderson says:

    Bredesen is the only candidate actively running thus far so there’s only one side of the story that’s getting out to low information voters whose attention, such as it is, is focused on the governor’s race. I have every confidence that after the primary Marsha will begin a deconstruction of Bredesen which will end in this race not even being close by November.

    • Tennessee Jed says:

      Stuart, I don’t think that will change much. If this year was one where the Dems weren’t fielding a viable Governor candidate, I would agree. But a Dean vs. whoever emerges victorious, is going to eat up a lot of attention that won’t go to the Senate race.

      Blackburn (aka D.C. Diane Part II) should fire her campaign manager. She is going to arrive in the general fighting to establish herself outside of her district. She needed to establish herself earlier on in the campaign and give conservatives something to be excited about in a likely blue wave year.

      At this point, I think her campaign strategy is going to have to be a “don’t give the dems the majority” hail mary. It worked for Trump and a Supreme Court seat, so you never know. But she has an uphill battle with independents who across years of election cycles have a tendency to vote the opposition party as a check on the president.

      • James White says:

        Tennessee Jed, I was in Marsha’s district for years, until they redistricted my county out (wonder who did that ?). Her Neocon DeepState lobby bosses are well known in her district, so that may be a problem for her !

        • Tennessee Jed says:

          Maybe that is their strategy. Hope people outside of her district blindly vote for the “(R)” and are never made aware of her swampiness

  • Christina Norris says:

    Bredesen runs as a Democrat but serves as an Independent. He will crush Marsha, the Trump ideologue.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Which is exactly what Marsha will say Christiana. She will point out that there are two “Independents” in the U. S. Senate, Bernie Sanders who is a self-styled socialist from Vermont, and Angus King of Main whose lifetime voting record finds him voting liberal over 90% of the time.

      Oh, by the way, did you notice that Trump won Tennessee with ease so as to the Tennessee electorate, to paraphrase Billy Joel, it just might be a “Trump ideologue” they’re looking for. Please Christina, don’t bet too much on a Bredesen victory. He probably can afford to lose a lot of money on this race more easily than you.

    • William Upton says:

      That was as Governor with a Republican control state congress. Should he be elected to the Senate in Washington he will be Shumers boy. So what Bredesen may be saying now to get elected is not what he’ll do if elected.

    • Silence Dogood says:

      As HRC said, (paraphrasing) “there is my public face where I say what I have to say to keep the deplorable’s stupid and in the dark, and then there is my private face about how I really feel (if you will pay me enough)”. And no Independent will win this state. Folks we are in the PRIMARY season. Relax, the game has not started for the Senate seat, yet.

  • Bob Fischer says:

    Frankly, I wouldn’t want to run as a Trump supporting republican in the fall. How do you explain to a Tennessean you value your duty to Russia over your duty to America.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Actually I don’t think too many “Trump supporting [R]epublicans” will have any need to explain something so nonsensical. It is only the hopelessly partisan anti-Trump fanatics who think the President, who obviously attempts to make “America first” such a part and parcel of everything he does, feels any duty to any country other than the United States, much less Russia.

      Bob, I think it would be useful if you kept in mind that Pres. Trump won a convincing victory both in the Republican Presidential Primary and the general election here in Tennessee during 2016 and while you may very well find yourself in one of those relatively few liberal ghettos that we do have in this state, generally you are very far to the left of the average Tennessean. While I have no doubt that you “. . .wouldn’t want to run as a Trump supporting republican (sic) in the fall” I assure you that the vast majority of Republican candidates in this state are competing as to who can more closely be identified with Trump and his largely successful policies.

      I think it would instructive if you kept your eye on what I hope are the last days of the Randy! Boyd campaign. Randy!, the most liberal candidate in Republican gubernatorial primary race, who started out as a “Never Trump” type in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign now does everything he can to establish his Trumpian bona-fides every chance he gets in these, the waning days of his campaign.

      I can relate as to how difficult it must be to live in a state in which you are so out of step with the majority of residents politically. In that way you do have my sympathy.

  • Bob Fischer says:

    I feel worse about our position as the state with the lowest voter turnout and bottom five educational system that I do Trump’s margin of victory. I would deal with the root causes of our apathetic and ill-informed electorate. The Russians wouldn’t be able to keep people like you on the payroll in this state if people would actually research your claims.

    • Donna Locke says:

      Gee, Bob, when I was growing up, California had the best public school systems in the country. Now they are the worst. How did that happen, do you think? My old high school here in Tennessee was excellent when I went there. Now it’s so bad, it’s horrifying. What happened, do you think?

      My husband spent 42 years in public education as a high school teacher and an elementary school principal. We know what happened.

  • Bob Fischer says:

    Political writer Fintan O’Toole wrote this in the Irish Times
    “To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialled is fascism – a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget “post-fascist” – what we are living with is pre-fascism.
    It is easy to dismiss Donald Trump as an ignoramus, not least because he is. But he has an acute understanding of one thing: test marketing. He created himself in the gossip pages of the New York tabloids, where celebrity is manufactured by planting outrageous stories that you can later confirm or deny depending on how they go down. And he recreated himself in reality TV where the storylines can be adjusted according to the ratings. Put something out there, pull it back, adjust, go again.
    Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.
    One of the basic tools of fascism is the rigging of elections – we’ve seen that trialled in the election of Trump, in the Brexit referendum and (less successfully) in the French presidential elections. Another is the generation of tribal identities, the division of society into mutually exclusive polarities.
    Fascism does not need a majority – it typically comes to power with about forty percent support and then uses control and intimidation to consolidate that power. So it doesn’t matter if most people hate you, as long as your forty percent is fanatically committed. That’s been tested out too.
    And fascism of course needs a propaganda machine so effective that it creates for its followers a universe of “alternative facts” impervious to unwanted realities. Again, the testing for this is very far advanced.
    But when you’ve done all this, there is a crucial next step, usually the trickiest of all. You have to undermine moral boundaries, inure people to the acceptance of acts of extreme cruelty. Like hounds, people have to be blooded. They have to be given the taste for savagery.
    Fascism does this by building up the sense of threat from a despised out-group. This allows the members of that group to be dehumanised. Once that has been achieved, you can gradually up the ante, working through the stages from breaking windows to extermination.
    People have to be given the taste for savagery. Fascism does this by building up the sense of threat from a despised out-group.
    It is this next step that is being test-marketed now. It is being done in Italy by the far-right leader and minister for the interior Matteo Salvini. How would it go down if we turn away boatloads of refugees? Let’s do a screening of the rough-cut of registering all the Roma and see what buttons the audience will press. And it has been trialled by Trump: let’s see how my fans feel about crying babies in cages. I wonder how it will go down with Rupert Murdoch.
    To see, as most commentary has done, the deliberate traumatisation of migrant children as a “mistake” by Trump is culpable naivety. It is a trial run – and the trial has been a huge success. Trump’s claim last week that immigrants “infest” the US is a test-marketing of whether his fans are ready for the next step-up in language, which is of course “vermin”.
    And the generation of images of toddlers being dragged from their parents is a test of whether those words can be turned into sounds and pictures. It was always an experiment – it ended (but only in part) because the results were in.
    And the results are quite satisfactory. There is good news on two fronts. First, Rupert Murdoch is happy with it – his Fox News mouthpieces outdid themselves in barbaric crassness: making animal noises at the mention of a Down syndrome child, describing crying children as actors. They went the whole swinish hog: even the brown babies are liars. Those sobs of anguish are typical of the manipulative behaviour of the strangers coming to infest us – should we not fear a race whose very infants can be so devious?
    Second, the hardcore fans loved it: Fifty-eight percent of Republicans are in favour of this brutality. Trump’s overall approval ratings are up to 42.5 per cent.
    This is greatly encouraging for the pre-fascist agenda. The blooding process has begun within the democratic world. The muscles that the propaganda machines need for defending the indefensible are being toned up. Millions and millions of Europeans and Americans are learning to think the unthinkable.
    So what if those black people drown in the sea? So what if those brown toddlers are scarred for life? They have already, in their minds, crossed the boundaries of morality. They are, like Macbeth, “yet but young in deed”. But the tests will be refined, the results analysed, the methods perfected, the messages sharpened. And then the deeds can follow.”
    Let us protect our freedom with all our democratic power, and continue to be brave with everything we must face.”

    • Donna Locke says:

      So you vote for national suicide by inundation? What hope is there for humanity if the United States and Europe are weakened and destroyed? Does it ever occur to you that evil mutates, changes form, and uses whatever tools are at its disposal, but it is the same force we have faced before, intent on control and destruction?

      The United States is the most generous nation on this planet. We are being taken advantage of by forces with an agenda. We cannot save everyone, but we can go down trying. We have enemies, and in the future we may ally with current enemies against a common enemy.

      • Bob Fischer says:

        National suicide by inundation? Surely you can’t be serious.

        If we’ve reached the point where political asylum for refugees from countries we have destabilized is not an option, perhaps we should be rethinking foreign policy.

        And no, that doesn’t mean capitulating to the Russians

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *