Isakson leads generic Democrat, doesn’t break 50%

Rasmussen has poll results out today in Johnny Isakson’s bid for re-election to the United States Senate against a generic Democratic opponent. The results would probably give cause for concern if there was a Democrat running that could beat him:

The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of the Georgia Senate race finds Isakson earning 49% of the vote against an unnamed generic Democratic candidate who picks up the support of 36% of likely voters. Given that match-up, four percent (4%) like some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.

Rasmussen Reports chose to pit Isakson against a generic candidate because there is as yet no major Democratic challenger in the Georgia Senate race. But it is significant to note that any incumbent who polls at less than 50% at this stage of the campaign is considered potentially vulnerable.

Like I mentioned, Democrats don’t have anyone on the bench that can step up and challenge Isakson. If someone could talk Poythress or Porter to change races or even Michael Thurmond to consider running against Isakson, they may have a shot.

Isakson’s favorability rating is high among conservatives, which is just more evidence that conservatives like big government Republican candidates that support entitlements, bailouts and Keynesian economics.

At this point, the declared candidates against Isakson are RJ Hadley, a Democrat from Rockdale County, and Chuck Donovan, a Libertarian from Cobb County.

As an aside, after looking through the crosstabs, there is a shift in the strong opinions of Gov. Sonny Perdue. More voters now “strongly disapprove” of him than “strongly approve.”


  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Looks like “Generic,” “Undecided,” or “Some other Candidate” could make for a powerful ticket this election.

    • seenbetrdayz says:


      And it wouldn’t be far from the truth, because all candidates themselves seem to be generic, undecided, or someone other than who they say they are when campaigning.

  2. MaconCountyBluedog says:

    Poythress is in the governor’s race to stay. That’s a given. Thurmond should have ran for the senate in 2008, but most likely will run for Lt. Governor, but I would rather see him run against Saxby Chambliss in 2014.

    It’s RJ Hadley, or bust for the democrats

  3. Republican Lady says:

    Maybe Isakson will pay more attention to voters if his position becomes vunerable. In watching Nancy Pelosi a few minutes on a TV interview, she said there is no time to revamp the health care policy and they need to make changes that are more acceptable. I think she is wrong, that the American voters would rather have a solid plan over the upcoming year rather than some bandaids to make something work over the short-term.

    What say you?

    • polisavvy says:

      I’ve been watching the health care summit on TV and it’s really a dog fight, in my opinion. From what I have been reading about the health care proposals, it’s no wonder that most Americans are very concerned. There are going to end up being so many ways for Constitutional challenges to come up that whatever is passed is going to be difficult to see the light of day. As for Pelosi, well she’s just Pelosi — if what they are going to continue to propose stands, the changes are not going to be acceptable. There needs to be health care reform (i.e., tort reform), but not what’s going on now, in my opinion.

      • polisavvy says:

        As an aside, about Pelosi, she is actually alleging that 400,000 jobs will be created almost immediately. She said,”It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” How? Growing government? This whole thing is starting to really reek!

      • kyleinatl says:

        Tort reform hasn’t brought down healthcare costs in Georgia at all, and we’ve had it for quite some time.

        What makes you think it’ll work nationally? Other than it’s just the go-to Republican talking point.

        • polisavvy says:

          Just because it hasn’t worked in Georgia yet does not mean that it has not worked in other states and would not work for the country. Take Texas, for example: According to Rick Perry, “In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put “tort reform” on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patient’s damages was the answer to his state’s problems.” If properly implemented, it can work. Further, don’t you think that if the American Medical Association feels that reducing liability for doctors would not save money on health care as a whole, then it should be implemented in the health care bill Congress is debating? The AMA said, “If the bill doesn’t have medical liability reform in it, then we don’t see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs.” The operative wording is “controlling costs.” Doesn’t that make sense?

          I heard them say on the news that if this health care plan is crammed down our throats that the average health care insurance for individuals is going up 10 to 15 percent. We presently pay $1500 a month for insurance on my husband and me. You don’t think that an extra $150 or more is not going to be painful, especially with work slow in the construction business which is our bread and butter? Think about it. As for your “go-to Republican talking point,” if it’s going to hurt us, it’s going to hurt everyone else who has health insurance if an increase like that goes into effect — Democrats have insurance, too.

          • Progressive Dem says:


            The CBO says that group insurance premiums will not change significantly (some large policies may drop 1-2% and some smaller group plands would increse 1-2%). Individual policy rates will fall by 14-20% for identical policies. However most people with individual policies will purchase better policies and the extra coverage will eat up the savings.

            The CBO says the malpractice reform will save o.5% ($11 billion) of federal spending on medical costs. It just isn’t a significant amount and it limits your individual rights. If you thought your child was the victim of malpractice, and they were permantly disabled, would you want the State of Texas to establish the damages?

            • kyleinatl says:

              additionally, who is to say what you deserve in terms of non-economic damages if you’re the victim of malpractice?

              Say the doctor I have removes the wrong kidney? I have to say, that lost kidney is worth a heck of alot more than 2500 dollars.

              Also, here’s a pretty good synthesis report from 2006 about tort reform and its lack of effect on healthcare costs and physician supply from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation…yes I’m sure someone will scream bias, but it’s got good hard numbers as this debate has been raging on for years.

              • kyleinatl says:

                And speaking of clear bias, the AMA is not who you want to quote when it comes to tort reform…no one has more to benefit from that aspect of reform than the physicians that the AMA represents. That doesn’t mean it translates into positive outcomes for patients, it just saves the doctors more money at the end of the day.

    • IndyInjun says:

      Maybe Isakson will pay more attention to voters if his position becomes vunerable

      No he won’t.

      Calls were running 100:1 against his vote for TARP and he voted for it anyway. He made a bunch of declarations defending the vote that immediately turned out to be laughably untrue.

      To his credit, he admits now that he voted for a blank check and that the money was not even spent on the purchase of toxic assets.

      He and Chambliss were suckered into voting for a $700 billion blank check. They did not even make sure there were controls to make sure that refunded TARP monies could not be respent, resulting in Obama being able to use TARP repayments as a giant uncontrolled spending kitty.

      Even worse was that they put the unspent money on autopilot so the Dems had little trouble reauthorizing it after Obama took office.

      If that isn’t an epic failure and one deserving of criticism, I don’t know what is.

      WOW. $700 billion that HAD to be spent and didn’t. Controls that were supposed to be in place and weren’t.

      $700 billion is more than the GDP of 90% of the nations on earth.

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        I don’t agree with the way TARP was done and I am against most bailouts. I would have never supported TARP the way it was done. Had there been a guarantee that banks had to use “x” percent of the money on residential or small business loans, along with a preplanned payback time table and interest going back into the treasury, that would have been better. There are other things that should/could have been done with TARP differently.

        That being said, do you have access to Johnny’s calls? 100 to 1? How do you know it wasn’t 102 to 1? Or 5 to 1? or 1 to 1?

        • polisavvy says:

          Wonderful point, GOPGeorgia. There should have been a stipulation on making money available for small businesses and residential. Because no such stipulation was placed, it is next to impossible for people to get home improvement or new construction loans (I know because that’s what’s affecting my husband’s business). It seems like there was no real thought process involved. Just give it out and see what happens. I think we have all seen. The result is not pretty.

        • IndyInjun says:

          Well when googled 100:1 came up more than 2000 times. Some sites say it was 300:1. The heat was so intense the entire GA house GOP delegation voted against it, with John Barrow.

          All spending bills are supposed to originate in the House and the Senate corrupted the process with an act of dubious constitutionality by appending TARP to a bill that had passed the House and was awaiting Senate approval. KIND OF LIKE WHAT ALL THE HELL IS BEING RAISED THIS WEEK ABOUT BY OBAMA DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH THE HEALTH CARE BILL!!!!

          Isakson and the GOP corrupts the process and its OK. Obama does it and all hell breaks loose.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            When I googled “calls to Isakson on TARP 100 to 1” the first link was the MDJ which had this quote: “The best I can tell, every bank that has received TARP money is paying it back at a 5-percent dividend,” Isakson said, so taxpayers are making a profit.

            In other words, you read it on the internet somewhere so it must be true.

        • Ramblinwreck says:

          Where can I find the Republican principle on any of the “what we believe” GOP sites that would permit any Republican to be in favor of any bailout?

          Re where does the 100:1 figure come from? I got it from one of Saxby’s campaign staff after they voted in 2008 who told me the figure was the same for both of Georgia’s “conservative” Senators.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            Unless you are sock puppeting as Indy (which I doubt very much), you didn’t come up with the 100 to 1 quote in this thread. However, you can confirm it because you heard it from an unnamed staffer over a year ago. Got it.

            As for your first topic, we both know that it doesn’t exist. I don’t agree with them on that vote, but I think they give us better service than Jim Martin would or Max Cleland did.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    Isakson’s voting record would make him cannon fodder if only fractionally publicized.

    I don’t think a lot of his ‘loyal’ supporters could stomach it.

    He is a very nice man and I really hate what is going to happen to him if he gets another term.

    Johnny, if you read this, think about Evan Bayh. Go ask him why he is leaving.

    Do the same thing. Don’t do it for Georgia. Do it for Johnny.

    The folks you followed lead you disastrously astray and you remain horribly off-course.

    You make old Indy very, very sad.

  5. Icarus says:

    Isakson has been taking his re-election seriously the entire time he’s been in D.C.

    He never dismantled his campaign team, nor did he quit coming home and doing the rubber chicken circuit.

    I think Tyler is working on a post from Johnny’s events from last weekend, but he’s meeting with the Tea Party folks, and addressing his detractors head on. He assumes nothing, nor takes anything for granted.

    Unlike Saxby, who ignored warning signes and blew millions on commercials with 6 year old B-roll and circus music (thanks again, Tom Perdue), Johnny is willing to face his critics and defend himself.

    It may not be a cakewalk, but Johnny wins handily in 2010.

    • Republican Lady says:


      Can you do a PP poll on how voters rank the issues, who they think can effectively address the issues, and give space for voters to give opinions on solutions to the issues? Or if not a poll, then discussion/solutions to specific problems facing Georgians?

      Just a thought.

    • RuralDem says:


      It sounds as if you’re saying that Isakson has done nothing BUT focused on being re-elected since he’s been in office.

      That’s not exactly a good thing…..

      • Icarus says:

        I’m not saying that at all. We’ve had Senators before that went to Washington, and came back 5 years later and said “remember me”. I’ve written in great detail over my time here about Isakson’s legislative actitivities, and Johnny’s prepared to run on his record.

        The campaign staff is separate, as are the campaign activities. But he’s not having to do a “remember me” tour because he’s remained active throughout Georgia during his term in the Senate.

  6. IndyInjun says:

    He never dismantled his campaign team, nor did he quit coming home and doing the rubber chicken circuit.

    And that is precisely what is wrong with him.

    He has not been serious about the matter of governing.

    • Icarus says:

      See above. Just because he hasn’t jumped aboard your “we’re all doomed” train doesn’t mean he hasn’t been serious about governing. Quite the contrary, Isakson has a record he’ll be glad to remind voters of, and real accomplishment.

      Preservation of pension benefits for Delta employees and home buyer tax credits cheif among them. I know you disagree with his approach, but you can’t say he wasn’t serious about his agenda. Though you probably will.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        That’ll make me feel a lot better when I go work for Delta until the day I’m ready to retire. I’m glad that is among Johnny’s proudest achievements.

        But be warned, I won’t be the sexiest looking stewardess.

        Can we get back to promoting the General Welfare in this country, or is that not part of Isakson’s agenda?

        • Icarus says:

          Had Isakson done nothing, the Pension Guarantee Benefit Corporation (which means you, the taxpayer) would be paying Delta’s pensioners right now, and current employees would have no pension plan.

          Isakson fought both Senate leadership and the Bush administration to change the rules to allow an underfunded pension from 3 year to 7 years.

          Guess what? That was over 3 years ago. And the taxpayers aren’t out a dime, Pensions are being paid, and employees still have a pension to look forward to.

          • IndyInjun says:

            January 05, 2007 – The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) today announced that it has become trustee of the Delta Air Lines Inc. Pilots Retirement Plan, taking over the responsibility for paying pension benefits to more than 13,000 active and retired pilots.

            The Isakson bailout bill passed in November 2005. While the rest of Delta’s pensions were not turned over to PBGC, it is quite a deception in the case of the Pilot’s pension to say the PBGC did not end up with liabilility.

            It is also a deception to say that no public funds were at risk as the PBGC, like FDIC, is looking fund depletion dead in the eye.

            Nice try, but you missed.

          • Icarus says:

            Except that the Delta Airlines Pilot Pension plan was an Airline Pilots Association plan, not a Delta plan. The pilots did that to themselves, by insisting they have their own plan instead of being in with the commoners who worked for the airline.

            The bill did what it was supposed to do. The pilots knew they were taking their plan down years before they did it. Got to love the union.

          • Icarus says:

            It might not be a big deal to you in Augusta, Indy, but go down to South Metro where I’m from, and its a huge deal. Prior to 9/11, more than 10% of Delta’s world wide employees lived in Fayette County alone. That was more than 10% of the county’s population, as well.

            When I grew up down there, about 1/3 of my friends were Delta kids, and about 1/3 were Delta kids. I got to see as I went to college what happened when Eastern went away, and the struggles to local communities as Delta has struggled have been tremendous.

            The voters in South Metro Atlanta very much appreciate this act that seems trivial to some. And every taxpayer should appreciate it, as it kept the burden off of them.

            • IndyInjun says:

              And every taxpayer should appreciate it, as it kept the burden off of them.

              No it didn’t. Stretching out the contributions put a much greater risk of default at some point after the payment stream was reduced. How many banks would give that same deal under those terms without additional cost. As you noted, the public stands behind PBGC and weakening the contribution stream increases risk, without reward, to the taxpayer.

              Yes, I know everybody these days wants a government check and a bailout. EVERYONE.

              Under Johnny’s modus operandi, debt is no problem so we can just pay 100% of the US population not to work. Its a perfect world. Borrowing has no costs.

              In a nutshell this is the reason the GOP deserves to die. Its officeholders and partisans pay no attention whatsoever to fiscal responsibility and are every bit as much to blame for this Depression as the Democrats.

              The Tea Partiers are absolutely right about the GOP and its incumbents.

              Johnny by his voting record is a very fine Democrat.

              He is in the wrong party.

              Or I am. Stupid me for believing “Republicans” had one iota of principles left.

              • Icarus says:

                Except for the fact Indy, that the bill was passed in 2005, as you noted above. The extension was from 3 to 7 years. How many years has it been since 2005 Indy?

                Even if Delta’s pension plan were to shut down tomorrow, it is far more solvent today than it was in 2005.

                Isakson’s plan saved the taxpayers money, and they will continue to get an additional return off the income taxes the pensioners will pay on those pensions.

                • IndyInjun says:


                  As has been noted on several threads lately, pensions of all stripes are in very deep trouble, because the closer safe returns get to zero, the more the present value reaches to infinity.

                  I am glad your friends got bailed out, but what of the millions of Georgians who have 401k’s?

                  They are going to be taxed to confer pensions of $50 grand to airline pilots, airline execs and employees of failed business enterprises bailed out by the government.

                  You cannot say the airline bailout saved the taxpayers anything when the long term prognosis has long been that these pensions get thrown on the PBGC.

                  If I were Johnny I wouldn’t be highlighting his pension bailouts going around the state because it will be an instant reminder to most that THEY have no guaranteed pension.

      • IndyInjun says:

        I will.

        Less than a year after the last Delta bailout, the Delta pilots pension plan was dumped on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, so the only “success” was a savings of $tens of millions that the Isakson rule change created for DELTA.

        As for the housing credit, the taxpayer has taken a real hosing.

        Home buyer tax credit fraud called ‘disturbing’

        Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George told a House panel that more than 19,000 people filed 2008 tax returns claiming the credit for homes they had not yet purchased. George said his office had identified another $500 million in claims, by some 74,000 taxpayers, where there were indications of prior home ownership.

        Aside from the rampant fraud, the $40 billion was essentially borrowed from China.

        This is about as fiscally irresponsible as it gets.

        Johnny is Senator Bailout and he is costing Georgians their futures because of his avalanche of unfunded spending.

        • Icarus says:

          The pilots pension plan was administered by ALPA, and not Delta. The legislation Isakson sponsored and passed was to protect Delta’s other, mostly non-union employees. Delta wanted to keep offering its employees pensions, and Isakson made sure they were able to do that without the burden being dumped on the taxpayers.

          As for anyone who defrauded the goverment by claiming a tax credit they didn’t qualify for, there’s a paper trail on every one of those transactions. Prosecute them.

          Try again.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            I guess the prosecution is going to cost money, as well?

            This is like giving a violent street gang a truck load of assault weapons bought with taxpayer dollars, and then having to charge the taxpayers more to prosecute the gangmembers when they start committing armed robberies.

            Somehow we’re supposed to thank the government for coming in and saving the day? Gee, uh, thanks.

          • IndyInjun says:

            Money is fungible and Delta saved a boatload via bailout while it was underfunding the pilot’s pension.

            This is very Isakson like. Earlier in the month he was claiming that the TARP money, that he voted for against 100:1 voter opposition in September 2008, has been paid back.

            For starters, the money has not been paid back.

            2 weeks ago the TARP Inspector General dismissed the notion that TARP has been “paid back” pointing to the use of other bailout facilities to fund the TARP ‘repayments.’ In the case of Citibank, Obama’s bunch allowed an unprecedented IRS ruling to allow Citi to have enormous tax benefits in exchange for paying back TARP.

            Isakson and his cronies are robbing us all to pay off Wall Street crooks.

            Look at where his contributions are coming from.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            It wouldn’t be so bad if, in the boom cycles, these programs would be phased out, due to their inherently short-term, bandaid-esque nature. Yet, no one wants to see these programs go. Things like the PGBC create a form of moral hazard, and when the weather is fair and votes are up for sale to whomever plays Santa Claus, Isakson puts on the red suit and jumps into the sleigh. Then, when the problems become dreadfully apparent, he goes back to the North Pole to devise more ‘fixes.’

      • IndyInjun says:

        “Just because he hasn’t jumped aboard your “we’re all doomed” train “

        Aw, come on. You put words in my mouth. I think there is a tremendous reason for hope and that the situation is hopeless only if we keep the policies of two mad spending senators.

        Johnny has wracked up $trillions in debt with his votes. He never voted “no” on spending until Obama took office.

        Johnny is the one DC pol I think I would enjoy being around but he is nearly dead last on the list of folks I would let anywhere near my money.

        • Icarus says:

          I’m not going to search the comments now, but you know they’re there. A year ago, you said there was no hope, and nothing could be done. Only when you realized that made everyone discount your entire argument – after all, why bother if there’s no hope – did you start saying there is hope, while still not offering actual solutions.

          Except that, last year your solution was to re-elect Barrow, wasn’t it?

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          I don’t think he was putting words in your mouth. I think he was trying to describe what was coming out of it.

          “Just because he hasn’t jumped aboard your “we’re all doomed” train “

          Funny quote.

  7. Progressive Dem says:

    The fact that Isakson only polls at 50% against essentially anybody that fogs a mirror is evidence the election cycle is simply more of an anti-incumbant year than an anti-Democrat year. Republicans are crazy if they think the voters are endorsing conservative or Republican concepts. Voters are angry about the economy and want action and change from the old way of Washington working.

    When people are polled about individual components of the Senate healthcare bill, the bill is overwhelmingly favorable. When they are polled about the process and the entire bill, support declines. People want to see action on healthcare. They want to see their government function and they are sick of each party pointing fingers at the other.

    Isakson is still going to win, and while it may not be a cake walk, he’ll barely break a sweat.

    • polisavvy says:

      I agree with you Progressive, people are sick to death of all the bickering and the spinning of wheels going on in Washington. Enough is enough and I believe that we, the people, are making that sentiment crystal clear. There are a good many incumbents from both sides of the aisle that should be more than a little concerned about their own political future.

  8. old political pro says:

    There’s no question Johnny is safe despite what some small group of inexperienced hacks on here think.

    • IndyInjun says:

      I have not read any comments that suggest that Isakson will lose as things now stand.

      HOWEVER, his actual voting record is indefensible when laid alongside what the REPUBLICAN PARTY has set forth as its guiding principles.

      “Hacks” usually applies to those who vote because of payola, perceived personal gain, or candidate affinity apart from adherence to principles.

      If you are looking for a hack, one will look back next time you are in front of a mirror.

      Anyone is welcome to debate Isakson’s record with me, because that is the basis of my opposition to him, but to come on here like a juvenile calling names that fit you instead diminishes your credibility to “de minimis.”

      I didn’t make the rules I hold Johnny too. He and his party did.

      Please direct me to where they were changed and I will quit posting that Isakson isn’t a Republican.

  9. GOPGeorgia says:

    Johnny is safe unless something really strange happens…..and it would have to be very strange because I can’t think of a way for it to happen. He will be at the top of the ticket in a red state and he has a big war chest that will get bigger. If polls meant that much, President Thompson would have defeated Hillary in the general in 08.

  10. ZazaPachulia says:

    you think Ox or Real.Deal. would consider flipping parties again and run against Johnny? Or even better, maybe both will…

    wishful thinking…

  11. BillinSuwanee says:

    I-SUCK-son can not win against a Democrap. He’s soiled diapers. I-SUCK-son voted YEA for;

    Patriot Act
    Medicare Prescription Drug Act
    No Child Left Behind
    Homeland Security

    I-SUCK-son even voted to spend the dollars of Georgians for HIV prevention around the world including condoms for “Rump Rangers”, that would be gay men, and prostitutes – female condoms.

    I-SUCK-son also voted to raise the debt ceiling to >$10 trillion.

    I-SUCK-son is a Liberal in Republican Silk. He could win if he ran as a Democrap.

Comments are closed.