2010 United States Senate election in Indiana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2010 United States Senate election in Indiana took place on November 2, 2010, alongside 33 other elections to the United States Senate in other states and elections to the United States House of Representatives and various state and local elections to fill Indiana's class III United States Senate seat. Incumbent Democratic Senator Evan Bayh decided in February 2010 to retire instead of seeking a third term shortly after Dan Coats announced his candidacy.[1] Bayh's announcement came one day before the filing deadline and no Democratic candidate submitted enough signatures by the deadline to run, so the State Democratic Party chose U.S. Congressman Brad Ellsworth as their nominee. The Libertarian Party nominated YMCA instructor Rebecca Sink-Burris, who had previously unsuccessfully run for this seat in 1998. Coats won the open seat, having previously held it from 1989 to 1999. Bayh later unsuccessfully ran for this seat again in 2016.

Quick facts Nominee, Party ...
2010 United States Senate election in Indiana
← 2004
November 2, 2010
2016 →
 
Nominee Dan Coats Brad Ellsworth Rebecca Sink-Burris
Party Republican Democratic Libertarian
Popular vote 952,116 697,775 94,330
Percentage 54.58% 40.00% 5.41%
County results
Coats:      40–50%      50–60%.      60–70%      70–80%
Ellsworth:      40–50%      50–60%
U.S. senator before election

Evan Bayh
Democratic

 Elected U.S. Senator

Dan Coats
Republican

Close

Democratic nomination

Senate candidates in Indiana were required to have submitted 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts by February 16, 2010, one day after Bayh announced his retirement. Democratic leaders thought the popular incumbent would run for reelection, and as a result, no Democratic candidate had submitted the requisite signatures by the deadline to run in the state's primary, meaning that the Indiana Democratic Party's executive committee chose the party's nominee.[2] U.S. congressman Brad Ellsworth was officially selected on May 15.[3]

Republican primary

Candidates

Debates

Endorsements

Coats

Notable Individuals and Organizations endorsing Dan Coats

Hostettler

Notable Individuals and Organizations endorsing John Hostettler

Stutzman

Notable Individuals and Organizations endorsing Marlin Stutzman

Polling

More information Poll Source, Date(s)administered ...
Poll Source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
Error		 Dan
Coats		 John
Hostettler		 Marlin
Stutzman		 Other Undecided
Survey USA (report Archived May 4, 2010, at the Wayback Machine) April 29, 2010 407 ± 5.0% 36% 24% 18% 10% 13%
Close

Results

Results by county:
Coats
  •   60–70%
  •   50–60%
  •   40–50%
  •   <40%
Stutzman
  •   <40%
  •   40–50%
  •   50–60%
  •   60–70%
Hostettler
  •   30–40%
  •   40–50%
  •   50–60%
  •   60–70%
  •   70–80%
More information Party, Candidate ...
Republican Primary results[25]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Dan Coats 217,225 39.5%
Republican Marlin Stutzman 160,981 29.2%
Republican John Hostettler 124,494 22.6%
Republican Don Bates Jr. 24,664 4.5%
Republican Richard Behney 23,005 4.2%
Total votes 550,369 100.0%
Close

General election

Candidates

  • Brad Ellsworth (D), U.S. Representative
  • Dan Coats (R), former U.S. Senator
  • Rebecca Sink-Burris (L), teacher and small business owner

Campaign

After Coats' win in the Republican primary, Ellsworth began to heavily criticize Coats for his ties to lobbyists. He called for more disclosure of the meetings lawmakers have with lobbyists, banning congressional staff from lobbying for six years after their congressional jobs, requiring Congress members to put all their investments in blind trusts, more disclosure of Senate candidates' personal financial information, and changes to the U.S. Senate filibuster rules. He proposed lowering number of votes required to break a filibuster to 55 from the current 60.[26] In response to Ellsworth's charges, Coats published his lobbying record in an 815-page document.[27]

Coats emphasized the individual issues rather than ethic reforms advocated by his opponent. He focused on Ellsworth's record of voting in support of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, cap and trade legislation, and health care bill. Coats opinion of the healthcare law was that "the only responsible solution ... is to repeal the Obama-Pelosi-Ellsworth health spending bill and quickly replace it with cost-effective, incremental pieces that will decrease costs, increase coverage and not break the bank."[28]

Debates

The three candidates took part in three televised debates. [29]

  • Monday, October 11, in Indianapolis
  • Friday, October 22, in Fort Wayne
  • Monday, October 25, in Vincennes

Predictions

More information Source, Ranking ...
Source Ranking As of
Cook Political Report[30] Safe R (flip) October 30, 2010
Rothenberg[31] Lean R (flip) October 28, 2010
RealClearPolitics[32] Likely R (flip) October 30, 2010
Sabato's Crystal Ball[33] Likely R (flip) October 28, 2010
CQ Politics[34] Safe R (flip) October 30, 2010
Close

Polling

More information Poll source, Date(s)administered ...
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Dan
Coats (R)		 Brad
Ellsworth (D)		 Other Unde
cided
Rasmussen Reports[35] February 16–17, 2010 500 ± 3.5% 46% 32% 7% 15%
Research 2000[36] February 22–24, 2010 600 ± 4.0% 37% 36% — 27%
Rasmussen Reports[37] March 17–18, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 49% 34% 6% 12%
Rasmussen Reports[38] April 13–14, 2010 500 ± 3.5% 54% 33% 5% 9%
SurveyUSA[39] April 22–26, 2010 407 ± 5.0% 47% 31% — 22%
Rasmussen Reports[40] May 5–6, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 51% 36% 6% 8%
Rasmussen Reports[41] June 2–3, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 47% 33% 7% 14%
Rasmussen Reports[42] July 7–8, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 51% 30% 6% 12%
The Polling Company[43] July 11–15, 2010 502 ± 4.2% 51% 25% — 14%
The Polling Company[44] July 31 – August 3, 2010 502 ± 4.2% 50% 35% — 14%
Rasmussen Reports[45] August 4–7, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 50% 29% 7% 14%
Rasmussen Reports[46] September 14–15, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 50% 34% 8% 9%
WISH-TV/EPIC-MRA[47] September 29 – October 1, 2010 500 ± 4.4% 51% 33% 5% 11%
Rasmussen Reports[48] October 20, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 52% 34% 5% 9%
WISH-TV/EPIC-MRA[49] October 19–21, 2010 500 ± 4.4% 53% 35% 5% 7%
SurveyUSA[50] October 21–25, 2010 1,600 ± 3.0% 54% 32% 7% 3%
Indiana Times[51] October 29, 2010 1,600 ± 3.0% 60% 32% 4% 3%
Rasmussen Reports[52] October 30 – November 1, 2010 1,600 ± 3.0% 60% 39% 4% 3%
Close

Fundraising

More information Candidate (Party), Receipts ...
Candidate (Party) Receipts Disbursements Cash On Hand Debt
Dan Coats (R) $4,408,537 $3,384,413 $1,024,123 $185,500
Brad Ellsworth (D) $2,256,505 $2,369,943 $119,329 $22,726
Rebecca Sink-Burris (L) $7,331 $2,175 $5,351 $0
Source: Federal Election Commission[53]
Close

Results

More information Party, Candidate ...
2010 United States Senate election in Indiana[54]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Dan Coats 952,116 54.58% +17.35%
Democratic Brad Ellsworth 697,775 40.00% −21.65%
Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris 94,330 5.41% +4.28%
Write-in 260 0.01% N/A
Total votes 1,744,481 100.0%
Republican gain from Democratic
Close

Results by county

More information County, Dan Coats Republican ...
County[55] Dan Coats
Republican		 Brad Ellsworth
Democratic		 Rebecca Sink-Burris
Libertarian		 Write-ins Margin Total
Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes %
Adams 6,181 64.9% 2,880 30.2% 465 4.9% 0 0.0% 3,301 34.7% 9,526
Allen 55,454 61.0% 31,347 34.5% 4,125 4.4% 31 0.1% 24,107 26.5% 90,957
Bartholomew 12,243 61.9% 6,492 32.8% 1,035 5.2% 6 0.1% 5,751 31.1% 19,776
Benton 1,432 63.3% 667 29.5% 160 7.1% 2 0.1% 765 33.8% 2,261
Blackford 2,068 53.7% 1,551 40.3% 230 6.0% 0 0.0% 517 13.4% 3,849
Boone 12,773 66.7% 4,944 25.8% 1,419 7.4% 0 0.0% 7,829 40.9% 19,136
Brown 3,201 51.2% 2,608 41.7% 439 7.0% 0 0.0% 593 9.5% 6,248
Carroll 3,566 59.8% 1,883 31.6% 512 8.6% 2 0.0% 1,683 28.2% 5,963
Cass 6,361 58.8% 3,673 34.0% 775 7.2% 2 0.0% 2,688 24.8% 10,811
Clark 17,773 54.5% 13,429 41.2% 1,409 4.3% 2 0.0% 4,344 13.3% 32,613
Clay 4,543 55.4% 3,187 38.9% 465 5.7% 1 0.0% 1,356 16.5% 8,196
Clinton 4,618 62.3% 2,222 30.0% 570 7.7% 2 0.0% 2,396 32.3% 7,412
Crawford 1,803 48.1% 1,755 46.8% 192 5.1% 0 0.0% 48 1.3% 3,750
Daviess 4,690 66.7% 2,061 29.3% 283 4.0% 0 0.0% 2,629 37.4% 7,034
Dearborn 10,589 70.4% 3,776 25.1% 663 4.4% 4 0.1% 6,813 45.3% 15,032
Decatur 4,838 63.3% 2,283 29.9% 526 6.9% 0 0.0% 2,555 33.4% 7,647
DeKalb 7,351 63.9% 3,479 30.2% 671 5.8% 0 0.0% 3,872 33.7% 11,501
Delaware 14,720 48.0% 14,414 47.0% 1,547 5.0% 0 0.0% 306 1.0% 30,681
Dubois 7,059 50.5% 6,344 45.3% 588 4.2% 0 0.0% 715 5.2% 13,991
Elkhart 30,546 66.3% 13,867 30.1% 1,680 3.6% 1 0.0% 16,679 36.2% 46,094
Fayette 3,154 50.2% 2,618 41.7% 511 8.1% 0 0.0% 536 8.5% 6,283
Floyd 14,529 56.5% 10,238 39.8% 944 3.7% 0 0.0% 4,291 16.7% 25,711
Fountain 3,178 59.1% 1,837 34.2% 364 6.8% 0 0.0% 1,341 24.9% 5,379
Franklin 4,858 67.3% 1,976 27.4% 389 5.4% 0 0.0% 2,882 39.9% 7,223
Fulton 3,854 62.9% 1,977 32.3% 298 4.9% 0 0.0% 1,877 30.6% 6,129
Gibson 6,308 55.2% 4,644 40.6% 478 4.2% 1 0.0% 1,664 14.6% 11,341
Grant 9,684 60.5% 5,433 33.9% 894 5.6% 0 0.0% 4,251 26.6% 16,011
Greene 5,281 53.5% 4,079 41.4% 504 5.1% 0 0.0% 1,202 12.1% 9,864
Hamilton 54,675 67.7% 20,658 25.6% 5,380 6.7% 11 0.0% 34,017 42.1% 80,724
Hancock 14,367 63.5% 6,325 28.0% 1,930 8.5% 4 0.0% 8,042 35.5% 22,626
Harrison 8,362 57.2% 5,569 38.1% 679 4.6% 1 0.1% 2,793 19.1% 14,611
Hendricks 26,072 67.2% 9,896 25.5% 2,815 7.3% 20 0.1% 16,176 41.7% 38,803
Henry 7,192 54.3% 4,944 37.3% 1,107 8.4% 0 0.0% 2,248 17.0% 13,243
Howard 14,212 55.2% 9,734 37.8% 1,789 7.0% 4 0.0% 4,478 17.4% 25,739
Huntington 7,731 69.0% 2,717 24.3% 752 6.7% 0 0.0% 5,014 44.7% 11,200
Jackson 7,838 58.1% 4,826 35.8% 831 6.1% 3 0.0% 3,012 22.3% 13,498
Jasper 5,329 64.9% 2,505 30.5% 379 4.6% 2 0.0% 2,824 34.4% 8,215
Jay 3,432 59.5% 1,986 34.4% 352 6.1% 1 0.0% 1,446 25.1% 5,771
Jefferson 5,447 54.4% 3,981 39.8% 584 5.8% 1 0.0% 1,416 14.6% 5,771
Jennings 4,725 56.3% 3,161 37.7% 500 6.0% 1 0.0% 1,564 18.6% 8,387
Johnson 25,462 66.5% 9,813 25.6% 2,981 7.8% 12 0.1% 15,649 40.9% 38,268
Knox 5,604 49.1% 5,230 45.9% 569 5.0% 0 0.0% 374 3.2% 11,403
Kosciusko 14,936 74.9% 3,917 19.6% 1,081 5.4% 5 0.1% 11,019 55.3% 19,939
LaGrange 4,420 67.9% 1,733 26.6% 358 5.5% 0 0.0% 2,687 41.3% 6,511
Lake 44,232 39.2% 65,767 58.4% 2,702 2.4% 0 0.0% -21,535 -19.2% 112,701
LaPorte 13,597 47.3% 13,627 47.4% 1,528 5.3% 0 0.0% -30 -0.1% 28,752
Lawrence 6,963 63.0% 3,343 30.2% 748 6.8% 0 0.0% 3,620 32.8% 11,054
Madison 18,848 48.2% 17,694 45.3% 2,553 6.5% 4 0.0% 1,154 2.9% 39,099
Marion 88,564 41.4% 113,634 53.1% 11,879 5.5% 0 0.0% -25,070 -11.7% 214,077
Marshall 8,280 62.6% 4,362 33.0% 580 4.4% 0 0.0% 3,918 29.6% 13,222
Martin 2,189 52.9% 1,719 41.5% 231 5.6% 0 0.0% 470 11.4% 4,139
Miami 5,275 60.5% 2,612 30.0% 828 9.5% 0 0.0% 2,663 30.5% 8,715
Monroe 14,336 40.0% 19,797 55.2% 1,698 4.7% 10 0.1% -5,461 -15.2% 35,841
Montgomery 6,396 59.9% 3,051 28.6% 1,231 11.5% 1 0.0% 3,345 41.3% 10,679
Morgan 11,961 66.3% 4,436 24.6% 1,626 9.0% 10 0.1% 7,525 41.7% 18,033
Newton 2,593 61.7% 1,397 33.2% 215 5.1% 0 0.0% 1,196 28.5% 4,205
Noble 7,167 63.6% 3,443 30.5% 666 5.9% 0 0.0% 3,724 33.1% 11,276
Ohio 1,302 59.2% 789 35.9% 109 5.0% 0 0.0% 513 23.3% 2,200
Orange 3,405 58.3% 2,142 36.7% 296 5.1% 0 0.0% 1,263 21.7% 5,843
Owen 3,353 54.7% 2,329 38.0% 452 7.4% 0 0.0% 1,024 16.7% 6,134
Parke 2,898 53.6% 2,120 39.2% 393 7.3% 0 0.0% 778 14.4% 5,411
Perry 2,484 36.9% 3,939 58.5% 306 4.5% 3 0.1% -1,455 -21.6% 6,732
Pike 2,294 47.7% 2,288 47.6% 226 4.7% 0 0.0% 6 0.1% 6,732
Porter 23,723 53.8% 18,556 42.1% 1,832 4.1% 12 0.0% 5,167 11.7% 44,123
Posey 5,144 52.1% 4,418 44.7% 318 3.2% 0 0.0% 726 7.4% 9,880
Pulaski 2,762 61.1% 1,512 33.4% 245 5.4% 4 0.1% 1,250 27.7% 4,523
Putnam 5,964 58.7% 3,452 34.0% 738 7.3% 1 0.0% 2,512 24.7% 10,155
Randolph 4,201 60.5% 2,185 31.5% 559 8.0% 0 0.0% 2,016 29.0% 6,945
Ripley 5,580 67.1% 2,323 27.9% 418 5.0% 0 0.0% 3,257 39.2% 8,321
Rush 2,987 60.5% 1,421 28.8% 530 10.7% 1 0.0% 1,566 31.7% 4,939
Scott 3,329 47.9% 3,215 46.2% 409 5.9% 2 0.0% 114 1.7% 6,955
Shelby 6,597 61.7% 3,200 29.9% 896 8.4% 0 0.0% 3,397 31.8% 10,693
Spencer 3,674 49.3% 3,486 46.7% 291 3.9% 7 0.1% 188 2.6% 7,458
St. Joseph 39,111 49.3% 37,563 47.3% 2,661 3.4% 7 0.0% 1,548 2.0% 79,342
Starke 3,557 51.2% 3,050 43.9% 343 4.9% 0 0.0% 507 7.3% 6,950
Steuben 6,149 61.2% 3,297 32.8% 598 6.0% 0 0.0% 2,852 28.4% 10,044
Sullivan 2,681 41.6% 3,392 52.6% 372 5.8% 0 0.0% -711 -9.0% 6,445
Switzerland 1,583 53.6% 1,215 41.1% 155 5.2% 0 0.0% 368 12.5% 2,953
Tippecanoe 19,494 54.6% 14,078 39.4% 2,106 5.9% 15 0.1% 5,416 15.2% 35,693
Tipton 3,512 59.8% 1,929 32.8% 435 7.4% 0 0.0% 1,583 27.0% 5,876
Union 1,590 66.1% 658 27.4% 157 6.5% 0 0.0% 932 38.7% 2,405
Vanderburgh 26,372 52.4% 22,305 44.3% 1,591 3.2% 42 0.1% 4,067 8.1% 50,310
Vermillion 1,991 40.5% 2,613 53.2% 309 6.3% 2 0.0% -622 -12.7% 4,915
Vigo 12,443 43.5% 14,771 51.7% 1,380 4.8% 1 0.0% -2,328 -8.2% 28,595
Wabash 5,666 63.4% 2,571 28.7% 706 7.9% 0 0.0% 3,095 34.7% 8,943
Warren 1,530 59.3% 896 34.7% 156 6.0% 0 0.0% 634 24.6% 2,582
Warrick 11,771 57.0% 8,207 39.8% 661 3.2% 0 0.0% 3,564 17.2% 20,639
Washington 4,844 58.2% 2,975 35.8% 495 6.0% 4 0.0% 1,869 22.4% 8,318
Wayne 9,602 58.2% 5,386 32.6% 1,506 9.1% 3 0.1% 4,216 25.6% 16,497
Wells 6,401 67.4% 2,471 26.0% 620 6.5% 3 0.1% 3,930 41.4% 9,495
White 4,393 59.1% 2,377 32.0% 658 8.8% 4 0.1% 2,016 27.1% 7,432
Whitley 6,869 64.4% 3,105 29.1% 695 6.5% 5 0.0% 3,764 35.3% 10,674
TOTAL 952,116 54.6% 697,775 40.0% 94,330 5.4% 260 0.0% 254,341 14.6% 1,744,481
Close

Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican

See also

References

External links

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI