that almost certainly explains the size of that margin, unless there's issues with the poll sample

... fighting their real enemy" Progressive Dems. Just about had it with this corrupt party...

His office called my private health insurance co. when they kicked me off their rolls b.c I was diagnosed with cancer . This in 2013 before Obamacare was implemented. Van Hollen stood up for me, the little guy. If he hadn't intervened, I would have had to spend out of pocket for treatments including a big $200k surgery. Literally the man saved me. He has the best staff in congress.

The accusations that he is too corporate are nonsense. He's strong on labor issues, strong on the environment. And on, economic issues, Robert Reich endorsed him!

“Chris understands the connection between widening inequality and the corruption of our democracy, and is leading the fight in Congress on both… Time and again, he’s stood up against Wall Street and the Big Money special interests to fight for a democracy focused on the public interest.”

Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary
Author of Saving Capitalism for the Many, not the Few

In the full transcript of the interview with Bloomberg, it is apparent that Van Hollen is speaking of the ratio rather than specific policies.

"Their ratio is about $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue, although there are all sorts of baseline and accounting rules that go into that that are really very important, but not really part of the general conversation," Van Hollen said. "So I think the overall architecture of Simpson-Bowles, that mix of cuts but also revenue, is the right way to go."

A month later, Van Hollen specifically cast doubt on the Social Security cuts called for in Simpson-Bowles.

"Well, we need to look at a long-term solution to Social Security," the Montgomery County lawmaker said on MSNBC. "I don't agree with the — their specifics on Social Security."

(Snip)

Van Hollen supporters point to other comments he made, such as when he told The New York Times in 2011 that any adjustments to Social Security should take place on a "separate track" from broader budget negotiations. And they note Van Hollen pushed back when President Barack Obama included chained-CPI in his 2013-14 budget.

Max Richtman, president of the Washington-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, noted an early 2012 vote in the House of Representatives on a plan similar to Simpson-Bowles. Edwards and Van Hollen both opposed the measure, and it died.

"Whatever he said, that doesn't carry the weight of a vote," Richtman said. "He's been on the right side from our perspective."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/2016-senate-race/bs-md-edwards-van-hollen-social-security-20160404-story.html

Interesting.

the people want business as usual - can't get enough of (the misnomer) neoliberalism.

Center-right politicians? Love 'em.