GA: GOV

Oxendine would definitely be the easiest GOP candidate to beat. He is haunted by numerous ethical scandals and just a general sleazy aura that he carries with him.  

---

by: fitchfan28 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 04:54:46 AM UTC

Hey

why does it seem like a large majority of the fair tax advocates are spawned from Georgia. Both Chambliss, Isakson, Oxendine, and several congressman are fair tax advocates.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 05:14:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Linder/Boortz

Probably because of Congressman John Linder and radio host Neal Boortz.

---

by: RuralDem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:56:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It would have been hard

if not impossible to imagin these polls 6 months ago. Things are certainly looking up, but we have a Looooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggg ways to go until we even get close to the actual election, so I will be staying reserved.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 05:10:43 AM UTC

I agree.

I honestly do not understand how so many polls can be so bad for so many Democrats.  The electorate just cannot have changed this far away from Democrats in just nine months.  At least, not these nine months, in which nothing large and bad has actually happened.  The economy is Teh Suck, but still.

What I think is happening is the GOP base is very intense right now and VERY UPSET and very committed.  The Dem base meanwhile has either relaxed and tuned out, or is tuned in and worried about the direction of health care reform.  The times we've seen crosstabs, we've seen Republican voters be solidly committed to their potential candidates, even when they barely know their names, and a lot of Democrat voters in the undecided column.  

After the 2010 campaigns are actually engaged, I think a lot of congressional Dems are going to be fine, as the base will come home and bump our side back up to even in these polls.  Indies may vote the economy, and may even vote GOP as their way of voting the economy, but I think 2010 will wind up as a break even year, not a GOP landslide.  Think of the 98, 02, and 04 elections, when only about 5 house seats (net) ever changed hands.  Once our base comes home, I really think these massive losses will not be materializing.  

Governors, on the other hand, seem pretty damn vulnerable.  I could see Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, Massachusetts, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio all going GOP, when at least half of those really shouldn't (Obama carried them all, most by 10+ points).  That sucks.

If I had to forecast right now, I'd say minus6 in the House, +1 in the Senate, minus5 in the governors.  And that minus5 will be by winning CA and CT, and losing MA and like six valuable swing state governorships.  That will totally suck, because it will give the GOP one hell of a bench for 2016.

minus20 in the House is certainly possible if the economy is still teh suck AND no sweeping legislation is passed, but if our freshmen get to bring home some real legislation and say they did something significant, I think losses will be minimal.  minus10 freshman, +4 in the open seats, for a minus6.  Not bad.

[also, the automatic conversion of two minus signs into a loooong strikeout is mucho annoying]

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:25:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CT-Governor?

Is Governor Rell retiring or term-limited out in 2010?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:35:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mass

is more likely to go to Cahill than the Republican. That's less of a loss.

My concern is holding as many big-state governorships as possible, since redistricting is coming up. We need to hold Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and New York and pick up California and Florida.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:03:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The only ones on that list I'm concerned about

are Pennsylvania and Florida.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

---

by: Nonpartisan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:28:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the economy

Bad economies are bad for the party of the President in power.  It happened in 1982 to Republicans when Regan was in office, 1958 when Eisenhower was in office, of course 1930 and 1932 when Hoover was in office and numerous times in the 19th century particularly in 1894 when Cleveland was in office.

When things were getting better under FDR (1934,1936) Democrats continued to gain.  When an attempt at a balanced budget was made leading to a new downturn, Republicans nearly doubled their House seats from 88 to 169.

If the economy improves and improvements are tied to efforts by Democrats, we will be all right.  If no action or not much improvement, Republicans will gain.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 14:29:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see this as two different phenomenon

What I think is happening is the GOP base is very intense right now and VERY UPSET and very committed.  The Dem base meanwhile has either relaxed and tuned out, or is tuned in and worried about the direction of health care reform.  The times we've seen crosstabs, we've seen Republican voters be solidly committed to their potential candidates, even when they barely know their names, and a lot of Democrat voters in the undecided column.  

The GOP base is concentrated in the South (and West, but the latter are in safe GOP areas anyway).  So what I see is two different results.  Outside the South, it will end up a pro-incumbent year, or even a slight Democratic tilt.
In the South, especially the rural South, I think we'll see a 1994 GOP tsunami.  In a way, the latter is the final stage of this realignment which will complete itself in 2012.

---

by: JSmith @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:30:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If the economy doesn't improve

it's going to be ugly everywhere else too.

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:39:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes it could

I'm assuming that the economy will improve and some health care bill passes.  If those things happen, it will be a pro-incumbent year outside the South.

I'd also include two add'l things which are unlikely but possible.  One is a major accomplishment in foreign policy in the second half of 2010, such as a breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process or a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons.  (I don't think the capture of Osama bin Laden would suffice here, that would be no more than a one week bump.)  
The other wild card is immigration reform, if some bipartisan immigration reform passes, the fired up birther/teabagger GOP base won't show up to the polls.  This is their biggest issue, and if they are betrayed on it, they will bail, and we'll be in a much better situation in the South.

---

by: JSmith @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 17:29:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it would be funny

if the Obama administration captured or killed Osama bin Laden. Beyond that, I think it's all about the economy.  

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:08:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ct?

Do you mean RI, not CT, a very unlikely takeover target for the Dems?

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:51:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not complicated

Your average Democrats are disappointed at the lack of serious legislation for the better that has been passed relative to the condition we're in.  Nor are there any developments that suggest a strong positive trend or commitment from Capitol Hill.

Major policy areas, as I see them:

-Afghanistan, Pakistan, and annihilating Al Qaeda
-Iraqi government/final(?) phase of Iraq's civil war
-realignment of international alliances: achieving democratic succession to minor anti American dictatorships, helping countries and ethnic separatist movements get out from under Russian and Chinese hegemony

-social rights: voting rights expansion, gay nondiscrimination laws, etc.
-economic:  a slew of things, but the minimum is to get the loaned money back from the banks that don't need it, cleaning up the books
-ethics:  comprehensive cleanup of rot in federal government, i.e. prosecuting the torture, prosecuting the Siegelman travesty

That's the remnants of the Bush agenda- what Obama's election mandate is to carry on, finish up, clean up.

Team Obama has been short on explanations and overt expectations in all of these areas.  I guess explaining the broad shift in foreign policy wouldn't be wise to do, or how low real expectations should be about Af/Pak outcomes, but the amount of unfocused blather on economic policy errs in the opposite direction.  In short: where there is a serious plan being implemented it seems it can't be explained openly, I think.  And in policy areas it could be explained without causing harm or real embarrassment they're being annoyingly dodgy or don't have their act together.

So our side is operating in a policy haze that the Party, and the Obama Administration, simply aren't doing enough to dispel in the right ways.  Republicans have all the wrong policies and wrong answers, but they're clear and easy

---

by: Baystater @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:04:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Foreign policy

The chances of any ethnic minority successfully separating from China in the short to medium term are NIL. Absolutely nil. Nor is the US government going to help separatist movements within Russia. First of all, it's a highly fraught policy to support damage to a country's territorial integrity (I think it was a big mistake for the US to officially recognize the independence of Kosovo for similar reasons); secondly, the US has a very important strategic relationship with Russia that shouldn't be sacrificed to support independence for Chechnya or some other dubious separatism.

These things are more probable than any of the things you mention:

(1) Calamity in Afghanistan or/and Pakistan
(2) Calamity in Iraq

Things have been getting quite a bit worse in both parts of the world. These are big problems that could blow up big-time in President Obama's face.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:31:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IA and NV

Those IA numbers are TERRIFYING if Branstad gets in the race.  Wow, those are some f'ing disgusting numbers on our behalf.

As for NV, Im really happy to see Rory Reid polling that poorly for the Gov race.  I agree with James, having 2 Reid's at the top of the ballot would be a baaaaaaadddd idea.  

It's too bad Gibbons being the nominee probably wont happen, that'd be such a gimme.  And why on earth Harry Reid polling so poorly?  He's been a Senator for how long, since the 80's?  He's had his fair share of tough races but has he always been this unpopular?  Is his unpopularity tied more so to his Senate Majority leader position or just him never being that popular?

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 05:14:26 AM UTC

Tell you what

I'm as freaked out about Branstad as anyone.  My best friend works for Culver, so this one is personal for me.

But I do see a glimmer of hope in these polls.  Simply put, they seem a bit fishy to me.  The only two polls in the race so far are by a right-wing blog that hired an unknown pollster (unless Concordia Group did it in-house, which is essentially the same as an unknown), and found Branstad beating Culver by 53-37.  Now Doug Gross shows up with another poll by another undisclosed poster, and shows Branstad beating Culver by an even larger margin, 53-34.

My concern here is that Republicans have already been caught cooking polls this cycle in their desperation to recruit good candidates.  I remember there have been a couple of instances, but the one I can put my finger on at the moment is this ridiculous poll by an RNC committeeman that showed Tom Ridge pasting Specter by 7 -- an outcome so laughable that it actually drove Ridge out of the race instead of recruiting him.  Where are the independent polls of this race?

Granted, I'm sure either Culver or the DGA has polled this race by now, and they obviously didn't find anything worth reporting.  But that doesn't in itself mean that their numbers are as bad as a 16 or 19 point deficit.  Culver might only be down 8 or 10,which would be a much more manageable deficit.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

---

by: Nonpartisan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:27:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doug Gross' poll was by Hill Research Consultants

but they only released results for "likely 2010 election voters," which is absurd. I have not been able to get details of the likely voter screen they used.

Also, they refused to release the question order and some of the question wordings.

Branstad has negatives that people don't remember now, but they will be reminded of them later.

I also think that a lot of Democrats who don't like Culver will come home in 2010.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:07:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ann Selzer/Des Moines Register

are likely to do another Iowa poll in September or October. Their last poll was in April or May, and they usually do a poll in the early autumn. I'm sure they will poll Culver against Branstad, and I will put more stock in their numbers, because they won't be hiding behind a likely voter screen.

If their numbers are as bad as those in the Republican polls, we can start getting more worried.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:08:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

I'd also venture the theory that, unless there's a catastrophic downturn in the economy between now and election day, whatever Selzer polls Branstad as having in October is his absolute high-water mark.  Dude has virtually 100% name rec already and no one has bothered to drive up his negatives in 15 years.  There's just no way he'll do any better than he's doing now.

One final ray of hope: I noted in that IowaRepublican poll from July that Branstad was only beating Vander Platts 35-31.  Amazingly, there is still a chance Vander Platts could beat Branstad in the primary.  Particularly if Rants or Fong stays in and splits the anti-Vander Platts vote, this could really happen.

Good.  I'm feeling a bit better about this today.  Thanks for your reassuring comments.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

---

by: Nonpartisan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:57:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

happy to oblige

I do think Branstad would beat Vander Plaats in the primary, but not without a huge fight. One of Vander Plaats' co-chairs is former state auditor Richard Johnson, who was a high-profile endorser of Fred Grandy in the 1994 primary. Talk about someone who knows all of Branstad's weaknesses.

I think support for Rants and Fong would evaporate if Branstad got in, but those two are actively campaigning. Maybe one of them will be Terry's running mate. Fong is up with a 60-second radio ad already.

In general, Selzer's approval numbers for Culver run higher than Survey USA numbers by 8-10 points. Survey USA has had Culver in the low to mid 40s for most of this year. The Iowa Republican poll from early July had Culver's approval at 53 percent, and the Hill Research Consultants poll from last July that was just released last week didn't release Culver's approval number (just his favorability of 52 percent). If Culver is in the 40s in Selzer's poll, I'll be concerned.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 19:08:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't panic yet

First of all, that is a Republican poll, and they didn't release results for the full sample--just "likely 2010 election voters." We're more than a year out, it's ridiculous to use a likely voter screen now.

Branstad hasn't had a campaign for 15 years. People have warm, fuzzy memories now, but he will have a fight for the GOP nomination (many fundies will support Bob Vander Plaats), and Dems will not roll over for him in the general.

Also, Iowa Dems have a 100,000 voter registration edge now--when Branstad was governor, Rs had the edge.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:00:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chet Culver

If Terry Branstad runs for gov, I think that Chet Culver should challenge Grassley for the senate seat. Some of the comments coming out of Grassley lately about healthcare are simply unacceptable and its time Grassley gets the boot. In addition, Chet Culver would be winning back his father's old seat.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 05:24:57 AM UTC

But

if he can't win reelection as Governor, what makes you think he could beat Grassley for Senate? Is Terry Branstad just that good a candidate?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 07:15:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grassley needs to go

Im assuming that Terry Branstad is a much stronger candidate than Chuck Grassley. I feel that the stuff coming out of Chuck Grassley's mouth such as "We are going to pull the plug on grandma" is making him sound like another Jim Bunning. Grassley has gotten a pass on all his re-elections with easy candidates and its time for the democratic party to make an attempt to get rid of him. I dont see at all what is so good about Chuck Grassley that would make a blue state like Iowa keep electing him for all these years. I think that the person who would have the best chance at taking him out (after Tom Vilsack) is Chet Culver, even though I do like Bob Krause a lot.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 07:59:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brandstad is no Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley would crush Culver-- many Iowans who I know (many of them under 30) love Grassley, but vote Democratic for everything else. The much easier race would be against Branstad.

Branstad has a number of scandals under his belt, as well as a record of raising the sales tax during a major recession and preventing salary raises for state employees. I think this race is doable-- but Grassley is probably unbeatable (but maybe a good place for the GOP to waste their money).  

---

by: IowaCityDem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:05:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree totally

It's been 15 years since Branstad had a tough campaign, but people will be reminded of his real record if he gets back into politics. Like his record of cooking the books so he could run illegal deficits. As a 3-term incumbent, Branstad almost lost the GOP primary in 1994 to then Congressman Fred Grandy because of his fiscal mismanagement. That's unheard of in the absence of some personal scandal.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:05:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why is Grassley

so popular with under 30 year old Democratic voters? Any guesses?

---

by: homerun @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 19:06:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

my best guess

1. He's never had a serious challenge during their lifetimes.

2. His constituent service is excellent, and he visits all 99 counties every year.

3. He gets a lot of favorable media coverage--sends out tons of guest editorial pieces, does plenty of interviews and reporter conference calls.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 19:10:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

very bad idea

Culver's chances of beating Branstad are much greater than his chances of beating Grassley.

Branstad's negatives haven't been put out there yet, but he has some big ones, and voters will be reminded of them (in the GOP primary as well as in the general).

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:01:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can an independent win

the Massachusetts gubernatorial election? It certainly isn't unprecedented for an independent to win a New England statehouse - it happened in Maine and may happen soon in Rhode Island. Has it ever happened before in Massachusetts?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 07:16:28 AM UTC

Connecticut too

Lowell Weicker.

Mass has had a Republican or Democrat in the governor's mansion since 1858. I think Cahill can win, because the split in the state is less Dem/Rep and more anti-Patrick/pro-Patrick.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:05:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indies are strong in New England

I think you can never discount a well-funded Indy in New England.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 13:17:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Primaries

The whole concept of "better Democrats" seems lost on politicians.

We need to challenge Paterson and Patrick.  Too late for Corzine sadly.  Reid obviously should be primaried too, but more sadly that ain't gonna happen.

Our best "recruits" this year ran to Washington instead of run in Arizona, Kansas and Iowa.  But Team Red get their dream (or at least second best) in Nevada and maybe Iowa.

Just because a stiff is in office doesn't mean we have to let him (almost always "him") get crushed just because he is an incumbent.

---

by: tommypaine @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:50:15 AM UTC

When you say "better"

Are we talking ideology or competency?

---

by: safi @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:14:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Either way

Better is better.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 00:42:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In terms of ideology

Your not going to get much further left than Patrick or Paterson. Cuomo whose mentioned as the opponent to Paterson, I don't think we'll find too many issues that seperate them ideology wise.

Its next to impossible to determine a candidate's competency. Even if their AG's or Secretary of State's, the duties of Governor are so much more expansive than those offices. Paterson obviously never came up for election, but if you go back on this site 3-4 years you'd be hard pressed to find someone who had a bad thing to say about Patrick

---

by: safi @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 15:25:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

POS should just give it up

They ain't fooling anybody!

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 11:17:21 AM UTC

Wow

Not a single positive poll for us.  It's insane how fast things have changed for us.

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 14:15:42 PM UTC

Its health care

It'll turn around when they pass a bill and people start taking notice that the economy is turning.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 14:22:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Health care won't take effect immediately...

The taxes to pay for Health care and the implementation both start after 2010.  So that means whichever side wins the 'spin' will have the advantage in the midterms.  

Given the way it has gone so far, I wouldn't count on the Democrats having the upper hand.  

---

by: vicupstate @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:00:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still think the greater economy

Will be more important. Particularly since it won't start until after the midterms. Just changing the subject will help.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The important thing has not changed

People think politicians of both parties suck horribly.  Obama has not been a great President, yet -- mostly because you can't be freaking great in six months.

Incumbents are in danger, and we have more of them.  At the same time, we have been pitiful in terms of recruitment for non-open seats, while Team Red has some fine recruits, and even finer placeholders to put in polls... being behind Pataki and Branstad is not "turning against us".  They are top tier guys, who alos don't happen to be running yet.  

In contrast, our top tier folks chose not to run.  We were ahead in an Arizona poll, probably ahead in unpolled Kansas, and competitive in Iowa.  Now like a party of punks we cede all those races to Team Red.  At same time we get poor appointments in Illinois and Colorado, and a middling one in New York.

So things have not turned against us.  We just suck at understanding what the hell is going on... the economy is shit, health care is huge losing issue (if not done right at least), politicians are viewed negatively, etc.  

We gotta smell the coffee.  The only thing less popular in the US than a Democratic politician is a Republican one.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 00:52:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Middling in NY???

Not sure I quite understand that comment...

---

by: rdw72777 @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 04:06:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the time

when the appointment was made, it looked decidedly mediocre. Now, it looks great.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 04:26:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It feels like a reverse 1981

with slightly different timing. With Volker's help (i.e. near 20% interest rates), Reagan was blamed for keeping the economy down in '82.

With the turn-around already happening in other countries, I'm hopeful we'll see a turn-around

with the associated "halo effect"

in time for the 2010 elections.

---

by: tietack @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:21:18 PM UTC

Illinois poll

When is the Illinois poll going to be released that shows Giannoulias leading Kirk???

---

by: jmartin4s @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:52:55 PM UTC