Don't trust Rasmussen

But still take notice of what he has to say and adjust accordingly. Same deal with Research 2000 in the other direction. So, small GOP lead, well under 50 and with Ellsworth having lots of room to grow. Can't see anything other than tossup as being fair.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 22:36:10 PM UTC

This.

---

by: Tyler Oakley @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 23:09:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I used to trust Rasmussen

I think Ras was a decent pollster before this current election cycle.  Now, I trust them less than I do the old strategic vision polls.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 22:52:53 PM UTC

I wish the R2K crosstabs were more detailed

It just has 'South' as a region, which I'm assuming combines parts of the 4th, 8th, and 9th Districts. I'm just curious to see what Ellsworth v. Hostettler looks like in the 8th in particular. Requesting 'Southwest' region!

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 23:34:06 PM UTC

Dear Rasmussen,

Can you please stop spamming?

Love,
a fellow political junkie

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:31:04 AM UTC

LOL

I did an actual LOL at that. In that I laughed aloud. To myself. And my beer. Well done, sir.

And really, at this point I think Scotty's just cold makin' up numbers that seem fairly reasonable, but always tilted to whatever the Republican meme-of-the-moment is...how else can he get the darn polls out so fast?

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:47:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basically what the last guy said.

Tossup for now, but Ellsworth has a lot of room to grow considering the fact that no one outside of his district knows who he is. Actually, since the populations of Evansville and Terre Haute combined probably make up about 30% of the state (third and fourth largest cities), that really just shows that he's way popular in his district.

Also, I love how Ellsworth just got in last week, nobody knows who he is, and he's still almost tied with Coats. Stick a fork in Coats, he's done.

I call this anything from a Lean D to blowout D race come election day. Once Hostettler opens his mouth and Ellsworth introduces himself to Marion County, Fort Wayne, and parts of Northern Indiana, he'll cruise unless he runs a totally incompetent campaign - which I don't think he will.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 13:57:37 PM UTC

I agree

Ellsworth is a Democrat that is very electable in Indiana.  I know many believe that Ellsworth might be to the right of Bayh, but I think he will vote more as a centrist in the mold of Bayh (except for abortion rights).  

Right now I have this race as a tossup.  I know that Coats and Hos will bloody each other up during the primary...that's a given, while Ellsworth will have plenty of time to tout his credentials in a positive matter.  Should Coats get the nod (I don't believe it will happen), Ellsworth will identify Coats as the "reluctant Hoosier".  With Hos, it's really a simple process.  Let Hos make some idiotic comments (it will happen), expose these comments as what they are, and then let Indiana decide whether they want a Centrist or a nut to represent them.  

This reminds me of a story that Harry Truman wants told.  Jerry Brown's father, Pat Brown, was running for re-election as Governor of California.  Pat wasn't a great speaker, and everytime he spoke it cost him votes.  Truman told Brown to say as little as possible, and let Dick Nixon implode his campaign.  At the end of the election, Pat won, and Nixon stated "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore...".

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 14:23:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly.

1. Re: Ellsworth. I think it'll be an Ellsworth-Hostettler matchup in the end because even most Hoosier Republicans can't stand Dan Coats, and Hostettler will fire up the base (and do very little else).  

In that case, Ellsworth has the advantage of running against the guy who he's already beaten once - an advantage that Hill or anyone else wouldn't have had in the same position. Ellsworth can pretty much just run the same campaign he ran in 2006, only at a grand scale, and the fact that he's never lost an election will help him immensely.

The thing, too, is that when presented with a clearly defined choice between a centrist and a nut, Hoosiers pick the centrist every time. They only pick the nut when Dems haven't properly defined the nut as a nut, or have failed to contest the race at all. The problem is that Dems are too quick to concede most Indiana races by default, so we end up with a big can of Indiana nuts and a Beltway establishment of Chicken Littles who think that Indiana is a lost cause because they never actually try to win here in the first place.

I am concerned that Ellsworth will turn out to be a closet fundie, but on economic issues he will certainly be better than Bayh, and economic issues are what's most important right now. I just hope we don't end up trading that for going back to 3000 BC on social issues, esp. when it comes time to confirm Supreme Court justices. (Bayh is a jackass, but at least he voted against both Roberts and Alito.)

2. Good parable, but would that Nixon actually had quit then, instead of getting elected President and later inspiring the Cheneys of the world to try harder to screw everyone out of spite.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 15:48:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nixon

I have somewhat of a begruding respect for Nixon.  Not for Vietnam, wiretapping, etc., but for his support affirmative action, creating the EPA under his watch, and opening up a dialogue with China.  Compared to the current members of the Republican party, Nixon is a wild-haired liberal.

Unfortunately for us, the Cheney's of the world learned from Nixon's paranoia and his hawkish nature in Vietnam/Cambodia.

If Nixon had won in 1962, Ronald Reagan would have never been governor in 1966.  Reaganomics probably wouldn't have been created either.  So yes, looking back, Nixon would have been better served to defeat Brown in 1962.  UGH.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 16:36:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But then....

...he probably would've run for President in 1964 and gotten slaughtered by Johnson.  Of course only a strengthened Nixon could've stopped Goldwater in 1964 which might've perhaps forestalled the Southern re-alignment.  Leading to a 1968 contest between George Wallace and Mark Hatfield ...and Swing State Project would be a liberal pro-Republican blog. :D (Okay, Romney versus Humphrey would be FAR more probable... but it's more fun the other way.)

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

---

by: Taget @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:43:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]