Buck

Buck really is one of those come from nowhere candidates.  I could see him easily beating Norton by 20 points at this point.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 17:27:23 PM UTC

And to think

He called a press conference the Monday after she announced to drop out. He canceled it on Sunday because he said he was asked by many people to stay in. I bet he's glad he never got out.  

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 20:15:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I tend to see Bennet as not-quite-a-traditional-incumbent, and...

...I treat this one in my mind as something between an open-seat contest and an incumbent contest, probably closer to an open seat.

I don't think this race will be, to voters, a referendum on Bennet.  He's not been there long enough, and he was appointed after never having run for anything in his life.  Bennet's not in the same position as Reid or Lincoln or some others that way.

As a result, I think the national environment will factor much more here, as generic party preference is a bigger factor.

In that regard, I'm actually feeling good about Bennet down just 3 against Buck (and Norton, for that matter).  He's just not a traditional incumbent as far as I'm concerned, and he doesn't need to be near 50 yet to have a very plausible path to victory.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 18:22:45 PM UTC

Don't Know

In this environment, I might prefer a candidate to whom the electorate had some residual loyalty. I don't think this is the year I want Generic D v. Generic R.

I just don't like two candidates who've never been in a tough race leading the ticket.

---

by: tallsy @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 18:59:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't feel good about CO

from the standpoint that Colorado has a generally independent-minded electorate, much like New Hampshire.  This is a state that went hard for Barack Obama for president and for Mark Udall in the Senate race.  It also elected Betsy Markey in CO-4 by a huge margin over Marilyn Musgrave.  The blue wave hit extremely hard here in 2008, and it would not surprise me at all if the red wave hit back just as hard, giving the republicans the Senate seat, and perhaps a house seat or two (I'm guessing CO-4 is going to flip back, and with a strong challenger in CO-7 and a republican-leaning district in CO-3, neither is totally out of the question either)

Colorado currently ranks 4th on my list of democratic senate seats most likely to flip, behind North Dakota, Arkansas, and Delaware in that order.  A month ago I had Nevada as more likely but with Sharron Angle winning the GOP nomination, a GOP pickup in CO seems more likely now.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 20:25:18 PM UTC

The other problem with Colorado

Is while Ken Buck is a tea-party favorite, he doesn't seem to be quite as bad as Rand Paul or especially Sharon Angle. I haven't heard nearly the wacky stuff on him I've heard on the other two.  

---

by: markhanna @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 21:00:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very pessimistic point about Colorado

I think Indiana would be the fourth, and maybe Illinois the fifth.

If you compare this poll with other recent SurveyUSA polls the reference is not as bad. And the previous polls for Colorado gives positive numbers for Colorado (senate, governor and CO-03).

Do you think some thing will move to worse?

---

by: abgin @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 10:40:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

how actively is Romanoff campaigning?

Are there ads yet?  Or will this, like PA-SEN, not take off until the final weeks?

---

by: Adam B. @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 22:21:28 PM UTC

Depends

Romanoff's fundraising hasn't really taken off like Sestak's did. Also Bennet wasn't a Republican for 30 years like Specter was, or pissed on the base like Lincoln did.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 22:50:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Romanoff is Jennifer Brunner The Sequel, not worth taking seriously......

Romanoff has been a terrible fundraiser and had the dreaded campaign staff shake-up some months back.

He was talked about as an A-list choice to be the appointee for this seat, and right now I'm glad it's not him.

And as ehstronghold points out, there's nothing objectionable about Bennet except possible fears about his ability to wage a competent U.S. Senate campaign, given that he's never ever run for anything in his life.

The outsider-insider frame is at best canceled out for Romanoff from Bennet being the appointed incumbent, but absent that it's Bennet who's the outsider and Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, the insider.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 00:45:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sestak's fundraising

A little overrated -- remember that he carried over $3M CoH from his House account, about half of what he ended up raising for the primary as a whole.  (Still, more than Romanoff, of course.)

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 13:36:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I

am probably in the minority in supporting Bennet. I do not see what Romanoff offers besides, "it should have been me". Bennet has been progressive enough and I think he has the potential to be a great Senator. Romanoff brings nothing to the table.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 00:40:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think you're in the minority at all. I don't see netroots support for Romanoff......

Romanoff doesn't have an internet cheer squad that I've seen.  Even Jennifer Brunner had that, and she was a terrible candidaet.  Romanoff doesn't have any netroots support that I've noticed.  Neither has Bennet as far as a netroots presence goes, but I don't see any antipathy toward him.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 00:46:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good news for sure

The races are tossups, and our candidates are way better than theirs.

Colorado looked like a big problem six months ago, but both races should end up three to four point wins, with Hick a little better than Bennet.

For all the bluster and whining that goes on, almost all signs point to this being a normal cycle in general, especially after the GOP sideshow primaries stop getting all the attention.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 00:05:11 AM UTC

Oh boy, if THAT'S not overconfidence, then nothing is!......

As badly as I want and hope that Bennet (screw Romanoff, he's Jennifer Brunner The Sequal) and Hickenlooper both win, and as much as their winning by 3-4 points wouldn't surprise me, we're truly fools to act like we're favorites in these races or that this is a "normal" cycle.  NO signs point to any of that!

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 00:40:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not true

You keep falling for the faux signals that mean nothing.  The "this is not a normal" cycle I think comes mostly from 24 year olds and younger.

Crist for example has always been the favorite in Florida.  The only way he had a chance to not be the favorite was if he ran in the wrong race.  He chose not to, and is a big favorite.

There are several plain realities supported by facts.  First, the only thing less popular than Democratic congressional people is Republican congressional people.  Second, the country overall is split very closely between generic dem and generic rep.  Third, the Republican right is pissed off at the Republican "left" much more so than the Democratic right and left.  Fourth, great candidates are dominating (Branstad, Hoeven, Blumenthal), while mediocre and crap candidates are not.

Colorado is a tossup state, and has been for twenty years.  A few points move back and forth each election.  If Hickenlooper had been named Senator, and there was a healthy Dem primary for Governor, these numbers would be several points better for Team Blue, but that's it.  This is a tossup state, and the polls reflect that.  Whether the right of the Republican party is madder than usual is entirely irrelevant.  A vote is a vote.  

Voters in general think both parties suck, but like most previous years, tossup states will be decided by that 10%of the electorate that has a hard time deciding what to order for lunch.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 01:15:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm 42, and you're not reading the signs very well at all......

The "close" generic ballot is bad for us.  We almost always lead the generic ballot, and did so even during most of the 12 years the Republicans controlled the House.  Our generic ballot numbers are in the same place as in 1994.  That the numbers were "tied" was one thing that fooled everyone into thinking Republican gains would stop short of a majority.

And yes I think Crist will win, but that could change in a heartbeat depending on what Rubio and Meek and/or Greene do on TV in the coming months.

I don't know what makes you think the Republican right is "more pissed" at their own than ours.  They're voting, and they're voting Republican, period.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember watching the House committee Nixon impeachment vote with my mom in 1974.  I didn't follow campaigns closely until adulthood, but I remember well the recent wave elections, and 2010 looks very much like those.

If the wave doesn't happen, it's going to be because something changed from July through October, not because it wasn't there in June.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 02:57:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You made several points, all that agree with me

but you make an extremist solution.

Honestly, what makes no sense at all is your conclusion of a wave election.  Where are these people who suddenly think Bush's policies are a good idea?  It's a crazy idea.  The Democratic agenda in general is still far more popular than the Republican one.  Wave elections require a desire to replace one way with another way.  That feeling is completely absent from the public landscape.

Completely.

What is prevalent is a despair that both sides are incompetents.  People are thus looking for 1) tried and true known entities (Hoeven, Branstad, Blumenthal) and 2) charasmatic newcomers.  The latter thing sometimes though encourages the former, which is the more powerful of the two.  Paul's craziness is keeping us in play in Kentucky.  Angle's craziness is keeping that corpse of Reid in play.  

Our problems are two fold... in a throw the bums out year, we have more bum incumbents; and, our recruitment has been not as good as theirs.

Look no further than Missouri.  Two known candidates with mainstream positions.  It's a tossup state, slight red lean.  All polls have been a tossup.  No wave, nothing interesting.  Same as just about every open seat race in Missouri for 20 years.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:35:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The key error in your comment is as follows......

You say:  "Wave elections require a desire to replace one way with another way.  That feeling is completely absent from the public landscape."

That's where you're wrong.  Waves are not about a choice, they're solely and exclusively about punishing the party in power.  Nothing more.

Making this a "choice" election is, in fact, the Democrats' strategy to prevent or minimize a wave.

This all comes down to whether the macropolitical signs or the micropolitical signs dominate on election day.  Charlie Cook bet on the micropolitical signs for a long time in 2006 and learned that, instead, the macropolitical signs proved more predictive.  That's why he's now saying the House is likely to flip.  I think he's mistaken because I think he's failing to consider the big difference in the number of seats needed to flip control in 2006 compared to now, but I think he's right that the macro-picture is more powerful than micro-factors.

That the individual contests are close doesn't mean anything.  The difference between a wave and a neutral election is not whether contests are close, but that in a wave ONE party wins MOST of the close ones, and the number they win is a bunch.

I'm not saying we're doomed.  Indeed, if we lose 25 House seats and 4 Senate seats, I'll declare victory.  We'll still have firm control of both chambers, and Republicans will be thoroughly disappointed and also lose the media narrative.  But that result of losing 25 in the House and 4 in the Senate is still an anti-Democratic wave......it's just smaller than we will have feared.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 14:33:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why is it...

that when Republicans get pissed at the GOP, they show up to vote, and when Democrats get pissed at the Democratic Party, they seem to sit on their hands and stay home?

Frustrating to no end.

---

by: BruinKid @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 12:15:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2010 mid-terms

I'm 39 years old, and I've witnessed numerous mid-term elections in my life.  From a historical standpoint, I see some correlations between the 2010 mid-term elections and the 1978, 1982, and 1994 mid-term elections.

I'll start with the 1994 mid-terms.  In 1993 and 1994, the Clinton administration and Congress enacted several pieces of legislation that affected nearly all voters.  As a result, there was considerable change that voters had to endure.  Many of us are for change, as long as the change doesn't affect us.  In addition, there was considerable misinformation that was being sent out by the Republicans regarding the changes enacted.  The same stuff is going on today.  The biggest difference between 2010 and 1994 is that the GOP had strong leadership within the House (Newt Gingrich) and decent leadership in the Senate (Bob Dole!).  Boehner is no Gingrich, and McConnell is no Dole.  While I believe we will lose numerous seats in the House and a handful in the Senate, the GOP doesn't have the leadership to take over either chamber.  Also, Michael Steele is a gaffe machine, so anything could happen.

1982...We were in a pretty bad recession, and the voters were anxious for some positive change.  Only 2 years before, the GOP had taken control over the Senate and won 30+ seats in the House.  The Dems were able to pick up 25+ seats in the House and basically break even in the Senate.  The big difference between 1982 and today is that the Republicans held control of the White House and the Senate, while the Dems controlled the House.

1978...The economy had not tanked yet, but the President was not considered strong (Carter had numerous fights with the liberals of his party).  In addition, the Dems held over 60 seats in the Senate and over 290 seats in the House.  The Republicans had just stopped the bleeding from the Watergate years, and as a result the GOP was awarded 3 seats in the Senate and 15 seats in the House.  I look at this year as when the momentum was starting to drift away from the Dems and towards the Republicans.  The biggest difference between 1978 and 2010 was that there wasn't nearly the amount of change taken place before the 1978 election.  

We really have a hybrid type of election that reflects certain mid-term elections from the past.  The worse case scenario would be something like the 1994 elections, but I just don't see today's leadership in the GOP to properly take advantage of this situation.  I also believe the best case scenario is something like the 1978 elections, but I believe there is too much change that has taken place that would allow the Dems to only experience nominal losses.  Right now, I see the Dems losing around 25-30 seats in the House and probably 4-5 seats in the Senate.  It's really anyone's gues on what will actually happen.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 12:46:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have a very different memory of 1993-94.....

You say:  "the Clinton administration and Congress enacted several pieces of legislation that affected nearly all voters."

Boy, that's the exact opposite of my memory.

The stimulus vote failed.  Health care reform failed.  There was an assault weapons ban that affected few people, but of course gun owners, even those without assault weapons, revolted.  There was gays in the military that affected few people, but voters perceived it as a misplaced priority.  And their was the deficit-reduction budget, which proved a huge policy success but, yes, was unpopular with its modest tax hikes......but I don't recall hikes that were perceptible for non-affluent taxpayers?

I think there were a mishmash of things that killed Democrats in 1993-94.  I don't think a single narrative explains it, rather it was multidimensional.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 15:58:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There was some significant changes in 93-94

The biggest change was the budget reconciliation act of 1993.  The entire Republican party (including such "moderates" as John Chafee and Jim Jeffords) voted against this act.  Although many people actually received reductions in taxes, the Republicans hammered on the tax increases for the wealthy.  There was some serious ramifications as a result for the Dems.

The Brady Act was passed, and as a result the NRA really hammered out Democrats throughout the US.  In adddition, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed which included an ammendment on banning semi-automatic weapons.  This ammendment probably cost Jack Brooks of Texas his job.

NAFTA was finally signed by Clinton (although George H. W. Bush tried to get this passed before he left the White House).

FMLA was passed.  In the elder Bush's term, this act was vetoed.

There were a lot of hot button issues that were passed, including Don't Ask, Don't tell.  The biggest, IMHO, was the budget reconciliation act.  Many people who actually received a reduction in taxes believed that Clinton and his administration raised their taxes.  I remember many co-workers complaining that their taxes were higher when in actuality, it wasn't the case.  


40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 17:33:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Besides budget reconciliation, only special interests were affected...

...by a lot of that stuff.

I hear liberals cite NAFTA as a reason for Democrats being unpopular, but NAFTA was very popular with the general public.  Free trade has become less popular since then, but those days it was still approved outside union circles.

I suppose yes, each of the things you cited pissed off somebody without winning any votes to counter that, and it added up to electoral disaster.  But there was little or nothing that really pissed off everybody, except maybe the budget.

On taxes, you're right that people are batshit ignorant when it comes to the issue.  Your example is repeated today, with teabaggers and probably others convinced Obama raised their taxes, and thinking the stimulus was all spending, when in fact most people and perhaps everyone have seen their taxes decline in this Presidency as part of the stimulus.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 20:06:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my home state...

All of these legislative acts were big players on a micro and macro-level within NC.  For example, FMLA.  Today, I consider FMLA to be widely popular.  Back then, we were bombarded with ads stating that FMLA was an unnecessary burden to business.  The argument went as far as that Clinton and the Democrats were forcing legislation that would hurt the hiring of women in the workforce.  Of course, history shows that this isn't true, but the Republicans as a whole didn't support FMLA at the time.

Same goes with the gun control acts.  The argument was that these acts infringed on our 2nd ammendment rights.  The NRA tried to go as far as to say that these acts were a slippery slope that would lead to the total erosion of 2nd ammendment rights.  This alone cost my congressmen, David Price, his seat in 1994.  NC-4 was not as strong of a Democratic district at the time, and Fred Heineman exploited the hell out of Price's votes for gun control.

The other big big difference between 1994 and 2010 are in the number of open seats.  I think the Dems lost 21 open seats in 1994.  While at my last count, we had 17 open seats in 2010, only 13 I would rank as competitive, and we will probably win at least 3 of them.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 20:26:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NAFTA was very unpopular with Democrats

and undoubtedly increased the number of Democrats who stayed home.

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

---

by: Pan @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 20:33:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Im more optimistic

The previous polls for Colorado was positive for dems, or at least even. This is a positive sign. The poll is worse than the previous polls for Colorado but this poll from Survey USA must be compared in two contexts, Colorado polls and SurveyUSA polls.

If you look to the last Survey USA polls these Colorado races have better SurveyUSA results than NM-Gov or OR-Gov for democratic side. This is a significative data.

At least I see four good signs from Colorado:

- The stablishment republican candidates are being rejected by the likely voters in the primaries, and teabagger candidates win the support. Republicans can have unelectable candidates.

- The polls for both races gives positive numbers despite this poll.

- This poll is better than other Survey USA polls where democratic side seems favored, like NM-Gov or OR-Gov.

- If you take the numbers only for K Buck this poll is as outlier as other of last Survey USA polls.

---

by: abgin @ Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:17:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]