Google Ads


Site Stats

NE-Sen: Nelson Starts Out in Deep Hole

by: Crisitunity

Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 5:53 PM EST


Public Policy Polling (1/26-27, Nebraska voters, no trendlines):

Ben Nelson (D-inc): 39
Jon Bruning (R): 50
Undecided: 11

Ben Nelson (D-inc): 42
Deb Fischer (R): 35
Undecided: 22

Ben Nelson (D-inc): 42
Pat Flynn (R): 33
Undecided: 24

Ben Nelson (D-inc): 41
Don Stenberg (R): 45
Undecided: 14
(MoE: ±3.1%)

In case you were wondering maybe PPP would find significantly better results for Ben Nelson than the couple of Republican pollsters who've looked at the race did -- maybe there was an inkling of hope there based on Barack Obama's better-than-expected performance there in the presidential portion of their poll -- guess again. PPP finds pretty similar numbers as Magellan did in December (Magellan gave GOP AG Jon Bruning a 14-pt lead and state Treasurer Don Stenberg a 6-point lead). Nelson does beat some weaker opponents, teabagging businessman Pat Flynn (the only announced candidate besides Bruning) and state Sen. Deb Fischer, but that seems mostly name rec-driven, with Nelson still in the low 40s.

Nelson's down to a 39/50 approval (which compares to Bruning's 42/26 favorables), which is parsed out to 26/64 among Republicans, 47/43 among indies, and even a not-so-good 58/33 among Dems, for many of whom he's probably too conservative. Given the Republican registration advantage in Nebraska, it looks like Nelson just isn't getting the crossover votes he got the last few times he ran that helped him win; exit polls in 2006 gave him 42% of the Republican vote then (although it's worth noting that was against weak opposition in the form of Pete Ricketts) but he's getting 16-17% support now. Increased polarization over the last few years (and his role at the very core of the polarizing health care reform debate, with the unsatisfying-to-anybody-except-himself "Cornhusker Kickback") is making Nelson look pretty anachronistic, at this point.
Crisitunity :: NE-Sen: Nelson Starts Out in Deep Hole
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

NE-Sen: Nelson Starts Out in Deep Hole | 142 comments
not doomed per se...
but i wouldn't want to be him.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
I agree.
I think he will do no worse than 40% for example.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
i think he could get around 43-47% barring a miracle
scott kleeb got 40% in 2008, so i think nelson could improve upon that slightly.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
I'm predicting he'll retire
Assuming that happens are their any logical Democratic candidates who could put up a fight?  Maybe Bob Kerrey can move back but that's probably to much to hope for after 2008.

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


Maybe the mayor of Lincoln.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Not unresonable, though he is pretty old to start a Senate career
He'll be 68 in 2012.  Not ancient but I'm not sure he'd want to start ten.  

Also he's only been elected once, in 2007, with a very thin victory margin (845 votes according to Wikipedia).  Of course he may be more popular now.  And it's not like we have a lot of options anyway.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
I wonder if Buffett's kid might be interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

He has dabbled in Omaha politics.

[ Parent ]
Lives in Illinois according to that

[ Parent ]
Bob Kerrey's currently out of state too
I don't even know what party Howard belongs to, but the bits from Wikipedia suggests a big conservationist D farmer.

It's just a brainstorm idea, in case Ben hangs it up.

[ Parent ]
Could he self-fund?
Obviously his father is very rich, but how much money does he actually have access to? If he can run without DSCC or fund raising help, I'd actually prefer him to Nelson.

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
Is Bruning even nearly as popular
as Hoeven was in North Dakota? I don't doubt that he's popular, but unless he's an H-bomb of a candidate like Hoeven, perhaps the best solution is to find someone else, whether or not that person has been elected to office before.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Bruning in not Hoeven, and is not Heineman

The polls give to Bruning 15-20% less advantage than to Heineman over Nelson.

I'm not the best fan of Nelson, but I think, if Nelson run not, better forget Nebraska because I think someone else would be 20%+ back Brunning. Nothing to do.

[ Parent ]
Bruning
The AG certainly isn't Heinemann, hell even Hoeven isn't as popular as Heinemann is, but Brunning is no ones 2nd tier. He's a proven vote getter and is a very good fit for the state, both in ideology and temperment.

I'm pretty certain Stenberg is going to wait and run for Governor in '14 (Heinemann is term-limited) rather than risk losing a primary, there really isn't anyone else in the state with the stature to take on Brunning so I think he'll sail through the primary. End result is that Nelson is facing about as strong a challenge as you can realistically forsee, and he does is coming from the weakest position he's had in his entire career, and that is saying something - the guy has been around for a long time (he first ran for office in 1990) he's also going to turn 70 years old this year...

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
If Heinemann is in the first level, and Brunning is not in his level...

..., then Brunning is not in the first level, Bruning is as maximum in the second level.

They are more republicans in Bruning's level? I would tell yes.

But of course, I'm not calling him some dude.

[ Parent ]
First Tier?
If Heinemann is in the first level, and Brunning is not in his level, then Brunning is not in the first level, Bruning is as maximum in the second level.

This may be a calibration issue.  Brunning is at a level that would normally be called first tier; it just so happens that Heinemann is better still.  Michigan Republicans would be thrilled if they had a candidate a tier below Brunning, but I don't think that means we should call their best recruits 4th tier.

[ Parent ]
NE
Sad to see Gentle Ben looking so likely to go.  I'm not a huge fan of his, but I certainly like him a lot more than AG Bruning.   We certainly need to contest every seat and put up a fight here, but I think its best we be honest and admit he doesn't start out favored at all.  Lean Rep?

29/D/Male/NY-01
Lean R
Definitely. I'm not sure even an Obama win of a similar magnitude to 2008 would save him.
[ Parent ]
Well, he did it to himself...
When he decided early on to try and upstage the president.  He wanted the media spotlight and he got it. Now, he's paying the price for being an obstructionist who didn't fully deliver, pissing off both sides.
[ Parent ]
i'm pretty sure
being an obstructionist is not his problem, this is fucking Nebraska and he has better approvals than the President.  
[ Parent ]
Putting himself in the spotlight...
...as the obstructionist who caved in the end pisses off everybody.  If he kept his mouth shut and obstructed behind the scenes instead of acting like a prima donna, he'd be in much better shape now.
[ Parent ]
When you're the 60th vote
you're in the spotlight whether you want to be or not.

[ Parent ]
he didn't have to be the 60th vote though
he could have just said yes early on and let "60th vote" status pass to lincoln, landrieu, or bayh.  you're only the last vote if you're undecided.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Nate Silver said something along these lines back during the debate over HCR
[ Parent ]
Buhye.
Throw in the likelihood that Obama won't contest NE at all this year if the NE Leg votes to go to "winner take all". I mean, what's the point in even bothering with Omaha if that's the case? Frankly, the only inland Western states that Obama should contest are NV and CO (assuming that NM is Likely D).

On the bright side, Dems could still keep their Senate losses to 2 seats, and if we can win MA and NV, that means we break even. Dems have a great talent for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, but I think we'll do a lot better than the law of averages says we will, just as the GOP did in 2010.

In general, I think this is going to be like a 1996-style election: Obama will end up winning fairly convincingly, a few seats will change hands, but the balance of power will be about what it was going in. And frankly, if it means we've got actual Democrats from MA and NV representing those seats, I don't mind losing Nelson all that much.

Omaha
Is a great way to reach out to western Iowa.  So I doubt they'll ignore it if the Legislature does this.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Western Iowa? You mean Steve King's district?
which is sparsely populated and where Obama's guaranteed to get a maximum of about 10 votes?

Maybe he can run a couple of ads in the Omaha media market, but the best way to win Iowa is to aggressively contest greater Des Moines and run up Democratic turnout in eastern Iowa. Dems have little to gain from the IA-05 (soon to be IA-04) part of the state.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with your last paragraph.
However, in 2008, Obama did very well for a Democrat in Steve King's district.  He got ~44% of the vote there.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Yes, western Iowa, because Obama will have money to burn......
Obama had enough cash left over after the 2008 election that he gave all his paid campaign staff a bonus of one-month's salary.  Seriously.  And that was a cycle where he raised $750 million, he likely will reach $1 billion this time as the sitting President.  Toss in a fractured and weak GOP field with no one who looks likely to beat Obama, and even more cash will flow the President's way.

Margins matter, Obama focused heavily last time on campaigning in the more difficult areas of battleground states specifically to keep the margins down there.

So it's a given Obama will buy saturation advertising in Omaha, yes to reach sparsely populated conservative western Iowa.

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

[ Parent ]
He actually raised
less than that. It was about $532 million, including money raised during the primary. But he won't have to compete with anyone in a primary this time and the fact that he's already president, you're right when you say that money should flow to him easily.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Nope, it was $750 million, here are the numbers (link).....
Just click it, and at this site you also can compare to all other '08 candidates:  http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureS...

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Shows you what I get
for relying too much on Wikipedia.

In any event, I'm happy to be so wrong, because unless I am missing something, this includes money raised for the primary. Since he won't have to compete against anyone for the nomination, he has more wiggle room. He really doesn't need to go even higher than where he went last time to be lethal to the Republicans.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Surely Obama can win Omaha again, but not NE-02

I think the republican redistricting will be effective here.

If Nelson runs not, I would forget Nebraska (but not the West of Iowa).

[ Parent ]
Stupid strategy
The way Obama won many states in 2008 was not just by mopping up in the Blue areas but also by keeping his loses down in the Red areas.  Southwestern Iowa (which you are suggesting we ignore) was the region of the state where Obama improved the most over Kerry.  And while his margins in the state overall were large enough that it wasn't decisive, in other places, such as Indiana, keeping his losses down in Red areas was absolutely critical.  You're not going to win those part of the states, but you're certainly going to get more than 10 votes.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
...and perhaps
help some Democrats in down ticket races get elected in the process.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
AZ
I think Obama has to make a run at Arizona. Its demographics make it likely to shift blue over time the way NM, CO, and NV already have but they need to get better organized and a serious presidential campaign would be helpful. It could have as many as 5 House seats in play: Gosar, Schweikert, and Quayle are all potentially vulnerable freshmen, the new 9th district could be competitive depending on where they put it (although the more blue the 9th is the safer Schweikert and/or Quayle could be), and Giffords may not run again.    

41, Ind, CA-05
[ Parent ]
It's worth at least looking at.
I could say a lot, but to keep it simple, I'll just state that the Democrats aren't close to maxing out their votes in the state. In fact, while I'm keen on trying to expand the map to a lot of other states, it's hard to think of a more worthy target than Arizona.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Fair enough.
Honestly, I think the only reason Obama didn't contest AZ in 2008 was because it was Johnny Mac's home state.

Here's another reason to contest Arizona - if "That One" actually won it despite all of the SB 1070 crap, it would pretty much reduce McCain to "Walter Matthau at the end of Dennis the Menace" levels of gibbering rage. Especially if it also results in Dems picking up Kyl's Senate seat (whether or not it's open).

All things considered, though, if Obama's going to try to win one traditionally red state with 11 electoral votes, I'd rather see him contest Indiana. Not just because I live here, but because it would go a long way toward shattering the DNC myth that Indiana will always be a bunch of solid R hayseeds so there's no use ever contesting it. Our state D base is a bloody shambles right now because of that stupid assumption. IN is redder than its neighbors, but not redder than Arizona.  

[ Parent ]
I think he'll do both.
Then again, depending on the type of year it is, I imagine he'll try to expand or hold up the map as much as possible, especially if there is a potentially competitive senate seat. If he's up against a candidate like Palin, why not set up shop in Kentucky, Kansas, and Tennessee? In that situation, Minnesota, Michigan, and similar states would be all but guaranteed, so he'd have a lot of room to do some serious party building.

As far as Indiana goes, I'll trust people like you and hoosierdem when describe how badly Democrats did there this year. But unless it's looking like 2010 all over again, I have to think that Indiana will be closer by default. It's not possible to know who voted for which candidate, but it's easy to see that Obama didn't simply eat into Republican votes. That was some of it, but the majority of it was Democrats turning out voters, many of whom hadn't been mobilized in a long time. I have to think that all of the work they did there last time, plus all of the work that could still be done, will not be wasted. He could end up losing, but if he does, and it's not an absolutely awful year, it'll probably be with 46 or 47 percent of the vote rather than 39 percent. And that's kind of a victory by itself.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I think he will
and should. And frankley, he should contest Texas, Georgia,Montana and South Carolina if he looks more steady early in 2012 than he did in 2008. And if he looks equally as strong than he should at least contest Arizona, Montana and Georgia.  They came comparatively close in 2008, and the only way to expand Democratic strength in congress and at the state level and put the GOP on defensive at the Presidential level
[ Parent ]
This will only
get us so far, but I imagine that proudly announcing--at the right time, of course--we will be contesting those states would do wonders for Democratic morale. The Obama campaign would probably find a lot of volunteers absolutely thrilled that the national party was finally devoting more attention to their states and it could bring in a lot of new money, both from inside those states and from Democrats nationwide.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
AZ depends on his internal polling there & how the GOP field looks......
I won't be surprised if they start a strong voter registration drive later this year to prepare for the possibility of contesting the state, but I doubt the Obama campaign will commit to fighting for the state until they see how the Republican field is shaping up, and of course how Obama's internal polling looks there.

But right now I'd say the odds are good.  A sitting Democratic President at or above 50% job approval against a weak opposition candidate is going to be able to contest AZ in this day and age.  And the Republican field, at least to me, looks strikingly weak.

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

[ Parent ]
How far
in advance do they decide which states to contest? I'd imagine that they are being quite broad right now. At the very least, they'd start with the same map as last time.

And how far in advance do they start registration drives? My gut tells me it's way too early right now, but I would think January of 2012 is a good time to get going. Presidential politics will be in the news constantly as the primary season will have started. And since they won't have to worry about picking a candidate, their efforts can be more focused.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
2008
Obama had the advantages of not being strapped by the spending cap that public financing brought. So he was able to throw money around everywhere and force McCain to pick and choose what states to make a stand in. This time the GOP isn't going to be stupid and take public financing. Also if that isn't enough, Karl Rove and company can dump 100+ mill of attack ads on Obama if necessary. This is truly going to be the first 1 billion dollar election. Though the one upside with all that money being throw around is both sides will probably try to expand the map into places out of reach or thought impossible to for decades.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Shadow groups have
always been a factor.  They're not new.  Remember "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"?  Or that PAC that ran those Willie Horton ads?  Even though it was connected to Bush, Sr., he was able to play dumb on the ads because it was a third party group running them, not his campaign.

2010 was a year of renewed interest in shadow groups because of relaxed limitations.  Unlike 2008, however, Obama will likely encourage third party spending on his behalf in 2012.  Also, third party groups may have the money, but they are forbidden to contact the campaigns they are trying to help/hurt in any way.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
Of course.
I'd be astonished if their candidate accepted public financing.

Anyway, I wonder how effective the Republican candidate's fund raising efforts will be if he doesn't have the extremely broad base of small donors that Obama will have, especially if he or she manages to slip through and isn't exactly loved by the base like McCain. Being able to raise as much money as you can won't make a difference if nobody wants to give it to you.

I'm not sure what to think about the influence of outside money in 2012. What areas do you think will be focused on after having been ignored for a long time?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
That may or may not be a misconception
The GOP money is always and has always been there; it has simply been an issue of how to coordinate it.  Traditionally, candidates have taken public financing and the donors have instead opted to fund 527s once that point begins.  Obama's massive cash hauls were predicated on the fact that this money instead did not flow into, say, the DNC.  

We saw this last year when the RNC was seen as utterly incompetent under Steele, which resulted in the Rove group and TPX among other 527s rake in massive "shadow money" while RNC hauls were all but anemic.  

The argument for Obama's case would be that he could probably raise more money than traditionally the DNC alone could do because of his personal appeal, and because his OFA organization was grassroots and top notch in many many states.  The Republican candidate can make a similar case, but we have to look at just what Obama would be up against:

1.  Sarah Palin.  The Republicans stand to rake in more money by having her as the standard bearer as well as the primary recipient of donations for her somewhat grassroots appeal with the base. If she could hold the more traditional money brokers to at least contribute to peripheral 527s, then she is better off not taking public financing.

2.  Mitt Romney.  He's personally wealthy and well-connected to what I would assume to be the wealthy Republican donors.  Said donors, however, are more prone to maxing out their contributions than a grassroots campaign and, while I would find him to be affable enough for the base, it's untested waters to see if the Republicans can embrace him wholly in spite of the religious differences.  For him, it is most likely preferable to have public financing.

3.  Mike Huckabee.  He cuts into about the same base as Sarah Palin, but where Palin may have more appeal to the base, Huckabee has a somewhat more legitimate "electability" argument with him, making him perhaps a favorite in that regard.  Again, I would consider him to be more competitive if he didn't take public financing.  

No one else really strikes me as someone that would be able to have the charisma Obama had in 2008 to be able to nab contributions like that.  On the other hand, the very nature of a dark horse candidate is the notion that the element of surprise invokes so much enthusiasm in the first place I guess.  

[ Parent ]
Your take is misleading, b/c it misses the REASON McCain took public financing......
He took the money because he had to.  He wasn't able to compete in fundraising with Obama or significantly exceed what public financing would give him.  Obama had announced well in advance, in the spring I think or maybe early summer, that he was turning down public financing, and it was understood at that time by everyone it was because Obama would raise a helluva lot more than the public coffers could provide.  McCain would've done the same if he could, he didn't put himself at a financial disadvantage simply out of principle.

It's true that because of Obama the Republicans won't do public money next year, but it wasn't a "mistake" for McCain to do so, and Republicans might very well find out it's not completely a "choice," that a bad candidate isn't better off going his own way than from taking public money.

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

[ Parent ]
b.j., I think it's safe to assume the process will be...
...cast a wide net, and narrow it only as the bank account and polling require.

I'm sure the 17 states Obama '08 treated as battlegrounds will be the bare minimum this time, with a much wider net than that to include all other states where Obama either polled well for some time in 2008, or where he ultimately performed better than people expected.  So expect the early map to include McCain states the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska, Arizona, South Carolina, Georgia, and Missouri.  If the GOP looks like it's going to nominate a troubled nominee, or if everyone in the field is so weak that a presumptive nominee doesn't even arise through the spring, I bet Obama '12 will look seriously at an even bigger map, including every state with a significant minority population like TX, LA, MS, and AL.  Yes that looks ridiculous, but if you've got Palin or Gingrich or someone else who proves to be an equally terrible nominee, those states will poll pretty close, close enough to justify a big investment.  In a state like MS, about 15% of white voters will vote for Obama anyway, and if you can get about 12% of McCain's white support, which translates to about 10% of all white voters, to hold their nose and vote for Obama simply because the GOP nominee is so horrific, then the state is a tossup.  I'm guessing there are a significant minority of white conservatives in the state who at least will draw a line in the sand and refuse the most outrageous possible GOP nominees.

I'll tell you this, it's already shaping up in early polling to be a cycle where Obama's map remains no smaller than last time.  And that's bad news for Team Red.  The reality is that the reality of the map is as critical to the ultimate outcome as anything else.  That Kerry had to fight to keep Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon narrowly in his column hurt him badly in 2004.  And McCain having to sweat so badly over the likes of Montana, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia was fatal to him.  The 2008 map by itself ensures Obama's reelection if Republicans can't significantly shrink it and take Indiana and North Carolina off the table, and a couple other states like Virginia and Colorado mostly off the table.  But that's not going to happen.

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

[ Parent ]
Unless unemployment is still above 9% next year
and gasoline is somewhere above $4/gallon

There are circumstances where several Rs could beat President Obama.

[ Parent ]
Sure, although I doubt gas prices will matter much......
Gas lines, much worse than high prices, didn't bring down Nixon (yes I know Watergate did :-)).

And actually gas lines didn't bring down Carter, either, even though he lost.

Gas prices are one of those "hot" issues that comes and goes regularly, and elected officials and candidates make a big deal of it because it's expected, but ultimately voters don't really blame elected officials for it.

But yes 9.3% unemployment in 2012 is a problem.

But no one now thinks it will be that.  The projections I'm seeing now are we'll be down in the 8s as the 2012 campaign is well under way.  That's still not great, but the trend is what matters.

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

[ Parent ]
Gas prices in that range
can kill economic recoveries.

The stagflation from the second oil shock in the late 70s did hit Carter's ratings hard. Remember the "misery index?"

aka, while I give President Obama an A- for how he's handled Egypt so far, it's something that can lead to a bad reaction from people who control some of the oil spigots. Given how he's handled Egypt, I think the risk is relatively minimal, but far from trivial.

Nevertheless, what you say is true, it isn't the gas prices themselves. But it is a handy reference point for the oil prices that can I believe sink a party in power.

[ Parent ]
I figured as much.
I went out and bought the book The Audacity to Win by David Plouffe. It was good, but it didn't contain as much information as I would like about the process, and I stopped reading it for the moment because I am loving The Promise by Jonathon Alter.

If there's one thing that struck me, it's that his campaign team didn't retreat into a defeatist, provincial way of thinking right away. That may have been because they were going into the election with advantages that any Democrat would have loved to have or because they were running a campaign with a candidate that presented a chance to bring a new states into play. Or maybe it was something else, like not being aware of how running the first black candidate would go, thus making all of those scenarios where Montana's electoral votes would make a difference a lot more sensible. Whatever the case, they approached it like any Democratic operation should: with an expansive mindset. I just hope they are doing the same now.

And no, none of what you describe seems ridiculous. In the event that he won a state like Alabama, it would be by a small margin, but who the hell cares? I doubt he'd hurt any other Democrats in the process. It can, I think, only benefit him and his party. Seriously, has there ever been a race where the candidate campaigning has actually hurt his chances?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
meh
Below 50 is obviously not good for an incumbent however it looks like if he doesn't run against Bruning the race will be a toss-up instead of a Lean R.
NE
This post seems pointless, he is very likely to run against the AG.

29/D/Male/NY-01
[ Parent ]
we thought that about castle in 2010
bunning could have a tea party challenge, perhaps for no reason other than the fact that bunning has governmental experience.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Bruning
Has tea party support. for example, Chuck Devore (anyone remember him?) has endorsed him.  
[ Parent ]
they could turn on him
not saying it's likely, but not impossible.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
But what
if there is a candidate that they like more? Are they strategic enough to not follow the candidate that fits their ideologically tastes more than Bruning but that would be a lot riskier as a candidate?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
How risky
can a Republican be in Nebraska? I've got to think that even against the most popular Dem, the worst Republican has a floor of about 30. When you factor in Nelson's unpopularity, I'd find it hard to believe Alvin Greene would get less than 40% running on the R ticket. It'll take someone mildly credible, but having a second-tier candidate take out a front-runner here is probably not that big a deal.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)
[ Parent ]
Maybe they'll find a Nebraksan version of Joe Miller
Someone who opposes federal farm subsidies or something. I doubt it, though. There probably are about ten people in Nebraska who oppose farm subsidies.

Male, VA-08
[ Parent ]
Well, Pete Ricketts
did get 36.1 percent of the vote. That's higher than the 30 percent you mention, but still pretty terrible for any candidate unless it's at least a three-way race where all candidates are major players. And yes, 2006 was a Democratic year, but damn, almost 64 percent of the vote for Nelson?

The thing is, it doesn't matter what percentage of the vote Nelson is reelected with just as long as he's reelected. He's a Democrat, but a conservative one, and it's a conservative state. If he's running against some extremist, he can easily position himself as the sane, safe, if not exactly outstanding alternative. Will that be enough to get him to at least 50.01 percent in a non-awful year? I think so.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
A telling statistic
is that Christine O'Donnell got more or less the same percentage in 2010 that John McCain did in '08. So that leads me to believe that McCain's performance is the floor for a Republican candidate with one thing going for them (in McCain's case, it was his personal qualities, for O'Donnell it was the national climate).

In Nebraska, the one thing that will be going for the Republican, no matter who it is, is the widespread dislike for Nelson. That's worth 40% no matter who the candidate is, and can only increase from there if the candidate is credible.

The question is how credible a candidate does one need to get up to 50%? Considering that McCain won the state, I think the answer is: not very. Honestly I think Christine O'Donnell would win this race if she were the R nominee.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

[ Parent ]
I wonder if that dislike
can be changed on its own or would be changed just him not being some sort of nut in the event that he went up against Christine O'Donnell-type. Is the dislike for Nelson so strong that people will hold their noses and vote for whomever he is up against? In some cases, sure, but in a normal loss, I'd think his floor is more like 45 percent rather than 40 percent. If that's the case, it's not nearly as high a climb.

There aren't that many of them in the state, but unless I am reading the crosstabs wrong, a lot of his disapproval comes from Democrats and liberals who aren't happy with him.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Health care lawsuit
Bruning is the Attorney General of the state, which means he signed onto the lawsuit against health care reform. While this is not as important in a general election, in a primary it is electoral gold for Republicans. They have their name on a fancy piece of paper saying they are doing something constructive about the law that has been so hated on by the GOP.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04
[ Parent ]
I forgot about that.
Good call.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Brunning
I don't know the guy well (it's been a while since I did any more in NE - Disclaimer: I worked for Heinemann in '94, '98 & the '06 primary), but I don't think Stenberg will get in and Brunning with cruise through the primary.

As I've said I can't see Nelson's path to victory anymore, he's alienated the whole damn state now, liberal and conservative alike. I'm not ready to label him Blanche Lambert Nelson, but it's close.

As someone mentioned yesterday, the Dems might have a better chance w/o Nelson (though this is iike saying I'll live longer in the frying pan than the fire), if he does decide to hang it up I think Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler could be strong (remember Johanns was Mayor of Lincoln too, so there is precedence for moving from there to statewide office), Former Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey would also be interesting (he knocked off Hal Daub so no one should take him lightly), but being one of the most pro gun control mayors in the county will make for a hard sell outside the Omaha city limits (even in Lincoln that won't fly). Both of them are getting pretty long in the tooth, but Nebraska has a soft spot for elder statesmen types Tom Osborne was 63 when he ran for congress and Fahey & Beutler are both about the same age now (mid-60s I think).

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Stenberg
why do you think he won't get in? He basically ran for Treasurer solely to give himself a fresh platform for a comeback of some sort. Is there something that makes you think he's looking more at the Gov race in '14?

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)
[ Parent ]
Stenberg
I think Stenberg has learned (painfully) to be more carefull in how he proceeds for higher office, it's no surprise he picked the 1 open seat in the Nebraska Government.

Intersting side note, the Treasurer race was Heinemann's path to the Governorship, and the office has been held by Navy hero Sean Osborn, who is that? He is the EP-3 pilot of safely landed his plane on Hainan Island back in (eek what '01?), he won the DFC for his action, left the Navy in '05 and came back to NE to run for office, beating an incumbent GOPers (although appointed not elected incumbent).

I have no idea why Osborn called it quits, I only briefly met him once or twice and handn't heard he was unhappy with public service, when he announced he wasn't running for re-election many were shocked, he was actually expected to run against Nelson after cruising to re-election.  

Anyway back to our regularly scheduled program....

Heineman is term limited in '14 and it would be a safe and easy step now for Stenberg to run for Governor, especially with the only other two "up and comers" (Brunning and Osborn) out of the picture.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
You don't
have to be so rude with the response. If you don't like the post don't respond  

TX-13,22,Dem
[ Parent ]
NE
Sorry, Did not mean to come across as rude, re-reading how I wrote it, it certainly came across as such.  I apologize.

I agree with other posters saying we can never be certain with Republicans, but Bruning is so far to the right, I think we can be pretty confident of him winning the primary.

29/D/Male/NY-01

[ Parent ]
interesting...
A pointless post?  Since the primary isn't over it could end up being someone else.  Even if Bruning is the favorite now there is still a decent amount of time until the primary and the general.  

If you don't like pointless posts then maybe you should think before you click post.

[ Parent ]
Is anyone else thinking...
Triage?  

Because seriously, with these numbers, what's the point? Unless Obama can pick up an electoral vote in Omaha, there's really no reason to even bother with contesting Nebraska, especially for a Senate vote that's as unreliable as Nelson's.

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

As long as Nelson's a reliable vote
for Harry Reid as Majority Leader, that would be enough for me. And a 50-50 Senate seems to be close to the most probable result after '12.

AFAIK, there's 0 Ds on the NE bench with the stature to be more than 2nd tier -- the D bench in fact looks more like "some dudes" to me.  

[ Parent ]
I wonder
if that is more a result of there being so few people in Nebraska to begin with.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Not this early.
Even if he's a placeholder until we develop a deeper bench, or rather a bench, in the state, it's worth trying to keep his seat. As annoying as he is, he's almost certainly going to be easier to work with than any Republican.

Results like this look daunting, but let's play with the numbers. In 2006, the breakdown for D/R/I was 27/50/23. In 2006, Nelson received 94 percent of Democrats, 42 percent of Republicans, and 73 percent of Independents. Let's change that to 90 percent of Democrats, 17 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of Independents. In a two-man race, that would give him 45.4 percent of the vote.

But now let's give him 94 percent of Democrats, 25 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of Independents. That would give him 51.68 percent of the vote, around what he won with in his first race. He could drop down to 55 percent of Independents or 23 percent of Republicans and still win as long as he keeps his Democratic base.

Can he get to these percentages? I don't know. But if he can catch a few breaks in the race, especially a Teabagger that runs and eats up a few percentage points of the Republican candidate's vote, he probably has a good shot at keeping his seat.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
If he's the worst
then that is very good.

The best thing in Nelson's favor is he faces no consensus candidate (now anyway).  If the GOP acts here like everywhere else, nelson will face either a looney or at the least a weakened candidate.

Mr. Nelson will have a hard time
The Senator's vote for socialized health care will be a constant thorn in his side till election day.  In a state where abortion is deeply unpopular he voted for a health care program that supports abortion.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/0...
You had better be
merely quoting that article to make us chuckle at its BS.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
SSP
Is it me or are there more and more Right wingers posting on here than in the past?

29/D/Male/NY-01
[ Parent ]
Well
most of them usually kept their tongue in cheek. They have RRH (Red Racing Horses) to go full Republican.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I'm a Canadian
I'm a Canadian - I support univeral health care, gay marriage and gun control.  If you are umable to argue the point don't bother to engage.
[ Parent ]
Part of the point of SSP
is to avoid issue discussions.

In fact, notes like yours are perhaps the quickest way I've seen users get banned.

In any case, if you really are Canadian and use Canadian health care, you should understand that HCR is not even close to socialized medicine.

Thus, I think it's fair to conclude that your note is nothing but flame bait.

[ Parent ]
I am sorry to disagree with you but...
I am a Canadian! I am sorry you don't like my opionions.
[ Parent ]
He
was saying don't come here with that arrogant, know it all attitude that you have at the moment.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I'm a Canadian
I'm a Canadian - I support univeral health care, gay marriage and gun control.  If you are unable to argue the point don't bother to engage.
[ Parent ]
That's the lamest attempt at wolf in sheeps clothing trolling I've ever seen.
It's funny though.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Sorry boys - Canadian through and through
No matter how much you abuse me... I will be polite.
[ Parent ]
This is ironic, as your post upthread was very rude
But if you keep this up chances are you'll be gone pretty soon, so maybe it's pointless.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Pure tossup
Jesse Helms polled worse than this in 1983, so Nelson has a great shot at coming back.

On the other hand, MA-Sen is at least Lean D. Lincoln Chafee had similar approvals to Scott Brown early on, and look what happened to him.

that's the optimism I like
Nelson is behind in a red state so it's a toss-up.
Brown polls well in a Blue state without a known challenger but it leans Democrats! Go Go Rah Rah!  
[ Parent ]
I'd agree with the sentiment
on MA-Sen.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
It's not inconceivable that Nelson can come back
And it's not inconceivable that Brown can lose. Nelson is veteran who has won more than one race is a red state, Brown has only won one low turnout race in a very blue state.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
Sorry your missing your states
Yes Mr. Helms was greatly behind... but it had far more to do with his anti-Israel positions then anything else.  He won on Reagan's coattails. In MA - Brown ran against Martha Coakley the Attorney General not Chafee.  He is the former Republican senator of Rhode Island and current Independent Governor.
[ Parent ]
The reference to Chafee...
is regarding his failed 2006 re-election bid. He started (and ended) his race very personally popular but Sheldon Whitehouse did a fantastic job tying him to Bush/the national GOP to the extent that Chafee's likability couldn't save him. So the analogy here is that Brown's popularity won't save him when he's tied to the Republican presidential nominee.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that's the point that was being made.

20, GOP, NH-02

[ Parent ]
This
is just a theory of mine, but if Romney is the nominee, I think that would hurt Scott Brown's reelection chances. Mainly because Massachusetts voters will remember how crappy Romney's tenure as governor was and how he took off and badmouthed his own state in South Carolina while he was still governor. So when they tie Brown to Romney (if he's the nominee) not only will they try to tie him to the national GOP agenda, but remind voters why Romney decided not to run for reelection.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I've considered this, too
but I'm not sure how effective it would be -- particularly because Brown is personally popular in a way that Romney could never be. Romney comes off as slick and unctuous; Brown gives off a much more genuine vibe. So I doubt it will be hard for Brown to put quite a bit of distance between himself and Mitt. I also don't think it's a stretch to say that, ideology aside, Brown is one of the best politicians in the country right now, which is why he's where he is in the first place.

That, and I'm going to go out on a really long, flimsy limb with fingers and toes crossed and predict that Mitch Daniels will be the Republican nominee anyways. If my party hasn't parted with all of its sanity by the time that's sorted out...

20, GOP, NH-02

[ Parent ]
I'm wondering if somehow, Huntsman squeaks through...
Not sure how it would work, but his campaign would focus on being the guy most likely to win, then use his personal charm to win enough primary voters over.  Seems unlikely to work, but with seemingly at least a dozen legitimate GOP candidates who may be in for the long haul with proportional delegates, it's possible the guy could somehow squeak through...
[ Parent ]
Don't mean to derail
with GOP nominee talk, but I agree. At this point, I think Huntsman and Daniels, and perhaps Huckabee, are the only candidates with any kind of legitimate shot at preventing a landslide (let alone winning).

Which is why I thought at the time and continue to think that the choice of Huntsman for ambassador was the smartest purely political move of Obama's presidency.

20, GOP, NH-02

[ Parent ]
You don't think anything of
Thune's chances?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Meh,
he's certainly in a category above the rest of the field, but I think his profile is too much "generic R." That's not good enough.

Huntsman and Daniels stand out to me as having been relatively successful governors who are pragmatic, policy-oriented, and moderate enough on social issues to be palatable to the fiscally conservative, socially more liberal voters that gravitated towards Obama last time around. Also, either of them could counter Obama's intellectual heft, which is not something that can be said for most of the field.

20, GOP, NH-02

[ Parent ]
There's
nothing really special about Thune I agree. Woohoo he knocked off Tom Daschle that's great....  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I play a little game
Whenever Thune is mentioned or profiled as a presidential prospect, I try to guess a) how long it will be before it mentions his physical appearance, and b) if there's anything else it mentions.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)
[ Parent ]
Yeah, voters and the media can both be shallow like that
But the fact is, the President is almost always someone at least reasonably handsome. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Kennedy were all generally good-looking in one way or another at the start of their terms. The only exceptions in the last half century are Bush 41 (who did look kind of stately in his 60's), Nixon (who just looked slimy) and LBJ (who was elected originally as VP.)

Several of the losing candidates have not been particularly handsome: McCain, Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, Goldwater.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
In a general, yes,
I think they are threatening. But I wonder how either of them, especially Huntsman, gets through a primary.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
If the GOP
primary system was arranged so the most valuable states were front loaded and winner take all in delegate apportionment Huntsman or Daniels could get by. But I heard the RNC is purposely going to stretch out their primary because they saw how it really helped Obama when he and Hillary battled it out to the end. So its really going to come down to the who can last the longest and that's probably going to be the more conservative tea party oriented candidates. More time to knock RINO's and establishment candidates off.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
DartCon makes a very good point
Even though Brown has already endorsed Romney for President--way back in February of 2010, on national TV--he's much better off if someone else is the nominee. Romney is still generally resented by independents here for being far more rigidly conservative as governor than they expected (unlike his moderate predecessors, Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci.) He will most likely win the presidential primary here but would get destroyed in the general.

That being said, it's not like Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, or Barbour would be doing Brown any favors atop the ticket either. Of the current circulating names, Daniels and Thune are the only ones who stand a chance of doing "decently" in Massachusetts and not dragging Brown down too much.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
In keeping with my previous
What is it about Thune that would make him do decently in Massachusetts?  Just in contrast to the rest of them?

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)
[ Parent ]
He's not a "redneck"
Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Barbour would all be branded that way immediately up here, and would perform at or below Bush levels (and he did horribly here.) Thune is much more conservative than the state but voters will at least more comfortable with his classy, Senatorial style.

Massachusetts has been consistent as of late: Gore by 27, Kerry by 25, Obama by 26. It did not have a home-state bounce in 2004, nor did it have the big shift in 2008 that most other blue states had. I'm interested to see what happens in 2012--I think that a non-Southern Republican may be able to stay within 20 and carry a county or two.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
Thune not a redneck?
You have to be kidding me.  Sure, he comports himself better than Haley Barbour, but he is a big ol' redneck and proud of it.

Gingrich is the least rednecky of all the folks you listed.  In fact, he has a very New Englandy flavor to him.

[ Parent ]
There's a part of me that looks at MA
and then looks at the demographics and the trend and Scott Brown and insists that it's slowly moving Republican.

But another part of me thinks that as long as the Republican Party remains a Southern-dominated party, the cultural disconnect will make it hard to appeal to places in New England like MA (which isn't to insult the South, just to say that those two regions have been at odds since the nation's founding).

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
Which trends
and demographics tell you that Massachusetts is slowly moving to the Republicans?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
The Consistancy Though
Has disguised a somewhat pro-GOP trend given the national results and also when you look at margins. This is because Ralph Nader got 6% in 2000, disguising the fact that there was in fact a five point swing to Bush in 2004. When you look at Republican totals minus the national margin you get.

2000:32% -16
2004:37% -14
2008:36% -10

Thats a pretty consistent trend.

This becomes a lot more apparent when you look at the exit polls. Bush lost Catholics by 7 against Gore, by 2 against Kerry, and McCain came close to winning them. It is also the working-class Catholic Irish and Italian towns that gave Brown his margin. The traditional Wasp strongholds stayed loyal to Coakley.

This presents a problem, for while the Democratic party is fairly diverse at the late level, every mentioned Democratic candidate with the exception of McGovern appeals to the upscale latte wing of the party, which already turned out in large numbers for Coakley.

This goes into my general problem with the math people. Using math, one would have assumed that Ayotte would have had an uphill climb last year, but anyone who knew the dynamics on the ground knew as early as June of 2009 that Hodes probably didn't have a chance without some sort of massive democratic wave. By the same token, every single local dynamic favors Brown to a degree that was not true for Chaffee. In Democratic wave year it may be lean dem, but it is no better right now than toss-up even with Palin, since voters can separate Brown from who the national leadership is.


26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
?
"Bush lost Catholics by 7 against Gore, by 2 against Kerry, and McCain came close to winning them."

Isn't losing Catholics by 2 points the same thing as close to winning them?  A shift of 2 points and then their tied.  What was McCain's margin against Obama in that demographic?

[ Parent ]
I don't get that measure.
Maybe it's just the time of day, but I don't get why you are using such a measure. Can't you turn it around and say that the state has gotten more Democratic from 2000 to 2004 but that they tapped out in 2008 because Obama won nationally or rather than the Republicans simply went up because they hit rock bottom in the state?

"Using math, one would have assumed that Ayotte would have had an uphill climb last year, but anyone who knew the dynamics on the ground knew as early as June of 2009 that Hodes probably didn't have a chance without some sort of massive democratic wave."

Elaborate, if you will, not because I think it's wrong, but because I'm curious to know more.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Nader got 7% in 2000
Which distorts the vote, because its not as if his voters split their votes between Bush and Kerry in 2000. Therefore the fact that 7% of the vote that was for Nader went to Kerry disguises the fact that there was a 5% swing to Bush from Kerry, one of the largest swings in the country(on par with Tennessee and Alabama.

2000 Gore 59 Bush 32
2004 Kerry 62 Bush 37
2008 Obama 62 McCain 36

When people just talk about the Democratic percentage of the vote its misleading because it went up between 2000 and 2004 when in fact there was a major Republican movement. It becomes more apparent when we put in results since 1992, and you include the differences from the national margin.

1992 Clinton 48 Bush 29 Perot 22
1996 Clinton 63 Dole 28 Perot 8
2000 Gore 59 Bush 32
2004 Kerry 62 Bush 37
2008 Obama 62 McCain 36

Whats more impressive was the statewide performances this year. The major problem for the MA GOP since the 1960s has been that their down ballot candidates actually run behind the national candidates. There are a number of legislative seats that went for George Bush that Democrats safely held up until 2010. The fact that their statewide candidates got 42%,45%, 47%, and 37% is a massive improvement, because with the exception of Joe Malone in 1994 and 1990, no Republican has broken 40 in a down-ballot race since the 1960.

There is a genuine GOP base forming. Its not a majority, but it may well give them something to build on in the future.

As for my remarks about New Hampshire, there were a lot of people on here declaring it a Blue State, and saying it was far too blue for someone like Ayotte to win, despite the fact that even when Obama was popular Hodes was polling behind. The same thing existed with the Maine 2008 race, where people remained convinced that the underlying demographics of the states would make both races competitive but they ended in 24 point blowouts.

Outside of a anti-wave year when the population must get the majority out of office, there is very little reason for a popular incumbent to lose, especially against the safety-first type candidates New England Democratic parties tend to run. Chafee had the misfortune to run in 2006, but in 2004 he probably would have won by 12 points.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
But there
has always been a base. There's a base of voters in every race, in every part of every state. There's a base of Democratic voters in Provo, Utah, for instance. It just isn't very big.  

You are saying that there is a base forming and that maybe it will expand or at least getting to the point where it is cohesive enough so that candidates can expand on it. Well, maybe. But it was a very Republican year, and in two of the races, incumbents weren't running. It's usually pretty easy to get closer when you aren't running against an incumbent. And the state, while pretty Democratic, isn't averse to voting for Republicans. But I honestly don't see the trends you are describing.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
In keeping with my previous
What is it about Thune that would make him do decently in Massachusetts?  Just in contrast to the rest of them?

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)
[ Parent ]
This is
slightly off topic, but can I just say how ridiculous it is that both Romney and Pawlenty stand little to no chance of carrying Massachusetts or Minnesota if they run against Obama? It's more pathetic for Pawlenty than Romney, but it's still pretty damn pathetic for Romney.

Anyway, at this point, if previous electoral trends hold, and unless Scott Brown sees a massive surge in either Democratic support, the Democratic strategy should be whatever it takes to get 50 percent of the Independent vote. I don't know what that might be, but that should be enough to win, even if it's by a small margin.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Honestly, the Democratic strategy should just be to unite Democrats
If whoever runs against Scott Brown retains at least 85% of Democrats, (s)he wins, period. I ran a scenario where Brown wins 20% of Democrats and 60% of Independents, and he was on the wrong end of a toss-up, that's how Democratic Massachusetts is and how much Scott Brown has to rely on Obama/Brown voters to win this time.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I haven't
been able to find any complete figures from the special election, but I do remember reading that crushed Coakley when it came to Independent voters and actually won about 19 or 20 percent of Democratic voters. I also know, based on reading past election results, that the Democrats usually get between 55 and 60 percent of the Independent vote. Figure that if Brown remains pretty popular, he'll keep the same sort of support that he did last time amongst Democrats and not get killed amongst Independents. But how low can he go with Independents and how high can he go with Democrats?

In 2008, the turnout was 43/17/40 for D/R/I. Let's be a more generous to the Republicans and less generous to the Democrats and make that 40/20/40. If the Democratic candidate gets 10 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents, he or she can lose as much as 27 percent of the Democratic vote and still eek out a victory in a two-person race.

Like you, I've come up with scenarios where he or she gets a lot of Democratic support and loses a lot of Independent support and still wins. But I figured that unless it's an absolutely abysmal year for the Democratic candidate, he or she is likely to get the vast majority of Democratic support. As I said above, Coakley lost a lot of Democrats to Brown, but even she managed to get over 80 percent of them. I figure that if the Democratic candidate is getting 50 percent of the Independent vote, he or she is all but guaranteed to win under anything resembling a normal election.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
That guarantees more or less a convincing victory
But really, Democrats would be better advised (especially during a presidential election) to focus more heavily on uniting the party rather than reaching out to Independents (although they shouldn't shun them either). Either way though, it's all going to about keeping Obama voters voting straight D this year.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
The thing is,
I bet anybody who wins a primary without it being incredibly bloody wins a significant amount of Democratic support by default and sees this support come to the polls because it's a presidential year. In other words, that's not the big problem.

In the example I described above, the loss of Democratic support to Brown, which is probably so significant as to be unprecedented in recent elections, still doesn't sink the Democratic candidate. It probably takes into account all of the types of folks that are allegedly trending away from the Democrats. Brown doesn't have a chance, short of some sort of huge implosion, to win anything close to half of that voting block. He'll get the vast majority of Republicans, but barring a massive surge of 50 to 100 percent of their registration figures, that's not going to help him much. In the end, the action appears to be over the Independents.

I don't know if the candidate has to really run against the party to appeal to Independents, but of course, this is all besides the point if Independent voters and Democratic voters during a presidential year are largely the same. Are they?

Whatever the case, if the Democrats don't come within two points, they deserve to lose.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Honestly, I think the labeling obfuscates what the real issue is here...
Brown must get a certain number of Obama voters to vote for him to win, and really that means getting a certain share of voters who reflexively vote for Democrats to vote for Brown.

When you get down to it, Brown really does need some significant share of left-leaning voters to vote for him in order to win, he can't win with a purely center-right coalition.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I agree.
In the end, I feel that as long as it's not a bad year for Democrats and the party approaches this race with the same tenacity that Obama approached any number of states, they should win unless their candidate is absolutely terrible. There are any number of reasons why he might win, but there's been no recent huge shift in one direction (and perhaps not even any small ones), there are no demographic trends to exploit, and there are a lot of candidates that would, under normal circumstances, be perfectly fine as candidates. I think people are being far too generous to him and much too negative towards Democrats when describing this race.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
10 percent of Republicans is unreasonable in MA
...primaries are semi-open here (D&R are locked in, Is can vote either way), and the Dem primary is more exciting 99% of the time, so you only register as a Republican if you really mean it. A better estimate is 5%, especially with someone like Brown who's more-or-less universally liked among Republicans (at least more than any Democrat in the state).

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the clarity
But who is the Republican nominee... Brown is ahead of game at this point.
[ Parent ]
Actually...
Helms faced a tough race in '84 largely because he faced a popular two term Governor (Jim Hunt). His general jerk-iness was a secondary factor.

Also, I'm 99.9% sure the previous poster was comparing the situation Brown faces in 2012 to Chafee's in 2006, not saying that Chafee ran against Brown. Which is a valid (hopefully accurate) comparison.


24, Gay Dude, Democrat, DC-AL

[ Parent ]
Agreed
Governor Hunt was a superb Governor - one who probably would not win election in any democratic primary today.  I am unable to measure 'jerk-iness,' perhaps that's a specialty of socialists throughout the world.  But Helms won because of Reagan!
[ Parent ]
Wow.
I won't be sad once the mods see this.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Yeah
It's been taken care of. But don't hesitate to email us when you see obvious turds like this - sometimes we miss comments, sometimes it takes us a while to read stuff, etc. We'd rather be able to nip things in the bud when we can.
[ Parent ]
Great
Thanks, will keep that in mind from now on.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
What happened in 1983?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Reaganing
We had a top-tier recruit (Governor Hunt), the economy was still bad, and Reagan's numbers were pretty terrible at that point. As late as Jan. 1984, Mondale was still pretty competitive with Reagan in the polls. Reagan didn't really pull away until it was clear that the economy was revived.

24, Gay Dude, Democrat, DC-AL
[ Parent ]
Agreed
However, I believe Reagan won by 20 points - it wasn't even close....
[ Parent ]
In case you can't tell , I was being facetious
I'm making fun of the tendency for people here (and elsewhere) to a) rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence of past races for their predictions and b) engage in partisan-induced wishful (and inconsistent) thinking, such as thinking Republican incumbents in Democratic seats are highly vulnerable to coattails, but not vice versa.  
[ Parent ]
Agreed
So read the local press... it's all online... and it's been incredibly correct in the past. As for 'partisan-induced wishful (and inconsistent) thinking'... it has been happening since the invention of the printing press.
[ Parent ]
Senate CoH numbers
"Here's a rundown of potentially vulnerable senators and their current cash on hand amount (numbers were not available Tuesday for some members):

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) $7.2 million
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) $2.5 million
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) $2.4 million
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) $2.35 million
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) $2 million
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) $1.5 million
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) $1.45 million
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) $1.3 million
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) $1.2 million
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) $1.1 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) $1 million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) $900,000
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) $562,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) $536,000
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $511,000
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) $444,000
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) $377,000
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) $66,000"

I think Sander's only counts as "vulnerable" on The Fix list because of his CoH (he put the benchmark at $1M), can't see that race being close.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

Bill Nelson (D-FL)
haven't seen his end of year numbers, but he has $2.9M CoH after the September filing deadline.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
If SHS seeks a rematch with Noem
Sandlin would be the favorite.

http://www.publicpolicypolling...

I'd say odds are  that she does seek a rematch, and she probably win.

WTH?
They just kicked her out three months ago. Independents really piss me off sometimes  
[ Parent ]
they
She got 256k votes in 08 and 147k in 10. I would guess that most of the 109k missing voters stayed home as opposed to going red, although the R vote went from about 123k to 154k. She could conceivably get that seat back even if she doesn't flip too many people who voted for Noem.

41, Ind, CA-05
[ Parent ]
This is just one
more piece of evidence that a lot of the 2010 elections weren't the result of voters turning on the Democrats (although there was definitely some of that), but that it was simply conservatives showing up. I am not sure how else you can explain results like this.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
NE-Sen: Nelson Starts Out in Deep Hole | 142 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox