Looks good

Nelson has a couple of things going for him in 2012, he has appeal in the panhandle and all the extra turnout for the Presidential will give him even more footing. Plus, PPP also showed that Obama is leading all Republicans, even 3 point lead on Jeb Bush and that bodes well for chances of the state going blue again.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 19:09:34 PM UTC

That's Florida

Those numbers sound uninspiring but the main reason for them is that only 55% of Democrats approve of the job he's doing, where you'd usually expect someone to be in the 70-80% range within their own party.

Part of what makes things tough for Florida Democrats is that I'm pretty sure that no state whose median voter is as conservative as Florida's has a median Democratic voter as liberal as Florida does.  

But Democrats don't have to love Nelson for him to win. They just need to respect him, to like him better than his Republican opponent, and to continue voting for him. (That's not enough by itself, but Nelson should be fine as long as he can fight the GOP candidate to a draw or better with independents and unaligned voters.)

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 19:24:47 PM UTC

Yep.

Not to mention that since many of those liberal voters are elderly, there's less danger of them just not showing up.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 19:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh, I've seen it before...

In Utah and Arizona, progressives push hard in Dem primaries. But at least in Florida, they're more accustomed to voting for Dems in statewide generals. And has Bill Nelson really irked Palm Beach and Broward Dems that much?

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Bill Nelson

is in between Ben Nelson on one side and Sherrod Brown on the other side as far as how Democrats like him, I can't see him suffering. They might not be willing to die in the streets for him, but he should be more than acceptable, particularly as the alternative, a Republican candidate that makes him look like Kucinich, becomes clearer and clearer.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:47:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama will get the Dems to show up

and they'll check the box for Nelson (particularly since one imagines in the interim his Republican opponent will presumably be doing all the usual firebreathing).

---

by: SC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:18:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

If he was running in a midterm he may have more trouble. Strangely, his low disapproval is perhaps more important here.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:21:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't really remember anything of note he voted against

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:22:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll fast-forward to 2013

Bill Nelson really is the best hope Dems have in FL in many ways.  I wonder how long he wants to be in the Senate.  

Its crazy, but thinking out until 2018, would he run again?  Is there a charimanship he could be given to keep him happy?  It looks like Indian Affairs (Akaka), Energy (Bingaman), Budget (Conrad) and Homeland Security (Lieberman) will be open.

One other note I never knew, when he was running in 2006 against Katherine Harris, when he knew he was going to win he transferred millions to other Dem candidates...holy crap.

---

by: rdw72777 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 19:55:34 PM UTC

All of these early polls have been looking pretty good for us.

Unfortunately,after how 2010 turned out after looking great at the start of the cycle, I'm not going to get my hopes up quite so high. I think we can be optimistic though.

On another note, does anyone think the convention could have an impact in this race? That is, if it doesn't get moved as some Republicans are starting to suggest if Florida legislature doesn't move back their primary.

21, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)

---

by: JonathanMN @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:10:23 PM UTC

To me

The high-water mark in was April 2009, when Republicans had been looking foolish for months (remember the April Fool's budget plan?), capping off with Specter's switch. It all started going downhill from there.

But - I never thought things looked "great" at the start of the cycle. I figured after two big years in a row, we were at best going to keep our heads above water.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:36:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From the other side of the aisle

I think the high/low water mark was in late June or early July. Cap and Trade had just passed the House, and it looked like HCR was about to glide through before the recess. Republicans had badly botched the Sotomayor nomination, saying a bunch of inflammatory stuff even though they didn't have the votes to do anything. And then Coleman conceded in Minnesota, giving Dems the 60th Senate vote. It looked pretty hopeless for the GOP then. I'd argue (along with a lot of other people) that the tides turned with the stall of HCR in late July and then the town hall craziness in August.

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

---

by: MassGOP @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 23:14:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting

You make some persuasive arguments. Also, after an initial drop, Obama's approvals plateaued for a few months, then started to drop in June. I agree that House Dems looked very serious when they were passing HCR through the various committees (and including the public option), and then passed cap-and-trade, too. It looked like they finally had their sea legs. And then of course it all started to unravel.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:20:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can we be optimistic?

I talked to a friend at work today who disagrees with me about a lot of things, but from a Democrat versus Democrat perspective. He's probably a touch more liberal than I am, for one thing, and we usually feel the opposite about electoral chances of our party. I respect his opinion because he's an ABD in political science, among other things. Today, he said that he thinks Obama will be reelected and that the Democrats will retake the House or come very close but that we will lost the senate. That's certainly not impossible, but I had to disagree with how likely it is. Perhaps you can tell me how far off I am.

His basic argument was North Dakota and Nebraska are already lost and that we need to run the table on the rest of the races, especially if we don't pick up any seats. I could see where he's coming from with that idea, but I think he's wrong to include senate races like those in Hawaii and Connecticut in with those in Virginia and Missouri. Sure, as he said, it's unlikely a coin will flip exactly the same way 20 times in a row, but five to seven times? In other words, we're required to run the table, but in a smaller number of races. And if he thinks Obama's going to win, how can we lose so many senate races? It's entirely possible, although not necessarily likely, that Sherrod Brown could lose while Obama wins, but I'm really not sure why that would happen. The same can be said for Bill Nelson in Florida and the Democratic candidate in Virginia. And unless Obama's getting blown out of the water, he's not going to dip below 46 or 47 percent in a state like Missouri. Is it that hard to imagine McCaskill improving on him by just a few points?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Again, what he's saying is impossible, just not very likely...or so it seems to me.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:44:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Obama wins

in 2012, we likely keep the Senate. We lose Conrad and Ben Nelson, but I think that we keep OH, FL, NM, MI, VA (if/when Kaine makes up his mind), WV, and I'd put my money on MO (McCaskill's pane episode will brush over, and she's leading most candidates narrowly). MT is a coin-flip.

If the political climate gets really good for us, we can win Ensign's seat. If the tea party turns on Snowe and S. Brown, we can win those seats too.

---

by: thematt523 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:52:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AZ, IN

If Franks beats Flake in the primary I think AZ is a likely pickup. Franks is too far right to win a high-profile statewide race against a competent moderate Dem. I think Goddard (for one) would beat him with room to spare. Flake on the other hand would likely beat any Dem except (healthy) Giffords.

IN is off the table if Lugar wins, but I'd give Donnelly or Ellsworth around 50-50 to beat Mourdock.  

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:17:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ME

Anything could happen there. Long way to go.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:18:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's that,

but I think those states more likely to expand our majority than help save it.

I mean, think about it. Is it that hard to imagine us losing Nebraska and North Dakota, but winning in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and Montana? Those are really the most contested seats. Perhaps Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, if Kohl isn't the nominee, will seat tighter than expected races, but I doubt it. I think the Democrats will win there, and perhaps quite significantly. But where else? New Jersey? Connecticut? Hawaii? Delaware? Washington? Minnesota? We have a lot of seats to defend, but the ones that are really legitimate contests constitute a much smaller group.

So let's say that happens. We'd be at 51, even if we lost everything else, including Massachusetts and Nevada. But what if we win either Massachusetts or Nevada? Then we could lose Montana or Missouri but still maintain the majority.


"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:49:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama wins, Democratic Senate

Obama loses, Republican Senate. I really do think it is as simple as that.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:06:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe not that simple, but....

It'll be roughly like that.  It also depends on the GOP candidate.  There are weak contenders other than Palin, she's just near the bottom of the barrel.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:11:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bachmann

I think Bachmann's weaker than Palin because in addition to saying ridiculously stupid things, she makes a lot of insane comments, yet she doesn't have the same sort of goodwill built up that Palin does amongst the victimization crowd. I could be wrong about this, but I suspect there's a large but ultimately insignificant chunk of people that's not being captured by polls that will show up and vote for her. Granted, this means that Palin would get 41 percent while Bachmann would get 38 percent, or something like that, but that's the difference between a few more House seats.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:18:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's also Barbour

Sure he will have the oil and gas lobby bankrolling his entire campaign and he'll do robustly in the deep south and Appalachia, Texas, and OK.  However, he'll do poorly in NE, out west, the coastal east coast including NoVa and all north of that.  That's just off the top of my head.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:08:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree.

It's always possible to have the situation that my friend described, but in the same way that it's possible a car will drive through my kitchen: possible, but not likely.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:13:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

Even if we make it out of 2012 with a senate majority, we're still going to be screwed going into 2014. Begich, Kagan, Pryor, Udall (CO), Landrieu, Baucus, Shaheen, Lautenberg, Udall (NM), and Johnson all look like delicious targets for Republicans this far out. Even if we win 2/3 of those seats we'll lose the majority.

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:14:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The only two on that list that I would think

would have the most trouble would be Begich and Johnson then maybe Baucus, Pryor, and Landrieu. New Jersey is fools gold and I don't even know why it's even mentioned.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:20:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shaheen and Lautenberg

look safe. Baucus, Landreiu, and Johnson look like GOP pickups if they retire, or even if they don't.

But 2016 will have us back at a good map. Many people last year, like Kirk, Toomey, and R. Johnson could lose. Of course, it's WAY too early to plan for that.

---

by: thematt523 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:21:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ehh, maybe.

Begich, Landrieu, and Pryor will probably be vulnerable, but I don't see any particular reason to worry about anyone else. Maybe Johnson, but Kagan and both Udalls? It's also possible that Collins could be in for a Teabaggging, along with Graham and Chambliss.

But this is exactly why we need to be aggressive, particularly with a presidential campaign that can help us build up our infrastructure so that we can have a better chance of competing in off years. If we lose both Nebraska and North Dakota, but win the others and gain Massachusetts, Nevada, and one of Maine, Indiana, or Arizona, we can lose two out of any of the ones you mentioned, but still maintain the majority. And if we can get to 2016 while still in the majority, we should be able to keep it for some time if we pick up some of the seats we should have won this year, like those in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

I could sketch you lots of different scenarios, but suffice it to say that we should stop being so afraid. Let's find us a candidate, even in the seats in deeply red states, and let's support this candidate, even if this person is as annoying in his or her habits as a Bobby Bright or a Gene Taylor.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:33:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Especially if Obama is still president

Though I would hazard a guess people would rather take their chances with that than with a first term Republican president. Anyway, some of those are more trouble than others. Tom Udall is safe as can be for example.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 22:34:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I call bs on Tom Udall

He's very popular in New Mexico and the Republican bench is limited to Susana Martinez who would have no real reason to challenge him.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

---

by: DGM @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 00:21:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no such thing

As too far right in AZ.  See AZ elections 2010.

---

by: rdw72777 @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:26:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no

Sure, if 2010 is the new normal any Republican can beat any Democrat, but it's more likely that 2010 was an all-time red wave that won't be repeated any time soon.

Here are the results from 2006. Napolitano was up against Len Munsil, who is about as far right as Franks if not as well known. She rips him a new one with 64% of the two-party vote, easily winning every county, even Mohave.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/...

Goddard also got 60% of the vote for AG even while the Reeps swept the down-ballot offices.

A better example might be 2002, which was a good year for Republicans nationally. Napolitano and Goddard were running for open seats. Napolitano edged out US Rep. Matt Salmon, who is more likable and less extreme than Franks, despite the presence of an independent (Mahoney) who had previously run as a Democrat. Goddard beat right-winger Andy Thomas for AG with room to spare.    

Arizona is not Utah. Barring another red wave or a Rodney Glassman-level opponent, Franks is going to lose in the general if he gets past Flake in the primary.  

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 15:24:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the time they were accurate

As I have no doubt they are now. The problem last cycle was things got progressively worse for Democrats as 2009 developed and right on through 2010. At the moment it looks hard to see things getting any worse. If there is a change in the political enviroment I can only see things getting better. Long term I think we are heading for a status quo election. That is a projection not a prediction.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:11:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nelson's vulnerable.

At least that's what this Roll Call article says. Granted, if you look past the concern trolling and into the internals, you'll see that Nelson is down 15 to 20 points amongst Democrats from where he will likely be on election day. Okay, so maybe he won't hit 96 percent, but it won't be as low as 77 percent. In other words, Democrats will come home on election day. That alone adds a few points to his totals, bringing him over this 50 percent mark that he has to be over before he can stop pissing himself./snark

http://www.rollcall.com/news/n...

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:32:19 PM UTC

They said the same thing about Richard Burr

And he won with flying colors. Bill Nelson is likely the Richard Burr of this cycle.

And Nelson is at 50% with Hadriopolos, his likely competitor.

---

by: thematt523 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:53:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wasn't Burr actually

legitimately unpopular, by ten points or so? The thing about Nelson is that people feel indifferent towards him, which seems to stem mostly from the liberal wing of his own party.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:12:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Umm,

if I remember correct, Burr's approval was somewhere in the 40s. So, I'm not sure where your level of 'legitimately unpopular' starts.  

19, Male, Conservative, NC-06 (SC-04 college)  

---

by: aggou @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:16:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I seem to remember him

being underwater, even just a little, but it's entirely possible I'm thinking of someone else. That's why I asked.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:51:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Burr usually had approval in the high 30s

with disapproval about the same or in the low 40s all the way until fall 2010.  After that there's not too much of a similarity... Burr never faced the prospect of a top tier opponent and also had a massive fundraising advantage the whole cycle.  I think the end result was that he outspent Marshall 8 or 9 to 1.  Burr also never had consistently high single digit leads over all opponents; I believe PPP found him losing to Roy Cooper by a couple points early in 2009.

Of course neither Haridopolos nor Hasner, nor even Buchanan are top tier candidates, but they will all be able to raise a significant enough amount of money to prevent Nelson from cruising.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:16:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remind me, why didn't Burr

ever have the prospect of a top tier challenger? I know Obama didn't persuade Roy Cooper to get in, but that's it?

What's cruising in your mind? If defeats Hasner by 10 points, isn't that good in any year, particularly if Obama loses the state? This isn't specifically directed at you, but I feel some people act as if nothing but margins of 20 or more points constitute a large victory.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:27:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When Cooper didn't go in...

The DSCC totally bailed on NC.  It was as simple as that.

---

by: LordMike @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:38:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Considering

how badly a brand name like Carnahan did in Missouri, Marshall didn't do that badly. Maybe that's a sign of increasing Democratic strength in the state, or maybe it's just the fact that Burr still kind of sucked.

Whatever, there's always 2016.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:14:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It came down to money

Burr always had a large war chest which served to deter top tier challengers.  And by cruising I meant that even though polls showed Marshall close during the summer, Burr never really had to worry because he could always bury her with his money a la Rob Portman in Ohio.  So just because his final margin was 12 doesn't mean that it was particularly close at any point after the DSCC balked at playing to win.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 16:01:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I meant

was that she had the sort of higher floor that Democrats could have going into the state in the future, independent of any particular factors from Burr or Marshall.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 16:56:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not quite

They supported Cal Cunningham in the primary, then when he lost they went dark.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:39:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hasner

With Mack out of the running, I tend to think Hasner is the strongest GOP candidate of those currently showing interesting.  LeMieux is unoffensive, but also utterly without flash and I just can't see him getting enough people excited about him to win.  I believe Haridopolos will be a weak candidate.  I've mixed feelings about Buchanan.  Part of me wants to see Jennifer Carrol run, but she's made no moves and I'm not sure she's really ready for it yet.

I still maintain that Marco Rubio is going to be on the ticket and the GOP will win FL, but time will tell.  But at best, I think having Rubio on the ticket will only give a couple of points to a GOP senate candidate and that may not be enough to overcome Nelson.  Hasner is from the Gold Coast, but I'm not sure that he'll be much stronger there than any other GOP candidate.  He'll need to get good numbers in the I4 corridor.  

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22

---

by: Zornorph @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:47:25 PM UTC

I agree that Hasner's the best and that Rubio as VP = Florida flip

Haridopolos is a dreadful candidate, Buchanan's Katherine Harris Part Deux, Lemieux's dull as dishwater and Carroll has a very bright future, but she's not running here (if Scott loses in '14, watch her make a play for the House in '16). Hasner, at the very least, looks competent.

And as for Rubio, I'm definitely of the mindset that he's probably the GOP's strongest VP candidate. Competent, excites the Tea Party yet isn't uber-extreme, charamastic, potentially helpful with the Hispanic vote. Romney/Rubio would be a perfectly respectable and efficient ticket, methinks. Of course, if Obama's above 47% approval, competency alone won't be enough.  

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:10:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How much could Rubio help?

More specifically, would he help with getting all Republicans to turn out, or Hispanic Republicans in particular, especially Cubans? If you assume it's the latter, I have to wonder how big the effect will be. It's not as if the Republicans have been underperforming with them, and while there's always the possibility of turning them out at a higher rate, I'm not sure how many of them aren't already being used.

I don't know if any organization did a breakdown between Cubans and non-Cuban Hispanics in 2008, but in 2006, CNN says they were about four percent compared to six percent for Hispanics. (Oddly enough, the overall sample lists Hispanics as 11 percent of the electorate; what happened to that one percent?)

Let's assume that the racial breakdown is 67/14/16/3, with the three percent including both Asians and everyone else and the 16 percent being 10 percent non-Cuban Hispanic and six percent being Cuban. Let's say that Obama's results are 42/96/25 percent for the Cubans and 60 percent for the others/65. If my math is right, he'd win with about 51 percent of the vote. Say these assumptions are unrealistic, but in the key demographic, I think I made reasonable changes. Note that with non-Cuban Hispanics, Obama's share was a full 14 points lower than what Nelson got in 2006.

People also forget that Florida still has a lot of unregistered blacks--about 600,000, if the 2008 Census estimate still holds true. The Democrats have an even firmer hold on them than the Republicans do on Cubans.

281.4 134.4 15 75 19.5  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:50:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

If they're rounding, it could work:

Non-Cuban Hispanics: 6.3
Cubans: 4.3
Total: 10.6

Rounded it would appear as 6, 4, and 11.

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:09:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That makes sense.

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:19:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thinking that the GOP

can win the Hispanic vote with an Hispanic Republican is like thinking that Palin would help them win the female vote.

---

by: thematt523 @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:32:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It could move the needle a few points.

Again, it could do that. I've obviously never been a candidate, but my impression is that if you have an "in" with a voter, you have a much better chance of getting his vote. I would think sharing the same ethnic group is one possible "in." Perhaps they won't end up voting for him specifically because he talks to them, but they could give him more time to make his case. There's also the possibility that groups or parts of groups that are already friendly to the Republicans will turnout more heavily--a situation, by the way, that doesn't necessarily subtract much if anything from what the Democrats would get.

All in all, I would think the effect might be to simply move the numbers in their direction a few points. Instead of getting 57 percent of the Hispanic vote like he did in 2008, he might get 53 percent or 52 percent. Given how tight the state is supposed to be unless it's an absolute blowout, that could be enough to make a difference.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:17:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

No. No. No.

The literature pretty clearly states that VP nominees do not change the eventual margin.

Even if they did, what makes you think that Rubio is going to have any effect on the Hispanic vote? Cubans and other Hispanics could not be any more different in their voting tendencies. The only group that Rubio may (heavy qualifications and stress to this word: MAY) have an affect is the one that he's a member of: Cubans. But wait! Cubans already vote Republican by a large margin. Ever here of the law of diminishing returns? This applies here as well. Republicans can't really push the needle further in their direction among Cubans because they're already maxed out.

Stop it with the fantasy that VPs do something good. They don't unless they're an awful candidate. Palin, Quayle, and Agnew are widely regarded as the only VPs that made a, though completely marginal, difference - and it just so happened to be a negative one.

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:00:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

Add "on" where it is obviously missing from and "Hear*"

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:02:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, I wouldn't state it that strongly. Instead, I'd say, maybe, maybe, maybe.

It's hard to say for sure (I'll get to the literature in a second) in the absence of evidence what would have happened, but I don't think it's entirely out of the question to think that these things can make a difference on the margins. It's not going to deliver huge swaths of Hispanics into the Republican party by itself, but it could help shift the overall percentage of their vote in the direction of the Republicans by a few points. If that were to happen with those who aren't Cuban, it wouldn't be just because he's Hispanic, but because he used his ethnicity as a way to have a conversation with the voters. Maybe he wouldn't be successful at all, but Hispanics are far more open to voting for Republicans than blacks are, so it wouldn't surprise me to see some movement. Not a lot of movement, but some.

As far as the Cubans go, I pretty clear said that there's not that much more room, as they are already winning about three quarters of them on a regular basis. But it's possible that they could go from, say, getting 70 percent of the vote to 75 percent, and from having them make up eight percent of the electorate instead of six. This may not seem like a lot, but the state is bound to be close unless it's a blowout, so any sort of movement in one side's direction could help.

Which specific academic literature are you referring to, by the way?  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 14:42:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

^^^^^^Bingo.

I've made the point here many times, that people of color favor Democrats ultimately because of ideology, namely that to most of us, government is part of the solution, not part of the problem.  A clear majority of whites (nothing close to a supermajority, but a clear majority nonetheless), sharing the Reagan view, are cynical and think the opposite.

This is true for Hispanics the same as for other people of color.  Democratic performance with Hispanics is in the 60-70 range, with plenty of float in that range, and with outlier elections where it can go higher than 70 or lower than 60.  What we saw last year with Hispanic candidates in NM-Gov and NV-Gov is that a Hispanic nominee for a top office doesn't really move the needle.  In NM it's probably because Hispanic inclusion at the highest level of politics is a longtime norm, so no real gain.  In NV, we saw a better example of why a Hispanic nominee even where it's novel doesn't help much with Hispanic voters, where that nominee's politics are at odds with the Hispanic community.  In the case of Florida, Rubio barely won the Hispanic vote per exit polls, but Florida always in an anomaly because of the Cubans and the uncertainly as to how much of the electorate was comprised of Cubans.

And honestly, even if Rubio had potential to help in Florida as the VP nominee, ultimately he wouldn't help at all if the GOP Presidential nominee is a poor pick or runs a poor campaign.  If that's the case, and there's a very strong possibility it might prove to be, then Obama wins Florida even with Rubio on the GOP ticket.  People just don't care about VP much, and actually there is an active trend of it mattering less and less to voters.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 14:11:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He could make a difference, but

even the best candidate isn't a miracle worker, so you're right that if Republican candidate sucks or runs a crappy campaign, his presence will be insignificant.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 14:44:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jimmy Wales would have other explaining to do

Jimmy Wales is not the "founder" of Wikipedia.  Dr. Larry Sanger championed the idea of switching gears on a failing encyclopedia project to implement an "anyone can edit" wiki.  Sanger named it "Wikipedia", and Sanger issued the first public call for participation.  Wales installed some freeware.  It took him about 30 minutes.  Sanger toiled for the next year shepherding the guidelines and policies that still act as the foundation for Wikipedia today.

But, that's not the worst baggage for Jimmy Wales.  His first wife has bad-mouthed him in W Magazine.  He had a sexual affair with a Canadian political pundit while still married to his second wife.  And while his divorce from her was still working its way through the Pinellas County court, he jumped on a plane to the UK and got yet another non-American woman pregnant.  According to The Guardian newspaper, she's likely had their child now, but Wales is keeping that a big secret from the press.

Could someone name for a me a staunch and influential Republican who would endorse such a guy for office?

---

by: thekohser @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:14:16 PM UTC

I can think of one...

Sounds like Newt Gingrich's kind of man if you ask me!

---

by: Ebjebie @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 13:37:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Zing!

Nice one.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 14:37:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks like LeMieux is in

Roll Call is reporting that ex-Sen LeMieux is about to pull the trigger.

Here's a blurb from the St. Petersburg Times that says pretty much the same thing and isn't behind a pay wall - http://www.tampabay.com/news/p...

Say what you want about Katherine Harris, but at least she had been elected statewide before her Nelson challenge. Hell, at least she had been elected to anything. LeMieux gets a lot of credit for being the wind behind Charlie Christ's sails in his races for Gov but I have a hard time seeing him muster the necessary charisma to attract excitement.  

26, gay male, Democrat, WA-07, born and raised in FL-16

---

by: Seasouthern @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 22:38:40 PM UTC