Comments on: Senate polls find Carnahan remains stable, Lincoln struggling to stay afloat http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/11/19/carnahan-and-lincoln/ Obsessive political analysis Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:08:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Nathan http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/11/19/carnahan-and-lincoln/comment-page-1/#comment-42084 Nathan Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:59:58 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=10632#comment-42084 I believe Jay Nixon's election as Missouri governor had more to do with his personal resume and popularity than partisan affiliations. He's liked and respected in Missouri, and had been Attorney General for more than a decade, routinely picking up close to 60% of the vote regardless of the broader political landscape. Carnahan, though fairly popular, cannot count more than half of Missourians as part of her electoral base the way Nixon can. Just as important, she's running for Senate, not governor or AG. Congressional races focus on national issues which, in MO, does not favor Dems most cycles. This race is more reminiscent of Nixon's '98 run against Senator Bond than his '08 landslide win, though Carnahan is not running against an incumbent. I believe Jay Nixon’s election as Missouri governor had more to do with his personal resume and popularity than partisan affiliations. He’s liked and respected in Missouri, and had been Attorney General for more than a decade, routinely picking up close to 60% of the vote regardless of the broader political landscape. Carnahan, though fairly popular, cannot count more than half of Missourians as part of her electoral base the way Nixon can. Just as important, she’s running for Senate, not governor or AG. Congressional races focus on national issues which, in MO, does not favor Dems most cycles. This race is more reminiscent of Nixon’s ‘98 run against Senator Bond than his ‘08 landslide win, though Carnahan is not running against an incumbent.

]]> By: Gerard http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/11/19/carnahan-and-lincoln/comment-page-1/#comment-41893 Gerard Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:34:18 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=10632#comment-41893 I've been doing some analysis on why Sen. Lincoln is vulnerable this year. She was reelected in 2004, another good Republican year, with 55% of the vote versus 44% for her conservative opponent, winning by almost 100,000 votes. Bush took 54% of the vote that year in Arkansas, versus 44% for Kerry. Bush had 572,000 votes versus 469,000 for Kerry, for a total of 1.04 million votes. In 2008, McCain almost 59% of the vote, versus almost 39% for Obama, 638,000 votes for McCain versus 422,000 for Obama, for a total of 1.06 million votes cast, only 20,000 more votes than 2004, but a huge margin. (Who knows how big a margin Hillary Clinton would have had.) However, Sen. Mark Pryor, running for reelection for the first time in 2008, was virtually unopposed, except for a Green Party candidate, and garnered about 80% of the vote. (He was first elected to the Senate in 2002, being the only Dem. that year to oust a Republican Senate incumbent, taking the seat by 8 points. He was already a statewide official, Attorney General, and his father had been a popular US Senator too.) Also in 2008, none of the 4 US House members, 3 Dems and 1 GOP had any major party opposition. They all got at least 70% of the vote against Green Party voters. The first district in fact was totally unopposed and so no vote totals were even counted. Interestingly enough, the Green Party had its best showing in the 2nd district, although Rep. Snyder got just over 70%. Senator Lincoln has been struggling with the health care reform, while Pryor came out in support of the public option. In the 110th Congress, Pryor voted with the Democrats 86% of the time, Lincoln was at 89%, not too different. So, for Senator Lincoln to be vulnerable this year is due to several reasons, the overall national climate, but also it can be argued that she isn't as popular as Sen. Pryor, which is her own fault, basically. I’ve been doing some analysis on why Sen. Lincoln is vulnerable this year. She was reelected in 2004, another good Republican year, with 55% of the vote versus 44% for her conservative opponent, winning by almost 100,000 votes. Bush took 54% of the vote that year in Arkansas, versus 44% for Kerry. Bush had 572,000 votes versus 469,000 for Kerry, for a total of 1.04 million votes. In 2008, McCain almost 59% of the vote, versus almost 39% for Obama, 638,000 votes for McCain versus 422,000 for Obama, for a total of 1.06 million votes cast, only 20,000 more votes than 2004, but a huge margin. (Who knows how big a margin Hillary Clinton would have had.)

However, Sen. Mark Pryor, running for reelection for the first time in 2008, was virtually unopposed, except for a Green Party candidate, and garnered about 80% of the vote. (He was first elected to the Senate in 2002, being the only Dem. that year to oust a Republican Senate incumbent, taking the seat by 8 points. He was already a statewide official, Attorney General, and his father had been a popular US Senator too.)

Also in 2008, none of the 4 US House members, 3 Dems and 1 GOP had any major party opposition. They all got at least 70% of the vote against Green Party voters. The first district in fact was totally unopposed and so no vote totals were even counted. Interestingly enough, the Green Party had its best showing in the 2nd district, although Rep. Snyder got just over 70%.

Senator Lincoln has been struggling with the health care reform, while Pryor came out in support of the public option. In the 110th Congress, Pryor voted with the Democrats 86% of the time, Lincoln was at 89%, not too different. So, for Senator Lincoln to be vulnerable this year is due to several reasons, the overall national climate, but also it can be argued that she isn’t as popular as Sen. Pryor, which is her own fault, basically.

]]>