Evan Bayh has dodged his second bullet in two weeks as Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita announced he would run for the House seat from which Rep. Steve Buyer retired on Friday rather than challenge the longtime senator.
Is this a case of fortuitous timing for Democrats? Rokita had nothing to lose by seeking federal office since his term is not up until 2012; his decision to run for the House suggests he really was interested in a congressional position, so might Bayh have landed a top-tier challenger by now had Buyer not retired? While Republicans are left wondering what might have been, we are back to the situation we were in on Thursday: Unless Governor Mitch Daniels bucks expectations, the GOP will have to do with state Senator Marlin Stutzman and former Rep. John Hostettler, neither of whom are well-positioned to take full advantage of the environment.
(Rokita’s move also guarantees a competitive GOP primary in IN-4, since Buyer’s protege state Senator Brandt Hershman has also jumped in. Whoever prevails in this their primary is likely to win the general election; the only Democrat who is being mentioned as a potential candidate is Purdue University biology professor David Sanders.)
While Bayh can no longer be considered a shoo-in for his re-election race, Indiana is back on the safer side of the equation - which is more than we can of other Democratic seats. A reminder of what the landscape looks like: With ND, DE, AR, NV, CO, PA and IL already top-tier targets, Republicans need to put three more Senate seats in play to have a shot at controlling the Senate if they pull off a sweep. With an Inouye retirement looking unlikely in HI, the NRSC failing in its IN recruitment effort and Blumenthal as of now marching towards a CT coronation (which is leading to talk that Rob Simmons might drop out), the remaining targets are CA, NY, WI and WA.
With Tom Campbell and to a lesser extent Carly Fiorina, the NRSC already has the candidates they need in California. That means they probably need to pull off recruitment coups in two out of the three latter states.
WA: GOP poll suggests Patty Murray could be vulnerable
We should never do much with partisan polls taken with obvious political intents but GOP firm Moore Research found Dino Rossi, the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee in both 2004 and 2008, with a 45% to 43% lead over Senator Patty Murray. Rossi is arguably as good as it gets for Washington Republicans; after coming as close as you can get to becoming governor in 2004 (he led before a recount reversed his edge), he was one of the few Republicans mounting a competitive statewide challenge in 2008 anywhere in the county. As such, Murray could do worse than trail Rossi by 2% in a Republican poll.
On the other hand, Murray was considered safe until Massachusetts altered the GOP’s ambitions so these numbers cannot but give a lot of additional heartburn to Democrats - especially as they moved Rossi to open a slight door to a run. While he said he has “no plans to run for any office at this point,” he added “I never say never.” The GOP is presumably working to convince Rep. Dave Reichert, who must not be relishing the prospect of being one of the only House Republicans facing a credible challenge.
GOP prospects against Gillibrand depend on Pataki (and Ford)
Believe it or not, even Chuck Schumer’s re-election race is now generating news! While the Democratic Senator has long looked untouchable, a new Marist poll finds an undeniable downward trend in his approval rating: for the first time since April 2001, it has dipped under 50%. This development comes as CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow, last seen mulling a Senate run against Chris Dodd last year, is now setting his sights on Schumer. That prospect is silly and Marist confirms the dip in Schumer’s rating doesn’t mean he has much to worry about: He crushes Kudlow 67% to 25%. Yet, the mere fact that I am moved to discuss Schumer on this blog is a stunning development.
New York’s other Senate seat remains the race to watch, and Marist finds that GOP prospects probably depend on George Pataki’s decision. While Kirsten Gillibrand trails the former governor 49% to 43%, her numbers against sole Republican candidate Bruce Blakeman bear no trace of vulnerability: she crushes him 52% to 30% - a margin that is all the more decisive considering the number of Democratic senators who are proving unable to muster leads against low-profile challengers, let alone cross the 50% threshold.
The GOP’s other hope of contesting this seat, of course, is for Harold Ford to bruise Gillibrand, outright win the primary or run as an independent. Marist found Ford routed by Pataki (52% to 35%) and struggling to muster a lead over Blakeman (39% to 35%); a match-up with Ford running as an independent was not tested. Marist did poll the primary, finding Gillibrand up 44-27 with Tasini at 4%. Ford is competitive thanks to weak support for Gillibrand in NYC, but is this not the region in which he should find the coldest reception for his conservative views? Another problematic number for Ford is that his unfavorability rating is nearly identical to Gillibrand’s despite his lower name recognition.
Except for Indiana, filing deadlines are a long time away
Unfortunately for Democrats, New York’s filing deadline is in July so Pataki has time to see whether Ford will gain any traction before making up his mind. The same is true in other states since Washington and Wisconsin Republicans have until June to make up their mind. Only in Indiana is the NRSC running out of time.
Of course, it is difficult to mount a competitive statewide campaign in just a few months, but we are talking here about well-known politicians like Pataki and Tommy Thompson who do not have to introduce themselves to voters, already have a fundraising structure and would probably easily secure their party’s nod; the same is true to a lesser degree of Rossi and perhaps even of Reichert, who is already raising money at a fast paste to prepare for his re-election race.
I agree that Rokita running for house is a bit of a blow, but there are still statewide officials that could give him a run, including AG Greg Zoeller and, more likely, Lt. Gov Becky Skillman who was also mentioned as a candidate for Buyer’s seat but isn’t likely to get in a food fight with other statewide officials.
Anyhow, Rossi or Reichert could give Murray a run for her money, but you left off Rob McKenna, the state AG. But he seems to have his sights set on the Governor’s mansion. Rossi is the only one who would make it a tossup, and frankly, I still think Murray would be slightly favored, but this is the sort of year where such an upset could happen.
It WOULD crack me up if Rossi beat Murray. The D’s would have put all their effort into saving Gregoire, who’s dragging them down heavily and has been a disaster for their brand name, only to have Rossi beat their favorite person in the whole state.
Actually Cliff, I disagree that Rossi would be the strongest candidate. McKenna of course would be the strongest as he is a statewide offical and he would make it a close race even if the enviroment wasn’t so bad for Dems, but as you said he is almost certainly going to run for Govenor in 2012 and he has a good chance to win it too. However, I do think that Reichert would be stronger than Rossi because Reichert has a track record of winning in Dem leaning district in horrible conditions for the party elsewhere, while Rossi has two losses under his belt, altho both were narrow. Of course, Rossi has nothing to lose while Reichert would have to give up his House seat. Yes Reichert is in a competive race but he has the advantage as the incumbent, something he wouldn’t have if he was going for the Senate. It would probably be a toss-up with Reichert and Lean Dem with Rossi in my opinion.
On Indiana Cliff you mention that the GOP has other statewide officals to take on Bayh, but we need to remember that Bayh still be very tough to take down and a loss to him could still be a blow to one’s political career even if they aren’t giving up the office. I strongly suspect that neither Zoeller nor Skillman will challange Bayh and that instead they will either run for reelection in 2012 or run for the open Governor’s seat Mitch Daniels is vacating. Speaking of Mitch Daniels, he is the only one would be competive with Bayh no matter the enviroment, but he has said he wants to retire from politics after his term is up so that is not likely.
To Taniel on New York: I agree that Gillibrand’s vulurablity depends soley on Pataki. I doubt that Pataki cares whatever Ford gains traction or not. Ford seems very ill equipped to cause a schism in a Dem primary enough to damage Gillibrand, in fact its more likely she could unite her old upstate moderate base with the NYC liberals thanks to Ford’s upscale lifestyle and (former) conservative positions. Rather I think that Pataki is simply unsure and not really that enthusastic about running again. He could still run, I think if he did it would primary be about helping the GOP, not his own ambitions.
You’d have to be from Washington to understand why you’re wrong on Reichert and probably McKenna as well. You “might” be right in regards to McKenna, but you almost certainly aren’t in regards to Reichert. And keep in mind, I’ve met Reichert personally a number of times, like and respect him, and know several of his staff members.
Reichert has won three difficult races, but all of them against horrible opponents (well, Dave Ross was alright, Burner was a joke, she should have been embarassing to the D’s, and she lost because she was bad). But he’s never really managed to gain the love of his district, although he has their respect, that’s not quite the sae thing. But Jennifer Dunn (Reichert’s predecessor), for example, was winning over 60% of the vote even while Clinton and Gore was winning the district.
Reichert also doesn’t raise money well. He just personally doesn’t like asking for money is what I gather. He’s been outraised every single cycle and basically had to have the NRCC bail him out. He’s got a strong enough persona and impressive enough background to be a candidate that will win if he gets the money and runs against a weak enough opponent, but it doesn’t mean he’s a strongest statewide candidate.
He also just doesn’t have that “killer instinct,” ironically given his background as a tough guy cop. He doesn’t like attacking people, he doesn’t like getting into fistfights, he isn’t fast to recognize an opening and run with it. Example: I think he’d have been able to respond with “The people’s seat” like Scott Brown did, he’d have said something about, “Well, I respect Senator Kennedy, but I have my own views la la la, etc.” He doesn’t recognize openings and take them like that.
He’s also got a strained relationship with the base. That’s probably necessary to win his district, but it wouldn’t help him statewide.
I think Reichert, because of his background and competence, would be better then most people in the state, but he’s not as strong as Rossi.
McKenna is a little harder to tell. He’s won two statewide races with large margins, 60-40 in ‘08 even when Obama was getting nearly 60%, but he’s done so in large part by avoiding controversial issues alltogether. He’s the master of sending out press releases and campaign pieces touting things that 99% of the state agrees with and avoiding tough issues. He can’t do that as a candidate for Senate. He’d be forced to take positions on tough issues, and his popularity wouldn’t stick once he started doing that.
Rossi, on the other hand, has never shied away from taking stances on controversial issues and has been able to win over a LOT of people he really shouldn’t have been able to, and frankly, he won, at least according to the opinion of the majority of the people of Washington state (polls showed that well over 55% thought he won in ‘04, and the court held that there were 10X more illegal votes then the margin of “victory”). He lost in ‘08 because of the Obama tidal wave, but had it been in an off year election, he would have won easily. He won among voters that voted in ‘04 in ‘08.
If Rossi’s opponent in ‘10 would be Gregoire, he’d win in a walk. But Murray is a tough cookie who’s got a lot of fans. But I’m still relatively certain he’d be tougher then Reichert or McKenna.
Being from WA I have to say Senator Murray IS NOT vulnerable.
Reasons:
She is a prolific fundraiser and has at least $4 million cash on hand.
She is quite popular, with the general electorate and her base, having taken a lead for health care reform, which is popular here.
Trends in WA State favor her and other progressives — last November we defeated an anti tax measure by huge margins (even in rural counties), we became the first state to vote for expanding rights to gays and lesbians and we elected a very progressive mayor in Seattle.
Last week, two tax measures raising taxes on corporations and those earning more than $125,000 won by large margins in OR (can’t believe most media and bloggers didn’t notice). The same measure could pass here.
(I for one do not believe we are experiencing a conservative revolt right now. We are experiencing a populist revolt. People are angry at what they see as bail outs for big business and banks while the middle class gets nothing. I think whoever taps that anger best will win. In some places it will be a Rep, in others a Dem.)
Plus, even if the Democratic base is depressed, it will probably still turn out, because we have an all mail ballot in WA. There will probably be a measure on the ballot legalizing marijuana which will also drive out younger people and progressives.
On the Republican side:
McKenna will not run. He will wait until 2012 to run in a competitive race for Governor.
If Rossi runs, he will lose big. He is a two time statewide loser and he is considered very partisan and very conservative by the electorate. He would drive out progressives just as much as he would conservatives.
Rep. Reichart will also probably pass. He does have a competitive district, as it is increasingly more Democratic every year. However this year’s race is less competitive than 2006 and 2008, since he has a candidate in the same mold as Darcy Burner. Even though I adore her, the only way Reichart will be beat is if a moderate Democrat with governmental experience runs. I’m thinking State Senator Rodney Tom or someone similar.
Even if Reichart did run, he would have an uphill battle. He’s not known outside his district and he has plenty of conservative votes to use against him.
WA is an expensive state to campaign in. Any serious candidate should have already announced by now. Unless their uber rich like Mike McGavick, and that type of candidate is not going to go over very well in today’s environment.
Sen. Lincoln is polling in the low to mid 30’s, against all her opponents, know or unknowns. I know Rep. Boozman has had several weeks of positive press and name dropping, but Lincoln is just in the tank. At what point do the Dems go to her and ask her to step aside? Hopefully this is already in the works.
Having Lincoln step aside wouldn’t do any good. The same poll had Halter getting crushed by roughly the same margin and even Bebe trailing by 1, and he’s obviously not switching races.
WA is safe. Simply safe. Everything else is just fun talk. NY is safe - both seats are safe. It’s that simple.
Just saw the new Rasmussen poll. Who was the last Senate incumbent to poll this weak? There has to be something personal here. The environment is bad for Dems…but this bad?
Is this an example of Republicans getting too cocky and thinking MA changes the world. Maybe MA turns out to be a pyrhicc victory of sorts for the GOP. In so much that it gives Dems time to take action and minimise losses (not avoid all them of them for sure). In 1994 the Dems were caught by surprise by the relatively late surge. Now they have 9 months to fundraise, organise and make policy changes. Some will say it won`t change anything and you may be right but it is still bertter to have 9 months to make changes than just a couple of months notice of an electoral tsunami.
So the GOP may have won MA but if it larted the Dems and allow them to keep both the house and senate (with reduced majorities) then the GOP will not have done as well as they should in this environment.
I agree that it is a populist revolt, not a Republican or Conservative revolt since alot of people a) don`t like politicans of any party, b) the GOP ratings have not improved, even amongst Conservatives and c) spending and taxes were not much better under 6 years of complete GOP control.
Anonymous:
I have to disagree with you on b) and c).
The fact that GOP ratings haven’t improved (much) doesn’t preclude seeing this as a conservative revolt, because quite a bit of dissatisfaction with the GOP is now coming from the right (or at least the fiscal right).
Also, deficit spending as a percentage of GDP was lower when the Republicans controlled Congress. The Democrats won control of the House and a tie in the Senate in 2006. In fiscal year 2007, the last time the GOP controlled the budget process, deficit spending was 1.17% of GDP. In 2010 it is 10.64% of GDP. More generally, the most restrained federal spending since the mid ’70s took place from 1994 to 2006, while the GOP held the House of Representatives.
I’m not thrilled with GOP Congresscritters’ spending habits, but they’re nowhere near as loose with the public purse as Democrats.
Some of the biggest earmarkers are Republicans, such as GOP Sen. Cochran of Mississippi. But, all things being what they are, the GOP had 12 years in power and know they messed it up. I have a feeling they won’t make the same mistake again. The Dems certainly forgot their selves real fast, but, unless each party just wants to switch control every 2 years, at least one of them will figure what most Americans already know, that we can’t just live on borrowing money every year. No other country does what we do, why do we think we are somehow different? Obama was recently saying that he inherited his first budget, which is true, but the proposed new one is all his and it is totally irresponsible. Freezing 14% of the budget is almost insulting.
WA is safe. Simply safe. Everything else is just fun talk. NY is safe - both seats are safe. It’s that simple.
I remember when Republicans were saying that about VA in ‘06 and AK in ‘08.
Is this an example of Republicans getting too cocky and thinking MA changes the world.
Cocky? How could it possibly be them getting cocky?
There is zero logic to saying if they can successfully recruit strong candidates for every seat it’ll hurt their chances nationwide. The negative effect of them getting “cocky” would be them getting in a better position to win.
You don’t get “cocky” unless you are ahead and think you can’t lose. That’s simply not the case here. The more “cocky” the Republicans get, the more good candidates run, the better chance they have of winning.
It’s that simple.
Right. In Washington - I can’t see Reichert running - maybe against Cantwell in 2012, but not against Murray. McKenna wants to be Governor. I could see Rossi, run, though, just because he’s got nothing to lose. He wants to be Governor, but he understands so does McKenna, so I could see him running for Senate if he thinks he’s got a chance. If another poll comes out showing him leading Murray or in the margin of error, I think he’ll go for it.
Unless they convince Ford to run as a Republican, I think Republicans are stuck with Blakeman in NY. Pataki wants to run for President in 2012 - though if he realizes he has no chance, I could see him go for it.
In Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson loves running for/holding office, and I think he’ll run against Feingold. As for Mark Neumann, their back-up - most likely, he’ll lose to Walker, and then, when Ryan retires in 2012 to run for Kohl’s seat, he’ll run for that (Ryan’s seat is his old seat).
In Indiana, I just can’t think of anybody to challenge Bayh. With Pence and Rokita gone - perhaps Becky Skillman? The Mayor of Indianapolis, who won an urban area in the 2008 blue wave?
So, in conclusion, likelihood in terms of Republican recruitment success:
WA: Possible, but unlikely.
NY: Unlikely.
WI: Likely.
IN: Unlikely.
I remember when the Massachusetts Senate seat was safe, say, about less than 2 months ago. Yes, the Dems now have fair warning, but nothing is totally safe for the Dems. The Hawaii special election on May 1 will be followed closely.
I’m not thrilled with GOP Congresscritters’ spending habits, but they’re nowhere near as loose with the public purse as Democrats.
I had someone explain it like this:
“Look, there’s a difference between going 70 in a 60 and going 130 in a 60. One is speeding, the other is reckless driving. Even the law recognizes there’s a difference. Why is it that the Democrats don’t seem to get it? And we were mad at the Republicans going 70, can you imagine how mad we’ll be at the D’s for going 130?”
I agree with Jaxx that at this point time is pressing for Zoeller or Skillman to decide to challenge Bayh; in fact, Skillman said she planned to remain Lieutenant Governor just last week, and the right of first refusal regarding Buyer’s seat was probably hers, so she seems more interesting in the 2012 Governor’s race than in seeking federal office now.
Cliff, I doubt many Republicans were saying Ted Stevens would be safe; he looked endangered as soon as Mark Begich’s name started floating as a potential challenger. But your point is well-taken, especially regarding Virginia, which still looked highly unlikely to be competitive in May 2006, let alone in February. Democrats should be particularly worried about New York, as the latest buzz is that George Pataki would seriously look at running if he thinks Ford is giving Gillibrand trouble.
Finally, I see where the commenter who talks about Republicans getting too cocky is coming from. After all, spending too much resources expanding the map instead of ensuring pick-ups in the districts and states that look the most gettable could backfire. Yet, we aren’t just talking about intangible consequences: Republicans now have a Senate seat from Massachusetts, a superior candidate in Arkansas, talk of a former Governor in Wisconsin…
Taniel, I am not saying that MA was inconsequential but imagine the scenario where there were just bad polls and the Dems were complacent (say they won MA by 2% instead of losing by 5%). They would not be as well prepared as they will be now. That extra preparation may (and I repeat only may) mean that Republicans do not gain the house or senate. Whereas in a “surprise” (like 94) they could win one or both. That would by definition mean they lost out by doing so well early on. Just a thought, not a prediction.
Now regarding spending. Yes in 2007 the deficit was lower, gee what changed. A recession and as everyone knows a recession wreaks havoc with the budget. As the President said in the State of the Union the deficit last year before he had anytime to enact policies was greater than 10%. That would have happened if McCain/Palin had been elected. Fact. I am not disputing that the Dems may make things worse but consider that the debt increase for the past few years has been around $1 trillion a year (more accurate than the official Bush budget deficts which had off balance sheet items (just like Enron) such as the war and using the social security “surplus”). So I would say the GOP were doing at least 100 in a 60 zone and maybe the Dems kicked it up to 120 in a recession. Neither party is exactly doing well!
I agree with a poster above that unless the parties wish to have the majority for 2 or 4 years they need to figure out that Americans want competent Government living within its means.
Gerard - freezing 14% of the budget is better than nothing. And remember if he tried to freeze Homeland Security or Defence (which make up a huge % of the budget) he would be attacked by the GOP as soft on terror or defence. So the GOP helps make it hard to balance the budget.
Nathan, see this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png
The US debt increased by around an average of $500 billion a year between 2002 and 2007 during “good” economic times. Note how the deficit looks so much smaller (blue bar) since Bush used a lot of off balance sheet accounting.
Of course the debt went up when the economy contracted by 5% instead of growing by 3% - a huge difference.
With respect to people complaining about the stimulus package, the deficit/debt increases cannot really be laid at the door of this. Most people agree with the tax cuts in there (hell the GOP voted to extend the home buyers tax credit) and the help to states. This leaves maybe $100 billion of spending the GOP dislikes like the help for high speed rail. Fair enough but $100 billion is small change (unfortunately nowadays).
Cliff, I doubt many Republicans were saying Ted Stevens would be safe; he looked endangered as soon as Mark Begich’s name started floating as a potential challenger.
I don’t know a single Republican that thought Ted Stevens was vulnerable in January of ‘08. Everybody, including me, thought the D’s would yell and scream and maybe get within 10% if they were lucky, but never actually win. Sure, the D’s were making noise, but let’s face it, he only lost by 3000 votes when he was a convicted felon, it’s about as close to a perfect counterfactual as you could get that he wouldn’t have lost if he weren’t convicted. And even then, he needed a strong candidate like Begich, and the worst year since ‘74 for Republicans, to take him down. I don’t expect Murray to lose, nor Bayh, but I also think it’s at least as possible as Stevens losing in January ‘08 was.
Finally, I see where the commenter who talks about Republicans getting too cocky is coming from. After all, spending too much resources expanding the map instead of ensuring pick-ups in the districts and states that look the most gettable could backfire. Yet, we aren’t just talking about intangible consequences: Republicans now have a Senate seat from Massachusetts, a superior candidate in Arkansas, talk of a former Governor in Wisconsin
The problem with that is that it swings both ways. It forces D’s to spend money there too. Also, the fact that we have more races in play and make it look like it’s going to be a good year gets you more donations, particularly from non-partisan groups who just want to back a winner.
If you are the majority party, there is a risk in spending money trying to beat people that you probably can’t beat instead of protecting incumbents or trying to save districts you can’t save. (Republicans did this a LOT in ‘00, I think you can probably say Spencer Abraham and maybe even John Ashcroft went down in the Senate because of this, and I can think of a few House candidates as well.) But when you are far in the minority like this situation, it’s virtually impossible to have expanding the map with credible candidates, particularly if they have their own fundraising network, end up being a bad thing. It merely adds to the bandwagon effect, swings non-partisan PAC’s and other groups toward you, and forces the opposition to spread it’s money around further. It’s possible in theory, I suppose, for expanding the map to be bad, but not in reality.
I’m not sure how much of a coup this is, but it looks like former Senator Dan Coats, who held Bayh’s seat from 1989-1999 is running against him.
Coats is a HUGE coup.
After only winning by 7% in ‘90 (he was appointed to the seat in ‘88) Coats won in ‘92 with nearly 58% of the vote. He also served for 8 years in the house before that so he’s very seasoned, well known, is well liked among conservative circles, can raise money, and has universal name ID.
He’s probably equally as strong as Pence, maybe stronger. He’s probably stronger then any potential candidate other then Daniels.
As far as the expanding the map discussion, there were Dems who wished we had gone after even more seats in 2006. This would seem like a great year for the GOP to push out all the stops everywhere.
As a far as the freezing the budget goes, freezing 14% is laughable. It is true that the GOP would get upset if the military was frozen, and so the only obvious solution would be to freeze the entire budget. We the American people have to cut our own household budgets all the time, so we get it, we can live with it. I bet that if Pres. Obama called for the entire budget to be frozen for a year, the Congress would start looking for waste and fraud real fast. If you want to argue that it isn’t realistic to do this, I would argue that adding another 7 trillion dollars of debt over the next 10 years is for more unreasonable and unrealistic. Most people would agree. No other country in the world lives beyond its means the way we do, this debt will truly destroy us. Even if we start this year, it will take quite a few years to actually balance our budget. In the 1990’s, the only reason President Clinton had a surplus was because Social Security was running a surplus, which was supposed to be set aside for the future when the S.S. fund would be in the red. But, all this Social Security surplus has been borrowed and probably can’t be paid back. The sooner we deal with this, the better, it won’t get any easier putting these decisions off for later years.
I also live in Washington state. If the basis of Murray’s supposed vulnerability is a poll by an obscure Republican pollster who has been very wrong on the few polls they have done (if Washington Moore Research is the same as Oregon Moore Research), that is almost useless evidence.
Rossi could run and would have a small chance of winning but I would not call the race anywhere close to being a tossup. After losing two gubernatorial campaigns, perceptions of him are locked in statewide. His conservative social views will be a much bigger problem in a Senate race. Murray ran withering attack ads on Nethercutt’s anti-choice position in 2004, she would do the same to Rossi. And Rossi’s big political baggage offers plenty to attack, such as his ties to the BIAW, writing and voting for a budget which cut children’s health care, voting against unemployment benefits and saying that he would roll back part of the state’s Domestic Partner law. He is despised by the Democratic base in Washington state, especially in King County. I’ve watched several of Patty’s campaigns now. She won’t hesitate to go after him.
The D’s would have put all their effort into saving Gregoire, who’s dragging them down heavily and has been a disaster for their brand name, only to have Rossi beat their favorite person in the whole state.
How many governors have good approval ratings right now, given the horrible budgetary situation that they face? Her situation is hardly unique. By that standard, approximately 80% of the governors across the country have been a disaster for their party’s brand name.
Rossi could run and would have a small chance of winning but I would not call the race anywhere close to being a tossup.
Who said anything about it being a tossup? Certainly not me. I said I thought he could win and would be a good candidate, a better candidate then Reichert and possibly better then McKenna.
After losing two gubernatorial campaigns, perceptions of him are locked in statewide.
Right…and his approval ratings are largely positive.
His conservative social views will be a much bigger problem in a Senate race.
Could be, admittedly, but frankly, I doubt it this cycle. Fiscal issues are front-and-center on what voter’s care about, and Murray is an unmittigated disaster on the issues. She makes Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid look tight fisted.
Murray ran withering attack ads on Nethercutt’s anti-choice position in 2004, she would do the same to Rossi.
Do me a favor: call it a pro-life position. I don’t go around calling replacing the words “pro-choice” with the words “pro-baby-murder.”
And Rossi’s big political baggage offers plenty to attack, such as his ties to the BIAW, writing and voting for a budget which cut children’s health care, voting against unemployment benefits and saying that he would roll back part of the state’s Domestic Partner law.
Uhh, here’s precicely how many independents care about any of this these issues, particularly this cycle:
Done.
How many governors have good approval ratings right now, given the horrible budgetary situation that they face? Her situation is hardly unique.
The difference is, that she’s had poor approval ratings her ENTIRE term in office, she LOST in ‘08 among voters that voted in ‘04, (and frankly, she lost in ‘04, twice, and by a double digit margin, voters in Washington agreed, and still agree with me) and yes, her approval ratings are an even bigger disaster then most governors in the country, pretty much every elected governor with the exception of Bevery Perdue, who had the exact same thing happen to her: she eeked it out because of the Obama tidal and would have all but certainly lost without it. But at least she didn’t have a smaller margin of victory then the amount of illegal votes cast, as found by the courts, let alone public opinion.
Anyhow, if you don’t think Rossi is a threat, why do you care?
BTW, I agree with you that Murray would be favored. Up until Scott Brown, I would have said she’s invincible. I still think she’s favored EVEN IF Rossi, Reichert or McKenna get in. But you’re simply ignoring reality if you don’t recognize how much the ground has shifted from under you.
Like I’ve said before, I know now what I must have looked like in February of ‘06.
Gerard, I completely agree with you that 14% is insufficient and that the entire budget needs to be frozen. However this is politics and not some academic, rational debate!!
You know full well the attacks that would be made on Dems and Obama in particular if Defence and HS werre subject to the same scrutiny as other federal spending. Doesn`t make it brave but…
I would love to hear how Republicans would balance the budget. Seriously since they haven`t met a tax cut they don`t want to pass (although they have issues with the income tax cut 95% of Americns got in the evil, wasteful(!) stimulus package) and they want to not only protect defence spending but spend more. How do you balance the budget in that situation?
I thought Ryan from WI did well in the Obama meets GOP house caucus meeting last week. Pence on the other hand did himself no favors and came across as a long-winded partisan - boutique tax cuts my ass.
Although I’m a diehard Democrat, I’m a realist that the Democrats are in a heap of trouble in 2010. Speaking only about the Senate, I see the Dems losing ND, DE, AR, and NV. I think we stand a good chance of losing CO and PA. I’m also wary that IL could be lost because Kirk will be a strong candidate in the the general election against Alexi G. If we lost all of those seats, that would reduce our margin to 52-48.
Maybe I should be quaking in my boots about IN with Coats entering the race. I’m not worried…at this time…because Coats has not run for office since 1992. He’s 66 years old, which might not be old for Senate terms, but it’s kind of old for re-entering politics at this level. Besides, Bayh appears to be popular in the Hooiser state. It will be a close race, but I see Bayh prevailing.
As far as other chances, I think we have dodged a bullet in NY. I don’t see WA being a problem either. I think we are safe with all the other states.
We have a chance of picking up OH, NH, and MO. I think the mood of the nation will dictate on how we will do in these states come November. KY and NC are probably long-shots at best. FL could be interesting ONLY if Crist changes party affiliation. I don’t think he has a chance against Rubio. I could see the FL Democratic party supporting Crist, especially in the panhandle where you have many moderate and conservative Democrats voting in the primary.
I hope that Taniel gets some posts up on the IL primary results and Dan Coats likely jumping in against Bayh. I will share my thoughts on those under thier prospective posts.
Cliff is a native from Washington State so even through his ideology is opposite of mine I will defer to him on political strength of prospective candidates.
The sentiment of Dems having several months notice is important, but only because there is enough time for the ecnomny to pick up. At least in the house there was a strong sentiment that Dems could possibly pickup the House: it was in early 2006 in which violence became really wretched in Iraq and approval ratings for Bush and congressional Republicans starting crashing because of it.
I do think that Dems will keep both houses of Congress but only because of the massive majorites that they have. After Brown is sworn in, the Democrats will have 59 (including Lieberman and Sanders) seats to the GOP’s 41. In 2006 the GOP had 55 Senate seats to the Dems 45. For the House, the GOP had 232 seats to the Dems 202 seats. Currently the Dems have 257 seats to the GOP’s 178 seats (I think there are two vacancies). The GOP would have to do even better than Dems did in 2006 for the House or the Dems in 2008 for the senate, ie a 1994 rather than 2006 or 2008 wave. Don’t think something of that magentude will happen.. yet.
Jaxx, excatly there is time for the Dems to prepare and for the economy to continue to improve. Yes from a low base but net unemployment is slowing down and the economy has been growing (as measured by GDP) since June 2009. As any economist will tell you unemployment is a lagging indicator.
Even if the GOp win one house in 2010 that will probably help Obama and the Dems in 2012 since the GOP will most likely be obstructionist and will share some of the “blame” for the state of the nation since they will have some control.
I just look forward to a time, in say 6-8 years, when the GOP has a majority in the Senate and complain about the Democrats filibustering things and complaining that a filibuster should be rarely used. They will show a lack of consistency since they love to filibuster now.
The other thing I would love someone to explain is how Republicans propose to balance the budget when they love to cut taxes and increase military spending. This is an honest question and if the GOP and their supporters wish to govern they need an answer to this.
Can anyone answer the simple question I posed :
how do Republicans propose to balance the budget when they want to cut taxes and increase military spending. This is an honest question and if the GOP and their supporters wish to govern they need an answer to this.
Also do Conservatives accept the need for a deficit (of any size) during a recession?
As the President said in the State of the Union the deficit last year before he had anytime to enact policies was greater than 10%. That would have happened if McCain/Palin had been elected. Fact.
True enough. But we do not have kings in America, we also have a Congress. The party with the Presidency doesn’t control the entire government, and Congress ultimately determines spending.
Democrats have controlled Congress as the federal budget has exploded in the last three years. Fact. Yes, there’s been a recession, but Congress has used that as an excuse for their spending agenda instead of addressing the problem. This makes me want to throw them out in 2010. It doesn’t really have much to do with McCain or Obama.
how do Republicans propose to balance the budget when they want to cut taxes and increase military spending. This is an honest question and if the GOP and their supporters wish to govern they need an answer to this.
Also do Conservatives accept the need for a deficit (of any size) during a recession?
Excellent questions. As a fiscal conservative, let me take a stab at them. There are three things in play here: the effect of tax cuts, the appropriateness of deficit spending, and the size of military spending.
First: tax cuts. Their affect on government revenues is somewhat nuanced. It’s interesting to see Democrats promoting the theory that health insurance mandates and government funded care will reduce costs (and thus reduce the deficit) over decades, while ignoring the comparatively straightforward case that tax cuts (particularly corporate and investment tax cuts) can pay for themselves by creating wealth. Of course, not every tax cut increases revenues. But not every tax cut increases the deficit either. The Heritage Foundation has plotted spending and revenue since 1962. While you can certainly see where tax cuts have reduced revenue, it is also clear that federal revenues are affected more by the strength of the economy than by tax rates.
Second: deficit spending. It is possible to accept the occasional need for this, without endorsing the runaway habit Congress has slipped into. Stimulus spending should be treated like a prescription drug, not a staple of the government’s diet. I favor a relaxed balanced-budget amendment. This would not require that the budget be balanced every year, but that it stay balanced over a rolling period of something like ten years, with exceptions for (carefully defined) military or economic emergencies. That way real stimulus is possible, and coping with unexpected events is possible, but endlessly ballooning spending isn’t.
Another question is how best to use deficit spending as stimulus when needed. Fiscal conservatives believe money gets used faster and more efficiently when left in the hands of productive citizens, than when meted out by government officials. I’m not sure if there’s any research on this, but it seems like the natural assumption to me, unless there’s evidence to the contrary.
Third: military spending. I think the Iraq War was a mistake, too many of our forces are overseas, and the military budget should be reduced. So it’s hard for me to defend the conservative view here. I would rather have a balanced budget than an Iraqi protectorate.
However: there is one thing that cuts in their favor. Military spending is stimulus too. Most of it eventually winds its way around to American businesses. A military buildup may have helped blunt the recession in the wake of 9-11. In fact, economic growth in the 1940s and 1980s can also be partly attributed to deficit military spending.
As a voter, I don’t feel obliged to pick one team and stick with it. Whether Bush or Bin Laden or Congressional Democrats or none of these or all of them is to blame for it, the fact is still there: we’ve nearly doubled the federal budget in the last 10 years. Each individual’s share of the national debt is over $10,000 and rising, and there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The spending trend can’t be allowed to continue. Voting Republican in 2010 doesn’t mean you think all our problems would be gone if only we’d elected McCain, or that the GOP isn’t partly responsible for decades of budget abuse. It just means Republicans in Congress are a lot more likely to cut back on spending than Nancy Pelosi is.
Cliff,
Where do you think Rossi’s approval ratings would be if he was the governor and dealing with this recession? Do you really think they would be positive? And I flatly disagree with your suggestion that WA voters don’t care about children’s health care or unemployment benefits. That is a very bizarre assertion.
The difference is, that she’s had poor approval ratings her ENTIRE term in office, she LOST in ‘08 among voters that voted in ‘04, (and frankly, she lost in ‘04, twice, and by a double digit margin, voters in Washington agreed, and still agree with me) and yes, her approval ratings are an even bigger disaster then most governors in the country, pretty much every elected governor with the exception of Bevery Perdue, who had the exact same thing happen to her: she eeked it out because of the Obama tidal and would have all but certainly lost without it. But at least she didn’t have a smaller margin of victory then the amount of illegal votes cast, as found by the courts, let alone public opinion.
Your nonsense about the validity of Gregoire’s election aside, it is flatly false to say that Gregoire’s ratings have always been poor. Her ratings did suffer initially after the 2004 election and more recently during the recession. And she has been willing to spend political capital to accomplish goals. But from early 2006 to mid 2008, her approval ratings were generally positive.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=67161c9f-09c3-4e6f-a3a5-ce4e08492815&x=3955,3
There are also several elected governors that I know have worse approvals — Schwarzenegger, Granholm, Gibbons and of course the infamous Mark Sanford, though in fairness his ratings were quite good before his sex scandal. Brewer and Paterson are also worse, although they were not elected.
The above link only seems to show Gregoire’s ratings for Metro Seattle. Hopefully this one should link to the statewide numbers.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=67161c9f-09c3-4e6f-a3a5-ce4e08492815&x=0,0
Ogre, I don’t think you will get a response from Cliff since he doesn`t like to be contradicted.
The fiscal conservative anon who posted above, great post and a lot of detail in there. I will carefully read it and I am glad someone answered the important question of tax and spend.