MI: Cox Dominates Cherry In Gov Race
We had a primary poll out of Michigan yesterday and today, a different pollster releases a new poll for the state of Michigan showing the Republicans with a golden opportunity to retake this seat after the disastrous eight years of Jennifer Granholm. This new poll comes from Mitchell Research and Communications.
GOVERNOR – MICHIGAN (Mitchell Research)
Mike Cox (R) 45%
John Cherry (D) 32%
Cox leads the GOP primary by a high single-digit margin.
GOVERNOR – MICHIGAN – GOP PRIMARY (Mitchell Research)
Mike Cox 30%
Pete Hoekstra 23%
Mike Bouchard 11%
Rick Snyder 2%
Tom George 2%
This poll was done September 13-17 among 600 likely voters.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is Hoekstra even running?
Obama decline in Gallup: 50 (-1)/42 (NC)
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
Yes, Eph, he is.
3. Sooooooooo RAS is now higher approval than Gallup w/ Gallup using more DEMs in their sample.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay!
3. D+??????????
Im guessing 10-14
People, this is bad, BAD news for the DNC. If Michigan and Wisconsin flip red in the 2010 elections, this could have far reaching effects on 2012. Michigan must be getting to the point that the misery is so great there that any change to the current party in power should be better. If Cox is leading in double digits over the de-facto Dem nominee John Cherry, that is one big hill to climb in today’s political climate for the Dems.
Great new from NRO on Bacus/Obamacare bill – retains core elements of governt takeover – trillions in new taxes and lost wages – millions and millions more thrown out of work:
“Baucus Is Costly [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From THF:
The mandates in Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) U.S. health care reform bill will:
Force individuals to pay more money out-of-pocket, and
Compel businesses to reduce wages, salaries, and job opportunities.
Baucus’s plan for “reform” requires that individuals currently without insurance must purchase insurance through either their company or an exchange mechanism. If a worker decides to purchase insurance on the exchange, his or her employer will be responsible for subsidizing the cost of that insurance through a new tax. Businesses will also be capped as to how much they will be able to charge workers whose income falls below 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Consequently, these mandates will reduce employment opportunities and slow economic growth.”
The good news? Great job opportunities in the “ministry of sleath government run health care/micromanging private insurance”
Yeah, we can rest easy there will be no death panels – most may starve first since they can find a job lol
Also, it will be great not to worry about “medical banruptcy” anymore – we will just have the regular ole fashioned bankruptcy kind since we wont have jobs or money lol
Yep, this is “security and stability” you can count on lol
Wylie,
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/get-rid-of-mandate.html
#7 A chimp could have run MI better the Granholm – all she did was line the pockets of the state employees and union goons….and hike taxes to kill business
Basically she brought the Chicago thugs up to MI for an 8 year vacation lol
#9 Tommy – thanks, that guy is awsome and right on the money hopefully he is pushing the message out to a wider audiance then my feeble efforts.
I read his other article:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/hillary-had-mandate-for-mandates.html
here is a great quote:
“But if Hillary were President, the fight against mandates and the public option would be tougher because Hillary campaigned on a platform of mandates. Were Hillary President, she could claim with a straight face that she and Democrats in Congress had a mandate to impose mandates.
Barack Obama can claim that he has a mandate to impose mandates, but he cannot do so with a straight face. Obama campaigned on a platform of no mandates. Obama repeatedly pointed out during the primaries that the key difference between his health care plan and Hillary’s health care plan was that Hillary had mandates, but Obama did not (see video below).
So the President who made a point in the campaign to argue against mandates, now is the mandate President. It doesn’t work that way, as the Obama administration is finding out.”
My question is why is the RNC, etc not having like 100 million commercials on the air showing him flip-flopping on this?
Why isnt every conservative media type hammering this nail into the Obamacare coffin daily?
Are we that stupid that we swing and miss on a slow floater over the middle like this – we should be hitting this outta the park daily!
What gives when Gallup has a lower approval rating than RAS for Obama?
Here is another great blog!
http://wylie-e-oyote-super-genius.blogspot.com/
So it begins: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_co/us_kennedy_successor_gop
You just knew this was coming. Deval Patrick signs a letter saying the new law to appoint a successor becomes effective immediately? According to the GOP, laws take 90 days to go into effect and they are claiming that Patrick had no constitutional authority to do that. Talk about Patrick usurping!! Should be interesting. This is another sign that the Dems are desperately trying to get Obamacare passed prior to the Nov. 3 elections in VA and NJ.
Conservative State Representative Sam Rohrer is considering entering the Pennsylvania Governor’s Race.
I’m with Sam.
Here is a good piece on the politics of the Individual Mandate – good and bad news – it seems like some R are now cathcing on to it belatedly but it seems to be a great line of attack that is getting the D off balance:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/health_insurance_mandates/
Sam Stein reports that “Democrats are bracing themselves for a new line of conservative attack against a provision in the health care legislation once considered so non-controversial that it was endorsed by several major Republican officials.” What is it, you might ask, that these dastardly Republicans are opposing out of their racist hatred of Barack Obama?
On Tuesday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) described the health care legislation being considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a “stunning assault on liberty” due to a provision that would require individuals to buy insurance. Earlier in the week, the individual mandate also came under attack when Tim Phillips, who heads Americans for Prosperity, described it as an assault on individual liberty. “When you have health care, that’s a choice that impacts yourself,” Phillips told MSNBC’s Hardball. “Drivers’ insurance impacts other drivers you may have accidents with.”
The attacks have confounded Democrats in and out of government, who noted quickly that mandating coverage was, until recently, a relative given when it came to health care reform. “It’s f–ing ludicrous,” said one health care reform activist, who noted that when Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked committee members to air their disagreements with an individual mandate during a meeting on May 5, no one chimed in.
Indeed, for months it was presumed that a relatively ironclad deal was in place: in exchange for the government mandating coverage, private insurance companies would agree to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. The arrangement was all but blessed by prominent figures from within the GOP ranks. In mid-August, the ranking member of the finance committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), announced that the way to get universal coverage is “through an individual mandate.” “That’s individual responsibility,” the senator told Nightly Business Report. “And even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.”
So, Chuck Grassley and at least six other Republicans currently in the Senate support — or at least are willing to sign off on – a law forcing Americans to buy health insurance. But that hardly renders it “non-controversial.”
Indeed, this provision was incredibly controversial during last year’s Democratic presidential primaries. Indeed, only John Edwards and Hillary Clinton supported mandates. Among those opposing? Barack Obama and Joe Biden who, as some will recall, went on to win the presidential and vice-presidential nominations, respectively, of the Democratic Party and go on to win election to those offices.
For whatever reason Cherry is not the Teflon candidate Grantholm was.
Cox has been a great AG so I wonder why the congressman is not waiting to run about Stabenow in 2012
#14 mere issues of the constitution and the law cannot stand in the way of the ultimate power grab for the far left, er I mean “stable and secure” health insurance for all
…oh, and in case you’re not already, becoming a supporter on Facebook of my bid for State Representative would be much appreciated.
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=Julian+Stolz&init=quick#/pages/Julian-Stolz/43182514887?ref=ts
#17 I never really got the whole Granholm thing personnally – whenever I went back there to visit I would ask why they voted her back in when she was clearly driving the state into oblivion….
All people would say would be “well she is trying SOOO hard” then spew a bunch of crap about Bush – this is when unemployement was 5% higer then any place else in America….
Stabenow is about the most worthless food-to-crapper out there. Her husband was out in the detriot area picking up hooker (may be from Acron?) while she was pushing global warming – she is shilling for “green jobs” while gutting the auto industry with Obama and the unions….
Spence Abrams upset in 2000 was a big loss for humanity as it brought in this ditz to the Senate
Obama asked the Generals to “scrub” their reports…
Another lie and campaign flip-flop, it true…
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/24/report_obama_told_petraeus_and_mcchrystal_to_scrub_assessments
Strategic Vision responds. Hopefully Silver gets his ass kicked.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/09/nate-silver-pollster-may-be-fraud.html
“First in regards to the AAPOR charges that started this blog thread. Strategic Vision did comply and provide the information to AAPOR and has electronic proof that this was done on June 19th. We did this because they claimed a complaint has been filed against us and they were investigating us, even though we have never been a member of their organization. We were then contacted by AAPOR and told that while they had requested this it was not done in a timely enough fashion so they were going to issue a press release reprimanding us. Please remember again we are not members of their association. At no time did they request additional information as they now allege they had. Had they done so we would have provided them the information. Rather as I stated we were told we were going to be reprimanded by AAPOR despite responding to them. We have requested from them repeatedly since this investigation is all about transparency according to them, a copy of the complaint. They have refused and stated their bylaws donot require them to show us the complaint but we must respond to them or be rep rimanded. Further several members of this panel that voted to investigate us serve as consultants for one of our competitors and indeed contacted a client several days prior to this being released telling our client that they should switch to the company they consult for.
Secondly in regards to Nate Silver’s statements, we categorically deny them and will refute them. We have a call into our attorney on this and fully intend to take action that will vindicate us. I wish Nate had contacted me directly yesterday when he began this tirade, I could have answered his questions fully to his satisfaction prior to damage being done to our reputation. Now that he has made these accusations and posted them online, I must and will defend our company’s reputation through all legal avenues available. The reason that we are going the legal route is he has attempted to do severe damage to our reputation and what is he going to do when we disprove him just say I am sorry. That isn’t enough at this point.”
From the mouth of the Dear Leader:
“If you look at auto insurance, in California there’s mandatory auto insurance,” Obama explained. “Twenty-five percent of the folks don’t have it. The reason is because they can’t afford it. So John and I, we’re not that different in this sense; that I’m committed to starting the process. Everybody who wants it can buy it and it’s affordable. If we have some gaps remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you’re still going to have some folks who aren’t insured under your plan, John, because some of them will simply not be able to afford to buy the coverage they’re offered.”
He of course was addressing the Great Lover Johnny E.
Can we see some flip-flop or liar adds please?
Also it would be great to see John Edwards in the shot too!
#21 Those Generals owe it to the American public to resign/retire and go public NOW before thousands are killed needlessly!
Arizona Gov(PPP)
GOP Primary(Two-way)
Martin 37%
Brewer 26%
GOP Primary(Two-way)
Brewer 39%
Symington 31%
GOP Primary(Three-way)
Symington 34%
Martin 26%
Brewer 22%
Arizona Sen(PPP)
GOP Primary
McCain 67%
Simcox 17%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_AZ_925.pdf
Here is a great article on why Obamacare is all about political power and special interest greed not anyone health!
http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2009/09/25/does_america_need_health_care_reform
key quote:
“U.S. Health Care Costs are Low, Results are High: The average citizen in the U.S. pays less for health care than citizens in Germany, Japan, Canada, and most countries in the E.U. Yet, with illnesses like cancer and heart disease there are significant gaps in the outcomes for patients in other nations as compared to their survival when treated in the U.S. Again, Fred Barnes offers comparative information that was published in the medical journal Lancet Oncology. Clearly, Americans get better care than citizens in other nations, leading to greater survival rates from the most lethal forms of cancer.
· Survival rate for all cancer patients for Americans — 66.3 percent for men and 63.9 for women.
· Survival rate for all cancer patients for Europeans — 47.3 percent for men and 55.9 percent for women.
· Survival rate for prostate cancer for American men — 99 percent
· Survival rate for prostate cancer for European men — 77.5 percent
· Survival rate for colon/rectal cancer for Americans — 65.5 percent
· Survival rate for colon/rectal cancer for Europeans — 56.2 percent
· Survival rate for breast cancer patients for Americans — 90.1 percent
· Survival rare for breast cancer patients for Europeans — 79 percent
Citizens also get better care when it comes to heart disease and heart attacks — patients have access to a wide variety of tests, treatments, and drugs, such as cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, stents, by-pass operations and blood-thinning drugs. The progress in treating heart problems is astounding. In 1970, around 500 per 100,000 people died of coronary heart disease. By 1980, it had dropped to under 350. It was down to 250 in 1990, down to 190 in 2000, and by 2007, it was under 140. Likewise, a heart attack used to be fatal; by 1960, less than 40 percent of heart attack victims died. That number is now down to around only six percent.”
How can the regressives can twist these stats and convince people we will be better off under Obamacare is beyond comprehension….
And they claim to be “compassionate” lol
22…OUCH and GULP
Darrell,
I really hope SV held back the data for the purpose of leading a Daily Kos/Merlot drinking liberal like Silver to make such a claim.
If SV is right on this one, Silver will be completely discredited. You cannot walk back an allegation like the one he made.
Rdel, Hoekstra may not be waiting to challenge Stabenow in 2012 because either Mike Rogers or Candice Miller would slaughter him in that primary.
What are you talking about, Tommy?
Wes,
Here’s the background:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/few-more-questions-for-sketchy-pollster.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/strategic-vision-polls-exhibit-unusual.html
And the link I provided has Strategic Vision’s response.
If Strategic Vision is on the up-and-up, Silver won’t be able to recover from this smear job. Unfortunately for Strategic Vision, it’s likely it won’t be able to as well. I hope he ruins Nate Silver to where he won’t be afford a Merlot drink in downtown Chicago.
Obamacare… buy insurance or go to jail!
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall
That just seems bizarre, Tommy. Really bizarre.
Yet more trashing of the Individual Mandate in a more scientific manner by the CATO folks!
Gotta love the title:
“All the President’s Mandates: Compulsory Health Insurance Is a Government Takeover”
by Michael F. Cannon
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10576
Happy quote:
“The most hazardous health reform measure before Congress is not the so-called “public option,” but proposals to make health insurance compulsory via an individual or employer mandate.
Compulsory health insurance could require nearly 100 million Americans to switch to a more expensive health plan and would therefore violate President Barack Obama’s pledge to let people keep their current health insurance. In particular, the legislation before Congress could eliminate many or all health savings account plans. Making health insurance compulsory would also spark an unnecessary fight over abortion and would enable government to ration care to those with private health insurance.”
The left
marginalize talk radio and FOX NEWS at every opportunity.
Now add to that an attempt to marginalize any polling outfit that doesn’t give “the right results”?
That’s right Nate. Not every polling firm can be as on the up and up like the surveys conducted by the likes of CBS/NYT.
Wilye, why the Libertarian Party would rather discuss drug legalization–which, while a noble goal, is ultimately not politically viable–than hammer home the danger’s Obamacare mandates is quite beyond me.
Wes
I could think of Candice Miller’s name but she would be a great candidate to take on Stabbie. If I was not so lazy I would google the secretary of state’s name. She has been mentioned as a candidate for governor or senator.
Surely Levin will retire in 2014 and open up a spot.
If the organization investigating Strategic Vision is one SV isn’t and has never been a part of with no jurisdiction over SV, then why does SV even both with a response? That’s the weirdest part of the whole thing to me.
#32 Cool, jail time for failure to submit to government death panels!
I doubt Levin will ever retire, Rdel. Miller actually has won statewide before and was polling well against Stabenow in 2006 before declining the race. Terri Land may run, but I doubt it. Mike Rogers–who succeeded Stabenow in the House in 2001–would be the best GOP contender for the seat. He undercuts Stabenow in almost every conceivable way, even to the point of running well in her home base of Lansing every two years.
#36 I dunno, we will probably need legalized pot if Obamacare passes…
since pain medication will be rationed, pot will be need to pick up the slack…
I know I would want to consider firing up a big hooter or two or 3 if I have to live in the socialist Utopia….
I am not too up on the inner working of the Libertarians but yeah, we can work out the right to smoke hooters after we avert the biggest unconstitutional invasion of our privacy and individual rights ever!
#40 Levin is a scumbag too. Not nearly as dumb as ditzy Deb but a hard core statist. Your right, we will go out like Thurmond, Byrd, and Kennedy – cluching to statist power to the last second
Brandon,
Thanks for the AZ polls. I dont think Brewer is going to run again. Maybe it’s her age.
That and their position on national security have always bothered me since I joined the Libertarian Party in 2006. Drug legalization is something that should happen, but focusing on it lets Libertarians be marginalized to the point of ineffectiveness. Also, on national security, they’re complete pacifists. We should do nothing to fight terrorism and should let anyone come into the country at will regardless iof background. On issues of imminent (or is it eminent?) domain and Obamacare–two issues tailormade for the party if they want to ever actually attract votes, the Libertarians are silent. I don’t get it.
Blame Bob Griffin for not paying attention to the state in the last two years of his time in office and the Republican who ran against Levin in 1984 for being caught on tape praising foreign-made cars for the inability of the GOP to take Levin out, Wilye. That said, if the economy keeps collapsing in Michigan, he may become vulnerable–especially if Obama wins reelection.
#44 I dunno too much about the Libertarian party per say – seems to me the natural home for those folks should be the party of Lincoln….
That is to say, once the party of Lincoln stops acting like the party of stupid or the party of WJ Bryan-lite
Strategic Vision will bleed Nate Silver dry. He might be finished.
#45 No way Levin ever gets beat. People up there will pull the lever mindless for him until the end of time….
Yeah, I remember 1984 – Philip Ruppee (a UPer) ran against him….
A good canidate too – kinda RINOish but ok
Yep, 1984 was not a great time to be pimpin’ the wonders of Japaneese autos as a politician even if he was later proven right in many regards lol
Well, the GOP’s too wedded to social conservatism for many Libertarians to feel entirely comfortable there, Wilye. That wasn’t the reason I left the GOP though. I switched because I was so disgusted with George W Bush’s disastrous term in office I just couldn’t continue as a Republican. I voted straight Republican last year though as it became clear just how dangerous the Dems would be if they won big.
Actually the Republican who challenged Levin in 1984 was Jack Lousma. Had he not been caught on tape singing the praises of a Japanese car, most political observers think he would have won.
Also, wilye, I didn’t say Levin would lose. I said he could be vulnerable, as he was in the 1984 race.
Here is a great recap/summary from NRO on what came out of the Bacus committe fighting this week:
“The Senate Finance Committee now stands in recess until Tuesday, September 29 at 9:30 a.m., at which point they will return to the work of going through over 500 amendments to the Baucus plan. In addition to the fact that these kinds of hearings can be very boring, we have learned a variety of things about the Baucus plan and the process over the last few days:
First, the mandate really is a tax increase, despite the president’s protestations. The penalty for violating the mandate will be collected by IRS. In addition, the “fees” on manufacturers will be passed on to consumers, which is another form of tax.
Second, the effect of the bill will be to raise the price of insurance for healthy individuals, especially the young, who voted in heavy numbers for Obama. This will hurt low-income people as well by making it harder for them to purchase insurance.
Third, some of the amendments exposed some real weaknesses that the Democrats will have to work through; as K-Lo noted earlier, all but one of the Democrats voted to strike the Bunning amendment, which would have required that the bill text be available online for 72 hours before the vote on it.
In addition, Democrats also rejected the Hatch amendment, which would have stopped implementing the bill’s provisions if 1 million Americans lost “the current coverage of their choice.” This is effectively an admission that Democrats believe many Americans will lose their health insurance as a result of the bill. If they didn’t fear the possibility, it would have been easy to vote for Hatch.
The fun begins again Tuesday at noon, with votes on comparative effectiveness and some amendments related to the public option. Enjoy the weekend.”
I particularly like the Hatch amendment manuver – smart, shows they are really out to destroy private insurance!
Tommy, do strategic vision polls always add to 100%?
WOW…I’m speechless (H/T MFG over at BJG)
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall
So, if you don’t buy health insurance, you could go to jail?
Jay,
I think so.
Go Buckeye state…….Gallup: Kasich(R) 46 Strickland(D) 45
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/ohio/election_2010_ohio_governor_election
Trending the right way, Marv. What an irony if the entire Strickland-Fisher ticket does fall while seeking separate jobs on Election Day next year.
56. Huge turn around for Kasich. Marv, you have great sources after all
#56, 57:
And to top it all, neither Kasich nor Portman are well-known statewide.
As I have maintained, the 2010 elections in Ohio will be a referendum on Strickland and Obama.
Dems have to defend unemployment rate going from 5.3% to 10.8% under Strickland’s tenure as governor. Anybody But Strickland will look good.
This is beginnging to look a lot like 2005-2006 in reverse. A lot of entrenched Republicans became vulnerable in that timeperiod, and only a handful managed to survive. The early drop in support for many GOP candidates snowballed into losses for others who had previously been considered shape or in decent shape. I hope history repeats itself in reverse next year.
Somewhere Ken Blackwell is thanking God he didn’t win the 2006 gubernatorial race.
Tommy,
The problem with Silver’s assessment is that the numbers of a poll are not random, and may have a pattern unique to the type and methodology of the pollster. It is not difficult to come up with a plausible scenario that would lead to SVs pattern.
Suppose that SVs methodology causes the undecideds to randomly be between 5-10%, and suppose in a two way matchup, we randomly choose a percentage between 30-60 for a random candidate. Then, assume that the three results add to 100%… not that much of a stretch.
After 2000 trials, here is the incidence distribution I just ran in an excel spreadsheet:
0: 616 10%
1: 368 6%
2: 386 6%
3: 395 7%
4: 379 6%
5: 636 11%
6: 759 13%
7: 839 14%
8: 836 14%
9: 786 13%
#50 you are correct – Ruppee ran and lost in 82 against “Diamond Don” reigle – Lousma was an ex-astronaught if I recall correctly – a good conservative too
yea, I agree too a point with you on social conservatism….
those issues should be state or local ones….not federal
thats what traditionally the U.S. Constitution has upheld on social issues – states, local governments, and individual decide
look at what roe v wade did when then became a “one size fits all” federal solution
in a diverse and free country, social questions should be resolved at the lowest level possible perferably the individual one….
As a general rule, I dont beleive in the notion that someone knows best for their fellow citizen and gets to place that in action via law
this is liberal stuff – being arrogant enough to think you know best for your neighbor then getttin the government to force him to comply to your wishes
Conservatives, Libertarians, and R should be in the Freedom business
Take this health care crap – 90% have insurance and 80% are happy with it yet 70% of American’s “think the system is broken and needs reform”
Well, its obvious that they dont think its broke for them personally but it must be for “the other guy” whom they presume is to stupid to manage their own affairs…..
Hense, we have liberals playing “world leader pretend” in their heads all working out the great Obamacare socialist utopia system of their wet dreams so “the other guy” can have “equal access” to “affordable” care….and note, the defination of those last two words can mean anything to anyone – thats Obama’s huge selling point – appeal to arrogance and let peoples pretend that he will impose exactly what they imagine….
Reality will be much much different for them unfortunately lol
Great post, Wilye.
#54 Cool, there will be growth in the jail industry as alot of people wont be able to afford it!
Between 2009 and 2010 elections, my estimate is that Republicans will net 13+ governorships.
Well, someone has to have jobs, Wilye. Why not prison guards and construction workers?
It could be higher than that, Sam, and it may be a gross rather than a net.
anyone have the link to BJG – I am on a new computer today and for some reason I cant google it up
must be part of that Obama internet takeover lol
Jay,
Well-said. I hope they bury Silver.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done already to SV’s reputation.
http://bejohngalt.com/
In case you missed it, Mandatory Insurance is BAD….
And Obamacare is still a takeover scam:
“‘Compulsory insurance has consequences’ [NRO Staff]
Grace-Marie Turner in the Washington Examiner:
Hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxpayer subsidies would be needed to help Americans pay for this rich coverage.
Families that don’t buy insurance would face a new tax of up to $1,900 a year. People with expensive health insurance likely would be hit with a 40 percent premium increase as their insurance companies pass a new excise tax on to them.
Young people would face higher premiums to subsidize older Americans. And the government would tell everyone how much they can afford to pay for all of their health costs, up to $20,000 a year for those with incomes above $96,000, for example.
Further, employers would be required to provide health insurance, help their workers pay premiums, or face penalties. Many of them don’t believe the promised government subsidies for some small businesses would help and say the new burden would lead to less hiring and more layoffs.
The mandate also puts the federal government in the business of regulating health insurance, inevitably triggering price controls and leading to restrictions on access to care.
Only one in five Americans say their health insurance coverage and the quality of the care they receive will improve if a bill passes Congress this year. How right they are!”
yep, we DEMAND WORSE CARE NOW and WE DEMAND TO PAY MORE FOR IT!
If their polls are accurate and they prove this as a smear tactic, Tommy, then SV will recover.
While we’re all deeply concerned and passionate about this issue, Wilye, you seem to have delved into it more and become more opposed to it even than we. May I ask why?
I agree 100% that the more local the government solution the better itis. I rail against the department of energy-education-commerce-agriculture that is all beaucracy creep in my opinion. There is no federal need to grow a crop, educate a child or drill a barrell of oil.
I make no bones about it but I am a down the line social conservative Republican. I have voted, however, lots of guys like Lamar, Baker, Gerald Ford, Bush 41 and McCain who not in sync with all of my social conservative views.
I am state rights guy who believes that our laws, except where specifically in the constitution, should be determined at the state level. That includes abortion-gay marriage-adoption rules. I think Gun laws certainly are protected by 2nd amendment but some regulations can be done at state level.
I might that I know lots of social conservatives who very upset with McCain over campaign reform who voted for him. I might every pro-choice GOP candidate gets lots of social conservatives to vote for them in GE’s.
I keep running the scenario with virtually identical results, and they mirror the SV data. So, I don’t see how SV can be proven wrong via Silver’s method.
Silver chose to compare to an “average” of many different polls and methodologies, then there is a likelihood that the variations in the polls caused a smoothing effect… say undecideds between 0-10.
Here is a result when the undecideds are randomly chosen between 0-10, but otherwise the same method:
0: 623 10%
1: 584 10%
2: 617 10%
3: 540 9%
4: 617 10%
5: 629 10%
6: 592 10%
7: 612 10%
8: 611 10%
9: 575 10%
Okay, so that makes Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and potentially New York as flashing red in regards to governorships. Tsunami warning at Democratic Headquarters.
Maalox moment for the Dems, Phoenix.
I agree with all you just said, Rdel. Many social conservatives disagree with your states-rights position though. The Terri Schiavo debacle is one glaring, infamous example.
Phoenix #77:
You need to expand the list to add the following Dem governoships:
Kansas – open
Oklahoma – open
Pennsylvania – open
Tennessee – open
Wyoming – possibly open
Colorado
Illinois
Iowa
Massachussetts
Hey…psssst…all these governorship polls at Rasmussen are still weighted I believe at Dem +5.7 right? Hmmmmmmmm
That’s right sam! I was thinking in the context of the key Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states. Sea of red coming
Wyoming is open, Sam. The Dems will not win that one this time around. Had the Republican in 2002 not had John Kerry-like propensity for foot-in-mouth disease, then the GOP would have that governorship now.
Folks,
Did I miss a Wisconsin poll? Would someone please link it so I can see too?
Marv
Also, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oregon are vulnerable to flipping.
No wonder the GOP national committee has been ringing my phone off the wall. They could really win a lot of ground these next few years.
I know Wyoming is open, but Freudenthal (sp?) was trying to figure out if he could legally run for third term. I believe there is a court case pending.
Too early to tell in Wisconsin Marv but the last poll I saw had the top GOP primary candidate leading the Dem primary candidate (Doyle isn’t seeking re-election).
#88 phx
Thanks, Wisconsin is alot like Texas or Alabama. (except for Madison)
#81. Rasmussen doesn’t weight his state polls.
Doyle saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall. He has no George W Bush’s failed presidency and no State Election Commission dirty tricks up his sleeve to help him win this time.
Sam, Mary Fallin will win the governorship in Oklahoma in 2010, bank on it. Ex-lieutenant governor who served with Frank Keating and is currently the congressman in OK-5. Maybe we ought to put a whole list of current governorships up for election in 2009 and 2010 with a snapshot of each.
Ah, okay Brandon. I was wondering about that.
More interesting to me in Wisconsin is if the GOP will field a strong candidate–Mark Green would be my pick since Thompson won’t run–to challenge Feingold. Feingold has already signaled he’s panicking by distancing himself from Obama. Not a good sign for what his internal polling is telling him.
Phx
Is Cong Fallin a conservative?
“Maybe we ought to put a whole list of current governorships up for election in 2009 and 2010 with a snapshot of each.”
That’s how I came up with my estimate of 13+ net governorship gains for the Reps in 2009-10 cycle.
There are other Dem-held governorships that could open up, depending on the mood of the country.
All governorships are up next year but those in WA, MT, UT, ND, MO, IN, KY, LA, MI, NC, VA, DE, NJ, and WV.
She’s a moderate conservative, Marv. She tends to be a bit more libertarian on social issues.
MI in my post about the governorships should be MS; that is, Mississippi rather than Michigan.
#98 Wes,
Thanks
#74 It is my personal view that HC is the battle of Armegeddon so to speak for individual rights and freedom in this country…
This is not about HC or HC costs at all – if it were, there are several simple common sense market based solutions that could be enacted overnight….
This is an issue about political power pure and simple….
The consequences of HC reform Obama style will be sweeping and transformative to our politics and society….if ANY of the core elements get in, we will never be rid of it either!
On the political side, all 300 million will be under the Feds yoke for a basic staple in our life – millions more will be getting subsidy checks or outright handouts from the FEDs….
The D have seen how this has changed Canada and the UK, western europe into politcal playgrounds for the left – all elections are fought on the lefts terms – the so-called conservatives in the UK, etc cannot roll it back – their sole rational for exsisting is to claim they can manage the Nanny state better the the true left….
This kind of slant to the left opens the door for much more trampling on our individual rights and liberties; more socialism
And socialism is an ideology of DEATH – a National suicide pact!
People cant afford to have families, start business, etc – and it must always resort to FORCE at some point to try and prop up the system….and it always collapses too – it goes against the nature of man to be free and work in his own interests
Look at eastern europe for the sudden crash model….
Look at western europe for the slow collapse model – its being demographically wipped out by Moslem immigration and financial/tax ruin….hell Khadfi said as much when he renounced terrorism – he said in 50 years Europe will be moslem so why do we need to engage in terrorism now – we will win peacefully….
If we can defeat HC, we can stop the rest of the radical left’s agenda – education takeover, finacial sector takeover, cap n tax etc
And the current damage done with auto/bank takeover and destimulus/deficits/taxes can be undo by future R victory….
No, once human dependance starts NO DEMOCRATIC NATION on the planet has willingly repealed a major social welfare program….people are just too scared to bite the hand that feed them even if it is only crumbs
And the elites of this country know this and love this too – the economic stagnation that is socialism/statism te politcally connected and uber rich – why do you think all the Big Health Insurance and Pharma is on board with Obamacare – A monoploy marketn and millions of new customers too!
Why is Soros a big socialist? Cause “he cares” about the “little guy” = heck no! He cares about keeping SOROS and freinds/family on top – no pesky competion from the small business and innovate individuals – regulate them and stagnate them out of exsistance but give them crumbs off the table to keep them happy….
No, Obamacare is nothing short of the undoing of the American revolution as far as I am concerned!
It will establish a new Aristrocracy of the rich and politically connected….
It is the largest transfer of soverignity from the people to the state in history!
It must be opposed or the world will slowly nto a new dark age like none seen before…
Ok, that is my manifesto for the day lol
#95 Yes
Of the 36 governorships up in 2010, Republicans hold those in AK, ID, NV, AZ, SD, NE, TX, MN, AL, FL, GA, SC, CT, RI, CA, HI, and VT while Dems hold those in OR, WY, CO, NM, KS, OK, MI, WI, MI, OH, TN, AR, MD, PA, NY, NH, ME, IL, and MA.
Is Hawaii the only governorship position that is currently held by a Republican that we start out as most likely a D takeover?
Very thoughtful and intelligent response, Wilye. I applaud you.
Retiring or term-limited Democratic governors
Mark Parkinson (Kansas)
John Baldacci (Maine)
Jennifer Granholm (Michigan)
Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Brad Henry (Oklahoma)
Ted Kulongoski (Oregon)
Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania)
Phil Bredesen (Tennessee)
Jim Doyle (Wisconsin)
Possibly term-limited Democratic governors
Dave Freudenthal (Wyoming)
Retiring or term-limited Republican governors
Bob Riley (Alabama)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (California)
Charlie Crist (Florida)
Sonny Perdue (Georgia)
Linda Lingle (Hawaii)
Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota)
Don Carcieri (Rhode Island)
Mark Sanford (South Carolina)
Mike Rounds (South Dakota)
Jim Douglas (Vermont)
Democratic governors who may seek re-election or election
Mike Beebe (Arkansas)
Bill Ritter (Colorado)
Pat Quinn (Illinois)
Chet Culver (Iowa)
Martin O’Malley (Maryland)
Deval Patrick (Massachusetts)
John Lynch (New Hampshire)
David Paterson (New York)
Ted Strickland (Ohio)
Republican governors who may seek re-election or election
Sean Parnell (Alaska)
Jan Brewer (Arizona)
Jodi Rell (Connecticut)
Butch Otter (Idaho)
Dave Heineman (Nebraska)
Jim Gibbons (Nevada)
Rick Perry (Texas)
Gary Herbert (Utah)
I just saw that post. I guess, the D’s would be favored to take over HI, VT, and CA.
Hawaii, California, Rhode Island, and Arizona are all on shaky ground. Strong GOP candidates in each can win the day though. I believe the political winds next year will help the Republicans hold all four so long as they nominate strong candidates.
#75 the 2nd amendment protects a good given right – that is to defend your person against agression
I would not consider that a “social” issue but a basic human right
When did Vermont start termlimiting its Governors?
I like Meg Whitman in California… Better than Fiorina… But the alternatives of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, I’d take either R anyday, even if it’s R-I-N-O
VT isn’t term-limited. Douglas just has had enough.
Ah, I see…Douglas isn’t term limited. He’s just retiring. Maybe he could run against Leahy. He’d be a long shot, but he’d be the best chance the GOP would have to take out the United States Senate’s most infamous leaker.
CLINTORIUS
I’m more opitimistic about Arizona than deep blue HI, CA, VT, and RI
I’d support a broken stapler for California Senator over Barbara Boxer.
Fiorina’s no social conservative, but as a businesswoman she’d be solid on economics–which are the driving forces behind the potential GOP realignment.
#107 I think the NV GOP gov is in bad shape too – dont know if he decided to run again or not but that would be a tough one – Gibbons, dude got ethical issues
here is an interseting little article:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Architects-of-Ruin-gives-hint-of-why-Obama-disses-medical-malpractice-caps—60787722.html
lawyers and liberals ruining the economy!
Gibbons is like Paterson. It’s useless at this point including him in head-to-head matchups; there’s no way he’ll get his party’s nomination.
I’m just waiting for someone in the MA Democratic Party to grow a pair and challenge Patrick, but I guess that would incur the wrath of The One.
Wilye, Gibbons is in a tough primary–actually running behind–while the Republican running against him is also running ahead of the likely Dem nominee.
There will be HUGE coattails in Nevada sweeping out Reid. I also believe the anger in Colorado with Gov. Tax Hike Ritter will lead to coattails sweeping out appointed Senator Bennet.
I mean coattails with people coming to the polls to vote out Reid, that will make the governor race favor the Republican a little more…
In California, the Republicans will have a strong candidate with incredibly deep pockets in Meg Whitman. In Hawaii, the Republicans have a Lieutenant Governor running with no primary opposition while the Dems are tearing themselves apart in the primary. I’m unsure about the Republican candidates in Rhode Island and Vermont, but the states have a history of electing GOP Chief Executives. This will definitely be a cycle where they might continue that trend.
Here is why I call them regressives:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Beware-the-Stalin-in-progressive-hearts-8283447-60670137.html
They pimp the ideology of central control by an annoited elite….
Call it socialism, liberalism, progressivism, communism, nazism, facism, statism, or Artritocracy its all the same in the end – a small few who get to make the rules for the rest!
They push tyranny always in the name of the “little guy” who supposedly is too stupid to take care of himself – you can hear this arrogance reeking out in all their pronouncements and policies!
This idea of central control is oldest on the planet – hense, they are Regressives!
Freedom and Individual Rights is the real Progressive ideas!
Republicans are already ahead in all four races, Sean, but a breakout for either the gubernatorial or senatorial nominee in either could help the Republicans win the other and affect the races further downballot.
The GOP LT.Governor in Vermont is very popular.
Amen, Wilye!
I knew there was a GOP Lt Gov up there, Joe, but I didn’t know if he was running. Is he?
Dubie I think was a bigger vote getter than Governor Douglass.
Update from the ground in Colorado. The Republican Party establishment is rallying around BIG TIME Jane Norton for US Senate. I have gotten things in the mail from her more than once this week. It seems like the party is trying to clear the field for her. Although I think she can beat Bennet, I was hoping for Ryan Frazier who has a lot more fire in him than Norton, in my opinion.
Wes, he is still on the fence, but a sure winner if he does.
Its been a good day at the ole HHR beating down statism….
However, gotta take a break and eat….be back later
Also, who is Mary at BJG? Does she run the site? How do you contact her to get featured posts put up?
Sean, Frazier needs to pay his dues and run for a down ticket office first.
You cannot be a town councilman and run for US Senate. His time will come.
#131 R primary – Frazier v Norton?
Go Frazier!
Frazier could do well against Norton and then challenge Udall in 2014. Either Frazier or Norton would likely beat Bennet though.
136. I agree Wes.
Check it out:
“GOP sues to block appointment of Kirk as Kennedy successor”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ap/biden-swears-in-kirk-successor-to-late-massachusetts-sen-edward-kennedy.html
I guess someone in GOP land gets that this HC cramdown is for all the marbles – amazaing but it appears that the party of stupid has some stones maybe after all lol
I think the GOP should also spend heavily on winning many Secretary of Stae races in 2010, that office has become very important in this age of Soros and Acorn.
You know, we have a great up-and-comer in Josh Penry that is running for Governor of Colorado. Penry is probably 50/50 with Scott McInnis. Frazier would be an AWESOME Lieutenant Governor candidate for Penry if Frazier’s campaign for Senate just doesn’t get off the ground.
Wes, it is pretty obvious that the GOP will take back the Senate in 2012 and 2014 if Obama is Re-elected.
Agreed, Joe. I wonder if Douglas and Lingle might consider Senate races since they won’t be running for Governor again next year. Recent polling has Lingle holding Inouye to 52% while Leahy fares better against Douglas. Either would be a formidable candidate and could potentially pull an upset a la Slade Gorton over Warren Magnuson given the current political environment. At the very least, they could make those races interesting and somewhat competitive.
Sean, the big loss in Colorado was Coffman running for Congress and giving up Secretary of State for Ritter to appoint. any GOP’er could have won Beauprez seat.
Frazier’s and Penry’s messages are very similar out on the campaign trail, although Penry is probably more of a social conservative. Neither are really touching the social issues, though.
There’s a very slim chance of the GOP’s picking up enough seats to flip the Senate next year, Joe. If that were to play out, then 2012 and 2014 would be gravy. If Obama wins reelection in 2012, then 2014 in particular will be a slaughter of Dems in the Senate.
Lingle is a Senator in waiting. Both those Guys are in their 80’s. Caputo in WVA will have Byrd’s seat at some point.
Social issues don’t drive elections when economic ones are at the fore. I think the Republicans are wise not to emphasize social issues in the current environment.
You mean Capito.
Joe, yes, Shelley Moore Caputo would make a great US Senator. She’s moderate-conservative right? West Virginia is prime to elect a Republican to the US Senate.
145. Wes, for that to happen you would need a 1980 where the GOP would win many seats by razor thin margins. If Chris Dodd falls early in the night that could be the tone.
Lingle would probably be just to the right of the Maine senators, right?
147. Wes, except Gay Marriage. that topic works for the GOP(2004)
I’m aware, Joe. As the economy deteriorates and Obama becomes a Bush-style albatross around the Dems’ collective necks, watch for that scenario to increase in likelihood.
Lingle is much better. She rousted Obama during the 2008 election and called him a Socialist.
153. Wes if it happens I will be elated watching Leahy, Rockerfeller, and Schumer lose their Chairmanships.
Lingle’s also very popular. Were she to challenge Inouye, she could well outcampaign him, although that is hardly the most likely of scenarios.
To contact (justmary) at BJG check her email at the bottom right side of blog. She is the blogess therein.
If the Republicans were to take back the Senate, Lingle is one that would have to run and win. What do you think her chances are of defeating Inouye?
Guys I think we are a little off on governors. Obama selected Bill Richardson as Commerce secretary. He got confirmed right??
Or is Richardson ambassador to North Korea?
I thought he got some sort of job to match his talents and ability.
Well, Joe, as I handicap it now, I have the GOP with 5 solid gains and 7 potential gains. All GOP seats seem to be trending in the same direction, so I have no Dem pickups in the Senate. A clean sweep would give the Republicans a 4-seat majority in the Senate, although the breakdown would be 52-46-2 with Lieberman and Sanders obviously still supporting the Dems.
Wes, I have been a big believer in Power thru the Governorships. But the Senate is so important due to the Judgeships.
If the GOP were to pick up 10+ Governsorships not only would that help the Redistricting but give the Right Wing more talent for their Presidential future.
At this point, I’d put an Inouye-Lingle race at a 60-40 spread favoring Inouye. That could well change as time goes on though.
160 – in that scenario, Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans if McCain were made majority leader.
Obama: 48/47 in Colorado.
http://www.coloradopolicyinstitute.com/Key%20Findings%20CPI%209-21-09.pdf
160. Nice breakdown. Reid would make my night, that would make Durbin Majority leader, and that wimp will wilt under the bright lights.
Wes, 5 solid gains being NV, CT, CO, AR? and ?
Governors and Senators–serving as the top of the ticket as they do next with no presidential candidates–could also bring out enough voters to help the Republicans make gains down the ticket in the lower-level statewide offices, the House races, and the state legislatures.
Sorry, Durbin would be minority leader.
Wes, if the GOP does that well in the Senate Races, it means that they will take the House to.
Delaware, Sean.
I’m aware, Joe.
Patty Murray is up also.
Mark Kirk is a lock here in Illinois Wes. The top Dem candidate is a joke.
I have the bimbette in New York, Illinois, North Dakota, Wisconsin, California, Washington, and Hawaii as potentials, Hawaii being the longest shot among them.
Well, then put that as 6 solid gains, Joe.
Kirk voted for Cap and Trade, right? But he’d definitely be better than Obama and Burris…
Now I want everyone to be aware I’m not at the moment predicting a GIOP takeover of the Senate. I’m just saying with the right candidates and enough momentum at their backs, the possibility is there.
Do you see Michael Williams in the Senate? I went to his website and saw his video on pork. He’d be rock solid.
Kirk did vote for cap and trade sadly. He’s since repudiated that vote from what I’ve heard.
6 is the number Wes. All the top tier DEMS passed on Kirk, and the economy here is awful.
Their guy is a 32 year old State Treasurer, whose family owns a Mafia laced bank and is Pro-Gay Marriage.
How the hell did I forget PA in my list off possible GOP Senate takeovers? Make the list 13 now.
#157 – pimpin’ thanks!
I don’t think Castle is running, though… Is there another candidate?
From what I’ve heard–and Chekote or Phil would probably be a better source on this than I–once Hutchison steps down, Williams is the frontrunner to get Perry’s appointment to the Senate.
#174 Sean,
Yes, Kirk voted for cap and trade. He said that he did it to vote the narrow interests of his district, but that he would vote no in the Senate because Il is an agricultural and coal state. (OK, I’ll accept explanation, just as long as he campaigns on a no vote in the Senate.)
#178 That guy is what is considered a “rising star” in the D party….
By all the qualifications of the guys currently running the Executive branch I suppose he is lol
There’s a candidate in the race already, but she’s a lightwieght who would probably lose. Last I heard, Castle was still looking at the race. With him in, that’s why I have it as solid r pickup.
Cap and Trade is not a Hot issue here. No serious primary opponent either. Illinois conservatives will forget about due to the DEM incompetence in 2010.
Kirk won the Senate seat on election night 2008. He beat a heavily funded opponent by 10% in Obama’s back yard. The reason all the top Dems passed on this race. Kirk could be on a National Ticket some day.
Castle also voted for Cap and Trade, correct?
I believe he did, Sean.
183. Nice post Marv. Chicago’s North Shore is very wealthy(John Hughes Movies) and Jewish. Only a moderate can win there, and Kirk is a Pro-Israel Christian. He will win because he will negate the Chicago vote and win the rest of the state heavily.
Anyone who says that Kirk is a lock has no idea of Illinois politics.
We can hope that Kirk can pull an upset (and no matter the dem, it would be an upset).
Joe,
Sorry, but that is inaccurate. Negate the Chicago vote? Hardly! The demographics of Chicago preclude that from ever happening.
Do you honestly think the Dems are going to roll over defending BARACK OBAMA’s old seat? Sorry. Kirk has a 30% chance.
Kirk is running a bit ahead of Giannoulias in the head-to-heads despite not being well know statewide. That bodes well for him, especially since he has no primary opposition while Giannoulias does.
I’d sya it’s a higher probability than that, Brandon. He has a lot of things going for him the Dems don’t although Chicago will be a major factor in the race. Kirk will have to get about 15% of the vote in chicago and carry Downstate by a solid margin to win. It’s certainly doable.
Durbin got 3.6 million votes to just 1.5 million for the Republican…
Bush had a GREAT showing for a Republican in Illinois, and still lost by over half-a-million votes.
I think Kirk can win, but he is not a lock, and he is the underdog.
Plus, there’s always the Daley machine to deal with.
Micheal T, you are ignorant.
Alexi Giannalious is a farce.
Obama will not be on the Ticket. Get a grip
Whoa buddy, what’s with the name calling?
Durbin’s opponent had no $$$$$$.
Obama was on the ticket in 2004.
Jim Edgar and Jim Thompson beat the Machine every time.
Get a clue or at least some facts straight.
#198. Really? Obama was on the ticket in 2004?
Sorry Micheal. But you give Chicago too much credit.
The IL GOP has not had a big $$$ candidate since the 1998 when GOP Fitzgerald beat the DEM machine. Mosely Braun was a much better Candidate than Alexi.
Joe,
Again, sorry, but that is inaccurate.
Alexi is connected to the Daley machine and Chicago politics.
He won his current position handily.
He has name recongnition across the state and holds a state-wide elected office.
To dismiss him because he is a corrupt, unethical liberal (which he is) is not a good idea in a state like Illinois.
He will be tough to beat, but Kirk can do it.
199. Senate Brandon, remember he won by 75% over Alan Keyes.
It is not possible to give Chicago too much credit.
There are nearly 10 million people in the metropolitian Chicago area.
The ENTIRE state of Illinois has 13 million people.
Mike I disagree. what do you know about Alexi?
He won in the 2006 DEM tidal wave against a opponent with no money.
His family owns FBI investigated Broadway Bank.
He is 32 and is a terrible orator.
Lisa Madigan, Chris Kennedy, and Tom Dart all passed because Kirk will win the Chicago suburbs in a bad DEM year.
Also Joe, you have to go back 20 YEARS since Edgar was governor.
Do you not think that the demographics have changed in 20 years?
Mike my last post with you.
answer a question. How did the GOP hold the IL Gov Mansion from 1976 to 2002?
Was there no machine then. Ever heard of Dick Daley? The GOP won because they had great candidates like Kirk.
Yes, Alexi is corrupt and generally a scum-bag.
BUT, this is Illinois. Unfortunately, looking at Illinois’ track record, they love to elect corrupt, unethical, criminals to state wide office.
205. 20? Try 1998 Einstein.
Then the GOP won in 1998 also.
Simple answer: That was before Ryan destroyed the Illinois Republican party.
George Ryan, that is.
Jack would have made a good governor, had he not had sex with his wife.
Mike sorry about the name calling, but you argue like a Liberal
Joe,
I’m not sure how many people you are going to get to believe that Illinois – Durbin, Daley, Obama – will be a lock for any Republican, ever.
I need to buy some kind of pro-GOP onesie for my 10 week old daughter to wear when my dad the lib comes to visit. Then we’ll agree to not talk politics as long as he’s here.
Joe, that last one really hurt!
I can take ignorant moron, but liberal stung!
As far as I’m concerned IL would be icing on the cake. Kirk is probably the best candidate the GOP could get, and they got him. I’d say in a good year, maybe 50/50 although I’d love to see it.
Mike we agree to disagree. My whole point is that Edgar etc.. won state wide races because the swing vote is the Chicago Suburbs. It combined with huge margins downstate always beats the Chicago machine. Kikrk will win the suburbs and the election.
Joe I hope you’re right. It will be a very, very good year for the R’s if Kirk wins, and it will be an embarassment to Obama and Blago, which makes it even better.
Nate Silver has been trumpeting Giannalious, but he seems like a week candidate to me. I wonder how much of that race will be determined by the IL gubernatorial race. Admittedly, I don’t know how the GOP field is shaping up there.
As for the Senate, in order to take it back, we’d need things to fall *exactly* our way. But, then again, that’s what happened for us in 2002, and for the Dems in 2006.
Let’s say we get the right candidates in DE and ND. I’d see CT, CO, AR, IL, ND, DE, and NV as very strong potential pickups. We’d need four more from PA, NY, CA, HI, or WA, and those’ll be tough. WV could go our way, if Byrd dies in office. Still, I’d have a hard time seeing us winning 3 out of PA, NY, CA, HI, and WA. (Do we even have a decent candidate in WA?)
213. too funny.
I didn’t think it was possible to embarrass Blago
The Governor’s seat here in PA should flip to the GOP without much trouble. AG Tom Corbett is looking good to be our nominee, and the Dem contenders are lightweights. Corbett cruised to re-election in the bloodbath of ‘08, and the Dems thought he was toast. Believe it or not, after Ed Rendell and Bob Casey, the Dems don’t have much of a bench here.
Corbett can win on his own merits alone. The turnout difference should be enough to finally rid us of Specter as well.
daley will ensure ill stays blue no matter how graves he has to empty and fill.
Cam Rep, I see PA as the most likely of those above to flip. Also, NY if Pataki runs may be 50-50. HI with Lingle, 50-50 at best. It would take a tsunami. But I do see getting the 60 down to 52-53 as a real possibility.
MO and OH scare me a little bit. MO more than OH. Missouri loves the Carnahans…
13.Here is a great new post at BJG – it is a must read – send it to all your friends and enemies too!
Heck, send it to complete strangers too
Yeah, complete strangers who may smell bad and have too much hair….
Well you get the point lol:
http://bejohngalt.com/2009/09/my-manifesto-for-the-day/#comments