09/20/2002 Archived Entry: "Change in Rankings"
Thune gets the drought aid. Sure, he alone didn't get it, and it's not all going to SD, but it's the NYT's perception which is feeding South Dakota that counts: Johnson's $6B is still in the bush, Thune's $752M is in hand. I'll bet that enough SD voters want to split the ticket though, and go with Herseth instead of Jankalow.
In the 5th CD of CT, it's going to be Democratic leaning Independent voters that decide the contest between Johnson and Maloney. Maloney's pulled within the margin of error; and given that this is also turning into a de facto vote on term-limits, Maloney, with the "lifetime politician" card to pull on Johnson, has the edge with the voters in question.
New Hampshire is looking good for the Republicans. This is the top of the ticket: Fernald favors an income tax, while Benson opposes one. Sixty-three percent of those questioned opposed the tax compared with 29 percent who favored it. Eight percent were undecided. With taxes as a defining issue, alongside the more moderate Republicans (Sununu and Bradley over Smith & et al.) being nominated by the GOP, Shaheen, Sweet, and Clark start with a disadvantage, which ARG polling confirms. Out of the three, Clark probably has the best shot at still winning amidst NH's nationally-counter lean at this time.
Replies: 10 comments
Connecticut is a state where the stock market would have an impact. That may partly explain why Rowland's poll numbers have tanked since July. If the polls do not show much movement towards Rowland in the next three to four weeks he is in very serious trouble. The Maloney-Johnson race would not be decided until the wee hours of November 6. One other sleeper is Utah-1. No one seems to mention it. But, folks who I know from Ogden say that it could go either way. Similarly, folks in Iowa tell me that Vilsack, Leach, Nussle and Latham (contrary to what experts say) could all loose in an atni-incumbent mood that is sweeping the state, but Harkin is expected to pull it off albeit by 1-3 points.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 09/20/2002 02:53 PM PST
I have never seen a situation in a competitive state where an incumbant senator loses in a primary, and his party maintains the Senate seat.
Have you?
Posted by TOM @ 09/20/2002 02:54 PM PST
In 1992 in Illinois, incumbent Democratic Sen. Alan Dixon lost in the primary to Carol Moseley-Braun, who maintained the seat for the Democrats (before losing it in '98). Whether you regard Illinois as a "competitive state," I don't know. In fact, on http://www.dailykos.com there's a story about how Illinois appears to be in the process of becoming a Democratic stronghold like California, but back in '92 Illinois was more competitive. Also, that '92 Democratic Senate primary was somewhat unusual. There was a third candidate, a personal-injury lawyer named Al Hofeld who, as I recall, spent millions going after Dixon. It weakened Dixon, all right, but not to Hofeld's advantage, as Moseley-Braun won the nomination.
Posted by Alan @ 09/20/2002 03:32 PM PST
In 1992 Illinois was competitive and it was definitely back in 1988. Between 1968 and 1988, the GOP candidate carried Illinois usually by large margins in the Presidential elections. Then by 1992 it began to shift towards the Dems. First, DuPage still went GOP, but they were winning by smaller and smaller margins. The situation was similar downstate. This election would give us the first indication as to whether Illinois is becoming decisively Democrat. New Jersey is headed that way and the possible defeat of the Torch is an aberation. One has to watch what happens in Oregon and Washington as well.
Sadly, I think that the media have a racial bias. In the 1980s and until the Million Man March in Washington DC it highlighted the racial differences within the country...until Panatta, Carville and others decided to play the ultimate wedge issue of splitting the whites by demagoging social security in response to the GOP demagoging race. The media still like to harp about how the GOP won the south...tons of books have been written on this issue. But, no one has yet written a book on why predominantly white states such as Vermont, Maine, Washington and Illinois are swinging to the Democrats. In other words, why has the GOP lost the west and is in the process of loosing the Industrial heartland of which Illinois is such a major part?
Finally on this issue, can any of you tell me when Oregon last had a GOP governor? Sometime in the early 1980s? I think the situation is similar in Washington State? Am I right or wrong?
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 09/20/2002 04:19 PM PST
G.C. Raj: For awhile, I thought Harkin might have a tough fight in Iowa, as well. However, the GOP appears to be dissatisfied with Greg Ganske, and the polling suggests a double digit lead for Harkin (there was a 52-40 indy poll last week). Harkin has also picked up the Agriculture endorsement in IA. You really think it's still going to be that close?
Posted by ROC-Indy @ 09/20/2002 04:38 PM PST
I can't comment on the west, but isn't the South, the industrial states and the northeast, just a matter of political ideologies finally coming home? Although the NE used to be solidly GOP, it was never a conservative area of the country. Likewise, the south was always solidly Democrat, but was never liberal. With the GOP's move to the right, and the Dems' move to the left over the past few decades, I think these regions are simply making the same swap. I suspect the west is a totally different story, owing more to immigration than anything else, but that's pure speculation on my part.
Posted by ROC-Indy @ 09/20/2002 04:42 PM PST
Iowans like the fact that they have more than one iron in the fire. If the Dems are in the majority they have Harkin as a committee chair, if the GOP has the majority they have Grasley as chair. Defeating Harkin would mean losing a chairman if the Dems hold the majority or retake it later on (and the power/pork coming from that position) since Ganske would start at the bottom of the Senate hierarchy.
Posted by Frederik @ 09/21/2002 08:32 AM PST
A list of Oregon governors:
http://www.polisci.com/almanac/local/governors/OR.htm
On this page, you can also move up or down alphabetically among the states to see any list of governors.
Posted by Alan @ 09/21/2002 10:21 AM PST
Definitely a shift to the Dems in Oregon.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 09/21/2002 02:36 PM PST
I'm glad to see you move CT-5 into D-leaning. Maloney has taken Johnson's best shots and is only down by 5. As contributors and voters see that he's competitive--even after Johnson's huge financial head start--the Maloney campaign will pick up more and more steam, and Cheney and Bush can both camp out in Nancy's front yard taking donations without it making a difference.
Some of the latest pro-Nancy commercials are downright desperate (Maloney pro-corporate corruption?!? gimme a freakin' break! lol), and in this limited media market, it won't be long before additional buys are meaningless as far as swaying potential voters.
We're still waiting to see an independent poll on the hot race in CT-2 between Simmons and Courtney, but don't be at all surprised if Courtney is tied or ahead of the Republican incumbent. It was shocking to see a Republican win in eastern CT in '00, and it will be equally as shocking if he doesn't get knocked off this fall.
And I hope everyone noticed the dramatic turnaround in the Mass. governor's race. The blue tide is rolling over New England this November. We'll see if Benson and Collins and Rowland can withstand it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the D's sweep the rest of the big races.
Posted by nutmeg_express @ 09/21/2002 02:41 PM PST
