First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I: The Big Picture

This part of the forecast only deals with the big picture of the Governor picture. The second part, which I hope to have up tonight or tomorrow morning, will give a brief rundown of the competitive races. As always, I am open to comments and possible corrections--Chris

Following in the footsteps of my regular Senate forecast, and my new House forecast first released earlier this month, we now arrive at the completion of my forecast trilogy: Governors. I have held off on this one the longest, mainly because Governors races are much trickier to forecast than either House or Senate races. These races tend to be trickier than federal races because partisan voting tendencies at the federal level generally do not apply to Governors. For example, the four most pro-Democratic states in terms of Presidential voting tendencies all have Republican Governors (New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont). In the same vein, some of the most pro-Republican states in terms of Presidential voting tendencies have Democratic Governors (Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas and Montana). Another reason these races tend to be more difficult to forecast is because financial information on the races is not generally available. Campaign finance and disclosure laws for Governors races are on a state-by-state basis, and there is no central location where these numbers are reported.

Now, having said all that, I am going to give this a go anyway. First, look at these two maps.



This is the current Governor's map. Republican control 28 states, and Democrats control 22. Now, here is another map:



This is the Governor's 2006 election map. Blue states are either forecasted as safe for Democrats in 2006, or as not up for re-election. Red states are either forecasted as safe for Republicans, or as not up for election. Purple states are states that I forecast to be competitive in 2006, at least for now. As you can see from the differences between the two maps, far more Republican held seats, fourteen, are danger than are Democratic held seats, eight. The population numbers tell an even more dramatic tale:
  • Democratic safe: 26% of the population
  • Republican safe: 13% of the population.
  • Democratic endangered: 12% of the population
  • Republican endangered: 49% of the population
Even though the Democratic base in 2006 is twice the size of the Republican base, fully half of the nation is under threat of switching from a Republican Governor to a Democratic Governor (except in Texas, where the threat is mainly to switch to Independent). Another 6.5%, represented by the state of New York, has already all but switched. This goes a long way toward describing just how tremendous the Democratic opportunity is this year, and just how severe our deficit has been in Governorships since 1994. In the extended entry, I discuss both of these issues in greater detail.

The Democratic Deficit
No where are Democrats in worse shape right now than the sorry situation they find themselves at the Governor level. Right now, Republicans control 28 Governorships, and Democrats control 22. However, these numbers belie the actual size of the Republican advantage, which is much larger than the 28-22 split would indicate:
  • The 28 states controlled by Republicans compose 63%, or just over five-eights, of the national population.

  • There are almost no "safe" blue states with Democratic Governors. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and Rhode Island all have Republican Governors. Among the Democratic presidential "base" sates, only Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, and Washington have Democratic Governors.

  • This situation creates severe problems for the progressive agenda nationwide. Sure, controlling Governorships in conservative states like Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee is nice, but name to me a single aspect of the progressive agenda that has been furthered by the conservative Dem Governors in those states. While the conservative agenda is not significantly weakened by Democratic control of these states, Republicans controlling progressive states like California, New York and Massachusetts has greatly diminished the enactment of a progressive agenda almost anywhere in the nation. No wonder we love people like Spitzer who will be able to pursue an unabashedly progressive agenda when he becomes Governor of New York early next year. It will be the Eliot Spitzers of the world who will finally let the country see what the progressive vision actually is.

  • The Republican majority in the House came from their control of Governorships. Following the 2000 election, Republicans controlled congressional maps via a trifecta in Florida (18-7), Michigan (9-6), Pennsylvania (12-7), Ohio (12-6), and Virginia (8-3). The Republican drawn maps in these five swing states contain the entire Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans hold a whopping 59-29 lead in the congressional delegation from these states, even though all of them are pretty much even in terms of voter registration and partisan voting tendencies at the Presidential level. In 2000, control of those five Governorships pretty much guaranteed that Republicans would hold a majority in the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future.

  • In recent history, Governors have been more effective Presidential candidates than Senators. That Republicans have controlled the majority of Governorships since 1994 has been one of the reasons our Presidential bench has been somewhat thinned out of late. Further, even when a Governor does not run for President, they make for the strongest Senate candidates possible. Had Mark Warner decided to run for Senate instead of President, he would have defeated George Allen, and our chances at majority Senate control would have increased dramatically. In 2000, our last really good year in the Senate, former Governors in Delaware and Missouri led the charge. Governor's also appoint members of their own party to vacated Senate seats.

  • Finally, Governor's appoint judges too, and while I have no stats on this, the terrible Democratic deficit among Governors for the past twelve years has probably led to a significantly more conservative state-level judiciary than existed before 1994.
Majority control of Governorships carries with it no special powers. The party with the most Governors does not become blessed with a majority leader of Governors, and the Governor of Arizona, or Kentucky, or New York does not become the head of the Governor's appropriations committee. Having the most Governors is certainly nice, but it does not result in any special powers in and of itself. However, for all of the reasons listed above, it should be clear that our current, whopping deficit in Governorships has probably created more problems for Democrats than has our deficit in the United States Congress. We will never, ever take the country back from the conservative movement unless we reverse our problems at the Governor level.

The Opportunity in 2006
Fortunately, 2006 presents us with a rare opportunity to actual make a full reversal. Our opportunities for pickups are tremendous, even generational:
  • In 2006, of the 14 Governorships that are not up for election, Democrats control eight (DE, LA, MT, NJ, NC, VA, WA and WV) while Republicans control six (IN, KY, MS, MO, ND, and UT). The eight Democratic Governors also cover nearly twice the total population of the Republican states (roughly 40 million to roughly 22 million). We thus start with a stronger base than do the Republicans.

  • Perhaps even better, there isn't a single "safe blue" or even "lean blue" state held by Republicans that is not up for election. We are going to be able to compete on our turf this time around. Of the six states held by Republicans, only Missouri is even a swing state. The rest are deep red.

  • Of the 36 seats up for re-election, 22 are held by Republicans, and 14 are held by Democrats. Of the 22 states that I forecast could potentially change hands, 14 are held by Republicans and only 8 are held by Democrats. Republicans will clearly be on the defensive around the country

  • Of the eight open seats, seven are currently held by Republicans: AR, CO, FL, ID, MA, NV and OH. Among the open, only IA is held by Democrats. The population difference puts this into even sharper relief, as Republicans will be defending states with a combined population of over 45 million, and Democrats will be defending open seats with a population of only 3 million. All of these seats, with the possible exception of Idaho, will be competitive in 2006. Even a 4-4 split would be a huge Democratic gain, but right now Democrats are doing even better than that, as they are favored in AR, CO, MA, and OH, with toss-ups in NV and IA.

  • Eliot Spitzer is cruising to a huge win in New York, which already guarantees Democrats an enormous pickup.

  • Almost every large state is poised to have its Governor switch parties this year. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan could all change hands, although in Texas the most likely switch would be from R to I, not R to D. However, because Republicans already hold most of these states and most of the population of these states, even a split would be great for Dems.
Overall, even though Republicans currently hold a large advantage in Governorships, Democrats actually start in a much better position going into the 2006 elections. I forecast 15 states as either safe Democratic or Dem-held not up for election: AZ, DE, LA, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, TN, VA, WA, WV, and WY. These 15 states make up more than one-quarter of the national population, and nearly eighty million people. By way of contrast, I forecast only 13 states as safe for Republicans or not up for election: CT, GA, HI, ID, IN, KY, MS, MO, NE, ND,SD, VT and UT. These thirteen states have a combined population only half the size of the safe Democratic states, at just about 40 million. With more safe states and more open seats to attack, 2006 has the makings of a very, very big year for Democrats. In fact, in 2006 Democrats have by far more good opportunities for substantial, sweeping pickups among Governorships than they have in either the House or the Senate. As I wrote back in June:
The weakness of Republican Governors in large states presents Democrats with an opportunity to thoroughly reshape the American political landscape. We have waited some time for the Emerging Democratic majority to emerge, and these seven states represent our best chance to make it happen. This is our prize. This is our chance.
While in this forecast I am not as optimistic as I once was about all of the large states (Georgia no longer look winnable, Texas is a major longshot, and Florida is also a longshot), we still have a rare opportunity here. Let's make it happen.

The second part of the forecast, highlighting the twenty-two competitive races, will be posted later today or tomorrow morning.

Display:


Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I (none / 0)

Oh, I think Vermont may go blue -- people there are really not terribly happy with Jim Douglas.  And its not a red state.  


by Maven on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:14:23 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I (none / 0)

uh, his approval rating is over 60%, and his opponent is a nobody. He will win easily.

No, Vermont will stay red. But NY sure as hell won't, and Massachusetts probably won't either.

It seems already that Mass, NY, and Arkansas will go Dem. California, Ohio, and Colorado are leaning that way too. And Maryland, Florida, Nevada, and Minnesota are toss-ups. If we were to win just Mass, NY, Arkansas, and California, that's a 4-mansion gain, for a 26-24 Democratic majority of governorships. And that's assuming we don't win Ohio, which seems likely to go Dem at this point, or Colorado, or Maryland, or any others.

Of course, there are vulnerable Dems too. I am very worried about Maine, I think we should count it as a GOP pickup. So now we're down to a 25-25 split. And Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and a few others seem somewhat endangered.

The gubernatorial split post-election will be anywhere from 27-23 GOP to 28-22 Dem.


My ActBlue page
by Ament Stone of California on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I (none / 0)

oh, and Iowa is worrisome too.


My ActBlue page
by Ament Stone of California on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida (none / 0)

There is a real possibility that we could win in Florida. There is a poll showing Democrat Jim Davis with a slight lead.

Davis (D)    41%
Crist (R)    38%

The race is already competitive and with Katherine Harris should cause a high Democrat turnout because of the 2000 fiasco.


by nibit25 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:37:18 PM EST

We Hope (none / 0)

Living in Florida, this is a possibility, but the party infrastructure there is so weak (in fact, barely there, if at all) that coordinating such a turnaround is nearly impossible.

The Florida Democratic Party has been AWOL at the local level in terms of building up local parties and organizing at the grassroots level.

Nonetheless, its great to see Davis, as well as Senator Nelson ahead. I just hope the Republicans never get their act together here, otherwise we might see the opposite happening.


"The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership." -Dean
by gatordemocrat on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IL is probably less unsafe than it looks. (none / 0)

A lot of Blagojevich's bad polling numbers come from disenchanted Democrats. Sure a lot may not vote at all, but there won't be strong unity on the Republican side either. Plus he has a ton of money. (15 million plusish).


Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue
by wegerje on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:43:24 PM EST

Re: IL is probably less unsafe than it looks. (none / 0)

I would be one of those Democrats who does not particularly like Blago, but I saw one of his ads yesterday and it really shined a nice light on the guy.  He pretty much just talked about all the things the state gov't has accomplished.  Looks like he's got some good people making his ads.


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL is probably less unsafe than it looks. (none / 0)

Problem for him is he can't rely solely on Chicago if he wants to win.  He's going to have to stay above 40% to even in the suburbs.  This is going to be difficult to do if Topinka gets the nomination (which she probably will).  This race is 50/50 all the way.  


by Eric11 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL is probably less unsafe than it looks. (none / 0)

The race is 50-50 only if Topinka wins the primary. The other candidates are so right wing they have no hope of winning. They are also pulling out the Republican slime machine and aiming it at their best candidate, Topinka.  Ron Gidwitz and Jim Oberweis are our best allies.


by antiHyde on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL is probably less unsafe than it looks. (none / 0)

The only way Topinka loses is if Gidwitz pulls enough moderate voters away from her that Oberweis sneaks in and wins.  This won't happen though.  


by Eric11 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL is probably less unsafe than it looks. (none / 0)

Do you have a link to any reliable polls? I'm just working on gut feelings and hearsay. While Topinka is the favorite of Republican women, I haven't heard any Republican men speak in favor of her.


by antiHyde on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I: The Big (none / 0)

I'd say Ohio is doing a little more than leaning Democratic.

Ted Strickland is the Democratic candidate and he's got plenty of assets, few liabilities, and the ability to appeal to swing voters with his poor, rural, plain-spoken background and his gun-owners'  rights stance.

His opponent will be either Sec'y of State Kenneth "Katherine Harris" Blackwell or attorney-general Jim Petro. Probably the former since the extremist GOP base loves Blackwell's destroy-the-economy-but- force-religion-on-everyone positions. They won't run as well in the general and polls show him almost ten points behind Strickland. Even that is deceptive, however. A GOP poll showed Blackwell 24 points behind Strickland among "informed" voters who were somewhat familiar with the candidates. Becoming more familiar with Strickland isn't likely to be a liability; some of the less insane religiosos may even be reassured by the fact that Strickland's a minister. But becoming more familiar with Blackwell is unlikely to help him.

On the surface, the massive Ohio Republican corruption scandal seems to be more attached to Petro, but that's only on the surface because, as A-G, he should have been leading the charge against coin dealer/thief/big Republican donor Tom Noe and he wasn't. Blackwell's office didn't have any investigative authority. But scratch the surface and Blackwell is just as filthy in the pay-to-play schemes that are sinking this state. Strickland called them Ken Noe Blackwell and Jim Noe Petro the other day and that's accurate.

Unless Blackwell as sec'y of state fixes the election again, I predict a Strickland victory. And right now, I think the margin will be so great even Kathy Harris Blackwell can't fix it.


by anastasiap on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:43:32 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I: The Big (none / 0)

Don't know much about the race, but it's so long since a Democrat has won the governorship that I think it's a tossup, at most, until the election.  This is a red state, period.  Strickland better be able to win some votes in southern Ohio if he wants to come out on top.  


by Eric11 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I: The Big (none / 0)

In that case, it'll be handy that he already represents southern Ohio.


by texas dem on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I: The Big (none / 0)

Should have been more clear.  Was thinking Cinci and those areas.  His district is more Appalchia (sp?).  


by Eric11 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:05:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, (none / 0)

Democratic Governorships up for Grabs in 2006
Arizona(Napalitano-D)-Safe Democratic
Illinios(Blagejovich-D)-Leans Democratic
Iowa(OPEN-Vilsack-D)-Tossup
Kansas(Sebelius-D)-Safe Democratic
Maine(Baldacci-D-Democratic Favored
Michigan(Granholm-D)-Democratic Favored
New Hampshire-(Lynch-D)-Safe Democratic
New Mexico-(Richardson-D)-Safe Democratic
Oklahoma-(Henry-D)-Safe Demcoratic
Oregon-(Kulongoski-D)-Democratic Favored
Pennsylvania-(Rendell-D)-Leans Democratic
Tennessee-(Bredesen-D)-Safe Democratic
Wisconsin-(Doyle-D)- Democratic Favored
Wyoming-(Freudenthal-D)-Safe Democratic
Democrats are in danger of losing Iowa.
Republicans Governorships up for grabs in 2006
Alabama-(Riley-R)-Leans Republican
Alaska-(Murkowsksi-R)-Tossup
Arkansas-(OPEN-Huckabee-R)-Leans Democratic
California-(Schwarzenneger-R)-Tossup
Colorado-(OPEN-Owens-R)-Tossup
Connecticut-(Rell-R)-Safe Republican
Florida-(OPEN-Bush-R)-Tossup
Georgia-(Perdue-R)-Republican Favored
Hawaii-(Lingle-R)-Safe Republican
Idaho-(Open-Kempthorne-R)-Safe Republican
Maryland-(Ehrlich-R)-Leans Democratic
Massachussetts-(OPEN-Romney-R)-Leans Democratic
Minnesota-(Pawlenty-R)-Tossup
Nebraska-(Heineman-R)-Safe Republican
Nevada-(OPEN-Guinn-R)-Tossup
New York-(OPEN-Pataki-R)-Leans Democratic
Ohio-(OPEN-Taft-R)-Leans Democratic
Rhode Island-(Carcieri-R)-Leans Republican
South Carolina-(Sanford-R)-Safe Republican
South Dakota-(Rounds-R)-Safe Republican
Texas-(Perry-R)-Leans Republican
Vermont-(Douglas-R)-Safe Republican
by CMBurns on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:55:25 PM EST

Napolitano and Sebelius (none / 0)

prove that with the right candidate and message, we can win anywhere.

However, I do think that in BOTH states there's a desire to provide a check on the wingnut legislature.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:33:45 PM EST

oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

if the independant candidate makes it to the general, and kulongoski makes it through the primary.


mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama
by colorless green ideas on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:47:54 PM EST

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

Yeah, with Teddy K's disapproval rating well over 50% I'm not sure why everyone keeps thinking this is a slam dunk. His approval is at 38% with 54% disapproving (that's pretty close to Bush's 38/59 split in the state). The Rasmussen poll that came out yesterday was virtually worthless since it didn't give any primary numbers and didn't take into account Westlund's independent run. Still, even there, though Dems won every permutation, in only one case did they break 50% (a straight rematch of TK vs Mannix).

This is going to be a really unpredictable race with no one even sure if the incumbent will make it out of the primary (I think he will), or who he'll be facing (I think it will be "moderate" R, Ron Saxton). Then there's the independent candidacy of progressive R turned I, Ben Westlund who has been actively (and successfully) courting urban progressives, while also playing well with rural voters. No one knows who exactly he's going to draw from or even if he can make a serious run.

Oregon leans blue, and this is shaping up to be a blue year, but Dems have some serious candidate issues that need to be resolved before they can count on winning this one.


by nate pdx on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

Good analysis of the Oregon situation. The only thing you said that sounds surprising to me: you think the GOP can get it together to nominate a 'moderate' (i.e. Saxton)? There are just too many rural wingnuts in the party base for that to happen... unless what you're envisioning is Atkinson pulling enough southern Oregon conservative votes away from Mannix to let Saxton slip through. Anyway, I'm guessing Mannix wins the primary again and Westlund draws mostly from GOP moderates, setting up a Kulongoski win of something like 46-42-10-2 (Kulongoski/Mannix/Westlund/Green & Libertarian).


by Crazy Vaclav on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

"unless what you're envisioning is Atkinson pulling enough southern Oregon conservative votes away from Mannix to let Saxton slip through"

That's one point I'm predicating my Saxton call on. Also, Lars Larson endorsing Saxton is huge for him, I think. He's worked hard to cultivate the GOP base in the last four years without going so far as to piss off the moderates, and I think he's done a good job.

Even bigger is the fact the Mannix is a loser. I mean a literal loser. He's run three times for statewide office and three times he's lost. The GOP hasn't won a single statewide race not involving Gordon Smith since 1994 (labor commissioner Jack Roberts) and I think they're getting sick of losing. The wingnuts are looking more willing than ever to back a semi-moderate like Saxton.

Keep in mind, too, that four years ago Mannix only won a narrow plurality of a three-way vote against two moderates (something like 37-31-30 IIRC). I really think 40-45% is his high water mark in a primary, and with any votes for Atkinson coming out of Mannix rather than Saxton, I think Mannix is cooked. All he's got going for him is his establishment connections, but even those I think are a lot less enthusiastic than they've been in the past.

Oh, and I'm prepared to be wrong, but I think Westlund is going to make a serious play for PDX progressives who are pissed at TK. And I think he's going to win a lot more of them than people think. I know for a fact that there are several folks in the lefty community who think he might actually draw more from the Dems and throw the election to Saxton; and they're sweating hard.


by nate pdx on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

Thanks, that added info is very interesting. I hadn't heard about the Lars Larson endorsement. That's gotta have a certain amount of weight to it among the rural wingnut brigade (at least the ones who live somewhere they can get radio reception).

As for Westlund gobbling up progressive votes... well, I guess it's quite plausible considering the general antipathy toward Kulongoski, but does Westlund have any progressive policy bona fides other than taking the lead on gay civil rights? It doesn't sound like he'd be actively running to Kulongoski's left... and without that, I don't know if he'd have much traction outside of Bend and the more affluent burbs where socially-tolerant, fiscally-conservative can play well (and that might be especially problematic for him if Saxton wins the primary, since then there'd be two guys fighting to play that role). Anyway, I'm watching with great interest. This is already the weirdest Oregon governor's race I've ever seen.


by Crazy Vaclav on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

"does Westlund have any progressive policy bona fides other than taking the lead on gay civil rights?"

Well, he's the one of the sponsors of the HOPE for Oregon Families initiative, he's signed on to help work on the Oregon Apollo initiative, and he's also a sponsor of the Family Health and Wellness Act Initiative (PDF) which would increase cigarette taxes to fund children's health care. I've also seen him at three Bus Project events (the extent of my personal experience with him). Quite frankly, that level of activity in the last few months is more than Teddy K has done in over three years.

The wildcard here is the unions. Teddy K has pissed them off a few times, and they've always hated Saxton. But they might think about Westlund. Especially since Oregon unions are really worried about health care and that's Ben's baby (and St. Kitz[haber] is on board there too).

In case you can't tell, I'm giving Westlund more than a passing thought. It's been years since I've voted for anyone but a D, but that's cuz I generally think they're the best man/woman for the job. I didn't like Ted four years ago, but voted for him because there was no alternative. He's managed to disappoint even my lowest expectations, and this year, who knows, I may actually have a choice...


by nate pdx on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

Speaking of Gordon Smith, are we gonna be making a serious run at him in 2008?  If so, who's it gonna be?


by texas dem on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

Good question. Personally, I'd love to see St. Kitz take a run at him. I sarcastically refer to the good doctor that way because everyone thought he would save the day by running for governor this year. Well, he didn't. And everyone seems to forget that he wasn't a much better gov than Teddy K anyway. I mean, what did he do in his eight years?

However, Kitzhaber was a great state senator, helping to create the Oregon Health Plan. He's just the kind of wonk that makes a great legislator and a lousy executive. He just never had the patience (or the leadership) to be a great governor, but his ideas and knowledge (especially of health care) would be great in the Senate. However, he's said he doesn't want to move to Washington and for now I'll take him at his word...

That leaves us with...

Peter DeFazio? He seems pretty happy in the House. Earl Blumenauer? Same. Hooley would have a real fight to win statewide. Hardy Myers? Maybe. He's won statewide, but just seems too much of a lawyer. Maybe Jim Hill? I dunno. I honestly don't. We really have to mount a challenge to Smith, though he's gonna be tough to beat. Who knows. We'll know more about who's hot and who's not after this election.

Anyone else got any ideas?


by nate pdx on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oregon might not go blue (none / 0)

That is a genuine mistake. I know Oregon could flip. I'll fix it.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

KS-Gov Sebelius (none / 0)

Sebelius is not likely to have a serious challenger this year.  The state GOP is squabbling over the primary and no GOP candidate has been able to rasie more than $210,000.

Gov. Sebelius has raised over $2 million and has approval ratings over 60%.  While anything could happen, I feel very god about her chances for re-election.


Want Blue States? ActBlue!
I work for ActBlue.
by KansasNate on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:49:23 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, Part I: The Big (none / 0)

I still return back to the thing - how does an english major suddenly become a numbers cruncher?

Good post, just the same, bowers. If its true..


by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:51:52 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast (none / 0)

Still think Crist will pull through in Florida unless someone can publicize his Log Cabin status (whoops, did I just do that?).

As for SC governor race. Don't know whether you should believe polls at this point. I'm living in the center of his base and the stories are coming fast and furious about how much he is disliked.


by TallyInsider on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:12:47 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast (none / 0)

I've heard that as well. People weren't too happy about trying to sell off the power company.

Do the Dems have anyone credible to run?

What's Hodges doing? Has he become yesterday's news?


by adamterando on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast (none / 0)

Haven't heard from Hodges in years. Have no idea who the Democrat nominee is, but that's not unusual down here in the Lowcountry. What makes it interesting is the rogue Republican who has entered the race - Lovelace I believe. Don't think he'll challenge for the nomination, but the fact that there's an obvious dissent from inside the party is telling. Sanford was recently named in the top 3 worst governors - his colleagues were Blanco and Taft. I say keep a watch on this race. Could get interesting.


by TallyInsider on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast (none / 0)

Hello!  Crist has Log Cabin, ah, sympathies?  

! Check this out, last sentence of his wikipedia entry:  "While there has been a great deal of speculation regarding the divorced Crist's sexual preference, he has now stated repeatedly that he is heterosexual."  I did not put that there and that's hilarious.  Wonder how long it's been there and how long it will last.

Well, here's hoping he wins the primary and we can oh so subtley nail him in the general.


by texas dem on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast (none / 0)

Oh believe me, he's far from hetero. He's got a woman he parades around at important functions, but everyone at the Capitol can barely keep a straight face when he introduces her as his girlfriend. He's been smart about his relationships - ex-wife and current boy toy are both Republicans willing to keep their mouths shut. But he wasn't exactly keeping said boy toy a secret before he decided to run for governor. Hopefully someone with credibility will talk - won't be the ex or the boyfriend. Can only hope for an assistant or colleague.


by TallyInsider on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa could be a tough hold (none / 0)

GOP candidate Jim Nussle recently avoided spending resources on a primary when his opponent, Bob Vander Plaats (hero to the religious right-wingers), endorsed him and became his running mate.

My horse in the race, Ed Fallon, is sadly looking like he has no chance at the Dem nomination. Chet Culver, currently Iowa's Sec of State, is unfortunately not ready for prime time (much as we all loved his dad, former US Senator John Culver).

The likely (in my view) Democratic nominee is Mike Blouin, economic development chief under current Governor Tom Vilsack. Blouin is an anti-choice Democrat from heavily Catholic Dubuque, which is part of Nussle's base area and a part of the state where Dems need to rack up big margins in order to win. Blouin has the endorsement of most Dems in the legislature, along with AFSCME. They think he will appeal to anti-choice Dems and even some Republicans who don't like Nussle (House Budget Subcommittee Chairman in this time of record deficits).

Trouble is, a lot of the Democratic base dislikes and distrusts Blouin, primarily because of his anti-choice stance. He was smart and picked a very likable, very pro-choice woman as a running mate (Dr. Andrea McGuire), but I'm not sure it will be enough to overcome deep suspicion of Blouin among the base. We will need to work really hard on GOTV in order to beat Nussle, who is going to be very well-funded.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:15:40 PM EST

Spitzer (none / 0)

Nice post.  A couple of minor points on Spitzer's race.

1 - I like Spitzer a lot but he now has a primary opponent in Nassau County Exec Tom Suozzi who is being funded by disgrunted Wall Street execs.  I think Spitzer is going to be fine but this race has a real possibility to get ugly and tighten up.

2 - Spitzer will be unable to persue a progressive agenda if the Dems do not gain the State Senate in November.  This could happen but they are probably another election cycle away.  The Repub Senate was a huge block to Mario Cuomo's progressive agenda and the same would be true for Spitzer.


by John Mills on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:28:45 PM EST

Re: Spitzer (none / 0)

1-This race getting tight? hahahahahahahahaha.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spitzer (none / 0)

You are twisting what I said. My quote - "I think Spitzer is going to be fine but this race has a real possibility to get ugly and tighten up." I hate Suozzi and am volunteering for Spitzer locally but I saw Suozzi on NY1 last night and he was impressive. He will have money and he plays dirty. I don't think Spitzer is in danger of losing but I am nervous that this is not going to the walk every thinks it is going to be.
by John Mills on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spitzer (none / 0)

You worry about a race that is 69-11? You must be one nervous dude about pretty much everything, all the time.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spitzer (none / 0)

Chris - just wait.  

Spitzer will win but this will get ugly.  This guy is going to have an ungodly amount of money to spend, and it's all going towards kicking Spitzer in the you know what.

It is going to be no holds barred.  


by Eric11 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spitzer (none / 0)

Thanks Eric11.  And remember the laws of gravity.  Spitzer has no where to go but down in the polls.  Suozzi is going to run a nasty race and he is going to do the Repubs dirty work for them.  

I agree that Spitzer will win but a 55% win in the general as opposed to a 60+% win could have an impact on picking up Congressional and State Senate Seats down ballot.


by John Mills on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

California Air Wars Begin (none / 0)

Steve Westley has just begun running ads in the very pricey LA media market.  Naturally, he's running for the Dem nomination now. Just as naturally, they are positivie, get-to-know-him, "Heeeeeere's Steve!" ads, which can only help to remind people that there is an alternative to the still largely unpopular Governor Girlie Man.  As the Dem primary heats up, I don't see a lot of room for Girlie man to improve his numbers much.

His best bet is going to be to raise a ton of money and hope to win in blitz at the end, because whatever he spends early is just going to be money down a rathole.  But a late blitz can't really get the job done when people have been disgusted with you for going on 18 months, which is just the position he will find himself in, unless something truly unexpected happens.


by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:24:35 PM EST

No dis to Westley, but there is another candidate. (none / 0)

Phil Angelides, who has somehow managed to unite the grassroots and the establishment dems!

Nice to see Westley doing something with all of that money he loaned his campaign... it's probably a good thing for him that Arnold's Bush-like toxicness is wearing off as all of that cozying up they did back when he was first elected would come back to haunt him.

Don't get me wrong though, I think either one would be great, but my vote is for Phil in the primary.

-C.


by neutron on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Not Endorsing, Just Reporting (none / 0)

I, too, think Angelides would be a better candidate and governor.

But I didn't want to get into that. I just wanted to add some info on what was happening here in the biggest media market in the biggest state in the Statehouse sweepstakes.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania (none / 0)

Although the Keystone Poll showed Rendell and Swann nearly tied, I believe their weighting undervalues a big Rendell constituency, the suburban SE Pa Republicans. Weighting the SE Rs to their population percentage most likely skews Rendell's support lower than it is. (I think the polls missed this in 2002 as well.)

While some of these voters might give Swann a look see, his testy press conference performances so far, total lack of credible program and/or policies for the state and the discovery that Swann rarely votes will not win him any converts with these generally well-educated and well-informed voters.

You can gauge how worried the state GOP is about Rendell's strength in the east by how hard they tried to get the Voter Suppression Act of 2006
(HB 1318) passed (it was vetoed by Rendell).

I think once Rendell starts advertizing, his numbers will improve a lot.


by phillydem on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:29:49 PM EST

FL-Gov. (none / 0)

FL isn't a longshot the Dem. Establishment is making out to be a Longshot. You have an open Govenors seat in a competitve state while the Republican President and Senator are low in poll ratings. There is no way this is a longshot this is very competitive and we need to start working at this more.


Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:02:32 PM EST

Re: FL-Gov. (none / 0)

The reason it's a longshot is because Crist has government experience behind him. Plus, for some odd reason Jeb! ended up being a semi-popular governor, which will help Crist. But hey, Jeb!, who had no govt experience, beat out McKay.

What are Jeb's poll numbers right now? I still find it funny that when his brother was enjoying good poll numbers, only 19% of Floridians favored a Jeb! run for president.


by TallyInsider on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Texas (none / 0)

Texas seems damn near uncallable.  A four way race in a first-past-the-post election is pretty crazy.  I could concieve of someone winning the governorship with 35% of the vote, which actually probably favors Perry, who, though not popular, has the name recognition advantage.  

It amazes me every time that I see a TV spot proudly declaraing a campaign slogan of "Why the hell not?"

So bizarre.


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:12:28 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast (none / 0)

Sure, controlling Governorships in conservative states like Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee is nice, but name to me a single aspect of the progressive agenda that has been furthered by the conservative Dem Governors in those states.

Phil Bredesen's first term accomplishments:

Gutting TennCare, throwing tens if not hundreds of thousands of working poor off their only means of insurance (including employees of Wal-Mart, Dollar General, and Krystal)!  ...um, no...

Worker's comp reform! ...um, hm... no...

Trashing Kerry in the press during the 2004 election, and managing to lose Democratic control of the State House for the first time in three generations at the same time! ...hm... no...

OK, he got Sudafed behind the counter in order to combat meth production, although I think that's pretty much party/agenda-neutral.  


by Andy Axel on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:06:25 PM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, (none / 0)

Michigan's economy is in the tank.  Unemployment has been and remains high at 7% since ever since W. took office.  Gov. Granholm has a Republican house and Senate, and she is a DLCer.  Given the circumstances, I think she has done OK.  But I think she would have served herself better if she had gotten tough instead of compromising (sound familiar DLC?) her ass off all the time.


by oakland on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 05:13:44 AM EST

Re: First 2006 Governor Forecast, (none / 0)

No kidding about getting tough.  If she was tougher, this election would not be close and we would have a much better chance at taking at least one house in the state legislature.  She is so frustrating.  She hasn't been able to pass the main crux of her reform initiatives because of Republican obstructionists.  She needs to call them out.  

Is she offically DLC?  


by Eric11 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Map (none / 0)

Pardon me for kibbitzing, but if your second map had two colors for competitive states, one for states that now have Dem governors, and another for those currently with Republicans in the state house, it might be easier to follow your analysis.  Something along these lines:


unfutz
by Ed Fitzgerald on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:39:50 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.