Plus 3 or 4 in the senate and just short in the House. I admittedly tend to project on the cautious side, but overall I'm worried we're counting on too many tossup races to break against the incumbent or the natural partisanship of the district.
Seems to me we'll have to win an extraordinary percentage of the close races to take control, and the Republican GOTV strength will probably prevent that.
But last Novmber both Kaine and Corzine managed several points better than I expected so perpaps I'm underestimating the national mood.
A few months ago Pelosi and Co. took exactly the wrong approach, blabbing about investigations, etc. We should emphasize two or three high profile issues with huge favorables, like upping the minimum wage.
Put that into the public mindset as something Democrats will pursue if we retake the House. Then let the Republicans worry about countering with the fear dialogue of what Speaker Pelosi would mean. Newsflash: they'll do that regardless. There's no need for a laundry list. We inevitably go too far. Just a few big picture simple issues that stick in the thought process of the apolitical types when they're deciding who to vote for, or whether to vote at all.
The Abramoff story is probably a very minor factor in the GOP's abysmal favorability number, but unless he can be tied specifically to a candidate I doubt we'll get any further traction.
However, as far as I'm concerned we already had one major victory via Abramoff: no Ralph Reed. There was some nonsense at the time of that primary that we wanted Reed to win since he would be easier to defeat in November and might drag down the Republican ticket in general.
In that state? What a farce. I saw a poll last week with Cagle, who defeated Reed, leading our Lt. gov nominee by 32 points. Cagle beat Reed by roughly 15. If Reed had survived the primary we'd be looking at that smug creep in statewide office, and the favorite to succeed Perdue in 2010.
The memo got it right. Unless it's a huge scandal and specific to the opponent, corruption should be ignored.
About 18 months ago I started posting on two balanced political sites, just to get a feel for how indies and Republicans think. One of the immediate surprises was the majority of the indies didn't view Democrats as more pure than Republicans. Perhaps slightly, but I got the feeling it was based on current form more than an overall impression.
We need to identify strategy to boost our own party image. Maybe that's not even a consideration since I almost never see threads in that regard, here or elsewhere. But I'm convinced it limits our November upside. We need to hold ourselves accountable, for being viewed as a party with no easily recitable message.
New poll tonight puts Chafee ahead of Whitehouse 43-42, while Whitehouse leads Laffey 58-26. Far too much confidence on progressive sites that Whitehouse will win regardless of the opponent. If Chafee is basically tied with Whitehouse before the primary, he figures to lead the polls narrowly if he survives the primary. So we're looking at a 90+% likelihood or slightly less than 50-50.
But it looked like the crosstabs were screwed up, giving Dems a 28-15 lead among indies. There can't be that many undecideds.
Hard for me to spend much time on House races because the polls are so infrequent and iffy, plus I don't know the dynamics of enough of the individual districts. Just give me 52% of the two-party vote.
I live in Las Vegas and probably saw it 50 times. I just wanted to point out the person I replied to was correct, Carter's commercial was not new. A release date or run dates on these things would be helpful but I'm not sure that's available.
I mentioned earlier in this thread the only thing that stuck with me was Carter moving from side to side and varying in size. So that's the definition of pathetic.
In contrast, I can remember Dina Titus' commercials one by one since they were sharp 15-30 second spots on a specific theme. Of course, those were primary commercials against a moderate Democratic opponent. It will be interesting how she attacks Jim Gibbons.
I've never understood that. By now everyone knows that's coming, but there's almost never any variation where the line is placed or how it's used. It's got a chance to be the most memorable aspect of the ad if done right.
That's abundantly clear after watching this Sominex ad. I know the state is blue and Whitehouse has the poll lead over Chafee right now, but trust me that changes dramatically if Chafee survives the primary. It will be another 50/50 race against an incumbent, and one who is considered likable and not a wingnut. If anyone watched the debate last night Chafee did anything but run from his record.
Anyway, back to the ad. One thing I've noticed for years; the 60 second commercials don't cut it. They inevitably drag on and provide nothing memorable in the late going. Sharp 15 or 30 second spots are much more effective.
Whitehouse does not know his opponent. So that's an excuse for lack of attack mode. A campaign against Laffey will be dramatically different than one opposing Chafee.
Is Whitehouse well known in Rhode Island? I have no idea. Looks like another introductory ad to me, which is fine if it were more decisive and competent. But this one reminded me of a Clinton State of the Union speech, a laundry list. Far superior to focus on one or two themes that stand out.
Plus, did anyone notice the wimpy terms? It was like the "Together, we can do better" slogan. He leads off with "America is going in a bad direction." That's the brainstorm, the best you can come up with? Then he's "lost confidence" and we have to "improve" and "measure up." He couldn't even say disgraceful. It was "pretty close to disgraceful." I was yelling at him to take a decisive stand. This commercial gave me much less confidence Whitehouse can defeat Chafee.
Dating to late last year he's had the gov race narrower than other polls, and of course the 7 point margin in the senate race. Let's hope he's onto something.
I think that's a terrific assessment, 12-15 points behind. As someone who has lived in Las Vegas since the '80s and followed the politics closely, that's exactly my sense. The Mason-Dixon number seems too high due to the nature of the state and the overall political climate,