Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Updated Governor and Senate ratings!

senate-races.jpg

The Fix and Post senior political reporter -- and all-around good guy -- Dan Balz sat down last night to mull over our ratings of the top Senate and governors races around the country.

With the election now less than 100 days away, many of these races are coming into clearer focus and we have made a series of ratings changes to reflect the shifting dynamics. We'll be periodically making further ratings evaluations (and changes) as the midterms draw closer. All of our changes are below.

And, these ratings changes gives us a great opportunity to plug the absolutely amazing House, Senate and gubernatorial Post maps. Not only can you get the latest and greatest Post rankings but you can also see detailed historical information on the states and districts in play as well as fundraising numbers.

SENATE

* Arkansas (Move from Toss Up to Lean Republican): Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) deserves credit for her nothing-short-of-miraculous runoff victory over Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (D). But, now she faces Rep. John Boozman (R) in a state that has trended strongly toward Republicans.

* California (Move from Lean Democratic to Toss Up): Former Hewlett Packard executive Carly Fiorina's win in the June Republican primary makes this race one to watch. California is still Democratic country but Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D) numbers have never been all that strong and with the public angry at incumbents this is the sort of year Republicans might be able to pull an upset in the Golden State.

* Florida (Move from Lean Republican to Toss Up): Gov. Charlie Crist (I) has proven remarkably resilient since leaving the Republican party in April and his fundraising was strong enough in the second quarter to ensure he will have enough money to compete with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in the fall.

* Indiana (Move from Toss Up to Lean Republican): Former Sen. Dan Coats quieted Republican fears about his candidacy with a solid second quarter of fundraising. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) is an able candidate but is running in a tough state in a tough year for his party.

* Washington (Move from Safe Democratic to Lean Democratic): Republicans recruited their best possible candidate in former state Senator and two-time gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi. Polling suggests the race is close although Sen. Patty Murray (D) has been consistently underestimated throughout her career.

* Wisconsin (Move from Safe Democratic to Lean Democratic): The upper Midwest is bursting with Republican pickup opportunities this fall and Republicans recruited a credible candidate -- wealthy businessman Ron Johnson -- into the race against Sen. Russ Feingold (D).

GOVERNORS

* Arizona (Move from Toss Up to Lean Republican): Gov. Jan Brewer's (R) decision to sign the state's controversial immigration law was a stroke of political genius. Both of her primary challengers dropped from the race and she is now considered a clear favorite against state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D).

* Colorado (Move from Toss Up to Lean Democratic): The implosion of former Rep. Scott McInnis (R) over plagiarism charges was bad enough but former Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R) decision to run an independent bid for governor might just foreclose his former party's chances at holding the seat.

* Nevada (Move from Toss Up to Lean Republican): Former federal judge Brian Sandoval's convincing victory in last month's Republican primary gives the GOP a major leg up in the Silver State. Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid (D) continues to struggle with how to deal with the unpopularity of his father -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who is also on the ballot this fall.

* New Hampshire (Move from Safe Democratic to Lean Democratic): Gov. John Lynch (D) remains a clear favorite but the Granite State is shaping up to be a major Republican target this fall and if there is a wave the incumbent could face a more serious race than people expect today.

* New Mexico (Move from Lean Democratic to Toss Up): National Republicans did everything they could to ensure that Dona Ana District Attorney Susana Martinez won the June Republican primary. And, for good reason. Even Democrats acknowledge that Martinez is a quality candidate against Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

* Texas (Move from Lean Republican to Toss Up): Former Houston Mayor Bill White (D) has more money in the bank than Gov. Rick Perry (R) and polling shows the contest close. It's still Texas in a good Republican year, which should help Perry, but White is running an effective campaign to capitalize on discontent directed at the incumbent.

* Wyoming: (Move from Lean Republican to Safe Republican): Gov. Dave Freudenthal's (D) decision not to challenge the state's term limit law hands this seat to Republicans.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 28, 2010; 10:06 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House Democrats reserve $49 million in ad time
Next: Abbreviated Blagojevich trial a boon for Illinois Democrats

Comments

Since its silly season CC has a rioght to be silly, and is exercising said right in quantity, but for monce I'd like to see a poll that actually measured anti incimbency, instead of assuming that being mad at those idiots from the other party in Congress equates to anti incumbency.

For instance, query 2000 registered voters, PLUS enough voters to provide 1500 voters who can correctly answer the first two questions:

Who are your Senators? Is either one up for reelection this year?

Who is your Representative, What is his party affiliation?

NOW:

What is your opinion of Senator ()...)? Does he do a good job of representing your state in the Senate?

Who is his opponent in the General election? What is his platform? Do you approve of his Platform, are indifferent to his platform, oppose his platform? If you have decided whom you are voting for, will you tell us who it is?

What is your opinion of representative (...)? Does he do a good job of representing your district?

Who is his opponent, or who are his opponents in the General election? Do you approve of his platform, are indifferent to his platform, oppose his platform?

If you have decided whom you are voting for, will you tell us who it is?

Do you Approve of the Presidents performance in office? Do you feel he has done too little for your expectations, about right, or has gone too far for your expectations.

Lets see just what THAT opinion poll says about anti incumbency.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 28, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD - Shoot me an email at fairlingtonblade at gmail.com. Just want to check with you on something.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama slipped a secret provision into the financial regulation bill - and now THE BILL REQUIRES QUOTAS AT PRIVATE FIRMS on Wall Street.


Politico has a story on it.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 28, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Here's another interesting datapoint to factor into the 'wave' algorithm... MO TEA types are angry with Rep Bachmann (R-MN) for endorsing Roy Blunt.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/politics/blog-network/2010/07/tea_party_coalition_bachmanns.html

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 28, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I think Fiorina's biggest problem for Californians, at least in northern CA, is her well known reputation at HP. For her to run on the idea that she has successfully run a large corporation is laughable since EVERYONE knows she was fired for bolluxing up the hp/compaq integration, and costing investors tons of money.

I haven't seen enough video of her and her style to comment on that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Fiorina is just too conservative for California.

==

I saw a clip of her addressing a teabagger rally last April. It was really shocking, the baggers acted like a lynch mob, people screaming and jumping up and down.

Fiorina comes across as *very* low class considering she once ran a major corporation. When he said "we're the HAD ENOUGH Party!" she did this little twist of her head that reminded me of poor white trash in the deep south. She really doesn't sound very bright and I wouldn't call her conservative at all. David Gergen is conservative. Fiorina acts like some teabagger thingee better defined in the lexicon of psychopathology than politics.

Senator from California? I don't think so. Oklahoma maybe.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I usually try and catch Ezra Klein when he goes on Maddow or Olbermann, so I've been watching the shows more often. Olbermann seems to hardly ever actually be on. I like Maddow. Obviously she has an ideological slant, but isn't whipped into a frenzy about it. She takes things with a good humor and is actually pleasant to listen to if you like her dorky airs.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 28, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

thanks shrink glad to know there's one literate person here.

Not as good as that description of Bob Novak from so long ago, "a man of great smallness," but that's the phrase I had in mind. Glad you caught it.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Why Boxer will win is as simple as A (abortion), B (birth control and C (coal). Fiorina is just too conservative for California.

Posted by: copyeditoratlarge | July 28, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"...superficiality has deepened..."

stop that, I am trying to get some work done

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Right. My point of posting the piece was that after reading for months about a wave election, the strong headwind faced by dems & the resulting doom & gloom outlook, here comes a memo making several reasonable points about how & why the Dems will retain control. I'd like to hear Cillizza's analysis.

==

Really, bsimon, you must be joking. If you want to read an analysis like that this isn't a good place to look for it. The only numerical analysis you'll ever get here is a simply integer comparison, e.g. fundraising figures and poll results, always with a heavy slant toward the doom-for-dems meme.

As the months have gone by since the 2008 election the Republican slant here has not only become more pronounced but the writing has deteriorated and the superficiality has deepened, culminating in that absolutely fawning piece about Romney's staff.

Nobody worth the title of "political analyst" would do a column speculating whether the Republicans could retake the Senate; the numbes aren't there. It isn't possible. We get much more analysis from posters like ceflynline than we get from Chris Cillizza, who strikes me more and more as a journalist what Sharron Angle is as a candidate, over his head and trying to wing it with overheard ideas and hack phrases. It remains to be seen. On the one hand. On the other hand. He's a young man who gets to talk to elected officials and he likes having access so he butters up nonentities like Pawlenty and dutifully pipelines RNC press releases as news. Analysis? Not here.

I expect we'll have a riveting slideshow of Romney's suits and ties any day now.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960 - Oh, then, please explain why Dudley leads Kitzhaber by 47 -to- 44 in Oregon, why the nearly unfunded campaign of Brown leads Whitman, why Boxer leads a much better funded Fiorina. Every one of those campaigns in the lead is running on campaigns opposed to job outsourcing and advocates either modifying-curtailing free trade or flat out ending it. Rasmussen is reporting, today, that 45% of American's do not believe there are any jobs in this country any more and 45% expect the economy to be much much worse in a year from now. The Post and their look alike twins, the NYT and Fox News, on behalf of their Wall Street and corporate masters, has been covering up these nasty little secrets for quite some time, but the news is leaking out anyways.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 28, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It was a word play on swapping spit, which means kissing each other.

If you don't know what Michael Savage is about, how hate sounds, you are better for it.

Funny though, I have never listened to Olbermann and Maddow, not once (well once, on YouTube I saw KO brutally attack Hillary Clinton for bringing up Bobby Kennedy's fate with reference to her staying on against Obama, but that was because someone posted a link).

I listen to right wing hate radio, read The Fix and so on because I want to know what you people are thinking, what the right wing of American politics is up to. I don't care what Olberman and Maddow are thinking.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

leapin, don't lump Maddow into the hate crowd. Olbermann is past his sell date now, but back in the early 2000s - the oppressive, speak-out-against-Bush-and-you're-unpatriotic era - his was a taboo voice on national TV. At a time when Republicans had their hands around the Democrats' necks and their feet on the Democrats' chests, here was Olbermann saying things that made my mouth drop and made me think, "Wow, you can say that about Bush on TV?" But now? I rarely watch Olbermann. Only if I need a little cheerleading; you know, like the way right wingers watch Hannity and Beck CONSTANTLY!

Rachel Maddow, though, uses, uh, what's the word, thoughtfulness.

Posted by: dognabbit | July 28, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Remember when Andrew Breitbart was considered a journalist? Last evening I heard him swapping hate with Michael Savage on am radio. As Savage swooned, Andrew got more grandiose, more vituperative, more ridiculous.
Posted by: shrink2
------------------------------------------
How does swapping hate sound? Is it like Olbermanm and Maddow? Give some specific examples.

Posted by: leapin | July 28, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues writes
"The strongest argument is the "number" point that there simply are not enough open seats to swing control, taking into consideration the total number of challenged seats necessary to obtain the required result of 43."


Right. My point of posting the piece was that after reading for months about a wave election, the strong headwind faced by dems & the resulting doom & gloom outlook, here comes a memo making several reasonable points about how & why the Dems will retain control. I'd like to hear Cillizza's analysis. Is the Dem memo wildly optimistic & intended more to rally the troops? If so, which parts are wrong, and why? Or is it a reasonable analysis of the situation - and is this talk of a 'wave' really just a sort of mild reversion to mean after two big years for Dems?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 28, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

That's cute, leapin, piggybacking zouk's shtick. Fact remains you write like a complete idiot.

Posted by: Noacoler
-----------------------------------------
Who is zouk? Fact remains you are a NeoCom Statist.

Posted by: leapin | July 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

That's cute, leapin, piggybacking zouk's shtick. Fact remains you write like a complete idiot.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Remember when Andrew Breitbart was considered a journalist? Last evening I heard him swapping hate with Michael Savage on am radio. As Savage swooned, Andrew got more grandiose, more vituperative, more ridiculous.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

hey leapin, how far did you get in school? Time and time again you come across as someone who didn't finish elementary school. All those silly made-up words, and in your last post you don't even know the difference between "your" and "you're."

You should find some other place to post. Someone more lowbrow.

Posted by: Noacoler
------------------------------------------
Trolling for age again. Stalking again??? No, I'm not going to meet you at the mall.

Posted by: leapin | July 28, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

leapin wrote: If your dependent on SS you have already lost your retirement.
-----------------------------------
Try telling that to people who are dependent on their ss. What the heck is your point? -- that people living on social security, should move to the curb and live in a refrigerator box? And you think you'll get voters with that message?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Thought this was interesting on Greg Sargent blog, from conservative mark halperin.

"The Sherrod story is a reminder -- much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media. In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny.

Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention. Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.

...all of us who are involved in politics and media should take a moment to recognize that we have hit a low point. And let all of us resolve that, having hit bottom, it is time to start climbing out of the pit."

Posted by: drindl | July 28, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

hey leapin, how far did you get in school? Time and time again you come across as someone who didn't finish elementary school. All those silly made-up words, and in your last post you don't even know the difference between "your" and "you're."

You should find some other place to post. Someone more lowbrow.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone doubt that Sharron is an idiot? Go dig up a tape of her speaking. Listen to her voice. Note the not-quite-appropriate choices of words, She's a half-literate trying to wing it.

Like using "working class" for "workforce." And like our own yachtsman, not getting why people catch on to her.

She's also so steeped in the gruff hard-heartedness of libertarian junk-rhetoric that she can't help but turn people off.

Welcome to your fifth term, Senator Reid.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

What she is for is abolishing Social Security. I'm astonished you want to lose your retirement.
Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
If your dependent on SS you have already lost your retirement. If your dependent on Obamanism same result.

Posted by: leapin | July 28, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: Nutbag "Right" Angle could not possibly care less about outsourcing jobs. You are as nutty as she is.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 28, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

These are scary ratings for the Dems. Chris and the WP lean overwhelmingly to the left, so the champange is on ice in red country. If Dems. can't win senate seats in deep blue Washington and California, it's curtains for the donkeys.

Posted by: kenpasadena | July 28, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, as it stands, Republicans have to add 40 seats to take the majority. This just doesn't happen very often. 1994 was a pretty big aberration. And a lot of things had to go right for them, including winning in some pretty blue districts. That's one thing I think these Republicans lack. They will be able to snap up a good number of those swingy districts that Dems picked off in the last two elections, but I don't see them making any big inroads into deep blue territory. In 1994, no Republican was defeated, that's not likely to happen in 2010. Those Republicans also managed to pick up 20 open seats. That's less than the number of Dems retiring (of course, they don't need to replicate their 54 seat pickup)

I just don't see where these 40 seats are coming from. It's possible, but I think Rs will have to win a lot of close races.

I think the D strategy is smart. This isn't the year to make forays into hostile territory. Go for the low hanging fruit, but just mainly go for damage control. A seat saved is a seat won. They will have a chance to make up some ground two years from now.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 28, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

MiBrooks has turned into the Fix version of Lyndon LaRouche, bizarre outlooks on everything fueled by copious collections of lies and strangely-motivated paroxysms of outrage.

Also a vivid illustration of the old adage about a guy who only has a hammer and sees everything before him as a nail.

Don't think I'm reading your posts anymore, Mike.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 28, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1

The Republican tide will result in a net win of 59 seats for the Republicans.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 28, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

There is not a chance Rs will take back the House.. just mathetically about impossible. And they are running too many lousy/extreme candidates in any case.

"Republicans will need to win 39 seats to take back the House. Democrats will win at least four Republican seats (the best opportunities include: LA-02, HI-01, IL-10, DE-AL, FL-25). As a result, the real number of seats Republicans will have to pick up to win a majority is at least 43. To win 43 seats, the NRCC would need to put 70 to 80 seats in play. The NRCC have simply not put that many Republicans seats in play and do not have the resources or caliber of candidates to do so."

Posted by: drindl | July 28, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

@bsimon,

Sargent's memo is very interesting. The strongest argument is the "number" point that there simply are not enough open seats to swing control, taking into consideration the total number of challenged seats necessary to obtain the required result of 43.

I can't speak to the truth of the memo, but it should be possible to verify. Maybe some knowledgable posters can contribute to this exercise.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Republicans WILL impeach America's first black President if they take control of the House.

Sign up at dccc.org and dscc.org to stop them.

Posted by: paul65 | July 28, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

...the House and Senate are a lock to move under republican control.
Posted by: rush_b_right

Heh, heh, everyone's a comedian...

I've never worried about whether Republicans pose a threat to Democrats. But I've worried a lot about the threat Democrats pose to Democrats, videlicet Corzine, Coakley & Deeds.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"What I don't understand about Angle is WHY she makes these statements villifying the unemployed in her OWN state. "

Because she is dumb as a rock and a nutbag to boot.

Posted by: drindl | July 28, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD - Angle's appeal is that she is dead set against job outsourcing and free trade. The upcoming elections will be decided on that one issue, just watch."

No she's not... no righwingers are against that stuff... that's their Bible.

What she is for is abolishing Social Security. I'm astonished you want to lose your retirement.

Posted by: drindl | July 28, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what the graphic is supposed to do -


However


Arkansas - will be a Republican win and a pick-up.


California - Barbara Boxer will probably hang on to win

Florida - could go anyway - including in favor of Meek - plus no one really knows who Crist will caucus with and that could be a really wild wildcard. Crist could end up with the controlling vote in the Senate.

Indiana - will go Republican and be a pick-up.

Washington - will go Republican and be a pick-up

Wisconsin - will go Republican and be a pick-up.

It will be tight whether the Republicans pick up control of the Senate. Illinois is still basically a blue State, but Kirk could win - Alexi Giannoulis really is not an inspiring candidate at all.

Pennsylvania will be a Republican win - whether you call it a pick-up or not is a matter of question, because the voters chose a Republican for this seat before and Spector switched parties.

Nevada - Reid is not going to win - he may have gotten a bump from the immigration issue in Arizona.

The Republican tide will raise many many boats - look for major gains on the State and local levels as well.

Obama WILL BE SENT A MESSAGE.


SEND OBAMA A MESSAGE THIS FALL.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 28, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

earlier this week I sighed about how the constant repetition of "Obama is bringing all the state races down" in this column means that it MUST be true that Obama is a drag on the state tickets. Of course, the next day we got a post about all the state candidates Obama is fund-raising for and making personal appearances in support of.

So, for weeks we have been hearing in this column about how Feingold is on the ropes, Ron Johnson (wealthy business man or Club for Growth/Oil interest shill: you make the call) is going to beat him. Today we hear that oh, the race was solid for Feingold all along and only now the race is being changed to leans to Feingold.

Has Dan Coats done anything but raise money since he entered the race? He sure can shake the money tree and talk to the base. He's going to have to appear somewhwere, sometime in an unscripted environemnt if he wants to appeal to more voters than will fit in the luxury seats.

Dino Rossi has been beaten like a drum by Patty, and she will continue to smack that boy around.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 28, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

It has been suggested that Sharron Angle does not have the professional campaign staff that would drag her away from her campaign mistakes. Apparently, she is mostly surrounded by, and advised by, her grassroots true believers, and thereby can't seem to move toward the middle.

In the WaPo video of her meeting with her campaign, one memorable part was her staff saying that once people REALLY understood how social security should be phased out, voters would rally around her. Anyone who believes that does not live in the same world as the rest of us. If she listens to advice like that, no wonder she is on a suicide mission.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent got his hands on a DCCC strategy memo claiming the Dems will hold the house, largely because 1) the number of seats the GOP needs to win is high (39), 2) Dems have a lock on some pickups (they say four), pushing the GOP-needed wins to 43, 3) the TEA people are fouling up the GOP game plan, and 4) the GOP doesn't have the financial resources to win that many seats.

Put differently, it almost sounds like the Dems are taking a defensive strategy of building a firewall in certain states/seats (see ad buy in the morning Fix) in order to hold the House - focusing not on pickups but merely on maintaining control. Taken from that perspective, what are their chances? Are they fooling themselves? Or is the 'wave' meme valid & we're looking at a '94 type sweep of control? If so, what's the evidence beyond the generic ballot and history repeating itself (for one thing, there are other historical datapoints that are less dramatic; like the Dems could lose seats but retain control)?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 28, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Surely the people in Wisconsin are wise enough to get rid of the man who would make a great ex-senator Russ Feingold. Feingold is probably the most brilliant man to come up with fake maverickship outside of McCain. Wisconsin spite Feingold and defeat him by a landslide.

Posted by: leapin | July 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, it's not clear who was responsible for what anti-BHO/Dems hate blasts quoted in your earlier screed. Which was Fix responsible for?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD - Angle's appeal is that she is dead set against job outsourcing and free trade. The upcoming elections will be decided on that one issue, just watch.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 28, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Another Angle-ism that doesn't play is her continued insistence that creating jobs is not the her job. She appears on a WaPo video just a few days ago, again insisting that it's the LT. Governor's job. I suspect she is hung up on some detail but it does not get her a single voter, and reinforces this image of not caring about jobs or the unemployed.

Why does she keep doing it? It's definitely not smart to be supplying the video clips that your opponent will use in his negative ads. It's like loading the gun that's going to shoot you.

She is defeating herself.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are almost twice as motivated to vote as democrats among likely voters. That is devasting. That indicates that all close races and a few "leans democrat" races will go to republicans. If that trend holds, the House and Senate are a lock to move under republican control.

Posted by: rush_b_right | July 28, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"The Fix and Post senior political reporter -- and all-around good guy -- Dan Balz sat down last night to mull over our ratings of the top Senate and governors races around the country."

[The sound of crickets. Same as when the harrumphing and tut-tuting of David Blow-der are "featured" here.]

We will add Balz "ratings" to the list of topics that should be avoided here:

Other topics:
Mitt Romney's staff ditectory
Dan Coats, the anti-Obama
Sharron Angle political attack ads
Videos insulting Hillary
Pawlenty endorsements

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 28, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't get the appeal behind Angle. I thought at least she would be energetic or something, but the woman is more dull than Harry Reid and that's saying a lot. Of course, it doesn't seem like anyone else sees her appeal either given her plummeting in the polls. I guess she used the CfG money to out-crazy her primary opponents, but is now at a loss now that it's no longer a race to loontown.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 28, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Meth is bad.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

What I don't understand about Angle is WHY she makes these statements villifying the unemployed in her OWN state. Does she get a single additional vote? Who would say, oh, I was going to vote for Reid, but now I'll vote for Angle because she calls the unemployed names? No one.

So why the heck does she make these absolutely stupid, wrong, unempathetic statements? I can only conclude that she must be speaking from her TRUE convictions.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah, education IS good. It's hard to keep track of how a simple statement that education is good, morphs into Wall Street crooks being in a blue state, all nested into a post that condemns the writer for stereotyping.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Angle may well be the worst campaigner ever:

"Jordan has searched hard for a job and is now considering moving away from his family for a few months, if it means he can send home a paycheck. “I have voted Republican my entire life,” he says. “I don’t want to vote for Harry Reid. But I don’t want to be told I’m lazy, and I’m dumb, and I’m living high on the hog, collecting [unemployment insurance] because I want to.”

Posted by: drindl | July 28, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

And this is supposed to mean...what, again?
Posted by: 12BarBlues

Education is good.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Education is good - but it is not the only measure of a person - we have all these MBAs on Wall Street who are basically selfish crooks who have hurt other people.

Wall Street is in a blue State, isn't it ?
--------------------------------------
Is this supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?

Let's see--gambling is rampant in Nevada, a red state. Are they selfish crooks who have hurt other people?

And, techology development is rampant in California, a blue state.

And farming is rampant in the mid west, red states.

And lettuce growing is rampant in California, a blue state.

And fishing is rampant in the Gulf states, red states.

And on and on.

And this is supposed to mean...what, again?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

ScottChallenger


First of all - you are sterotyping people in certain areas of the country - you are definitely wrong. You should go to some of these states and get to know some people - you will feel differently.

Second - the blue states have the worst budget deficits - and the largest debt burdens - not a good combination for the futures of those states.

Education is good - but it is not the only measure of a person - we have all these MBAs on Wall Street who are basically selfish crooks who have hurt other people.

Wall Street is in a blue State, isn't it ?

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 28, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"I read this crap because it gives me a good laugh every single day."

Whew, I was starting to worry my jokes weren't funny.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

A few weeks ago a Wash Post staff writer with conservative tendancies compared the scattered Tea party groups across the country "as a confederation of groups..."

Attention electroate. When conservatives start talking about "confederacy" and similar language, they are attempting to bully the public to think "vote for us or we'll make this land ungovernable and states will suceed from the union."

That's part of their tactic and strategy. Scare people into thinking there may be another civil war unless conservatives get voted back into power. This is how crybabys act - and bullies.

We've all seen what conservatives do in defeat. They cry and whine. And they try and scare you into thinking tghe unthinkable - that if they are not elected, civil war is coming.

Like the good movie "Amadeus" revealed, it may just be time to kick some conservative backwoods rear end again, just like great-grandad did.

It will be:
1. Blue - all the states that people live in and work in, and where the better educated reside.
2. Red - all that states that are basically void of people and where no one hardly works or lives. Good squirrel hunters though.

Bring it on, Red.

Posted by: ScottChallenger | July 28, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

For those of us who only follow Rasmussen polls (even though there are at least a hundred legitimate pollsters), Sharron Angle has lost her lead over Harry Reid in Nevada. Rasmussen now has Harry +2, which essentially confirms all the polls that the two are essentially tied.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/nv_45_reid_43_angle_rasmussen.php

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 28, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"I'd bet a paycheck that Kitzhauber loses..."

Last week you would bet "anything", now it is just a paycheck. But Kitzhaber will crush Dudley (and Patti Murray will crush the little dog Dino Rossi too).

Posted by: shrink2 | July 28, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Do you guys work every day? You just figured out Republicans are favored over Lincoln?

Posted by: Hopeful9 | July 28, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Concerning the Texas Gov. issue, I think Mark & Bobby make good points. I think Perry is on top in the race, and I'm uncertain as to whether White could pull it off. I don't think he can. I think Perry has a good enough base and cash raising abilities to beat out White. I do think, however, White is the best candidate the Democrats could have gotten for this race. He's making it competitive. But will it be enough to win? I don't think so.

Posted by: reason5 | July 28, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

If you Libs want sugar coated liberal fantasy about how wonderful the Messiah is, you had better leave a news site and head over to a leftist propoganda outlet, such as Kos, huff or TPM.

you will find all sorts of polls and opinions about how great Mr wonderful is and how he has saved our country from certain disaster and how all the polls are wrong and how the Libs are going to gain seats in the midterms and how Rangle is not corrupt and how Kerry is not a stooge and how transparancy has finally arrived and how deficits are cool and how spending all out money for the next century is required and how losing a war and surrendering is proper policy and......

Just head over there. Later you can watch the recap on Olbie's brush with lunacy.

The rest of us are enjoying watching the utter destruction of the liberal brand at the hands of the most inept and incompetent admin ever.

Obungler's high water mark was when he picked a dog in only 8 months time.

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 28, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, every single item is bad news for Democrats -- gee, what a surprise on the Fix!

---

Florida (Move from Lean Republican to Toss Up)

Colorado (Move from Toss Up to Lean Democratic)

And the biggie:

Texas (Move from Lean Republican to Toss Up)

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 28, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

It is interesting that the only parameter that seems to matter is the fund raising ability of the candidates. At least it is the only factor mentioned consistently in this piece.

Posted by: sauerkraut | July 28, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

And while liberals have increasing reason to question Obama's performance on their litmus test issues, they also have increasing cause to wonder at his competence. His inability to be anything but a spectator -- and a sometimes disinterested one at that -- to BP's efforts to contain its oil spill and his obvious mismanagement of the Afghan War both raise questions about his abilities, concentration, focus and competence. These doubts further depress Democratic turnout and prospects.

With such scant reason to turn out and vote for Democrats in November, the additional evidence that the war in Afghanistan is turning into a quagmire will further depress the president's prospects.

The most recent Gallup Poll showed that while 51 percent of Republicans described themselves as "very enthusiastic" about voting in the coming midterm elections, only 28 percent of Democrats shared that level of commitment. The prospects for a Democratic turnout grow dimmer by the week and the chances of a Republican victory, capturing both houses of Congress, grow stronger
-Morris

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 28, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cilliza writes "with a public angry at incumbents". This is beltway talk. Name someone you know that is angry at their incumbent. This is the beltway euphemisim for the white people who are angry that a black couple sleeps in the White House. Think about someone you know who is "angry"; and then ask what color are they, and did the vote for Obama?

Posted by: johnkomalley | July 28, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

CC - you made the real news:

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza posted on his blog yesterday morning this bit of White House Strategery about a Senate vote later in the day on what is known as the DISCLOSE act.


With unemployment still well above 9 percent, it is not clear to me why the Democrats in the House and Senate keep screwing around with these things, but the Senate, yesterday afternoon, took a test vote on the DISBCLOSIE Act and, to the surprise of absolutely no one outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it didn't get the 60 votes needed to proceed.

The political geniuses in the White House have successfully guided Barack Obama's Presidency from demi-god status to the point where Democrats who ar running for office in November are running from Obama in August.

According to Jim Galoway's Atlanta Journal Constitution blog, Roy Barnes, Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia, won't be around when Obama comes a'calling. "He plans to be in south Georgia that day," a spokesman explained.

According to the AP's Chuck Babington:

In Missouri, Republican Senate candidate Roy Blunt is airing a TV ad showing Democratic opponent Robin Carnahan campaigning with Obama during a visit to Kansas City.

Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, the Democratic Senate nominee, was absent when Obama made two trips to the state earlier this year.

Bill White, the Democratic nominee for governor in Texas, said he will not appear with Obama when the president visits his state next week.

The President's approval ratings are averaging 45.7 this week according to the RealClearPolitics.com summary. But the really bad news for Obama is that in every single one of this week's polls has his DISapproval higher than his approval except one - where it's tied.

Speaking of Congress, Democrats in the House are rocking back-and-forth in their custom-made chairs murmuring prayers that Charlie Rangel cuts a deal with the House Ethics Committee avoiding a trial which will certainly run up to within weeks, of not days, of the election.

So, it turns out the Senate vote on the DISBCLOSIE Act was a defining moment.

It helped define a White House which has demonstrated it is woefully out of touch, and may be out of its political mind.
-Galen

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 28, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Where's Oregon? Kitzhauber is behind in the polls and in money. For the first time in a very long while, the Democratic candidate has a very real chance of losing here. Kitzhauber is viewed, even by liberals, as an ineffective corrupt fool and the Oregonian's fawning over his candidacy has put off a lot of voters because of the bankrupt PERS system and their insane and continual support for lunacy like free trade, illegal immigration, etc. It's almost as if they made a list of policies that the majority of voters loathe and, then, tout them. Idiots. I'd bet a paycheck that Kitzhauber loses, no has virtually no chance against Dudley.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 28, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Surely the people in Wisconsin aren't silly enough to get rid of the man who would make a great president Russ Feingold. Feingold is probably the most brilliant man in congress.Come on Wisconsin don't cut off your nose to spite your face,reelect Feingold by a landslide

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | July 28, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I would add that the Oregon governor's race, previously rated as either leans Democratic or likely Democratic, should be changed to "Toss Up."

Posted by: brent79 | July 28, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

drivl et al prefer to keep their ostrich shaped heads firmly planted in the sand.

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 28, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Mark, you will never hear me say a nice word about Perry - but the Daily Planet in the Perry White race has declared Perry the winner.

When cameron County, the second poorest in the state, 90% Latino has the Republican winning in a landslide for County Judge (in Tx this is the County CEO) it tells us something about where Texas leans - which I think you made that point.

I do not know if you follow Dallas politics but the Dems are in one melt down after another with battles between the County Judge and corrupt Democrats - The Independents just may move dallas a bit more back to the right.

I agree Perry will say anything to get elected - how does this not apply to White when he is in East Texas calling the president a community organizer - Mark you know exactly what White was doing - after all it was East texas.

Bobby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 28, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I would phrase my description more gently than Bobby did. IMO, White is a conservative D, and would be a great improvement over Goodhair, who is a bad governor of no actual ideological bent, but who will say anything to get a vote. Gore's campaign manager in TX in 1988, Perry moved with the shifting wind. He has become rich in public office, and he has vetoed us into a deficit of 1/2 CA proportions. Even White's opponents know he managed Houston well.

All winning TX pols of either party are now conservative by pre-Gingrich standards.
I like non-fundamentalist, efficient government pols. We have some Rs in that mold, and some Ds.

However, I agree with Bobby that TX still leans R. Our cities are in slowdown, not in recession. Perry takes undeserved credit but the casual voter may not discern why it is undeserved.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 28, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

When was the last time this was updated? In the last two weeks, the environment has actually been shifting sort of in the Democrats' way, at least in the House and Senate races with improvements on the generic ballot as well as decent to good poll numbers for the Senate races.

I'm curious how the NH Senate race looks to the experts. Ayotte seems to be having a rough patch as of late and being endorsed by Palin actually seems to be huring more than it's helping.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 28, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris, your information on White is wrong - how is a 9% difference in polling close? But yes, as of the last reporting White has more money in the bank - Washington money - so much for being anti-Washington.

White is running a very strong anti-Obama campaign as much as he is running against Perry - he needs to decide who he is really running against.

He campaigns that Healthcare reform passed by Congress was a mistake - he calls Obama a community organizer.

The thing about Texas Democrats is, they are right of center when compared to yankee Republicans -

There is no toss up here - there are no Democrats in Texas - just DINOS - the woman running for AG as a Democrat had to do an Orwellian like double speak explaning why she supported her opponent for AG with a $1,000.00 donation.

White and Perry are both conservative Republicans - the only question is, who is the more conservative

Bobby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

drindl, I see TX is also moving from lean GOP to toss-up.

Notably absent: MN Gov race, where Rep Tom Emmer (R) is having trouble gaining traction. The DFL will pick their nominee in 13 days, on Aug 10th. Leans Dem.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Let's see, every single item is bad news for Democrats -- gee, what a surprise on the Fix!
Except for Colorado, where the lunatic Tancredo is running on a 'bomb Mecca' platform. I wondeer how a governor is goig to bomb Mecca? hmmm. Even CC has to concede that one.


Talk about leaning over backwards

'Gov. John Lynch (D) remains a clear favorite but the Granite State is shaping up to be a major Republican target this fall and if there is a wave the incumbent could face a more serious race than people expect today.'

I read this crap because it gives me a good laugh every single day.

Posted by: drindl | July 28, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company