Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

The Friday Governors Line: And Then There were 15

With 36 governor's races on the ballot this November, we've struggled with limiting ourselves to naming just the top 10.

So, with less than 80 days before the 2006 election, we are expanding our Friday Governors Line to 15 races in an attempt to keep you, gentle reader, informed of all the goings-on in the most important contests across the country.

Look for the writeups in each race to be a be a bit shorter, however, as The Fix seeks to preserve his sanity down the home stretch. As always the race ranked number one is the most likely to switch parties this fall.

Agree to disagree with any of our rankings? Use the comments section below to let us know.

To the Line!

15. Illinois: Even Democrats acknowlege that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) is vulnerable this fall. A cloud of ethical problems hovers over his administration and could counter the prevailing Democratic winds nationally. State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka (R) is far from a world-beater but the race is likely to be focused almost entirely on the incumbent. Topinka has struggled to stay within financial range of Blagojevich -- a trend that if it continues will make it tough for her to push her change message. (Previous ranking: N/A)

14. California: Incumbent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has run a masterful campaign to date, effectively painting himself as an unorthodox politician able to work across party lines while casting state Treasurer Phil Angelides (D) as nothing more than a rank partisan. Beating Schwarzenegger was always a difficult proposition given his star power and fundraising prowess, but Democrats privately admit that Angelides is not the best candidate to go up against the Governator. Still, this is California, meaning that Schwarzenegger's vote ceiling is probably 53 percent. (Previous ranking: N/A)

13. Florida: Although state Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher appears to have little chance of beating state Attorney General Charlie Crist in the Sept. 5 Republican primary, Democrats are hoping that he will bloody the frontrunner enough to give their nominee some momentum heading into the final two months of the campaign. Conventional wisdom seems to point to Rep. Jim Davis as the Democratic nominee, although state Sen. Rod Smith has run a very creditable campaign. Crist will enter the general election as the better-known and better-financed candidate, but a desire for change in the state and nationwide should bolster Democrats' chances. (Previous ranking: N/A)

12. Maine: Incumbent Gov. John Baldacci (D) remains vulnerable, but state Sen. Chandler Woodcock (R) has done little to capitalize on Baldacci's weakness. Baldacci carries one major advantage in the race -- he is not participating in the state's public financing system, meaning he is free to raise and spend as much as he can. Woodcock, who has accepted state funds, is likely to be heavily outgunned financially. A recent poll showed Baldacci with a comfortable 42 percent to 24 percent edge over Woodcock. But the survey stoked controversy when it was revealed that it was actually done for the governor's campaign -- a fact that did not make it into the first round of stories on the data. (Previous ranking: N/A)

11. Rhode Island: Lt. Gov. Charlie Fogarty (D) is running an under-the-radar campaign against incumbent Gov. Don Carcieri (R) that some Democrats believe has the potential to surprise in November. Fogarty beat Carcieri onto the television airwaves with an ad that seeks to make the election a referendum on corruption. Carcieri is also painting himself as a reform candidate, asking for another four years to clean up the state's government. The national winds are blowing strong here -- the "R" after his name may be Carcieri's biggest impediment to re-election. (Previous ranking: N/A)

10. Michigan: After falling behind wealthy businessman Dick DeVos (R) earlier this summer, incumbent Gov. Jennifer Granholm appears to have recovered her lead -- albeit small -- thanks to a barrage of ads from her campaign and the state party that seek to drive home the idea that she is working to improve the state's economy, despite its poor handling at the federal level. DeVos is now on the air with negative spots that attack Granholm's stewardship of the economy, which should have the effect of evening the race once again. This will be a nip and tuck affair to the end and will be decided by a single question: Is this dismal state of the Michigan economy Granholm's fault or does the blame lie with President Bush? (Previous ranking: 8)

9. Wisconsin: Incubment Gov. Jim Doyle (D) appears to have reveresed his earlier free fall with a television campaign that touts his accomplishments while linking Rep. Mark Green (R) to President George W. Bush. A recent Research 2000 poll showed Doyle with a 48 percent to 38 percent lead, although another poll -- conducted by Republican firm Strategic Vision -- showed Green with a 45 percent to 44 percent lead. As always, our advice is to average the two polls and see what you get. By our calculation that produces a mid-single digit edge for Doyle. (Previous ranking: 7)

8. Alaska: Republicans got a bit of good news earlier this week when unpopular incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) lost badly in his party's primary. Former Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin won the GOP contest by running against the party establishment (she has called on the state party chairman to resign) -- a message she is likely to continue to use in the general election. The problem for Republicans is the potential stature gap between Palin and former Gov. Tony Knowles (D). Alaska voters have already sent Knowles to the governor's mansion twice while Palin remains a much lesser known figure. (Previous ranking: 10)

7. Maryland: After moving Maryland all the way up to #4 last month, we drop it back down again this time around. Why? Because no one we talk to thinks that incumbent Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) will go quietly into the good night, and some Democrats continue to fret that Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D) can't take a punch. Ehrlich is sitting on $8.5 million, which he will spend (our guess) on a prolonged negative ad blitz about O'Malley's stewardship of the city of Baltimore. (Previous ranking: 4)

6. Colorado: This open seat contest between former Denver district attorney Bill Ritter (D) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) is the biggest mover in this month's Line. A recent Mason-Dixon poll showed Ritter up by seven points despite the fact that he remains largely unknown in the state. Beauprez may well have picked the wrong cycle to run statewide as voters' unhappiness with Congress appears to be plaguing his bid. Given Ritter's cash edge, it looks like it will be difficult for Beauprez to make up lost ground. (Previous ranking: 9)

5.Iowa: The two national parties are playing a game of one-upsmanship in this open seat race. After the Republican Governors Association announced it would give $500,000 to Rep. Jim Nussle's (R) campaign, the Democratic Governors Association matched that donation -- bringing their total investment in Secretary of State Chet Culver's (D) campaign to $1 million. (RGA Chair Mitt Romney and DGA Chair Bill Richardson might have ulterior motives in their heavy giving to this key presidential state.) Republicans acknowledge that Culver has run a better-than-expected campaign to date, working to tie Nussle to voters' discontent with Washington. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Massachusetts: This open seat race has yo-yoed around the Line for much of the last year as we try and get a handle on who the Democratic nominee might be and just how strong Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (R) is as a candidate. Democrats have reason to smile this month as self-funder Chris Gabrieli moved into the lead over former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Deval Patrick and State Attorney General Tom Reilly in a poll conducted by Suffolk University. Republicans acknowledge that Gabrieli is the strongest potential Democratic nominee and would be difficult to beat in the general election. (Previous ranking: 6)

3. Arkansas: What once looked like a premier matchup between two rising stars has turned into a one-sided affair. In an independent survey released earlier this week, state Attorney General Mike Beebe (D) has a 52 percent to 31 percent lead over former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R). Beebe is using his fundraising advantage over Hutchinson to hit the television airwaves uncontested with ads that tout his humble upbringing and his support for the Second Amendment. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Ohio: Everything we hear out of Ohio says that the political environment is as bad as it gets for Republicans. And, if there is one race where voters will punish Republicans for the ethical transgressions of outgoing Gov. Bob Taft (R), it's this one. National Republicans continue to stop in the state to raise money for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R), but in June and July Rep. Ted Strickland outraised Blackwell $2.5 million to $2 million. The last independent poll done in the race showed Strickland up 20 points. (Previous ranking: 2)

1.New York: With state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) all-but-assured of becoming governor this fall, do yourself a favor and read Brooke A. Masters' "Spoiling for a Fight: The Rise of Eliot Spitzer." Once in office, Spitzer will almost immediately begin to be mentioned as a potential vice presidential pick or presidential candidate in his own right down the line. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 25, 2006; 6:11 AM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Iowa 2008: Giuliani Leads
Next: Democrats, Unions Vital for Lieberman

Comments

Jep, me too.

Posted by: murphy | August 30, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Why are all the comment sections on current "Fix" articles down? This is the only one I could access, is it me, or is there a disconnect elsewhere...
JEP

Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Ohio guy,

Aha! We agree on something! I too was burned up over Lieberman running for two offices at the same time.

But to clarify my position, it's one thing to run for an office you don't intend to serve. That's plain dishonest. It's quite another thing to seek a single office through a party nomination, and then failing in that, a loner route.

Nobody's ever sold me on the idea of "sore loser" laws. It seems to me that it restricts the rights of a person running for office, not to mention perpetuating the trend of extremism in primary politics.

Posted by: murphy | August 30, 2006 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter -

We have a "sore loser" law here in Ohio. It's awesome. I have no idea which other states have a similar law, but all of them need to pass one IMO.

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 29, 2006 10:14 PM | Report abuse

murphy -

I forgot, I also should have added that I have really despised Lieberman ever since 2000 when he ran for two federal offices (Senate and Vice President) at the same time. How it is that that is legal is beyond me! That is completely insane. Just like he did this year with his Indy run, running for reelection to his Senate seat in 2000 while running for VP at the same time was his "insurance policy".

I really, really hate that Lieberman puts himself ahead of everything else and I get the impression that the prospect of him not getting reelected is somehow supposed to be the end of the world according to his supporters. Waht on earth makes Joe so important that his being in Washington superceds everything else?

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 29, 2006 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Ohio Guy: "I guess the Lieberman 'Indy' un this year is a fluke then..." That's assuming that the Fairfield Prof is correct, for Connecticut.

But also, who knows what other odd primary/general election laws exist which are unique to a given state.

There just might be others where something like the Connecticut situation is more than a fluke.

Usually the only way for a disgruntled loser to get into the general election is to mount a write-in campaign. So hopefully most states have that covered.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 29, 2006 7:35 PM | Report abuse

There are a few new polls out about the MI race to reaffirm Governor Granholm's resurgence. Even Republican leaning Strategic Vision released a poll today putting Granholm up 48% to 43%. In addition, a recent Wall Street Journal poll also has Granholm leading 50.8% to 43.6%.

The Granholm and MDP ads are working because DeVos has so many negatives and the voters are only now learning the full extent. Everything from his days at Amway shipping Michiganders' jobs to China to his brother-in-law running the private security firm, Blackwater that has profited from every war and misstep of the Bush administration.

Here is an interesting ad that details DeVos' less than impressive record,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yMjHgVUm_k

Posted by: Brad | August 29, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Ohio guy,

I knew you thought it was wrong to lose a primary and still run in the general, I just don't understand WHY.

And the primary wasn't an election for office. It was a party nomination. I think that's where your logic is breaking down. Joe's still only running for office once.

Posted by: murphy | August 29, 2006 12:39 AM | Report abuse

murphy -

I didn't think I could possibly make it any more clearer to you. I oppose Lieberman's "independent" run b/c it is wrong. One should not be able to run twice in the smae election after losing a primary. If you are in a primary you are committed to that primary. If he wanted to run as an independent, he should have done so from the very beginning.

And by the way murphy, just b/c it is technically legal to run as an indy in Connecticut if losing the primary of another party, that dosen't mean it should be legal or that it is right. How it si that you think someone can just choose to ignore the results of a legitimate election is beyond me - seriously , I don't understand how you can call that democracy at all. Like Nor'Easter pointed out, the only reason Holy Joe pulled this off was b.c of a mistake the state legislature made. Good thing democracy-haters like you and Joe won't be able to pull this kind of nonsense on the future.

Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and respect for the democratic electoral process.

Oh, and by the way, your "suspicion" is wrong. Very, very wrong. Way to rant and rave about what you guess to be my personal feelings and be completely wrong.

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 28, 2006 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Ohio guy,

Since you now understand the constitutionality and legality of Lieberman's Indy run, I'd like to know if you oppose Lieberman for the sake of democracy (as you claim) or for the sake of Lamont (as I suspect).

The point of a party primary is to select that party's nominee for president. It says nothing about what the loser(s) of the primary will do, though obviously a candidate whose chief loyalty is to the party will drop out and endorse the primary winner. We can safely say that Lieberman's chief loyalty is NOT to his party (though saying anything more than this is speculation...I say his country, you say himself).

It sounds to me as though you and other Lamont supporters are playing for sympathy by claiming that somehow democracy is being undone. According to polls, Lieberman better represents the views of ALL CT voters (as opposed to democrat primary voters). So answer me how you can claim that this is bad for democracy, when we are going to see the majority-supported candidate elected by the voters? That's a core definition of democracy.

Are you truly concerned for democracy? Are you more concerned with Lamont, and merely cloaking yourself with democracy rhetoric? My mind isn't completely made up, so you might try convincing me that you're right instead of telling me that I'm warped and from another planet.

Posted by: murphy | August 28, 2006 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"There's no question that Lieberman has a legal right to run as an Independent. Apparently, according to a Pol. Sci. Professor at Fairfield, when the Connecticut Legislature moved the primary date from September to August they neglected to move the date for filing as an Independent in tandem with it. This created an opportunity not available before; and if they get their act together, it will never happen again.

Joe got lucky due to a legislative error. This should be a one time anomaly."

Thanks for that bit of info, Nor'Easter. I guess the Lieberman "Indy" run this year is a fluke then and in the future we won't have to worry about any more democracy-haters like Lieberman losing a legitimate primary election and then running under another party name in the general.

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 28, 2006 7:23 PM | Report abuse

wow bhoomes. You confuse me. You say that you can look at the race in ohio without partisan blinders yet most of your posts (not just in this blog) seem to tout the brilliance of the republican party. Bhoomes yes it is possible for the republicans to win the governer's mansion but it is not very likely given national trends, the general scandels in Ohio and yes the current polls. But it is just not likely. Oh and your "call" of the President Bush being relected IS NOT IMPRESSIVE. Its not like you picked a 50-1 long shot to win the Kentucky Derby. There were only 2 candidates who had any chance of winning and you got it right. Besides i havent met anyone who was actually excited about Kerry other than they did not like the incumbent.

Posted by: lets go independent | August 28, 2006 6:56 PM | Report abuse

How do you explain Arlen Specter's win over Pat Toomey in PA's 2004 Republican Senate primary? Its all about the views, there is such a thing as too conservative, especially in a left leaning area (note Santorum losing to Casey)

Or John Sununu's (somewhat moderate) win over Sen. Bob Smith (so conservative he decided the Republicans weren't far enough right) in NH's 2002 Republican Senate primary? again too conservative and in a state like NH, thats not gonna fly.

Or Rep. Cynthia McKinney's primary runoff loss earlier this month? McKinney lost in that district because of one reason. She punched the Capital police officer. Had that not occured, Hank Johnson would have never run and mckinney would have won in a walk.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 28, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

15. Illinois
Survey USA August Approval
Blagojevich (D)* 44% same as July up from 41% in Feb

Rasmussen
August 7
Blagojevich (D)* 45%
Topinka (R) 37%

14. California
Survey USA August Approval
Schwartzenegger (R)* 44% up from 40% in July; up from 32% in Feb

13. Florida
OPEN Bush term limited
Strategic Vision
July 26
Dem Primary
Davis 40%
Smith 35%

Rep Primary
Crist 57%
Gallagher 29%

Survey USA
August 24
Rep Primary
Crist 60%
Gallagher 31%

12. Maine
Survey USA August Approval
Baldacci (D)* 45% up from 44% in July; up from 41% in Feb

Rasmussen
August 17
Baldacci (D)* 43%
Woodcock (R) 42%

11. Rhode Island
Survey USA August Approval
Carceiri (R)* 49% down from 51% in July; down from 52% in Feb

Rasmussen
August 3
Fogerty (D) 43%
Carceiri (R)* 43%

10. Michigan
Survey USA August Approval
Granholm (D)* 43% same as July; up from 41% in Feb

Survey USA
August 17
Granholm (D)* 47%
DeVos (R) 47%
Creswell (L) 1%

Rasmussen
August 10
Granholm (D)* 47%
DeVos (R) 46%

9. Wisconsin
Survey USA August Approval
Doyle (D)* 48% same as July; up from 45% in Feb

Rasmussen
August 20
Doyle (D)* 49%
Green (R) 41%

Strategic Vision
August 18
Doyle (D)* 45%
Green (R) 44%

8. Alaska
Survey USA August Approval
Murkowski (R)* 19% down from 21% in July; down from 26% in Feb
INCUMBANT LOST PRIMARY
NO POLLS SINCE PRIMARY LAST WEEK
Knowles (D)
Palin (R)
Halcro (I)

7. Maryland
Survey USA August Approval
Ehrlich (R)* 52% same as July; down from 55% in Feb

Rasmussen
August 9
O'Malley (D) 50%
Ehrlich (R)* 43%

6. Colorado
OPEN- Owens (R) term limited

Survey USA
August 17
Ritter (D) 50%
Beauprez (R) 40%
Winkler (L) 3%

Rasmussen
August 9
Ritter (D) 48%
Beauprez (R) 39%
Winkler (L) n/a

5. Iowa
OPEN- Vilsack (D) not seeking re-election
Rasmussen
July 27
Culver (D) 41%
Nussle (R) 38%

4. Massachutsetts
OPEN- Romney (R) not seeking re-election

Survey USA
August 22
Dem Primary
Gabrielli 30%
Patrick 34%
Reiley 30%

Healey (R)
Mihos (I)

3. Arkansas
OPEN- Huckabee (R) term limited

Rasmussen
August 15
Beebe (D) 45%
Hutchinson (R) 41%

2. Ohio
OPEN- Taft (R) term limited

Survey USA
August 5-7
Strickland (D) 57%
Blackwell (R) 35%

Rasmussen
August 22
Strickland (D) 57%
Blackwell (R) 32%

1. New York
OPEN- Pataki (R) term limited

Quinipiac
August 15-20
Dem Primary
Spitzer 78%
Suozzi 15%

Marist
August 23
Dem Primary
Spitzer 70%
Suozzi 17%

My Top Ten
1. NY
2. OH
3. MA
4. CO
5. MD
6. AR
7. IA
8. MI
9. AK
10. RI/ME

Posted by: RMill | August 28, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Che:

That idiot candidate you quote has no chance of winning, please take your moronic conspiracy theories and put them where the sun don't shine!

Posted by: JoMama | August 28, 2006 9:47 AM | Report abuse

You can't apply the 14% of "moderate" senators to the House primary Rep. Schwarz lost in MI. Nor is the Gang of 14 representative of which senators are moderate overall; it's just one issue.

How do you explain Arlen Specter's win over Pat Toomey in PA's 2004 Republican Senate primary? Or John Sununu's (somewhat moderate) win over Sen. Bob Smith (so conservative he decided the Republicans weren't far enough right) in NH's 2002 Republican Senate primary? Or Rep. Cynthia McKinney's primary runoff loss earlier this month? The more moderate candidate--a challenger in 2 instances--won all 3 of those races. Yes, all else being equal, primaries tend to favor ideologues over moderates. But all else isn't equal. Lots of factors are at work in every primary.

Murphy: were you one of those complaining about Sen. Jeffords switching parties in 2001? In 2002, Anthony Williams had to run as a write-in candidate and thus won the nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties for DC Mayor. Do you think he should have been allowed to run as the nominee of both parties?

Don't forget next month's provincial election in New Brunswick: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nbvotes2006/story/2006/08/28/nb-graham.html

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 28, 2006 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Sandwich

I never said moderate INCUMBENTS lose in primaries, I said moderates tend to lose in primaries.

and incumbents typically wins, but even that doesn't hold up well this year (ie Svhwarz and look at Chaffee). If you look at the track record of the senate, it shows quite a story.

We all recall the gang of 14. These 14 senators were the only senators moderate enough to pull this off. If we take 14 and divide it by 100, we get 1.4 moderate senators for every 10 senators in the senate. Thats a rather small number. Now, if we look at this years primaries. We have 1 moderate that lost to a conservative in Schwarz, 1 moderate in big big trouble in Chaffee whos neck and neck with a conservative, 1 "moderate" in Leiberman (who despite not being overly moderate is more moderate than Lamont)and the Club for Growth, an organization as conservative as it comes, claims to be 9-3 in primaries. The only moderate who won a primary is Bob Corker and thats only because Hilleary and Bryant were stupid enough to split the vote for him. The primary system we run today gives a big advantage to the candidates further to the left and right because those are the more motivated voters. Those are the people who are inflamed by things like Gay Marriage, Abortion, the War etc etc etc. Moderate candidates tend to split the ticket, supporting Abortion but not gay marriage or against the war but hard liner on immigration. They lose votes based on their cross over appeal.

Look at the RI senate. Chaffee is in huge trouble to a candidate that has no chance in the general election. Despite this, Laffey still has a shot to win because the conservatives are willing to try and give the seat to a true conservative, nominate Chaffee and that chance goes bye bye. Thats what the primaries do, the eleminate the moderate candidate because there is usually a candidate that espouses more of the parties views than does the moderate.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 28, 2006 3:22 AM | Report abuse

h

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2006 1:53 AM | Report abuse

There's no question that Lieberman has a legal right to run as an Independent. Apparently, according to a Pol. Sci. Professor at Fairfield, when the Connecticut Legislature moved the primary date from September to August they neglected to move the date for filing as an Independent in tandem with it. This created an opportunity not available before; and if they get their act together, it will never happen again.

Joe got lucky due to a legislative error. This should be a one time anomaly.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 28, 2006 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Drindl - Don't get your knickers tied in a knot on Laffey and Gay issues. That didn't seem to get any traction in the Rhode Island campaign.

Laffey's far more dangerous on his general approach. He's promising the Moon and is going to pay for everything with "tax cuts." He uses his hero, John F. Kennedy, as the model for tax cuts.

Plus, he's going to shake up the World's Greatest Deliberative Body (my use of the phrase, not his) by taking ACTION. As one of a hundred? Seems to me that every time the Senate doesn't truly deliberate, we end up with things like the Patriot Act, Terry Schiavo legislation, targeted tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, etc.

From Charles Bakst at The Providence Journal website(08/27/06): "During Wednesday's debate, Chafee said, 'I guess now you would say that's a good vote (against the War in Iraq).'

"Not. Laffey told me later, 'Saddam Hussein brought on the war himself. He himself was a weapon of mass destruction.' Echoing themes from the debate, Laffey said, 'The problem was that we used the worst case scenario to go to war and then they used the rosiest case scenario to try to win the war. That needs to change. The problem with Senator Chafee is that he complains and complains and complains but doesn't get anything done.'

"It remains a mystery how Laffey -- whose pugnacious, lone-wolf style threatens to isolate him in the Senate even more than Chafee is -- would get things done. Of course, once in the capital, he could choose to become part of the 'Washington elite' he now so vehemently denounces."

'Saddam Hussein brought on the war himself. He himself was a weapon of mass destruction.' That's a classic. A line worthy of Ken Melhman (do you think that he's Zouk?) and the RNC.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 28, 2006 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Ohio Guy,

Still waiting for your constitutional explanation on why Joe doesn't have the right to run as an Indy if he lost the democrat primary. Or do you believe the founding fathers were also from the same planet that I am?

Primary elections are political party constructs. In other words, and I'll spell this out in simple language for you, they are only binding with respect to what party you run on in the general election. Joe has no right to run as a Democrat, but he has every right to run on the Lieberman ticket. Just watch.

Posted by: murphy | August 27, 2006 11:47 PM | Report abuse

He's from a planet where you can lose both the popular and electoral college vote, then have your Daddy's Supreme Court appointees install you as president anyway.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 27, 2006 11:18 PM | Report abuse

That's true, Drindl, and Blackwell has definitely shown himself to be corrupt and happy to engage in conflicts of interest. The NY Times had a good editorial not long ago specifically slamming his "Block the Vote" record and efforts. Registrations suddenly having to be on 80 lbs. paper stock?! And overseeing the very election in which he's running for Governor? (Admittedly a standard phenomenon, but probably one that should be phased out.) BUT, with a 57-32 deficit, I don't think even he can reverse enough votes to get elected. When confronted with the 20 point gap in the Dispatch poll, the best he could do was to claim he's really only behind 11 points. Methinks he's scouting out private sector jobs...Diebold lobbyist maybe.

Ohio guy is right. You cannot, with any shred of integrity, emphasize constantly what a good and loyal Democrat you are to win the Democratic primary, and then after losing it (with record high turnout), run anew for the same position as the nominee of your own party (he's not running as an I--he created Connecticut for Lieberman to get higher ballot placement--another sleight to democracy. Lowell Weicker, Angus King, and Walter Hickel never did that.). If Lieberman were such a good Democrat, or had any respect for the election he lost, he would be campaigning for Lamont right now.

Two points in response to Rob: 1) The Supreme Court has outlawed open primaries. 2) If moderate incumbents lose primaries so often, why is the reelection rate of incumbents in the high 90%s?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 27, 2006 11:16 PM | Report abuse

murphy -


"Do the results of a primary take away Lieberman's right to run for office, or a CT voter's right to vote for him? "

Ummm, as to your question about does the primary results take away his right to run....YES, they do. That's what a primary is...it's an election. You can't just choose to not accept the results. Or, at least, you SHOULDN'T be able to.

As to does it take away a Connecticut voters right to vote for him - what an aisnine statement. Did I ever say that? They can vote for whoever the heck they want to. It's called a write-in. And that is the only kind of vote you should be able to recieve when you run in a primary and lose.

Again, your view of democracy is extremely warped. And no, he dosen't have support of half of Democrats. He has less than 1/3, according to the last rasmussen poll, and he will lose the rest of them as they realize that they are voting for a republican.

What is the point of elections, if according to you, the loser can just decide to ignore the results???

That is not democracy my friend. I do not know what planet you are from.

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 27, 2006 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Rob -

For one, it dosen't matter one bit how close the primary was - a loss is a loss is a loss. No matter how you spin it.

The point is Joe should have done one of two things:

1) Run in the Democratic primary and respect the results (aka drop out if you lose), or
2) Run as an indeopendent from the beginning.

Running twice in the same election shows him to be the worst kind of politician - the one who will do anything to hold onto power.

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 27, 2006 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Ohio Guy,

Can you point to any constitutional basis for your opinion? Do the results of a primary take away Lieberman's right to run for office, or a CT voter's right to vote for him? Your view of democracy is based on primary gimmicks that get "your guy" elected.

And if only republicans voted for Lieberman, Lamont would have nothing to worry about. But from what I see, Lieberman's got most republicans, lots of indys, and almost half of democrats. What a "representative" sampling of CT, don't you think?

Posted by: murphy | August 27, 2006 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I have to disagree OG. Leiberman was indeed tossed by the majority of Democrats who voted in the primary, but it was a very close race. If Leiberman can win the general election, than Democracy wins. Thats the one thing I hate about primaries. Moderates tend to lose out ie Joe Schwarz to the candidate that panders further to the right and or left as most moderate voters are independents and don't vote in primaries. The primary ballot should include all candidates, the top vote getter from each party goes onto the general.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 27, 2006 7:33 PM | Report abuse

murphy - Joe Lieberman was legitimately tossed out of this race by the Democratic voters of Connecticut. If you lose a primary electioin, you are out of the general election. That's what Democracy is all about. You seem to have a very warped view of what Democracy is. If he really wanted to run as an independent, he should have done so from the beginning. What's happening is simple - he no longer represents the views of a majority of Democrats, so now he is simply trying to get elected by republicans. They need a sore loser law like we have here in Ohio to keep entrenched beltway politicans like Joe from running for office on two seperate tickets in the same election. What an outrage. Anyone who cares about Democracy should despise Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Ohio guy | August 27, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

Joe's "arrogance and contempt for democracy"? Most people would agree that healthy democracy results in an elected official who is supported by the majority of the electorate (or atleast a plurality).

The Lamont supporters who criticize Lieberman's run as an Indy are understandibly upset...not because democracy is being undone, but because it is being achieved. You may disagree, but I think you're heavily swayed by an opinion that republicans in CT don't count.

Posted by: murphy | August 27, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

A Macaca Moment for Laffey?

"U.S. Senate candidate Stephen Laffey said he regrets that he wrote columns denigrating gays when he was a college student.

Laffey, the mayor of Cranston, acknowledged writing the columns in a story published Saturday in the Providence Journal. The paper reported that it received copies of the columns anonymously in the mail earlier in the week.

Laffey, 44, running a closely watched race against moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), said whoever sent the articles wanted to smear him before the Sept. 12 primary. He called the writings "sophomoric political satire" and said they do not represent his views.

"Do I regret some of these things? Sure," he said. "But at the time, we were just having fun. We thought it was funny."
.......
In another column he wrote that pop music was turning the children of America into sissies, and criticized the singer Boy George, referring to him as "it."

"It wears girl's clothes and puts on makeup," he wrote. "When I hear it sing, 'Do you really want to hurt me, do you really want to make me cry,' I say to myself, YES, I want to punch your lights out, pal, and break your ribs."

--Yeah, that's funny. 'Straight' men who are so threatened by gays that they want to break their ribs -- always hilarious. So-called 'conservative' men sure are easily threatened about their sexuality, aren't they? I suspect that, like rush, they all need viagra to function.

Posted by: Drindl | August 27, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Go Blackwell! hahahahhaha!

But remember, Sandwich, as Secretary of State, Blackwell has the key to the voting machines....

Posted by: Drindl | August 27, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

New Rasmussen poll in Ohio Gov. race: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ohioGovernor.htm

Strickland's lead has widened to TWENTY-FIVE POINTS. Yup, no question about it, here comes Blackwell! Strickland should be quaking in his boots!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 27, 2006 8:29 AM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.guerrillanews.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

By Albert McKeon
Republished from The Nashua Telegraph

A Republican candidate for this area's congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.

Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.

But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant "to soften us up ... to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights ... to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims ... and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs," giving Americans a reason "to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons....

Posted by: che | August 27, 2006 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 26, 2006 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 26, 2006 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh please, Joe already has a chip on his shoulder. He thinks he deserves a lifetime sinecure in congress and screw the voters. His arrogance and contempt for democracy is quite clear. But then, it seems you feel the same way.

Posted by: Drindl | August 26, 2006 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: "Leiberman lost the primary. So what does he do? He immediately screws the Democrats..."

The rhetoric that was coming out of the liberal blogs and Lamont attack points against Lieberman was, to say the least, over the top. It often twisted his positions and character to describe someone that was not Joe. Maybe if Lamont could have won on issues alone Lieberman wouldn't be so cheesed.

Screw the democrats? Maybe. But without Lieberman running Indy, that primary was essentially the election, an election where Lamont only won 8% of CT. I'd rather have Lieberman screw the Dems than Lamont screw CT.

Dems in CT might be wise to not push Lieberman even farther away with their rhetoric, lest he return to D.C. with a chip on his shoulder.

Posted by: murphy | August 26, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

There appears to be something strange going on this year. Just take a look at your newspapers and local tv, the things most important to most folks are being ignored. Politics on the local level ie. the Gov. races in most states are getting or not getting started, and someone said it is not heated up yet, or something like that. Even today in the Post and most other leading papers around the country seem to be following this trend. Maybe my memory is failing, but about ten or twelve years ago a simular thing happened. History repeating its self once again, some if not many would say.

Posted by: lylepink | August 26, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Q

I think the Alaska Gov Race is going to be a tight one as well but what people seem to forget is that there is a thirdp arty candidate that will siphon off votes from the Republicans. Andrew Halcro. Knowles may only need a plurality to win.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 26, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Left off first line-'-WaPo continues to prop up bush'

Posted by: louisa | August 26, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse


"That has always been the driving [attribute] of Bush -- his ability to lead -- and Katrina undermined it badly," McHenry said. "He has rebounded in one year's time from what he lost in one week's time." But, he added, "it was a long and arduous climb" -- and it is not complete.'

bush a strong leader? Don't make me laugh. He was never anything but a spoiled, petulant child. And excuse me, but I don't see a 'rebound' --total nonsense.

Posted by: louisa | August 26, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

'It's not like the dems didn't bake their own pie with Lieberman. Now they get to eat it.'

Ridiculous statement. Leiberman lost the primary. So what does he do? He immediately screws the Democrats in his state who supported hiim for so many years. He's a traitor plain and simple. It's all about Joe. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Posted by: Drindl | August 26, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Iowa.... The Dems have a good shot at holding the Gov mansion.

For the first time since 1994, a watershed year for political change, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans in Iowa.

Plus, Nussle was the "bag man" for Gingrich and now the Bush administration.

Bush said of Nussle as Chairman of the Budget committee in 2002, "...we've got to make sure there is budget restraint in Washington. We've got plenty of money up there. We can fund our priorities. The thing I appreciate about this Chairman's leadership is he has a clear vision of how to get back to a balanced budget." NOT!

Iowa is very conservative fiscally, and the state government is in pretty good shape financially compared to other states, so don't think the U.S. out-of-control spending and monsterous deficit on Nussle's watch will sit very well with the voters.

You can read the full press release at: http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020916-3.html

Nussle has too much GOP "BAGgage"... Culver will win in a close one.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 26, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse

That Arkansas race is one to watch. Most polls show it close with Beebe ahead by a few points but within the MOE. No one in the state believes that 21 point lead that Chris references here. That pollster has a lousy track record. Arkansas Governor's race is going to be tight.

Posted by: Megatron | August 26, 2006 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Susan Nunes

This list is not a list of competetive races so to say. Its a list of the races likely to switch sides from one party to the other. NY and Ohio are the most likely races to switch sides hence their standing at 1 and 2. Neither of those races are competetive but they WILL switch from Republican to Democrat

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 25, 2006 11:12 PM | Report abuse

ONE POLL??? Do you have blinders on, bhoomes? Not a single poll has shown Blackwell anywhere near Strickland! And the Dispatch poll is about the most accurate and reliable one there is in Ohio! I correctly predicted the CT Senate primary result right here on this blog. I said Cantwell would beat Gorton in 2000 months before anyone outside WA noticed. I called the MO SEN race for Carnahan soon after he died in 2000.

There are plenty more, but it's clear that facts don't matter to you. You blather endlessly about how Blackwell will win, but you're not willing to put a dime behind that assertion. That alone exposes you to everyone here for the gutless phony you are. Ohioans are tired of 16 years of corrupt Republican rule. Strickland and Sherrod Brown are going to win, Cranley, Kilroy and Space are strong possibilities in the US House, Jennifer Brunner and Rich Cordray have good chances of winning, and Democrats are going to gain seats in the legislature as well. We might even capture the majority in the House again.

Andy R, you can only buy what's for sale. And I think Tancredo is still safe, but Survey USA at least just released a poll showing batcrazy Marilyn Musgrave leading her Democratic challenger by only 4 points.

The latest poll in the CO GOV race has Ritter 10 points ahead of Beauprez. I guess that's why the fact-averse right-wingers here are so confident of Beauprez' victory.

The problem in Texas is that everyone mad at Gov. Perry is splitting their votes among 3 other candidates. That's why none of them has much chance of beating him.

Beebe's lead has slipped a little recently, but minor party candidates are not going to affect the outcome of the race. I don't understand why some people here are so obsessed with 1% and 2% candidates. The Libertarian is polling at 2% in Ohio--I guess that's who Blackwell should blame his loss on?

In AL, Riley's lead over Baxley has grown. Cook rates the race as Leans Republican.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I think someone's sentiments earlier about Texas are correct. While I havent' heard much about the Democratic candidate, I have heard loud grumblings against Perry, and Kinky Friedman, while running an un-orthodox campaign, may garner enough votes to make something interesting happe.

And oh, P.S., what updates are there on Nevada after the primary, and has Alabama become a lock for Republican Bob Riley? Or is national mood playing a factor here as well? Are there any suppossedly blowouts that would bear watching for meaningful losses?

Posted by: Rob C | August 25, 2006 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I think someone's sentiments earlier about Texas are correct. While I havent' heard much about the Democratic candidate, I have heard loud grumblings against Perry, and Kinky Friedman, while running an un-orthodox campaign, may garner enough votes to make something interesting happe.

And oh, P.S., what updates are there on Nevada after the primary, and has Alabama become a lock for Republican Bob Riley?

Posted by: PD | August 25, 2006 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I think someone's sentiments earlier about Texas are correct. While I havent' heard much about the Democratic candidate, I have heard loud grumblings against Perry, and Kinky Friedman, while running an un-orthodox campaign, may garner enough votes to make something interesting happe.

And oh, P.S., what updates are there on Nevada after the primary, and has Alabama become a lock for Republican Bob Riley?

Posted by: PD | August 25, 2006 9:11 PM | Report abuse

As a New Yorker, it is impossible to contest Eliot Spitzer's win in November. But suspicions about the fuzziness of his campaign are growing. For some reason he was always popular and no one ever found any way to deflate his bubble. But this has led to a lack of specificity from the Spitzer campaign, so I don't know how well he may do in office. If he keeps up his populist crusades against corruption in Albany, a big thing in New York, he'll ensure himself a second term.
But don't count him in for 2008 quite yet. New Yorkers are upset that Pataki is running for President now and he only has 3 months left in his 12 year tenure. Imagine how upset they'll get if they think Spitzer is running for Prez before he even unpacks his bags.

Posted by: P Chase | August 25, 2006 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

It's not like the dems didn't bake their own pie with Lieberman. Now they get to eat it.

Posted by: murphy | August 25, 2006 9:02 PM | Report abuse

hmm

Posted by: Anonymous | August 25, 2006 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Anyone still think Leiberman is a Democrat?

'Lieberman made the remarks at a Friday morning photo op held in the rain under an I-95 overpass in the Fair Haven neighborhood to tout his role in bringing $50 million to the state to help ease transportation gridlock.

"It's a little awkward for me now" to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election, he said, “since they all endorsed my opponent,” Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont.

The comment was significant because analysts from both major parties believe that Lieberman's campaign could help the three Republicans keep their jobs in the face of tough challenges. Lieberman's strongest support -- 75 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac poll -- comes from Republicans. If he succeeds in drawing more Republican voters to the polls to support his candidacy, that could help the Republican Congressional candidates. Those three races are considered among the 10 most competitive Congressional races in the country; both parties consider the races key to deciding which party controls the House in 2007. National Republican strategists and donors have come forward to help Lieberman's campaign; party leaders have abandoned the nominal Republican in the Senate race, Alan Schlesinger. Prominent Republicans like Shays and former Republican House leader Newt Gingrich have endorsed Lieberman.'

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Courts in Arkansas have said Jim Lindal (long time NORMAL supporter)must be on ticket since it is unfair to require Green Party to have more signatures than independents.
Could the marijuana legalization vote split Democratic support for Beebe?
Wouldn't that be a hoot if the dopers got Asa Hutchison elected?

Posted by: Sir Walter Bud | August 25, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised so many analysts think Texas is a lock-in for Governor Perry. Somehow, I think many miss the underswell of anger towards Perry and our state legislators.

As a long-time conservative Republican and Bush supporter, I and many of my like-minded friends find ourselves in a position of having to vote for Democratic or Independent candidates. (I'd vote for the dog catcher, if he ran for governor this year.)

Of course, Texas has a weak governor-strong Lt. Governor system, so the race for Lt. Governor is more important.

Posted by: WestTexasPhantom | August 25, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Bring up Robert Byrd all you want. He reformed, disavowed his past, and is not a racist. Which is more than you can say about George "Macaca" Allen or Trent "Segregation was the way to go" Lott. Are you telling me you truly believe GOP voters (read: the South) will nominate Condi?

Posted by: Settembrini | August 25, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Condi sloggers are a touchy bunch, aren't they? Mymy.

Sorry babes but the neocons are going to throw Condi under the bus. They are so angry that Lebanese kids aren't getting blown up anymore.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"I love when Republicans bring up Condi for '08. It cofirms my belief that the GOP is delusional. Not only is it risible that certain people believe their party - the party of Trent Lott and David Duke -....."

You know, don't want to bring it up but what about your Robert "KKKleage" Byrd?

You know, just saying.

Posted by: Condi 08 | August 25, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

My goodness Marilyn--you sound you like you ARE Bob Beauprez. Or at least work for him. A tad fishy.

Donna--as to 'fixing' upstate -- how much do you think one person can accomplish? The upstaate area has been in a slide for years, a victim of the passing of the industrial age and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. That's a national problem that needs national leadership, which if we are very lucky we will have again sometime.

Eliot has been a terrific AG--the office under him has been tremendously helpful and effective, even for the little guy. They helped me defend myself against a phony Con Ed reading--something I never expected. And he's tough and can hit back hard, which I value tremendously in a presidential candidate--because you know '08 will be the most vicious election ever.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

MD4BUSH: I went back and scanned the pardon list and found only a handful that could be really considered bad judgement on his part. The thing that stood out was the obvious attempt to distance himself from GW, who as I recall, had very few if any. The article is very good and a must read for Md. voters. Refering to GW when he was Gov. of Texas, not POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | August 25, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Mason-Dixon pollsters have lost their mind. Representative Bob Beauprez is way ahead of former da Ritter in knowledge about our water, growth, tourists, commerce and legislative issues. After spending time in DC as our Colorado Representative Bob Beauprez knows how Colorado fits best into USA and the world.

Don't be fooled! A vote for Bob Beauprez is a winning vote for Colorado's future.

Posted by: Marilyn Oden | August 25, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Eliot Spitzer may be very far ahead in NY, but he has to do something for New York State first before he can hope to have any aspirations for the White House. New York has two hugely divergent economies - downstate's boom vs. upstate's 25-year economic deep freeze. If he doesn't fix upstate, he may not have much of a future on the national stage. He'll just be Pataki II - an ineffectual phony.

Unfortunately, Spitzer's huge lead in the polls is all but crushing any really serious debate about the state's direction. The Democratic Party is showing ominous signs of complacency just because the untried Spitzer is so popular -- for now.

Posted by: Donna | August 25, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The Alaska situation is very cloudy and I think too hard to predict.
On Knowles -- He's proven himself, I think. Yes, he did win by "only" 51 percent in 1998, but that was a landslide by Alaska terms. His closest competitor, write-in candidate Robin Taylor, had about 20 percent (or maybe 22, I can't remember). John Lindauer had 17 or so, and many voters, knowing that Knowles was a shoe-in, took the opportunity to safely indulge in that beloved Alaska pasttime of casting ballots for wacky alternative parties.
So while Palin should never be underestimated, neither should Knowles.
While Sarah has been justifiably basking over the past couple of days in her huge victory, Knowles has gotten busy. He and Ethan Berkowitz just picked up the AFL-CIO endorsement. That's a big deal in Alaska.
Palin does have a lot of momentum. I would expect her to get the United Fishermen of Alaska endorsement, for example. But seeing as that UFA originally went to Murkowski, I'm not sure its endorsement carries the weight it used to.
And seeing that Knowles spent the entire pre-primary season quietly raising lots and lots of money and is just now launching his public campaign, I would caution against any hasty judgments.
The one thing I can say is that we have the two most charming candidates possible. So it'll maybe be a battle of charm offensives.

Posted by: alaskan | August 25, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, left off quotes afteer first graf. Second graf is my words.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Chris, for expanding the line to 15. Also, given that the election is less than 80 days away, can we just devote the remainded of the Friday Lines to '06 races and not the '08 presidential races? We'll have years of speculation solely on 08 by November 8th...

For what it's worth, here's my line, with some comments where I disagree slightly:

15. IL (or, at least the least competitive of the 15 races listed)
14. ME (yes, the gov's numbers are weak, but the republican isn't going to win by default this year in this blue state)
13. CA
12. FL
11. RI (could be the sleeper race of the year)
10. AL (With Pallin's victory, I think R's hold onto this seat fairly easily. Also, if memory serves, Knowles did win two terms, but both were narrow victories)
9. WI (no way is Doyle more vulnerable than Granholm)
8. MI
7. IA (most vulnerable Dem seat--at a toss-up right now)
6. MD (Ehrlich could still win this, especially with his warchest; but given the fact that he is well known and liked and the majority of people STILL don't plan to vote for him is a bad sign)

In my opinion, will DEFINITELY switch:
5. CO (With the Salazar bros victory in 04, could mark the start of the shift of CO to a blue state)
4. AR
3. MA (doesn't matter who wins the Dem primary)
2. OH
1. NY

Posted by: Greg-G | August 25, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Here's more run up to the next war. It's just like deja vu, ain't it?

>>CHRIS MATTHEWS: Maybe this is moot. But you know I keep hearing from people on the right -- Robert Kagen and Bill Kristol, the guys who are the most hawkish and the most articulate in making their case and they may be right -- that at the end of this administration, this hawkish administration -- that was willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan -- if this president is not willing to knock out those facilities no future president is likely to do it. We'll be stuck with a nuclear armed Iran which can rant and rave around that region, threatening Israel, Saudi and everybody else. And we'll be stuck with it. So their argument is try the diplomatic route, try everything but in the end we have to hit 'em.

Don't you love that WE have to attack Iran [and suffer the blowback from that] to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, for chrissake? Hello? Anyone remember that this is the state that sponsored the 9/11 terrorists? Those people were nearly all Saudis. What kind of bizarro world nonsense is this?

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Tina,
Did Condi's speech include talk about aluminum tubes? Or about how she threw Tenet under the bus on the 16 words? Or did she scare the delegation with talk of mushroom clouds? Maybe she mentioned the historical nature of the August '01 PDB?

I love when Republicans bring up Condi for '08. It cofirms my belief that the GOP is delusional. Not only is it risible that certain people believe their party - the party of Trent Lott and David Duke - would nominate a black woman, but that they believe the worst NSA in our country's history (read Suskind's "1% Doctrine" for insider details on the complete lack of focus and policy in the NSA under Rice), and a true-believer in the moribund neocon movement, is somehow presidential material.

Posted by: Settembrini | August 25, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes--you sound like a genuinely nice guy, so I don't know why you're a republican. Your party has changed into something truly awful, power-hungry and violent and malicious and contemptous of democracy.

And I do not have a great love for democratic politicians either, I'm not naive, but I think at this point in time they are cleaner and clearer thinking. I can't help but take debating politics seriously--I have a kid, I want her to have a future. When a political party starts agitating to ignite WW3 just to win an election, it's time for people to get angry.

Dr. Strangelove is only funny if you're not living it.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I treat Tina and Che the same way the same way the Bush Administration treats the facts. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

Posted by: Andy R | August 25, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: Dr. Strangelove with Peter Sellers is one of the funniest movies you will watch, it is only not funny if you make it personal as with a person who lost a loved one in a war. I have a 14 year old dog and three cats, two being I rescued as strays. I would have more dogs but my wife will not let me. Hate to break your stereotype but I do not hunt(nor own any guns) or fish and have been a vegetarian for about 10 years. I mean how could anybody eat a pig, they are such lovable creatures. I also like just everybody I meet and believe humans have far more angels in them than devils. I love debating politics but I never take it personal and neither should you or anybody else on this blog.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Omigod tina you are such a bore.

Posted by: drindl | August 25, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, there are lots of Republican voters who care about the 2008 race. I made my statement since a few comments were already being made about Spitzer and Obama having a possible future for 2008.

In all fairness, the topic was opened by those Democrats.

With Condi in poll after poll as ranking in the top tier of candidates is a HUGE STORY.

DICK MORRIS WAS ON FOX NEWS, and his book "CONDI VS HILLARY" was a best seller. Morris said AGAIN, that IF Condi runs, she could defeat Hillary.

Condi will have a strong chance of winning delegates in primary states.

WE ALL KNOW THE POLITITAL DAM BURSTS after the November election. So let's just be realistic. There are about 20 websites and a few political action groups promoting Condi for president. And that is just a fact regardless of what the MEDIA refuses to report to you.

Yes, there are people who care and they are speaking up in polls and in discussion groups on websites. AGAIN, that is just a simple fact. The 2008 subject came up and I voiced my opinion. That is political free speech.

Posted by: Tina | August 25, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

uh oh! Another conservative on line,, this may be Black Friday for all of the liberal kooks who access this blog. Hey Drindl, GOOD NEWS, Israel has purchased two new submarines capable of launching nukes. They also said they were willing to go it alone. With a little of prodding by us neocons, Israel will nuke Iran before the year is out and we will not have to worry about getting our hands dirty. Life is good.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Brad,
I agree that Gabrieli is not the strongest candidate for the democrat. The reasoning behind his apparent strength is his financial standing. Healey and her husband are extremely wealthy and are waiting to throw cash in the election. So a good amount of folks think that the Democratic nominee will need to be able to counter. The thing is that Deval Patrick has been hoarding money and has great connections with the fundraising power of the Clintons. Not to mention in the debates I have seen Patrick comes off as being the most sencere and intelligent of the group.
As I said earlier Patrick's campaign will start running ads soon and that should push them over the top in September, and carry them to victory in November.

Posted by: Andy R | August 25, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

War is not very funny, bhoomes. Do you love humans, as well as animals? I do. Ad yes, I have cats and a dog, and I also love the wild turkeys and skunks and possums and coyotes and such that occasionally wander through. And trout. I don't even need to catch them, just stand in the river and watch. Nice world we've got here. Too bad if something awful happened to it...

And Jep, you sound like a hell of a guy.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

The concept that Gabrielli is the strongest Democratic candidate is the logic that has managed to lose Massachusetts Democrats the governorship year after year after year. He's uncharismatic and tacks agressively to an unclear selfish "center" that's to the right of and disconnected from most Massachusetts voters.

Furthermore, his campaign is being fueled by a) his own money and b) the corrupt Democratic insiders who first propped up Tom Reilly and now are in the process of stabbing him in the back.

The corrupt Democratic machine may yet again push through a mediocre candidate based on the "electability" fraud but will yet again lose in November by alienating the Democratic base and yet not having anything convincing to offer the Massachusetts unenrolled vote who seek someone who will stand up against the corruption in the Democratic legislature.

Posted by: Brad Johnson | August 25, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I have a solution to the Diebold problem. Why doesn't George Soras buy it? The mans a billionare, I am sure he can afford it.

Also the race in Colorado is very encouraging. It seems more and more that the rocky mountain state is turning blue. Now if we could only vote that a$$ Toncrado out of office..

Posted by: Andy R | August 25, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, you guys make my life rich with satisfaction. Of course I was only joking about Blackwell but I knew it would play right into your left wing paranoia. I believe mental health coverage ought to be included in any health insurance plan, because there are a lot of lefties in need of therapy. or least a sense of humor. Drindl I only asked you about pets because I love animals and thought maybe we had that in common. Should have known you would have been to paranoid to respond.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Bob Ehrlich is toast. You know it, I know it, Robert Leroy Ehrlich,Jr. knows it.

Posted by: MD4BUSH | August 25, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

You are quite right, Drindl, I think it was Garrison Keilor who said "The Republicans made their peace with hypocrisy long ago."

I was raised a Republican, back before the "no-bid party" days, when they were considered fiscal conservatives.

I have never liked "bullies," when I get in a room full of them, it makes me nervous.

Before I was even old enough to vote, I had decided there were just too many bullies in the Republican party, and I became a proud Democrat, voting my first time for George McGovern.

So what happened to the party of fiscal conservatism?

That Grand Old Party is gone now, hostage to a war-for-profit corporate beast with an insatiable hunger for bloody fortune. It has turned from the party of Lincoln into the party of hypocrisy.

Their defense and outright support for people like Ken Blackwell surely proves they only believe in the democratic process when they are giving their speeches.

As soon as the microphone is turned off, they go right back to their neocon roots, and laugh at the gullibility of their constituents.

JEP

Posted by: John Patterson | August 25, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Myself, having not paid much attention to the Md. race, find the pardons by Erlich to be a real issue, when one figures the toss away the key attitude for the past number of years. How this wii play is quite open, depending on turnout. In other parts of the country it would have the exact opposite effect, good or bad, depending on where you are living. Just a thought.

Posted by: lylepink | August 25, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The Michigan Democratic Convention live webcast will kick off tomorrow (sat.) at noon. Granholm will speek around 12:30.

Get the webcast here: http://www.granholmforgov.com/site/PageNavigator/convention

Posted by: MichRulz | August 25, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are proud of their shameless hypocrisy, JEP. Also their belligerence and mindless violence.

As far as the election is concerned, there's only one issue, if you read the right wing press [which of course, is most of the press]. And that is Iran. the conservative pundits can't talk about anything except how afraid we must be of Iran:

'Realistically speaking, the point of this multilateral exercise cannot be to stop Iran's nuclear program by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military means. There would be terrible consequences from an attack. These must be weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership to acquire weapons of genocide.'

--The Odious Krauthhammer in today's WaPo. Of course, there will be terrible consequences. But probably not to him personally, so hey -- no problem.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

By the way, bhoomes and every other Blackwell defender out there, do you really believe in democracy?

If it were a proven fact that Blackwell fixed some votes, would you be as outraged as you were with Monica?

HYPOCRITES!

It isn't your ignorance that will condemn you, it is your selective indignation.

A Democrat gets impeached for personal indescretions having nothing to do with the democratic process, or the integrity of our voting system, while election sabateurs like Blackwell get patted on the back for cheating, and especailly for getting away with it.

And publicly, instead of admitting you are proud of Blackwell for his secrets and lies, (like you do when you are alone with your pals in a macaca-free room), you pretend it didn't really happen, even though you are proud of that fact that it did happen.

It won't be the public that brings down the Republican party, it will be their own sheer and shameless hypocrisy.

JEP

Posted by: John Patterson | August 25, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, Did you really mean.... "Blackwell informed all of us Republicans he could deliver Ohio no matter how the vote ended up.." ?

The votes didn't matter..... with dirty tricks and Diebold he would succeed? Astounding that you feel this is to be "lucky" for Ohio or the country.

Iowa.... gov race so far a ho-hum affair here. The campaigns evidently aren't spending yet. I do hope to see bag man Nussle.... his Macaca moment.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 25, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

'But lucky for us, Blackwell informed all of us republicans he could deliver Ohio no matter how the vote ended up'

Just like the CEO of Diebold promised bush he could deliver the eletion for him -- and he did!

So if I were in Ohio, I would be rather curious who was counting the votes. Blackwell is quite capable of tampering, and everyone knows it.

Posted by: Drindl | August 25, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

In the wake of the 2004 Ohio presidential election debacle, I coined a new term for everyone to ponder, feel free to use it profusely;

"Blackwellian"

...meaning; "the willingness of any democratically elected official to do whatever is necessary to assure their own party remains in power, even if it is illegal."

I find it very interesting that Ohio and national Republicans, particularly provocateurs like bhoomes, don't ever let the Ohio election-fraud facts enter into their wounded psyche's, let alone into their dialogue and their arguements.

But if Ohioans were so foolish as to elect Blackwell as governor,(which, apparently by at least 20 points, they are not) they may well see him serve a truncated term, boosted from office quite prematurely, when those future grand juries are ever empaneled to pick apart the 2004 shenanigans that we all know Blackwell managed, literally.

More than every other factor, Republicans of Blackwell's stripe fear a Democratic majority in the House because that would empower them to demand an investigation into all the secrets and lies generated by Blackwell and his desperate election trolls.

No more secrets, no more lies...

Isn't it about time for the whole truth?

Seriously, does even one of this blog's "gentle readers," (Chris, I wish that were true across the board, but we all know the word "gentle" does not really apply to war and torture, or to those who defend it with such fervor) Republican or Democrat, doubt that the bleach of public scrutiny would put Blackwell and some of his Republican-at-any-cost cohorts, not in public office, but behind bars?

Many good men and women have gone to prison for much less than stealing elections and trashing the very meaning of Democracy with their "power at any cost" corruption.

JEP

Posted by: John Patterson | August 25, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

So what are you trying to imply Bhoomes, that honest Ken Blackwell would somehow steal the election? That Blackwell would use his position as Sec. of State to fix the election? Blackwell is a fraud so I wouldn't put it past him...it is pretty sad that you would imply that a candidate, whether a Dem or Repub, would use their position to fix an election. That is why Ohio needs change - especially at the top of the State.

Posted by: Lenny | August 25, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

After the fact Andy, your liberal mainstream commentators had Kerry winning even on election day. I thought poor Dan Rather might start crying before the night was over. But lucky for us, Blackwell informed all of us republicans he could deliver Ohio no matter how the vote ended up. Another reason you should not count out Blackwell, he is Secretary of the State afterall.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Conventional wisdom would seem to point to a highly competitive race in Alaska. As you point out, Knowles was governor for two terms and, yes, Palin's experience is limited to having been mayor of Wasilla (a small but rapidly growing city outside of Anchorage). However, I don't believe Alaska should be so highly ranked on your list. First of all, it should be noted that Knowles benefited in 1994 from a strong third party candidate that siphoned votes from the Republican. He managed to win by 534 votes and only then pulled off a plurality. As an incumbent in 1998, he managed to eke out a 51% victory. And let's not forget the last race Knowles ran against Senator Lisa Murkowski. Her appointment by her father, the current governor who just got drubbed in the primary, was widely panned in the state and on the same ballot as that senate race was a measure to prevent such appointments in the future in an early rebuke to the governor. Lisa Murkowski nonetheless pulled off a victory, winning a majority of votes.
Despite Palin's inexperience in higher office, only the state's tiny fraction of registered Democrats are excited about the Knowles campaign. The large percentage of registered Republicans and even larger portion of independents and undeclared voters are rallying around the antiestablishment Palin to fix the problems of the current Republican administration.
While on paper, this election seems competitive, on the frozen ground of Alaska it's in the bag for Palin.
Andrew, Fairbanks, AK

Posted by: Andrew Q. | August 25, 2006 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Lay off of Bhoomes, he's actually not espousing inflammatory rhetoric or right-wing talking points. I happen to think blackwell will lose (and positively giddy at the thought), but he is right ni that it is far from a done deal. Democratic complacency is one of our chief failures.

Posted by: will | August 25, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

WHY are New York and Ohio even ON this list and Nevada, which has a very competitive governor's race, is not?

Posted by: Susan Nunes | August 25, 2006 10:42 AM | Report abuse

The ROthenberg Report has their governors ratings online now too:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/2006-governors-ratings.html

Posted by: John Nutting | August 25, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Heads up to anyone with a computer... the Michigan Dem convon is going to be on a webcast starting tomorrow at noon:

http://www.granholmforgov.com/site/PageNavigator/convention

Should be pretty interesting.

Go Granholm!

Posted by: TGG | August 25, 2006 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Colin to some degree politics is about the intuitive. But yes there is some basis. Republican control the statehouse and major offices for a reason. We are well organized with a Get out the Vote machine that would make your eyes water. Blackwell is running against the wind right now and probably will lose. I am just saying it will be much closer than you think with the possibility of Blackwell pulling it out if Strickland should stumble any.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes,
Half the country predicted Bush winning. That's why he won.
The fact is that Blackwell is down by double digits period, is behind in fundraising, and has strong wind in his face nationally. It will be closer then 20 points but more then 10.

Also Rhode Island might make a move up or down depending what happens with Chafee. If he loses the primary then the Democrats will be energized to take the seat in RI. That might be enough to push Fogarty into the Big house in Providence.

Posted by: Andy R | August 25, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Nussle and the Paper Bag: Best idea is to use it in a commercial.

Show Nussle with bag over his head and ask "Who ..." to any of the many things that Nussle did (e.g. derided house members for bouncing checks, but allows the House to bounce checks as the chairman of the budget committee?). Then show him taking the bag off and say "That's right, Jim Nussle."

His hypocrisy is astounding and should not play well in the Hawkeye State.

Posted by: iowaluck | August 25, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Minnesota is worth watching.

Hatch is tough and combative and will give Pawlenty a real hard time. I think this is a toss-up. Klobuchar will win the Senate seat easily for the Dem's and there are 3 R congressional seats that are in trouble here. Maybe the Post should take a look here in fly-over land, as this could be a very interesting election here in the North Star state.

Posted by: true believer | August 25, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes - most ohioans know that Blackwell is "scary". Most ohioans know that they would NEVER vote for Blackwell. The key word being "most", in other words, a MAJORITY.

Blackwell can go negative if he desires and he probably will but, 20% is too much to make up, especially this year with Bob Taft as the Republican "leader" of Ohio. What a joke.

Strickland by at least 10% in November and then Blackwell sails off to D.C. to work with his incompetent pal Dubya.

Posted by: lenny | August 25, 2006 10:16 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- Seriously, what is your basis for thinking that OH will be close? I have not seens a SINGLE poll showing Strickland with anything less than a double digit lead. The state GOP is in a shambles. Moreover, Strickland actually has MORE money than Blackwell which he can use to answer any negative attack ads.

Although you and I obviously disagree on substance, I am somewhat shocked that you would argue that this race is objectively close. Every single objective indicator points towards a substantial Strickland victory. I'd be interested to hear why you feel differently about the race - do you have any objective evidence for such optimism?

Posted by: Colin | August 25, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Tina-- NOBODY CARES!

Posted by: JD | August 25, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Well as my democratic coworkers will vouch, I had Max Cleland losing months before anybody knew he was in trouble. I also correctly called the 04 race. (Bush won)I believe you are banking to much on one poll. But my forecast depends on Blackwell going negative in a smart way. There is an art to going negative, it has to be about something that voters already have some concerns about, If you just start throwing a bunch of mud, it will backfire on you. Seeing that we republicans have done most of the winning, I believe it is you Sandwich man who doing all of the blathering. You need to win some races before I take you seriously.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Lots of 2008 talk in here today. On the Republican side, I think a Pawlenty VP would be good for President Condi. Or VP RUDY Guiliani, or maybe he would become the next Supreme Court judge or even Attorney General in the Condi Administration.

Did you all hear Condi will be speaking at the American Legion Convention in Utah on August 31? If you saw her on stage at the Southern Baptist Convention, you would understand why Chris Matthews was impressed with her speech and the power of her voice. Not screeching or whining or bit**ing like someone else I can think of, but just inspirational to over 20,000 people at the North Carolina event.

Andrea Mitchell played a tape of Condi's speech and Matthews remarked about her passion with the spoken word.

Posted by: Tina | August 25, 2006 10:01 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, I don't know or care about your supposed past track record (which you made zero effort to substantiate). Nor have you offered a single piece of evidence or a credible argument for why Blackwell will win or Strickland will only win narrowly. I repeat: are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, or not? If not, we know that you are merely blathering without knowing what you are talking about and are not willing to demonstrate the courage of your supposed conviction. You have also failed to cite a single Governor's race, other than NY, where the incumbent party's nominee is behind the challenger by 20+ points.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with RJM. Minnesota should be ranked above IL, CA, and FL. Dems are likely to keep the Senate seat and better than 50-50 to take one GOP Congressional seat. They are also better than even odds to take over the State House. Pawlenty may escape the Dem wave because the MN Dems don't seem to know how to elect governors.

Posted by: MN Ind | August 25, 2006 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Lenny you have already made of your mind who you will vote for, but a lot of Ohioans have not. Campaigns count. If Blackwell runs a good race, this will be close. Strickland has know place to go but down. Don't let the chickens out of the coop just yet.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Maine should not be on this list. In the current political climate the Dems will keep the seat easily. I also think that pretty much 9-15 aren't switching with the exception of Florida.
Katherine Harris is going to be a tremendous Drag on the GOP ticket in FL. The base can't stand her and the indy's and Dems hate her even more.
Alaska, I just don't know if Knowles can make up the ground in such a red state.

Massachusetts' race is going to be done on Sept. 15th when the democrats pick their nominee. There is NO WAY that Healey wins this one. She was elected Lt. Gov because Mitt Romney forced it down the GOPs throat, and Mitt Romney is not well liked here (when he is here) even with his recent oversight of the Big Dig tunnel collapse. The Democrats are keeping it civil and all three lead Healey in the polls. Also Chris Mihos (I) will take about 15% or so that might have gone to Healey. On the democratic primary, Gabrielli, and Reilly have been running commercials for the past two months now. Look for Deval Patrick to start a blitz right before the primary to push him over the top. Also the poll that you mention is of registered voters. If you look at the likely voters then Patrick and Gabreilli are in a statistical dead heat.

Also bhoomes, Blackwell doesn't have a chance. 20% in this environment is too much, even with negative advertising.

Posted by: Andy R | August 25, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, wrong again. I am not partisan. I vote for both parties but, let's face the facts, Blackwell is a right wing extremist. He is out of touch with most Ohioans, except for the religous right. He may close the gap but, he still loses by at least 10 points in Nov..similar to how he beat Petro in May ( Petro would have been a better candidate for Gov. race). One last thing, don't kid yourself, YOU WILL VOTE FOR BLACKWELL!.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 25, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I was astonished that the Minnesota guv's race was *not* covered among the top 15. Tim Pawrenty was once talked about as a potential VP candidate, and now DFL nominee atty general Mike Hatch is even in the Star Tribune poll with him. Pawenty oversaw two zero-accomplishment legislative sessions because of party gridlock, Hatch has gotten traction with agreesive health care prosecution. Closer perhaps than this looks to you.

Posted by: Rohn Jay Miller | August 25, 2006 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I am only looking at this race objectively, applying politics as I know them. I haven't decided who I will vote for yet, I may end of voting for Strickland. Lenny you appear to be looking at this from totally partisan lenses which means you stand a good chance of getting it wrong.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

As nice as it would be for Dems to get a majority of the governor houses this year, what's more important is keeping them 4 years from now. That way they can fix some of the blatant gerrymandering that has occurred over the last 15-20 years.

Posted by: Zathras | August 25, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes you and your right wing wacko friends will get trounced here in Ohio in November. Most moderate Republicans and Independents are flocking to Strickland because they are "scared" of Blackwell. The Republican State Rep candidate in my district told me yesterday that he is voting for Strickland. Ohio may not know Strickland that well but Ohio certainly knows Blackwell. Ohio knows Blackwell is a fraud and an extremist. Chris has it right, Ohio should only be behind NY on his list. Keep dreaming Bhoomes bc Blackwell is done, cooked, whatever you want to call it.....its's OVER!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: lenny | August 25, 2006 9:20 AM | Report abuse

We will see, I have a good track record of getting more right than wrong. That is one poll, others have the race between 8-11 points. About where Dukasis was before Bush blew him out by going negative. I am not sure Blachwell will win, just that it will be close when the results come in. I don't gamble, but I will be here after election day. Then you will be luckly I don't gamble because you would have lost.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Z: I read down the line to mean in the future. Thus 08.

Posted by: lylepink | August 25, 2006 8:25 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you are in la-la-land if you think the Ohio Governor's race will even be close. Care to put your money where your mouth is? I defy you to find another Governor's race, other than NY, where the incumbent party's nominee is 20 points behind.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I am starting to see Elliot Spitzer, Cory Booker, and Barack Obama as young, rising star rays of hope in the Democratic Party. I would be thrilled to see Spitzer considered for national office.

I note that the top 4 seats on this list are now held by Republicans, and in total the list includes 5 Democrats and 10 Republicans. If all 15 of these Governorships switched parties, that would mean a net gain of 5 seats for Democrats--enough to give us a majority of them.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 8:04 AM | Report abuse

lylepink,
Spitzer was not mentioned as a presidential candidate for '08, but just somewhere down the line. 2012 or 2016 could see an interesting primary race between Spitzer and Obama.

Posted by: Zathras | August 25, 2006 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Here's Charlie Cook's latest update from Wednesday: http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_gov_ratings_aug23.pdf

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 25, 2006 7:55 AM | Report abuse

I believe you have Ohio ranked way to high, granted Strickland has the lead and I would give him the edge to win this fall,but its far from a done deal. The best thing Strickland has going for him is that no one really knows him that well. Politics being what it is, Blackwell will go very negative on Strickland, driving down his numbers and putting him within reach of pulling this one out. This will be close, with the winner with a small margin of victory. (2-4%points)

Posted by: bhoomes | August 25, 2006 7:19 AM | Report abuse

CC: I pretty much agree you except Iowa and NY. Iowa--Nussle will fail if and when Culver brings up the [head in bag] thing, I cannot remember seeing or hearing anything about that little stunt for a long time. NY--Spitzer should win easily, the only thing is your thought about him being a POTUS wanna-be in 08. I cannot see this happening for the Clinton/Warner ticket seems to be growing, based on folks I've talked with for the past several months.

Posted by: lylepink | August 25, 2006 7:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company