Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races
Keeping a close eye on developments in the 2008 U.S. Senate races
Expand the Map!
via ActBlue Election Day 2008 Countdown
via ActBlue Election Day 2008 Countdown
Recent Posts
- Rumors in Oregon and Texas
- Hints at Craig and Hagel Retirements
- GOP Senators Back Bush Over Their Own Constituents
- Thursday Evening Roundup
- A Timeline, a Rundown, and a Porn Star
- Guru's Graph of the Day and Other Bites
- Midnight Miscellany
- Preparing for... Something
- Tongue Tied
- Late Night News
Democratic Party Links
- Democratic National Committee
- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Democratic Senatorial Incumbents and Candidates
- Alabama:
State Senator Vivian Figures - Alaska:
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (considering) - Arkansas:
Senator Mark Pryor - Colorado:
Congressman Mark Udall - Delaware:
Senator Joe Biden - Georgia:
Veteran & former Senate aide Josh Lanier
Ecologist Dr. Rand Knight
Journalist Dale Cardwell
Former State Rep. Maggie Martinez - Idaho:
Former Congressman Larry LaRocco - Illinois:
Senator Richard Durbin - Iowa:
Senator Tom Harkin - Kansas:
Former Senate nominee Lee Jones - Kentucky:
Businessman Greg Fischer
Former state Commerce Secretary Bruce Lunsford
Dr. Michael Cassaro - Louisiana:
Senator Mary Landrieu - Maine:
Congressman Tom Allen - Massachusetts:
Senator John Kerry - Michigan:
Senator Carl Levin - Minnesota:
Commentator Al Franken
Attorney Mike Ciresi
Professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer
Former Minneapolis Alderman Dick Franson - Mississippi-A:
Former State Representative Erik Fleming
Perennial candidate Shawn O'Hara - Mississippi-B:
Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove - Montana:
Senator Max Baucus - Nebraska:
Businessman Tony Raimondo
Veteran Larry Marvin
2006 Congressional Nominee Scott Kleeb (considering) - New Hampshire:
Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen - New Jersey:
Senator Frank Lautenberg - New Mexico:
Congressman Tom Udall - North Carolina:
State Senator Kay Hagan
Businessman Jim Neal
Veteran John Ross Hendrix
Businessman Duskin Lassiter
State Board of Education Chair Howard Lee (considering) - Oklahoma:
State Senator Andrew Rice - Oregon:
House Speaker Jeff Merkley
Activist Steve Novick
Real estate broker Candy Neville - Rhode Island:
Senator Jack Reed - South Carolina:
Attorney Michael Cone
Attorney Tom Turnipseed (considering) - South Dakota:
Senator Tim Johnson - Tennessee:
Businessman Kenneth Eaton
Former Knox County Clerk Mike Padgett
Activist Chris Lugo
Former TN-Dems Chair Bob Tuke (considering) - Texas:
State Representative Rick Noriega - Virginia:
Former Governor Mark Warner - West Virginia:
Senator Jay Rockefeller - Wyoming-A: unknown
- Wyoming-B:
Attorney Nick Carter (considering)
Republican Incumbent Primary Challengers
- Alaska:
Businessman David Cuddy
Former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman (considering)
Former state Senate President Mike Miller (considering) - Idaho:
Rancher Rex Rammell
Iraq veteran Scott Syme
Former Caldwell City Councilman Kent Marmon
Businessman Richard Phenneger
Machinist Brian Hefner
Attorney Fred Adams
Former Boise Mayoral candidate Harley Brown
Neal Thompson
Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez (ceased campaign) - Kentucky:
Daniel Essek
1995 GOP Gubernatorial Nominee Larry Forgy (draft effort) - Minnesota:
Former Senator Rod Grams (considering) - Oregon:
1998 GOP Gubernatorial Nominee Bill Sizemore (considering) - South Carolina:
Former Myrtle Beach Mayor Mark McBride
RNC Member Buddy Witherspoon
Air Force veteran John Cina
Computer specialist Tim Carnes
Former Rep. Tommy Hartnett (considering)
State Representative Jeff Duncan (considering) - Texas:
2006 Gubernatorial candidate Larry Kilgore - Wyoming (Barrasso):
Former U.S. Attorney Matt Mead (considering)
Retirements, Resignations, and Passings
- Wayne Allard (R-CO): Announced retirement, 1/15/07
- Craig Thomas (R-WY): Passed away, 6/4/07
- John Warner (R-VA): Announced retirement, 8/31/07
- Chuck Hagel (R-NE): Announced retirement, 9/10/07
- Larry Craig (R-ID): Announced retirement (we think), 10/4/07
- Pete Domenici (R-NM): Announced retirement, 10/4/07
- Trent Lott (R-MS): Announced impending resignation, 11/26/07
Links
- Roadblock Republicans
- DSCC's YouTube Page
- Rothenberg Political Report 2008 Senate Ratings (2/22/08)
- Cook Political Report Senate Race Ratings - PDF (1/17/08)
- CQPolitics Balance of Power Scorecard (8/15/07)
- Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball: Senate '08 Update (7/19/07)
- National Journal 2008 Senate Race Rankings (2/12/07)
- Survey USA Senator Approval Ratings (11/22/06)
- 2008 Senate Race Tracker Wiki
- 2008 Senate Elections Wikipedia Page
- U.S. Senate Seat-Holders Chart, 1978-present
- Pollster.com
- Project Vote Smart
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Senator Chuck Schumer's Positively American
- Americans United for Change
- Empowering Veterans
- Vote Vets
- The Hill
National Blog Roll
- All Spin Zone
- All Things Democrat
- AmericaBlog
- Atrios
- Blue Sunbelt
- Bob Geiger
- Booman Tribune
- Campaign Diaries
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Cliff Schecter
- CQPolitics
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- Daily Left
- The Democratic Daily
- Digby
- Election Day 2008
- An Enduring Democratic Majority
- Firedoglake
- The Fix (Washington Post)
- From the Roots (DSCC Blog)
- The Gavel (Speaker Pelosi)
- The Group News Blog
- Gun Toting Liberal
- Hotline Blogometer
- Hotline On Call
- The Huffington Post
- Kicking Ass (DNC Blog)
- Left in the West
- Liberal Values
- MaxSpeak
- MyDD
- The Next Hurrah
- NJDC Blog
- Open Left
- Political Wire
- Politics1
- Progressive Blog Digest
- Rising Hegemon
- Rocky Mountain Report
- The Rothenberg Political Report
- Scholars & Rogues
- The Stakeholder (DCCC Blog)
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Think Progress
- VetVoice
- Wonkette
State Blog Roll
- 43rd State Blues (ID)
- Alaska Pride (AK)
- Badlands Blue (SD)
- Birmingham Blues (AL)
- Bleeding Heartland (IA)
- Bluegrass Report (KY)
- BlueGrass Roots (KY)
- Blue Hampshire (NH)
- Blue Jersey (NJ)
- Blue Mass Group (MA)
- Blue NC (NC)
- Blue Oklahoma (OK)
- Blue Oregon (OR)
- Blue Tide Rising (KS)
- The Bridge (KY)
- Burnt Orange Report (TX)
- Capitol Annex (TX)
- Colorado Confidential (CO)
- Colorado Pols (CO)
- Cotton Mouth (MS)
- Daily Delaware (DE)
- Daily Kingfish (LA)
- Democracy for New Mexico (NM)
- Doc's Political Parlor (AL)
- Heath Haussamen (NM)
- Iowa Progress (IA)
- Joe Monahan (NM)
- KnoxViews (TN)
- Left in Alabama (AL)
- Loaded Orygun (OR)
- Michigan Liberal (MI)
- Minnesota Campaign Report (MN)
- MN Blue (MN)
- MN Publius (MN)
- The MountainGoat Report (ID)
- New Mexico FBIHOP (NM)
- New Nebraska Network (NE)
- North Texas Liberal (TX)
- Not Larry Sabato (VA)
- Prarie State Blue (IL)
- Public Policy Polling (NC)
- Raising Kaine (VA)
- Red State Rebels (ID)
- Rhode Island's Future (RI)
- South Dakota Progressive (SD)
- Square State (CO)
- TennViews (TN)
- Texas Kaos (TX)
- Tondee's Tavern (GA)
- Turn Maine Blue (ME)
- UNO Dems (NE)
- West Virginia Blue (WV)
- Witigonen (OR)
Candidate-Specific Blogs & Sites
Cheering Them On- Blue Sparks in Alabama (AL)
- Draft Horne (1) (KY)
- Draft Horne (2) (KY)
- Draft Brad Miller (NC)
- Draft Crit (KY)
- Draft DeFazio (OR)
- Draft Governor Henry (OK)
- Draft Owen (KY)
- Draft Rick Noriega (TX)
- Draft Scott Kleeb (NE)
- Draft Shaheen (NH)
- Draft Tom Udall (NM)
- NoriegaBlog (Unofficial) (TX)
- Run Andrew Run (OK)
- Stumbo 4 Senate (Unofficial) (KY)
- Tom Allen for Senate (Unofficial) (ME)
- We Want Mike Moore (MS)
- We Want Wyc (GA)
- Bob Schaffer on the Issues (CO)
- Collins Watch (ME)
- Defeat Lindsey Graham (SC)
- Ditch Mitch KY (KY)
- Dump Lindsey.org (SC)
- Dump Lindsey Graham (SC)
- No Hagel (NE)
- Norm Coleman Weasel Meter (MN)
- The Real Wicker (MS)
- Retire Ted (AK)
- Sack Sessions (AL)
- Shifty Schaffer (CO)
- Stop Cornyn (TX)
- Stop Gordon Smith (OR)
- Stop Sununu (NH)
- Sununu Hampshire (NH)
- Toast Graham! (SC)
- Tom Davis Truth (VA)
- What's McConnell Hiding? (KY)
Note: This is a privately run blog, not connected to any political campaign, candidate, committee or organization.
Contact the Senate 2008 Guru at senate2008guru at yahoo dot com.
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."
-Native American proverb
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
The National Debt: |
YouTube Video Library
Republican Scandals of 2007
On Republican Obstructionism-
NE-Sen: Mike Johanns is a Quitter
MT-Sen: Mike Lange's Obscene Tirade
KY-Sen: DSCC on Mitch McConnell and Iraq
ME-Sen: Americans United for Change on Susan Collins and Iraq
NH-Sen: Americans United for Change on John Sununu and Iraq
MN-Sen: The Difference Between Norm Coleman & Al Franken
VA-Sen: Mark Warner Announces
The Hall of Fame YouTube Political Video: George Allen and "Macaca"
Sunday, March 11, 2007
15 Comments:
Does your analysis that Landrieu is in a solid position take into account the latest polling:
http://www.redstatenetwork.com/stories/elections/2008/la_sen_new_poll_shows_landrieu_d_would_be_destroyed_by_jindal_r
Under 40% against Jindal. Only 51% say re-elect. Loses to Baker and Boustany in media markets where they have comparable name ID.
The phrase "whistling past the graveyard" comes to mind.
Of course I'm never thrilled to see a poll with Landrieu down on anyone, but:
A) Jindal ain't running for Senate - he's running for Gov (would you call that a "recruitment failure" of the NRSC's?)
B) Perhaps most importantly, the poll lists several caveats:
QUOTE
Note 1) this is a partisan poll and 2) they did not release the head-to-head numbers except for Jindal. The first means it is all tilted a bit toward the Rs, but it seems that Jindal would be ahead regardless. Of course, Jindal is not running for SEN because he will be GOV Jindal by then which is his life dream so don't waste your time pining for him to run for SEN.
UNQUOTE
C) If Landrieu is in trouble when "only 51% say re-elect" then what is Liddy Dole's situation when only 35% say re-elect for her? Whistling past the graveyard?
D) Against SoS Dardenne, an actual possible GOP candidate for Senate, Landrieu is starting off up 53-38, so, on its face, not awful for the most vulnerable Democrat.
Feel free to dismiss any of the several above facts as just "spin."
You can't talk about LA before the 07 elections. If Jindel comes in and he does a good job, he is going to make an argument that he needs a solid republican team to work with, and it might swing the election to the republicans.
A) No, I wouldn't call it a recruitment failure, because there are still three top-tier candidates in Louisiana, in Dardenne, Baker, and Kennedy. And Jindal is a possibility if he doesn't win in 2007.
B) The NRSC didn't release the head-to-heads, but it did note that Baker and Boustany had higher numbers than her where their name IDs were comperable. As I argued with Dardenne, when you have an incumbent Senator with near 100% name ID and you have a relatively unknown statewide official or a Congressman, the incumbent will always be up in early polling, because people will go with what they know. All it really means is that, in order to win, people have to know who they are, a feat accomplished by running in a statewide campaign.
C) I'm not whistling past the graveyard with Dole, because I never argued that she wasn't in danger. You've gone out of your way, twice, you say that Landrieu isn't in as much trouble as she seems. And anyways, what the hell does Liddy Dole have to do with Mary Landrieu? Changing the subject won't change poll numbers.
D) You're exactly right on this point: on its face things seem to be going alright. That is to say, if you look at nothing but the numbers with no amount of analytical insight or desire to go deeper, you can paint a rosy picture.
So what's the bottom line? Against Jindal, Landrieu starts off 15 points down. Against Baker or Boustany, if they launched a statewide campaign and increased their name ID, Landrieu is down. Against Dardenne, once he has a chance to introduce himself to the voters, the numbers are about even. And only half the state, when not given an alternative, says to re-elect her. I would say that her moniker of "most vulnerable Democrat" is well-earned.
va blogger - there you go making stuff up again - you said: "Against Baker or Boustany, if they launched a statewide campaign and increased their name ID, Landrieu is down." No. That is false. That is based on zero public facts. A) Numbers weren't released and B) they haven't launched a statewide campaign - so you're completely making stuff up, and making stuff up about unreleased numbers at that. Just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so.
And I NEVER disagreed with: "I would say that her moniker of "most vulnerable Democrat" is well-earned." I myself said she's the most vulnerable Democrat - the implication being A) the incumbent Democrats in '08 are, overall, quite safe, if somebody with 51% re-elect is the weakest - and B) I compare it with Liddy Dole's 35% re-elect to demonstrate that the Dems #1 most vulnerable is STILL safer than the GOP's arguably 7th or 8th most vulnerable seat - to put it in perspective between the parties and their relative vulnerabilities.
A) I'm not making anything up. The memo that was released with the poll said that Baker and Boustany beat Landrieu in media markets where they have comperable name ID. If you think that's false, take it up with the people who conducted or released the poll, but don't call me a liar because I'm relaying public news. If you want to question the credibility of a poll because you don't like what it said, you go ahead. You've already questioned the political analysis of The Politico for the same reason. There's nothing to stop you from sticking your head in the sand yet again.
B) The fundamental difference between Landrieu's poll and Dole's poll is the options presented. Louisiana respondents were given two choices: Re-elect, or vote for someone new. Without even being presented with an option of who that new person is, 49% selected it. That means 49% of the state would rather see most people over Landrieu.
In contrast, North Carolina respondents were given three choices: Re-elect, vote to replace, or consider someone new. While you can compare here solid re-elect (35%) to Landrieu's, you can also compare her solid "vote to replace" (only 23%) to Landrieu's 49%, twice the percentage. So there are two ways to look at it: twice as many people in Lousiana want to replace their Senator than in North Carolina, or the polls are fundamentally too different to compare. The latter has the ring of truth to it, but I wouldn't expect you to be able of competent polling analysis.
va blogger - you are lying. You said that the poll said that "Baker and Boustany beat Landrieu in media markets where they have comperable name ID." That's NOT what the poll says - the poll says that the Congressmen beat Landrieu in "his respective media market(s)" - i.e. they beat Landrieu in their specific home districts! Not in several media markets but in their specific home media markets - which makes sense as Congressmen are closer to their districts than Senators who represent the entire state. Please stop misrepresenting the contents of the site you yourself linked to.
And, in your "competent polling analysis" please tell me the difference between "vote to replace" and "consider someone new" as it applies to Dole getting re-elected or not getting re-elected. In either case, isn't the voter not in favor of Dole? Hmmm?
Keep making stuff up, va blogger.
The Louisiana Political Fax Weekly said the NRSC poll also found, but did not put in their release, that Landrieu's statewide approval rating is at 67%... Bottom line: If home-market numbers are the bestthey could find, and they held back the 67%, you've gotta imagine the numbers weren't quite as bad as the NRSC had hoped...
A) Here is the EXACT quote from the memo:
QUOTE
Thus, anywhere a potential Republican candidate has name ID equal to Landrieu's ID, she trails by double digits.
UNQUOTE
Here is the quote that I made:
QUOTE
The memo that was released with the poll said that Baker and Boustany beat Landrieu in media markets where they have comperable name ID.
UNQUOTE
Don't call me a liar again, you dumb oaf.
If you don't want to believe the poll, I don't care if you cover your ears and stick your head in the ground. All I'm doing is relaying to you polling information--information you've yet to include on your site, though you are more than happy to include diaries from liberal blogs as suitable front-page news.
And your second point makes you sound even more ridiculous. First, the people who put together the poll say that "vote for someone new" and "consider voting for someone new" two different things. If they didn't, they wouldn't have included each option as a seperate choice. What poll have you heard of where, of three options, two of them mean the same thing?
Second, the difference is people who have made up their minds and people who have not. A plurality of North Carolina voters have made up their mind to re-elect Senator Dole. Around 29% have made up their mind to vote for someone else, and the rest are somewhere in the middle. That's why there are three options.
Which only strengthens my point that a "re-elect" question with two choices and a "re-elect" question with three choices are fundamentally incomparable.
I know you'd rather accuse me of lying than face the truth of the polling that has come out, but maybe if you spent less time making false accusations at me, and spent more time objectively looking at the numbers in front of you, your little blog would be a lot better resource for those looking for real information about the Senate races.
va blogger:
A) Resorting to name-calling, very mature. Seriously, please grow up.
B) You're a liar because you happily misrepresent the poll. What is the sentence right before "Thus, anywhere a potential Republican candidate has name ID equal to Landrieu's ID, she trails by double digits."???
It is: "Reps. Richard Baker (R-06) and Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-07) each "wins his respective media market(s) by 15 points" - so you are misrepresenting the poll. Period.
C) Yeah, no kidding, "vote for someone new" and "consider voting for someone new" mean different things - but both mean something other than "I'm voting to re-elect Dole" - that's my point. Feel free to ignore it and repeat yourself.
D) If there were incontravertible "truths" about the Louisiana polling, why wouldn't the GOP-partisan poll just RELEASE ALL THE NUMBERS instead of just the Landrieu-Jindal numbers?? Answer that. Why not release the numbers? Could it be that they're not favorable to the GOP??? Why on earth else wouldn't they just release all the numbers?
B) I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm quoting the poll and the memo that went with it. What you're saying is that the memo, put together by the people who conducted the poll, misrepresents their own poll. That's quite an accusation to make, isn't it? Especially when they've seen the numbers and you haven't?
C) The latter doesn't mean they're not voting for Dole. It means they may vote for her, they may not. How hard is that to understand?
D) What does it matter that they didn't release all the numbers? It doesn't change the numbers they did release.
va blogger - no, I'm saying that when you take the second sentence of a paragraph out of context, saying that it means "X" while leaving out the first sentence, which explains that the second sentence clearly means something other than what you said it means, you're misrepresenting the poll. So, please, knock it off, and stop taking things out of context. Please. Offer an opinion, share a fact, but don't make stuff up and misrepresent things.
And it matters that they didn't release all the numbers for too many reasons to count:
1) they didn't release them for a reason - they released the Jindal numbers to make the GOP look good - if the unreleased numbers made the GOP look good, those would have been released too - hence, they actually make Landrieu look good.
2) holding back the info gives an incomplete picture - why not release all the numbers? Could it be that they want to "spin" the poll results a certain way? (I thought you were against political "spin" - or is it OK to you when it benefits Republicans?)
3) If there's going to be comment on the unreleased numbers (like where they did good), for intellectual honesty, all numbers should be laid out.
Just a few examples.
Its not out of context. The first sentence says what their polling showed. The second sentence draws a conclusion, which is why it begins with the word "Thus, ..."
Why are you spending so much time and effort trying to prove that I'm a liar (sorry, I forgot you back-pedaled to "mis-representer")? All I did was quote directly from the memo that was released with the poll. The memo specifically and succinctly states that Landrieu trails her Republican opponents in areas where they have equal name ID. If you don't like it, take it up with the people who conducted the poll. If you disagree with it, then either put your head in the sand and conduct your own poll.
A) Of course the numbers don't look good. They could have released the numbers and added the qualifier in the memo, but people like you would never bother to consider what the numbers mean.
B) If you want to call it spin, feel free. The memo gives an explanation of the numbers, based on what the pollster said. If you want to call them liars, that's your choice.
C) "For intellectual honesty"... are you accusing them of lying to you?
Ah, so you're saying that you think that the pollsters withheld numbers showing Landrieu beating the Congressmen statewide because I wouldn't "bother to consider what the numbers mean"? That's your spin? Very nice. Way to shift blame for a bad poll onto me.
I am not accusing the pollsters of "lying" when I say "for intellectual honesty" but I am absolutely accusing them of "withholding information." If you're gonna comment on poll numbers (specifically Landrieu vs. Baker/Boustany) without releasing the numbers you're commenting on for the world to see, that in my mind is being intellectually dishonest.
va blogger, how would you react if I posted something to the effect of, "I have a poll showing Franken beating Coleman by 10 points in every media market that Franken has visited since his formal campaign announcement - but I don't want to release the numbers - just trust me."? Would you trust me or would you suggest I be intellectually honest and actually display all the numbers I had?
I'm saying that they withheld the numbers because the meaning that they got from them--Boustany and Baker's strength in media markets where their name ID is equal to Landrieu's--would get overshadowed by whatever amount Landrieu leads them by overall. They wanted to highlight what they put in the memo.
And I must be missing something, because I don't know what you mean when you say its "intellectually dishonest". Its not their job to make sure that you know all the numbers.
And to answer your hypothetical situation, I would be suspicious, but I wouldn't have any reason to believe that the poll was lying. It would also help to know who was conducting the poll, and what (if any) numbers from the poll were released.
Post a Comment
<< Home