Author: DaveSund

Thought you all would be interested in this report from Don Walton in yesterday’s Lincoln Journal-Star:

Attorney General Jon Bruning led a December poll measuring the strength of potential Republican  successors to Sen. Chuck Hagel if Hagel chooses not to seek re-election next year.

The survey was commissioned by David Sokol of Omaha, chairman and CEO of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. The results have been making the rounds in GOP circles in Omaha and Lincoln.

Here are some of the matchups in the poll:

* Bruning, 52 percent; [Former Omaha Mayor Hal] Daub, 20 percent.

* Bruning, 54 percent; [2006 nominee Pete] Ricketts, 24 percent.

* Bruning, 38 percent; [Rep. Lee] Terry, 22 percent.

* Bruning, 40 percent; [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry, 20 percent.

* Bruning, 36 percent; Ricketts, 21 percent; Daub, 16 percent, in a three-way race.

Here is what is most interesting about these results, to me:

– They are intentionally skewed in favor of Bruning, using two-way matchups to overstate the actual support that Bruning has among Republican primary voters.
– That said, they do demonstrate that Bruning is relatively strong at this early stage.
– It’s very interesting that despite his horrendous performance in the 2006 general, Ricketts draws anywhere from 21-25% support among Republicans.

Now, there is still no telling who is running in 2008, and a poll 16 months out from the primary doesn’t do us a whole lot of good. But it provides an interesting snapshot – and a very clear indication that Jon Bruning is running for Senate in 2008.

( – promoted by DavidNYC)

Last week, David took a look at the “Swing States” for 2008, adding:

Now, as you know, I’m a big believer in the fifty-state strategy, but as you also know, these things take time. As much as I’d like to believe we’ll see an expanded playing field in the next presidential race, I think we all realize that Howard Dean’s plan is the work of many years.

I agree, and it’s important to put our resources where they have the best chance of affecting the outcome, but at the same time, we don’t know how the picture will look, who our nominee will be, who their nominee will be, etc. Speculation is fun, and I’m no stranger to it. But the question that came to me, a resident of a deep-red state, when looking at the playing field, and realizing that the playing field David put out there is probably broader than the playing field we’ll see in 2008, was: What can we do to change it? How can the netroots do what we do best – making races competitive – in 2008? Can we do it in a Presidential race?

Of the 31 states George W. Bush won in 2004, he won 9 of them by less than 10%. Those states total 97 electoral votes. Those are states that we can, conceivably, win in 2008. If we flip 18 or more electoral votes from 2004, we have a majority. But playing offense is our strength, and being ambitious is a luxury we have that the campaign does not.

Of course, there’s only so much we can do on our own. But we can lay the groundwork, build up local successes, do whatever we can do to help elect Democrats in 2008. Maybe, in the process, we can make some of these states competitive on a Presidential level, and force the Republicans to play defense.

So, I’m just kicking some thoughts around here: If you live in a state that went for Bush in 2004, what races, if any, can we focus on? Are there potential Democratic candidates you think could bring the state you live in into play? Are there potential Republican candidates that could? Also, what are the prominent blogs in your state or district?

I think we need to make sure that 2006 was only the beginning. We have an opportunity to elect Democrats all across the country in 2008, we should take advantage.

States Won By Bush in ’04 (swing states in italics, electoral votes and approval rating in parentheses):
Alabama (9) 62.5% (45%)
Alaska (3) 61% (43%)
Arizona (10) 54.8% (41%)
Arkansas (6) 54.3% (38%)
Colorado (9) 51.7% (41%)
Florida (27) 52.1% (42%)
Georgia (15) 58% (45%)
Idaho (4) 68.4% (55%)
Indiana (11) 60% (40%)
Iowa (7) 49.9%(38%)
Kansas (6) 62% (45%)
Kentucky (8) 59.6% (40%)
Louisiana (9) 56.7% (47%)
Mississippi (6) 59% (45%)
Missouri (11) 53.3% (34%)
Montana (3) 59.1% (45%)
Nebraska (5)* 65.9% (46%) – There’s a quirk in Nebraska’s election law that awards electoral votes by Congressional District. NE-02 went 61-38% for Bush in 2004. In 2006, Republican Lee Terry won the district 55-45%, after a 61-36% victory in ’04. Maine is the only other state with this sort of law. The rest of the states are “winner take all.”
Nevada (5) 50.5% (37%)
New Mexico (5) 49.8% (34%)
North Carolina (15) 56% (43%)
North Dakota (3) 62.9% (47%)
Ohio (20) 50.8% (34%)
Oklahoma (7) 65.6% (43%)
South Carolina (8) 57.9% (41%)
South Dakota (3) 59.9% (42%)
Tennessee (11) 56.8% (41%)
Texas (34) 61.1% (41%)
Utah (5) 71.5% (55%)
Virginia (13) 53.7% (44%)
West Virginia (5) 56.1% (40%)
Wyoming (3) 68.9% (49%)

My goal here is simply to get some input from everyone: what can we do in the “red” states? Some of these states, particularly the ones Bush won by less than 10%, are states we can and should win on a Presidential level. Some of these states, clearly, would take an absolute disaster by the Republicans to win. So my question is obviously not limited to the Presidential race, although it’s a big part of the equation. We had a few states in 2006 that weren’t able to capitalize on the wave. We had a few states (like Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) that made significant progress but still couldn’t have much tangible success. What should be our strategy? Is it too soon to start talking about expanding the playing field?

Crossposted at Daily Kos and MyDD