Author: DavidNYC

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (4/20-22, registered voters, no trendlines). First up, the gubernatorial race:

Tom Schieffer (D): 37

Rick Perry (R-inc): 52

Undecided: 11

Tom Schieffer (D): 35

Kay Bailey Hutchison(R): 57

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±4%)

Tom Schieffer’s favorables are at 26-11, Rick Perry’s at 51-43 and KBH’s 64-29. Obviously we’ll want to face Perry if we hope to have much if any chance here. But even though R2K didn’t test the Republican primary, the favorability ratings among the GOP show what other polls have – KBH soars at 86-8 among members of her own party, while Perry sits back at a 76-19 rating. Still, I’m not willing to write Perry off for dead just yet.

And the Senate race:

John Sharp (D): 36

Greg Abbott (R): 43

John Sharp (D): 37

David Dewhurst (R): 44

John Sharp (D): 37

Michael Williams (R): 34

John Sharp (D): 37

Florence Shapiro (R): 33

Bill White (D): 36

Greg Abbott (R): 42

Bill White (D): 37

David Dewhurst (R): 43

Bill White (D): 38

Michael Williams (R): 34

Bill White (D): 38

Florence Shapiro (R): 33

(MoE: ±4%)

As you can see, it doesn’t much seem to matter who is paired against whom – the two Dems pull 36-38, while the better-known Rs (Abbott and Dewhurst) get 42-44 and the lesser-knowns (Williams and Shapiro) take 33-34. And this race, of course, might not ever happen, or at least, might not happen for a long time.

You probably also saw the delightful finding that fully half of Texas Republicans want Texas to be an independent nation, and more than half approve of Perry’s secessionist comments. Maybe he’s found a winning campaign issue! Anyhow, who wants to help `em pack?

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (4/17-19, “Colorado voters,” no trendlines):

Bill Ritter (D-inc): 41

Scott McInnis (R): 48

Undecided: 11

Bill Ritter (D-inc): 42

Josh Penry (R): 40

Undecided: 11

(MoE: ±3%)

These numbers are pretty disturbing at first glance – incumbent Dem Bill Ritter is well under 50 and trails former Rep. Scott McInnis by a substantial margin, and barely beats Colorado state Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry. What gives? PPP doesn’t offer much in the way of explanation, just noting that Ritter’s approvals have dropped over their last three polls. He also didn’t fare so hot when PPP paired him up against some other names back in January (PDF) – just 46-40 over former (and 2006 opponent) Rep. Bob Beauprez.

PPP seemed to have a weirdly low approval rating for Obama in this poll, just 49-45. By way of comparison, PPP recently had Obama at 47-45 in Arkansas and 46-45 in Kentucky, while showing him at 54-38 in North Carolina. So it’s easy to see why the CO numbers just feel off. Apart from PPP (which is testing this particular matchup for the first time), I’m not aware of anyone even polling this race yet. We’ll have a better sense, of course, whenever they (or another firm) release a new survey.

Looks like it may soon be curtains for Jimmy T-Bags:

A finish line could be in sight in the race for the 20th Congressional District. With the numbers not looking good for Republican Jim Tedisco, sources tell Capital News 9 that Tedisco could concede to Democrat Scott Murphy as soon as Friday afternoon.

Let’s only hope! I look forward to seeing Scott Murphy be officially declared the winner and joining the Democratic caucus in the House.

Quinnipiac (4/14/-20, registered voters, March 2009 in parens):

Jon Corzine (D-inc): 38 (37)

Chris Christie (R): 45 (46)

Undecided: 14 (15)

(MoE: 2.1%)

Strategic Vision (R) (4/17-19, registered voters, no trendlines):

Jon Corzine (D-inc): 36

Chris Christie (R): 47

Undecided: 16

(MoE: 3%)

Both pollsters also test Corzine against a variety of lesser GOP candidates, and the numbers are pretty dispiriting – mostly a series of small leads for Corzine, but that’s due to name rec.

It’s the GOP primary where things get funkadelic. Strategic Vision gives Christie a 40-15 lead over his nearest competitor, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. But Q-pac has Christie up 39-24 among RVs and just 46-37 among LVs. I suppose we’d rather face the more conservative Lonegan, but does he have time to pull it out? The primary is on June 2nd. I’m not even sure how big a difference it would make – Q has them tied at 41, even though Lonegan is unknown by 72% of the state.

One interesting side-note: The same Q-Poll (different press release) finds that New Jersey voters approve of gay marriage by a 49-43 margin, a twelve-point shift in favor from two years ago. These numbers aren’t quite like the 14-point margin in favor in neighboring New York, but perhaps Corzine will start pushing this issue nonetheless.

NJ has civil unions, but a state panel found in December that they don’t provide full equality and recommended passage of a gay marriage bill. Corzine said he’d sign such legislation, but he hasn’t made it a signature issue like David Paterson has – yet. Even though only a small plurality supports gay marriage, it might nonetheless make political sense to push it. If Corzine does win, it’ll almost certainly be by a very narrow margin, and Karl Rove showed you can win elections like that by playing hard to issues which sharply divide the electorate, as long as slightly more voters are on your side.

New Jersey is intimately familiar with bitter, partisan races, and if Corzine wants to survive, he might have to wage some serious trench warfare.

I know it’s been a while, but some of the data from the Blogads reader survey is now available. Since there seems to be a good deal of interest in SSP demographics of late, we wanted to share these numbers with you. So far only a few questions are up, but we’ll post a note when more information (like what percentage of you watch the Simpsons) becomes available. Have fun!

Siena College (PDF) (4/13-15, registered voters, March 2009 in parens):

David Paterson (D-inc): 11 (17)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 64 (67)

Tom Suozzi (D): 8

Undecided: 17 (17)

(MoE: ±5.5%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 29 (33)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 56 (56)

Undecided: 15 (11)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 53 (51)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 39 (41)

Undecided: 8 (9)

(MoE: ±3.8%)

After Siena’s last poll, you might have thought David Paterson had hit rock bottom. Not so. With numbers like these, it would almost be political malpractice if Andrew Cuomo didn’t get into the race – he’ll never have a better shot. It would also be mostly suicidal for Paterson to stay in, but he hasn’t given any indication that he plans to bail – indeed, he even hired campaign staff.

And one of those hires, pollster Stan Greenberg, probably already told Paterson something which Siena now tells us: Gay marriage is popular in New York State. In fact, it’s supported by a 53-39 margin (and 59-35 among Dems). Those numbers likely explain why Paterson has been pushing this issue hard of late, even though same-sex marriage legislation has little chance of passing the state Senate. It also helps to change the conversation away from the economy and, well, everything else.

(From the Anecdotal Evidence from Queens Dept., I was lucky enough to attend the Mets’ home opener at their new stadium a week ago. A few “distinguished” guests were introduced over the PA. I had never heard boos as loud as those I heard for Paterson – except until they announced Shelly Silver, who even I booed. Mayor Mike, incidentally, was half booed, half cheered.)

Oddly enough, despite the strong pro-gay marriage numbers, Rudy Giuliani (who I still don’t think will run) has decided to aim his first shot across the bow… against gay marriage:

“This will create a grass-roots movement. This is the kind of issue that, in many ways, is somewhat beyond politics,” said Giuliani, a two-term mayor who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination last year.

“I think gay marriage will obviously be an issue for any Republican next year because Republicans are either in favor of the position I’m in favor of, civil unions, or in many cases Republicans don’t even favor civil unions,” he continued.

Who even knows who Giuliani is listening to these days. His strategy during the GOP presidential primary was so insane and non-viable that I’m not surprised to see him spouting nonsense. I almost hope he does run, in fact. I’d love to see him get his ass whooped.

(Hat-tip: Political Wire)

This could wind up being huge news:

This past week a few people have told me that Lackawanna County Commissioner Corey O’Brien is gearing up for a primary challenge to Kanjo in 2010 for the 10th CD seat. In fact I have found out that Jimmy Siegel, a big Democratic media gun, has been contacted by O’Brien. I’m not still convinced that O’Brien will make the race. I sent an email to him asking for comment. If he answers I will let you know.

Update: Corey got back to me. He neither confirmed or denied my report. We will get together later this week. I asked him if he was running for Congress and he said “I am seriously considering it.”

Everyone here is familiar with Paul Kanjorski, the past-his-prime northeastern PA rep who just barely surived his re-election campaign last year, and only after a barrage of Democratic support. I don’t know a whole lot about Lackawanna County Commissioner Corey O’Brien, meanwhile, but as an up-and-coming 35-year-old elected official, right off the bat he’s a lot of things Kanjorski isn’t. I do know that he had the courage to come out for Obama last year in an area where Clinton was wildly popular (she took over 70% of the vote in Lackawanna) – and he took his lumps for it. If O’Brien can stand up to the establishment like that, then maybe he really is capable of taking on Kanjorski (or perhaps pushing him into retirement).

In any event, I look forward to learning more about O’Brien’s politics, and getting confirmation of his intentions.

CQ breaks a mindblowing story:

Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

Believe it or not, it actually gets worse – much worse. Harman was actually investigated for this previously, but new revelations indicate she got off the hook for the most odious of reasons:

[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

And that’s exactly what she did:

Harman, [Gonazles] told [CIA Director Porter Goss], had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program

[Gonzales] was right.

On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

So, to recap: Harman, a member of the Blue Dogs, offered to help get espionage charges reduced against two AIPAC members, in exchange for an unnamed “Israeli agent” (the person on the other end of the call) lobbying Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee. (Thankfully, Pelosi did not.)

Then, to make things far more ugly, Alberto Gonzales offered to drop the investigation of Harman’s Israeli quid pro quo so that she would help defend the Cheney Administration’s outrageous warantless wiretapping program, which she had done before and did again with gusto. Hell, you might even call this blackmail. I can’t think of much worse than this.

February 24th, 2009:

At this morning’s House Republican Conference meeting, party leaders will unveil a new campaign fundraising and infrastructure program designed to strengthen vulnerable incumbents and hold Members more accountable if they expect any help from the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2010. …

The primary component of the new program will focus on 30 to 50 targeted GOP incumbents who could find themselves with a serious challenge on their hands in 2010. Those “patriots” are the ones who will likely be leaning on the NRCC the most this cycle.

In that sense, the Patriot program is similar to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Frontline” program, which directs fundraising and other resources to vulnerable Members and has existed since the 2004 cycle. The DCCC released its list of 40 Frontline Members for 2010 on Monday. …

[T]he Patriot program will immediately help targeted Members most likely to need NRCC support this cycle…. (Emphasis added.)

* yawns *

* looks at calendar *

Huh, it’s already the middle of April. That NRCC list must be around here somewhere, right?

* checks Internet *

Weird.

* checks Internet some more *

Come on….

* e-mails Crisitunity *

No kidding. Very well, then. Take all the time you need, Pete Sessions! No hurry at all!