Month: May 2010

AR-Sen: The SEIU is looking to finish the job, throwing down another $450K on behalf of Bill Halter. The union has spent almost $2 million dollars on this race so far.

AZ-Sen: Perhaps sensing some vulnerability on John McCain’s part, ex-state Rep. and former AZ health department chief Cathy Eden is jumping into the Democratic primary, where she’ll face former Tucson city councilman Rodney Glassman. Eden served in the state House in the early 1990s, then ran a brief campaign for the Dem nod for Arizona’s open Senate seat in 1994, dropping out before the primary. She’s also apparently tight with Janet Napolitano.

CT-Sen: So it turns out the NYT did have in its possession a copy of the full video of the Dick Blumenthal speech where he first said he served “during Vietnam,” only later to cloud things by saying he served “in Vietnam.” Yet despite having the entire video, the Times only posted a truncated clip showing the latter bit. Sheesh.

FL-Sen: The normally Dem-friendly Florida Education Association endorsed both Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek for Senate on Friday, as a thank-you to Crist for his veto of a controversial teacher “merit pay” bill. Crist tried to parlay that victory by attempting to steal another endorsement from Meek, enthusiastically courting the backing of the AFL-CIO. Unfortunately for Crist, the union decided to endorse Meek and only Meek. (J)

KY-Sen: You probably saw that Rand Paul abruptly cancelled a “Meet the Press” appearance scheduled for yesterday. What you may not have known is that the only other people in recent history to do so are Louis Farrakhan and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar. Also, if you check out that first Politico link, you’ll see exactly how uncomfortable Paul’s post-primary “unity” roll-out has been. Even Trey Grayson couldn’t stay on-message long enough to avoid admitting to reporters that the whole thing has been “awkward.”

NV-Sen: This is the chicken that laid the golden egg: Nevada election officials have banned people from wearing chicken suits into polling places on primary day. Though Dems have been sending people in chicken costumes to Sue Lowden campaign events, no one had any apparent plans to do electioneering while so garbed. But what this means is another day of chickens in the news. I think that calls for some Chicken Dance!

PA-Sen: Weird – Joe Sestak repeated his claim that the Obama administration offered him a job so that he’d drop his challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter. The weird part is that White House press secretary Bob Gibbs, in response, said only that  “nothing inappropriate” happened, but didn’t confirm or deny Sestak’s claim.

WI-Sen: This is a surprise: One-time beer baron Dick Leinenkugel has dropped out of the race after less than a month. He endorsed teabaggy businessman Ron Johnson, which seems like an odd fit, since the Kugel had worked in Dem Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration (a pretty big and obvious knock against him in a GOP primary). Hey, Beer Man – we hardly knew ye! Meanwhile, Johnson picked up the GOP’s endorsement (by a wide margin) at the state Republican convention this past weekend. Terrence Wall and David Westlake are apparently still staying in the race, though.

FL-Gov: God bless chrome-domed creep Rick Scott. He’s blasting McCollum on the airwaves for failing to support Arizona’s new “papers, please” immigration law with sufficient gusto. Though I usually complain when tradmed accounts fail to detail the size of ad buys, since it’s Scott, we can probably assume there’s plenty of money behind it, as he’s already spent approximately eight zillion dollars on the race. You know McCollum is sitting at home with his head in his hands, just wondering, “What the hell did I do to deserve this shit?”

Meanwhile, third wheel state Sen. Paula Dockery said she wouldn’t put her personal wealth into her campaign – and also opined that she’d veto an abortion bill she voted for if she became governor. I’m not even sure John Kerry could come up with something that good.

ID-Gov: This is interesting – Dem Keith Allred raised $240K since January, outstripping Gov. Butch Otter’s $193K. Otter has $201K CoH while Allred has $130K.

WI-Gov: Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker was forced to return $44K in illegal contributions for an amazingly simple reason: a railroad exec used company money to reimburse employee donations to Walker! Talk about shady – and dumb.

HI-01: Colleen Hanabusa made it clear she’s going to run again after Saturday’s lost to Charles Djou, but Ed Case sounded surprisingly non-committal, saying only that on Monday, he planned to “wake up, go body surfing and cut the lawn. We’ll figure out the rest of it later.”

IN-03: Ala NY Gov. David Paterson and the NY-29 race, Gov. Mitch Daniels is reportedly considering holding the IN-03 special election in November, on the same day as the regular general election, in order to save the state money.

VA-09: Morgan Griffith, majority leader of the state House of Delegates, won the GOP nod at a district convention this past weekend on the first ballot. I’m not sure if there even would be a primary here on account of the convention, but in any case, it sounds like the other Republican candidates are rallying behind Griffith, who will take on Dem Rep. Rick Boucher in the fall.

NY-State Sen.: New York Dems seem to have landed a good recruit against the 78-year-old Sen. Hugh Farley in the 44th district upstate. Susan Savage, chair of the Schenectady county lege, is entering the race in this 50-48 Obama district.

Fundraising: The WaPo has a great interactive graphic illustrating corporate PAC giving to Dems vs. Republicans, dating all the way back to 1989.

Polling: A new Pew study shows that question responses in landline + cell phone surveys are starting to differ from landline-only answers, sometimes as much as four or five points (and in one case, seven). In general, landline-only surveys tend to underestimate Democratic support.

Passings: One-time GOP Rep. Donald “Buz” Lukens died on Saturday at age 79. He was best known for his conviction for paying a 16-year-old girl for sex, which led to his 1990 loss in the GOP primary to none other than John Boehner.

WATN?: Former senator and general d-bag Bob Kerrey may go and head up the Motion Picture Association of America. He’d follow in the footsteps of another former member of Congress from the middle of the country, Dan Glickman.

AR-Sen (5/19, likely voters, 4/26 in parens):

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 28 (29)

John Boozman (R): 66 (57)

Bill Halter (D): 33 (31)

John Boozman (R): 60 (56)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

AZ-Sen (5/17, likely voters, 4/13 in parens):

Rodney Glassman (D): 28 (32)

John McCain (R-inc): 57 (54)

Rodney Glassman (D): 33 (39)

J.D. Hayworth (R): 49 (48)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

AZ-Sen (R):

John McCain (R-inc): 52 (47)

J.D. Hayworth (R): 40 (42)

(MoE: ±4%)

AZ-Gov (5/17, likely voters, 4/27 in parens):

Terry Goddard (D): 39 (40)

Jan Brewer (R-inc): 52 (48)

Terry Goddard (D): 40 (38)

Dean Martin (R): 41 (42)

Terry Goddard (D): 42 (40)

John Munger (R): 41 (40)

Terry Goddard (D): 38 (39)

Buz Mills (R): 45 (43)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

AZ-Gov (R) (5/17, likely voters, 4/13 in parens):

Jan Brewer (R): 45 (26)

Dean Martin (R): 18 (12)

Buz Mills (R): 18 (18)

John Munger (R): 3 (14)

(MoE: ±4%)

CT-Sen (5/18, likely voters, 5/4 in parens):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 48 (52)

Linda McMahon (R): 45 (39)

Richard Blumenthal (D): 50 (55)

Rob Simmons (R): 39 (32)

Richard Blumenthal (D): 53 (54)

Peter Schiff (R): 37 (29)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

FL-Gov (5/16, likely voters, 4/15 in parens):

Alex Sink (D): 35 (38)

Bill McCollum (R): 43 (45)

Alex Sink (D): 41

Rick Scott (R): 40

(MoE: ±4.5%)

FL-Sen (5/16, likely voters, 5/3 in parens):

Kendrick Meek (D): 18 (17)

“Marcus” Rubio (R): 39 (34)

Charlie Crist (I): 31 (38)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

KY-Sen (5/19, likely voters):

Jack Conway (D): 34 (38)

Rand Paul (R): 59 (47)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

ND-AL (5/18-19, likely voters, 4/20 in parens):

Earl Pomeroy (D-NPL-inc): 43 (45)

Rick Berg (R): 52 (49)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

NY-Sen-B (5/12, likely voters):

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 51

Joe DioGuardi (R): 28

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 51

Bruce Blakeman (R): 31

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 46

David Malpass (R): 27

(MoE: ±4.5%)

PA-Sen (5/19, likely voters, 5/6 in parens):

Joe Sestak (D): 46 (40)

Pat Toomey (R): 42 (42)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

PA-Gov (5/19, likely voters, 4/15 in parens):

Dan Onorato (D): 36 (36)

Tom Corbett (R): 49 (45)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

SC-Gov (D) (5/17, likely voters):

Vincent Sheheen (D): 30

Jim Rex (D): 22

Robert Ford (D): 4

Other: 10

Undecided: 32

(MoE: ±4.5%)

SC-Gov (R) (5/17, likely voters):

Nikki Haley (R): 30

Henry McMaster (R): 19

Gresham Barrett (R): 17

Andre Bauer (R): 12

Undecided: 18

(MoE: ±3%)

TX-Gov (5/13, likely voters, 4/15 in parens):

Bill White (D): 38 (44)

Rick Perry (R-inc): 51 (48)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

1:35am: Populista makes a very good point about this whole “Hawaii loves its incumbents” meme: Hawaii’s only ever had 11 federal officeholders total before tonight – and virtually none ever faced a competitive general election.

12:39am: Here’s another observation, for what it’s worth. George W. Bush’s percentage in this district in 2004: 47%. Charles Djou’s percentage tonight: 40%.

12:32am: Good as they were in PA-12, Hanabusa’s 2nd place tonight shows that the DCCC needs to be careful about treating its own polling as the word of god.

12:29am: Just an observation: Djou’s winning percentage (40%) is the lowest of any sitting House member. The next-lowest: Jean Schmidt (45%) and Michele Bachmann (46%). Good company!

12:19am: So, in terms of the raw vote, Djou has 67,274 to Hanabusa’s 52,445. Ed Case, the candidate the DCCC thought was the more electable choice, is lagging in third with 47,012 votes.

12:17am: The Associated Press calls it for Charles Djou!

12:12am: Uh, okay, that was fast. 96% of the vote is in, and Republican Charles Djou has won 40% of the vote. Hanabusa has 31%, and Ed Case has 28%.

---

Voting will officially end in an hour for Hawaii’s special election to replace Neil Abercrombie in the House. We’ll be using this thread to follow the results as they come in.

RESULTS: Associated Press | Office of Elections | Honolulu Advertiser

This is the second part of three posts analyzing the congressional districts President Barack Obama underperformed in. It will focus on his relative weakness in the northeast. The third part can be found here.

The Northeast

In my previous post I created a map of congressional districts in which Mr. Obama performed worse than Senator John Kerry:

In this map the most obvious pattern is a roughly diagonal corridor of Republican-shifting congressional districts, stretching from Oklahoma and Louisiana through the Appalachians. This area has long been seen as a place in which the electorate is moving away from the Democratic Party.

The post then looked at the Northeast, another region in which Mr. Kerry did better than Mr. Obama.

More below.

Unlike Applachia and the Mississippi Delta, the conventional wisdom characterizes the Northeast as a stable Democratic stronghold. Yet, as the map below indicates, six northeastern congressional districts shifted Republican in 2008:

Much of the movement in Massachusetts, of course, occurs due to the loss of Mr. Kerry’s home-state advantage. Yet the districts in Massachusetts (MA-4, MA-6, MA-7, MA-9, and MA-10) also share a number of commonalities. All are quite suburban, quite wealthy, and quite white. Unlike the Appalachian districts above, these places vote substantially Democratic. Neither Mr. McCain nor former President George W. Bush came within single-digits in any of these districts (I suspect 1988 was the last time a Republican presidential candidate did so). Yet this is also Scott Brown territory; the Republican candidate won four of these  districts.

Notice, too, the highlighted New York district (NY-9). Like those in Massachusetts, this district is inhabited mainly by middle-class, Democratic-voting whites. The effect of 9/11, which convinced many New Yorkers to vote Republican, was particularly strong in places like these (in fact, it was probably greater here than anywhere else in the nation). Orthodox  Jews, an increasingly Republican demographic heavily represented in this district, have shifted strongly Republican since then.

Indeed, Long Island as a whole was relatively lukewarm towards Obama. Apart from the fighting ninth, Republicans did respectably in NY-3 and NY-5, holding Obama’s improvement to less than 1% in both districts. Like NY-9, these places are wealthy and suburban.

One wonders whether this change is merely a temporary blip or the start of something more worrisome for Democrats.  The case of Florida is probably not reassuring:

This is Florida’s Gold Coast – a Democratic stronghold – and three districts here (FL-19, FL-20, FL-22) voted more Republican than in 2004. Mr. McCain’s age probably helped him along here; the large population of retirees may have empathized with one of their own.

Ironically, a large number of these retirees probably came from NY-9 or eastern Massachusetts. Like both areas, these districts vote Democratic but have been slowly moving Republican. FL-22 is the exception, having been not very Democratic to begin with. In FL-19 and FL-20, on the other hand, Democratic candidate Al Gore did substantially better than both Obama and Kerry. This was a function of the substantial Jewish population in these districts; Jews strongly supported Joe Lieberman, his Jewish nominee for Vice President.

Fortunately for Democrats, almost none of the Florida or northeast districts represent a 2010 pick-up opportunity for Republicans. Except for FL-22, all have voted Democratic by double-digits for at least three consecutive presidential elections. A few weeks ago a special election in FL-19 resulted in a 27% Democratic margin victory. It is the long-term that is worth concern for Democrats.

In the short term, Democrats must worry about Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta. There Democrats are in deep, deep trouble for 2010. There are a surprising amount of Democratic representatives in these Appalachian seats where Mr. McCain did better than Mr. Bush. Their predicament will be the subject of the next post.

I wish the SSP readers see the results of my work rating all the more important races this year.

The chart has a mathematical basis. I make this chart only with numerical rules what are the same for all the types of races (senate, gubernatorial, US House or statewide offices) and are the same for democrats and for republicans. The chart is totally symmetric, the rules are symmetric for both sides. That mean the chart is not biased by democratic or republican leanings. This is a goal for me.

For the numerical rules I take in consideration:

– The political level or strength of the people running for every office. Basically I take in consideration the political career of every one. Every level is traslated to numeric values.

– The political leaning of every district or state. Following the rates of the Cook Partisan Voting Index, and the same, every level is traslated to numeric values.

– The last four (as maximum) no-Rasmussen polls. The expected value of these polls is included too. Rasmussen polls are out for this rating chart because distort the numbers and the results.

– The possible incumbent unpopularity traslated to numeric values.

– The fundraising level of the candidates for every race updated to the last quarter data. I still need work few more this chapter because is so difficult have all the data. The effect of this area is less important, some times, for races in the limits of the groups can make change the rating.

– The rating for the Lieutenant Governor races what go in the same ticket than the Governor is linked to the rate for the gubernatorial race.

Well, this is my chart for rating 2010 races:

For read the chart:

– The chart takes the form of a mathematical matrix.

– They are five groups of offices (by row): Senate, Governor, US House, Lieutenant Governors what run with the governor, Statewide Offices including Lieutenant Governors what run separately.

– They are seven rating groups (by column): Safe Democratic, Likely Democratic, Leans Democratic, Toss-Up, Leans Republican, Likely republican, Safe Republican (like always).

– The color code talks about the party of the current or the last incumbent before the elections. Blue for offices with democratic offices, red for offices with republican officer and gray for new offices and independents (like C Crist now). The races what change of party in the cycle cause of special elections or incumbents switching party and still have another election in November are in two colors. Red-Blue mean the office change from republicans to democrats (like NY-23 or PA-Sen) and Blue-Red mean the office change from democrats to republicans (like HI-01 or AL-05). The same for combinations with gray.

– In every sub matrix (as example the US House race what are Toss-Up) they are four columns. Two are in blue and two are in red. The first (blue) is for the races with democratic incumbent running for reelection. The second (blue) is for the races open by democratic incumbents what run not or are defeated in the primaries. The third (red) is for the races open by republican incumbents what run not or are defeated in the primaries. And the fourth (red) is for the races with republican incumbent running for reelection. As exception, I include not the Safe Democratic races with democratic incumbent what switch not party and is running for reelection and I include not the Safe Republican races with republican incumbent what switch not party and is running for reelection.

– For the statewide races I use some generic names:

ND-LG = Race for Lieutenant Governor of North Dakota.

ND-AG = Race for North Dakota Attorney General.

ND-SS = Race for North Dakota Secretary of State.

ND-ST = Race for North Dakota State Treasurer.

ND-SA = Race for North Dakota State Auditor.

For others follow this example:

NM-PLC = Race for New Mexico Public Lands Commissioner.

– For RI-Gov and FL-Sen races we have running highest level independents (L Chafee and C Crist, both former republicans). In the chart, the rate for RI-Gov race is not exactly Safe Democratic, the rate is Safe no-Republican. The rate for FL-Sen is Toss-Up for no-republican taking C Crist as a more democratic leaning candidate and Likely no-Democratic taking C Crist as more republican leaning candidate.

I include MA-Sen, VA-Gov, NJ-Gov, NJ-LG and VA-AG as Safe Republican for remember too these changes in the end of the cycle.

ANALYZING

For analyze the results of this chart is necessary take in consideration what all the rating is based in the current numbers for every race. This rating chart is more a picture of the current situation of every race than a prediction for the elections.

The chart is dynamic and goes changing (little changes habitually). As example, the last change for HI-01 after the special election.

The picture will move with the time cause of the work of both parties and all candidates. In the previous days to the elections I think the chart will give a picture what can be near to the final results.

The same numerical rules affect to all races, that mean all Toss-up are Toss-Up under the same conditions, and all Likely Democratic races are LiD under the same conditions. In this chart of rating is not possible change the rating for one race individually. I only can change the numerical rules what affects to all races, and the work in the races (new polls, fundraising events, new candidates running…) make some races can improve in the rating chart.

I like not see tons of Toss-Up in the rating charts, for that the numerical rules find a less number of Toss-Up but find at same time a symmetric balance. All the LeD races are Leans Democratic under symmetric conditions than the conditions for the Leans Republican races.

The chart shows not republican big waves in this moment. The chart shows some lose for democrats but the majorities in the Senate and the House are not in risk with current numbers. They are not numeric evidence of waves.

If republicans win the 50% of the Toss-Up races in this chart (and I think they will winn less) and all the worse rated races that would be the net results since now, for the end of the cycle:

Senate: Democratic Party would lose 3-4 senate seats in November.

Gubernatorial: Democratic Party would lose 0-1 governor offices in November.

US House: Democratic Party would lose 21 house seats in November.

LG linked to governors: Democratic Party would lose 1 LG linked to governor in November.

Statewide Offices: Democratic Party would lose 6-7 statewide offices in November.

Many Toss-Up races in this chart are winnable races. Maybe all. Some races what here appear as Toss-Up need polls because a poll can show democratic side favored, like in IL-08 or LA-02. The numbers show not still the failure of the republican candidate in IL-08 race.

The chart at same time shows what both big parties are forgetting a bit the statewide races. Some risks for work still, and some good chances in this group of races for state senators, mayors, and more decent level candidates.

I think some of the Leans Republican races in this rating chart are races for fight.

Voting officially ends at midnight eastern (6pm local time) in the all-mail special election in Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District. We’ll be liveblogging this race tonight (because somebody has to!), but feel free to use this thread to submit your predictions or for general pre-game chatter.

UPDATE: Here’s a last minute poll of the race from some firm called ccAdvertising (5/20, no trend lines):

Ed Case (D): 31

Colleen Hanabusa (D): 17

Charles Djou (R): 36

Undecided: 15

(MoE: ±3%)

I’m not sure if this is registered voters, likely voters, or family pets. In any event, the pollster seems to have a love affair with significant digits, giving results down to the hundredths, and also finds Democratic voters split perfectly down the middle, 43-43, between Case and Hanabusa.

(Hat-Tip: Darth Jeff)

At long last:

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced his campaign for governor with a video released early Saturday morning, finally making official his entrance into the race for governor this fall. …

He planned a formal announcement in downtown Manhattan later on Saturday.

Just don’t screw up.

I sincerely hope that you are not getting sick over analysis of the special election to replace the late Jack Murtha.  Because I have taken some time to look over the race and what I think it means for 2010 as a whole.

When I first heard the tragic news of Congressman Murtha I felt sorrow for the loss of a veteran Congressman and ex Marine but at the same time I couldn’t help but think in the back of my mind about the possible loss of the seat. I was somewhat perplexed at the time on why we chose his former district director rather than an ex Governor or ex State Treasurer who both appeared at first glance to be far superior candidates than the highly unheard of Mark Critz.

    This race was instantly thought to be a highly competitive and would be a potential look ahead at the upcoming 2010 elections.  The district had the oddity of being the only one that was won by Democrat John Kerry in 2004 but lost by Barack Obama in 2008. While it appears to be Democrat on a local level it is obvious to me that the district is slowly trending away from us. I think Murtha would have likely retired in 2012 if he would not have passed away.

     Now to the fun part actually putting some analysis to this race. Critz ran a GREAT campaign. He was a fairly likeable candidate and was able to create a good message of being a populist with a clear independent streak in terms of social issues which played well with the many social conservatives in the district. He knew the district;  what the district was like and what he would have to do to get elected. He knew residents were upset at national Democrats and HCR and pretty much anything that had to do with Washington DC. He was able to all of this even when  national Republicans poured A LOT of money into this district.

    He was a GOOD candidate. Thank gosh someone was able to see it in him during the selection process. I think the overall lesson we can take from this to put towards the midterms is quality of candidate. I do believe a Democrat who knows what he or she is doing can win an R+5 district and a Republican a D+5. It’s all about the candidate. If a candidate knows what is popular and what is not in the district and knows how to play on these issues then they have a great shot of winning despite party label. For example I don’t think anyone honestly believed the Republicans had any shot whatsoever of winning Massachusetts when Ted Kennedy died. However little did they know the sacrificial lamb they put up turned out to be a great candidate who related to the people and knew his stuff while his opponent took a relaxing vacation  and probably measured the drapes for her Senate office. Brown won, and he won not because of hatred of the President or Democrats in general but rather the voters attraction to him, who they could relate to as being the outsider who drove a truck.

    Critz knew just how hard hit the district was on an economic level so he ran a campaign focused on job creation and  stressing his difference from national politicians which are all popular things in his district. It is all about the candidate and how they introduce themselves to the voter. If Democratic incumbents in tough districts talk about all the positive popular things they have done then I don’t think 2010 will be nearly as bad as everyone seems to think.  Run as someone who voted for tougher sanctions on Wall Street who has fought for job creation and economic development. Assuming they voted in favor of Health Care Reform talk about the positives it has and how it will help the people and paint the opponents of it as being pro insurance companies and against the highly popular aspects of reform like treating pre-existing conditions and letting children stay on the family policy until they are 28. If all candidate can do what Critz did and run a good campaign then we will do great in 2010.

    The point of this diary is a good candidate should not be written off just because it’s a tough district or state in a seemingly Republican year. We should not be scared of 2010 but excited. We have many great pickup opportunities and should not just do defense but a little offense as well. I know not every one can run a campaign similar to that of Brown and Critz but we should not write any race off just yet. Anything can happen after all. It just depends on the campaign someone runs.

UPDATE (David):

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (5/17-19, likely voters, 3/8-10 in parentheses):

Meg Whitman (R): 46 (52)

Steve Poizner (R): 36 (19)

Undecided: 18 (29)

(MoE: ±5.0%)

Jerry Brown (D): 46 (45)

Meg Whitman (R): 42 (41)

Undecided: 12 (14)

Jerry Brown (D): 47 (48)

Steve Poizner (R): 37 (33)

Undecided: 16 (19)

(MoE: ±4.0%)

Tom Campbell (R): 37 (33)

Carly Fiorina (R): 22 (24)

Chuck DeVore (R): 14 (7)

Undecided: 27 (36)

(MoE: ±5.0%)

Barbara Boxer (D): 47 (47)

Tom Campbell (R): 40 (43)

Undecided: 13 (10)

Barbara Boxer (D): 48 (49)

Carly Fiorina (R): 39 (40)

Undecided: 13 (11)

Barbara Boxer (D): 47 (49)

Chuck DeVore (R): 38 (39)

Undecided: 13 (12)

(MoE: ±4.0%)

Research 2000’s new poll of California has, on the balance, good news for the Democrats. While Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer aren’t putting up dominant numbers, they’re winning by decent margins (as opposed to the last Field Poll, which had them losing). Also good news: Steve Poizner is gaining on Meg Whitman in the GOP gubernatorial primary, as many other polls have shown; he may not get over the top by June 8, but will certainly leave her bloodied and much poorer. In the Senate primary, Tom Campbell, the toughest GOPer for Boxer to face, is putting a little distance between himself and Carly Fiorina (although the big gainer seems to be Tea Party fave Chuck DeVore, still back in third place).

Public Policy Institute of California (pdf) (5/9-16, likely voters, 3/9-16 (pdf) in parentheses):

Meg Whitman (R): 38 (61)

Steve Poizner (R): 29 (11)

Undecided: 31 (25)

(MoE: ±5.0%)

Jerry Brown (D): 42 (39)

Meg Whitman (R): 37 (44)

Undecided: 21 (17)

Jerry Brown (D): 45 (46)

Steve Poizner (R): 32 (31)

Undecided: 23 (23)

(MoE: ±3.0%)

Carly Fiorina (R): 25 (24)

Tom Campbell (R): 23 (23)

Chuck DeVore (R): 16 (8)

Undecided: 36 (44)

(MoE: ±5.0%)

Barbara Boxer (D): 46 (43)

Tom Campbell (R): 40 (44)

Undecided: 14 (13)

Barbara Boxer (D): 48 (44)

Carly Fiorina (R): 39 (43)

Undecided: 13 (13)

Barbara Boxer (D): 50 (46)

Chuck DeVore (R): 39 (40)

Undecided: 11 (14)

(MoE: ±3.0%)

PPIC was one of a number of pollsters (like Field) showing Jerry Brown momentarily falling behind Meg Whitman a few months ago, when she was dominating the airwaves, which may even have rubbed off on Barbara Boxer; however, they’ve fallen back to giving the edge to Brown (which probably has more to do with Poizner nuking Whitman than anything Brown is doing, which is, as is his way, very little) and to Boxer. Check out the trendlines on the GOP gubernatorial primary here: they also have Poizner within about 10, down from a margin of about 80 million two months ago.

The attention-grabbing number here is in the GOP Senate primary, as they’re pretty much the only pollster to give an edge to Carly Fiorina (who I think most Dems would prefer to see prevail, her self-funding capacity notwithstanding) instead of Tom Campbell.