Tag: GA-Sen

Safe D:

     VA (Open)

Races to Watch:  

     NE (Open)

     NJ (Lautenberg)

     OK (Inhofe)

     SC (Graham)

     TX (Cornyn)

Today’s Ratings Changes:

Kentucky (McConnell): Likely Republican to Lean Republican

Thanks, it seems, in large part to the ongoing financial crisis, Kentucky’s senate race has tightened dramatically in the past couple of weeks. SurveyUSA called it a three-point race and Mason-Dixon pegged the spread at just one. Meanwhile, the folks at the Rothenberg Political Report said they saw a third poll which also showed the race a dead heat.

If anger at Republicans and concerns about the economy don’t abate over the next month, GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may have a serious fight on his hands. While McConnell had a massive $9 million warchest at the end of June, Dem Bruce Lunsford’s personal wealth (and his willingness to dig deep) can balance that out. Indeed, this is one race where we can stay financially competitive without the DSCC having to break the bank.

It’s hard, in other words, to see the Republicans holding as decisive an advantage as they once held in Kentucky. (Even the presidential numbers have tightened up a bit.) But this is a race that bears watching particularly closely – Rasmussen has already thrown some cold water on it, and the blue bounce may not last. Right now, though, McConnell is sweating in a way that he simply wasn’t last month, hence our decision to move this race.

Georgia (Chambliss): Likely Republican to Lean Republican

As with Kentucky, a trio of recent polls (with three-, two-, and one-point margins respectively) suggests that Georgia’s senate race is tight, almost shockingly so. Our changing views of this race, though, rest on some other, deeper data as well.

For one, SUSA says that early voters have gone for Dem Jim Martin by a 61-36 margin. At the same time, while the Obama campaign may have fallen short of its goal of registering 500,000 new black voters in Georgia, Nate Silver points out that black registration has soared nonetheless. He also notes that blacks have accounted for 40% of early voters so far, well above even his optimistic (but plausible) estimate that African Americans might compose 30% of the voting electorate in the final analysis.

Yet our newfound hope for beating the odious Saxby Chambliss is tempered by the fact that, unlike in Kentucky, the DSCC will need to get involved here to seal the deal. Georgia is a big, expensive state, and the DS already has more good targets than it can reasonably handle. Finding a few mil for the Peach State won’t be easy. At the same time, we don’t want to get gulled by those sumptuous-looking early voting numbers. Obama leads 64-35 among early voters, but that can’t be sustainable. (Again, though, Nate suggests a very close top-of-the-ticket finish in Georgia is indeed possible.)

Nevertheless, as with Kentucky, an upset has become distinctly more likely here than it was just a short while ago, and so we move this race to “Lean Republican.”

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (9/29-10/1, likely voters):

Jim Martin (D): 44

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 45

Other: 4

Undecided: 7

(MoE: ±4%)

If these numbers are to be believed, we now have on helluva tight Senate race on our hands. Recent polls by SurveyUSA and the Mellman Group also pegged this race as within two or three points.

The poll also finds Martin running ahead of Obama, who is trailing McCain by 50-43. One point of concern to me, though, is this data point from SurveyUSA’s poll: among early voters (9% of their sample), 64% cast their votes for Obama, but only 61% cast their votes for Martin. For Martin to win here, he’d need to be running ahead of Obama (barring a miracle where Obama carries the state). There are still plenty more votes to be cast, though, so the big question that remains is whether or not the DSCC is going to make a fight of it here.

SurveyUSA (9/28-29, likely voters, 9/14-16):

Jim Martin (D): 44 (36)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 46 (53)

Allen Buckley (L): 5 (8)

(MoE: ±3.8%)

When we saw this internal poll for the DSCC yesterday that showed Chambliss leading by only three, many of us were rightly skeptical. Now SurveyUSA is out with a poll confirming a tight race.

I took a quick glance at the crosstabs and couldn’t find any significant demographic differences between this poll and SUSA’s last one (in terms of the sample’s composition), but it’s worth noting that the same poll finds McCain ahead of Obama by 52-44 — a much more respectable margin than the 57-41 blowout of two weeks ago.

SSP currently rates this race as Likely Republican, but it definitely is worth watching.

Update: Here’s one tidbit that I missed — of those who have already voted (9% of likely voters), Martin leads Chambliss by 61-36 an Obama leads McCain by 64-35.

The Mellman Group for the DSCC (9/24-28, likely voters, 8/6-10 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 34 (36)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 37 (42)

Allen Buckley (L): 3

(MoE: ±4%)

Fresh off the wire. A very nice spread (if accurate), but it doesn’t look like Mellman was pushing leaners heavily. This race will be a tough one, but the DSCC still seems to be interested in it.

The goal has been to get to 60 seats in the senate. Let’s assume that Lieberman still caucuses with the Dems, so that means we need 9 seats.

We’ve currently got 8 seats where we’re either tied or ahead: VA, NM, CO, NH, AK, MN, OR and NC. Its far from a sure thing that we’ll win all of these, but all are legitimate targets and I like our trendlines in all of them.

But that’s only 59, so we have to look beyond them to get to 60. There are a number of races that I think we got a shot to get that 60th.  

Three races that I’m giving up on are Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kentucky. I know Rice and Kleeb are very popular around these parts. I still think Andrew Rice is a terrific candidate, but I always thought the only way Rice had a shot was a Macaca-type gaffe by Inhofe and he hasn’t done it. Kleeb is also a terrific candidate and he’s saying that once he gets his name ID up, his numbers will improve. My question is what is he waiting for, the election is in 6 weeks. I never thought Lunsford really had a shot, even when polls showed him ahead. I always thought this race was more about keeping McConnell occuppied and make him use his considerable warchest on himself

Here are the 3 races that I think could be #60

1. Georgia: Survey USA and Rasmussen show wildly different results of this race. Me being the cynic that I am tend to believe SUSA, but if Ras’ numbers are closer to reality, this is still a race.

2. Maine: I know a lot of people are throwing in the towel on Allen, but I’m not. I know he trails by 13, although I think that poll may have oversampled Republicans as evidenced by Obama’s scant 4 pt. lead. But Maine is the bluest state we’re contesting this cycle and I think a well done ad by Obama and the DSCC’s money-bomb we could see this race turn dramatically quite quickly.

3. Mississippi: This is the closest of the three, but I ahve to admit I’m most bullish about this one. Wicker has been slowly but surely moving up, and unlike Goergia or Maine I don’t really know how they stop Wicker’s momentum.

SurveyUSA (9/14-16, likely voters):

Jim Martin (D): 36

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 53

Allen Buckley (L): 8

(MoE: ±3.8%)

And here’s Rasmussen (9/16, likely voters, 8/14 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 43 (44)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 50 (50)

Allen Buckley (L): 8

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Pick your poison. Here’s one glaring discrepancy between the polls: SurveyUSA finds that the kids love them some Chambliss, with Saxby leading Martin by 51-36 among 18-34 year-olds, while Rasmussen says that 18-29 year-olds are giving Martin a monster 67-30 lead.

SSP currently rates this race as Likely Republican.

Update: Saxby’s own poll gives him a 52-33 lead.

One of the primary ways to Expand the Map of competitive U.S. Senate seats in 2008 is to empower with resources Democrats in states that Republicans hope to take for granted, so that they can focus on more traditionally battleground states.  Four such red states in 2008 are Mississippi, Kansas, Georgia, and Tennessee, where former Governor Ronnie Musgrove, former Congressman Jim Slattery, former state legislator Jim Martin, and former Tennessee Democratic Party Chair Bob Tuke are running to oust ethically questionable Roger Wicker, Bush-cover-up-artist Pat Roberts, Shameless Saxby Chambliss, and Lamar!, respectively.

You can blow the Senate Guru‘s mind by helping meet the below goals in the week ahead by contributing to these red state Democrats via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page:

Red state Democrat	Currently At	Goal Amount	Distance to Goal
Bob Tuke	$40	$100	$60 to go
Jim Slattery	$350	$500	$150 to go
Ronnie Musgrove	$413	$500	$87 to go
Jim Martin	$760	$1,000	$240 to go

$100 makes a huge difference.  $10 makes a huge difference.  We’re now less than two months from Election Day.  Supporting these red state Democrats at this critical juncture expands the map, makes the NRSC sweat even more, and increases Democrats’ chances for overcoming historic Republican obstructionism in the U.S. Senate.  Let’s keep that momentum going!

Rasmussen (8/14, likely voters incl. leaners, 7/17 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 44 (40)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 50 (51)

(MoE: ±4%)

Wow. It looks like the DSCC’s recent internal poll of this race showing Martin trailing by 36-42 may not have been an outlier, after all.

Excellent numbers. Could Georgia be one of the sleeper Senate races of 2008?

In light of Jim Martin’s primary win and these most recent numbers, SSP is upgrading its rating of this race from “Safe Repubican” to “Likely Republican“.

The Mellman Group for the DSCC (8/6-10, likely voters):

Jim Martin (D): 36

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 42

Allen Buckley (L): 3

(MoE: ±4%)

Very nice numbers for Jim Martin. That’s is what some in the biz would like to call “striking distance”.

Chambliss’ job approval rating is only 37-38 — soft numbers for an incumbent.

Yeah, Chambliss has raised a ton of money, but this is a race that the DSCC has their eyes on, and we could see the committee getting frisky here.

What are these races like?  I’ll try to analyze them here, but I don’t know all of the factors.  Can y’all help me by telling me what’s missing?

(pluses and minuses are for the appropriate party in question (i.e. a minus for the Republicans is a good thing for us)

Idaho

D nom: Larry LaRocco

background: former ID-01 reprentative (+), unsuccessful nominee for Senator against Larry Craig, unsuccessful nominee for Lt. Gov. against Jim Risch (-)

campaign: Working for the Senate (++)

state PVI: R+19

R nom: Jim Risch

background: Lt. Gov. (+), former Gov. (+), former Lt. Gov. (+)

campaign: dodging debates (-)

D party: very underdog (-), but very energized (+), Obama rally in Boise (+), significant ID-01 House race (+?)

R party: national mood against R (-), Larry Craig (-), Rex Rammell and Kent Marmon and Pro-Life (-,–?)

Oklahoma

D nom: Andrew Rice

background: State Sen. (+), divinity school (+), Oklahoma City background (?), 9/11 personal connection (?)

campaign: (no special information?)

R nom: Jim Inhofe

background: current Senator (+), global warming is a hoax (-), anything else, such as

campaign: history as a highly competent/hard-hitting campaigner (+)?

state PVI: R+12

D party: Obama effect (+)?, but Clinton won this state and Obama isn’t having a great chance at winning it (-), no significant House races (-?), locally dominant party (+)

R party: nationally dominant party (+), what else?

Kansas

D nom: Jim Slattery

background: former KS-02(?) Representative (+), lobbyist (-)

campaign: (no special information?)

R nom: Pat Roberts

background: current Senator (+), no negatives?

campaign: (no special information?)

state PVI: R+11

D party: KS-02 House race (+?), Sebelius’s political establishments? (+)

R party: nationally dominant party (+), internal conflict between conservatives and moderates…which wing is Roberts part of? (-)

Georgia

D nom: Jim Martin

background: (I don’t know him)

campaign: competitive primary raised name ID (+), anything else

R nom: Saxby Chambliss

background: (I don’t know him other than that he defeated Max Cleland)

campaign: famously nasty campaign(er) (+/-?)

state PVI: R+6

D party: competitive possibly divisive primary (-?) but party has kinda coalesced after that (+), anger toward Chambliss for defeating Cleland (+)

R party: nationally dominant party (+)

Where does Chambliss’s campaign against Cleland count?  Was it something that only angered Democrats, or did it anger most people?

Conclusions: I think we’re more likely to win GA and ID than OK and KS right now.  KS is probably the least likely, OK above that, and GA above that, and ID on top.  What do you think?