The latest Rasmussen Polling shows some encouraging numbers for the Democrats.
Hillary Clinton holds a 24-point edge
Eliot Spitzer leads William Weld 55% to 20%
Maria Cantwell leads Chris Vance by 25 percentage points
Corzine leads Republican Doug Forrester by 45% to 37%.
Casey 52% Santorum 41%
Eliot Spitzer leads William Weld 55% to 20%
Maria Cantwell leads Chris Vance by 25 percentage points
Corzine leads Republican Doug Forrester by 45% to 37%.
Casey 52% Santorum 41%
Only Casey would represent a pick-up. But it’s good to see Hillary, Cantwell, and Spitzer so far ahead.
Meanwhile, Corzine looks like he is still on track to retain the NJ governorship for the Dems. Virginia’s governor race is leaning red, but is still well within reach.
Update [2005-9-8 13:58:9 by BooMan]: Doh! Spitzer represents a pick-up too!
Interesting numbers, but I doubt that the diebold factor has been figured in… Watching 98-0, 98-1, 97-2 votes in the senate, what difference does democrat or republican make, they are merely titles. Time to hold all politicans accountable for their disasterous decisions as of late, and do it now. 2006 wil not come soon enough, as America will not be recognizable, by the 2006 elections, if something major is not done. Honestly, does anybody recognize America anymore ?? In DC, in your state, in your home. Look at the anger in people, look at the division in America… Look at our media. Look how our country is seen by the rest of the World. DOES ANYBODY RECOGNIZE AMERICA ANYMORE ??? ANYBODY ???????
It’s going to get worse folks, if the American citizens do not step it up a few notches.
It’s too early.
In Cantwell’s case, she won’t be facing Chris Vance.
Chris Vance is a statewide joke. He is the rolly-polly, hysterical GOP chair who turns purple when he’s upset.
Cantwell’s real opponent will be Mike McGavick, the chair of SAFECO who just resigned that position to run against Cantwell.
McGavick has tons of money, and immediate access to tons more money as well as support at the HIGHEST levels of the GOP.
It is completely bizarre that Rasmussen didn’t poll for McGavick v. Cantwell.
But The Hill has an Aug. 9 story on such a poll:
I think it’s good to see Cantwell trouncing two potential candidates though. It means she is fairly popular.
Sadly, I don’t think it means anything. It just means that she’s the incumbent.
When the Rove-handled machine begins its attack on her as a latte-drinking, high-tech millionaire out of touch with the common people, she’ll be lucky — very lucky — if she hangs on.
At least she has a record she can point to of doing good things for Washington. And her challenger looks like More Of The Same, GOP Department, and the disaster that is Hurricane George will be fresh in everyone’s minds (or it had better be; if it isn’t the state Paul Berendt isn’t doing his job).
That said, I’m going to post an open letter to Cantwell I put together this afternoon and will be soliciting comments before I actually send her a paper copy.
Half the Democrats i hear from — via lists and such — are very down on her because she isn’t progressive enough for them. (I won’t go through all the arguments pro/con because I’ve done that here before, but I fear that the lack of energy for her will translate into a loss in 2006.)
Well, take a look at my diary entitled “An Open Letter To Senator Maria Cantwell” and see if you think that might spur her on.
But I have to wonder, who is there in Washington that could be a more progressive alternative candidate? Not that any alternative candidate would have a snowball’s chance in hell of knocking her out in the primary. I’m afraid the only one I can think of right off the bat is Dave Ross, and as much as I like the guy, I’m not sure he could beat someone like McGavick in a statewide race considering how he did in the race against Reichert.
A cautionary note:
Rasmussen uses a very controversial methodology in which the entire poll is conducted by computer. Mainstream pollsters are very wary of that technique (although many are also wary of Zogby as well because he weights his samples — a technique which many others, myself included, believe improves the reliability of the results).
Rasmussen himself was a FOX News commentator and consultant during the 2004 campaign. Coupled with the fact that his polls generally seem to favor Republicans and their agenda more than other polls, makes me leary of him. During the last Presidential campaign he had a tendency to list some battleground states that other pollsters saw as leaning blue, but which Rasmussen had not personally polled, as either “red” or “leaning red.” That suggested some organizational bias, I thought.