jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,876
|
Post by jamie on Aug 21, 2018 19:21:47 GMT
Who’s going to win Tennessee? If the Democrats win it’ll be their first victory in a Senate election in Tennessee since 1990. Probably the Republicans. Blackburn is a poor candidate while Bredesen is easily the best recruit for any party this year. However, this is ultimately a federal election in a red state which has a very high Republican floor (~45% is the worst Blackburn can do).
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 21, 2018 19:29:36 GMT
Who’s going to win Tennessee? If the Democrats win it’ll be their first victory in a Senate election in Tennessee since 1990. Probably the Republicans. Blackburn is a poor candidate while Bredesen is easily the best recruit for any party this year. However, this is ultimately a federal election in a red state which has a very high Republican floor (~45% is the worst Blackburn can do). I agree, there’s a tendency for returning politicians to flare out as the campaign goes on (Ted Strickland and Evan Bayh in 2016, even Tim Pawlenty last Tuesday). I suspect it would need a foot-in-mouth “legitimate rape” type comment from Blackburn for Bredeson to prevail.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 21, 2018 23:09:08 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 21, 2018 23:16:39 GMT
It has been competitive for a long time but it is probably now in toss up territory as opposed to a likely GOP hold. Crucially Hunter cannot be replaced on the ballot as there are no loop holes in the California "jungle primary" system. The top two vote getters from the primary advance to the general election and there are no options for write ins.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,876
|
Post by jamie on Aug 21, 2018 23:37:18 GMT
I agree, there’s a tendency for returning politicians to flare out as the campaign goes on (Ted Strickland and Evan Bayh in 2016, even Tim Pawlenty last Tuesday). I suspect it would need a foot-in-mouth “legitimate rape” type comment from Blackburn for Bredeson to prevail. Somewhat comparable. Strickland was behind at this point while Bayh only fell behind in the final month. Both had the disadvantage of credible opponents (particularly Strickland). Bredesen is at worst tied at the moment and is a much better candidate as he doesn't have the weariness of Strickland or the general uselessness of 2016 Bayh (who couldn't even name an Indiana address). I'm pretty confident in saying Bredesen will put in a very credible performance and run ahead of any statewide Democrat since his 2006 run. His problem is reaching the 48-49%+ he would need to actually win. He needs to dominate Nashville + inner suburbs, turn out black voters, win over every last remaining persuadable Blue Dog, and get people who literally haven't voted for another Democrat in the last 20 years. The only certainty is that the results map will be interesting indeed
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 22, 2018 0:46:40 GMT
I agree, there’s a tendency for returning politicians to flare out as the campaign goes on (Ted Strickland and Evan Bayh in 2016, even Tim Pawlenty last Tuesday). I suspect it would need a foot-in-mouth “legitimate rape” type comment from Blackburn for Bredeson to prevail. Somewhat comparable. Strickland was behind at this point while Bayh only fell behind in the final month. Both had the disadvantage of credible opponents (particularly Strickland). Bredesen is at worst tied at the moment and is a much better candidate as he doesn't have the weariness of Strickland or the general uselessness of 2016 Bayh (who couldn't even name an Indiana address). I'm pretty confident in saying Bredesen will put in a very credible performance and run ahead of any statewide Democrat since his 2006 run. His problem is reaching the 48-49%+ he would need to actually win. He needs to dominate Nashville + inner suburbs, turn out black voters, win over every last remaining persuadable Blue Dog, and get people who literally haven't voted for another Democrat in the last 20 years. The only certainty is that the results map will be interesting indeed I partly agree, and of course they’re running in different political climates, where, thus far at least, the tailwinds are with the Democrats unlike 2016. For me at least I think there are substantial similarities with the Alabama Special, the difference being, thus far at least, Marsha Blackburn ain’t Roy Moore, and that’s why I suspect she’ll ultimately prevail fairly comfortably. The other question of course is how much money outside Democrats can afford to throw at the race; if they decide early-ish that one of the Heitkamp/Donnelly/McCaskill/Nelson races is lost then do they redirect resources to Bredesen, Rosen or Sinema as the best flip opportunity(ies) to counter the loss of one or more of the above (FWIW I’m rating Manchin and Tester as ultimately safe).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 5:49:47 GMT
I think the Democrats have a good shot. Their candidate was born and Bred in the state as well as being the last Democrat to win a state-wide election in Tenneseee since Clinton won it in 1996.
But of course, not since Gore in 1990 have they won a Senate election - the Democrats literally gave to win over people who haven’t voted for them in a Senate election for 28 years.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,876
|
Post by jamie on Aug 22, 2018 10:27:58 GMT
I partly agree, and of course they’re running in different political climates, where, thus far at least, the tailwinds are with the Democrats unlike 2016. For me at least I think there are substantial similarities with the Alabama Special, the difference being, thus far at least, Marsha Blackburn ain’t Roy Moore, and that’s why I suspect she’ll ultimately prevail fairly comfortably. The other question of course is how much money outside Democrats can afford to throw at the race; if they decide early-ish that one of the Heitkamp/Donnelly/McCaskill/Nelson races is lost then do they redirect resources to Bredesen, Rosen or Sinema as the best flip opportunity(ies) to counter the loss of one or more of the above (FWIW I’m rating Manchin and Tester as ultimately safe). I don't think Democrats are worried about not having enough money. Fundraising has been very good, particularly for candidates. Places like North Dakota are dirt cheap while Indiana, Missouri etc are not particularly expensive. As long as places like Ohio and Texas don't become seriously competitive then they should be ok. Florida is the only worry money wise but Nelson already has £20 million and at some point would become essentially a bottomless pit if Scott is willing to spend over £100 million (at least). Democrats have to hope incumbency/national generic ballot will carry then in Florida and spend the money wisely elsewhere.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 22, 2018 10:34:44 GMT
I partly agree, and of course they’re running in different political climates, where, thus far at least, the tailwinds are with the Democrats unlike 2016. For me at least I think there are substantial similarities with the Alabama Special, the difference being, thus far at least, Marsha Blackburn ain’t Roy Moore, and that’s why I suspect she’ll ultimately prevail fairly comfortably. The other question of course is how much money outside Democrats can afford to throw at the race; if they decide early-ish that one of the Heitkamp/Donnelly/McCaskill/Nelson races is lost then do they redirect resources to Bredesen, Rosen or Sinema as the best flip opportunity(ies) to counter the loss of one or more of the above (FWIW I’m rating Manchin and Tester as ultimately safe). I don't think Democrats are worried about not having enough money. Fundraising has been very good, particularly for candidates. Places like North Dakota are dirt cheap while Indiana, Missouri etc are not particularly expensive. As long as places like Ohio and Texas don't become seriously competitive then they should be ok. Florida is the only worry money wise but Nelson already has £20 million and at some point would become essentially a bottomless pit if Scott is willing to spend over £100 million (at least). Democrats have to hope incumbency/national generic ballot will carry then in Florida and spend the money wisely elsewhere. Yes, my point really was if they’re expanding their playing field financially would Arizona and Nevada be prioritised over Tennessee, which we’re both agreed I think is still the biggest stretch for them to get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 11:56:06 GMT
Those are both more likely based on 2016 but remember Bredesen got 68% of the vote in Tennessee in 2006 - a higher vote than Gore when he won the Senate seat in 1990.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 22, 2018 12:38:28 GMT
Those are both more likely based on 2016 but remember Bredesen got 68% of the vote in Tennessee in 2006 - a higher vote than Gore when he won the Senate seat in 1990. I don’t think there’s much doubt the South has lurched significantly rightwards in the 12 years since Bredesen was on the ballot. The comparison with Gore isn’t great either; Federal elections moved away from the Democrats more quickly than State elections - they were still competitive in Governor’s races in Louisiana (currently hold the position), Georgia (held up to 2003) and Arkansas (held as recently as 2015) but in that time they’ve lost their Senate representation and most of their House representation. Short of fielding Roy Moore type lunatics I wouldn’t put much chance of them gaining a Senate seat (with the remote exception of Georgia) anytime soon. Gore also probably never had the same affinity with the State, having basically lived and been educated in Washington, whereas as jamie said, Bredeson proverbially bleeds Tennessee. I think Bredeson is by far the best candidate the Democrats have, but I honestly don’t see a path to victory unless Blackburn implodes.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on Aug 22, 2018 19:40:09 GMT
Their candidate was born and Bred in the state Am I the only one to spot this (possibly unintentional) pun?
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Aug 23, 2018 7:58:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 8:29:52 GMT
Would be amusing if the Republicans won New Jersey but lost Texas.
As it happens I think Cruz winning by 4% isn’t unrealistic.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 23, 2018 10:35:57 GMT
They tend to ring true. Marquette are usually reliable, although they missed pretty badly in 2016. I’d also wait to see further polling in Wisconsin; Vukmir’s coming off a high profile primary, with a stack of advertising, whereas Baldwin has been able to quietly stockpile her cash ready for the campaign proper. Texas could be close, although I’d expect Cruz to eventually win fairly comfortably. Menendez was always a sleeper race, but he’s got heaps of cash on hand and ultimately I think the Democratic lean of New Jersey will lead to voters re-electing him reluctantly to avoid the risk of strengthening the GOP position in the Senate.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,794
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Aug 23, 2018 10:43:39 GMT
They tend to ring true. Marquette are usually reliable, although they missed pretty badly in 2016. I’d also wait to see further polling in Wisconsin; Vukmir’s coming off a high profile primary, with a stack of advertising, whereas Baldwin has been able to quietly stockpile her cash ready for the campaign proper. Texas could be close, although I’d expect Cruz to eventually win fairly comfortably. Menendez was always a sleeper race, but he’s got heaps of cash on hand and ultimately I think the Democratic lean of New Jersey will lead to voters re-electing him reluctantly to avoid the risk of strengthening the GOP position in the Senate. Marquette apparently have a very high threshold for their ‘likely voter’ screen - you have to have voted in 2014. Baldwin leading by 2 among 2014 voters would be a pretty good result. In the other voter screen in their poll, Baldwin leads by 8.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 23, 2018 12:01:06 GMT
The one thing to remember about Wisconsin is that the GOP, and their allies, have an impressive ground game. I don't think it will be enough to defeat Baldwin but it might just get Walker a third term as Governor.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,876
|
Post by jamie on Aug 23, 2018 17:25:38 GMT
Marquette apparently have a very high threshold for their ‘likely voter’ screen - you have to have voted in 2014. Baldwin leading by 2 among 2014 voters would be a pretty good result. In the other voter screen in their poll, Baldwin leads by 8. That's a really bad voter screen. It's essentially a "Republican wave" screen. A good likely voter screen would probably have little impact as low turnout Dem inner Milwaukee/high turnout Republican suburbs would be cancelled out by general Democratic enthusiasm. Baldwin will probably end up winning by about 10%, similar to the recent low turnout and open Supreme Court race. Not particularly popular incumbent (though this has been exaggerated elsewhere) in a swing state during a Democratic year.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,876
|
Post by jamie on Aug 23, 2018 17:43:25 GMT
Quinnipiac has Democrats leading the Connecticut governor's race by 13% on the full ballot with undecideds while they lead by 16% when you eliminate 3rd parties and some undecideds. There has been speculation that this could go Republican due to the atrocious approval ratings for the incumbent Democratic governor Malloy. Long story short, he's raised taxes and cut spending yet the budget problems remain and the economy is crap. Some of this the fault of the incumbent Democratic state government (raising taxes probably didn't attract businesses) but it's also the fault of bipartisan past agreement on big spending commitments along with the fact that wealthy individuals/businesses have been moving to New York suburbs/Boston for a while now (which like Connecticut are not exactly libertarian paradises but are seen as better places to live/do business) and leaving behind a surprisingly average state (some cities are particularly grim). Basically, there's no easy answers and the incumbent administration will be blamed regardless of party/culpability. However, it seems that the combination of a good Democratic year, Trump's atrocious approval rating (only marginally better than Malloy) and the natural state lean will comfortably save Democrats. A good comparison would be Kansas 2014. The Republican won by 3% thanks to the national environment and natural state lean. By comparison, the incumbent Democrat is not running for re-election (instead they have an more outsider candidate) and Connecticut is probably a little bit less elastic + the situation is less dire than Kansas. poll.qu.edu/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=2564
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 23, 2018 18:42:42 GMT
Quinnipiac has Democrats leading the Connecticut governor's race by 13% on the full ballot with undecideds while they lead by 16% when you eliminate 3rd parties and some undecideds. There has been speculation that this could go Republican due to the atrocious approval ratings for the incumbent Democratic governor Malloy. Long story short, he's raised taxes and cut spending yet the budget problems remain and the economy is crap. Some of this the fault of the incumbent Democratic state government (raising taxes probably didn't attract businesses) but it's also the fault of bipartisan past agreement on big spending commitments along with the fact that wealthy individuals/businesses have been moving to New York suburbs/Boston for a while now (which like Connecticut are not exactly libertarian paradises but are seen as better places to live/do business) and leaving behind a surprisingly average state (some cities are particularly grim). Basically, there's no easy answers and the incumbent administration will be blamed regardless of party/culpability. However, it seems that the combination of a good Democratic year, Trump's atrocious approval rating (only marginally better than Malloy) and the natural state lean will comfortably save Democrats. A good comparison would be Kansas 2014. The Republican won by 3% thanks to the national environment and natural state lean. By comparison, the incumbent Democrat is not running for re-election (instead they have an more outsider candidate) and Connecticut is probably a little bit less elastic + the situation is less dire than Kansas. poll.qu.edu/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=2564Quinnipiac tend to be very good or absolutely awful with no middle ground. Ned Lamont, the Democratic candidate, isn’t too outside the mainstream, and under other circumstances would be a US Senator, having won the Democratic primary against Joe Lieberman, who went on to win the general election as the so far one and only Connecticut Independent Party candidate, with considerable Republican assistance.
|
|