CA - Whitman (R) Don't underestimate the advantage money has, especially in a big state
TX - Hutchison (R)
NY - Giuliani (R) Ya never know, it is my right to dream
FL - McCollum (R)
IL - Cross (R) Democrats are probably damaged by Burris and Blago.
PA - Tom Knox (D)
OH - Kasich (R)
MI - Hoekstra (R)
I really think 2010 will be a Republican year.
This is just ridiculous. First, California is a state that Obama won by a 61%-37% margin and Whitman is not a very attractive candidate. Illinois is another state that wont elect a Republican unless they are running against Blago or Burris. Hoekstra is also way too far to the right for Michigan and is not a very good campaigner. Why you threw Knox in here is an even bigger mystery.
The presidential numbers are not always good predictors of Governor's races. Look at MA under a string of R's in the 90's through '06. The presidential vote would not predict Freudenthal in WY either.
The state of IL has no budget for the current fiscal year and the voters all know that Quinn and the Dems are to blame. If L. Madigan runs for the US Senate (a good possibility), there are Rs like Dillard or Schillerstrom that could win the Gov's mansion in 2010.
Its worth recalling that the same argument could be made for Topinka in 2006. She was much stronger than either Dillard or Schillerstrom.
As for CA, Whitman will not be the next governor. She is too Conservative, especially her support of Prop 8, which will hurt with moderate voters she needs.(while it passed, the blacks and hispanics who supported it will not support her, while white liberals who supported Arnold will not either).
That said, Tom Campbell might pull it off if he wins the nomination, and he could probably beat Newsom, and give Brown a good race.
But most of Whitman's support is in the minds of people out of state.
