Talk Elections

Just for Fun, here’s mine…

()

…which translates as…

Dems: 25 (+ 3)

Reps: 25 ( - 3)

Which means a national map which looks something like…

() 

…some will be surprised by my belief that Arnie will hold on in California, I don’t know why but I reckon that despite all his troubles he will cling on, much as previous governors who have faced rocky times, what is more I think there is still some residual affection for the guy in the state despite what some democrats and activists say, in a way I hope he stays… when he’s been given the chance he’s performed very well in the past.   

I'm surprised by your map having Doyle stay in his seat. In the last election he won with 45% of the vote and Ed Thomas (a libertarian) got 10% of the vote. Most of those libertarian votes will go to the GOP nominee, especially if Scott Walker gets the nomination.

According to Ben's map:
D to R: IA, VA
R to D: AL, MA, MD, NY, OH

IA, NY, and VA are probably the only done deals.  If the election were held today in the other 4, they would most likely switch parties as well.  If Lucy Baxley is the nominee, AL is probably assured as well.

I'd have to agree with you on CA staying put, but at this point, I think I'd wager on GA (but only if Cathy Cox is the nominee) and WI switching as well, still for a net of +3D.

I agree with Q. As long as Cathy Cox gets the nomination, GA will have another Democratic governor, ousting the first Republican governor in 150 years that promised change, but in the end alienated all of his potential blocs of voters (teachers, unions, and neo-cons).

My prediction for 2006:

27 Democratic Governors
23 Republican Governors

()

I think the following seats will switch:

Dem->Rep:  VA, IA, IL
Rep->Dem: NY, MD, MA, CA, OH

I think Roy Moore will challenge Riley and keep the Alabama seat red (barely)

I think Murkowski is a weak incumbent in Alaska, but the Democratic party up there is just plain awful.

I haven't looked into the Wisconsin race enough to get a feel for it.

Michigan is also a very viable pick-up for the Republicans if they can find a good challenger.

Colorado also leans/slight Democrat if Salazar retires from the Senate to run for Governor, but I think as a freshman governor, he won't do that.

Everything else should remain the same.

Too early.  Ill make my prediction after the primaries.

Everyone should keep in mind that Bredesen has dropped below 50% approval.  His numbers had already tanked among Democrats and Independents, but he has now started to lose his base among Republicans.  (Yes, I know that sounds wierd.. look at the recent polls) :)

^^^^^^^^

Who do the Republicans have in Illinois that can win?  I know Blagojevich is unpopular, but unless the GOP recruits someone from Congress, I don't see how they defeat him.  I think Wisconsin and Michigan are more or less the same situation.

shock will be  Alaska electing a democratic governor. Colorado and Ohio will switch also. California will hold on aswell as Santorum in PA. So the Reps will have a good night but dems are quitely making progress in red states.

COOL MAP THOUGH REPS = 268, DEMS 267 (imagine that)
()

()

The only states I see switching this early are NY, MA, and MD, all of which will throw out their Republican Governors fairly easily IMO, and IA, which will elect Nussle fairly comfortably. I also rate GA as a Democratic pickup for now. GOP Tossups are CA, AR, OH, and AL. Democratic Tossups are IL, PA, and MI.

Arnold is toast.

What good Dem candidates are there in AK and CO?

Hickenlooper and Salazar could win it if they ran and Knowles could win it if he ran.  All three are unlikely to run though.

I could see Hick going for it, but Ken Salazar seems less likely.  With 4 years left in his Senate term, and no tough challengers on the horizon for 2010, I doubt he would give it all up for a chance to be Governor.  How about John Salazar, though?

Is Knowles eligible to run again after already serving 2 terms?

()
I think thisse will be volatile races, so things will likely change several times over.

Alaska is a state that is gettig tired of many of the Republicans that are in office. Being such a heavy republican state i couldnt believe that the senate seat was considerred a toss-up so why not in 2006? Mirkowski is unpopular.

Colorado is a target for the dems and they just need to find someone remotely moderate and they have a great chance of winning. There are always shocks.

But who's to oppose her after Tony Knowles lost?

Its always going to be difficult for a democrat to win a republican seat in a red state when a republican president seeks re-election. Just give it time and you never know what can happen.

Most people vote so quickly that they just tick the repoublican names.

Wisconsin has Scott Walker, Milwaukee County Executive. Last election he won 58% of Milwaukee County, Doyle won less to get his 45% of the vote for his win. If Walker gets past the primaries he can easily defeat Doyle.

Knowles is about the only credible let alone popular Democrat in the state, but there area always Stevens’ senate seat in 2008 what is more Stevens will be 85 in 2008 and as a result I expect he’ll be unlikely to run, which would mean that Knowles should be encouraged to run for what should be an open senate seat, a far easier target than an incumbent republican in such a republican inclined state for the popular former governor.   

But your right beyond Knowles there really isn’t much choice for the Democrats, Ethan Berkowitz could probably perform ok in a gubernatorial race but he’d be the underdog… I guess we’ll see, would be interesting if the Democrats experience in the gubernatorial races in MT and WY could offer some help in Alaska which is in many ways similar to both those western states.

Murkowski was a weak candidate, with much focus on the nepotism factor with her appointment and Knowles still couldn't beat her. I hope Mike Miller (the former State Senate President who challenged Murkowski in the primary) comes back in '08 to run. He could beat Knowles.

It's just too early. Some of these predictions are a little crazy... too many incumbents losing. Romney hasn't said if he's running but if so he'll win. Cox in GA is overrated, though not as much as Baxley. Moore will probably take out Riley and then her.

The only sure GOP loss is NY, while the only sure Dem loss is Iowa. VA is looking pretty bad for Democrats.

Arnold isn't going anywhere, and Ehrlich is not in horrible shape.

Why is Iowa a "sure" loss?

That's pretty amazing confidence for two Governors who look to be amongst the least popular incumbents in the country, personally I think Arnold will hang on in CA but its nowhere near as sure a bet as you seem to think it is… Ehrlich meanwhile is in an even worse quandary than Arnold without the latter’s celebrity to save him, before you leap on me for the “celebrity” remark it will help Arnold, that aside Arnold may well become one of the best governors in the country, if the voters give him the time… Ehrlich however is pretty much done.       

Nussle seems to be a very strong candidate and Vilsack being unpopular doesn't help the Democrats, either.

Wishful thinking.

Out of interest what is the situation in Wisconsin? I have to confess I’m pretty ignorant, I can imagine that Doyle will have to fight for re-election, but as to how seriously he’s threatened, the quality of the potential GOP candidates, the mood across the state, etc… I really don’t know; care to fill me, and anyone else who’s in the dark, in?       

Doyle isn't going anywhere. First off, Mark Green will beat Scott Walker in the primary easily. So the general will have Doyle vs Green, and Doyle will likely win by 53-47 or 54-46.

Doyle isn't as vulnerable as some like to think.
He will carry Dane and Milwaukee counties big time.

I asked AKSaber once and I think he said Knowles is ineligible to run again.

Mark Green won't automatically win, Walker has a really good chance because he's liked down here in southeastern Wisconsin. And if Walker gets the nomination Doyle will have to fight a lot harder for Milwaukee County. Walker run re-election and won a higher percentage of the vote in the county than Doyle did when he became Governor. And so far for the last 3 months the highest Doyle has gotten in the polls is 46% and the lowest 41%.  If it continues on the way it is now he'll either stay the same (43% currently) or go down in the polls. If he goes down he'll have to fight hard seeing as how he only won 45% (or was it 46%) of the vote when he won in the first place. Plus there was the 10% that voted Libertarian in the last election because of how dirty it was, at least 9% will be coming back to vote for either the Democrat of the Republican. They won't stick with Ed Thompson.

I don't think Murkowski is in such bad shape as everyone seems to think. His reelection isn't a sure-thing, but it is not impossible.

He wanted tax hikes and some benefit cuts which the public didn't like too much. He also did some odd things. Like when he was in the middle of cutting spending to save the economy, he wanted to trade-in the governor's prop-propelled plane for a jet. Now most thought it was unnecessary, especially when his administration was tough on spending.

85% of the Alaska state economy comes from oil. With the high price of oil, it means good times for Alaska. :) The budget deficit has gotten smaller. The state has more money to spend, and Murkowski has even proposed an increase in education spending. So I think he is not as in trouble as some may think, but I'm not taking anything for granted.

appointing his daughter to the Senate. ;)

Nepotism:  It's a good thing ;)

But she was elected in her own right against a *strong* challenger. She's her own gal now (as is The Other Woman, D-NY)

Haven't been paying much attention, so I wouldn't even hazzard a guess at making any predictions just yet

Even where incumbents have low approval ratings, there's still time for them to bounce back. For some poor buggers, like Taft though I think the writing's on the wall - but I wouldn't be surprised if the gimmick (yes, Arnold - you can't really expect me to complementary after that infantile slur of his - "Don't be economic girlie men" - at the RNC) over in California turns out to be some kind of political Houdini

Still, I'd like to think Democrats will be a majority ;) come 2006

Dave

Taft is barred from seeking a third term so he isn't running again.  Yeah the Democrats have the best chance of taking the majority in something w/Governorships (good chances in AL, AK (weaker), AR, CA, CO, FL (weaker), GA (weaker), KY (2007, weaker), MD, MA,  MS (2007, weaker), NY, OH while the GOP pickup chances are in IL, IA, ME (weaker), MI (weaker), NH (weaker), OK (if Watts runs), OR (weaker), PA, WI)

Probably just as well then. Only time will tell if Taft's dire ratings affect the chances of the GOP candidate

Dave