Republicans May Lose Grip on Statehouses
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2024, 10:31:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Republicans May Lose Grip on Statehouses
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Republicans May Lose Grip on Statehouses  (Read 1887 times)
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 27, 2005, 10:43:25 AM »

By forgoing a re-election bid next year, the Republican dubbed "Matinee Mitt" is free to seek his party's 2008 presidential nomination. Winning a second term as Massachusetts governor might have been just as hard.

Despite his good looks and cachet from leading a liberal "blue state," Gov. Mitt Romney trailed two potential Democratic opponents in the polls before announcing Dec. 14 that he won't run in 2006. His home-state plight underscores the challenge Republicans face next year in retaining governorships they have held for a decade.
[Mitt Romney]

"The math is not in our favor this cycle," said Mr. Romney, who recently became chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Republicans hold 28 seats overall, including 22 of the 36 up for election. In pivotal states such as Ohio, Florida, California and Colorado, they are girding for battles. Three Democrats have declared their intention to run for Massachusetts governor.

Democrats will have to work to hold some current seats as well -- in Iowa, where Gov. Tom Vilsack is retiring; Michigan; and Wisconsin. But gubernatorial races may be a better opportunity for the party than the Congressional contests in which redistricting has limited the number of competitive House seats. Winning governorships may also be more beneficial to Democrats chances' of taking back the White House.

"If we're going to win in '08, strengthening the Democratic party shouldn't be through Washington, but through the states," says Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He heads the Democratic Governors Association and, like Mr. Romney, is exploring a presidential run.

Republican gubernatorial struggles are only somewhat related to the party's other national problems: President Bush's weakened standing, policy setbacks, intraparty bickering and ethics scandals. At least eight Republican governors aren't seeking re-election because of term limits or other reasons. Mr. Romney predicts Democrats could win between three to six of those seats.

"If you look at the races where those retirements will occur, some are in heavily Democratic states," he said in an interview. The prime example aside from his own state: New York, where Republican incumbent George Pataki is leaving after three terms. And the departures of Govs. Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee are creating Democratic opportunities in the more evenly balanced states of Florida and Arkansas.

Republicans also face political storms elsewhere. Scandal has rocked the administration of departing Republican Gov. Bob Taft in Ohio. In California, former actor Arnold Schwarzenegger is seeking a new term, but he is reeling from battles with labor unions and the defeat of ballot initiatives he championed in a special election last month.

Other struggles stem from tax-and-spending decisions pushed by various Republican governors amid the revenue crunch created by the 2001-2002 recession. Beset by one of the steepest state revenue drops since the Depression, caused by falling income and capital-gains taxes, several reneged on pledges not to raise taxes.

"The fiscal situation in states was very dire," said Sujit CanagaRetna, a fiscal analyst with the Council of State Governments. "Even though raising taxes is a very radioactive strategy, the severity of the crisis just forced these policy makers and legislators to pursue tax increases as an option."

It is scant comfort for some of those Republican governors that state budgets are now rebounding, thanks to the stronger economy and stock market, heightening chances for election-year tax cuts in 2006. There "is a disquiet among the Republican base and maybe even possibly somewhat of a fatigue about some Republicans," said Craig Shirley, a GOP strategist.

In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley angered party faithful when he unsuccessfully pushed for a state-tax increase to deal with a budget shortfall of more than $500 million. He faces a Republican primary challenge from Roy Moore, the former state Supreme Court justice who installed a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the state Judicial building.

Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski is also facing trouble after breaking a campaign pledge to not raise taxes. Mr. Murkowski hasn't said whether he will run for re-election but is expected to face a fight if he does. He also must contend with questions about his decision to appoint his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, to fill his Senate seat in 2002.

In Nevada, tax increases pushed by term-limited Gov. Kenny Guinn have soured the political environment for Republicans. In Colorado, Gov. Bill Owens has faced a backlash after switching positions and advocating that voters rescind the state's strict spending cap, which he said was hampering funding for education and other services. Mr. Owens is also term-limited and thus won't be on the ballot, but Republicans face a potential battle to retain control of the state.
[Endangered Majority]

In some cases, Republican struggles have little to do with tax-and-spending issues. Maryland's Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich is dealing with controversy over whether his administration targeted certain state bureaucrats for termination for partisan reasons. In Democratic-leaning New York, the gubernatorial prospects of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer are lifted by his corruption-fighting profile and the fact that Mr. Pataki has served three terms since unseating Democrat Mario Cuomo in 1994.

"Voters often get a little antsy and think it's time for a change," said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst on gubernatorial races at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Voters in Mr. Romney's adopted state of Massachusetts may be a case in point. Though the state votes reliably Democratic in presidential contests, Republicans have controlled the governorship since Michael Dukakis left office two years after his 1988 presidential defeat to George H.W. Bush, the current president's father.

Mr. Romney, who lost a Massachusetts Senate bid against Democratic icon Edward Kennedy in 1994, was elected governor in 2002 after his stewardship of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City that year. But in office, he has had trouble working with the Democratic-controlled legislature and has taken a right-leaning stance on such issues as abortion and gay marriage.

He also has faced criticism for being distracted by his exploration of a potential 2008 presidential candidacy, during which he has poked fun at the state's liberal bent. While Massachusetts has elected Republican governors since 1990, Tufts University political scientist Jeffrey Berry calls Mr. Romney "more partisan and more openly antagonistic" to Democrats than his Republican predecessors.

One of those predecessors, William Weld, moved to New York after leaving the Massachusetts governorship in 1997. He is now running to succeed Mr. Pataki but trails Mr. Spitzer in the polls.



And the link:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113564819210231876-ekk1QBeb_FenvEs48SKFAfEwuSw_20061227.html?mod=blogs
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,907


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2005, 10:54:59 AM »
« Edited: December 27, 2005, 11:01:42 AM by Scoonie »

I don't expect the Alabama, Georgia, or Michigan governorships to be all that competitive, but I think all the others highlighted on that map could go either way.

I also expect Illinois to be highly competitive. I don't know why it wasn't highlighted.

Democrats' Top 10 Pickup Opportunities:

1. New York
2. Massachusetts
3. Ohio
4. California
5. Maryland
6. Arkansas
7. Colorado
8. Florida
9. Alaska (will be tough since Murkowski likely won't run for re-election)
10. Minnesota

Republicans Top 5 Pickup Opportunities:

1. Iowa
2. Illinois
3. Wisconsin
4. Michigan
5. Oklahoma (only because of how strongly GOP the state is)

Democrats could have as many as eight pickups, while Republicans shouldn't have more than two.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2005, 11:53:19 AM »

I see Democrats picking up the top 4 on that list and Republicans Iowa and Wisconsin. I don't know why the GOP should win a state as strong as Illinois.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,006
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2005, 12:43:19 PM »

It'll happen. The GOP is losing New York beyond all doubt, and almost certainly is losing Massachusetts, California and Maryland. The only likely GOP pickup is Iowa, and even that's not as guaranteed as any of the above.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2005, 01:08:24 PM »

WTF!?  Why is PA not a competetive race?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2005, 06:26:26 PM »

Here I was hoping that this would be a thread about State Houses, not Governor's Mansions.  South Carolina's not in any danger of a switch in 2006, bur elsewhere...

The Colorado Senate is a possible flip as the Democrats have only a narrow 18-17 majority and there are six term limited Senators, so a lot will depend upon whose terms are up.

The Indiana House is a potential flip with a narrow 52-48 Republican margin.

Iowa is definitely in flux with both the R51-49 House and 25-25 Senate susceptible to change.

Maine's House is at D74-73-4 up for grabs. and it wouldn't be impossible for the Republicans to gain the D19-16 Senate.

The Dems might gain the Michigan R58-52 House and the Minnesota R68-66 House.

Montana is in total flux with a 50-50 House and a D26-24 Senate.

If the Nevada Senate is up for election in 2006 its possible the R12-9 Senate could flip, but I wouldn't think it likely.

The same is true of the Washington D26-23 Senate, a possible but unlikely flip.

Oregon's R33-27 House might be vulnerable, but probably only if the problems of the national GOP manage to glom onto the local level as well.

There don't appear to be any other State Houses where a polarity change is likely.


In short I see 2006 at the State Legislature level being much the same as now.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2005, 06:39:55 PM »
« Edited: December 27, 2005, 06:44:40 PM by 9iron »

Here I was hoping that this would be a thread about State Houses, not Governor's Mansions.  South Carolina's not in any danger of a switch in 2006, bur elsewhere...

The Colorado Senate is a possible flip as the Democrats have only a narrow 18-17 majority and there are six term limited Senators, so a lot will depend upon whose terms are up.

The Indiana House is a potential flip with a narrow 52-48 Republican margin.

Iowa is definitely in flux with both the R51-49 House and 25-25 Senate susceptible to change.

Maine's House is at D74-73-4 up for grabs. and it wouldn't be impossible for the Republicans to gain the D19-16 Senate.

The Dems might gain the Michigan R58-52 House and the Minnesota R68-66 House.

Montana is in total flux with a 50-50 House and a D26-24 Senate.

If the Nevada Senate is up for election in 2006 its possible the R12-9 Senate could flip, but I wouldn't think it likely.

The same is true of the Washington D26-23 Senate, a possible but unlikely flip.

Oregon's R33-27 House might be vulnerable, but probably only if the problems of the national GOP manage to glom onto the local level as well.

There don't appear to be any other State Houses where a polarity change is likely.


In short I see 2006 at the State Legislature level being much the same as now.

Thats what I was hoping this thread  would be about too.  Anyways the Michigan house could switch, but the senate would be more unlikely.  Also in case anyone forgot we have term limits so seats that may not look close could be close.  The democrats haven't controlled the State senate since 1983.  I think Granholm will win by at least 10%, hopefully she will not take the state house with her
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,006
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2005, 08:44:00 PM »

Here I was hoping that this would be a thread about State Houses, not Governor's Mansions.  South Carolina's not in any danger of a switch in 2006, bur elsewhere...

The Colorado Senate is a possible flip as the Democrats have only a narrow 18-17 majority and there are six term limited Senators, so a lot will depend upon whose terms are up.

The Indiana House is a potential flip with a narrow 52-48 Republican margin.

Iowa is definitely in flux with both the R51-49 House and 25-25 Senate susceptible to change.

Maine's House is at D74-73-4 up for grabs. and it wouldn't be impossible for the Republicans to gain the D19-16 Senate.

The Dems might gain the Michigan R58-52 House and the Minnesota R68-66 House.

Montana is in total flux with a 50-50 House and a D26-24 Senate.

If the Nevada Senate is up for election in 2006 its possible the R12-9 Senate could flip, but I wouldn't think it likely.

The same is true of the Washington D26-23 Senate, a possible but unlikely flip.

Oregon's R33-27 House might be vulnerable, but probably only if the problems of the national GOP manage to glom onto the local level as well.

There don't appear to be any other State Houses where a polarity change is likely.

In short I see 2006 at the State Legislature level being much the same as now.

I can actually see it happening that both houses in Minnesota flip (although unlikely). Right now the GOP has a 68-66 advantage in the House, while the DFL have a 35-31-1 advantage in the Senate, with the 1 supporting the DFL. I'd bet on the status quo maintaining in both though.
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,907


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2005, 10:53:34 PM »

and the most popular statewide official, Rick Santorum

LMAO.....
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,907


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2005, 11:13:53 PM »


I do laugh at his numbers! In the last 3 Survey USA polls, Santorum's approval rating ranges from a pitiful 42%-47%.

December - 95th out of 100 Senators

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/100USSenatorApprovalRatings051213byNetApproval.htm

October - 100th out of 100 Senators

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/100USSenators1005SortbyNetApproval.htm

August - 100th out of 100 Senators

http://www.surveyusa.com/100USSenators0805SortedbyNetApprovalScore.htm

He's the least popular statewide elected official in Pennsylvania.
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,907


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2005, 11:23:44 PM »

One of those polls shows Frank Lautenberg the 99th most popular.

I see that you had to change the subject.

You stated that Rick Santorum was the most popular statewide elected official in Pennsylvania, and you were obviously lying. The guy is consistently among the least popular Senators in the country, and often ranks dead last.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2005, 11:31:00 PM »

One of those polls shows Frank Lautenberg the 99th most popular. Oooh, I'll bet he goes down in 2008... might only get 56%!!!

There are so many other factors than popularity to take into consideration, it is intellectually dishonest to say that this means Santorum will win.  And you know that.

What is better proof of Santorum's being in danger - polls that show Santorum behind his opponent or relative approval ratings toward a Senator from a different state?
Logged
Max Power
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,182
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2005, 12:11:56 AM »

Actually, NixonNow, I'm going to laugh at you anyways.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 11 queries.