7.23.2005

Could Durbin be brought down?

Dick Durbin is up for reelection in 2008. This cites a poll showing Durbin's approval rating at 50% favorable, 34% unfavorable BEFORE the outrageous Gitmo remarks. And it looks like there may be a plethora of good candidates to run against him. It could be sweet revenge to the Dem leadership if they take down Santorum next year!

7.22.2005

New Polls throw wrenches in my analyses

Rasmussen has the latest Pennsylvania Senate race poll. At first glance it looks really bad for Rick Santorum: 41% for Santorum, 52% for Bob Casey. But if we look at the internals, we find weird things that my be good or bad for Santorum. We see Casey garnering 85% umong self-described liberals, and 62% of moderates. But Santorum only gets 66% of conservatives. Now we could look at that as being a bad sign, but I thnk it is good that Santorum has much room for improvement umong conservatives. Being one of the most conservative Senators there is, this should be done easily. Also, Casey's unfavorability rating is really low at 27%, while Santorum's is 43%. Driving up the negatives will be easier for Santorum to do to Casey thn for Casey to do to Santorum. In fact, since conservatives are going to be the key to the election, if Casey makes negative attacks, it may hurt Casey more than it would help him. The internals show that Santorum needs to use Rovian strategies to pump up his base and use GOTV efforts to win in a state he should probably lose. And also of note, Santorum has raised twice as much as Casey to date.

And a new poll of the Florida Senate race might not be as bad as Rove, Bush and co. seem to think. A Strategic Vision poll, which RCP often calls (with some debate) a Republican polling firm because a lot of their clients are Republican, puts the race at Nelson 48%, Katherine Harris 40%. That, my friends, is a winnable race. Gov. Bush and his allies have been pushing House Speaker Alan Bense, who, in a Republican primary is down 59% to 13%, and polls the same against Nelson as Harris, except that in a Nelson vs. Bense matchup, there are more undecideds. Harris's negative ratings are high, supposedly the reason the GOP leadership wants to run the unknown Bense, but Nelson's negatives are high also. Since I believe Harris can raise enough money to at least win a primary, I think it would be better to let her run unopposed. She actually polls similar against Nelson to anyone except retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who has flatly declined to run. The dilemma to getting the slightly better candidates against Nelson is that they cannot win a primary against Harris. I can't believe I'm taking issue with Karl Rove on political strategy, but I think it's time for both Bushs to suck it up and get ready to endorse Harris.

EDIT: Actually, now that I look at it, Toni Jennings, considered a gubernatorial candidate, polls within 6 points of Nelson with a large segment undecided. Jennings has the fundraising power and name recognition to possibly beat Harris, and he should try. Congressman Mark Foley could be a possibility also. I think that if Rove doesn't want Harris, Bense isn't the best option. But there are NO indications that Foley or Jennings would even consider running against Harris.

It's Roberts!

A good pick. The media really had me thinking it would be a woman, but I guess that was a ploy by the White House to throw the Dems off. In any case, Roberts will make it through, and if the Dems try to filibuster, it will be seriously damaging to them, with or eithout successful initiation of the constitutional option.

7.19.2005

Supreme Court Nominee being announced tonight!

White House Press Seceretary Scott McLellan has announced that at 8 P.M. central time, President Bush will announce his pick. It is looking like he will pick a woman, probably Edith Clement, who should be confirmed fairly easily, but does not have a strong and proven conservative track record. Al Gonzales seems totally out of the picture. I can't wait to see Ted Kennedy explode!

An outrage, a scandal, a total DISGRACE to the art of journalism

Well I got my Newsweek today, and boy was I, for lack of a better word, pissed. I couldn't have found a more twisted, biased, and downright false magazine even in the tabloid section. I know that the MSM is very liberal, and Newsweek as well, but devoting a whole magazine to a crap story just to bring down Karl Rove? They spend pages theorizing on how Rove could have leaked (though the whole time they just assume he did do it) even though at this moment in time we (people that know the facts) know fairly certainly that this is not the case. They go on about how Rove supposedly "leaked the name of a covert CIA agent" (which Valerie Plame was not), how he could face jail time (which he could not, under current law, since Plame was not covert at all, in fact most of her neighbors knew she worked at the CIA, and she also appeared in Vanity Fair magazine), the testimony of her her husband to the grand jury (where they forget to report that he admitted that she was not undercover) and completely ignore his testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee (which found unanimously that he had lied on several occasions about his mission to Niger and other important facts). In all truth, the only evidence aginst Rove is that when a reporter told him about the Plame story over the phone, Rove replied, "Yeah, I heard that, too", apparently a reference to what a different reporter told him. The silliness of the whole controversy is that there is no evidence against Rove, nor any evidence that the leaking of Plame's name (which the media and many others knew before the supposed leak) actually caused any damage, so tell me, Newsweek, the White House Press Corp, the NYT, why can't you at least lie about something important, like the Supreme Court of Social Security reform?

Nobody yet knows who really "leaked" Valerie Plame's name, but two things are certain: Wilson is using this as a political attack against Bush, just like he tried to do with his Niger story during the 2004 election (which he lied about), and that Rove is innocent of any crime.

7.17.2005

Doh! I forgot one

In the 2006 Senate post, I forgot to mention that Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) is not running for reelection in 2006, presumably to focus on a presedential bid. Of the current candidates, the top Republican has out-fundraised the top Dem by $1.2 million, but I can't find any polls, so I will assume that this is going to be a close race at the moment.