Talk Elections

40% Donnelly (D)
40% Mourdock (R)

Favorables:

28-12 Donnelly
36-37 Mourdock

Only 40% of IN voters have heard of Donnelly, but 73% have heard of Mourdock.

http://files.www.joeforindiana.com/IN_SEN-Statewide-Topline_5.14.pdf

This and the Gov. race might actually become competetive later on ... :)

No surprise here - Moudock is too far out of mainstream for Indiana.

As evidenced by his landslide statewide win two years ago. Oh, that doesn't count? Ok. Explain that statewide win in 2006 then.

We are in the period when bitter Lugar supporters will amp up the hysterics. Come November, this won't be one of the top competitive races.

Oh, and did we mention that this is a Dem internal? Mourdock is clearly leading.

It would be hilarious if Mourdock loses, but unfortunately I think the Tea Party is still too powerful for that to happen.

::) Yeah, keep using the "he's won statewide races before" argument. A Senate race with so much exposure and public scrutiny is clearly different from a State Treasurer race, which received no publicity and ran against a 28 year old (though granted, he became SB mayor). I can guarantee that over 75% of voters didn't even know who the candidates were for it when they went in to vote, and just voted straight ticket.

Mourdock's favorable numbers are not impressive, and I can't imagine them improving too much when voters learn that he opposes the 17th amendment, thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, and has vowed to be "bitterly partisan" in Washington D.C. Those aren't hysterics - those are actual statements he has made. Joe Donnelly will come across as more favorable and mainstream to voters here, which is disappointing, because I don't think he'd make a great Senator either.

I'm not saying that the State Treasurer is a widely known position but don't make him out to be some fire-breathing unelectable nutcase. History proves you wrong.

Mourdock is mild mannered. Sure, the "bitterly partisan" stuff doesn't help but he isn't a far right winger and should be able to come across as a reasonable person/non-bomb thrower. That's enough for a win in an obviously Republican leaning state.

The Lugar supporter vs. the Tea Partier

This ought to be classic.

()

The Tea Partier? Uh...I mean...I'm sympathetic towards the Tea Party, share most of their fundamental beliefs and think they get quite a bit of unfair treatment but I wouldn't say that I embody the movement enough to be labeled "The Tea Partier."

I consider myself a common sense, standard conservative Republican. I've disagreed with the Tea Party in plenty of primary contests.

I'm not making him out to be an unelectable nutcase. I think there is a chance he could pull this off, simply by constantly trying to tie Donnelly to Obama. But he is not a good candidate - this should be a very easy win for the GOP, and it's not. If I had known this would have happened, looking back, I wish Lugar had backed out and Skillman had ran for this. We'd be fine.

I disagree with your assertion that he isn't a "far right winger", simply due to the fact I've watched his campaign, both for Treasurer and Senate, and have heard him speak several times. On issues, he's very conservative. He just doesn't make quite as many ridiculous statements as other far-right candidates do. I guess we'll just have to see how Indiana reacts to him - thankfully I'll have a frontrow seat of this interesting race unfolding.

Using a statewide election for a non-ideological race like Treasurer is a bona-fide stretch to claim strength in a US Senate race. Mourdock isn't "unelectable" only because this is 2012 Indiana. But his hard-right wing credentials will make this a POTENTIALLY close race, not unlike Kentucky 2010.

My mistake, you're the token example tea party label-ee, but not exactly that

The senate race may be somewhat competitive, but I'd be surprised if Mourdock wound up losing. Meanwhile, the gubernatorial race will never be competitive — that's pretty safe Republican.

agreed the democrat who's running against Pence has problems with name recognition

Name recognition will go up - It probably hurt Democrats that they didn't have competitive primaries, as both Donnelly and Gregg have done almost no campaigning. Gregg is a former Speaker of the House, so he has some name recognition. Like Donnelly, he's a pretty moderate politician, though he won't be able to be tied as well to Obama as Donelly will be.

Pence is a stronger candidate than Mourdock, though. Gun to my head, I'd say Mourdock will win the Senate race (at this moment) by 1-5%, while Pence wins the Governor's race 6-10%.

If winning a non ideological statewide election is evidence of winning a high profile US Senate Race then MA would not have to deal with Scott Brown. The WhiteHouse and the US Senate Republicans will be fighting over Elizabeth Warrens confirmation to head to the consumer protection agency she introduced.
Coakley-D despite running a lousy campaign in 2010 would have won and still be serving in the US Senate. Coakley-D would win  re-election to a first full term in 2012 by a double digit margin. Coakley's loss in 2010 had to due with superficial reasons- The criteria in 2010 MA was which candidate you wanted to have a beer. Coakley(D-MA) would have left of center voting record had she got elected to the US Senate. Mourdock(R-IN) would have a far right voting record if he gets elected to the US Senate. On the other side, Brown(R-MA) is more conservative than the average MA voter. Donnelly(D-IN) is the true moderate in the race that would not go on Fox News Channel like Bayh or Lieberman.

Beyond revealing himself as clueless on Constiutional law and theory, to suggest that the above does not put the guy into the kook category is going to be very heavy lifting indeed. I mean, it's just ludicrous. Is there any part of the social safety net that the guy supports (I assume that when he says SS and Medicare are "unconstitutional," what he really means via using this silly gilding of the lily, is that he thinks both are bad public policy)?

Most of these kooks are just too lazy to actually think through how to fashion sensible public policies which use market forces where possible, limit economic inefficiencies and distortions, can be fiscally sustained over the long term, yet create social safety nets that comport with the conscience of most of us, and with what the public in fact expects and demands. Instead they just spit out sound bytes trippingly off their tongue. In a word, they're useless, and marginalized figures better put on "ignore."

Yes, I just don't have any patience for these kind of politicians - at all.

It's kind of sad that the two choices for U.S. Senate are Right-winger #1 and (borderline crazy) Right-winger #2 in a state Obama carried four years ago.

soo, Donnellys Right winger 1# then, idk he seems pretty Moderate to me and besides the Democrats need to Get Blue dogs elected in red stated if they want to get a majority