Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2017, 08:22:45 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2010 Elections
| | |-+  Redcommander's 2010 Election Senate Results Timeline
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: Redcommander's 2010 Election Senate Results Timeline  (Read 27777 times)
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -4.70

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2010, 03:22:00 am »
Ignore

I'm literally laughing out loud at the Washington nonsense going on in this thread.

Not to give this fantasy thread any pantea of credibility, but I never realized Murray's electoral history has been so weak. She's broke 55% only once, and never 60%. I realize Washington's vote tends to be more polarized, but in a wave election......?

You are correct that Washington is very polarized.  By some measures we are one of the most polarized states in the nation.  However, that means Murray's base is polarized too and not open to persuasion from the other side.  After he lost, Nethercutt said, "There was an absolute protective network across the Puget Sound area that I don't think wanted to look at any other leadership options."  An oversimplification, but the statement has some truth to it.

It is extremely unusual for a senator to break 60% in Washington state -- Sen. Slade Gorton won 56%-44% in the Republican landslide year of 1994.  Murray has faced solid opposition (two of her opponents were 5-term Congressmen) and her 55%-43% beating of Nethercutt in a slightly Republican-leaning year is impressive by Washington state standards.  Cantwell's 2006 victory over McGavick (57%-40%) would be considered a full-scale blowout.

Murray probably would have lost had she been up for reelection in 1994, but she has grown much stronger and more entrenched since then.  She's a skilled retail politician and has strong support among the key Democratic constituencies in the state due to her solidly liberal voting record and advocacy.

Murray's other strong base of support is business.  This is largely due to her position as a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and isn't something she often talks about to her liberal base.  But Boeing, Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser are among her biggest donors.  Appropriations has perhaps been her most major area of concentration as senator.  My post about Murray's funding for the King County Sheriff's Office is a good example of the problem facing her potential opponents.  Many law enforcement officers might under other circumstances lean Republican.  But when Murray is providing that kind of funding for their office, it can change attitudes.  Hundreds of agencies across the state have been the beneficiary of her work.

So her potential Republican opponents are basically left with the staunch anti-government/tax crowd (a moderately powerful force in Washington state) and religious conservatives (very weak) for support.  That's not good enough for a victory here.  Her current potential opponents are political non-entities and while that might be enough to beat an incumbent who is unpopular in a wave election, Murray is not unpopular.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 03:35:40 am by Ogre Mage »Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15440
United States


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2010, 08:57:39 am »
Ignore

I'm literally laughing out loud at the Washington nonsense going on in this thread.

Not to give this fantasy thread any pantea of credibility, but I never realized Murray's electoral history has been so weak. She's broke 55% only once, and never 60%. I realize Washington's vote tends to be more polarized, but in a wave election......?

You are correct that Washington is very polarized.  By some measures we are one of the most polarized states in the nation.  However, that means Murray's base is polarized too and not open to persuasion from the other side.  After he lost, Nethercutt said, "There was an absolute protective network across the Puget Sound area that I don't think wanted to look at any other leadership options."  An oversimplification, but the statement has some truth to it.

It is extremely unusual for a senator to break 60% in Washington state -- Sen. Slade Gorton won 56%-44% in the Republican landslide year of 1994.  Murray has faced solid opposition (two of her opponents were 5-term Congressmen) and her 55%-43% beating of Nethercutt in a slightly Republican-leaning year is impressive by Washington state standards.  Cantwell's 2006 victory over McGavick (57%-40%) would be considered a full-scale blowout.

Murray probably would have lost had she been up for reelection in 1994, but she has grown much stronger and more entrenched since then.  She's a skilled retail politician and has strong support among the key Democratic constituencies in the state due to her solidly liberal voting record and advocacy.

Murray's other strong base of support is business.  This is largely due to her position as a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and isn't something she often talks about to her liberal base.  But Boeing, Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser are among her biggest donors.  Appropriations has perhaps been her most major area of concentration as senator.  My post about Murray's funding for the King County Sheriff's Office is a good example of the problem facing her potential opponents.  Many law enforcement officers might under other circumstances lean Republican.  But when Murray is providing that kind of funding for their office, it can change attitudes.  Hundreds of agencies across the state have been the beneficiary of her work.

So her potential Republican opponents are basically left with the staunch anti-government/tax crowd (a moderately powerful force in Washington state) and religious conservatives (very weak) for support.  That's not good enough for a victory here.  Her current potential opponents are political non-entities and while that might be enough to beat an incumbent who is unpopular in a wave election, Murray is not unpopular.

Yes, the polarization giving Murray a strong floor of support over 50% in all but a wave year is what I meant. Thanks for the in depth analysis, Ogre! I assume you believe that baring a 94 style wave Patty's safe (and possibly even then)?
Logged

Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -4.70

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2010, 03:56:50 pm »
Ignore

Yes, the polarization giving Murray a strong floor of support over 50% in all but a wave year is what I meant. Thanks for the in depth analysis, Ogre! I assume you believe that baring a 94 style wave Patty's safe (and possibly even then)?

You're welcome.  Murray is entrenched.  I don't see her becoming seriously vulnerable unless at least two of the following three factors emerge:

1.  A 1994 style Republican wave
2.  A Murray scandal which damages her approvals
3.  A top-tier challenger (say, Rob McKenna)

There is some chance that #1 might happen, but #2 and #3 are remote.  The WA GOP bench is extremely thin.  Murray's warchest is very formidable and her approvals are solid.  And she is not afraid to use her resources to define her opponents before they can get traction.  At this point, challenging her is a suicide mission.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines