Democrats' Statehouse Picture Improving?

[pragmatic liberal]

Many people have pointed out that even as the Democrats House prospects seem to be getting worse, the picture in the Senate has improved for them (with net losses likely limited to 4-5). It seems like the same thing is happening the Statehouses. Although at one point, Republicans were projected to pick up something like 10 or more net seats, it now looks like their gains could be more limited.

Despite earlier predictions that Republicans would pick up Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts and Maryland, all four - at least at the moment - seem to be narrowly favoring retention. (In CO, it's a near-certain hold.) Despite Meg Whitman's millions, Jerry Brown seems to have a consistent narrow lead in California, which would be a pickup, and they will probably pick up Minnesota, Connecticut and Hawaii as well.

Given the Florida GOP mess, Alex Sink looks like she has a real shot of picking that seat up. RI is neck-and-neck although most Dems would be fine with Lincoln Chafee winning it as an independent. And while Texas and Georgia lean Republican, Democratic pickups there are possible.

As I see it, Republicans will pick up WY, OK, KS, IA, WI, MI, TN, PA, and, yes, IL. (I think Dems will hold OR and ME.) If I had to guess, I think Dems will pick up CA, HI, MN, CT, and FL which would work out to a net +3 Republican gain when you include a Lincoln Chafee 3rd party win in RI. That would go down to a +2 Republican gain if Barnes can win in GA.

So do people agree that Dems' statehouse picture is improving?

[Thomas D]

In the big picture it may be getting better for the Democrats. But I think taking FL is going to be difficult. And I'm beginning to have doubts about Dems holding on in MD.

[Kevin]

Many people have pointed out that even as the Democrats House prospects seem to be getting worse, the picture in the Senate has improved for them (with net losses likely limited to 4-5). It seems like the same thing is happening the Statehouses. Although at one point, Republicans were projected to pick up something like 10 or more net seats, it now looks like their gains could be more limited.

Despite earlier predictions that Republicans would pick up Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts and Maryland, all four - at least at the moment - seem to be narrowly favoring retention. (In CO, it's a near-certain hold.) Despite Meg Whitman's millions, Jerry Brown seems to have a consistent narrow lead in California, which would be a pickup, and they will probably pick up Minnesota, Connecticut and Hawaii as well.

Given the Florida GOP mess, Alex Sink looks like she has a real shot of picking that seat up. RI is neck-and-neck although most Dems would be fine with Lincoln Chafee winning it as an independent. And while Texas and Georgia lean Republican, Democratic pickups there are possible.

As I see it, Republicans will pick up WY, OK, KS, IA, WI, MI, TN, PA, and, yes, IL. (I think Dems will hold OR and ME.) If I had to guess, I think Dems will pick up CA, HI, MN, CT, and FL which would work out to a net +3 Republican gain when you include a Lincoln Chafee 3rd party win in RI. That would go down to a +2 Republican gain if Barnes can win in GA.

So do people agree that Dems' statehouse picture is improving?

I wouldn't say necessarily as even though Democratic prospects look better in Colorado, they only marginally look so in places like RI and MA and CA as well as GA is still neck and neck. The Dems were always ahead in CT, HI, and MN for this cycle. In matter of fact, I'd venture to say that they look worse in a couple of places like OR and ME where the Democratic candidates are supposed to be gaining traction and they aren't, the same is the case for TX also. GA and FL are complicated at the current time but with the approvals they give national Democrats I think they will eventually swing Republican come late September/October.

Also keep in mind at around this time in 2006, things  were also "looking up" for the incumbent party an we all know how that turned out.

[You kip if you want to...]

In the big picture it may be getting better for the Democrats. But I think taking FL is going to be difficult. And I'm beginning to have doubts about Dems holding on in MD.

Let's see if Palin's nomination for the tea party candidate in the MD race shakes things up, Angle style.

[Mr.Phips]

Many people have pointed out that even as the Democrats House prospects seem to be getting worse, the picture in the Senate has improved for them (with net losses likely limited to 4-5). It seems like the same thing is happening the Statehouses. Although at one point, Republicans were projected to pick up something like 10 or more net seats, it now looks like their gains could be more limited.

Despite earlier predictions that Republicans would pick up Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts and Maryland, all four - at least at the moment - seem to be narrowly favoring retention. (In CO, it's a near-certain hold.) Despite Meg Whitman's millions, Jerry Brown seems to have a consistent narrow lead in California, which would be a pickup, and they will probably pick up Minnesota, Connecticut and Hawaii as well.

Given the Florida GOP mess, Alex Sink looks like she has a real shot of picking that seat up. RI is neck-and-neck although most Dems would be fine with Lincoln Chafee winning it as an independent. And while Texas and Georgia lean Republican, Democratic pickups there are possible.

As I see it, Republicans will pick up WY, OK, KS, IA, WI, MI, TN, PA, and, yes, IL. (I think Dems will hold OR and ME.) If I had to guess, I think Dems will pick up CA, HI, MN, CT, and FL which would work out to a net +3 Republican gain when you include a Lincoln Chafee 3rd party win in RI. That would go down to a +2 Republican gain if Barnes can win in GA.

So do people agree that Dems' statehouse picture is improving?

I wouldn't say necessarily as even though Democratic prospects look better in Colorado, they only marginally look so in places like RI and MA and CA as well as GA is still neck and neck. The Dems were always ahead in CT, HI, and MN for this cycle. In matter of fact, I'd venture to say that they look worse in a couple of places like OR and ME where the Democratic candidates are supposed to be gaining traction and they aren't, the same is the case for TX also. GA and FL are complicated at the current time but with the approvals they give national Democrats I think they will eventually swing Republican come late September/October.

Also keep in mind at around this time in 2006, things  were also "looking up" for the incumbent party an we all know how that turned out.

Democrats only gained six governorships in 2006.  Right up until the end it looked like Democrats would pick up MN, NV, AK, and possibly even ID but Republicnas ended up pulling off victories in all four. 

[tpfkaw]

Baker has the momentum in MA - the question is whether he can hold on to it until election day.

[Vepres]

Colorado is only competitive again if McInnis wins the primary and then steps down, and then a very popular Republican is nominated.

[Brittain33]

Baker has the momentum in MA

Based on what? Where do you see he has momentum?

[Dan the Roman]

Baker has the momentum in MA

Based on what? Where do you see he has momentum?

I don't think Baker and momentum have ever been used positively with one another in a sentence before. That said, both Cellucci and Romney were polling slightly behind at this point, and undecideds do tend to break 60/40 or better Republican in gubernatorial races.

LePage's position, while strong, mainly due to his Franco-Canadian background, something Woodcock lacked in 2006, is in a race easily as fluid as Florida. There is a self-funding independent who will likely heavily outspend him, and he is being hammered non-stop by the papers in the state. This one will not break till late, but the winner will likely pull it off with around 36% of the vote at most.

On the general point, I buy more of a senate recovery than a gubernatorial one. Colorado is a big exception, but a lot of the rest of it is that I never bought, say Strickland as being in as much trouble as Rasmussen showed for a while. Whitman was always in trouble if she couldn't lead with a 100-1 spending advantage, and MI and WI were always going to close given the nature of the states. Doesn't mean the Democrats will win them though.

[tpfkaw]

Baker has the momentum in MA

Based on what? Where do you see he has momentum?

He's doing better each time the race is polled.

[Brittain33]

Baker has the momentum in MA

Based on what? Where do you see he has momentum?

He's doing better each time the race is polled.

Can you cite the polls you're looking at?

[Lunar]

Baker has the momentum in MA

Based on what? Where do you see he has momentum?

He's doing better each time the race is polled.

Can you cite the polls you're looking at?

Which ones are you looking at?

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/GOVERNOR/2010/polls.php?fips=25

When Cahill starts spending more, I expect Baker's numbers to go down some

[Lunar]

Well, it depends on  how well Cahill advertises himself to social conservatives...

[pragmatic liberal]

Keep in mind though that Patrick's approval ratings have rebounded quite a bit from the depths of last winter - even Rasmussen has his approval rating at 50%.

Link: http://wbztv.com/local/governors.race.poll.2.1826858.html

[Brittain33]

Which ones are you looking at?

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/GOVERNOR/2010/polls.php?fips=25

I ignored the poll from nearly a year ago.

The reason it doesn't seem like Baker has momentum is because every time he's gone up in one company's polls, Patrick's support has gone up as much or more, so the margin stays the same. Patrick's rebound has been the bigger story and this is a game where only one person can win. The fact that Cahill clawed his way back up from the single digits is bad news for Baker, a you alluded to. There's nothing in those polls showing Baker having momentum.

[Brittain33]

Which ones are you looking at?

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/GOVERNOR/2010/polls.php?fips=25

I ignored the poll from nearly a year ago showing Baker at 15%. Perhaps that's where wormyguy set his lower bound?

The reason it doesn't seem like Baker has momentum is because every time he's gone up in one company's polls, Patrick's support has gone up as much or more, so the margin stays the same. Patrick's rebound has been the bigger story and this is a game where only one person can win. The fact that Cahill clawed his way back up from the single digits is bad news for Baker, a you alluded to. There's nothing in those polls showing Baker having momentum.

[Brittain33]

That said, of course Baker still has a decent chance to win. More to point, Patrick has a decent chance to lose.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

That said, of course Baker still has a decent chance to win. More to point, Patrick has a decent chance to lose.

Baker's name recognition still needs some work. I'm more surprised that he hasn't been more in early ads, specifically when Deval and Cahill can't afford to.

[Lunar]

That said, of course Baker still has a decent chance to win. More to point, Patrick has a decent chance to lose.

Baker's name recognition still needs some work. I'm more surprised that he hasn't been more in early ads, specifically when Deval and Cahill can't afford to.

It's not like Cahill has money problems in these early moments.  Baker only slightly overtook Cahill in CoH by an insignificant amount in the last report -- $2.97m vs. $2.95m

Cahill will have harder problems raising money later in the cycle though, as he raised a lot of his dough when he was a Democrat

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Interesting thread after a GOP primary in MI yield a powerhouse candidate with polls showing with double digit leads. GOP improvement

In PA, Tom Corbett still leads despite some misteps here and there. Same

Ohio, Despite all the gaffes by Kasich Rassy has him up by single digits and everyone else has narrow narrow Strickland lead, same

In Tennessee, Bill Haslam cruised to victory and will win by double digits.


In Florida, the GOP frontrunner has deep pockets, despite other problems. Combine that with the environement and Scott will win but narrowly. That will become clear post primary. This reminds me of ID 2006 in some ways.


Polling shows that SC is out of reach despite being open, same with Alabama.

Brownback and Fallin crusied to victory. Askins narrowly won (we have seen this before).


Texas, Perry still doing crappy, but ahead

California, Two Months ago, Moonbeam was ahead by 12 to 15. Now the lead is going back and forth. GOP improvement


MN, finally one with Dem improvement


MD. Last I check the polling is within the margin of error.


ME, LePage made some gaffes, so potentially Dem improvement.


HI - Aw still strong Dem Gain. no change

SD - Dems have no chance.


WY, wait for primary, probably with OK, KS, and TN


WI - Dems still down to Walker - The same


NV-  Brian Sandoval made a gaffe, lost 10 points, still 10 points ahead though.

OR - All tied up or close to it.

IA - Third party candidate enters, possibility of vote split. 

Susanna Martinez still doing well in New Mexico.

Arizona - No way Jose, not now.

Colorado - Fubar in action

What am I missing. No big frameshift. Just the slow evolving of each race. In a normal environment LePage, Kasich, and Scott would have no chance and Sandoval would be on life support by now. They aren't.

The GOP has 24 seats. A gain of 6 (= to 2006 Dem gain) is 30. Election Projections is at 32 though that will change. I expect between 28 and 33 Governorships.

[timmer123]

Many people have pointed out that even as the Democrats House prospects seem to be getting worse, the picture in the Senate has improved for them (with net losses likely limited to 4-5). It seems like the same thing is happening the Statehouses. Although at one point, Republicans were projected to pick up something like 10 or more net seats, it now looks like their gains could be more limited.

Despite earlier predictions that Republicans would pick up Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts and Maryland, all four - at least at the moment - seem to be narrowly favoring retention. (In CO, it's a near-certain hold.) Despite Meg Whitman's millions, Jerry Brown seems to have a consistent narrow lead in California, which would be a pickup, and they will probably pick up Minnesota, Connecticut and Hawaii as well.

Given the Florida GOP mess, Alex Sink looks like she has a real shot of picking that seat up. RI is neck-and-neck although most Dems would be fine with Lincoln Chafee winning it as an independent. And while Texas and Georgia lean Republican, Democratic pickups there are possible.

As I see it, Republicans will pick up WY, OK, KS, IA, WI, MI, TN, PA, and, yes, IL. (I think Dems will hold OR and ME.) If I had to guess, I think Dems will pick up CA, HI, MN, CT, and FL which would work out to a net +3 Republican gain when you include a Lincoln Chafee 3rd party win in RI. That would go down to a +2 Republican gain if Barnes can win in GA.

So do people agree that Dems' statehouse picture is improving?

Lol, you Democrats crack me up with your rose colored glasses. 

No one is saying anything about the Democrats prospects improving anywhere except for the Colorado Gov race.

Starting with the Senate:  Dems losing only 4-5.  Really?  4 is the floor, because we already have AR, ND, DE and IN in the bag.  We're LEADING in CO, PA and WI, and tied in WA, IL and NV.  CA is competitive and WV has yet to materialize.   Dems will have a great year if they only lose 7-8.

Statehouses, same deal:  KS, OK, TN, WY in the bag.  IA, WI, MI, PA and IL are all very likely to go R.  OH, ME, MA, MD, OR and NM are all possible wins too.  We'll definitely lose RI and HI, two states which don't matter at all. CT and MN maybe, CA a toss up.    A REP +10 or 11 in the statehouse is very realistic.

Republicans have a better chance in Maryland and Maine than do Democrats in Texas and Georgia.  Texas is a Democrat pipe dream

[Lunar]

Ohio, Despite all the gaffes by Kasich Rassy has him up by single digits and everyone else has narrow narrow Strickland lead, same

Strickland has been a monster fundraiser and has shown a lot of ingenuity with his campaign.

Here's a story from today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scott is a less palatable candidate than Scott....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah but Bill White is doing better and is fundraising like a mad man.