Democrats about to control 60% of Governorships?

Democrats seem to have a lock on 7 Governor seats: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland. Furthermore, Minnesota and California are in play, according to http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com/2006/01/national-overview-governor.html which ranks the vulnerability of all Governorships. A map is located at http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com/2006/01/governor-projections-map.html .


If the Democrats can control 60% of the Governorships, I see no reason why we can't take control of the House and Senate!

They're the key to elections.

Kenneth Blackwell is the Secretary of State for Ohio that worked hand-n-hand with Diebold to fix the ballot boxes for Ohio and thus guarenteeing victory for Bush in his state. He's now running for governor.

Unless Strickland goes into the Nov election with like a 15pt lead then I keep Ohio in the republican column

As Ohio continues to circle the drain, his margin will grow.

ahead by 16. And since it's Rasmussen, you can probably add 5 more points.

i doubt he will win by more than 16%

congressional districts. The best example is Texas where the Repub state legislature has gerrymandered its congressional districts to make it almost impossible for Dems.

The likely Republican nominee, Bob Beauprez, seems to be trouncing his primary opponent and is gaining momentum. This one might be a fight to the finish, though for now I'd still say we have the advantage for our guy Bill Ritter. If you want to donate, this would probably be a good race to follow. Colorado politics has definately taken a turn for the interesting since we broke the Republican monolith for the first time in 2002.

but I'll console myself by the fact that he's better than any of the hacks the state GOP is running.

but we don't have a Sec. of State/elections issue here, so at least it will be our own problem (Massachusetts resident's) and not everyone's come 2008.

I haven't seen the latest polls, but MI is very close.

other than MI though, the Dems really aren't vulnerable. The latest polls have Granholm and DeVos tied at 44% each.

I think it'll be a majority, but fraud will prevent us from taking too many. Just as fraud will probably prevent us from taking the House or Senate by a strong showing.

why do so many posters here insist that Republicans are the only perpitrators of voter fraud and that that is why they win some elections. i think that argument is absurd and an excuse.

that in 2004, the senate seats that contradicted the general predictions of polls were seats projected of going Democratic? There were no seats that were generally projected of going Republican that went the other way. Just projected Democrats(Louisiana, Florida, Alaska and Goergia, respectfully). In 2002, HAVA required that states impliment a centralized tabulation of the votes and at least one electronic voting machine(distributed by a company whose CEO is noted vowing to deliver Ohio and it's 20 electoral votes to president Bush). The centralized voting allowed anybody who is in charge of counting the votes to tabulate them and change them(the secretary of states, for instance). This permits Democratic governments as well as Republican ones to alter votes. Who is in the majority of governorships and secretary of states, anyways? Republicans. Unless things change significantly betweem now and the election, it is likely things will not look at all different due to massive alterations of vote sums.

On your list from 2004. He had a small lead over Murkowski in every poll for a year. Otherwise, we never had a realistic shot at Georgia, in Louisiana it was always hoping to get into a runoff, in which case we had a decent chance, and Florida was always a tossup between Castor and Martinez.

It's documented. It's FACT. Through voter roll purges, computer fixing, legal interference, and various other crimes (like not having enough voting machines in Dem precincts), the Repubs HAVE STOLEN ELECTIONS. What is so hard to understand about that?

and I have to laugh everytime we accuse the repugs
of vote rigging.

no wonder the democratic party keeps losing.. it blames everything on republican vote stealing
in that case might as well just give up as a party

Otherwise the Dems are in good shape. 30 Governorships is very probable.

i doubt that oregonians will put a republican in office in 2006.

Kulongoski would not and will not be easily beaten, nor will securing his re-election be a "battle." The dipshits in the "progressive" (read: stupid) community who don't read real news, don't look at the reality of Oregon's fucked-up budget and its grossly illogical allocation of resources, not to mention the fat pile of corruption and inefficiency Kulongoski had to deal with as soon as he got into office have been grousing about dumping him, but no one with a brain, who can do basic math, or who actually cares about absorbing and critically evaluating real credible information is anything other than an enthusiastic Kulongoski supporter. I'm tired of this "Ted's in jeopardy," "It'll be so close," "Oregonians want 'new leadership'" crap. IT ISN'T GOING TO BE CLOSE. And we HAVE leadership, except in the eyes of those DUMB enough to refuse to recognize it, even when it is practically sitting on their collective, unappreciative face.

Fucking moron populists.

Don't ya just love that big tent thingie? :eyes:

is oregon moving leftward?

DeVos has boatloads of money and is spending it like it were tax dollars from the little people.

Julie

He's our only hope in that state. He lost to one Murkowski in 2004, so ousting the father would be fitting and sweet.

In 2002 we had similar hopes of netting +8 to +14. It ended up +4 then we lost California via recount a year later.

This time we need big numbers and I think the chances are excellent. My top priority is getting smug Robert Ehrlich out of office in Maryland.

Remember Awsi.. the State of Alaska is being sued to turn over the Diebold records.

We have no idea if Tony lost to Lisa Murkoski. Judging by the info we have, he didn't lose. He was ahead in every poll ever held for 12 straight months prior to the election.

The Lt. Governor (Loren Leman) is being sued by the Alaska Democratic Party to release the data files. Amazingly, Diebold agreed with Democrats and told him to release the info!

Leman refuses to turn over the files to and his being sued. So at this point, no one in this state can say for certain who won the U.S. Senate election right now. The election was so screwed up you wouldn't believe it. One District came in with a 239% voter turn-out. Leman has never been able to explain that one..

As far as Tony running for Governor though.... AWESOME !!! (Oh, and Leman is not running again and is leaving politics.. wants to be long gone when Democrats finally get ahold of the '04 election records )

~ Tony Knowles rocks! ~

thanks, i am surprised i never knew that

Rah, rah! :bounce: :woohoo: :party:

And I think that state is difficult to poll. Remember, in 2002, Frank Murkowski was barely ahead of Fran Ulmer in the final poll then he buried her by 25 or 30 points. I don't even want to look it up it was so shocking.

Regardless, I think conservative Alaska was inclined toward national security concerns in a federal race so that's why a Republican prevailed, even if the voters generally preferred Tony to gruesome Lisa. In a gov race Tony should have a big edge.

Trust me, I live here.

Frank Murkowski was a popular U.S. Senator for Alaska. Don't ask me why... but he always had good numbers.

He won against Fran Ulmer because at the time, he had huge name recognition having served in D.C. for 25 years.

As governor, he has the worst approval rating that anyone in this state has EVER had and now is name is a complete joke.

I'm not sure Alaska is all that conservative.. As pro-choice as the state is, we can't top the charts anyway..

Maybe lower-48'ers assume the state is super conservative because they consistently vote for Republican presidents?

I've said it a million times on here.. Until a Democrat who is "pro-drilling" runs for president, Alaska will vote for the Republican candidate every time. Any state that hands every single resident 1 to 2 thousand dollar checks every October is going to create major fans of oil drilling.

When Frank Murkowski ran for governor, not only was he popular.. but he made all kinds of promises that his idiotic Republican base believed. He broke every promise within months and now.. even his own party hates him.

That's what I chart and recently the pre-election polls always overestimate the Democrat in Alaska.

I was in Alaska a year ago on a cruise and saw Tony Knowles bumper stickers all over the place, left over from the senate race. It was so dramatic I took a picture of one of them. So I believe you it's not as conservative as the lower 48 wants to believe.

Hey, this year we might have a Democratic governor in Alaska and GOP governor in Hawaii, since I think empress Lingle is a big favorite for re-lection. I wonder when that unlikely combo last happened?

thats the formula for alaskans. alaska has one of the least restrictive abortion laws in the country

.

It's vital we win the states we're supposed to win, like Massachusetts and Maryland. Otherwise, no matter how well we do this year, it could be a freefall in 2010. Just look at all the unlikely states we hold right now and are expected to retain -- Oklahoma, Kansas, Tennessee, Wyoming, Arizona. You've got to believe those may switch in 2010.

Of course, governorships are candidate driven and don't always follow the expected party line. Lingle figures to be re-elected this year in Hawaii. But we should get it back in 2010.

I'm trying to think of the competitive states where a win this year could mean two terms: Nevada, Florida, Arkansas, Colorado, California, Iowa, Ohio.

Then we've got to hold the ones we should win but you never know: Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois

I'm sure I'm forgetting some in every category. Not many gov threads here for some reason.

maine is a little competitive as well, but having democratic governors is key to showing people that democrats CAN govern

From Michigan!

Our heads and hearts are blue, but our butts
are red from the spanking we get when it comes
to gov't largesse and pork.

A point I keep trying to point out to Granholm
bashers I run across....

and i doubt that florida will either

Jim Gibbons is a mediocrity who could stumble or simply unimpress in a campaign. He's hardly an inevitable victor like Kenny Guinn in '98. I think Henderson mayor Jim Gibson (yes, very similar names) has a decent shot to defeat Gibbons but Dina Titus is probably the Dem frontrunner.

We're an underdog but it's maybe 3/1 or only slightly higher.

i hope she doesn't win the nomination, gibson is the democrats' best shot at winning.

The latest poll I saw had Gibson doing 5 points better than Titus, although still trailing Gibbons by 5 points.

Gibson is impressive whenever I see him on the local political shows. He's the mayor of Henderson so a big showing there and throughout Clark County could offset Gibbon's strength in northern Nevada.

Gore won in '00.. and the state has been listed in the "red column", but has always been referred to as a "purple" or 50/50 state.

Why are you so certain that a THUG will win in Florida?

He's the attorney general and leads our top guys in most polls, maybe 5-8 points, although I've seen Quinnipiac polls consistently putting Jim Davis slightly ahead of Crist. Our other top candidate is Rod Smith.

I've been charting the polls but I don't know too much about the candidates, other than Davis is a congressman.

I cannot wait to cast my ballot.

hopefully spitzer and clinton at the top will help boost Democratic house candidates in some competitive districts

I know even most Democrats aren't enthusiastic about him but are picking him as the lesser-of-two-evils.

even though voters dont approve of him the state is too democratic especially in this year for a GOP pickup

Erlich,

get MD back to the right way, the democratic way

even a third party will do

erlich has no chance in a year like 2006