It's really hard to overstate how thrilled a number of Democrats were to see a Rasmussen poll last week showing Christine Gregoire with an 11 point lead over Dino Rossi, up from a one point lead in March.
A note of caution to our Democratic friends: it's one poll. If other pollsters start showing the same movement and/or if Rasmussen's next offering backs this one up then cheer away. In the meantime, one might also want to consider that Rasmussen also showed a six point jump in Obama's numbers too.
Was there something that happened in this past month, in late spring, to dramatically move support in both general election races? Maybe. Or maybe the dual Democratic jump means Rasmussen's sample was a bit off this time.
Either way, let's see what future polls say before getting too worked up about things.
Lastly, Goldy says Rasmussen is "widely considered to be a Republican leaning pollster. If by widely considered you mean "we in the netroots consider Rasmussen a righty since Republicans seem to trust him" then that works. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Rasmussen is an utterly independent pollster, who tends to earn the respect of the right because unlike a lot of MSM pollsters, he - like SurveyUSA and Mason-Dixon - has a darn good track record, which has been recognized by the left, and has been noted by the Larry Sabatos and Michael Barones of the world.
Please, crow about an individual poll all you want. Cheer wildly if other pollsters confirm the trend. Just don't recycle internet rumors and expect them to be taken as fact.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 18, 2008 10:04 PM | Email ThisIt would indeed be very hard to overstate their thrill. Gov. Gregoire's poll numbers (which, oddly enough, do not appear in this post) have topped 50%. This gets her out of the range wherein an incumbent is considered endangered.
From a statistical tie to a double-digit lead, in just two months! Let's see if the gap remains or widens. Until then, the race is hers to lose. It's almost as if the many right-wing attacks upon her have counted for absolutely nothing...
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 10:36 PM''44% of Washington voters give Gregoire a good or excellent rating. That’s down a couple of points since March.''
Like Eric said: It's only May, still nearly SIX months to the General. So still plenty of opportunities for the current Gov to take more hits in her ''good or excellent'' numbers.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 18, 2008 10:44 PMThat poll had Gregoire with 52% and Obama with 51%. McCain had 40% and Rossi had 41%.
That's bad. Maybe it is time to shore things up, forget about Rossi and McCain in this state, and focus on saving Rob McKenna and Dave Reichert from what looks like a Democratic landslide.
Posted by: Jan on May 19, 2008 06:37 AMI don't know about giddiness, but it does appear that the wheels are coming off the Republican Party in this election cycle. I won't bore you with yet another litany of the problems. But I will tell you it's no surprise to me that Dino is down by 11 points and that it mirrors McCain's standing.
I can't find much to get excited about coming from either candidate. Both are folks we're very familiar with and have passed on before. And both are peddling against a strong headwind blowing for the Democrats.
Despite all the talk about who's pastor said what, who is an appeaser and who is a negotiator, and who has the more shady acquaintances in their past, the real issues are the economy and the war. Both are in one hell of a mess and have no easy solutions.
I think the bottom line will be that we've had quite enough of the folks that got us into these messes and we want a change. Unfortunately for Dino, he will be lumped in with the status quo.
The Left's narrative is that the country has moved substantially in their direction and the country is ready for a true progressive like Obama.
I'm not so sure, but perhaps. We'll have a better idea after the conventions. Ask me on Labor Day.
Posted by: besquared on May 19, 2008 03:00 PMWe don't want a "neoCon" or a SuperLib. We want Harry Truman and Teddy Roosevelt rolled into one. A guy who is going to look at all the insanity and B.S. and say "this has got to stop" and then do something wiser, cleaner, faster and cheaper to make it work.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 19, 2008 05:40 PMTensor @ #1 sez: "It's almost as if the many right-wing attacks . . .". I not sure where I've been but where are all of these right-wing "attacks" you talk about? I haven't seen attack 1 anywhere. Tensor, please cite some of them if you could. In fact, a reasonable person would be hard pressed to know that there is a Republican running in this state for anything.
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 19, 2008 06:23 PMMy family sent money to Rossi in the last run, not going to happen this time :-) I'm really sick of anyone who Sound Politics support, no offense to Rossi who is a great guy, but until the midstream republican start to understand that limited government matters - screw them.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 19, 2008 09:36 PMIf you want to make your political decisions based on who Sound Politics does or doesn't "support" then be my guest.
And if you honestly think that someone that railed against McCain for months as insufficiently conservative to represent the Republican party is a "Mainstreamer" then I'm not sure how firm a grasp you actually have on the issue.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 19, 2008 09:42 PMJust like last election cycle you will fall in line with anything that has an R on it (unless it is a conservative Baptist Republican) in time for the election. All your huffing and puffing about McCain is just you trying to get street Cred, prior to supporting him with big hugs and kisses this fall as Obama will be sooooo scary by then.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 20, 2008 12:05 AMThe people I've talked to seem to equate "the economy" with gasoline prices. And there's not a bloody thing any of the candidates out there, either for President, Congress, or dog catcher, can do about it, short of nationalizing the world petroleum industry. You can talk about long-term things like alternate fuels development and expanding domestic production, but those are a long, long ways off, if they happen at all. Prices are going to remain high because demand is high and supply is limited. There is simply no way around that if you want to maintain a market-based economic system.
Posted by: Interested Observer on May 20, 2008 05:38 AMThe first three have been kept from being done (for decades now) by Democrats and the fourth is Bush.
Our present "energy crisis" is a been completely engineered by our own government and with President designate Obama threatening to tax/confiscate "excess" oil company profits, it will get worse before it gets better.
Although any pandering politician will certainly tell you quite the opposite, any government policy (against the rich, against evil oil companies, etc.) is paid for in only one way: At the consuming level. Stuff rolls downhill and we are at the bottom.
But I must take exception to your logic that follows. I've no doubt the majority, in fact every single one, of Americans would prefer a military victory in any war in which we are engaged. Unfortunately, that train has long since left the station.
We did indeed achieve a military victory in Iraq. Our forces swiftly and decisively overwhelmed that country's armed forces and quickly replaced the existing Baathist government with the Provisional Authority. Mission Accomplished and Job Well Done!
I know of no one that seriously doubted that outcome.
It was the next step that many of us feared would be far more difficult to execute; the step of establishing a stable government of any kind in the aftermath of Saddam's iron grip. Now with benefit of five years of hindsight, we see that not only was it a very difficult task, but the people we sent to do it were simply not up to the job.
And let me be very clear, I am not talking about our armed forces, I am talking about the civilian bureaucrats who ran the show after the fall of Bagdad. In contrast to our troops, who were stunning in their competence, what followed was a simply mind boggling display of incompetence by the civilians who followed them.
There is no military solution to the living hell we have created in Iraq now.
Our troops deserved better. Now they deserve to come home.
I will leave it to the historians to provide what the civilians deserve, and that includes a very large number of Democrats along with the Bush Administration and the Republican who supported and enabled it.
You could tighten it up a bit by eliminating redundant phrases like "pandering politician".
I understand that expanding domestic production will increase supply, and I allowed for that in my earlier post. Barriers to increased domestic production must be lowered, and I believe they can without unreasonable threat to environmental quality. The industry has progressed technologically and improved drilling and extraction methods can reduce the risk of spills and other accidents. We should also exploit alternative energy sources. We have the technology in our hands here and now, today, to eliminate all use of petroleum and other carbon-based fuels in electricity production. And that is, nuclear energy. That way we can save our natural gas supplies for other uses, uses for which it is matched very well with end use (e.g., home heating).
My point is, developing these resources will take time, certainly longer than the next election cycle, probably longer than the next ten election cycles. It is a long-term proposition, and illustrates the fundamental conflict that arises when you have a technical problem that you try to solve with a democratic process. Some things just can't be resolved by votes. The resolution of the problem is tractable by a voting process. It is inherent in democratic political theory that by definition of a democracy two morons are "smarter" than one genius. We can't vote our way out of an energy shortage. We have to have capable people working on solutions to the problem and political leaders with the guts to support them over the long term.
Posted by: Interested Observer on May 21, 2008 06:00 AMI understand what you are saying but my question is this: where do we go from here? Is complete and unilateral withdrawal really the best strategy? There is still danger and instability there. I'm with you in the sense that I don't want our people there any longer than is absolutely necessary, but (ideally) I want them to come out and leave a situation that is favorable to the future of a free and stable Iraq, and also bolsters the stability of the region.
I think where it went wrong was the belief that when we removed Saddam and his regime there would be political leaders or groups that would be strong enough to form a stable government that would unify the country and have the support of the people. It was a roll of the dice and obviously it hasn't worked out. I think George Bush, most of all, knows this, and is looking for a way out. He tried the "surge" strategy and while there are many who believe it has been effective by some accounts, it hasn't brought about a final resolution to the conflict.
I was talking to some of our students the other day who are from that area of the world and one of them told me that it is often true that you can't impose a democracy on people who aren't ready for it or have no experience with it. It takes time to bring about a unified government. We in this country struggled for, what, five or six years between the end of the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitutional Republic in more or less the form we know it today. During that time, we weren't terribly distracted by major armed conflicts or outside interference. We were fortunate in that regard, otherwise it might have taken a lot longer, if it happened at all. Iraq may take a long time, too, if it survives. Unfortunately, the American public no longer has the stomach for a long struggle.
Posted by: Interested Observer on May 21, 2008 06:15 AMHow the hell can anyone call what Unkl Witz said "sensible"?
Read it again.
"I can't find much to get excited about coming from either [McCain or Rossi]. Both are folks we're very familiar with and have passed on before."
Well, Rossi was certified governor twice. I think most people won't agree we have "passed" on him before. And McCain has never been on a general election ballot in this state before, so what are you smoking?
"... the real issues are the economy and the war. Both are in one hell of a mess and have no easy solutions."
Setting the war aside since it has nothing to do with the governor's race, yes, the economy is a huge issue this year. And so the people will be looking for someone to balance a state budget with a huge deficit caused by Democratic mismanagement, without raising taxes and without harming the neediest citizens.
And hey! The Republicans have someone who has already done exactly that!
"I think the bottom line will be that we've had quite enough of the folks that got us into these messes and we want a change. Unfortunately for Dino, he will be lumped in with the status quo. "
In this state, "status quo" means "Governor Gregoire and the Democrats who have increased the state budget by 33 percent and want to increase our taxes while all of us have even less money due to inflation and loss of equity in our homes."
Unfortunately for Gregoire, the economy and the insane budget favor Dino in this year's election.
Yes, there is a big anti-GOP sentiment out there. But this sort of thing rarely has a huge impact on executive races. Anti-Democratic sentiment in 1996 didn't hurt Clinton at all. Anti-Republican sentiment in 1976 didn't help Carter much: he still only barely won, 50-48 (297-240), against the guy who pardoned Nixon!
But whatever. Think what you will. Don't let me make you worry.
Posted by: pudge on May 24, 2008 09:50 PM