According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, both Sen. Maria Cantwell and Gov. Christine Gregoire are basking in the adoration of WA voters, enjoying 57 percent and 51 percent favorable ratings respectively. Both numbers are up from Rasmussen’s February survey.
(A grudging thanks to that damned OR blogger, TJ of Also Also, for scooping WA’s blogosphere and MSM in reporting the latest numbers.)
While head-to-head surveys show Cantwell whipping the political asses of political asses Chris Vance and Rick White, putative GOP nominee Mike McGavick avoided an equally poor showing… on the strength of being inexplicably left out of the poll entirely. Um… not sure why.
Anyway, according to Rasmussen:
Cantwell’s prospects have improved since Dino Rossi indicated he will stay out of the Senate race in 2006. Rossi was nearly elected Governor last November before a controversial recount determined that Christine Gregoire won the closest election in state history.
…
Cantwell also benefits from the fact that President Bush’s Approval Rating has dipped to 39% in the state of Washington. Just 25% believe the country is headed in the right direction.
Absolutely. As I’ve said before, Cantwell should focus on campaigning against Bush, Cheney, Delay, Frist, Rove and the rest of the Republican rogues gallery, regardless of who the GOPolitburo appoints as her official opponent. This election is about cloture, and WA voters who gave John Kerry and Patty Murray substantial margins last November are going to be very reluctant to hand the far-right absolute power in the other Washington. If the Bush administration keeps self-destructing, and Cantwell can maintain her favorable ratings a notch above 50 percent, then she’ll be unbeatable in 2006.
TJ also focuses a bit on Gregoire’s surprisingly good showing in light of the unprecedented BIAW/GOP PR campaign to discredit and delegitimize her election.
Perhaps the most stunning number is almost buried in this story: Christine Gregoire’s approval rating in this poll sits at 51%, a far cry from SurveyUSA’s pegging of her in the low 40s/high 30s since May. SUSA is not known to have any real partisan leanings, and is a robopoller like Rasmussen, so I find the latter number quite curious. There is no August report from SUSA that I can find (they just released Bush’s state by state numbers though, and they almost uniformly suck!), so it’s possible that this is improvement by Gregoire, or noise, or a combination of the two.
In any case, given how early she is in her term, and how clouded the first six months were by negative press over her election, I don’t think Gregoire’s approval ratings tell us much at the moment about her prospects in 2008. But the Rasmussen survey certainly isn’t discouraging.
Whatever Gregoire’s true approval rating is it certainly is way better than that Republican loser of a Governor in Ohio.
Suck on that Rufus the Doofus!
I would trust the SurveyUSA numbers better, since they study all 50 Governors nationwide, and their results in other states seem to be in line with the gut feelings in those states.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50Sta.....ly2005.htm
Of course, their last poll on this was in July 2005. 38% favorable for Gregoire and 51% unfavorable.
Keep in mind that George W Bush won’t be the Republican nominee for President in 2008. If it is someone like John McCain, then Gregoire will be in real trouble. Especially if the state GOP finally gets rid of Chris Vance before then and puts someone of better quality in charge of the party.
How does your analysis change if Susan Hutchison beats Mike McGavick in the primary?
Keep in mind that Washington Republicans are actually fairly moderate as a whole. 55% of them in an August 2005 Strategic Vision survey supported moderate candudates for President in 2008 (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Pataki, Hagel) and only 21% supported conservative candidates (Frist, Santorum, Gingrich Allen), with 24% undecided.
http://soundpolitics.com/SV_WAAugust.pdf
Susan Hutchison could pull off an upset.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point, Richard. Rasmussen does relevant polling nationwide as well. This isn’t a poll of people across the country; both are only of Washingtonians. Just because they have 49 other state surveys–I don’t see how that validates the methodology or the number any better.
Your comment re McCain is a nice dodge in order to avoid the suggestion that both the money and the effort to discredit Gregoire and state Democrats NOW, in the aftermath of Lossigate, was a complete failure…
Richard Pope @ 3
It is hard to say what the effect would be given that Rasmussen apparently didn’t realize that either McGavick or Hutchinson are candidates. How did that happen????
oh, and thanks for the hat tip, Goldy.
I really think that if Gregoire runs a remotely competant campagin (which DIDN’T happen last time), no Rep has a remote chance against her.
Complacency and incompetance in her campaign staff almost cost her that election, more than anything else.
I wouldn’t call these numbers “adoration,” but you only need half the votes plus 1 to win an election. There definitely were problems within the Gregoire campaign organization. They thought they were sitting on a comfortable lead and didn’t realize Rossi’s negative ads had closed the gap, even though pre-election KING 5 TV polls showed the race a dead heat. I think they learned from this experience, and won’t repeat this mistake in 2008. Gregoire also lost 10s of 1000s of votes in the gay and black communities for reasons unique to the 2004 campaign that I think she’ll be able to capture in 2008. However, at the end of the day, whether she is re-elected will depend more on her record in office than who the GOP candidate is.
I don’t think the Washington Democratic party will permit Gregoire to run as poor a campaign as she did last time. Our attention was focused so sharply on the 2004 presidential race that she dropped below the radar, her absence from the campaign trail all but unnoticed.
She, and we, have learned a hard lesson from that. It won’t happen again.
Sen. Cantwell is a warrior on the campaign trail, who will benefit from the federal issues that make WA a blue state (abortion being the big one). McGavick seems like a pretty interesting guy, being that he’s not anti-Seattle like many of these gutless asswipes in the local GOP. I imagine he’ll remain a mystery for as long as possible so he doesn’t has to take a stand on the tough issues regarding federal office. Who knows, maybe the hard righties will shitcan the guy, if he isn’t conservative enough.
Good news for you guys having Dean logan sticking around…
A lot can happen in over 3 years or less. Ask Gray Davis, or Bob Taft, or GHW Bush. As far as anyone here knows Gregoire could be immensely popular in 2008, or she could be widely disliked.
I think it will be an interesting parallel between the Presidential election of 2004 and the WA governor’s election of 2008, with one side feeling the previous election was “stolen”. Didn’t work out so great for the Dems in 2004, so I’m not banking on that to propel Rossi (or some other Rep) to the Washington governorship.
Watching polls for the 2006 Senate election seems more worthwhile as the time for serious candidates entering the race is getting short. Unless of course a late entry with a lot of personal wealth makes a bid.
Goldy:
“As I’ve said before, Cantwell should focus on campaigning against Bush, Cheney, Delay, Frist, Rove and the rest of the Republican rogues gallery, regardless of who the GOPolitburo appoints as her official opponent.”
That seems like it would only work, if you could actually associate the candidate with Bush, et. al. But, I guess what you are really saying is that Cantwell can’t run on her record, because there isn’t much there.
Goldy:
“If the Bush administration keeps self-destructing, and Cantwell can maintain her favorable ratings a notch above 50 percent, then she’ll be unbeatable in 2006.”
GHW Bush was supposed to be unbeatable in 1991, and his approval rating was much higher than 50%. To me this statement sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
These polls are not surprising; this is Washington.
I second Richard Pope’s “if the state GOP finally gets rid of Chris Vance before then and puts someone of better quality in charge of the party.”
Republicans can get elected; but they need to be 1. not crazy 2. somebody that we’ve heard of.
Cfirst @12
Bush’s rating in 91 is irrelevant, what was it in 92? That’s why Goldy says “if she can maintain….”
tj @ 14
“Bush’s rating in 91 is irrelevant, what was it in 92?”
Exactly my point, but his approval rating was like 90% in 91, and he lost in 92.
“That’s why Goldy says “if she can maintain….””
If GHW Bush can be beaten after having sky high approval ratings about the same amount of time before the election in 1992 as we are in 2005. Cantwell having a 57% approval rating hardly seems to meet the criteria of unbeatable, even if she maintains that level for for quite a while. I’m not sure anyone is “unbeatable”, and I think it’s wishful thinking to believe so.
Jon @ 13
“Republicans can get elected; but they need to be 1. not crazy 2. somebody that we’ve heard of.”
I agree, I think Cantwell’s greatest strength is that the Republicans have no strong candidates to run against her. Rossi is the only GOP candidate, and he’s not running, I can think of with statewide name recognition that voters view favorably. The Reps have no bench. As a result, I think WA will continue to be a Dem dominated state for a while.
ChickenshitFathead-
The Bush/Cheneyburton administration is going down so hard it’ll make the Hindenburg look like a soft landing. You’ll have house members switching parties en masse to get away from the sucking vortex as the ship plummets to the bottom.
NO PROBLEMS for Dems in 2006. 2008…we cement our majorities and start building the PAX DEMOCRATICA. A peaceful world with ECONOMIC JUSTICE, and Peace through the SANE use of our UNEQUALED strength. With all these deposed ruling THUGS safely behind bars. To dream…to dream…
cfirst @ 15
I don’t think we really disagree. I agree that there’s nothing written in stone about her maintaining popularity–but my point was that Goldy’s prediction was BASED on that assumption.
As to to reliability of the assumption: anything CAN happen in 14 months, but if you’re cognizant of the trend rather than the snapshot, I sure wouldn’t be putting mortgage money on the GOP for 2006 right now.
It isn’t possible for lil Crissy to look good in anything, except maybe behind the wheel of a U-Haul moving out of the Governor’s mansion that is.
rujax206 @ 16
“The Bush/Cheneyburton administration is going down so hard it’ll make the Hindenburg look like a soft landing. You’ll have house members switching parties en masse to get away from the sucking vortex as the ship plummets to the bottom.”
It’s so funny to see the extreme lefties of 2005 talk like the extreme righties of 1997.
“NO PROBLEMS for Dems in 2006. 2008…we cement our majorities and start building the PAX DEMOCRATICA. A peaceful world with ECONOMIC JUSTICE, and Peace through the SANE use of our UNEQUALED strength. With all these deposed ruling THUGS safely behind bars. To dream…to dream…”
This would require the Dems (at the national level) run on something other than the “I hate Republicans” platform . Until I see that happen, I think your scenario is a pipe dream.
Does anybody know what Maria Cantwell actually did when she was at RealNetworks? She said she was an “executive”, but what did she actually do? What were her day to day responsibilities? Or did she contribute as much to RealNetworks as Algore did to the development of network technologies?
10
McGavick isn’t a mystery. He took a tough stand on paying himself a salary commensurate with what other CEOs who loot their companies get. ($10 milllion a year, in case you’re wondering.) He also took a tough stand on making sure his company (Safeco) ranks dead last in returning premiums to policy holders as claim payments. Something like 60 cents of every premium dollar went someplace besides paying for accidents, such as into McGavick’s pocket. McGavick should easily capture the greedy CEO vote.
20
Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet; that’s a hoax invented by right-wingers. http://www.salon.com/tech/col/....._internet/
Richard Pope @2
Keep in mind that George W Bush won’t be the Republican nominee for President in 2008. If it is someone like John McCain, then Gregoire will be in real trouble. Especially if the state GOP finally gets rid of Chris Vance before then and puts someone of better quality in charge of the party.
I skipped all entries after reading that because I wanted to congratulate you on ferreting out the obvious. Kudos!
Sowwy Wabbit – But you wong again.
Although Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, he did discuss his role in Internet development in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of Cable News Network. The interview took place on March 9, 1999 during CNN’s “Late Edition” show. Specifically, what Gore said was “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
But that’s a sideline to my question that you obviously don’t want to answer. What did Maria Cantwell actually do at RealNetworks? I heard on some kook right wingnut radio station somewhere that she didn’t actually do anything, and her “job” was actually just a cover for what would otherwise be an illegal campaign contribution.
So prove the kooks wrong all you moonbats. What did she actually DO? What were her day to day responsibilities? What department did she head? How many people worked for her?
MTR @20
Good question. I don’t know, but she made a lot of money (on paper) doing it. Since she is now reduced to penury, her “friends” are helping her.
Roger Rabbit @22
I kew that, but it is hard to deny he said it was his doing, since he said it was his doing.
Er, “knew”
Redneck
Cantwell was VP of Marketing.
Al Gore from the salon article:
That’s what you’ll hear from Phillip Hallam-Baker, a former member of the CERN Web development team that created the basic structure of the World Wide Web. Hallam-Baker calls the campaign to tar Gore as a delusional Internet inventor “a calculated piece of political propaganda to deny Gore credit for what is probably his biggest achievement.”
“In the early days of the Web,” says Hallam-Baker, who was there, “he was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already established — he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too successful. He also personally saw to it that the entire federal government set up Web sites. Before the White House site went online, he would show the prototype to each agency director who came into his office. At the end he would click on the link to their agency site. If it returned ‘Not Found’ the said director got a powerful message that he better have a Web site before he next saw the veep.”
As always fuck you redneck. Go back to (un)SP for “intelligent” comment.
Moonbat @27
Cantwell was VP of Marketing.
Outstanding! Will she “market” our way into prosperity? Oh, not that “I” am certain she gives a fluck…
Moonbat – As always “Fuck You”.
So I did some more research and found out as VP of Marketing she “marketed” spyware that was placed on workstations of unsuspecting users, and then she lied about it. Here’s some info I found on Wikopedia:
“The company faced heavy criticism in the computer industry, because its software incorporated spyware to tracked unsuspecting users’ listening patterns and download history. Internet privacy experts confirmed that RealNetworks software was sending personal names, private email addresses, and GUIDs to RealNetworks servers, contrary to the company’s public claims.”
I don’t know what the truth is on this… anybody care to defend her?
mark;
from friends who worked w/ her, she did real work (though not popular, she did work there)
Marks – How’s the weather down there in the great state of TX?
Maria Cantwell is doing just fine as Senator. Exposing the past depradations of Enron (you don’t work for them do you?) and keeping the Bushies from raising our electric rates. We don’t agree with everything she does but she’ll do a fine sight better than anyone the GOP can possibly serve up. And as Goldy has pointed out we can rely on her to preserve the cloture rules.
Redneck – The truth to you, when all is said and done, is whatever you think it is. Obviously you believe (un)SP is intelligent – you said so yourself. They’re so intelligent that they called the election contest 100% wrong. Do you think that clown Sharkansky is intelligent? Just read his dispatches one week before Bridges’ decision. His going on and on about how bad the Democrat’s case was – how awful their expert witnesses were.
So awful Bridges accepted their arguments and dismissed the Republican’s case – WITH PREJUDICE.
So why should anyone bother discussing the “truth” with you if you think a joke like Sharkansky is “intelligent”?
Moonbat – Geez, yer all over the place. Try to focus.
I’m just asking whether someone like you who hates corporations thinks its OK to have a senator who appears to have been a key player in a corporation accused of installing spyware to steal information from unsuspecting users.
Just tell me “Yes, I think that’s OK”, or “No, I think that only a lowlife asshole would do that.”
Sorry Redneck I won’t play into your McCarthyite, guilt-by-association game. If you have evidence Cantwell approved and guided any deceptive practices by Progressive Networks put it on the table otherwise
STFU.
Moonbat – Already did. Read it.
Mark@34: Uh, did read it, and no, you didn’t.
Back to the election. Given recent GOP history, Susan Hutchison will be “persuaded” not to give a primary challenge to McGavick. McGavick will be no real threat when those with brains point out repeatedly that he has been the Dear Leader of a corporate entity who has been responsible for laying off thousands of people and for amassing huge profits at the expense of his “customers.”