No doubt Idaho’s GOP establishment has been shitting bricks over US Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig’s refusal to step down and allow the state party to appoint an heir apparent, but nobody really believes the Republicans risk losing this seat in this famously red state, do they? Well, according to a new survey conducted by Democratic pollster Lake Research Partners, um… maybe.
- Idahoans are in the mood for change. Fifty-nine percent of voters believe that things in the United States are pretty seriously off on the wrong track. Only a quarter (26%) believe things are going in the right direction.
- The Republican brand is in decline and a generic Democrat defeats a generic Republican. Forty-two percent of voters would vote for the Democrat in a hypothetical Senate race, compared to 36% who would support the Republican (21% are undecided). The Democrat leads by six points despite a 12-point Republican advantage in partisanship (40% Republican to 28% Democrat, 31% independent). Notably, voters criticize the job performance of President George Bush and Senator Larry Craig. Sixty-six percent of voters say Bush is doing either a just fair or poor job as President and only 33% say he is doing an excellent or good job. Craig is similarly critiqued: 56% just fair or poor, 37% excellent or good.
- Jim Risch is not as strong as conventional wisdom dictates and Democrat Larry LaRocco is rated as popular. Asked to rate their feelings toward some people and organizations using a scale from 0-100, voters rate Risch a “56,” compared to LaRocco who scores a “57.” Despite his years as State Senate President Pro Tempore, and five years as Lt. Governor (including six months as Governor), the supposed Republican frontrunner has no advantage.
- The data follows on the heels of two consecutive strong elections for Democrats in Idaho where voters have trended away from Republicans. In the 2006 State Legislative contests, Democrats managed to flip 6 State House seats from the Republican column. Additionally, Boise’s Democratic Mayor, Dave Bieter, won reelection this past November with 64% of the vote.
Sure, the poll was conducted on behalf of Democratic challenger Larry LaRocco and nobody is suggesting that he is even close to holding the upper hand, but Republicans would have to be nuts to write this seat off as an easy hold in such a volatile political climate. LaRocco is an impressive candidate — a likable economic populist in the mold of Montana’s Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester — and if he runs an equally impressive (and well financed) campaign, the GOP will be forced to respond in kind. This poses a particular dilemma for the NRSC, which trails its Democratic counterpart by a nearly three to one margin in cash on hand, but has many more seats at risk.
Republicans have 22 US Senate seats to defend in 2008, compared to only 12 for the Democrats, and of the 10 races uniformly considered competitive by Beltway pundits, only one (Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu) is currently held by a Democrat. If the NRSC finds itself spending money fending of LaRocco in Idaho, that’s money it won’t have available to spend defending, say, a very vulnerable Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon, who has a field of credible Democrats vying to take him on next November. And if the NRSC ignores LaRocco, writing off Idaho as a gimme, well, they need only look to the House Republicans’ disastrous strategy in 2006 for a vivid illustration of the possible consequences.
Faced with tight resources and an exploding number of potentially competitive races in the final weeks of the campaign, the NRCC resorted to political triage, ceding first-tier races to the Democrats while assuming the third-tier “Republican favored” races would mostly fall their way. This left the NRCC free to focus most of its resources on the second tier, where it pulled out narrow victories in eight of nine high-profile races, including WA-08. Problem was, Republicans ended up losing not only all the first tier races, but all the third-tier races as well. The NRCC gambled and lost.
It may seem odd to suggest that the road to a 60-seat Democratic majority lies through traditionally red states like Idaho and Alaska of all places, but that’s the beauty of the 50-state strategy that worked so well in 2006. Washington voters may not have a US Senate race on their ballot next November, but there are two key contests on our borders, and both our media and our money will play a big role in determining the winners. Stay tuned.
UPDATE:
Well, that’s what I get for not reading Joan. The poll was actually conducted by Myers Research on behalf of Idaho Dem House member Nicole LeFavour, who was considering getting into the race. Joan’s got more details over on Daily Kos.
My own private Idaho, purple as a Teletubby.
there is no doubt that the Elephants continue to be their own worse enemy but i have very little faith the Donkeys know how to take advantage….and even if they did do you think the real problems in our government will be corrected by them??
the poll in ID says only the wrong direction….i am sure many of those that answered have a VERY different view than what most of us on here have….so the correct direction to them will still be the wrong way….make sense??
what the US needs to do is stop the coporate take-over of the planet….maybe admit when enough is enough.
I think you guys are on the right track. Socialism, Surrender, and Stalinism have always been winners.
The only question is which empty skirt gets to carry the banner.
Keep it up…
@3 Mark, where has Socialism failed??
please enlighten me….
4 – Uh…everywhere.
Lessee…. Cuba, Canada, France, USSR for starters… how’s that?
Here’s the deal.
Socialism always fails because it goes against human nature.
Conservatism always works because it is the natural order of things. It’s that fucking simple.
It wasn’t that long ago that Idaho had one of the finest senators in D.C., Frank Church, and one of the finest governors, Cecil Andrus. Perhaps Idahoans retain a recessive gene that would permit them to elect a Democrat.
Republicans don’t get it. They took a respected brand name and trashed it. It’s like a trusted bank being taken over by loud-mouthed crazies who cheat the customers, lie to regulators, and lose money for shareholders. What happens next, of course, is that everyone walks away and the bank goes under.
@5:
comparing apples and oranges
Re 3: Don’t forget MARIHUANA, JACK IN THE BOX TACOS, SEX, DRUGS, AND ROCK AND ROLL.
re 5: Successful football programs are built on a socialistic model. You have a twisted concept of what cooperation and competition entail in life’s endeavors.
It’s not either/or. It’s both or neither.
If Labor and Management were opposing football teams, you’d allow Management to wear protective equipment and buy all the best players and coaches, and Labor would be allowed none of these advantages.
You can easily see by this example that your view of life is warped and twisted.
Being a WingNut™, though, you will blithely point out that Labor and Management are not football teams and make the apples to oranges argument.
But that’s NOT the argument I’m making. I’m arguing that two opposing teams with the same equipment and playing by the same rules will give a better result than the opposite, to the contrary, notwithstanding.
re 5: The team rules. I support my team. You are not on my team, so I oppose you.
Get it?
You are not a health insurance executive, yet you are a flak for their team against your own best interests and mine. Therefore, you must be opposed with all the energy we’ve got, because you are a deluded nincompoop who makes our job of opposing the other team harder.
You are on our team, so you musdt either realize that, or be cut from the body politic like a cancerous leg.
Loocy – So it’s like checkers right?
…the oil industry is a zero sum game ( like checkers )
Commentby headless lucy— 4/9/06@ 2:56 pm
For once you’re right, Redneck. The GOP-sponsored corporate socialism is a train wreck. It’s time to bring back regulated capitalism. Now pay your fucking gambling debt, you commie freeloader.
Can you give me an example of “corporate socialism? Even one? Be careful… remember who yer talkin to
@5
Canada and France have failed?? mmm….
the fact that Cuba and the USSR are/were NOT socialist does not factor in your equation does it??
what about Norway, Sweden or Denmark?? heck all of Northern Europe for that matter….yea, real tough on those people isn’t it??
ever wonder what saved capitalism in the US??
might it have been social progams established by FDR???
naw…couldn’t be….
ever wonder what happened to Japan’s eceonomy??? might it have anything to do with the rasing of caps on salaries???
naw…of course not. we all know that it is benefitial to have a ever-widening gap between the “haves” and “have nots” now that has been a road-map to success throughout history, right??
@ 14
i can, and it was referred to earlier…..The National Football League.
@ 13
are you referring to the Nanny State??
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
re 12: Exactly, MTR. Except one has derricks as playing pieces and the other has little circular plastics discs. Both games have a limited amount of playing pieces. Draw games are rare, and winner takes all.
The only difference is that with checkers, each player starts with the same number of playing pieces.
I’m not trying to talk you guys out of your campaign based on Socialism, Surrender, and Stalinism.
Sounds like a sure winner to me. Go for it.
Mark the redneck, tt all depends on how you define it:
Socialism: Tax breaks for the richest 2% and for the oil companies is capitalism? Then I am for socialism, as you define it. Balancing the budget? Only clinton has had a surplus in the last 20 years – so if that is socialism – I am for a balanced budget.
Surrender: If surrender is getting out of Iraq or bankrupting our country for no reason – then I am for “surrender”. If you want to nation-build – go ahead.
Stalinism: If that is being agains the rampant corruption and ineptness of the republicans – then I must be for Stalinism.
Does that also mean being against unlimited powers for the executive branch? Seems to me the real Stalinist are Cheney and Addington.
5:
He is actually comparing monkeys and the Pacific Ocean.
Mark lives in Markland. He is King and it all makes sense to him. Even when it all goes purple, this is a centrist country, not a conservative one, next November, he will cry how Murkins were fooled by rhetoric and lies espoused by the liberal commies with help from the liberally biased media.
He will not realize or accept even the possibility that his party, the only Right party, used these tactics for 12 years and now those Murkins, as he so fondly calls his fellow citizens, just might be fed up to here with the bullshit.
Mark, this is The United States of America. We are ruled by the majority. Deal with it. We have. You’re going to love it. Hey, lots of your leaders are retiring or switching sides, how about you?
re 19: MTR, Don’t forget MARIHUANA, JACK IN THE BOX TACOS, SEX, DRUGS, AND ROCK AND ROLL.
These are key to the takeover.