June 29, 2006
A good day for Mike McGavick

National Journal's Hotline (subscription only) has moved the Washington Senate race into their Top 10 most competitive:

With the climate improving ever-so-slightly for the GOP, and with Cantwell unable to capitalize on voter angst over Iraq, McGavick's chances get a slight boost. It's possible this race slips in the months ahead because other Democratic opportunities in other states bump it off. But right now, we can't imagine ever viewing any other Democratic incumbent as more vulnerable than Cantwell.
Josh Feit at The Stranger just posted the latest Cook Report, which reaches the same conclusion as the National Journal.
On many levels, freshman Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell may be the party's most vulnerable incumbent ... McGavick is probably the strongest candidate that Republicans could have recruited for this race... if there is any race in the Lean Democratic column that seems destined for Toss Up, it is this one
And Strategic Visions just released its latest poll, which shows McGavick up another point from last month, and is now within 4% of the incumbent.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 29, 2006 04:33 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Seems like every time Goldy does one of his spasmodic, profanity laced anti-McGavick outbursts, McGavick goes up another notch or two in the polls. Thanks. Keep it up Goldy!

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 29, 2006 04:42 PM
2. Maria could still get in (esp. with the help of KCE, like last time). But McGavick is certainly within striking distance, and can hopefully press hard and take it all the way home.

But goodness, CHRISTINE GREGOIRE CONTINUES TO BE IN DEEP DOO-DOO! The re-elects for her and Rossi don't ever seem to change. It's his for the asking. Washington awaits a new governor in '08.

Posted by: Michele on June 29, 2006 06:24 PM
3. Poor Republicans. Proud that their candidate is losing by ONLY 5%. Proud that Cantwell is vunerable. Proud that McGavick has a slight chance to win.

Even I'll admit there is a chance. But why are you so proud of it?

Posted by: Gerald on June 29, 2006 07:33 PM
4. Sorry gerald, the operative question is why AREN'T you touting the wonderful accomplishments of Senator Ne'er-do-well-mostly-do-nothing Cantwell?

For all the spittle you little libs spew about owning WA by owning Seattle, your little incumbent shouldn't have to be looking over her shoulder... and yet, there she is.

We're celebrating that she has to.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 29, 2006 07:40 PM
5. Hold on folks.

We need John McDonald to tell us that Mike McGavick will lose because
GW Bush is President while the N.Y. Times leaks secrets, the Supreme Court voted against
military tribunals at Gitmo, and Ann Coulter owns a picture of a hybrid car.

We're O.K. now.
McGavick can win.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 29, 2006 08:21 PM
6. Gerald,

It's about something that completely eludes you . . . a desire for sane adult leadership.
Don't worry, you won't understand it any more when McGavick wins than you do today.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 29, 2006 08:32 PM
7. Even I'll admit there is a chance. But why are you so proud of it?

Because we see an oppportunity to add to our majority?

Posted by: jimg on June 29, 2006 11:44 PM
8. Gerald,

How about because even in a backwards blue state like WA, conservatives are gaining.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 30, 2006 01:11 AM
9. That's not pride Gerald, it's hope, I'm estatic with hope that with a few more republican representatives in DC they'll all stop pandering to the left by spending billions in wasteful programs, like prescription drug benifits, and I know that with republicans in office at least we'll continue the fight on terrorism instead of running away to appease the hippies.

Posted by: Dan on June 30, 2006 05:31 AM
10. McGavick is doing just what he should, making slow, steady progress, building name recognition, positioning himself to build up some momentum. He has to avoid peaking too early. A lot of candidates blow their wads too quickly and run out of gas just as they should be sprinting to the finish line. A smart campaigner will avoid that. He also has to be prepared to weather the storm that Ne'erDoWell and the 'Rats are bound to unleash sooner or later. And, in keeping with many of Goldy's missives, that will be nasty, personal, and probably pretty filthy-mouthed.

Still, if this comes down to a close race, then I have little doubt it will be handed to StupidWell, just like it was to Fraudoire. The King Co. fraud machine is still a well-oiled monster waiting in the wings to "just happen to 'find' (so-called) lost ballots", just enough to put CantDoAnythingWell over the top. If so, then SayWA will have the distinction of having two Fraud Queens in office, along with probably the dumbest creature ever to disgrace the floor of the Senate (Osama Bin Murray). Nice going, SayWA.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 30, 2006 06:12 AM
11. I have not seen one negative Cantwell ad out of McGavick - good for him. I like the fact that they are letting the Cant-vote-well crowd cast the first stone, which undoubtedly they will because she has little else to run on.

Posted by: Palouse on June 30, 2006 11:05 AM
12. Speaking as someone who moved to WA 7 months ago from CA, I have to challenge Interested Observer's claim that Sen. Murray is the dumbest creature ever to grace the floor of the Senate. Sen. Boxer is surely in that company as well. Sheesh, what horrible representatives of my gender!!

Posted by: TurningWARed on June 30, 2006 01:05 PM
13. Well, I guess comparing the intellects of Boxer and Murray is like a contest between Harry and Lloyd (Dumb and Dumber). But I have heard that Murray is the yearly favorite to take the Senate's prize for Least Likely To Be Confused With A Rocket Scientist. Day care centers from Osama? Please...

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 30, 2006 01:18 PM
14. Am I the only one that is seeing a repeat of the 2004 election mess? Lets see a relatively unpopular incumbent against a local businessman who nobody thought had a chance, the polls kept tighting until the disaster of what was supposed to be an election. This year Sims will only be able to blame himself since one wants the election supervior job.

Posted by: Dave on June 30, 2006 10:42 PM
15. To the sick piece of dirt who is obiviously
supporting McGavick that wrote that disgusting
comment on my blog about Susan Hutchison and
myself.You who doesn't even have the guts to admit
who you really are.Leave Susan out of this
She is not running and didn't deserve that
anyway.If you want to take me on that's one
thing but don't you ever come on there and
make those kinds of comments because you don't
agree with me.


For the record what I said about Mike McGavick
I can back up.Unlike some of you honor and integrity still matter to me.I will not support
someone simply because the have an R by there
name.Once again I ask you to leave Susan out
of this.Just so everyone understands yeah sure
I am disappointed she decided not to run.The
best part for me though is having a friend like
Susan.Have a good 4th of july weekend everyone.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on July 1, 2006 01:49 AM
16. Phil,

Most of us like Susan Hutchinson.
She made a comment right off the bat that wasn't very politically adroit (made her seem liberal), and then I never heard her fix the misperception.
If she comes out strongly for public office and with conservative programs, I'll support her.

Lighten up.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 1, 2006 04:58 PM
17. Amused by liberals,

I hear what your saying,if you actually read
the comment that was posted on my blog.You
understand why I reacted the way I did.I have
since deleted that comment from my website.
It was a terrible thing that was written about
Susan and I. There is no place for that kind
garbage and hate filled crap anywhere.

Posted by: phil spackman on July 1, 2006 10:20 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?