SurveyUSA: Gregoire 48, Rossi 47
Compare that to the same pollster's take on the Presidential race in the Evergreen State: Obama 56, McCain 40.
That's a lot of Dinocrats, to which SurveyUSA alludes in their write up of the gubernatorial poll:
Most striking: SurveyUSA is polling in 28 states. In state after state, as Democrat Barack Obama has run up the score at the top of the ticket, down-ticket Democrats have benefited. In other states, a rising Democratic tide is floating the boats of Democratic candidates for Senator, Governor, and Attorney General. Not in Washington State. Dino Rossi, rare among Republicans running for statewide office in 2008, is not being dragged down by John McCain. Christine Gregoire is not being pumped up by Barack Obama.
And people wonder why both sides are absolutely pouring money into this race.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 14, 2008 09:09 PM | Email ThisWe shouldn't erect Berlin Walls between our party and theirs because every once in a while they join us to vote for Rossi, Reagan, and many others.
Why you might ask?
I have family in both Florida and Ohio, both big swing states, whose televisions are constantly inundated with Obambi ads.
I don't watch network TV... except at 8 on Tuesday's when I watch House.
And tonite, in the liberal utopia that is western WA I saw Obambi ads.
Now why would he spend his money here if this reliably liberal blue state was indeed bright blue?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on October 14, 2008 11:14 PMAndrew Sullivan linked to a very good article this morning on Culture11 that talks about this from the British viewpoint. The link is below. The bottom line is the politicians need to move towards the electorate and not ignore them while stubbornly clinging to their base.
Link: http://www.culture11.com/node/32875?page_view=1
Posted by: tc on October 15, 2008 06:16 AMYou're projecting beliefs on to me that I don't hold. I repeatedly have spoken to voters in the middle who actually decide close, competitive races. Moreover, I have consistently advocated that GOP candidates be prepared to speak to top tier issues on voters' minds, especially those without strong partisan leanings, for that very reason.
Believe what you'd like. But don't make up what I believe, especially when it runs contrary to what I've said at this very blog.
Lastly, if you want to convince me of something, don't rely on a link to Andrew Sullivan. When someone calls themselves a "conservative" but no actual conservatives pay attention to them, perhaps something is up, no?
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 15, 2008 06:27 AMWith regards to the link, you totally missed the fact that I did not link to Sullivan's blog. I linked to the Culture11 site directly. So next time, why don't you actually read what I wrote.
Posted by: tc on October 15, 2008 06:40 AMI'm sure demo kid will say it's nothing.
____________________________
Something smells at 2885 Brownlee Avenue in Columbus, Ohio.
I strongly recommend that the Ohio Republican Party get on the case before it's too late. Today's the last day to challenge voters who registered early in Ohio before the run up to Election Day.
Here's the stench: An entire houseful of young, non-Ohioan Democrat activists have used the Brownlee Avenue address to register themselves to vote in the Buckeye State and secure absentee ballots under extremely shady circumstances -- all while mobilizing a large effort to register thousands of others for absentee and early voting. The activists are leaders of a group called "Vote From Home '08." The group is self-identified as having "extensive experience with political organizing, election administration, and Democratic politics." They were hailed as the "Justice League" by a Daily Kos blogger. Their Facebook page brags: "Want to turn the Presidential election blue in a key swing state? Vote from Home is a political organization that was founded by a team of young people for the
I did read what you wrote, and as a standing rule I won't even read anything by Sullivan or linked to by Sullivan. I'll happily read an assortment of left-leaning sites (which I do) before I touch anything in anyway related to Sullivan.
Meanwhile, if you believe that I - who is accused by some on the right for being to pragmatic and centrist - have "fanned the flames of the extreme right wing readers" then perhaps you need to re-evaluate the lens through which you view such things. Just because you view yourself as a raging moderate (when in fact you're probably a bit left of center), doesn't mean that rhetoric that occurs on either end of the political spectrum is as extreme as you believe.
P.S. In the past, I've articulated much of the same point you ascribe to the link you provided. I have in fact linked to Fred Barnes discussing the same issue unfolding in Britain and have encouraged GOP candidates to speak to their electorate, not just the base.
Again, I think you're pinning on me rhetoric that you see from others that isn't mine.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 15, 2008 07:23 AMOn individual policies, there seems to be a shocking amount of agreement. So it is mostly the -perception- of the party that is the problem. Here in Seattle "Republican" is spoken with more scorn than quite a few types of criminals. As if R's are all less than a step away from being Abortion Clinic Bombers.
Posted by: Al on October 15, 2008 09:13 AMhttp://soundpolitics.com/archives/011759.html
Your Update line of it pointed to a Michael Malkin post, which bashes left-wing nutjobs for their bashing of Palin.
I am not being leftist in calling this out as you "feeding" the goats (see Roger Simon's post here on Politico regarding this term). The issue with the "fanning" is not that the Rush Limbaugh's and others on the right are doing it, or as Malkin pointed out the left also has its nutcases, it is the fact that Palin herself, and McCain to a lesser degree, are doing it. They are creating a climate where the "nutcases" feel they are free to carry out their threats of killing Obama and feel they are justified by the campaign. You get this mentality when your running mate states on numerous occassions that Obama pals around with terrorists (plural). You get this when your campaign spokesmen repeat this line to the news organizations, even after John Lewis' statement on Saturday. Equating Obama as being a terrorist, which is the McCain campaign's line, is crossing the line and stoking the flames of racial tension.
You also may not be aware of the fact that also calling Obama, being black (actually half-black), a socialist also has racial connotations (see here) for a prespective on what it means to the black community).
So far, McCain, to his credit, has stayed away from Rev. Wright. Palin, however, has not. My assumption is that she is unfamiliar with the issue from a national standpoint. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt on the terrorist issue, too, but McCain needs to tell her to communicate to her audiences that the threats of killing Obama are over-the-line. They also need to change the discourse on the whole terrorist approach. I thought maybe Palin got the message over the weekend when she moved onto Abortion, which is a legitimate issue difference to discuss.
My concern, especially with the news that five Afghan (or is it Pakistan) students missing from the UW, that the tones of the campaign from the McCain side that they are stoking with the terrorists talk, provides a perfect cover for Al Queada to throw the election into dissarray. A assassination, or even attempt, of Obama would totally throw the election in disarray, as if the stock market hasn't done enough. It would also be pegged back, whether appropriate or not, to McCain and the tone of his campaign.
Will you at least denounce this action by the crowds and state that the McCain campaign needs to adddress this head-on instead of trying to point the finger at someone else?
Posted by: tc on October 15, 2008 09:18 AMIf your concern were valid (which, of course, it is not) you would be equally concerned about the leftwing nutter trolls here.
I believe that Eric is much more a leftist than he realizes. I've pointed that out frequently in my responses to many of his more peculiar, typically-held-by-democrat positions.
But to say he has "fanned the flames?" is to, I believe, exist in a parallel universe filled with delusion.
Sticking to the issue posted about is the best way to deal with this. I will not be supporting either of the main candidates in this election, for reasons I have repeatedly stated.
But watching the machinations and strategies coming into play is political heroin to this junkie.
Posted by: Hinton on October 15, 2008 09:34 AMPrecisely. And he's been running ads for about a week now.
Either they've got too much money to spend (highly unlikely) or their internals are suggesting something other than the current polls.
Posted by: jimg on October 15, 2008 09:46 AMI do agree that there are many on the fringe left that need to also chill. For example, in posters here, Dave Matthews comes to mind. He has been over-the-top and without sound reasoning. His bashing of all persons of faith, to me, is uncalled for. Has he not heard of Believer's for Obama? Has he not heard of or read Frank Schaeffer to understand that there are Evangelicals that support Obama, in spite of his Abortion stance.
Yes, I agree Hinton, that the left-wing nut-jobs need to also tone it down. Obama and Biden themselves do admonish crowds that get into booing McCain and both have always called McCain a decent person and the country owes him a debt of honor for his service. There disagreements have been over policy issues and statements where the McCain camp has misstated policies (same as when McCain camp disagrees with Obama camp's misstatements on McCain's policies). This type of political back and forth is fine. It is when the discourse degrades into the "mob" mentality that we all need to watch out for the danger points. John Lewis' point was that while Wallace never called for the actions that occurred, his talk of "feeding the goats" encouraged these individuals to carry forth actions that were despicable. John Lewis was familiar with the mob mentality that swept through the South in the 60's and sees the same mentality sweeping. My fear is the mob on both sides. You think the Rodney King riots were something, or WTO, you haven't seen anything if a Presidential candidate (either candidate) is "killed" right prior to an election. This is what the Palin rally mob is calling out for. It isn't an isolated case, and it isn't a few "nut-jobs." Person after person in line waiting to get into these rallies state the same thing "Obama is a terrorist." The lady from Minnesota who McCain had to correct that Obama wasn't an Arab (as if being Arab, in and of itself is somehow despicable, and is frankly racist statement to start out with), was interviewed after the event. She still believed Obama was an Arab and was provided material from the local John McCain campaign office (not official campaign material) stating this fact. The Head of one Virginia's local campaign offices specifically directed his volunteers (in front of a reporter) to go out and tell folks they visited that Obama was friends with Osama Bin Laden. At Palin rallies, now, there are signs that state Osama Bin Laden. These actions pale in comparison to anything said at Obama or Biden rallies.
This is the "mob" mentality that concerns me.
Posted by: tc on October 15, 2008 10:02 AMI went to MM site and I say you sure like to cherry pick what you think may help what your trying to prove. TO-BAD you missed the part where MM has shown the leftwing going insane over Palin. It takes up pages of threats on her and Mccain.
How odd you missed ALL of that.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2008 10:10 AMhttp://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2008 10:22 AMI also ask, however, do you have examples of threats being cast towards Palin or McCain at Obama or Biden rallies? John McCain stated yesterday that this has happened. Where is the evidence of it occurring at the rallies. The difference to me is not that their is "hate" on both sides, it is the fact that McCain's campaign, especially Palin, is feeding it. It is the fact that at the rallies themselves, the "mob" gets "warmed" up with people who introduce Palin and McCain that specifically feed the "Obama is a terrorist" storyline. This is at their rallies. At McCain campaign local headquarters, you have leaders (like in Virginia) telling their volunteers to link Obama to Osama Bin Laden. This is a lot different than some nut-jobs on their own spouting off. This is a campaign directed line of attack. This is campaign spokesman going on news shows after John Lewis statement and not refuting Palin's line that Obama "pals around with terrorists (plural)." John McCain's campaign is backup up and feeding this terrorist line, which is in turn feeding the "mob" frenzy at their rallies that is not being put down, other than John McCain's failed attempt last Friday night. McCain's campaign has ran with this storyline and thus is responsible for any of its outcome (i.e., if it leads to violence). That was John Lewis' point over the weekend. John McCain needs to come out and denounce these people. Sarah Palin, especially, needs to come out and denounce these people. They both need to make it clear at their rallies that they may disagree with their opponents that their opponents are still people and any calls for killing will not be tolerated. Obama had the best line yesterday, when he quieted the crowd that started booing McCain after Obama simply mentioned "his opponent." Obama stated that the solution is to go out and vote. McCain needs state the same (i.e., the best way the voters can make sure Obama doesn't win is to go out and vote -- for him of course). Both sides need to urge change through the voting process and not other means.
Posted by: tc on October 15, 2008 10:45 AMBut in Washington. 11.5% sales tax and climbing, Continual Gregoire talk about slipping in an income tax, and gas is what this week?
Is she talking about raising the gas tax yet again?
Posted by: gs on October 15, 2008 11:19 AMA poll has revealed surprising statistics about Americans: 84 percent agree that abortion should be significantly restricted, and 70 percent say they would vote for a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage.The poll was conducted from Sept. 24 to Oct. 3 for the Knights of Columbus, a 1.7 million-member Catholic men's society formed to provide mutual aid to its members and families, by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.
The poll surveyed 1,733 Americans from across the nation, 1,503 of whom are registered voters and 813 of whom are Roman Catholics...
When asked about the issue of same-sex marriage, nation-wide agreement was also apparent:
Only 30 percent of those polled support legalizing same-sex marriage
38 percent of Americans oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, including civil unions
70 percent of Americans (and 70 percent of Catholics) said they would vote for a candidate who believed marriage should be between one man and one woman.
That tells us one of two things: that voters don't know about Obambi's abortion extremism or the polls aren't as great for him as we are being led to think.
It also tells us voters aren't as socially liberal, or even as moderate, as some folks like to believe/hope.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on October 15, 2008 12:35 PMUndecideds will break for Rossi.
Look at the internals in the poll. Young voters are heaviest for Rossi and Obama. Older voters are McCain and Gregoires best voters.
Maybe it has something to do with Gregoire coming across like an over-bearing mother-in-law.
Hopefully, the race doesn't get called too early on the east coast so that all those young Obama voters can come out and vote for Rossi!
Posted by: b2 on October 15, 2008 01:03 PM
In regards to the polls, it appears you have it just the opposite. What the numbers you quote tell me is that abortion is not a major deciding factor in one's support of a candidate. Your numbers quote 84% believing Abortion should be restricted, yet by the actual poll numbers regarding the election, McCain does not command 84% of the potential vote. It appears that almost half of the 84% view other issues at equal or greater concern than a candidates abortion position.
Posted by: tc on October 15, 2008 01:13 PMThe simple fact is that Obama and Gregoire are the frauds at raising money in this campaign. Hell, just ask the Indians, they'll tell you.
Posted by: G Jiggy on October 15, 2008 02:13 PMBut, with a race this close, Dino doesn't have much of a chance. I think Simms still has this thing rigged in King County. So, if Gregoire needs, say, 20,000 votes, Simms will find them for her (or loose votes for Dino).
Posted by: BananaLand on October 15, 2008 05:34 PMI regret that your are again listing complaints you see in the press versus things I've actually said.
Contrary to the conclusion of your comment, I have denounced such behavior, in stark terms (here, two days before the post you cite). Furthermore, in the later post you lament, I was noting the fact that while both sides have engaged in abhorrent behavior – regrettably not uncommon in a heated election year – only one side of the vitriol is getting much attention in the MSM. If you’d like to refute the fact the MSM has paid little heed to the vile anti-Palin rhetoric being spewed with glee from certain corners of the left then be my guest.
More importantly, your fundamental source of upset seems to be the fact that the McCain campaign is questioning Obama's character. No offense, but too bad.
If John McCain had cavorted with David Duke and an abortion clinic bomber you can imagine the vitriol that would have rolled in from the left, and the howls of indignation that would have burst forth from the MSM – for good cause.
In contrast, McCain, to his detriment, has actually soft-balled a lot of this stuff. He’s not touching Wright, which is fair game whether you like it or not. And he brought up Ayres way too late in the campaign, so that it's totally tone-deaf to the less partisan voter who is only worried about the economy now.
Meanwhile, I don't even know what to say to your hyperbolic accusations that questioning Obama’s character and his associations (which even Hillary Clinton was willing to do in a muted way given the constraints of an intra-party primary) invites an assassination.
Crazy people are crazy. Don’t pin their potential behavior on rhetoric that is totally within the bounds of American politics, but with which you happen to strongly disagree. Politics isn't softball. It's been that way in this nation since the Founding Fathers first stitched this country together (and even during that process!).
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 15, 2008 07:33 PM