President Obama - 49% Approve, 47% Disapprove
Sen. Cantwell - 46% Approve, 45% Disapprove
Mrs. Gregoire - 36% Approve, 59% Disapprove
Sen. Murray - 43% Approve, 50% Disapprove
Wow. A month ago Murray was at 55% - 39%. This could get interesting.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 21, 2010 09:07 PM | Email ThisIt's interesting enough that a bit more detail from those polls may be worth considering:
For the poll just over a month ago, the approve-disapprove #s on Patty Murray for (R)s, (D)s, and (I)s were:
(R)s: 27% - 67%
(D)s: 77% - 16%
(I)s: 49% - 47%; i.e.:
Murray had a slim ''thumbs up'' lead with (I)s.
But look at same comparison for Murray in the most recent poll:
(R)s: 19% - 71%
(D)s: 67% - 27%
(I)s: 32% - 61%; i.e.:
Murray suffered a noticeable drop across the board, but especially her support went into free-fall among (I)s.
Dino Rossi or Rob McKenna, are you there ??
(Having put himself and his family thru 2 grueling state-wide campaigns within the last 6 years, I'm not really expecting Dino to run. But it's hard not to wish).
2-PG-I think 2010 will be our year here. I just hope we can keep the momentum thru 2012.
Posted by: Matt M on February 22, 2010 06:12 AMNow all we need is a good candidate.
Also not sure why Cantwell is any different than Murray in numbers. They vote nearly identical.
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2010 09:52 AMIf McKenna runs for Governor in 2012, he could always lose and give up his AG position in the process. If he is elected Governor, it is always possible he could end up pissing off the people, if the economy doesn't do well, or there are more budget problems, or any other reasons that an incumbent Governor can become unpopular. McKenna might not like the prospect of becoming unpopular.
But he can run for Senate in 2010, without losing his current job. He is still a fairly young man, and Senators often get elected to multiple terms (Murray served for 18 years already). So maybe McKenna will do this.
Bottom line -- the Republicans wanted to pick up every seat they can. McKenna is their strongest candidate, Murray appears very vulnerable this time, and I think McKenna may go for it if he is asked strongly enough.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 22, 2010 11:57 AMPatty Murry acts like a Harry Reid groupie. Every time he is at a podium talking about how they are going to stick it to us she is at his side.
Posted by: Vince on February 22, 2010 12:05 PMWhatever you can say about Cantwell's voting record (and you can say a lot; beyond scope of this reply):
At least Cantwell is no dummie; she's got a head on her shoulders; i.e.:
It's not just that Murray is a hack and a Harry Reid groupie:
It's that she's an EMBARRASING hack.
SIDEBAR: I predict odds are good that the citizen's of NV will give ''Beltway Harry Reid'' his walking papers in Nov.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 22, 2010 02:11 PMI guess the Republican Party needs another dose of failure to learn the lesson. It was very disappointing to hear Rush, Levin, etc. bash Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is the closest thing to what conservatives are thinking now.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 22, 2010 07:26 PMGod love ya, independents, libertarians, tea partiers, but I beg you, the ONLY way we can beat the left is to hold our noses and vote (R). Twn facts: the libertarian candidates elected both Queen Christine and Al Franken handily! Libertarian votes DWARFED the spreads both times--look it up.
Third party candidates hurt conservatives.
Posted by: Matt M on February 22, 2010 08:09 PM
John: if you want a pure Republican Party, you want a minority Republican Party.
In Massachusetts, most statewide elected Republicans are going to be to our left. That's how it works. It doesn't make them RINOs, it makes Massachusetts a fairly liberal state. Would you rather have a Ted Kennedy Democrat? Please.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry with him and hold him accountable, but you won't get someone as conservative as JD Hayworth -- or even John McCain -- elected from Massachusetts, so your choice is either a Brown or a Kennedy. I'll take a Brown, thanks.
And McCain, sure, I disagree with him on many things, but he's more conservative than both Bushes, Nixon, and Eisenhower. Had he won, he would have been our second most conservative President since before FDR! Again, feel free to disagree with him, and feel free to think he's not conservative enough for your tastes, but let's keep some perspective here.
Every state, congressional district, county, city, etc. is different, and you can't control them. It's a big country, and the party is a big tent.
This is MASSACHUSETTS we're talking about; likely the bluest state in the Union. Unless the political world turns totally upside down, a very conservative (R) that could easily get elected in WY or ID will NEVER get elected in MA.
And for those who are calling Scott Brown a RINO and worse (not just on SP.com):
Wonder if they actually read the statements Sen. Brown made on why he voted the way he did on the jobs bill, along with 4 other (R) Senators (I did) ??
You may not agree with his reasons (don't know that I do either), but it was a fairly rational statement. And the centerpiece of the stripped-down bill he voted for retained the core of the original bipartisan proposal to provide a payroll tax break to companies that hire the unemployed.
I remind y'all of something Ronald Reagan said:
''Somebody who is with me 80 percent of the time is not my 20 percent enemy, they are my 80 percent friend.''
I expect Scott Brown will be with (R)s in the Senate on the things that really matter at least 80 percent of the time if not more. And we need all the 80% friends we can get. Consider:
What percentage of the time do you think a very liberal MA (D) would vote with (R)s (if you don't know the answer, you're on the wrong list) ??
Guess I've lost my appetite for just ''making statements''; and my patience with insistance on imposing rigid conservative purity tests:
I want to win and actually get a return to acceptably rational government; before the far-left, eco-extremist progressive (D)s take WA and the whole Country so far down the socialist equal-outcomes and bigger-government path that the disaster becomes largely unrecoverable; like going into a flat spin in an airplane.
Also never forget that even with what appears to be a genuine resurgence by (R)s, nationally those voters who clearly ID themselves as (R)s are still at best only a bit over ~25% of the electorate; while (D)s are still probably close to 35%. (I)s are pushing ~40%. So simple math tells us that in order to win nationally (R)s have to at least approach what is normally considered a land-slide win with (I)s; i.e.:
Win (I)s by most of 10%.
Finally; for those who have thoughts about formally launching a 3rd party (this is getting long, but I get spun up about people advocating political directions that have no chance of real-world success nationally or even State-wide):
See what Matt M. already said @ #14; when he reminded all about Queen Christine and Al Franken (it still boggles the mind that even MN could have sent a guy like Franken to the Senate). And remember that when Ross Perot launched and ran (with a ''break'' in the middle) the most successful 3rd-party campaign in modern times in 1992, with billions of dollars in personal wealth at his disposal and armies of dedicated volunteers, he got 19% and gave us Bill Clinton.
And compared to Obama and the current crop of hard-left (D)s (can't believe I'm saying this, but objectively if you look at the record it's true in several instances) Bill Clinton was relatively conservative.
Nationally the (R) party made a number of mistakes during the Bush-43 era. But anybody who thinks there is no real difference between the (R)s and (D)s at the State and National level is NOT paying attention to a whole lot of things that matter.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 22, 2010 10:38 PM