In 2008, you could have made a good argument that the Republican party was in serious trouble, just by looking at Gallup's party ID, by state. Since then, thanks mostly, in my opinion, to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid, the Republicans have gained in every state, except Mississippi. (In both 2008 and 2010, Democrats had a 1 point edge in Mississippi.)
That doesn't mean that the Republicans are now the majority party, but that they can be competitive in almost every state, with the right candidates and the right issues. Here's Gallup's somewhat confusing summary
Solidly Democratic states tend to cluster in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, with a few exceptions in the far West (California, Hawaii, and Oregon), one in the Midwest (Illinois), and one in the Southwest (New Mexico). Solidly Republican states are all West of the Mississippi, including Alaska and states in the Mountain West (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana) and the Midwest (Nebraska and Kansas).
The most politically competitive states in the Union, all of which have Democratic-Republican gaps of less than one point, are Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia.
There are 10 fewer states in the solid Democratic category thus far in 2010 than there were in 2009, and one fewer state in the leaning Democratic category. At the same time, there are three more solid Republican states, and four more in the leaning Republican category. Sixteen states can be classified as competitive, four more than last year.
I should add that, since 2008, Republicans have won statewide elections in two "solidly Democratic" states, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and have good chances in others this year, including California and Illinois.
Three examples, chosen not entirely at random: In 2008, Democrats had a 16 point edge in Pennsylvania; in polling this year, that edge had fallen to 7 percent. Similarly, in 2008, the Democrats had a 17 point edge in Washington state; in polling this year, that edge had fallen to 7 percent. In 2008, Democrats had a 13 point edge in New Hampshire; this year, Republicans have a 6 point edge.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Regular readers may recall that I predicted these Republican gains, in September, 2008.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 26, 2010 11:46 AM | Email ThisI have seen a few that appear to be different but unfortunately I am seeing alot of candidates and GOP leaders that appear to be missing the big picture still and unfortunately will undermine the movement for real change.
Posted by: Lysander on July 26, 2010 01:36 PME.G., Would Gov. Christie of NJ fit the bill?
How about Congressman Paul Ryan?
Or perhaps Gov. Mitch Daniels?
And if you want to see better leadership and candidates, have you stepped up to the plate yourself and gotten involved with your local GOP on perhaps a county or even precinct level?
Heck, toss your own hat in the ring for some local office - if you're truly serious about better leadership, why not start by providing some yourself?
Posted by: Jack Turk on July 26, 2010 01:51 PMPosted by Vince at July 26, 2010 12:57 PM
If the GOP does win, they had better improve the voting system and make people re-register every 4 years - the American system is nothing but laziness and negligence and as a result we get the large crap sandwich in Government that we deserve.
One more thing; I'll hold the GOP to ramping up hearings on ACORN - old and new. There is still a lot of unearthed corruption and sleeze. As a result, voter fraud will continue to be notable in the 2010 elections due largely to fraudulent voter registrations. Only eternal vigilance can defeat this assault on elections in the Republic.
Posted by: KDS on July 26, 2010 02:15 PMNo doubt. I'd like to see them subpoena Joe Sestak and Bill Clinton and get their job bribe story under oath that the lapdog media swept under the rug.
Posted by: Palouse on July 26, 2010 02:37 PMHow making voters file redundant forms would "improve the voting system" must be left to the reader. (I once had to rush a friend -- a Naval veteran! -- to the polls at the last hour for an absentee ballot, because some bureaucrat had decided her student address just wasn't good enough.)
Meanwhile, from the cited poll:
While Democrats' party strength fell in each of the last two years, Republicans have not gained concomitantly.
Do you agree with any of this?
Ron Paul fits the bill. As does his son. Didier appears to as well.
As for running... I have run for office before. I may again some day as well.
Posted by: Lysander on July 26, 2010 03:33 PMHe wears only New Balance sport shoes because they are the only ones made in the US. Wonder what brand Patty wears?
He would fight for a 10% cut across the board in taxes and spending....for 3 years. It would go a long, long way to fixing things.
May they all rot in Hell.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on July 26, 2010 08:10 PMI don't think a lot people are going to vote against one candidate, while what the other GOP or independent candidate stands for is unknown. They had better stand for smaller government and reduced spending, but not in draconian proportions.
Posted by: KDS on July 27, 2010 11:23 AMNo... Americans want more services, and to pay as little as possible for them. That is the root of many of the problems of modern government.
Posted by: demo kid on July 28, 2010 03:48 PMIf the Tea Party people really want change, then don't look to the Republicans or the Democrats to bring it. Vote for the Libertarians or other parties not in the main stream. That's your best bet to stop this oppressive government and its madness.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on July 31, 2010 02:36 PM