Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Senate Race:  Joseph Lieberman ran simultaneously on Al Gore's 2000 presidential ticket and for re-election to the Senate five years ago.  While Gore lost the controversial presidential race, Lieberman cruised back to the Senate in a landslide.  Another landslide is in the offing for him in 2006.  Being a Democrat from Connecticut is a favorable setup.  And when you combine Lieberman's stellar job approval with Connecticut's deep blue partisan tendency, even a few complaints about his less-than-extreme-liberal politics will do little to avert an easy DEM hold on Election Day.

As of this posting, no one has officially declared a challenge to Lieberman on the GOP side.  Three possibilities currently exist.  U.S. Attorney Kevin J. O'Connor, U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton are considering a run.  Whether one of these three or someone else emerges victorious from the GOP primary, the GOP nominee will be nothing more than an also-ran.

Governor's Race:  After former GOP Gov. John Rowland's fall from grace in 2004, Jodi Rell became his GOP successor in the Statehouse.  Given Connecticut's aforementioned affinity for the Democrats, one might guess Rell would be little more than a place holder until a Democrat could regain the office in the next election.  That would not be the case.  Bouyed by incredible job approval - her net approval is a gaudy +59% - Gov. Rell looks like a shoo-in to win her first elected term.  Rell has cleaned house in the 18 months since Rowland's resignation.  Apparently, she has earned the respect and support of a large majority of Connecticutans (is that a word?) in the process.

Two Democrat mayors are going to try to wrest the governorship away from Rell.  Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano have thrown their hats in the ring.  Even in this Democrat haven, they won't be much competition for the most popular governor in America.  The Blogging Caesar sees a strong GOP hold on the executive mansion in Hartford.

House District 2:  The big story here is the fate of the Groton submarine base.  When the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission decided against a Dept. of Defense recommendation to close Groton, GOP incumbent Rob Simmons' re-election chances swelled greatly.  Earlier this year, Simmons, who has been a major target of Democrats for the last few years, seemed destined for the fight of his life.  BRAC's decision doesn't ensure his re-election, but it does make his task much less daunting.

Former state Rep. Joe Courtney was Simmons rival in 2002, and he has decided to challenge the incumbent again in 2006.  Last time, Courtney lost to Simmons 46%-54% in what was a very successful midterm election for the GOP.  Election 2006 might be much closer given the current GOP travails.  Nevertheless, The Blogging Caesar is rating this race a weak GOP hold - for the time being.

House District 4:  GOP incumbent Christopher Shays' margin of victory in 2002 was a convincing 64%-36%.  Two years later, that margin was slashed to 52%-49%.  In 2006, Shays is seeking a 10th term.  This time, as in 2004, Shays' opponent will be Westport Selectwoman Diane Farrell.  The incumbent defeated her once, and, all things being equal, should defeat her again.  However, all things are not equal.  This is surely to be a very close race.  As with district 2, The Blogging Caesar currently calls this a weak GOP hold with a fair amount of trepidation.

Extra Note:  If the Democrats are to realize the remote possibility of a takeover in the House, both competitive Connecticut districts almost certainly must break in their favor.  Another factor is the decision of CD 5 Rep. Nancy Johnson.  She is mulling a useless challenge for Senator Joe Lieberman's seat.  If she decides to go for it, the Democrats will have no less than 3 possible turnover opportunities here.

Check out more on Connecticut here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 5:30pm 11/29/05
Link to this post |

Friday, November 18, 2005

Governor's Race:  GOP incumbent Bill Owens is term-limited in 2006.  If he were allowed to seek another term, he would be very tough to beat.  In 2002, Owens received the largest majority for a governor's race in Colorado history.  Alas, he will not be on the ballot in 2006, leaving behind an open seat in a battleground state.  The quest to take his place will be a battle indeed.

On the Democrat side, Denver D.A. Bill Ritter should criuse to his party's nomination.  State Rep. Gary Lindstrom is also running, but Ritter has all the momentum and is the presumptive choice.  While nowhere near as sure of the party nod as Ritter, Congressman Bob Beauprez appears to be the frontrunner to represent the GOP.  Denver University President Mark Holzman is a legitimate contender, and their primary contest is very much in doubt.  Unfortunately, the battle is already getting nasty.

I think Beauprez would be the better of the two candidates since he has shown the ability to win a close race among a closely divided electorate.  In 2002, he won a seat in Congress in Colorado's district 7 - one of the most competitive congressional districts in the country.  However, neither Republican will retain Owens' office for the GOP if the primary winner emerges significantly weakened from the struggle.

At this very early stage, Ritter has the upper hand against both Beauprez and Holzman.  Colorado is a GOP-leaning state, but that tendency has been shrinking of late.  And even though Owens won by a landslide in 2002, he's approval is a respectable, but not stellar, 52%.  So, I'm not comfortable giving the GOP nominee much advantage on that account.  Since 1939, Colorado has had 12 governors - 6 GOP, 6 DEM.  The Blogging Caesar, with regret, must project that a 7th Democrat governor since 1939 will take his place in Denver in January, 2007.  As of now, I'm calling this one a weak gain for the Dems.

House District 3:  In 2002, Republican Scott McInnis scored a whopping 65.8% of the vote here.  In 2004, with McInnis not on the ballot, a Democrat scored an upset with just over 50%.  His name is John Salazar, and some GOPers contend having the same name as the victorious senate candidate helped push this Salazar to victory as well.

I don't know how much validity that claim has, but, nevertheless, Salazar should be taken to the wire in 2006 in this moderately red district.  Scott Tipton is the odds-on favorite to vie against the 1st-term incumbent on Election Day.  2002 GOP candidate Greg Walcher does not appear to be mounting much of a campaign in the race he lost two years ago.

I was leaning toward calling this race for the Republican until I learned how far Tipton trails Salazar in fundraising.  It is hard enough to unseat an incumbent; winning with only a fraction of the money is extremely hard.  Therefore, The Blogging Caesar says this race will be a weak Dem hold.

House District 7:  One of the closest national battles was waged here in 2002.  GOP candidate Bob Beauprez's victory was in doubt for several days after Election Day 2002.  Leaning on the clout of incumbency, Beauprez widened his margin in 2004.  Two years later, Beauprez's quest for the Statehouse immediately lands this race in the highly competitive category.

Higher Education Director Rick O'Donnell and Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall are after the GOP nomination, while two Colorado state legislators, Ed Perlmutter and Peggy Lamm will attempt to win the Democrat slot on the ballot.  Larry Sabato says O'Donnell and Perlmutter have the early advantage in their respective races.  One thing's for sure, this race will once again be a nail biter.  Only because of my aversion to calling a toss-up do I give the nod to the incumbent party and call this a weak - very weak - GOP hold.

Senate Races:  Neither of Colorado's senators is up for re-electon in 2006.

Check out more on Colorado here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:55pm 11/18/05
Link to this post |

Thursday, November 17, 2005

The liberal media and the President's Democrat opponents are trumpeting loudly and often the severe nosedive we've seen in Bush's job approval numbers these last few months.  For once, their claims are true.  Yet, that truth far misses the mark in accurately describing the big political picture.  A recent Harris poll tells "the rest of the story."  More people approve of the job he is doing than of the job the Republicans in Congress are doing.  Even though Bush's net approval stands at a miserable 34%-65% level, he fares better than congressional Republicans whose net approval is 27%-69%.  So Bush's numbers, while paltry, are not uncommon.

Oh, in case you're envisioning a great blue tide rising in next year's midterm elections, I guess I should point out that voters out there are not exactly in the midst of a lovefest with Democrats in Congress either.  Americans view negatively the job they're doing by an even greater margin, 25%-70%!

I don't like the low standing the President appears to have among the electorate.  Indeed, at this point in his second term, he is in Nixonian territory.

Mr. Bush's current ratings don't compare favorably with those of three of the last four two-term presidents at a comparable time in their fifth year in office.  In November or October of their fifth year, Presidents Johnson (67%), Reagan (66%) and Clinton (58%) all enjoyed the support of majorities, while President Nixon (29%) was less popular than Mr. Bush is now.

However, in the light of dismal marks across the board, I don't feel the sense of gloom and doom about the GOP's chances in the near term which those loud trumpeteers on the left would like for me to.

Update:  Welcome Polipundit and Michelle Malkin readers.  While you're here, be sure to check out The Blogging Caesar's Election 2006 Projections.  I'm currently working my way through the 50 states posting previews as I go.  My last preview was California.  You can view other state previews by clicking on one of the big maps on the projection page.  Please consider making "Election Projection" a regular stop on your way to the midterm elections next year - I be tracking all the Senate and Gubernatorial races as well as hotly contested House races.  Thanks!  (And thanks, Lorie, for the links!)

posted by Scott Elliott at 2:55pm 11/17/05
Link to this post |

posted by Scott Elliott at 2:00am 11/17/05
Link to this post |

Senate Race:  Dianne Feinstein is not vulnerable in next year's senate election in California.  In an article published about a year ago, the challenge facing any GOP candidate, as stated in the following excerpt, is apparent.

Feinstein's bipartisan support is bad news for Republicans, who typically need to attract conservative Democrats and moderate to conservative independents to win a statewide election. "The definition of a California swing voter is someone who has voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dianne Feinstein," said Dan Schnur, a veteran GOP consultant.  "The voter in the center of the political spectrum has voted for Feinstein in the past." That's something Republican Bill Jones recognized when he challenged Boxer.  In speech after speech, he held up Feinstein as an example of what a senator should be, in contrast to Boxer, and vowed to follow her moderate, bipartisan lead if elected. But with Jones sounding like the would-be chair of "Republicans for Feinstein," it won't be easy for the GOP to recruit someone to take on the senator.

Indeed, so far only two virtual unknowns seem to be interested in running against Feinstein.  One, George Gladius, appears to have no previous political experience.  The other, Bill Mundell, is a wealthy businessman who failed in an attempt to win a seat in the California State Assembly 19 years ago.  More recently, he founded a group called "Californians for Fair Redistricting."  Few senators can rest in the assurance of re-election like Ms. Feinstein can.  One of The Blogging Caesar's easier calls:  Strong DEM hold.

Governor's Race:  Can the strongman win re-election?  Arnold Scharzenegger's starpower took California by storm, catapulting him into the Governor's Mansion in 2003 under unusual circumstances.  Like most Hollywood marriages, though, Ahnold's governorship is now on the rocks after two short years.  As of last month, the Governator's net job approval trailed all other governors except the highly-despised Gov. Taft of Ohio.  Only 33% of Californians approve of the job he's doing, according to a recent poll by SurveyUSA, while a full 65% disapprove.

Given California's affinity for more liberal politics, I just can't see Mr. Schwarzenegger holding on to his position for 4 more years.  Since he will have lots of money and knowing things in politics can change quickly, I am hesitant to call this one against him.  However, I believe he is in too big a hole to survive next November.  Therefore, The Blogging Caesar is rating this race as a weak DEM gain.  Either State Treasurer Phil Angelides or State Controller Steve Westly should be able to overcome Schwarzenegger's money and celebrity.

House Races:  All 53 of California's seats in the House should be retained without much challenge by the current incumbent party in each case.

Check out more on California here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 1:40am 11/17/05
Link to this post |

Monday, November 14, 2005

Once we get past the primaries, The Blogging Caesar sees this race as potentially the most entertaining State House contest of them all.  It will be a campaign between two evenly-matched statewide heavyweights, and it should be very, very close.  Right now, I'm calling this one a weak GOP hold, simply because Hutchinson is in the same party as outgoing governor Huckabee, who currently enjoys strong approval among Arkansans.  If Gov. Huckabee were a Democrat, I'd rate this race as a weak DEM hold.  Since he's not, I'm picking it to remain in GOP hands.

Senate and House Races:  Neither of Arkansas' senators is up for re-election this year, and all four of Arkansas' representatives should cruise to re-election.

Check out more on Arkansas here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 4:35pm 11/14/05
Link to this post |

Thursday, November 10, 2005

The latest round of tax cut negotiations have stalled in the Senate Finance Committee.  In light of a quote from irritatingly moderate GOP Senator George Voinovich and discussion going on in a comment thread on my website, I have decided it is time to call school into session.  I want to explain the connection between tax rates and tax revenue.  I am no economics expert, however, I do have a basic understanding of the forces at play.  Before I go into my explanation, here's the quote from Sen. Voinovich.

It is time to recognize a simple fact of life.  Contrary to what some of my colleagues seem to believe, tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

For those who may need a little background on this issue, I'll take a quick look at the rationale Sen. Voinovich rejects.  From a high-level perspective, tax revenue is a function of two factors - tax rates and the overall earnings of those who are taxed.  If there is growth in our economy, overall earnings will increase and tax revenues for the government will increase, even if tax rates remain the same.  Conversely, if tax rates increase, tax revenue will as well - provided that growth remains steady.  Therein lies the heart of the argument of the tax cut crowd.  As tax rates increase, they contend, the increasing tax burden on businesses and individuals inhibits growth.  The result is less overall earnings and, in turn, less tax revenue.  Furthermore, reducing the tax burden stimulates growth which produces enough additional earnings to more than offset the reduction in taxation, thus "paying for themselves."

Let me put some hypothetical numbers to work to further illustrate this concept.  Say earnings are $100 and the tax rate is 30%.  Tax revenues, then, will be $30.  Now let's say tax rates are cut to 25%.  The immediate effect is for tax revenues to fall to $25.  However, with an additional $5, economic growth could produce an increase in earnings.  If earnings increase to $120, the resulting tax revenues would rebound to $30.  Any expansion in growth that produces earnings beyond $120 would actually generate more tax revenue than before the tax rate was cut.  Understand these numbers are solely to illustrate "less tax rate/more tax revenue" thinking.  They are not intended to refute nor champion the concept.

In truth, tax cuts can generate more tax revenue.  They can also reduce tax revenue.  The outcome of tax cuts in this regard depends on the current level of tax rates and the size of the tax cut.  The first step in explaining what I mean is to state the obvious scenarios.  Clearly, reducing tax rates to 0% will now and forevermore reduce tax revenue to $0.  Without argument, therefore, there is a point at which the "less tax rate/more tax revenue" argument breaks down.  Now let's look at the other extreme.  It is a bit less intuitive perhaps but true nonetheless.  If the tax rate for everyone were raised to 100%, the government would keep all the money, and no one would be able to earn a dime.  Eventually, the result would be zero earnings.  Tax revenue would again fall to $0, because even 100% of nothing is still nothing.

So at this point, we've identified the two endpoints of the possible range of tax rates.  Both result in $0 of tax revenue.  Yet we know the government takes in a bunch of money.  Therefore, there must be a level at which tax rates do produce tax revenue.  It should be obvious, in fact, that tax rates anywhere from just above 0% to just below 100% will yield some amount of revenue.  The following graph, then, shows the general relationship between tax rates and tax revenue.  The graph is a smooth circular arc for illustrative purposes only and most probably does not match real-world quantitative analysis exactly.  Starting at a 0% tax rate, tax revenue will grow from zero as the tax rate increases - to a point.  From that point on, higher tax rates produce more and more strain on economic growth.  That burden results in ever decreasing overall earnings.  At a 100% rate, we reach zero earnings and return to zero tax revenue.

Having established the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue, we can evaulate when the tax cut crowd is on target and when it is misguided.  If current tax rates are at point 'A' on the graph, any tax cut will result in a decrease in tax revenue, while a reasonable tax increase will produce more.  One the other side of the graph, suppose tax rates are at point 'B'.  In this case, reasonable tax cuts will produce more tax revenue over time, while any tax increase will result in less.  Finally, at point 'C', tax rates are at the optimum level for maximizing revenue.  Here, both tax cuts and tax increases will have a negative effect on tax revenue.  Two things to note before moving on.  First, even though the tax rate at points 'A' and 'B' are different, tax revenue is the same.  The difference is that the overall earnings - and the standard of living - are greater at the lower tax rate.  Second, since point 'C' is in the middle of the graph, it seems to indicate that the optimal tax rate is 50%.  In fact, the precise percentage that point 'C' represents is unknown, though I imagine it lies well below the 50% mark!

While this example does not consider many of the intricacies of economic growth and taxation, it does serve to distill the debate on tax cuts into terms those of us who do not have doctorates in economics can grasp.  The bottom line is that tax cuts can be used to grow tax revenue if current tax rates are high enough.  Put another way, if current tax rates are anywhere to the right of point 'C' in the graph, then Sen. Voinovich's "simple fact of life" is, in fact, erroneous - tax cuts in this case will pay for themselves.

However, since I am no expert on economics, I cannot say where on the graph our current tax rates would fall.  Scary as it sounds, I'll have to leave that determination up to more brilliant minds in Washington.  And I'll save for another time the discussion of whether we should be concerned with maximizing the amount of money the government can take from us in the first place.  There is one thing I do hope this illustration will accomplish. That is for the categorical bad-mouthing of tax cuts coming from Capitol Hill and eagerly echoed in the media to be seen for what it is - nothing more than political rhetoric designed to demonize fiscal conservatives as cold-hearted agents of the rich.

As I've shown, tax cuts can be profitable for the government...or not.  Wouldn't it be great if we were treated to intelligent discussion on the matter in Washington?  Rather than having some accuse others of being Ebenezer Scrooges?  I personally believe, given the fact that we all worked on average until April 17th to pay this year's tax bill, more tax cuts are worth a try.

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:55pm 11/10/05
Link to this post |

Senate Race:  Not much to say on this one except that it should be an easy win for incumbent GOP Senator Jon Kyl.  While not the most famous senator from Arizona, Kyl is nevertheless a GOP senator in a pretty red state.  To their credit, the Democrats appear to already have his challenger picked out - former state Democratic Party head, Jim Pederson.  Early polling suggests Kyl will win easily, and noting Arizona's affinity for GOP senators, The Blogging Caesar projects this race as a strong GOP hold.  Kyl's job approval is hovering just below the 50% mark, so Democrats may see him as a bit vulnerable.  Still, with disapproval in the high 30's, I don't see there being enough desire among Arizonans to kick him out.

Governor's Race:  Concerning this race, I'll will say for the first of what will be many times as we preview Election 2006 that the GOP failed to recruit its most appealing challenger to face the Democrat incumbent.  Gov. Janet Napolitano has done a good job keeping her conservative constituients happy - her approval has improved to 60% recently.  Even so, I'm sure she breathed a sigh of relief when GOP favorite J.D. Hayworth decided against mounting a challenge.  Unless the eventual GOP candidate can make up lost ground in bunches or the governor screws things up pretty badly, Napolitano should win a second term.

House Races:  Of Arizona's eight congressional districts, only Rep. Rick Renzi's 1st district seat is even remotely competitive.  For now, however, The Blogging Caesar is leaving that race in the non-competitive category.

Check out more on Arizona here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 4:25pm 11/10/05
Link to this post |

Wednesday, November 9, 2005

This time Democrats are setting their sites on the perpetrator of Ms. Murkowski's good fortune.  And this time their outlook appears brighter because of Frank's dismal job approval numbers.  They are currently in the low 30s.  If not for Alaska's conservative tendencies, one could reasonably expect that Murkowski faces inevitable defeat next year.  Even with GOP strength here, his re-election is in doubt.  In fact, there is some talk that he will step down next year and not seek another term.

Either way, other Republicans will be in the mix, assuring a contested GOP primary.  Sarah Palin, who chairs the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and Ben Stevens, an Alaska state senator, have indicated their intent to challenge Murkowski for the GOP nod.  If Murkowski decides to bow out, another GOP state senator, Ralph Seekins, plans to jump in.

On the Democrat side, two candidates have announced - Alaska House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz and state representative Eric Croft.  However, aside from Gov. Murkowski's decision, the biggest question surrounding this race concerns Knowles.  If he decides to run for his old seat - which he might - things would immediately brighten further for the Democrats in this race.  Without his entry, The Blogging Caesar rates this race a weak GOP hold.  If he goes for it, that will have to change to weak Dem gain.  This is going to be tight race regardless.  It should be fun to watch as well.

Senate and House Races:  Neither of Alaska's senators is up for re-election this year, and Alaska's lone representative should cruise to re-election.

Check out more on Alaska here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 9:30pm 11/09/05
Link to this post |

First off, let me acknowledge my prognostication shortcomings.  Democrats fared better than I expected across the board.  Polls showing Kaine with a slight lead in Virginia proved to be right on, and Corzine wiped the floor with Forrester in New Jersey by a much greater margin than I predicted.  Even New York City Mayor Bloomberg didn't get the 97% I said he would!  Finally, Californians proved me wrong as well, defeating both propositions I thought would pass en route to rejecting the whole lot of props on this year's ballot.  (psst...Don't ever tell anyone that I said prop 73 would pass 60%-40%.  I mean it!  Not anyone...you hear me?)

For sure, the Democrats had a good night, but what does it mean for the future?  John Kerry has already told me through today's email to his supporters (not sure why I keep getting those things???) that yesterday's election is a clear sign that we are not doing things right in Iraq.  I understand the concept of guilt by association, but I fail to see the clear signal there.

In fact, what we had yesterday was a very deep blue state electing a Democrat and a moderately red state rejecting a lousy GOP candidate who claimed his opponent would not have sent Hitler to the electric chair.  I'm sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of people - on both sides of the ideological spectrum - bringing Hitler and his Third Reich into American politics.  A more evil man has probably never existed, and nothing about him needs to be introduced into our political discourse in any context whatsoever.  Enough said.  By the way, had I known beforehand about that Kilgore ad, I would have definitely predicted his demise last night.

Besides the gubernatorial contests, ballot measures in three states, Texas, California, and Ohio largely followed the political leaning of their respective voters.  All in all, I think this election resembled more a maintaining of the status quo than a changing of the guard.  Yes, I'm a GOPer, so you might expect me to "spin" it this way.  In my defense, I'll point out that the GOP lost the state houses in both Virginia and New Jersey in 2001 before taking nearly every competitive race the next year.  Clearly, Democrats can be happy with Kaine's victory, Corzine's margin, and Ahnold's failing pet props, but just as clear, I think, is that no one can legitimately claim last night's results were a harbinger of doom for the GOP in 2006.  Past performance and current circumstance make such a claim purely partisan.

posted by Scott Elliott at 4:30pm 11/09/05
Link to this post |

Tuesday, November 8, 2005

Virginia - Results for the Virginia governor's race are coming in here.
At 7:45 (20.61% of precincts):  Kilgore 55.17%, Kaine 43.12%, Potts 1.62%
At 7:55 (27.58% of precincts):  Kaine 51.19%, Kilgore 46.61%, Potts 2.11%
At 8:05 (36.52% of precincts):  Kaine 52.59%, Kilgore 45.29%, Potts 2.03%
At 8:15 (48.19% of precincts):  Kaine 51.55%, Kilgore 46.29%, Potts 2.07%
At 8:25 (55.56% of precincts):  Kaine 51.18%, Kilgore 46.57%, Potts 2.16%
At 8:45 (63.48% of precincts):  Kaine 51.15%, Kilgore 46.58%, Potts 2.19%
At 8:55 (67.35% of precincts):  Kaine 50.73%, Kilgore 47.02%, Kaine by 47,514
At 9:05 (72.30% of precincts):  Kaine 50.80%, Kilgore 46.95%, Kaine by 52,874
At 9:15 (74.40% of precincts):  Kaine 50.65%, Kilgore 47.17%, Kaine by 49,441
At 9:20:  The Associated Press has called this one for Kaine...bummer.
At 9:30 (88.13% of precincts):  Kaine 51.31%, Kilgore 46.44%, Kaine by 82,744
At 10:00 (94.15% of precincts):  Kaine 51.55%, Kilgore 46.18%, Potts 2.18%

New Jersey - Results for the New Jersey governor's race are coming in here.
At 8:25:  Have not yet found website with statewide results - has anyone else?
At 8:35 (11% of precincts):  Corzine 65.7%, Forrester 34.3% (from yahoo)
At 8:55 (12% of precincts):  Corzine 52.0%, Forrester 44.7%
At 9:25 (30.4% of precincts):  Corzine 52.48%, Forrester 44.53% (thanks JP!)
At 9:45:  The Associated Press has called this one for Corzine
At 10:00 (58.3% of precincts):  Corzine 54.07%, Forrester 42.87%

California - Results for the California propositions are coming in here.  You'll need to go there to follow the returns.  The Blogging Caesar is on the East Coast, and it's my bedtime!

Texas - Gay marriage ban passed 74%-26%.

Ohio - Four election reform measures touted by Democrats were soundly defeated, while a $2 billion measure which seeks to stimulate Ohio's economy passed easily.

posted by Scott Elliott at 7:50pm 11/08/05 and updated throughout the evening.
Link to this post |

Current polling appears to indicate that Riley has overcome the negative response to his tax hike.  His job approval is nearing the 50% range again, and he is polling well against both the potential Democrat candidates and Judge Moore.  The Blogging Caesar's preliminary projection is a marginal GOP victory in 2006.  If Riley wins the primary, as he should, Alabama's deep red tendencies will be extremely difficult for his Democrat challengers to overcome.  If Moore were to upset Riley in the primaries, he would have a more difficult time in November, but with the backing of Alabama's large Christian base, he would probably still win.  While the Christian voting block in Alabama is very strong, Moore's presence on the ballot could sway swing voters against the GOP and bring out a ton of Democrats to vote for their guy (or gal).

Senate and House Races:  Neither of Alabama's senators is up for re-election this year, and all 7 Alabama representatives should cruise to re-election.

Check out more on Alabama here.

posted by Scott Elliott at 5:35pm 11/08/05
Link to this post |

Monday, November 7, 2005