Why not?

I don't see that he has anything to lose.  There is no way he's not going to be redistricted out of his seat anyway.  I think his chances of winning are small, even if Mourdock defeats Lugar in a primary but they are probably better than retaining his house seat.  Low risk, high reward.

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22

---

by: Zornorph @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 16:17:20 PM UTC

More democrats should take this way in more states

I agree, it is very low risk for him. Nothing to lose.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:30:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess Donnelly's the best we have here..

I might fall asleep during his campaign, though. Somebody kick me if I start snoring in the comments section.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 16:20:26 PM UTC

Mourdock would still be favorite

But with Obama driving base turnout I imagine Donnelly could play quite well statewide. Lugar's attitude to the campaign following a primary defeat would be fascinating.

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 16:28:12 PM UTC

Agreed

I suspect if Mourdock's the nominee, Donnelly will, more or less, perform Obama's numbers atop the ticket. Granted, that's perhaps not a winning card, but it might well be as good as it gets for a Democrat here. I still happen to think Lugar may actually switch parties, and that could set-up a race vs. Donnelly, not unlike Specter vs. Sestak. That is, unless Donnelly and everyone else were to step aside for Lugar. (I think Lugar's buttered toast in the GOP primary.)

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 16:48:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A narrow loss would be worth it

Just to give Republicans some defense. A Lugar versus Donnelly Democratic primary would also be fascinating. Though Indiana is more conservative than PA and there would perhaps be less contrast than between Sestak and Specter.

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 17:08:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But it might be...

After all, Obama did shock the punditry by winning Indiana in 2008. And since his Chicago political machine is practically right next door, it's not like he'll have a problem (re)building a solid campaign there. IMHO this really isn't a bad bet for Donnelly to make, especially since the GOP may end up nominating tea nuts for both President and IN-Sen.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:34:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Lugar were to switch parties,

I have to imagine that the Obama campaign will do everything it can to clear the field. I suspect it would work better than it did in Pennsylvania, because Lugar would probably be, at worst, a tossup as a Democrat, and at best a shoe-in--and Democrats in the state know this as much as the Obama team does.

Someone in another thread made the point that such a move could lock up Indiana for both Lugar (as a Democrat) and Obama. Maybe that's overstating things, but it certainly gives them an advantage when it comes to rebuilding the party at the state and local level, something the state party would probably be heavily in favor of. The guy is pushing 80, so it's not like he's going to camp out in the seat for three more decades. I imagine a lot of younger Democrats would be happy to wait him out as they use him to build their own careers at the state level or in the House.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:45:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rather natural thought

for congressman who was barely reelectrd (admittedly - in very bad year) againt an extremist Republican, and who is a "potential redistricting victim". Yhe poosibility of upset in Republican primary makes this race even more attractive, though Republican would still be at least initial favorite..

---

by: smoltchanov @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 17:35:30 PM UTC

donnelly would obviously be a solid tier 1

candidate.  predicting that a tea party nutball would be the favorite seems unusual 2 years from the race in a state that obama won in '08.  currently voters are negative towards democrats - particuarly in reddish states. but just 2 years earlier they were very positive.  i think neither is a permanent condition.

my sense is that lugar would be fantastic for us (hardly more conservative than bayh really).  lugar is immensely popular - his average result as a senator is 67%!  specter's average was just around 50%.  no comparison in terms of likeability or raw numbers.  and donnelly can then run for guv - which he wants to do anyway (and which many democrats have won over the years also).

---

by: st paul sage @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 17:46:09 PM UTC

The best defense is a good offense

We gotta make the GOP spend as much as possible if we have any hopes of keeping the senate competitive, and Donnelly's the best shot we have here to get the NRSC to maybe invest a little here. I think Lugar loses his primary and agree that Donnelly's numbers will resemble Obama's to a certain extent. However, he voted for HCR and was still able to survive 2010 so I wouldn't be surprised if outperforms Obama by a couple points.

I don't know IN politics at all, though. And I don't see him doing any joint events with Obama, I don't think Indiana is going to be as competitive in '12 as it was in '08.

22, male, VA-10

---

by: Bharat @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:05:17 PM UTC

Here is my question about these primaries

When do they occur considering it's a Presidential year.  Here in MN, I have the endorsement process so we have a caucus that determines both who our votes go for in the Presidential primary process and who gets a giant leg-up for whatever statewide races there are.

If Lugar is nominated at the same time the Pres is, he has a greater likelihood of winning because base Republicans are canceled out by your basic, not totally pissed off Republican wanting a say in who there Republican Presidential nominee is.  The tea-party did great in 2010 in the primaries, let's see what happens when people are actually coming out to vote.

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 22:47:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indiana goes late

in the process of picking a presidential candidate. Unless it's somehow not decided by the time Indiana goes, which seems unlikely, wouldn't most but the hardcore ideologues lose interest?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:13:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The way it's looking

it's pretty obvious that Lugar will not be the GOP nominee next year.  With Obama expected to be competitive in the state again, Donnelly must be feeling like he's at least got a decent shot at matching Obama's numbers.  That and the aforementioned redistricting which will likely split the Dem-leaning turf in Donnelly's district.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:10:31 PM UTC

Donnelly could end up

the luckiest son of a bitch in 2013.  Redistricted out by partisan Republicans, became a Senator because of partisan Republicans.

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 22:49:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A couple of points...

First, while I'm getting very skeptical of Lugar winning the Republican nomination, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's toast. Remember that Indiana does have an open primary, unlike Delaware and Alaska, and Lugar will pull in independents. Also, the tea party vote could be divided if another candidate gets in. And, despite the 70 percent of county chairs backing his opponent, Lugar has built up some goodwill among regular Republican voters over the past 30 odd years. DCCyclone regularly cautions us not to view this years election through the prism of 2010, and I think we should do that even when the results might benefit Dems.

That said, my second point would be to say Donnelly should jump in. He's going to be redistricted out of his seat any way, and while I don't think Lugar is toast, I don't think he's in real good shape either (see the backing of the 70% of county chairs for Mourdock). He certainly would make a race against Mourdock, and might even win. Also, I think Donnelly entering the race might have the added benefit of forcing Lugar to switch parties. He would have a tougher time winning as an independent with a legit Dem in the race.  

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:31:16 PM UTC

True.

Lugar isn't necessarily toast just yet. How is the GOP establishment handling the Senate race? Are they happy about the 70% of county chairs backing Mourdock? And is Mourdock more of a Pat Toomey/Marco Rubio style GOPer who gets along with party leadership, or more of a Sharron Angle style GOPer who has plenty of enemies within his own party?

Lugar's fate may rest with IN GOP leadership and whether or not they're ready to sacrifice him to make peace with the teabaggers.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:39:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I understand it

Mourdock doesn't just have the support of most of the county chairs, but also a majority of the state party committee members as well. That was one of the things that was surprising about his announcement; even if the party establishment as a whole isn't throwing Lugar overboard, enough of it has switched sides so that at the very least it can't commit to backing one candidate or the other.

As for Mourdock, he's more Pat Toomey than Angle/Buck. As long as he can get Mike Delph to stay out of the race, I don't think anyone else is going to step up to cause him problems.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 18:49:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then Lugar really is in big trouble.

Perhaps he's not totally dead yet, but his political career is on life support at this point. If IN GOP leadership is ready to throw him overboard, his only hope may be for Independents to flock en masse to save him in the primary. Will there be enough of them willing to do that?

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 19:08:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That also troubles me.

What the heck do the State GOPers think they're doing?!  They're backstabbing the most skilled and trusted foreign relations Senator since William Fulbright!

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 22:36:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Their argument is that none of Lugar's FP expertise matters

He's on trips to Africa and going to signing ceremonies with John Kerry when some Republicans feel he should be focusing on more parochial things. Parochial things like going to county party functions, and such...  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:17:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

This race can go to a Alaska 2010 race style. This is important and the state will not be .

Donnelly would be not favored despite to have a teabagger, but I agree about his bid.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 19:07:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*

and the state will not be as republican as in 2010 with Obama in the ticket.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 19:08:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think 2010 might apply to Lugar......

He's gone to the trouble of poking teabaggers in the eye with both floor votes and rhetoric.

And the spending battle on the Hill is going to leave teabaggers nationally dissatisfied.  Boehner and Cantor don't want a shutdown, they realize, correctly, that their own party will be the political losers in the court of public opinion.  Unlike 1995 the Dems now have not just the Presidency but also the Senate, and that forces Boehner to accept a compromise the teabaggers will hate.  That will only motivate them further against the likes of Lugar and Hatch, and also Snowe if the Maine teabaggers can get their act together to find a credible primary candidate.  Even if a shutdown happens next weekend, ultimately the GOP eventually will have to compromise more than the teabaggers will accept to end it.

All this is to say I think Lugar is in a very precarious position.

If Donnolly jumps in, that actually hurts Lugar even further, since Dems who might vote for Lugar in a primary will sit it out instead.

Mourdock is an interesting character in refusing, at least so far, to pick up the teabagging torch in this, in spite of boldly primarying the state's most popular elected official.  I think ultimately someone is going to have to appeal explicitly to teabaggers to knock out Lugar in a primary, and someone will rise up to do just that.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:07:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Has Murdock really refused

to "to pick up the teabagging torch," as you (so awesomely) put it?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 21:40:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He did say in one of his campaign launch interviews that he doesn't consider himself a Tea Partier

Whatever that amounts to...

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 21:45:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm.

I didn't know that.

I guess that begs the question, will they align themselves with him or will they try to put up their own candidate?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 22:20:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Mourdock has a clear shot

I don't have an ear to the ground in Republican circles here but it seems to me that Mourdock has moved quickly to consolidate the anti-Lugar vote. He's moved well to block out anyone who tries to get in on his right. And his campaign is making the argument again and again that any other serious challengers getting in would only help Lugar. I think most Hoosier Rs are willing to settle for a solid not-Lugar conservative, even if he doesn't wear a tricorn hat and talk about the Constitution while he's asleep.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:25:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indiana Republicans

turned on you as one of their leaders and voted you out, too?

Anyway, if what you are describing holds, and he grabs the anti-Lugar/Teabagger mantle in almost everything but name, he's threading he needle quite well then.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 01:58:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hehe

Jokes aside, I think a lot of Republicans learned their lesson last year with the Dan Coats fiasco. They don't want to let Lugar slip through because a split in the vote against him, like what happened with Hostettler and Stutzman.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:07:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree.

That's why I think Lugar could be in more trouble than some think.

But at the same time, there needs to be one major primary challenger. You said that Mourdock isn't claiming to be a Tea Party guy, but what will the Teabaggers do about that? Will they quietly remove themselves from interfering and try to let Mourdock win, or will they demand that Mourdock pays them some respect? If they find someone they like better, will they support this person over Mourdock at this caucus they are holding in June?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:21:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't want to try and get into the psychology of your average Tea Party nutcase

I don't know if Mourdock simply not being one of them will be enough for them to put serious effort into torpedoing his campaign. But, come on... this guy is going after Lugar for supporting START, for pete's sake. This guy said in his first campaign speech that there "needs to be more partisanship" in Washington. Mourdock tried to get the Supreme Court to stop the Chrysler bailout. Come on... if he's not "Tea Party-enough", there's not a shred of reason in the heads of these people.

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:42:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess the question then

becomes whether they are bothered by possible semantics and/or are trying to be particularly forward thinking and strategic for the general.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:53:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And a lot have learned nothing

Two teabaggers saves Lugar for sure, and teabagger candidates do not recognize "his turn" or "clear the field".  Teabagger candidates seem to have much higher than average egos than regular politicians ("the country needs ME ME ME").

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:30:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's why

I'm trying to figure out if Mourdock will be satisfying enough to the Tea Party.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:41:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He may not call himself a "Tea Partier," but check out his website

http://www.richardmourdock.com...

Pretty much going all out nutter in comparison with Lugar.  

---

by: liberalpragmatist @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 00:51:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

good catch

He tells reporters that he's not a teabagger but his website says otherwise.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 05:21:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's not clear

is how much he will benefit from this open primary system, to me at least. Are the people who are outside the base that like him so much going to vote for him in the primary? It's certainly possible, but my impression is that besides presidential ones, primaries are dominated by base voters. A loss is a loss, so it makes little difference if he loses 45 to 55 or 25 to 75 against a challenger.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:50:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 2008 Obama coalition consisted

of driving up the vote in the cities and getting more of the vote in rural areas. I am very curious to see how difficult it would be to put that coalition back together. There hasn't been much polling since after the elections. So theoretically Obama's approvals could be rather healthy in context. If that's the case then Democrats could have an easier time if Lugar looses in the primary.

By the way robo calls are illegal in Indiana right? Because I received one about two weeks before the election. I can't remember what polling company, but it was definitely not a live person at any point during the call.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 19:40:14 PM UTC

State-based polling has shown Obama in same shape as 2008 everywhere......

Obama keeps holding steady compared to his 2008 performance in states like VA and IN.  He's slid in states he lost badly anyway, like WV and KY.  The upper Midwest has been a problem for him, but he's been recovering there as of late...the latest example, the new Iowa Poll has him breaking even in job approval now, after having been underwater for a year.

I suspect Obama will be very competitive yet again in IN as long as Daniels isn't the nominee.  Someone like Pawlenty also could take it off the table, and Romney would have an outside chance to do so but I'm very skeptical he can win the nomination or, even if he does, stay competitive nationally with Obama through a tough general election campaign.

Against anyone who has a stone's throw shot at the nomination besides Daniels, Pawlenty, and Romney, Obama IMO likely will win IN.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:13:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not everywhere

Have you read Nate's latest thoughts on how/why GA might be a better '12 target than MO?

In addition, Nate shows a bigger slide in a number of bluer states. In most cases, I presume those are Ds who are away from home --for now--.

---

by: tietack @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:20:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If this was based on that Gallup data that made the news recently, I discredit it......

Gallup always has a lot of weird data that proves fictitious in real elections.  Democrats overwhelmingly dominate states that routinely vote Republican, and contradictorily conservatives dominate states that routinely elect liberals.  I think these Gallup state-based Obama job approvals are much the same, they don't pass the laugh test.  They've got Obama with better numbers in MS than NH, and that's absurd.

That said, I can see where going forward GA will, not "might," be a better target than MO.  I just don't know that this will be true as soon as next year.  Either the nonwhite vote growth in GA needs to have been greater than I'd expect between 2008 and 2012, or, less likely, something has to turn a few white voters toward Obama in GA that fails to do the same in MO.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:32:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In a large number of samples

there are always outliers. Nate acknowledged the MS/NH discrepancy.

Nevertheless, Nate goes beyond those numbers -- with the rationale that Obama didn't campaign in GA until the last minute -- but his Presidency is effectively like a "familiarity" campaign, showing some percentage of voters that there's nothing there to fear.

His numbers suggest a 6.6% variance in the white vote between states where Obama did and did not campaign.

aka, suggesting that 6.6% fewer whites would be scared of a President whose been in office for four years is plausible.

And that would be just about enough in a state like GA -- unless of course the R campaigns there too.

But that would be a D win.

---

by: tietack @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:50:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nate has his facts wrong (link).....

Obama campaigned heavily in Georgia all the way through.  There was a temporary partial pullback, but he was on the air there at all times:  http://www.peachpundit.com/200...

Pluoffe identified 17 battleground states early on, and Georgia always was on it.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:56:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough

In fact, our volunteer base in Georgia is one of the most active of any Campaign for Change in the country.

---

by: tietack @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 21:26:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He did contest the state, but not nearly

as much as he contested a state like North Carolina, Virginia, or Ohio. He spent far more money in other states and visited only once after the primary.

But consider how close he got without putting the same effort in that he put in other states, it makes you wonder what would have happened had he invested the same level of resources in Georgia that he invested in other states. It seems like he could have won it, which is why I think they will probably target it in 2012.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 21:38:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, not all battleground states were the same

Georgia was a lower priority than many of the others.

But a priority it was.

And one little detail that most people don't know is that back in mid-September that year Pluoffe on a conference call actually revealed the campaign's vote share goal in GA was 47%, with the hope that Bob Barr would be able to pull in 6-7% statewide to let Obama eek out a plurality.  The Barr hope was always a pipedream, I remember at the time thinking this is a Hail Mary to hope for that.  But that was what they thought was realistically doable; they didn't see 49-50% as doable.

There is a diminishing marginal return in campaign activity, and I seriously doubt Obama could've done anything to win Georgia last time.  He maxed out Democratic Presidential performance under the current demographics there.  It's going to take further increase in nonwhite vote share for Democrats to get over the top.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 03:50:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But if they didn't

compete in the state as seriously as they did in Ohio or Virginia, as indicated by what they spent (relative to the amount of money it costs, of course) and how many times he visited and similar things, I'm not sure it's right to say that they did maximize their possible share of the vote. It's obviously a tougher state than the others, but if no serious effort was made in the likely Republican suburbs or in keeping down the margins in the rural areas, or if there wasn't as much of an effort to drive up turnout in Atlanta as there might otherwise have been, then they probably could have come closer.

Basically, I think they left a lot of votes on the table. I certainly get why that's the case, but I don't think diminishing returns has truly kicked in just yet. That's why I am pretty sure they will contest the state in 2012. In fact, as I've said before, along with Arizona, it's the most likely additional target.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 04:06:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to exit polls

AA voters made up a greater proportion of their vote their than percentage of registered voters, and i believe voting age adults as well. That is almost unheard of.

Remember Georgia had early voting, and collected data by race on a daily basis. It is by far the easiest state to run a turnout operation, and i suspect AA turnout is tapped out.

Hispanic turnout on the other-hand is likely an entirely different matter.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

---

by: BenjaminDisraeli @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 06:39:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure.

Roughly 3,930,000 people voted in the state in 2008, and supposedly, 30 percent of them were black. That's about 1,179,000 voters. But the information from the link below says that there are 1,727,543 black voters in the state.

I can't imagine there's that much of a disconnect, so there's got to be some issue with the information I am comparing. Perhaps there's some sort of weird lag between the time it's reported or the way it's presented. I am not sure.

I've tried to reason this through, but since it's 3:00 AM and I am bound to screw up something simple if I keep going, I will pick this up tomorrow. Suffice it to say that while I would think there's still some room for growth amongst black voters, the low hanging fruit has been picked, considering the sheer difference in size of the vote between Obama and Kerry. Perhaps it's possible to get very close, or even get over the hump, mostly with more black voters, but to have a comfortable margin, white voters need to be flipped or brought into the process. There's almost certainly considerable room to grow with that group, if only because there's probably no room to fall.

http://sos.georgia.gov/electio...

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 08:05:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, your math shows 68% black turnout as share of registered voters, which is low......

In the modern era when turnout has been skyrocketing, and early voting makes it easy, the turnout should be closer to 68% of eliglble adults, not 68% of registered voters.  A 68% turnout among registered voters translates to 50something% turnout among eligible black adults, which is not good for the first black President, in an era of massive voter interest, in a contested Southern state, where there is easy early voting.

Definitely room for growth.

By the way, I recall reading Pluoffe or someone else saying earlier this year or late last year that Obama '12 will, in fact, start with the same 17 states as targeted battlegrounds, no change initially.  They will tweak the list over time as evidence comes on on what's viable and what's not, but I'm guessing none of the 17 will be dropped until at least next spring or summer; any short-term changes will be only to expand the map, like adding Arizona.  So Georgia stays on their map at least all this year and at the start of next year.  I imagine nothing drops off at least until a presumptive GOP nominee comes to be known, which makes all the difference in our map.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 21:11:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd bet a significant amount of money

that the Obama campaign would make a serious play for at least 45 states if it looks like it's going to be a good election for them, which will of course become clearer as 2011 progresses. After all, if it's likely that he'll be cleaning up in the usual focused-on states, why not throw some money towards Alabama and Mississippi, if only to prepare for future elections?

As far as Georgia goes, if you click on the County Statistics by Race and Gender link, it has lower numbers, so I am not exactly sure what to think. Suffice it to say, I think most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked. I imagine the same is true in states like Virginia and Florida, too. But at the same time, they will probably have a good idea of when they will need to focus on other types of voters besides the most obvious ones, so I imagine some serious micro-targeting possibilities being discussed.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 06:33:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The size of the map depends largely on who the GOP nominates......

We don't go after 45 states unless Gingrich or Palin is the nominee, or someone else gets it who proves to be just as bad even though no one saw it comin'.  If it's Gingrich or Palin or someone who right out of the gate is obviously that bad, then the map expands real fast, in the late winter/early spring.  If it's a nominee who doesn't reveal himself to be that bad for several months, then it won't be till the summer that we see the focus expand.

But in no case does the map instantly shoot up from 17 to 45!  It would be a stairstep addition of states over time.  With Palin or Gingrich, I'm sure right away they add every state where Obama lost to McCain by 10 or less; that would be MT; both Dakotas; AZ; TX; GA; and SC.  They would invest in those 7 for awhile before expanding any further, unless polling elsewhere looks good.  I could see a 2nd wave including WV for starters, since the state has a lot of conservative habitual Democrats who could be persuaded toward Obama if the Republican is bad enough.  Arkansas, too, could be in the mix.

Thing is, you can count on one hand the number of states where Palin or Gingrich would win by double-digits, so yeah, 45 is about right for our eventual map against either one!

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 13:50:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we are a lot closer to 45 states

than you realize. I was kind of unclear before, so in case it wasn't obvious, that figure of 45 included deeply blue states like New York and California as well as (in this situation, against a truly bad candidate) very likely blue states of Virginia and Colorado--in other words, all of the 28 states Obama won last time (plus, of course, D.C., but that isn't a state). You'd obviously add in Missouri, bringing us up to 29, plus Arizona, Georgia, the Dakotas, Montana, South Carolina, and yes, Texas. That brings us up to 36. Give a take one or two of those states, that's probably the starting point.

But it's quite easy to imagine Kansas, Alaska, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Nebraska, Arkansas, and even deeply red states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, due to their proximity to other states, their base of non-white voters, or concurrent or soon-to-be happening senate races getting some love. They are obviously the second tier, but hey, why not? And at that point, why not just go for all 50 states? If I haven't said it before, one reason why I want him to spend so much in these states is to build up the party. Kansas is obviously not a key state for his reelection, but we aren't going to have a fund raiser like Obama for much longer, so we need to use and abuse his prowess while we can. So many times, we hear of dysfunction in such states, so why not work to change that?

I could go on, but it seems like more or less have the same thoughts. Suffice it to say, I am DYING to see reporting on their initial target list for 2012. Perhaps when I win that trip to Boston to have dinner with Obama and Pelosi, I'll just ask them myself.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 15:15:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even if it's only 17

it would be a different 17 with most nominees

e.g. if it's someone like Huckabee / Barbour / Santorum, more of the targeted states would be in the west, as the libertarians / mormons of the area don't like southern fundies (and yes, I put Santorum in that category)

if it's someone like Romney, and I think Daniels / Pawlenty, I think more of the targeted states would be in the south. While the effect would be more pronounced with Romney, I'm not convinced that Daniels or even Pawlenty would play well in the South. I know T-Paw has been trying to play with the fundies, but I think any decent campaign will bring up "Romney-lite" suspicions about his time as MN-Gov. (and if Pawlenty does succeed in recasting himself as a southern fundie, then targeting on him shifts west)

---

by: tietack @ Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 16:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the risk

of sounding like a broken record, I have to wonder how much room there is for growth. I ask because assuming the Obama campaign doesn't simply ignore the state, he'll have to do better than Democrats usually do. But how much better? Is the baseline now something like 45 percent, or is it more like 47 or 48 percent, assuming some investment and it not being a bad year for Democrats? If the Republicans invest money in the state in any way, how much will they benefit?

If it's an average to good year and Obama still loses the state, but it's with 47 percent instead of 43 percent, it's not particularly hard to see a Democrat winning the senate race.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 21:33:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happens

if Lugar gets wrecked in a primary and then turns around and endorses Donnelly for the general election? Would that make us a favorite?

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

---

by: xcave @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 19:42:33 PM UTC

Endorsements are overrated, but that one would matter for a different reason...

...than just the endorsement itself.  Rather, Lugar making that endorsement would be a symptom of an environment where the teabagging primary winner is deeply flawed for November, and that, rather than the Lugar endorsement by itself, would make Donnolly the favorite.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 20:14:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doing that would cost Lugar millions

of Repub. lobbying dollars over his post Senate life, assuming that after his primary loss he rides off into the sunset to K street (and he already lives in DC as the teabaggers have informed us all recently).
Probably not worth it for the temporary gratification.  

---

by: homerun @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:32:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't Lugar a little old to become a lobbyist?

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:34:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also

the fact Lugar has never been a Lawyer.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:50:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think so, personally

I tend to see Treasurer Mourdock as a more credible "compromise candidate" (between the establishment and the Tea Party) than many here, but he really lacks the bipartisan clout and big name of Sen. Lugar. If Lugar runs as a Republican again, I expect a very bitter, radioactive primary.

If Mike Delph or another Tea Party Republican like Rep. Stutzman enters the race, it's going to get really nasty and ideological, and I think that would give Rep. Donnelly a major opening.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:33:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Mike Delph or another

Tea Party Republican like Rep. Stutzman enters the race, as you described, who would be the Republican nominee? Would Donnelley have an opening because the primary victor would be badly bruised or because he'd have an unelectable profile, or a little of both?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No idea on the former

As for the latter, I think both. In a split field, in a climate like this, whoever gets the nomination will probably come in with well under a majority of the vote.

The primary, especially if crowded, will probably be a "more conservative than thou" affair, with Sen. Lugar probably running more on an argument that he holds traditional conservative principles of good government meaning pragmatism and willingness to work across the aisle (something that makes sense to most voters, but not most Republican voters).

If Treasurer Mourdock emerges from a battle with Lugar to his left and Delph or another Tea Party Republican to his right, he'll be walking away having alienated both the active Lugarites (which is set to potentially hurt him among moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats as it is, but Lugar is seeing a serious erosion of support from within the Indiana Republican Party anyway) and the hardcore Tea Partiers (who tend to be more outspoken and politically ambitious). He wants a broad compromise, which means keeping as many Tea Party folks on board as he possibly can; Delph being in the race will not help with that.

If Delph emerges, the narrative is likely to be that the Republicans passed over two experienced statewide officeholders in favor of nominating a fire-breathing bomb-thrower from one of the most virulently Republican counties in the state. Mourdock is nearly as conservative as Delph, but Delph's entire profile is that of an ultraconservative. If President Obama runs close or ahead in Indiana again next year, I don't see how Indiana at once goes blue (or even just narrowly red) while electing someone like Mike Delph to the Senate over a top-tier Blue Dog Democrat like Rep. Connelly.

If Lugar emerges, Republicans better hope they nominate an inspiring presidential candidate who can gin up the base as well as Obama can. If Obama is running against a candidate whom Indiana Republicans really aren't excited about, and if the media narrative is like 1996 (when President Clinton was, after some trepidation after the 1994 electoral bloodbath and the 1995 uncertainty over the government shutdown and then-Speaker Gingrich's ascendancy, considered a near-lock for reelection by the time campaign season was truly underway), Republicans will probably stay home in droves out of discouragement; the thought of reelecting Lugar isn't going to get many Republicans out to the polls, so it'll have to be another close race that draws them out.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:26:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Typo

It's obviously Rep. Donnelly, not Rep. Connelly, who is the illegitimate love child of Reps. Gerry Connolly of Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Hopefully that bombshell won't damage their electoral prospects overmuch...

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:28:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting.

I hadn't considered the possibility that Lugar would lose if he emerged the victor in a brutal primary with weakness at the top of the ticket because of a demoralized base. I'm not sure I buy it, but it's definitely something to think about.

In this or another thread about this topic, I asked Bob Bobson about Mourdock's ability to claim Teabagger status essentially by default. Mourdock's supposedly not really associating himself with them right now, but will that be okay? Will he be enough to satisfy the Teabaggers so that they step back from the race? If not, will they try to convince him to step down or instead try to compete with him in the primary with their own candidate to defeat Lugar?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:38:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right now, I think he'll pivot rightward...

And embrace the Tea Party movement fully if that's what it takes to stave off a strong challenger like Delph. I'm rather puzzled by his reticence to seize on the label, considering there doesn't seem to be much daylight between the treasurer and the movement ideologically.

Treasurer Mourdock is tough because he won election statewide by a commanding margin. He's not going to be as easy to paint as a crazy nutjob as, say, Sharron Angle. If he's able to sweep Sen. Lugar aside in the primary without facing a serious challenge from his right, he's favored, but I think he's afraid of the "Tea Party wacko" label sticking in an election cycle in which President Obama starts off as about even money to retain Indiana.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:52:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think so, too.

Like I said above, we now must wonder whether they will be offended by words and/or try to be particularly strategic during the general. These guys seem so addled that I could see them demanding that he calls himself a Tea Party member on television and doesn't stray from a choice of specific phrases to describe issues while running.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 02:55:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like what Donnelly is doing

I think this is similar to what Sherrod Brown did during redistricting after the 2000 Census: claim you're running statewide against a vulnerable incumbent; go for it if your lose your seat due to redistricting; or stay in the House if the GOP panics and draws you a safe seat.

Think this could be a ploy to force the GOP to make a safe seat for Donnelly to keep him out of the race?

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

---

by: nycyoungin @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 21:03:15 PM UTC

Rumors about Lugar

Does anyone think he could jump ship and go Jeffords or something like that if things look bad for him in the primary?  Are those rumors still circulating?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 22:31:47 PM UTC

Obama

adding flames to the fire. He now claims Lugar is his favorite Republican. He is either trying to put the final nail in Lugar's Republican primary or get him to switch. Or maybe I'm making too much of it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:53:26 PM UTC

I don't know where that "favorite Republican" thing is coming from

Sure, Lugar's got a good claim to that title, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing the President would say publicly, you know...

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 00:01:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no attribution.

Source could be an opinion from some teabagger's blog for all we know.

---

by: homerun @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 00:15:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, it's Mourdock's line of attack

Because it seems somewhat credible, it may stick.

---

by: tietack @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 00:30:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

link

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...  

---

by: tietack @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 00:31:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

mourdock doesn't need to say he's a teabagger

my recollection from 2010 was that the tea party candidates in DE and Alaska, and NV were really under the radar until very late in the campaigns. then, when palin or the club for growth dropped a money bomb about them and they swamped the mainstream republican.  lugar would be vulnerable to the same approach.

and tea party "leaders" might want explicit allegiance to the tea party but tea party voters i think are just very conservative republicans and libertarians - you know, the republican primary voting base.

mourdock doesn't want to be weighed down with o'donnell/joe miller/sharon angle baggage at this point - that's why i think he's not identifying as a tea party guy.

---

by: st paul sage @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 16:51:43 PM UTC

Your last line is certainly true.

What's a boon in the primary could be a disadvantage in the general. But again, will these people demand political fealty, in public, to their cause? I'm not sure they are irrational enough to care about mere words, but then, they are challenging one of the most conservative senators for not being enough of an asshole to Obama and for veering very slightly from the party line.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 17:38:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]