Two Republican women whose chances for election to the Senate seemed kaput only a month ago now have plausible hopes for winning their respective bids for office.
First, to Connecticut. Democratic state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal got caught in a web of his own making when he misspoke about his Vietnam-era military service back in May, but he addressed the issue and seemingly put it behind him. And once it was clear that noted violence peddler and steroid pusher Linda McMahon would be his Republican opponent for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, he enjoyed a lead in the polls. Blumenthal still enjoys a lead, but it's beginning to shrink noticeably. The controversy over his Vietnam-era military service, and whether he meant to say that he served in Vietnam when he in fact did not, hasn't gone away. Although his Republican opponent has made a career out of popularizing professional wrestling - which is phony and fraudulent by definition - voters in Connecticut are troubled by Blumenthal's honesty and integrity. Forty-two percent of McMahon supporters, according to one poll, are not voting for her so much as they are voting against Blumenthal, and the fact that steroid abuse in her "sport" led to a Canadian wrestler killing his family and then himself doesn't seem to bother them so much.
Chris Matthews - no stranger to injecting himself in a political story - says that Blumenthal ought to come right out and clear up his military record now. Hmm - I kind of thought he did that already! I remember Blumenthal clearly stating that he misspoke, that he never went to Vietnam, and that he was sorry. Maybe Matthews remembers it differently. Maybe I, like other liberals, heard only want I wanted to hear. But I don't think I did. And I don't know what Blumenthal can do that he hasn't done already to get the story - orginally reported by the New York Times with help from the McMahon campaign's opposition research unit - behind him completely.
As for McMahon, pundits have theorized that she could never win statewide office in Connecticut, a state known for having a well-educated, affluent population. But contrary to popular wisdom, Connecticut is not a giant upscale suburb. It has gritty urban areas and blue-collar residents whose style is more like Ralph Kramden than Ralph Lauren, something you'd see if you got off the Merritt Parkway. Some observers might call these folks the unwashed masses; Linda McMahon calls them her base. (If you could count the number of Connecticut residents who actually have read Nietzsche, dress in tweed, or drive Volvo station wagons, you'd be very surprised on how small the actual number would be.) And, she's moderate enough to appeal to the state's Republican voters. To her credit, she's more socially liberal than someone like Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn (perhaps "not as socially conservative" is a beter choice of words), so at least she's not being hypocritical by promoting "family values" even as her chosen profession does not. But that's about the only charitable thing I can say about her.
Richard Blumenthal's biggest problem may be the fact that McMahon is outspending him, and the idea that he's "known" has evidently been compromised by the Vietnam flap. I still say he has to go on a bus tour of Connecticut and be thankful the state is small enough geographically to make it cost-effective.
Meanwhile, up in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, denied the opportunity to run as the Republican nominee for a second full term in the Senate by Tea Party insurgent Joe Miller, has thrown her parka in the ring as an independent candidate. Democrats hoping that she'll split the Republican vote and benefit Sitka mayor Scott McAdams, the Democratic Senate nominee, have already been disappointed by the polls; a hypothetical three-way campaign showed a close race between Murkowski and Miller, with McAdams (who's likely to be misidentified as the fellow who draws "Dilbert") as a hopeless and irrelevant also-ran. This information, though, is precisely the momentum Murkowski needs to get into the race. At least 43 percent of Alaska's voters are independent, and they have shown partiality to independent and third-party candidates before, such as when they elected Walter Hinkel (an Alaska Independence Party member) governor in 1990. Also, 32 percent of likely Republican voters 54 percent of independents have an unfavorable impression of Joe Miller, giving Murkowski ample room to campaign from the center. You can read all about it in this blog post from noted electoral number cruncher Nate Silver.
First, to Connecticut. Democratic state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal got caught in a web of his own making when he misspoke about his Vietnam-era military service back in May, but he addressed the issue and seemingly put it behind him. And once it was clear that noted violence peddler and steroid pusher Linda McMahon would be his Republican opponent for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, he enjoyed a lead in the polls. Blumenthal still enjoys a lead, but it's beginning to shrink noticeably. The controversy over his Vietnam-era military service, and whether he meant to say that he served in Vietnam when he in fact did not, hasn't gone away. Although his Republican opponent has made a career out of popularizing professional wrestling - which is phony and fraudulent by definition - voters in Connecticut are troubled by Blumenthal's honesty and integrity. Forty-two percent of McMahon supporters, according to one poll, are not voting for her so much as they are voting against Blumenthal, and the fact that steroid abuse in her "sport" led to a Canadian wrestler killing his family and then himself doesn't seem to bother them so much.
Chris Matthews - no stranger to injecting himself in a political story - says that Blumenthal ought to come right out and clear up his military record now. Hmm - I kind of thought he did that already! I remember Blumenthal clearly stating that he misspoke, that he never went to Vietnam, and that he was sorry. Maybe Matthews remembers it differently. Maybe I, like other liberals, heard only want I wanted to hear. But I don't think I did. And I don't know what Blumenthal can do that he hasn't done already to get the story - orginally reported by the New York Times with help from the McMahon campaign's opposition research unit - behind him completely.
As for McMahon, pundits have theorized that she could never win statewide office in Connecticut, a state known for having a well-educated, affluent population. But contrary to popular wisdom, Connecticut is not a giant upscale suburb. It has gritty urban areas and blue-collar residents whose style is more like Ralph Kramden than Ralph Lauren, something you'd see if you got off the Merritt Parkway. Some observers might call these folks the unwashed masses; Linda McMahon calls them her base. (If you could count the number of Connecticut residents who actually have read Nietzsche, dress in tweed, or drive Volvo station wagons, you'd be very surprised on how small the actual number would be.) And, she's moderate enough to appeal to the state's Republican voters. To her credit, she's more socially liberal than someone like Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn (perhaps "not as socially conservative" is a beter choice of words), so at least she's not being hypocritical by promoting "family values" even as her chosen profession does not. But that's about the only charitable thing I can say about her.
Richard Blumenthal's biggest problem may be the fact that McMahon is outspending him, and the idea that he's "known" has evidently been compromised by the Vietnam flap. I still say he has to go on a bus tour of Connecticut and be thankful the state is small enough geographically to make it cost-effective.
Meanwhile, up in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, denied the opportunity to run as the Republican nominee for a second full term in the Senate by Tea Party insurgent Joe Miller, has thrown her parka in the ring as an independent candidate. Democrats hoping that she'll split the Republican vote and benefit Sitka mayor Scott McAdams, the Democratic Senate nominee, have already been disappointed by the polls; a hypothetical three-way campaign showed a close race between Murkowski and Miller, with McAdams (who's likely to be misidentified as the fellow who draws "Dilbert") as a hopeless and irrelevant also-ran. This information, though, is precisely the momentum Murkowski needs to get into the race. At least 43 percent of Alaska's voters are independent, and they have shown partiality to independent and third-party candidates before, such as when they elected Walter Hinkel (an Alaska Independence Party member) governor in 1990. Also, 32 percent of likely Republican voters 54 percent of independents have an unfavorable impression of Joe Miller, giving Murkowski ample room to campaign from the center. You can read all about it in this blog post from noted electoral number cruncher Nate Silver.
As much as I dislike Lisa Murkowski, whose biggest claim to fame is trying to gut the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority, I'd rather see her get re-elected than to see Alaska send a dangerous ideologue like Joe Miller - who supports privatizing Social Security and abolishing the Department of Education - to Washington. Geez, the fact that Miller looks like a runner-up in a Chuck Norris look-alike contest scares the Shinola out of me. And a Murkowski victory would certainly tick off Sarah Palin! (Bad blood runs between Palin and the Murkowski family; she unseated Lisa Murkowski's father, Frank, from the governorship of Alaska.)
Time will tell how this all gets sorted out.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment