Mark Blumenthal breaks down attitudes towards the public option. It shows the challenge for the Democrats in 2010 — the “floating voter” population seems to be more supportive of health care, but are less likely to express that support in the polls. What remains are those voters that do not need high salience elections to turn out. So the question for Democrats is how you turn those “slack resources” in the electorate towards the polls in November?
via Andrew Sullivan
Comments 2
Kenneth M. Kambara — April 22, 2010
Well, the KFF numbers that Blumenthal is citing looks like it's within the margin of error, which he should have addressed.
I'm not convinced that squabbling over health care is going to get that much traction for the Republicans. I think the way to mobilize voters for the Democrats is the economy. The question is whether either party can craft a platform based on jobs and the economy that will resonate. I think it's a tall order for either side, but I think it's more challenging for the Republicans, given fiscal conservatism and Dem. control of Congress and the White House. The Dems. can target the following, which would ideally limit seat loss to around 15.
In the House, at least 23 seats have a good chance of flipping and in the Senate, at least 8, for a total of 31. I think that 13+ House seats could definitely go either way::
CO-4th {eastern CO & Ft. Collins/Greeley}
IN-8 {SW}
IN-9 {SE}
MI-1 {UP, Stupak's old district}
MI-7 {southeastern MI}
NV-3 {suburban Vegas}
NH-1
NH-2
NM-2 {southern rural NM}
NY-29 {western NY}
OH-15 {western Columbus}
PA-7 {N/NW suburbs Philly}
WA-3 {SW WA & Vancouver}
I feel that there will be 5 competitive Senate races:
CO
IL
IN
PA
and even NV.
Given the geography of these races, I don't see partisan bickering getting much traction in many of these districts & states, in contrast to a district like MD-1 {eastern shore} that's held by a Democrat, but has a R+13 rating.
jose — April 22, 2010
Damn Ken...you're turning into Chuck Todd ;-)