I'll be straight with you: I think pigs will fly before Ed Thompson offers an endorsement to either Jim Doyle or Mark Green. But the numbers from 2002 may have some light to shed on where we're at right now in the 2006 gubernatorial campaign.
Right now, Real Clear Politics gives Jim Doyle a 4.7 point lead, 46.7-42, with 10.3 percent undecided. The folks at Pollster.com show similar numbers, Doyle up 46-42, with the rest undecided or committed to third party candidates.
Now, as a refresher, take a look at the final numbers from the 2002 gubernatorial race:
Libertarians and centrists are tough nuts to crack because they view both parties with some contempt. They're suspicious of the Democratic propensity to spend money and create new government programs. At the same time, they're usually suspicious of the Republican propensity to meddle in the personal lives of individuals on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Republicans haven't exactly been great on spending issues at the national level either.
It's also hard to estimate the resolve of Jim Young's voters, as the Green Party did not have a candidate on the gubernatorial ballot in 1998. Third party candidates tend to benefit from elections with an obvious outcome, as voters can stray from the two major parties without the fear that their vote is being "thrown away." Doyle's victory four years ago was all but certain two weeks out from the election. And Green candidate Nelson Eisman is hardly getting the attention that Jim Young got in '02. So perhaps it's possible that in a close race, Doyle can pull half of the Green Party support, people who'll swallow hard and vote Doyle as a defensive strategy against Mark Green. That extra 1.0-1.5 points could be crucial.
The final point worth considering is Wisconsin's storied history of mucking up partisan control of state government. Wisconsin seems to like divided government - a lot. Even since the Republicans made their big move in 1994, they've rarely had control of both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. The Senate changed parties more often during the 90's than Nancy Nusbaum.
The thought of a Republican legislature and Mark Green railroading through legislation on abortion, concealed carry, birth control, school prayer, or whatever other social issues the Republicans decide to push isn't going to sit well with an undecided voter. And while he's been nice to the Legislative Dems so far, it'll be interesting to see if Governor Doyle, at some point, tries to paint himself as the sole defender against Republican extremism. This argument, of course, implies a certain lack of confidence in the abilities of Senate Dems to grab three seats in November.
The person who wins this horse race in 3 1/2 weeks may be the person whose team can find a way to most effectively reach these disenchanted voters in the middle; the ones who shun party labels and strongly disapprove of the kind of partisan warfare that the major parties increasingly represent.
Right now, Real Clear Politics gives Jim Doyle a 4.7 point lead, 46.7-42, with 10.3 percent undecided. The folks at Pollster.com show similar numbers, Doyle up 46-42, with the rest undecided or committed to third party candidates.
Now, as a refresher, take a look at the final numbers from the 2002 gubernatorial race:
As you can see, the current Doyle/Green numbers are almost dead on with the Doyle/McCallum numbers of four years ago. It's quite plausible that where we're at is a point where Mark Green has basically locked up the McCallum voters, and Doyle is carrying all of his original support from 2002. This invites the obvious question: is the Ed Thompson voter the key to the 2006 election?
Jim Doyle: 45.2%
Scott McCallum: 41.4%
Ed Thompson: 10.5%
Jim Young: 2.5%
Libertarians and centrists are tough nuts to crack because they view both parties with some contempt. They're suspicious of the Democratic propensity to spend money and create new government programs. At the same time, they're usually suspicious of the Republican propensity to meddle in the personal lives of individuals on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Republicans haven't exactly been great on spending issues at the national level either.
It's also hard to estimate the resolve of Jim Young's voters, as the Green Party did not have a candidate on the gubernatorial ballot in 1998. Third party candidates tend to benefit from elections with an obvious outcome, as voters can stray from the two major parties without the fear that their vote is being "thrown away." Doyle's victory four years ago was all but certain two weeks out from the election. And Green candidate Nelson Eisman is hardly getting the attention that Jim Young got in '02. So perhaps it's possible that in a close race, Doyle can pull half of the Green Party support, people who'll swallow hard and vote Doyle as a defensive strategy against Mark Green. That extra 1.0-1.5 points could be crucial.
The final point worth considering is Wisconsin's storied history of mucking up partisan control of state government. Wisconsin seems to like divided government - a lot. Even since the Republicans made their big move in 1994, they've rarely had control of both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. The Senate changed parties more often during the 90's than Nancy Nusbaum.
The thought of a Republican legislature and Mark Green railroading through legislation on abortion, concealed carry, birth control, school prayer, or whatever other social issues the Republicans decide to push isn't going to sit well with an undecided voter. And while he's been nice to the Legislative Dems so far, it'll be interesting to see if Governor Doyle, at some point, tries to paint himself as the sole defender against Republican extremism. This argument, of course, implies a certain lack of confidence in the abilities of Senate Dems to grab three seats in November.
The person who wins this horse race in 3 1/2 weeks may be the person whose team can find a way to most effectively reach these disenchanted voters in the middle; the ones who shun party labels and strongly disapprove of the kind of partisan warfare that the major parties increasingly represent.
No comments:
Post a Comment