Posts Tagged ‘ Oklahoma ’

Why Some States are “New Economy” States

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010
Scott Andes



Scott M. Andes is a research analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

by Scott Andes

When it comes to innovation-based growth, not all states are equal. Certain states are on the front lines, and are accordingly most likely to lead the way to economic recovery. According to a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the most leading New Economy states all excel at supporting a knowledge infrastructure, spurring innovation, and encouraging entrepreneurship.

The new report, The 2010 State New Economy Index, uses 26 indicators to assess states’ fundamental capacity to successfully navigate economic change. It measures the extent to which state economies are knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, IT-driven and innovation-based – in other words, the degree to which state economies’ structures and operations match the ideal structure of the New Economy.  Indicators include percent of the population online, fastest growing firms, exports, industry and state R&D among others.

The top five states – Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut —are at the forefront of the nation’s movement toward a global, innovation-based economy.  Massachusetts has been the top ranked state in all iterations of the report (1999, 2002, 2007 and 2008). The Bay State boasts a concentration of software, hardware, and biotech firms supported by world-class universities such as MIT and Harvard in the Route 128 region around Boston. It survived the early 2000s downturn and was less hard hit than the nation as a whole in the last recession. And it has continued to thrive, enjoying the fourth-highest increase in per-capita income. Washington State  (which ranked fourth in 2007 and second in 2008) scores high due not only to its strength in software (in no small part due to Microsoft) and aviation (Boeing), but also because Puget Sound region has emerged as entrepreneurial hotbed.

Maryland remains third (as it was in 2007 and 2008, as well), in part because of the high concentration of knowledge workers, many employed in the District of Columbia suburbs and many in federal laboratory facilities or companies related to them.  These and the other top ten New Economy states (New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, California, Virginia, Colorado, and New York) have more in common than just high-tech firms. They also tend to have a high concentration of managers, professionals, and college educated residents working in “knowledge jobs” (jobs that require at least a two-year degree). With one or two exceptions, their manufacturers tend to be more geared toward global markets, both in terms of export orientation and the amount of foreign direct investment.

All the top ten states also show above-average levels of entrepreneurship, even though some, like Massachusetts and Connecticut, are not growing rapidly in employment.  Most are at the forefront of the IT revolution, with a large share of their institutions and residents embracing the digital economy. In fact, the variable that is more closely correlated with a high overall ranking is jobs in IT occupations outside the IT industry itself. Most have a solid “innovation infrastructure” that fosters and supports technological innovation. Many have high levels of domestic and foreign immigration of highly mobile, highly skilled knowledge workers seeking good employment opportunities coupled with a good quality of life.

The two states whose economies have lagged most in making the transition to the New Economy are Mississippi and West Virginia. Other states with low scores include, in reverse order, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Historically, the economies of many of these and other Southern and Plains states depended on natural resources or on mass production manufacturing, and relied on low labor costs rather than innovative capacity, to gain advantage. But innovative capacity (derived through universities, R&D investments, scientists and engineers, and entrepreneurial drive) is increasingly what drives competitive success.

While lower ranking states face challenges, they also can take advantage of new opportunities. The IT revolution gives companies and individuals more geographical freedom, making it easier for businesses to relocate, or start up and grow in less densely populated states farther away from existing agglomerations of industry and commerce. Moreover, notwithstanding the recent decline in housing prices, metropolitan areas in many of the top states suffer from high costs (largely due to high land and housing costs) and near gridlock on their roads. Both factors may make locating in less-congested metros, many in lower ranking states, more attractive, particularly if their metropolitan areas offer high-quality schools, high-quality and efficient government, and a robust infrastructure.

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the New Economy is its relentless levels of structural economic change.  The challenges facing states in a few years could well be different than the challenges today.  But notwithstanding this, the keys to success in the new economy now and into the future appear clear:  supporting a knowledge infrastructure (world class education and training); spurring innovation (indirectly through universities and directly by helping companies); and encouraging entrepreneurship.  In the past decade a new practice of economic development focused on these three building blocks has emerged, at least at the level of best practice, if not at the level of widespread practice.  The challenge for states will be to adopt and deepen these best practices and continue to generate new economy policy innovations and drive the kinds of institutional changes needed to implement them.

photo credit: Chantal Wagner

The Results, in Perspective

Friday, November 5th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

So Election Day is over (except, of course, in Alaska, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Illinois, which have statewide races in some doubt, and in eight states with a total of nine unresolved House races).

You probably know the basics.  Democrats held onto control of the Senate, their margin reduced from 59-41 to 53-47, and Republicans won the House, having gained at this point 60 seats, 21 more than they needed for a majority. Governorships flipped from 26D/24R to 29R/20D/1Chafeecrat.  Republicans took over control of 19 state legislative chambers, just in time for redistricting.

Republicans won the national House popular vote by a 52-45 margin, roughly the same margin by which Barack Obama defeated John McCain in 2008.  But it clearly was not the same electorate; exit polls reported that voters split evenly in their 2008 preferences.  Many observers explain that by an “enthusiasm gap” between the two parties, but much of it is a matter of normal mid-term voting patterns, producing an older and whiter electorate that happens to favor Republicans at the present time.

House losses by Democrats were, to a remarkable extent, concentrated among districts that are either pro-Republican or highly marginal according to recent presidential elections.  There were virtually no true upsets.  A significant share of Tuesday’s casualties involved long-serving members from southern and border states who finally succumbed to ever-increasingly hostile territory (e.g., John Spratt of SC, Jim Marshall of GA, Gene Taylor of MS, Chet Edwards of TX, Ike Skelton of MO; two similar Members from TN retired).  A much larger group, particularly from the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic states, were Class of 2006 and (especially) 2008 who got to Congress via close races and were extremely vulnerable to adverse trends in turnout and the overall political climate.

Trying to link these losses to any specific issues or controversies is probably futile, with the possible exception of climate change; support for legislation on this subject undoubtedly hurt Democrats in coal-producing states, most notably veteran VA Rep. Rick Boucher.  But generally, the results reflected a general partisan shift, which in turn reflected a general (if predictable) change in turnout from a presidential to a mid-term profile.

The Senate results were not terribly surprising, either.  What looked to some like a slight pro-Democratic trend in some of those races (notably PA and WI, where Democrats did better than expected, and in NV and CO, where Democrats won after Republicans led in late polls) were probably more the product of Republican bias in state-based polls, particularly those conducted by Rasmussen.  The Alaska situation, obviously, is very unusual; Lisa Murkowski’s apparent lead guarantees a count of write-in votes, but though a loss for Joe Miller would be deeply embarrassing to Sarah Palin and to the Tea Party Movement, it would not change the partisan balance in the Senate.

The net-five-gain in governorships by Republicans disguises a much more complicated picture in which Republicans took control of eleven Democratic governorships (ME, PA, TN, OH, MI, WI, IA, KS, OK, NM,); Democrats took control of five Republican governorships (CT, VT, MN, CA and HI); and independent Linc Chafee won a formerly Republican governorship in RI.  With all this churn, however, only two incumbent governors lost: Chet Culver of IA and Ted Strickland of OH.

The carnage created by Republican gains in state legislatures will take a while to sort out, but as Hotline noted:

The GOP holds the redistricting trifecta in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Ohio – plus, as noted earlier, Nebraska and North Carolina [where the Democratic governor cannot veto redistricting plans].

Florida voters did approve a constitutional amendment imposing fairly strict conditions on redistricting to prevent gerrymanders; the state was already operating under a heavily pro-GOP plan.  California voters also approved an initiative placing congressional redistricting under a very independent commission composed partly of citizens chosen by lottery; this change could help Republicans or at least produce more competitive districts.

In other non-candidate ballot developments, California voters rejected two nationally significant initiatives, one (Prop 19) that would have legalized small-scale consumption and cultivation of marijuana, and another (Prop 23) that would have suspended the state’s unique carbon emissions control system.  In news of equal importance to locals, voters did approve a constitutional amendment getting rid of the two-thirds vote requirement for passage of a budget in the California legislature, which has all but paralyzed California government for years.  In Iowa, voters rejected “retention” of three state Supreme Court justices who supported the unanimous decision to legalize same-sex marriage.  This was  major goal of that state’s powerful social conservative faction.

We’ll get more into post-election interpretations, along with prescriptions for what both parties should do now, next week.

Election 2010 Hits the Final Stretch: Will the Republican Wave Happen?

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

With just six weeks left until Election Day, it’s getting to that time when the sheep can be separated from the goats.

There are some developments that have been long expected but have not yet materialized.  One is the tightening of the Pennsylvania Senate race, where Republican Pat Toomey, often considered far too conservative for this blue state, has had a sizable and steady lead over Democrat Joe Sestak.   Another is the traditional pre-election decline by once-competitive southern Democrats (this year’s exemplars are Texas’ Bill White and Georgia’s Roy Barnes).

Other recent developments were not expected, and may or may not be a sign of things to come.  The most obvious of these is the recent and (to Democrats) alarming surge of statewide Republican candidates in Ohio.  Another is the apparent and shocking leap of obscure Republican John Maese into the lead, in at least one poll, over Gov. Joe Manchin in West Virginia’s Senate special election.  Other possibilities include very recent recoveries of solid leads by Democratic senators Patti Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California.

It’s also getting to that point where underdogs will need to make a move if they are going to have a shot at being competitive.  If Republican Linda McMahon of Connecticut is really going to challenge Richard Blumenthal, she might as well go ahead and spend the rest of her wrestling money now to find out if it’s possible.  And soon it will be time to stop talking about the “potential” of Republicans to upset theoretically vulnerable House Democrats like Dan Boren of Oklahoma or John Barrow of Georgia.  Surely upsets occur, but winning candidates usually have gained at least some momentum by October.

In other words, we’re now in the stage where political trends are now crystallizing into impending realities.  In the polls, this is reflected in the ongoing “switchover” from surveys of registered voters to those of likely voters.  The closer we get to November 2, the more it makes sense to pay special attention to polls that screen likely voters based on their subjective intention to participate rather than some arbitrary weighting of this or that group’s probable voting propensity; it’s more of a measurement and less of a prediction.

And as each day goes by, the Republican “wave” we have all been expecting may or may not appear, at least in the kind of intensity we are talking about.  The mental “thumb on the scales” we have all come to apply to the standing of Republican candidates this year should lighten as the more objective assessments pick up either the wave or its shortcomings.

Looking at the overall landscape, Republicans appear to be in better than average position to take over the House, but it’s all about the pitched battles in 20 or 30 districts that are very, very close.  (Overall, the Cook Political Report currently calls no less than 50 House races “toss-ups,” though 47 of those are currently Democratic-held).

In the Senate, the apparent loss of Delaware means that Republicans need to put West Virginia or Connecticut into play, but still must win all but one of the baker’s dozen of competitive races in the rest of the country in order to take control.  As has been the case all along, Democrats are relatively strong in some of the states where gubernatorial results could be key to major redistricting opportunities—Florida, Georgia, Texas—and relatively weak in others—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois.

The two parties are relatively in balance from a financial point of view, with the DNC and its party committees having an unusual advantage, while as usual, Republicans will benefit disproportionately from “independent expenditures” (especially from the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads).

But from here on in, it’s time to stop talking about what might be, and figure out what’s actually happening.

A Poll-o-centric View of the Upcoming Primaries

Friday, July 30th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

I know it probably seems like this year’s primary season has been unbearably long. But as July comes to a close, there are 23 state primaries (plus runoffs in, so far, Georgia and Oklahoma, and a special election in West Virginia) still ahead. Next week’s schedule includes primaries on August 3 in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri, and on August 5 in Tennessee. Most of the action is on the Republican side, except in Michigan. Kansas has a close Republican Senate primary and two competitive GOP House contests; Missouri has two big Republican House primaries; and Tennessee has a close three-way Republican gubernatorial contest.  In Michigan, both parties have very complex and competitive gubernatorial primaries (including that rarest of phenomena, a Republican candidate campaigning as a moderate), and there’s another strong challenge to Democratic Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick.

In the chattering classes, there’s been considerable discussion the last few days about Democratic efforts to improve morale, particularly a DCCC memo that denies Republicans have much of a chance of taking over the House. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver mocked the memo as making slopping assumptions about the number of seats “in play” and also taking for granted four takeovers of Republican-held seats that are far from certain. RealClearPolitics’ Sean Trende takes a somewhat different tack, and concludes that Republicans’ prospects in November could be better than in 1994, because their goal is simply to take back two-thirds of the House seats they controlled prior to 2006. (On a different front, Stu Rothenberg of Roll Call accused Democrats of trying to rationalize likely House losses as attributable to factors beyond their control, which provoked me to respond).

There’s lots of fresh polling data. In California, PPP and PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) have new statewide surveys out, and both show Democrats Jerry Brown and Sen. Barbara Boxer maintaining steady if relatively narrow leads. PPP has Brown leading Meg Whitman 46-40, while PPIC shows him up 37-34 with a big (23 percent) undecided vote.  In the Senate race, PPP shows Boxer increasing her lead over Carly Fiorina by 6 points since the June 8 primary. She’s now up 49-40, and just as importantly, has a significantly better approval disapproval rating than Fiorina (Boxer’s is 44/46; Fiorina’s is 28/40). PPIC places Boxer’s lead at 39-34, with, again, a high-undecided rate of 22 percent.

A new Mason-Dixon poll of NV shows Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in a dead heat; Reid leads 43-42, with the favorable-unfavorable ratios of both candidates also being very similar (Reid: 38-51; Angle: 38-47).

Two new surveys in the under-reported Senate race in New Hampshire show Republican front-runner Kelly Ayotte with a significant but shrinking lead over Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes.  PPP now has Ayotte up 45-42; a University of New Hampshire poll shows her leading Hodes 45-37.

Last week PPP created a buzz with a poll showing Democrat Alex Sink taking the lead in Florida governor’s race thanks to a toxic Republican primary between Attorney General Bill McCollum and former hospital chain magnate Rick Scott.  Now Quinnipiac has a new survey showing both McCollum and Scott basically tied with Sink, with independent Bud Chiles in double-digits and a very large undecided vote.

And Michigan-based EPIC-MRA has a survey out of both parties’ gubernatorial primaries in Michigan. On the Democratic side, the poll shows labor-backed Lansing mayor Virg Bernero holding a 40-32 lead over state legislative leader Andy Dillon. Among Republicans, EPIC-MRA shows a very close three-way race, with former Gateway exec Rick Snyder, who has been openly appealing for Democratic and independent crossover votes, at 26 percent, while Attorney General Mike Cox is at 24 percent and congressman Peter Hoekstra at 23 percent; the latter two candidates have been battling for the Tea Party/”true conservative” vote.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Photo Credit: hlkljgk‘s Photostream

Primary Day in Oklahoma

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

If it’s Tuesday, there must be another primary election, and today’s is in Oklahoma, where both parties are holding gubernatorial primaries, and there are a couple of congressional contests of interest.

I’ve got a preview up at FiveThirtyEight for those who want a serious run-down. The bottom line is that Attorney General Drew Edmondson is favored to defeat Lt. Gov. Jari Askins for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, in what’s been a very civil contest; while Rep. Mary Fallin is almost certain to defeat Tea Party advocate Randy Brogdon for the GOP nod. Meanwhile, Blue Dog Dan Boren will turn back an underfunded progressive primary challenge, and Republicans will go to runoffs in his district and in Fallin’s.

Oklahoma’s one of those states with a pretty hardy Democratic tradition (registered Dems still outnumber registered Republicans) that’s been trending Red for some time. Hanging onto the governor’s office and a congressional seat, particularly in this kind of year, would be quite an accomplishment. Today’s primary will help determine whether that happens.

Photo Credit: Wright914′s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

From Georgia to Oklahoma

Friday, July 23rd, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

I won’t go through the all the results for Tuesday’s Georgia primary, since an earlier P-Fix post covered the basics.  But I will mention a few details that I omitted in the quick piece I did on Wednesday.

In the gubernatorial contest, while Democrat Roy Barnes looks highly competitive for the general election (particularly if the Republican runoff gets as nasty as it looks like it may), it’s worth noting that turnout for the GOP primary was just under 700,000, while turnout for the Democratic side was just under 400,000. While turnout in both parties was terrible, and some of the disparity was attributable to the more competitive nature of the GOP battle (and the attendant television ads), it’s a reminder that this state which didn’t have a Republican governor from the early days of Reconstruction until 2002 now has a decided red tint. To win, Barnes will need to run a very good campaign (he’s certainly reconfirmed his reputation as an outstanding fundraiser), while taking advantage of the opportunities the GOP has created in eight years of lackluster governance of the state, and in the extremism of the primary messages of its candidates this year. If Barnes does win, he would interrupt what would otherwise certainly be a blatant Republican gerrymandering effort, made all the worse by Georgia’s acquisition of an additional congressional district.

A second observation is that this is one GOP primary where geography seemed to matter more than ideology or the association of this or that candidate with the Tea Party or some national conservative figure. I’ve posted a fairly elaborate analysis of this topic at FiveThirtyEight, but suffice it to say that Karen Handel finished first more because she is from vote-rich metro Atlanta than because she was endorsed by Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin. The endorsements definitely helped her overcome a financial deficit by generating free media, but in the end half the primary vote was cast in her base region, and that was the most important difference. And that’s also why she has to be considered a heavy favorite in the runoff, since her opponent, Nathan Deal, did well only in his north Georgia base, which provides a much smaller segment of the GOP vote. It’s a measure of the importance of geography that Handel trounced Deal in the Atlanta suburb of Cobb County, home of Deal’s padrone, Newt Gingrich.

Perhaps because of this disadvantage, Deal looks likely to spend the three-week runoff attacking Handel for insufficient conservatism, which won’t be easy given her Palin association and her own harsh record on issues ranging from taxes (she wants to abolish the state income taxes and rely instead on regressive consumption taxes to finance state government) to immigration (as Secretary of State, she initiated a harsh voter ID system that ensnared a good many native citizen voters on primary day). So far Deal has mainly pounded Handel for supporting a rape-and-incest exception to an abortion ban, which used to be an acceptable conservative position, and for making a small contribution to the Log Cabin Republicans back when she was running for office in culturally tolerant Fulton County (Atlanta). Since Handel’s main attack line on Deal has involved ethics allegations, this could be a truly nasty culture-war dominated runoff that could drive up both candidates’ negatives.

In terms of the congressional races, there will be four Republican runoffs on August 10, two in safe Republican districts, one in a safe Democratic district, and one to choose an opponent for theoretically vulnerable Democrat John Barrow (D-GA) (though he is likely to have a big financial advantage and Barack Obama carried his district).

Down-ballot, there will be a highly contentious Republican runoff for Attorney General that could boost statewide turnout.  And though it’s not directly connected to the primaries, the general election will be complicated by the fact that outgoing GOP Gov. Sonny Perdue is backing an independent candidate for State School Superintendent because the Republican nominee opposes accepting Race to the Top dollars.

The next primary is in Oklahoma on July 27, where there are competitive gubernatorial contests in both parties.

In polling news, PPP has had some interesting assessments of the Florida governor’s race.  The late but free-spending entry of controversial former hospital executive and health reform opponent Rick Scott in the GOP contest has upset a lot of apple carts. A primary survey shows Scott beating long-time front-runner and party warhorse Bill McCollum 43-29, mainly by driving McCollum’s approval ratio among Florida Republicans to a dismal 26-40. But a general election poll shows Democrat Alex Sink beating either Republican (along with independent candidate Bud Chiles). And in the general electorate, Scott’s approval ratio is 23-41 and McCollum’s a truly disastrous 16-51. Like Georgia, this is a state where a Democratic gubernatorial victory could have major implications for redistricting.

In non-candidate polling news, Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com has a solid and very thorough critique of the new Politico “Power and the People” surveys by Mark Penn comparing the views of Americans generally with those of “D.C. Elites.”

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Photo credit: Chuck “Caveman” Coker’s Photostream

Primary Watch 2010

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Today’s major primary is in Georgia, and I covered the Peach State contests pretty thoroughly last week (for more detail, see this preview at FiveThirtyEight). An update, though: one late poll of the Republican gubernatorial race, by Magellan Strategies, shows Karen Handel blowing out to a big lead and long-time front-runner John Oxendine fading fast, with Nathan Deal and Eric Johnson battling for a runoff spot.

The primary calendar going forward includes Oklahoma on July 27; Kansas, Michigan and Missouri on August 3; Tennessee on August 5; and Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia (runoffs) and Minnesota on August 10. The general election calendar for November picked up an additional contest, with West Virginia formally scheduling a special election for the late Sen. Bob Byrd’s seat. The candidates are expected to be West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), with the special election statute enabling the latter to run concurrently for re-election and for the Senate.

Second-quarter fundraising figures for federal contests have been trickling out during the last week, and the number that drew the most attention was probably the 4.5 million haul brought in by Florida Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio, more than doubling the funds raised by apostate Gov. Charlie Crist. On the other hand, a new PPP survey of the Florida Senate contest shows Crist maintaining a 35-29 lead over Rubio in a three-way race with Democrat Kendrick Meek (who has 17 percent); 52 percent of Crist’s support is from Democrats. In Nevada, controversial Republican nominee Sharron Angle outraised Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) by $400,000 ($2.6 million to $2.2 million), though again, the latest poll, from Mason-Dixon, showed Reid now up by 44-37. And in CA, incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had a very good second quarter, raising $4.6 million. Her Republican challenger, Carly Fiorina, raised $3 million, but $1.1 million of that total was a loan from her own personal wealth. The latest poll there, from Rasmussen, shows Boxer up by seven points, 49-42. The largest disconnect between money and public opinion is in Arkansas, where incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) outraised Republican John Boozman by a four-to-one margin (though a lot of that was to finance her primary and runoff battles with Bill Halter); even Lincoln’s own polling, from Benenson, shows her trailing Boozman 45-36, while other polls have her down 2-1.

Poll Watch

In other polling news, Rasmussen has Democrat Richard Blumenthal maintaining a 53-40 lead over Republican Linda McMahon in the Connecticut Senate race; and shows Republican Paul LePage holding a 39-31 lead over Democrat Libby Mitchell (with independent Eliot Cutler at 15 percent) in the Maine gubernatorial contest. A Glengariff Group poll for the Detroit News of the Michigan Republican gubernatorial primary shows a close three-way race among congressman Peter Hoekstra, Attorney General Mike Cox, and businessman Rick Snyder. The little-known “outsider” Snyder seems to have a lot of momentum.  And in non-election polling news, an ABC/Washington Post survey on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination shows support for her confirmation continuing to lead opposition by a 53-25 margin.

Photo credit: Hjl’s Photostream

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday

Haley Accuser Endorses…Haley; Tuesday Primaries in NC, Utah

Saturday, June 19th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

If you want a pretty good indication of the power of ideology in today’s Republican Party, check out the latest endorsement of front-runner Nikki Haley for the Republican gubernatorial nomination just before next Tuesday’s runoff:

So let’s get this straight … we know for a fact that S.C. Rep. Nikki Haley is lying through her teeth every time she denies our founding editor’s claim that she had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with him in the Spring of 2007. On top of that, we also know for a fact that her political career could very well go down in flames if (and more likely “when”) this ticking time bomb goes off …

And yet we’re endorsing her for the 2010 S.C. Republican gubernatorial nomination anyway?

Correct….

[T]he bottom line for S.C. taxpayers is that Haley would vote the right way on the S.C. Budget and Control Board, use her veto pen to reduce the size and scope of government and sign a universal parental choice bill which would (at long last) provide parents with real options and our flawed system with real, market-based accountability.

Yes, Haley has been endorsed by the web page of South Carolina blogger Will Folks, whose allegation of an affair with Haley turned the gubernatorial race upside down. Unless you buy the theory that Folks and Haley actually cooked up the whole J’accuse to preempt rumors about her sex life and make her a martyr, Folks’ endorsement looks like a powerful validator of the notion that being Right is more important than being right to today’s conservative activists.

There haven’t been any public polls on this race released since the June 8 primary, but a pre-primary poll by PPP that asked about a hypothetical Haley-Gresham Barrett runoff showed her up 51-35. This was before third-place finisher Henry McMaster endorsed Haley.

In North Carolina, where Democrats are having a Senate runoff on Tuesday, the only post-primary poll (again, by PPP) showed first-place primary finisher Elaine Marshall and DSCC favorite Cal Cunningham even at 36 percent with a large undecided vote. But that was more than a month ago, and given the likelihood of very low turnout, anything could happen. Marshall was endorsed by third-place finisher Ken Lewis, buttressing her advantage among African-Americans, and also by MoveOn.

And in Utah, whose primary is also on Tuesday, a poll taken for Mike Lee’s campaign showed him leading Tim Bridgewater in the Republican Senate race 39-30.  Bridgewater, a hard-core conservative but in better standing than Lee with the GOP establishment, has been endorsed by defeated incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett and also by fourth-place finisher Cherilyn Eager.

Poll Watch

In polling news, it’s a sign of the trouble that the long-time front-runner in the Florida Republican gubernatorial race, Bill McCollum, is experiencing with free-spending late-entering candidate Rick Scott that McCollum has released a poll showing them running dead even.

A new Sooner Poll of the Oklahoma Democratic gubernatorial race (the primary is on July 27) shows Attorney General Drew Edmondson holding just a one-point lead over Lt. Gov. Jari Askins.

Rasmussen has three new general-election gubernatorial polls out. In Texas, they show Rick Perry with a 48-40 lead over Bill White, although White has a somewhat better approval-disapproval ratio than the incumbent. In Tennessee, they show all three major Republican gubernatorial candidates with double-digit leads over Democrat Mike McWherter. And in Arkansas, Democratic incumbent Mike Beebe enjoys a 57-33 lead over Republican nominee Jim Keet, a slightly higher margin than he had in May.