IL will be fascinating in 2010. Blago will probably have been indicted so Lisa Madigan (daughter of the Dem State Party leader and House of Reps leader) has done a good job as AG. Obama will likely be nominated to the US Supreme court (good place for him, he will never live up to his promise in electoral politics).

Republicans look really bad, but former General Grange (CNN commentator and head of the McCormick foundation) might be just what IL needs, assuming the Repubs can get it together and rid themselves of nuts like Oberwies and that Nazi Birkett out in DuPage County.

Lisa would make a good governor, and it is a nice stop on her way to national politics.

In 2004, Dino Rossi (R-WA) shopped for a judge to challenge the election results, got gutted like a fish in the judge's ruling, then was full of sour grapes blaming the state supreme court for not appealing. (More details at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002319850_chelan07m.html)

Yes, Gregoire was robotic last time, and yes the vote was close, but she has a solid record to run on: fixing roads, funding schools, finally making a rainy-day fund, etc. Sour grapes can't top that.

Wow at the 2010 talk, way too early. As for the governor's races in 2008, I'd reverse #'s 2 & 4 on the line.

1. Missouri: Blunt is in some trouble, but he is a good fundraiser and good campaigner. Both he and Nixon will go very, very negative causing this election to turn into a bloodbath. Still, it will likely be decided by 1-3 % points. It will likely be as close at the end as it is now, recent poll shows Blunt leading 43%-42%. Talk about close! It's a Presidential year, which will likely help Blunt in the end. But, this one is still too close to call.

2. North Carolina: 2 brutal primaries on both sides here in my home state. On the D side, Lt. gov. Bev Perdue vs. St. treasurer Richard Moore. They are both good fundraisers and savy politicians. Moore is calling out Perdue for flip flopping on abortion and questioning her liberal bona fides. Perdue is suggesting Moore has lied on his resume in the past and is questioning his integrity and honesty. They have already went negative and this will be a long D primary. Right now, Perdue is the favorite but the campaign has a long way to go and is up in the air. On the R side, it's coming down to a 2 person race: Attorney & anti-tax advocate Bill Graham vs. St. Senator Fred Smith. Graham is known and liked for his fight against the NC state gasoline tax. We pay over $0.30 per gallon here just on state tax, and about $0.52 per gallon altogether. Graham has lead the charge against Raleigh to lower the gas tax to help ordinary North Carolinians. Gov. Easley has raised about every tax we have in this state and refuses to budge on the gas tax citing transportation improvement needs. Graham has won alot of support with ordinary folks on this issue. Graham is touting his fiscally conservative record. Fred Smith is touting his social conservative views and trying to unite the social conservative's behind his candidacy. Although he and Graham agree on most social issues, Smith his touting them and trying to gain traction that way. Polls say it's working. Graham and Smith both have alot of personal money to spend on this race, and will likely do so. In the general election, it will likely be Perdue vs. Graham. If this is the case, Perdue will have to distance herself from Easley or bear the brunt of nasty attacks over being to tied to Easley's rise of the gas tax. In the most recent R debate, Graham and Smith agreed on most things, but sparred over...affirmative action. Smith, vying for the social conservative vote, stuck to the old line "affirmative action has no place in today's society." Graham differed, suggesting Affirmative Action has a place in today's workplace but needs to be revised for today's society instead of the society in the 1960's. Believe me, Graham believes this b/c this view doesn't excite the North Carolina Republican conservative electorate. Graham says what he thinks instead of giving political answers, which I think the majority of NC voters will appreciate. I"m a Graham supporter, and believe he is on the road to being NC's next governor. He is winning alot of support for his tough stance against illegal immigration as well. Of course, Smith is also against illegal immigration. In any event, NC governor's race is open in a Presidential year. Plus, Liddy Dole is on the ticket for re-election this year and she will likely win by a pretty good margin. US Senator Richard Burr will also likely actively campaign for the R nominee, hopefully Graham. But this is a very competitive race right now, and competitive primaries. If Smith get's choosen as the R nominee, this race will drop on my list. If Graham is the nominee, this race will likely rise on your list, CC.

3. Washington: Gregoire vs. Rossi II will definately be a dandy of a race. However, it's going to be in a Presidential year when the D will very, very likely win Washington. This will be a very close race, but I'm guessing Gregoire wins again.

4. Indiana: I think Gov. Daniels is in good shape for re-election. It's a Presidential year, which likely helps Daniels. Daniels is loved by the Republican faithful and he's making inroads with the state by non-conventional campaigning (staying with people in their homes instead of ritzy hotels to save money). Plus, the Dems. are having a very tough primary. I think Daniels is in very good shape for re-election.

5. Montana: I'm going to say Brown has a better shot at Schweitzer in a Presidential year in Montana than does someone of winning an open Delaware governor's seat.

Although it's too early to say who'll be on top in either party, we know it won't be Arnold, so I'd have to put California in there somewhere and the generic Democrat versus Republican numbers favor the Dems these days. On the Republican side Insurance Commissioner Poizner seems to be setting himself up to be the well-healed moderate, and it's easy to see longstanding right-winger Tom McClintock as one of multiple conservatives... The Dems are still shaken up, with LA Mayor Villaraigosa the one most talked about (although he's been in a bad patch), and ex-Controller Steve Westly among the others who might make the run.

pakbakr has a point. NY has been rated the worst governed state in the nation. The words labrynthian, byzantine, and corrupt spring to mind...

The Gov. of WA has nothing to do with redistricting either.

But VA 2009 should be a marquee race.

"We New Yorkers had such high hopes that he would be able to clean up the Albany mess, but so far, all he has done is to add to it."

I may be accused of tossing grenades from down here south of the Mason-Dixon line, but doesn't anyone wanting to "clean up the Albany mess" have nearly a century and a half of history to overcome? Albany has been a "mess" since Commodore Vanderbilt and the New York Central Railroad were buying off the legislature to get concessions in the Hudson River Valley in, when?, the 1850s? Isn't the trick to being governor of New York not your ability to "clean up" the "mess", but, rather, to turn it to your advantage?

As a citizen of Pennsylvania, many of the comments about the state's gubernatorial race are just absurd. Santorum, a two term incumbent Senator, lost his reelection bid by 18%!!!! When is the last time an incumbent Senator lost by that much. And it was never close, even a year in advance. And Swann lost by 20% to Rendell, after displaying total ignorance on the campaign trail. (He famously thought that, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would then become illegal throughout the country.) Finally, the scandal about the legislative pay raise primarily hurt Republicans, since they controlled both legislative chambers when the raise was stealthily passed! Maybe some Republican will win the governor's election in 2010, depending on who the candidates from each party are, but the idea of Santorum or Swann being attractive contenders is nuts.

"I would love to see a human life amendment to our constitution," Huckabee explained..."

That would've been tough even before 2006, Drindl. Impossible now. But I get your point: MH has some nutty positions. I'd still vote for HRC over MH.

That Wildmon is a religious kook just means he's a normal televangelist. Overt love mixed with contextual hate. That describes them all, doesn't it? Maybe not Billy Graham but I haven't really researched it.

I think Rudy is the opposite of Teflon Ron: he has had his name dragged through the moral mud so many times that the latest revelations can't darken his reputation because it is already perfectly black.

The R's who are desperate to win happily overlook character issues they would trumpet to the heavens 24/7 if they were attached to HRC. "Later on Fox News: Hillary's Mob Connections!" "Hilliarioso: Mafioso?" "Vote For Hillary Or She'll Break Your Kneecaps?" The usual questionable humor that's red meat to the politically deranged.

Well, Judge, I just ferreted out a lot more about Huckabee and realized I could never vote for him. He comes across a LOT mor emoderate than he is, which is not moderate at all.

'HUCKABEE COMES OUT AGAINST CONTRACEPTION. Wait, did you miss that? That's what Mike Huckabee's statement during the debate that he supports a Human Life Amendment and believes life starts at conception means. First, Huckabee played the nice guy card and said, "If someone is looking for a president who is going to have a mean spirit toward others, I'm not your guy."

But how can such a statement be squared with this doozy? "I would love to see a human life amendment to our constitution," Huckabee explained in response to a question about Romney and Giuliani's views on abortion. "Human life begins at conception."

"Life begins at conception" to fundamentalists means most forms of birth control, like hormonal birth control pills, the morning after pill, and intrauterine devices should be outlawed as abortion-inducing agents, or "abortifacients." All these methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus. They prevent pregnancy, but not conception.

To be fair to Chris Cilizza about his knowledge of the local races, the problem with political journalists in national newspapers is that they are more focused on federal politics - for understandable reasons - and there is only so much time and energy they can spend researching every level of electoral politics.
That's whY I believe there should be a different beat for local races and presidential politics.
I remember watching HOTLINE TV with Chuck Todd and John Mercurio everyday and loving it ... until they somehow made a remark about Delaware having one of the most competent governors of the nation in Gov Minner which would make even DE Democrats laugh really hard.
And I started doubting everything I had heard them say priorly about states I am less familiar with.

Let's give him credit for knowing enough to make this column an interesting read and when I wanna know more, well, I research local blogs :)

'I think the Kerik thing is overblown somewhat'

The guy has tight mob ties and Guiliani wanted to him head of homeland security. I don't think it's overblown -- I think it's key to understanding how incompetent and unfit Rudy is.

' A waitress at an Iowa diner noted that Hillary Clinton and her
campaign aides had recently stopped by, but didn't leave a tip. Yesterday, the media went berserk. All of te breathless fascination was, however, for naught. It turned out Clinton's campaign did leave a tip with the manager for the entire serving staff. Clinton's individual waitress didn't know that, so there was a simple misunderstanding. Reporters ended up contacting the waitress, Anita Esterday, at her home in Iowa yesterday: "You people are really nuts," she said.'

try checking the facts occasionally, proud, before your next hysterical denunciation of Clinton.

When we tried earlier this week to pick our way through the squabble over Tim Russert's debate questioning of Hillary Clinton, we probably should have mentioned that FactCheck.org had already done it.

On Oct. 31, FactCheck declared that Clinton had been "misleading" when she "falsely implied" that documents from her time as first lady were slow in coming because of bureaucratic delays at the National Archives. In fact, FactCheck declared, former President Bill Clinton wrote a letter in 2002 in which he "specifically identified communications between himself and the First Lady (among others) as items that should remain sealed until 2012."

But as we noted earlier this week, that's not quite a fact. What the former president said in his 2002 letter was that documents reflecting communications between Bill and Hillary should be "considered for withholding," which means only that the staff of the National Archives should review the documents and consult with Clinton's designated representative -- Bruce Lindsey -- before deciding whether to release them to the public.

FactCheck now stands corrected. In a new version of its analysis that went up last night, FactCheck says "it was moderator Tim Russert who misled" when he told Hillary Clinton that the former president's letter "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012."

"Russert was wrong, and so were we," FactCheck says now. "Bill Clinton ... called Russert's question 'breathtakingly misleading,' and we now agree."

FactCheck says Hillary Clinton was still wrong when she said that, as far as she knew, all the records involving her efforts on healthcare as first lady had been released. But a spokeswoman for the National Archives tells FactCheck that there's not a whole lot either Clinton or her husband can do to get the documents out any faster. Even if the former president were to waive any concerns he has over documents related to his wife, the Archives spokeswoman says, "we'd still have to screen each page for other exemptions, including the privacy of third persons and national security."When we tried earlier this week to pick our way through the squabble over Tim Russert's debate questioning of Hillary Clinton, we probably should have mentioned that FactCheck.org had already done it.

On Oct. 31, FactCheck declared that Clinton had been "misleading" when she "falsely implied" that documents from her time as first lady were slow in coming because of bureaucratic delays at the National Archives. In fact, FactCheck declared, former President Bill Clinton wrote a letter in 2002 in which he "specifically identified communications between himself and the First Lady (among others) as items that should remain sealed until 2012."

But as we noted earlier this week, that's not quite a fact. What the former president said in his 2002 letter was that documents reflecting communications between Bill and Hillary should be "considered for withholding," which means only that the staff of the National Archives should review the documents and consult with Clinton's designated representative -- Bruce Lindsey -- before deciding whether to release them to the public.

FactCheck now stands corrected. In a new version of its analysis that went up last night, FactCheck says "it was moderator Tim Russert who misled" when he told Hillary Clinton that the former president's letter "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012."

"Russert was wrong, and so were we," FactCheck says now. "Bill Clinton ... called Russert's question 'breathtakingly misleading,' and we now agree."

FactCheck says Hillary Clinton was still wrong when she said that, as far as she knew, all the records involving her efforts on healthcare as first lady had been released. But a spokeswoman for the National Archives tells FactCheck that there's not a whole lot either Clinton or her husband can do to get the documents out any faster. Even if the former president were to waive any concerns he has over documents related to his wife, the Archives spokeswoman says, "we'd still have to screen each page for other exemptions, including the privacy of third persons and national security."

AZ's governor has nothing to do with redistricting. It is done by an independent commission.

Chris,

Your line on PA ("The Democratic names mentioned lack the star quality of Santorum or Swann but should be favored given the state's underlying demographics") ignores history. Since the 1970 constitution allowed governors to serve two terms, the mansion has reliably flipped party control every eight years (Shapp/Thornburg/Casey/Ridge/Rendell). Add to that the grand jury investigation of the House democratic caucus, and the still-sour mood about the Harrisburg establishment from the 2005 legislative pay raise, and the tide should favor the GOP. Rendell rolled up his numbers in 2006 primarily because the GOP didn't show up (Swann was not a credible candidate and will not be back, but Bill Scranton might be), and Casey won in the same cycle on the single virtue of not being Rick Santorum.

I find the topic of this post to be, in short, ridiculous.

We still have to get through the minor matter of a presidential election in 2008 and CC is trying to gin up discussion of elections in 2010? No wonder the posts on this board are so uninspired. Sorry folks!

I don't know about that, Judge:

'In the March issue of American Family Association Journal, a publication of Donald E. Wildmon's right-wing evangelical activist group, the American Family Association (AFA), author Randall Murphree suggested that a Jewish upbringing leads to hatred of Christians, and by extension, a criminal lifestyle. Describing the background of a man who has a "ministry to the homeless," Murphree wrote in his article, "Homeless by Choice":

--The Athens, Ohio, man grew up in a Jewish home and developed a hostile attitude toward Christ. As a teenager, he used drugs, sold drugs and accumulated quite a juvenile crime record. But after a high school friend persistently witnessed to him, Keith accepted Christ during his junior year in high school.

Murphree offered no explanation for the man's "hostile attitude toward Christ" other than his Jewish upbringing. Nor did he explain the man's drug use, drug dealing, and law-breaking in any way except in the context of his hostility toward Christ. Thus, Murphree linked Judaism to criminality.

The AFA Journal has long served as a platform for anti-Semitic theories and innuendo. For instance, Wildmon warned of Jewish control over popular culture, an old anti-Semitic canard, in a January 1989 article, "What Hollywood Believes and Wants."

"The television elite are highly secular," Wildmon wrote. "The majority (59 percent) in the Jewish faith." In a separate article, Wildmon, a longtime opponent of gay rights, pointedly remarked that "Jews favor homosexual rights more than other Americans.'

drindl - There is no rebuttal in her statement. "You people are really nuts," she said. "There's kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now--there's better things in this world to be thinking about than ... who got a tip and who didn't get a tip."

I agree with her; the fact of the matter is that we are deciding within the next year who will be at the tiller to guide our ship of state through these various problems our country faces. To make that decision, we look at a candidate's experience and character.

Now let's see....as for Mrs. Clinton, she calims to have been 'co-president' but we can't see the proof because the Clintons will not release the documents that outline her experience. As for character....even the moguls in Hollywood have called her and her husband serial liars, and now it is unrefuted that she stiffs waitresses.

That's 0 for 2.

It's stunning how poor Cilizza's "analysis" is. He clearly has no idea how things really are in the districts and states he writes about, as commenters routinely point out. As Chris often admits in his chats, basically all he does for "research" is read Drudge.

I think the Kerik thing is overblown somewhat, but what it does show (and you will start to hear this from Romney and such) is poor decision making. American's know that alot of being president is about surrounding yourself with smart capable people. You can have a president without a ton of experience or not that smart if they surround themselves with really bright people (Reagan for example with Baker and crew, compared to Bush 2 with Rove and his team of miscreants

bsimon: Imagine what you'd read if the Dem nominee was so closely associated with a guy like Kerik.

Judge C writes
"this is Presidential politics and people change their minds when the writing appears on the wall. Would MH accept the VP post if RG wins the nom? I doubt it. That'd be an alliance with Satan according to many Dobson followers. Best if he goes it alone. I'm not saying the odds are 100% but they are certainly greater than zero."

I'm curious to see how the Kerick indictments play out. Will they have an impact at all? I'm amazed at how many flaws R voters are (apparently) willing to overlook in a guy campaigning on his actions from one day. The Rs, in my opinion, can do a lot better than Rudy, but then I thought the same thing in 2000, so maybe its me thats out of touch.

"The funny thing is, I don't agree with him on a whole lot of stuff, but I still really like him and find him both refreshing and authentic."

I have exactly the same problem, drindl. I'd hate to have to choose between him and a D. RG is obviously going to be the much greater of two evils (the usual offering in a presidential election) and would lead to absolutely no hesitation in the voting booth.

"Judge,I think they will all fall in line behind Rudy before it's over."

Maybe, Drindl but if anyone can get the religious dander of his followers up enough to put their moral principles ahead of winning, it's MH. Plus if Dobson signs up how many other televangelists will follow and broadcast their allegiance?

"Except for the fact, judge, that he said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate."

Yes, smb57 but this is Presidential politics and people change their minds when the writing appears on the wall. Would MH accept the VP post if RG wins the nom? I doubt it. That'd be an alliance with Satan according to many Dobson followers. Best if he goes it alone. I'm not saying the odds are 100% but they are certainly greater than zero.

'http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/09/huckabee_interview/index2.html'

interview for anyone interested -- Huckabee talks to Salon. He wants to outlaw all abortions, amend the Consitution to ban states making it legal, and another amendment to keep states from making civil unions legal. He says marriage is a federal matter and all states should have the same laws. Well, he's consistent.

The funny thing is, I don't agree with him on a whole lot of stuff, but I still really like him and find him both refreshing and authentic.

I have to say Illinois; last time I looked, Blago's approval ratings were sufficiently dismal to make Bush look like a rock star (what I saw, we're talking Bob Taft-esque). Whether or not the state GOP, with its shallow bench, can find a credible candidate is unclear, but the incumbent is doing the Democratic Party no favors.

The GOP will also have 3 years to put the fact that its last governor, George Ryan, was just sent off to jail...

I just read something that made me laugh out loud. Karl Rove was speaking at some political forum yesterday by Yahoo -- 'Citizen 2.0' -- about the Internet, which apparently he really hates. He went off on the 'incivlity' and 'partisanship' caused by BLOGS, apparently-- how it ws dividing the country. that's right, Nr. Swiftboat, Mr. Outing the CIA Agent, Mr. Attack Democrats every minute.

I wonder if he really beleives anything he says. Oh, and of course, he singled out Daily Kos, becuase apparently, some people use 'coarse' language. However, if he not seem troubled by sites like Stormfront and Little Green Footballs, which encourage stuff like lynching and shooting Democrats and bringing back the Nazi party, etc.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Weekly Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

"Depending on how the winds are blowing in 2010, Maryland could be the number 5 spot. Current Governor Martin O'Malley and former Governor Ehrlich had a close election in 2006, and all indications are that Ehrlich wants a rematch. Combine this with O'Malley's less than stellar approval ratings, and the rough time he's having passing his budget, and you could easily have another close election between these two.

O'Malley may even be facing a primary challenger from his left, as state Comptroller Peter Franchot is uniting opponents of slot machines against the governor. If Franchot is the Democratic nominee, Ehrlich would have a very strong hand, as he left the governor's mansion with an approval rating over 50%

Another possibility is that the popular former Lt. Governor and Senate candidate Michael Steele could make a run at the Republican Gubernatorial nomination and give whoever the Democratic nominee is a serious run for their money if he wins his party's nomination." -IMatureStaf

That's all ridiculous. Starting from the top:

Ehrlich lost by almost 117,000 votes (6.5% of turnout). It was not that close. Now the Republican party in MD is nearly bankrupt and Ehrlich's hardly in the state anymore. I wouldn't say that O'Malley is having that hard of a time with the budget either. Thigs are going from committee with changes, but the structure of the Governor's proposals have been essentially intact. The press has generally been negative about the Senate's changes and supportive of the Governor's proposal. Check around the Baltimore Sun's website for info on this.

Franchot is never going to face down a sitting Governor in a primary. It would end his career in democratic politics in MD. I think it far more likely that he's hoping Senator Mikulski decides to retire in 2010 and he can run for her seat.

If Steele was popular he wouldn't have gotten crushed by Ben Cardin 54% to 44%. Steele couldn't even make a good showing in PG county. He'll probably run in 2010 but he'll get pummeled, probably with even less votes than Ehrlich.

Do you work for the MD Republican party? Is that why you're spreading disinformation? Do they even still pay you guys?

'the star quality of Santorum' you mean porn star?

'here's something that has been really bugging me about the Santorum scandal: In the now-famous interview, Santorum says:'

'In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.'

Tell me, what kind of person walks around talking about "man on dog" sex? I can confidently say that the thought never enters my mind unbidden. Yet Santorum, in the course of a conversation with a reporter, casually mentions bestiality. The AP reporter was naturally taken aback:

'I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
I would be freaked out if anyone started talking to me about "man on dog" sex. It's not normal. For a Senator to bring the topic up to a reporter is, well, beyond belief.'

thhis is a guy whose every waking thought appears to be about some kind of kinky sex...

Keep an eye on Illinois. As someone mentioned before, Dem. Gov. Blagojevich has about a 12% approval rating and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald breathing down his neck. If Obama loses the prez. nomination, he'll probably give it a shot to get executive experience. Dem. Attorney General Lisa Madigan is the favorite without Obama.

Republicans? Who knows? Lincoln's GOP is a shadow of its former powerhouse self.

Except for the fact, judge, that he said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate.

Judge,I think they will all fall in line behind Rudy before it's over. the republicans are far more united AGAINST Hillary/Bill than they are FOR anything. Their fear/hatred of her trumps any other 'values' they might have...

He's also the swaggering and phony macho-rhetoric spouting, and that's what they always swoon for.

"judge.c.crater, to indulge your aside, there's rumor out that MH is about to get Dobson:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12292"

Cool! Thanks, smb57. The prophecy is being fulfilled: MH is The One who will lead us to Zion-er-I mean head up a third party composed of religious fundamentalists.

I have my doubts about Diane Denish in the 2010 New Mexico governor's race.

If she is known at all by New Mexicans, it is as Bill Richardson's well-meaning but uncharismatic sidekick. Bill has not surrounded himself with powerful politicians, he surrounds himself with people who make him look good.

The article you reference shows Denish beating Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing Albuquerque mayor Marty Chavez. Denish would be in REAL trouble if she couldn't beat Chavez soundly in a state-wide election. Most politicians in New Mexico - GOP or Demo - could do that.

Unless Denish shows New Mexico that she's truly a viable candidate, I fear a moderate Republican candidate could steamroller her in the general election. Kinda of like Republican Gary Johnson did to Demos in the 1990s.

Diane is just not a likable candidate or effective speaker. She's weak, and recent history demonstrates Republicans can defeat weak Demo candidates in New Mexico. I hope this doesn't happen, but I also hope Diane gets a viable Demo challenger in the governor's race, somebody who could bring her up to speed in Candidate 101.

Diane Denish is acting like an entitlement candidate and New Mexico will not necessarily go for that. Having said that, New Mexico Republicans have been so busy strangling each other over the last few years it's hard to see who they could nominate, but it could happen.

Take a hard look at Nevada for the Line. Governor Jim Gibbons won in '06 under cloud of a sex scandal and only pulled it off because voters couldn't stand the liberal Dem. Dina Titus. Gibbons and his wife are now under federal investigation for taking bribes from a defense contractor while he was in Congress. Last month the Review-Journal reported that Gibbons' favorable ratings were at 30% (42% among R's), below even Bush. And Dems will have a better candidate than Titus next time, whoever it is (AG Catherine Cortez-Masto, Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley).

'(I happen to agree with him, but it has been a disaster politically).'

and why is that? because he's like clinton -- the republicans really hate him and have made every little mistep or perceived mistep into tempest in a tea pot. Joe Bruno is as corrupt as they come and if you live here you know it. I want someone supervising his travel on the taxpayer's dime. Whethr or not he should have used the state police is, as far I've heard, not illegal and perhaps there is some suspicion that Mr. Bruno has commited a crime, which would hardly be unique in politics.

And oh yes, he has said some stupid things. Well, he's a politiician. They tend to do that. the problem is exactly as you say -- after 12 years of screwups, we expected a miracle. Give him time. If he's not bettr in 3 years, we can vote him out.

I am not an expert of all the races for next year but it would seem fair to put the DE open seat in there since you also put the NC seat that has little chances of switching considering the difference in name recognition and the general Dem bend of gubernatorial races there.

Things in the DE race will depend on who the Dems pick in their primary. Jack Markell is very popular with the "movement" and is considered very charismatic but Lt Gvnor John Carney has the "machine" behind him, all the endorsements etc and there is a sense among the elite that it is "his turn" and that Markell is being too ambitious too fast.
All the while the Republicans - who will probably put Alan Levin of Happy Harry's fame on the ballot - WANT to run against Carney very badly. They think the current unpopularity of the Minner administration that Carney is a part of and the general sense of drift and incompetence people are getting from it will bring him down. And they also think Levin's unorthodox profile will draw some dissappointed Markell supporters to cross over to his side. The fight for open government has started to rear its issue among a lot of people of those movement progressives who (as proven to their openness to the candidate of the Republicans in last week's special State Senate election) could very well make it an issue if the "machine" does pick the candidate.

That said, like in NC, the Dems very very clearly have the winds in their back in DE and it seems likely the seat won't switch hands. But it could very well be a race.

This is making me aware of just how much I've neglected politics in my (former) state lately. I expected the gov race in Missouri to be competitive (because, really, when is a race in Missouri NOT competitive?), but hadn't realized Blunt was polling so low already. Even so, he's still leagues ahead of where Holden was in the last election, when he couldn't even get his party's nomination.

But Rogden is right in saying that if Blunt can't keep the rural vote, he's through. That was his only leg up on urban McCaskill in the last election. Now, whether a single rally tells you anything remains to be determined.

judge.c.crater, to indulge your aside, there's rumor out that MH is about to get Dobson:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12292

Chris,

You need to spend a little time in PA. Rick Santorum would be lucky to be elected congressman at this point. The scandal surrounding his faking a PA address for financial advantage (tution for his kids)damaged him seriously even in Pittsburgh, even among people who would support him. Not to mention the fact that a large segment of PA's population actually reviles him. And Swan, nah, I don't see a lot of folks lining up to fiscally back him again. Not after his last lost.

What about Colorado?

Given the flak Gov. Bill Ritter has taken during his first year in office (and assuming it continues), do you think a former congressman or other well known GOP candidate could give him a run for his money?

Thanks, Chris.

I agree, there really is not much in governor races next year. Check out Campaign Diaries's rankings of all 11 of the races, with brief descriptions for each:

www.campaigndiaries.com/governorrankings

"Former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) made it official late last month: He's running again..."

For a boots-on-the-ground perspective of this race see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/332901_joel24.html

What about Virginia in '09?

Also, "On Thursday, Mr. Huckabee scored his first endorsement from a prominent Christian conservative leader, the Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/us/politics/09huckabee.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Can't say I've ever heard of the Rev. Wildmon but this is good news for MH. IS this the first of a slew of similar endorsements?

Re: Spitzer. I'm not going to add the discussion of his perceived status within NY State BUT I will point out that 3 years is an infinite amount of time in politics and Spitzer's a pretty smart guy. Ahnold certainly came around in CA; look for Elliot to do the same.

"The Democratic names mentioned lack the star quality of Santorum or Swann but should be favored given the state's underlying demographics."

Oh, please. Swann's a proven loser. Being a great wide receiver and sideline commentator doesn't necessarily translate into being a great politician. I suppose if the D's nominate a moron then, yes, Swannie will have a chance.

"But Spitzer has made such a mess of things in such a short term"

"oh please, get real, get over it. he's been the victim of a republican smear campaign . . ."

You must be kidding. I am a Dem and a supporter, but I think, as do ALL of my Democratic operative friends, that Spitzer's problems are largely self-inflicted. The Republicans did not make him use the State Police to investigate Joe Bruno. The Republicans did not make him propose the idea of issuing drivers' licenses to undocumented people (I happen to agree with him, but it has been a disaster politically). The Republicans did not make him blast those Democratic Assembly members who voted for their own (as opposed to Spitzer's) nominee for State Controller and vow to campaign against them in the future. The Republicans did not invent the "I'm a f***ing steam roller" quote.

We New Yorkers had such high hopes that he would be able to clean up the Albany mess, but so far, all he has done is to add to it.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon came to a political rally in a very rural, conservative area of the state and drew a crowd. If he can get the rural vote, Governor Blunt will be looking for new work.

Depending on how the winds are blowing in 2010, Maryland could be the number 5 spot. Current Governor Martin O'Malley and former Governor Ehrlich had a close election in 2006, and all indications are that Ehrlich wants a rematch. Combine this with O'Malley's less than stellar approval ratings, and the rough time he's having passing his budget, and you could easily have another close election between these two.

O'Malley may even be facing a primary challenger from his left, as state Comptroller Peter Franchot is uniting opponents of slot machines against the governor. If Franchot is the Democratic nominee, Ehrlich would have a very strong hand, as he left the governor's mansion with an approval rating over 50%

Another possibility is that the popular former Lt. Governor and Senate candidate Michael Steele could make a run at the Republican Gubernatorial nomination and give whoever the Democratic nominee is a serious run for their money if he wins his party's nomination.

Meh. 08 gov's line is boring, much less 2010. In Dec 08 the 2010 Gov's line will be a lot more interesting, with the above-noted redistricting and all. (Pawlenty in MN will also be up for reelection, if he decides to run for a third term; some say he has his eye on a different race in 2012)

just jfor you, 'proud' -- your waitress wants to rebut your pettiness/cattiness of yesterday..

'In a story on Sen. Hillary Clinton's new Web site dedicated exclusively to issue rebuttals, the NYT mentions that yesterday's "mini-scandal" was whether Clinton had left a tip at a diner in Iowa. The NYT talked to the waitress and she was simply dumbfounded the whole thing had become such a big deal. "You people are really nuts," she said. "There's kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now--there's better things in this world to be thinking about than ... who got a tip and who didn't get a tip."

Ah, Rick Santorum. I remember seeing some pundits chatting not long after the 2006 election, and I believe it was Pat Buchanan mourning Santorum's loss and suggesting he would be a good R candidate for president in '08. Ah, from your lips, Pat Buchanan, to God's ears should Rick Santorum be the R candidate. Sadly, the Democrats just don't have that kind of luck.

But it is inspiring to think he just might be delusional enough to run for Governor. I sure hope they can discuss man-on-dog again.

Pardon me the 'Commonwealth of Pennsylvania'.

It really is a slow year for governors if the fourth on the list is NC which will most definitly go blue again.
I still can't believe that Daniels is making a race of it. Just a year ago his approval ratings was below forty percent. I can't find any recent data so I would still bet that he is in trouble, but who knows.
Blount in Missouri is toast. His approval rating is 43%, and Gregoire's is 55% in Washington. Looks to me like Rossi is wasting his time and money again, and Nixon will be the next governor of Missouri.

The thing I find the most puzzling is that Rick Santorum really thinks that he has a snowball's chance in hades to win a statewide office. News flash Rick, people in the state of Pennsylvania DON'T LIKE YOU. The advantage is that he will run a dirty negative campaign against Swann (who lost last time by 20 percent or something) probably ruining them both.

lkr1: thanks for correction on Richard Moore in N.C. It's been fixed above. -- a post.com editor.

'Barbed wire and barricades were placed around former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's home today to keep her from attending a rally banned by the government, Bhutto told CNN."People are being stopped at different points from reaching the public meeting," Bhutto said by phone. '

hey look, we're exporting democracy! a brand new police state, paid for by your tax dollars! how's that feel?

'But Spitzer has made such a mess of things in such a short term, '

oh please, get real, get over it. he's been the victim of a republican smear campaign, but what do you expect? what else do they do? all they do if they lose is throw tantrums and try to block anything the new governor does. we can see through that, thank you, especially after the hapless and increasingly useless pataki.

What about California? Yes, Arnold is popular in the state, but the rest of the California Republican Party can barely decide which shoes goes on what foot. Is it not a strong possibility that the Democrats retake the governor's mansion in California?

This may sound crazy, but Illinois could well be tired of Democratic rule by 2010. Governor Blagojevich is despised and can't get along with a dem legislature.

This may come as a surprise to some people, but I think you have to treat former "superstar" Eliot Spitzer as being vulnerable in 2010. Those familiar with New York's dysfunctional state government didn't think things could get any worse. But Spitzer has made such a mess of things in such a short term, most people think he's in real danger of being a one termer.

Note: Richard Moore is NC State Treasurer, not Atty General.