Posted on 05/21/2005 2:24:19 PM PDT by LdSentinal
Republican Rep. Jim Gibbons has both the highest name recognition and the best chance to be Nevada's next governor, according to a poll of statewide voters.
Gibbons trounces potential Republican primary opponents and beats both likely Democratic candidates by double digits, according to the survey of 625 Nevada voters commissioned by the Review-Journal and reviewjournal.com.
Voters were polled May 12-14 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., based in Washington, D.C. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. For the Republican and Democratic subgroup questions, the margin is 6 percentage points.
On the high end of the scale, Gibbons was recognized by 92 percent of voters, compared with 41 percent of voters who recognized Democrat Richard Perkins, the Assembly speaker.
The 273 Republican voters surveyed put Gibbons way ahead of Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt, a declared candidate, and state Sen. Bob Beers of Las Vegas, who is considering a bid. Gibbons would get 60 percent of the vote in a GOP primary, compared with 13 percent for Hunt and 10 percent for Beers.
"I would say it's just insurmountable for Lorraine Hunt and Bob Beers," said Eric Herzik, a Republican and political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. "I would be seriously re-assessing my next office choice if I were either one of them."
Robert Uithoven, spokesman for Gibbons' gubernatorial exploratory committee, said he felt voters shared the congressman's message of tax restraint and education -- two areas for which Gibbons has successfully led ballot initiatives.
"Clearly the leadership that Jim Gibbons has demonstrated for the state of Nevada, both as a state legislator and congressman, has earned him the support reflected in these numbers," Uithoven said.
Pollster Brad Coker said Gibbons is "the early front-runner."
The 277 registered Democrats surveyed gave Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus the edge over Perkins in a Democratic primary, 31 percent to 16 percent. The majority of Democrats, 53 percent, were undecided. Titus was also better known among Democrats, with nearly half not recognizing Perkins.
"I have always thought I could get the base in the primary," said Titus, D-Las Vegas. "I think it's also good for showing that I am as competitive as Perkins in the general."
Voters gave Gibbons a 12-point lead over Titus in a prospective general election matchup, compared with a 15-point lead over Perkins. The fifth-term congressman does not, however, have a majority of the vote against either Democratic candidate.
Perkins said he is not worried about a primary with Titus, arguing "this is about a general election."
"I've always been somebody whose style is to work below the radar, to get things done and not to grab headlines," he said. "Jim Gibbons' numbers will continue to drop, and the more voters learn about me and what I stand for, my numbers will improve."
David Damore, a registered Democrat and political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Perkins' strategy thus far "is not working out for him."
"Titus has really turned it around," Damore said, referring to past polls in which she had lower name recognition. "This may make for a very interesting Democratic primary."
Coker said that as a woman, Titus will have advantages in the Democratic primary, but the pollster added, "Perkins can change those numbers real fast by spending a little money. It's not a take-it-to-the-bank lead."
Perkins and Gibbons will have the largest war chests for the race.
The speaker has been seeking commitments for the race for two years. Gibbons, meanwhile, recently raised $125,000 for his campaign at an event hosted by Venetian executive Bill Weidner. Gibbons has also been attending fund-raisers while Perkins, Titus, Hunt and Beers are prohibited from accepting contributions during the legislative session.
Hunt, who has won two statewide elections, said she is not worried about the GOP primary numbers because "Jim has been campaigning constantly for over two years for different elections, and I haven't even been on a billboard since 2002."
"We're going to be working hard and campaigning once the session ends," said Hunt, who presides over the state Senate as president. "My point is, we have a long way to go. I intend to run for governor, and I intend to win."
Beers, who is exploring the race, said he was "flattered to be included" in the poll.
"I'm also encouraged to see that if I were a gambling man, I'd have to bet on a Republican governor of some sort," he said.
In addition to Gibbons winning both potential general election matchups, Hunt would narrowly defeat Titus and Perkins, and Beers would be within striking distance of either Democrat.
Since the 1960's, Democrats have steadily been losing ground in registrations and in partisan elective offices in Nevada, and eventhe tremendous spurt of growth in Las Vegas has not stemmed the shift away from Democrats. If Jim Gibbons is running well in virtually all parts of the state, that is rapidly approaching a lock on the gubernatorial election. All over in the primary.
Which may not be as good a situation as it ought. Not because Jim Gibbons lacks in ability, but because the Republican party is rapidly becoming the only game in town.
After all, we've learned that Republican politicians are especially responsive to the stimulus of fear. Say bad words about them in the media and they cower in helplessness.
What Gibbons did in refusing to run against Sen. Reid was unforgiveable. He definitely falls into the category of "RINO", by which he put his own desires ahead of the party and the greater good. I would certainly urge a vote against him in the primary.
Jim has always wanted to be Governor but would not run against the incumbent Democrat because of a rare, apolitical, and gentlemanly act extended to him when he, as a Republican State Assemblyman, was activated for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
That makes it just that much worse. Those are the kinds of "deals" that have seen 'Rats holding seats in places where they have no business (reference South Dakota).
Don't think I follow. What kind of "deal" are you referring to?
In the case of Gibbons, it sounds like he "owed" Reid a favor, which immediately compromised him as a future candidate for the Senate seat.
No. He passed on running against Reid because he wanted to run for Governor, but preferred to wait until the sitting Governor retired...that's all.
The fact that Gibbons is pro-abortion and is supporting another pro-abortion candidate (his wife!) to replace him in his extremely Republican congressional district (Bush got 57% in each of 2000 and 2004) is further evidence of his RINOism.
And how the heck does Gibbons plan to be the Governor in Carson City while the First Lady is representing 700,000 people in Congress?
Remember when then-OK Gov. Frank Keating played hardball to try to get his wife a Tulsa-based Congressional, and the people of that district would have none of that. Being a First Lady IS a full-time job, and this whole scheme of the Gibbonses is a wee bit much to take.
Unfortunately, there seems to be only 1 other viable candidate in each of those two races. Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt is a declared candidate for Governor, though I don't know much about her, she seems like she may be too close to the incumbent, Kenny Guinn, who has been a fairly piss-poor RINO leader.
As for the Congressional seat, Sec of State Dean Heller is the only major opponent of Dawn Gibbons. Heller was one of those who also should've attempted to take on Reid last year but opted not to, so therefore, my opinion of him isn't quite so warm. On the whole, these seem rather disappointing choices. You and I both have been fans of State Sen. Maurice Washington, but he seems not to want to make a move in the House race. If he ran, he could position himself between the candidate of nepotism and the candidate of Kenny Guinn/RINO establishment.
Actually, Keating was term-limited and leaving office soon when his wife ran in the GOP congressional primary, so if she won her husband would have been without a First Lady for less than a year, not for the entire 4-year term. But your point is well taken---if OK voters did not want their First Lady leaving OK City a year early to represent them in Congress, will Nevada voters elect a governor who encourages his wife to go to Washington during his entire term?
DJ, what was the name of the Democrat Congressman from far western Kentucky who lost to Ed Whitfield in 1996 I believe it was? He tried to get his wife elected in a district in far eastern Kentucky (coal country), but she lost the primary and a few months later he lost his House seat. Hopefully, Jim Gibbons won't commit the same mistake.
That would be Mr. Carroll Hubbard and Mrs. Carol Hubbard (no joke). Mr. Hubbard was the 18-year incumbent in 1992 when he was upended in the primary by Thomas Jefferson Barlow, III, who went on to win that November (though Barlow lost narrowly to Whitfield in '94, and I believe all but destroyed the 'Rats annointed Senate candidate in 2002 by his narrow loss after spending zilch). While Mrs. Hubbard in that same '92 contest (which she jumped into when then-7th District Rep. Chris Perkins bowed out) outspent the eventual primary nominee and still placed 4th in the newly-reconfigured 5th District (which combined the hyper-union 'Rat 7th and hyper-GOP Mountain/Resort Republican 5th). It was an embarrassment for the Hubbards all the way around.
Thanks, DJ. I got the years wrong.
Is Lexington "hyper-Republican mountain-resort country"? I thought that the new 6th combined Democrat coal counties with GOP-leaning suburban Lexington, while Rogers' 5th CD combined heavily RAT coal counties with hyper-Republican areas.
DJ, never mind, I see that you were talking about the 5th all along. My bad.
Say! That is very astute! (or is it asstoot?)
Speaking of the 6th, I keep wondering how on earth we're going to be able to dislodge Ben Chandler from that GOP-leaning seat. I have to give it to the KY 'Rats, it was a stroke of brilliance to lure Chandler into that special election so quickly after losing the Governorship. I'm sure many Republicans in a similar position would not have jumped at that chance.
Nevada's pretty much thick with RINOs.
"Speaking of the 6th, I keep wondering how on earth we're going to be able to dislodge Ben Chandler from that GOP-leaning seat."
Well, unless Chandler wins the Governor's race, he could still retain the House seat even if he loses, so the Senate race would be more likely. I'd be more worried if he ran for the Senate in '08 (presumably, Bunning won't run again), since that could quite possibly a race that was his to lose. I want us to regain the 6th, though not at the expense of a Senate seat.
That's unfortunate. Where are the Paul Laxalts' of today ?
Same with the dual contests in '96 of Bob Dornan-Loretta Sanchez in CA and Woody Jenkins-Mary Landrieu in LA (but since both featured 'Rat females as the cheaters, the GOP went weak in the knees). In having allowed those two without overturning the contests have seen both build up political machines (Sanchez getting her sister elected in a nearby district, and Landrieu getting her brother elected Lieutenant-Governor).
If Chandler loses to Fletcher in 2007 I think it would give the GOP a good chance to beat him in the House race in 2008. And as for Chandler being the frontrunner for the Senate in 2008, you forget that it is McConnell, not Bunning, who is up for reelection that year (Bunning won't be up until 2010), and even if McConnell retired Anne Northup would make a formidable GOP Senate candidate.
Well, I guess there's Ensign and some of the state reps. But as for Paul Laxalts, I think those creatures must be few in number perhaps hunted for their pelts as I've never heard tell of 'em.
Ah, whoops on the Bunning thing... I wonder if we have any decent candidates if Northup vacates her seat.
That's gonna be one tough seat for us to hold if Northup runs statewide before 2012 redistricting (at which time it will have to expand further into the suburbs, and hopefully the GOP will be in charge and draw a more suburban district that a GOP can carry easily).
Speaking of the 2012 redistricting, and crossing the Ohio into Indiana, I wonder if there will be a way for the now-all GOP legislature and Governor to make an "all 9" GOP delegation. Wiping out Julia Carson's district should be easy enough (by taking some GOP chunks out of Danny Burton's district, and making his base district more 'Rat), but can we also do it to Visclosky's 1st ?
If the GOP controls IN redistricting, it would be a cinch to turn the delegation to 8-1 Republican. Marion County can be divided into two districts, each of which would include the hyper-Republican Indianapolis suburban counties that encircle Marion County, and it would result in two districts in which Bush got between 55%-60% in 2004 (as opposed to one 44% Bush CD and one 70% Bush CD). The 8th and 8th CDs could be shored up for the GOP incumbents by making them less irregular than they currently are. But in order to give Chocola a 3rd CD that he can carry comfortably one would need to add South Bend and Michigan City to Gary and the rest of northern Lake County and give Visclosky a safely Democrat 1st CD. Trying to draw a GOP CD that takes in Gary, Hammond, etc. would be just about impossible, and the IN GOP would be smart to play it safe and "settle" for an 8-1 advantage.
I mentioned IN-1, since there is at least one prominent GOP pol in the district, that being the Mayor of Hammond. Even if the district were a "slight lean" to the 'Rats, I'd still wonder if it were possible (also the fact that the district is going to have to get larger and larger to account for the rapid population decline in some of those areas - Gary is almost totally irrelevent now, unlike in years past, where it once made up probably 1/2 the population of the district, it will be less than 1/7th come 2012, if I'm not mistaken).
"I mentioned IN-1, since there is at least one prominent GOP pol in the district, that being the Mayor of Hammond. Even if the district were a "slight lean" to the 'Rats, I'd still wonder if it were possible."
"NV could gain 2-3 extra electoral votes in the next census."
You make good points. The goal, of course, was to flip the delegation to majority GOP. They accomplished it, but as you say, will it hold ? It might, but we'll be back to the drawing board in 2012 as it is, and we'll have to make the delegation smaller regardless (is PA going to lose 1 or 2 seats in the next round ?).
I felt more sympathy for Huckabee than anything else. It's damn frustrating to see election cycle after election cycle pass, and we can't add ANY other statewide offices to our AR accomplishments. It's also sad, too, that you just have those five families in AR that are able to run or win for the GOP (the Huckabee's, the Rockefeller's, the Boozman's, the Hutchinson's, and the Dickey's). From the '03-'05 cycle, a promising young Black Republican physician from Fort Smith named Dr. Kevin Pemix won a State House seat, but inexplicably didn't bother to even run for a 2nd term. It's those kinds of folks we need to get more involved in in that state's politics. The 'Rats still remain far too overrepresented at the state (and federal) level now.
"The goal, of course, was to flip the delegation to majority GOP. They accomplished it, but as you say, will it hold?"
The PA GOP took a gamble that it could "psych" some 'Rats out of running, but didn't realize that Holden would opt to stay in the game (smart on Holden's part, since it did pay off for him). Gekas might've been vulnerable no matter what we did, as he hadn't run a serious campaign in 20 years. I still think we'll manage to hold the PA legislature until the next redistricting (barring disaster). At least we can take comfort that if Rendell does win a 2nd term, he won't be presiding over redistricting in 2012.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.