Posted by Brad @ 11:48 am on January 28th 2010

The Path to 50

For the Republicans in the Senate has to lead through Barbara Boxer (CA) and Russ Feingold (WI). A tall order if you ask me.

But, two new polls indicate that they at least have a shot.

PPIC puts Tom Campbell, a conservative populist, within 4 of Boxer (presuming he beats Carly Fiorina in the primary (he is ahead by 11), but in fact the primary may well help him by getting national attention, grassroots backing, and out-of-state money as the Tea Party crowd are focused on this race.

And in Wisconsin, Rasmussen has Tommy Thompson actually beating Russ Feingold, outside the margin of error (47 to 43). But, as Ambinder notes, that strikes most people as more than a little optimistic, noting Feingold’s historic strength, Rasmussen’s heavily GOP favored LV models, and the fact that most people don’t expect Thompson to run (and, of course, it’s hard to forget his dismal Presidential run, where he was one of the least effective candidates at that level I think I’ve ever seen). Currently the two declared Republicans are multi-millionare Terrance Wall, and Tea Party candidate, David Westlake, both of whom would at least make for a competitive primary for Thompson for different reasons (one’s rich, one’s a Tea Party candidate). I haven’t seen any primary polls for Wisconsin.

In both cases, it’s a long shot. But it is a shot.


  1. I’ve only voted for a Republican twice (for any office), and Tom Campbell was one of those votes (when he ran against Feinstein).

    I don’t know that I’d describe him as a conservative populist.

    Comment by Redland Jack — 1/28/2010 @ 12:10 pm

  2. I don’t know a damn thing about Tom Campbell, and was just passing on Ambinder’s characterization of him from that hyperlink. What do you like/know about him?

    Comment by Brad — 1/28/2010 @ 12:26 pm

  3. When he served in the House, he was generally regarded as one of the most ‘fiscally conservative’ members (although that term is terribly antiquated now, perhaps I should say that he wanted to keep spending and taxes low).

    He has a bit of a problem with his own party, since he is fairly ‘socially liberal’ (again, taking that phrase to mean what it used to mean).

    I also like that he had his Ph.D. in economics (particularly since it’s from Chicago, which, admittedly is not as good as George Mason, but)…

    He’s generally regarded as having ‘libertarian’ tendencies, though he’s definitely not the second coming of Ron Paul. Which is to say, that Adam might like him alright (I would guess that James still wouldn’t).

    Comment by Redland Jack — 1/29/2010 @ 1:57 am

  4. Did someone say “Chicago”? Sign me up!

    Comment by Adam — 2/1/2010 @ 2:10 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.