Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you

Links

Like IB

The “Stutzman” Factor

With a little more than a month to go before the U.S. Senate primary in Indiana, one question to throw into the discussion is whether the Hoosiers who voted for Marlin Stutzman back in the 2010 primary will be the voters who decide whether Richard Lugar or Richard Mourdock faces Democrat Joe Donnelly in November?

You may be saying that Stutzman is now a Congressman representing the 3rd Congressional District, so why does he matter now?  Go back and look at the 2010 primary results.

  • Dan Coats – 39.5%
  • Marlin Stutzman – 29.2%
  • John Hostettler – 22.6 %
  • Don Bates – 4.5 %
  • Richard Behney – 4.2 %

Note, this analysis is based on a couple assumptions.  First assume the votes for Coats are true establishment Republicans, while votes for Hostettler, Bates and Behney were “anti-establishment/Tea Party” votes.  Translate those totals into today’s race.  That means incumbent Richard Lugar starts with a baseline of about 40% and State Treasurer Richard Mourdock walks in with about 31%; a 9-point difference, which is not too far off from the polls Mourdock and the Democrats have cited showing a 6-point difference between the two candidates.

So with that assumption, one could argue the fight is for those 29% of primary voters who came out for Stutzman; who you could argue aren’t 100% tea party, but not so much establishment that they will go along 100% of the time. So where are they?  According to the 2010 results they are in the 11 counties that Stutzman won…

  • LaGrange – 73%, Kosciusko – 48%, Steuben – 47.4%
  • DeKalb – 47.5%, Marion – 34.9%, Hendricks – 34.9 %
  • Clay – 35.9%, Putnam – 35%, Johnson – 35.5 %
  • Shelby – 34.5 %, Rush 36.9 %.

However, if there is a 50-50 split amongst Stutzman voters, working from these results as a baseline, Lugar wins 54-44, over Mourdock.  For Mourdock to win, he would need to pull close to 70% of the Republicans who voted for Stutzman in 2010.

Of course there are several other factors at play as we enter the last month of the primary season; the Presidential primary and is it pretty much a done deal by the time primary comes along?  How well do Lugar and Mourdock perform in the April 11 debate?  What role will the Super PACs play in the home stretch?  Will there be an implosion in either of the campaigns’ political operations?  Will residency still matter?  And then there is just the unpredictability that comes along with any political season.

However, for the purpose of this analysis, if the campaigns are smart, they have already identified who those “Stutzman” voters are and will work to get them to the polls on May 8, because at this point, no one can take any vote for granted nor leave any stone unturned.

 

  • Dave

    The establishment disconnect problem will continue to manifest itself as an enthusiasm gap.  However witting, there’s a merger of the political caste irrespective of party; hostile to liberty & lives of a majority of citizens from whom they’re disconnected.  

  • patriot paul

    One of your initial assumptions can be challenged because even though rank & file Republicans voted for Coats, many Tea Partiers came to accept his message for a more fiscally conservative government and voted for him, so his appeal was more broad than supposed.  On the other hand, the tea partiers split much of their remaining vote among the other the others which gave rise to a lesson learned that prompted a movement called Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate designed to not repeat that mistake and become more unified next time around. 
    Targeting Stutzman voters is a worthy effort for Lugar & Mourdock campaigns, but I’m told Stutzman will not publically endorse either candidate. I suspect Stutzman will pull the lever for Lugar because of their close collaboration on farm bills with both appealing to their agricultural base in the counties you cited.  Both have been at local farmers’ meetings with co-sponsored bills.  Both have their own self-interest with family farms with Stutzman’s extending into Michigan.  I suspect the reason Stutzman (and other politicans too) have refused to publically endorse Lugar or Mourdock is due to not dividing their base (which may be good politics but doesn’t speak well for courage or boldness of leadership).     

  • Think Again

    Stutsman is no dummy.  He came out of all this smelling like a rose.  ”Courage or boldness of leadership?”  Don’t make me laugh.  Coats was already retired to North Carolina when the Bayh exit presented an opportunity.  He clowned Indiana and won another term.  

  • Pascal

    A lot of us remember Dan from his earlier days and when the curtain goes down on his career it will be known by all and sundry that he accomplished more for Indiana that Evan ever even dreamed of.  Stutzman is no dummy-realizes that Senator Lugar might Chair the Ag Committee with the idea of cleaning up that mess while mentoring younger members of Foreign Relations.  A promise to do that would seal the deal.  It does not pain me to note that Senator Coats is respected in the Senate.  Few Democrats are.

  • Dave

    While team red’s establishment lags in the rear view (unprincipled, imitation being a matter of later, in sequence), here’s an inside story, deep from within the vowels of team blue which explains establishment operations:  www.wnd.com/2012/04/hillary-supporters-untold-obama-horror-stories/

  • Think Again

    Dan Coats, acocmplished much?  Are you daft?

    He accomplished thebunique task of fooling Hoosiers in 2010.  Not much more.  Ask around.

  • Think Again

    Joe Farrah’s World Net Daily as a credible source for ANYthing?  I thought you were smarter than that.

    The same bunch that criticized America two days after 9-11?  Remember, that “news organization” said the Shiite Muslim world sought revenge on America for its wandering ways.

    Dave, they make Pat Robertson’s CBN look credible.

  • Dave

    Condescendingly cute yet predictably boorish; these aren’t the only 2008 Hillary supporters / insiders telling these kindsa stories.

    Was it not the frankenstoned arbiters of “smart” who gave “life” to unaborted zombies? 

  • Think Again

    Again–why use WND as a credible source for ANYthing?  They’re wild.  Rarely correct.

  • Dave

    Wild?  NBC’s Zimmerman tape, See BS’s Dan Rather from Firestone to GW’s military record to….

    Perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign insiders who gave the WND interview could best answer that question…

  • Dave

    If anyone’s interested in el presidente’s foul weather commie connections, here’s a word from some who made it all possible (good reading for TA):  www.wnd.com/2012/04/why-obamas-political-mentor-deserted-him/