GOP panic starts to set in
Let’s see, Sen. John Warner of Virginia is retiring, giving Democrats another key pick-up opportunity next year. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is resigning, and the DSCC is talking about making a serious run at that seat, too.
Looking ahead, Dems also appear to be in a good position to pick up seats in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, with Maine, Oregon, New Mexico, Nebraska, and even Kentucky very much in play. Dems go into the cycle with a cyclical edge — the GOP has 22 seats to defend in 2008, the Dems have 12 — and the rest of the political landscape, at least at this early date, seems tilted in their direction.
And how are Republican insiders responding to this landscape? With dread and panic.
“It’s always darkest right before you get clobbered over the head with a pipe wrench. But then it actually does get darker,” said a GOP pollster who insisted on anonymity in order to speak candidly. […]
Republican campaign operatives are privately fretting about a political environment that could remain deadly for their party.
“About the only safe Republican Senate seats in ’08 are the ones that aren’t on the ballot,” a GOP operative with extensive experience in Senate races said. “I don’t see even the rosiest scenario where we don’t end up losing more seats.”
At least they’ve stopped looking at the political world through rose-colored glasses.
Looks like Rove bailed just in time to save his legacy…
I bet Junior wishes he could dive in too.
But he can’t.
He is going to have to stay and sink with his ship for the: First. Time. Ever.
505 days of Hell…
Enjoy it Junior.
After watching Gore and Kerry lose elections that should have been won, I count nothing out. But even if Dems do pick up a few seats, there’s a qualitative difference between winning because you played a good game and winning because the other side self-destructed. A good game builds confidence and momentum; winning by default can give you a false sense of your ultimate viability.
If you consider just those seats forthose states listed in the post, that gives us 61 votes, without LIE-berman.
Do that and pick up 35 more seats in the House – also entirely do-able – and it won’t matter if Frederick of Hollywood and his trophy wife who’s three years younger than his daughter (is that a huuuuug “ick” or what?) get to the WH.
Yes, well… one result of this picture seems to be a deep, guilty longing for the one thing they think can save their asses: another 9/11. The fact that a couple of ’em have actually popped out and more or less said it explicitly and in public only indicates how many more must be thinking the same thing with their lips clamped tight shut.
I think of how many people in the party with control of the security apparatus of the United States are working hard to suppress The Bad Thought and it makes me a little nervous.
Oh please, Osama, please please save us, we promise we’ll look the other way, please do it, c’mon pl-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-ase?…
beep52 makes a good point. If the Dems do achieve 60 seats in the Senate it will be because disgusted Republicans stay home in droves – not because of the Democrat’s strong and principled stands. It would be very sad if they decide that caving to an unpopular president out of fear of being labeled “weak on terrorism” is the lesson that they take away.
“Looking ahead, Dems also appear to be in a good position to pick up seats…and the rest of the political landscape, at least at this early date, seems tilted in their direction.”
So, how does the Democratic congressional leadership respond to these favorable conditions? By turning up the pressure on the crooks and malefactors? By pressing ahead on a wide range of progressive social issues? By doing something, anything to build positive momentum going into the primary season?
Ummmmm, no.
They enable Bush’s shredding of the Fourth Amendment with their utter capitulation on the FISA issue.
They abet Bush’s politicization of the justice system with their talk of toning down investigations if the president offers a “concensus” nominee to replace Gonzalves.
In the coming weeks it’s a mortal lock that they will fail to substanatively change the clusterfuck policy in Iraq (too many dems will continue to actively support the president).
They appear to be bending over backwards to piss off their base.
At this point, they have lost my vote. If they continue along the present trajectory, I suspect they’ll turn the 2008 campaign into a very competitive race
How do you figure Nebraska? No Democratic candidate has declared yet.
you mentioned “Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, with Maine, Oregon, New Mexico, Nebraska, and even Kentucky ” are possible Democratic pickups.
Colorado is about 60%/40% for the Democrats.
New Hampshire is about 40%/60% for the Democrats
Minnesota is about 35%/65% for the Democrats
Maine is about 30%/70% for the Democrats
Oregon is about 35%/65% for the Democrats
New Mexico is about 15%/85% for the Democrats
Nebraska is about 20%/80% for the Democrats
Kentucky is about 10%/90% for the Democrats
Virginia is about 45%/55% for the Democrats
On the other hand
Louisiana is about 70%/30% for the Democrats
South Dakota is about 80%/20% for the Democrats
Montana is about 85%/15% for the Democrats
So, overall it looks like the Democrats should pick up one to four seats and it is possible, though unlikely, that the Democrats could lose control of the Senate, especially if our friend from Connecticut decides to completely jump ship.
My point is that things are not as bad as you think for the ‘publicans.
Beep and Dennis, while I agree with you that the Democratic leadership has been too timid, it’s important to notice that the newer members of the caucus– especially in the Senate– have no such trepidation. Even if we end up winning by “default” in ’08, if the result brings in more independent thinkers like Webb, McCaskill, and Tester, the result will be a braver Democratic party, less likely to tiptoe around and rely on consultants’ bad advice, more willing to take the other side to task.
The Republicans will be saved in both houses of Congress, and very possibly win one or both of them back, when the Democrats nominate Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation.
Sen. Clinton might not alter the outlook in Maine, New Hampshire or (I guess) Minnesota. But she renders that prick McConnell bulletproof in Kentucky, probably saves Domenici in New Mexico, and very well might keep Virginia and Colorado–our two best pickup opportunities IMO–Republican.
And, as I’ve written before, she’s going to absolutely annihilate our freshman Democrats in the House. I wish some political reporter with a clue would ask Reps Ellsworth and Shuler if they’re looking forward to running for re-election with Hillary Clinton as their party’s standard-bearer.
This isn’t to say that she won’t win the presidency; I’d put her odds at a little better than 50-50. It’s just that it would be nice to win with more than 51 percent, and to look forward to a political context not totally characterized by personal hatreds and partisan considerations. With Sen. Clinton, we just get more of same–and she’s not even a good progressive.
Colorado, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Virginia are gone.
The GOP will also lose three of the the remainder, one by less than a thousand votes. I pick NM for the close one.
Right now, unless the state is small, and the challenger is well-known, polls are measuring challenger v. incumbent name recognition before the first big ad buys.
I figure they hang on in Maine, thanks to tame media. (The executive editor of the BDN, the state’s second biggest paper, up north where Allen is going to need to do better-than expected — is married to a Collins staffer in her Bangor office)
***hey caped composer***WTF. You’ve not been paying attention. Though hundreds of us have emailed and called McCaskill…she has voted with the republicans on every issue. Her voting positions are indefensible for a democrat. “…have no such trepidation…”?? I don’t know about the others but McCaskill hasn’t even used her microphone time in the senate to speak out against anything the republicans are doing.
My bitch is with Reid always playing “victim”…waah…we can’t get enough votes in the senate to withdraw the troops when it should be seen that the republicans can’t get enough votes in the senate to continue funding the occupation. The Dems have what Bush wants…not the other way around. So it should be seen that Bush can’t get something without changing his stance…not that Dems must give him something because he won’t change his stance. Dems have…Bush wants…if Bush wants it enough then he must compromise to get it. Dems have all the aces. It should not be that the senate Dems can’t get enough votes to get what they want so the should just give in but rather the republicans can’t get enough votes to get what they want so they need to give in. Reid needs to stop playing the “Victim”.
Supporting the troops means protecting them…not “forcing them to fight and die policing or refereeing a civil war. The Dems need to stand up for our soldiers against a president who is holding them hostage as blackmail to get the funding he and his war profiteers desire.
***BTW*** the $50 billion extra the WH is requesting is to cover the initial costs of attacking Iran. That’s why Gates didn’t know about it…and he should because it’s his budget. I guess he couldn’t very well budget in the cost of attacking Iran yet could he?
Reid definitely plays the “victim.” I can’t stand his timidity, and have been disappointed with him by and large since he assumed the leadership post. I never thought I’d say that I miss Tom Daschle!
Regarding McCaskill, I was referring to two particular actions: one was the time that the immigration bill came up, and she, along with Webb and Tester, did not just tow the party line. Not that I necessarily agree with them on that particular vote– frankly, the immigration issue is so complex, I’m still trying to figure it out– but I just meant that these three new senators don’t always capitulate to Harry Reid.
The other action I’m referring to is the time that McCaskill co-introduced (along with Barack Obama) the legislation demanding accountability after the Walter Reed Hospital scandal. So, she may not be a Paul Wellstone, but she’s not exactly a Ben Nelson, either.
Oh, and Neil, I also wanted to respond to your comment. When you break down the states into their percentages, I assume that you are talking about voter registration. An important point to note, therefore, is the fact that voter registration in most states paints a false picture, as it is a holdover from a different era. Southern states often have high percentages of Democratic registration, a lingering vestige of the old Solid South. More libertarian-leaning states like New Hampshire have higher registration for the GOP, owing to the fact that, just as the Democratic Party used to appeal to the economic issues of southern voters, the Republicans used to be the “hands-off” party of Nelson Rockefeller. For that reason, I’d say it is more important to focus on recent trends– the results of the 2006 election, say– than to dwell on the registration numbers. New Hampshire is clearly trending Democratic, having installed Democratic congresspeople in both of its districts, as well as bringing the state legislature into Democratic hands for the first time since the Civil War. Louisiana, on the other hand, remains a great risk to the Democratic party largely because of the displacement of New Orleanian voters to other states, in addition to the general southern trend of voting based on social issues rather than economic ones. So, I would say that our Party, on the whole, is in better shape than what would appear to be the case based on the registration numbers you cite.
Dear Republicans,
Please put the rose colored glasses back on and tell us that he excrement you have stepped in is not Bush
dajafi,
i think you are being a bit unfair on the HRC effect in a couple of respects. by the time the slime campaign is over against either Obama (that name! that school! must be a terr-ist!) and Edwards (pretty boy trial lawyer – $400 haircuts and hot coffee lawsuits) this will be a 51-49 election anyway. at least HRC will run a competent campaign and fight back; after Gore and Kerry, that would be a huge improvement.
second, whether I am right or wrong about HRC, I don’t think it makes a bit of difference in Virginia. Mark Warner has that seat, period (regrettably. I think he’d make a strong VP candidate.)
Nebraska View asked how NE is allegedly in play – relative rookie Bruning vs. well known, well-liked war vet Kerrey is a real possibility. If that happens, Dems have a shot. Particularly since Bruning’s oppening attack on Hagel was for not being sufficiently loyal to Bush, he is somewhat at the mercy of Bush’s popularity (or lack thereof) in the next 14 months.
I am talking about the real money futures market on InTrade.
https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=69079&eventSelect=69079&updateList=true&showExpired=false
If you disagree with the percentages that I posted then you can make actual cash by ‘investing’ in those markets. Right now the markets are pretty thin but they are the actual prices for in the futures market.
BTW, Intrade has a virtually PERFECT record on every state in the 2004 presidential race
Tom Daschle should run.
zeitgeist–you might be right, or not, that the Republicans will be as effective against Obama or Edwards as they assuredly will be against Clinton. But I’m pretty certain that neither of those two will kill Democrats further down the ballot the way she will. Republican hatred of her is just too well established, and while I can’t really substantiate this, I feel strongly that the duration and intensity of that loathing will hurt other Democrats in a way that Obama and Edwards won’t.