On a slow political weekend, it's time for our monthly tour of the Senate battleground. Because of the number of high-profile Republican retirements and the particular set of seats that are up for re-election this cycle, Democrats retain an excellent chance of gaining ground in the Senate, even as they're more likely than not to lose seats in the House. Some second-tier GOP targets, however, like Connecticut and Wisconsin, are potentially becoming more viable to the Republicans.
Races are ranked in order of their likelihood of changing parties by November 2010, accounting for all factors such as potential retirements, primary challenges, and so forth.
Likelihood of party switch has increased since last month's rankings.
Likelihood of party switch has decreased since last month.
1. Pennsylvania (R-Specter)
Pennsylvania vaults from #7 to #1 as there are now four plausible ways that the Republicans could lose control of it:
a) Arlen Specter could lose the Republican primary to conservative Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated him in 2004 and now seems poised for a re-match. This news comes as a new Susquehanna poll reports two-thirds of Republicans want to replace Specter; he's actually more popular among the state's Democrats. Toomey is not a intrinsically a terrific candidate --The combined probability of at least one of these four events happening, I would guess, is something like 60 or 70 percent.he's never held public office andhis main asset to Pennsylvania's conservatives is simply that he's not Arlen Specter. If he wins, the Republicans have very little chance of protecting the seat in November;
b) Alternatively, Specter could hang in on the primary but lose to a Democrat in the general election;
c) Specter could retire, or his health could force him to, meaning that the Republicans would probably nominate someone like Toomey and lose;
d) Specter could switch parties, which would count as a Democratic win for our purposes.
2. New Hampshire (R-Open)
At this point last month, we assumed that Judd Gregg would become Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary, with his seat to be filled by some sort of Rockefeller Republican who would not run for re-election. Now, of course, Gregg is keeping the seat, but will retire at the end of his term. The net effect is the same: an open seat in a blue-leaning state in which probably the best available Democratic candidate, U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, has already declared his candidacy. A PPP poll out last month gave Hodes a very small lead over two prospective Republican adversaries.
3. Missouri (R-Open)
This now appears as though it will be a battle of Missouri political dynasties, with Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan running against Representative Roy Blunt, who recently confirmed his interest in the race (although Sarah Steelman may challenge Blunt for the Republican nomination). As before, the race is a toss-up, perhaps slightly tilting toward Carnahan.
4. Ohio (R-Open)
A Quinnipiac poll shows Democrats Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner with fairly decent-sized leads over the probable Republican nominee, Rob Portman. The reason I'm not changing the standing of the race based on that poll is that (i) Portman's name recognition is fairly low at this stage and (ii) there's the chance that Fisher and Brunner leave each other battered and bruised in the primary while Portman should waltz through. Still, Republicans have only about a 50:50 chance of holding on.
5. Kentucky (R-Bunning)
Republicans are still trying to find a relief pitcher for Bunning.
6. Florida (R-Open)
There are plenty of rumors that Charlie Crist will run for Senate; if he runs he'll almost certainly win. Considering, however, that Crist would also almost certainly win if he ran for re-election as governor, and that being a governor of a large state like Florida is a more powerful position than being one of its senators, I wonder if the rumors aren't being circulated to deter potentially stronger Democratic challengers from entering. If Crist doesn't enter, the candidates are frankly underwhelming on both sides and the race will probably come down to ground game and turnout.
7. Nevada (D-Reid)
Former U.S. Rep Jon Porter, thought to be among the stronger of the potential Republican opponents against Harry Reid, has taken a job as a lobbyist, not usually a strong move for a politician looking to bolster his populist credentials. Still, Reed makes for an attractive target and Republicans have plenty of time for someone to emerge from the woodwork.
8. North Carolina (R-Burr)
9.
Illinois (D-Burris)The Illinois state senate voted down to a special election to replace Roland Burris, a decision that keeps the seat in Democratic hands for now but could allow the Republicans to claim the moral highground in 2010. Meanwhile, former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley will reportedly run on the Democratic side. Although Daley is a formidable candidate, the decision that risks further fragmenting the electorate, perhaps even enabling the nightmare scenario in which Burris wins a narrow plurality in a four- or five-way race and goes on to lose the general.
10.
Connecticut (D-Dodd)Chris Dodd's approval ratings have fallen and aren't getting up; he may be challenged by former Rep. Rob Simmons and populist icon Larry Kudlow. Connecticut is still a very blue state and Dodd is among the best fundraisers in the Senate, so this is a more difficult pickup opportunity than it appears on paper, but things are certainly getting interesting, particularly if the state's Republicans have enough common sense not to nominate Kudlow.
11. Colorado (D-Bennet)
Michael Bennet is waffling on the Employee Free Choice Act, which could increase the chance of a Democratic primary challenge, but has more ambiguous effects on his prospects in the general election, where he remains the favorite.
12. Texas (R-Open?)
Public Policy Polling shows a very competitive race in the (rather likely) event that Kay Bailey Hutchison retires to pursue the governorship.
13. Delaware (D-Open)
14.
Louisiana (R-Vitter)A Research 2000 poll has opponents (though not adult entertainer Stormy Daniels) within spitting distance of Vitter in both the primary and the general. Still, Louisiana has not been kind to Democrats of late.
15.
New York (Jr.) (D-Gillibrand)Former Governor George Pataki, who polls about evenly with Kirsten Gillibrand, is being recruited as a candidate.
16.
Wisconsin (D-Feingold)SurveyUSA has Russ Feingold's approval ratings on the decline (although still above 50 percent). Meanwhile, his decision to come out against the Administration's budget can possibly be read as a conscientious effort to avoid a challenge from the right, although it also could just be a case of Feingold being Feingold. No cause for great alarm for Democrats, but one to keep on eye on.
17.
Iowa (R-Grassley)Grassley, in fending off a (completely baseless) rumor that he was going to run for governor, reminded Iowans that he's already held 12 fundraisers toward his re-election bid. Dems need a retirement to have a shot, and those chances are diminishing.
18.
California (D-Boxer)Boxer's approval ratings are quite poor, but with the state in complete fiscal chaos, Arnold Schwarzenegger is unlikely to provide the answer for Republicans. Boxer is helped by the fact that most of the best GOP talent will gravitate toward the governor's race.
19. Arizona (R-McCain)
20. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)
21.
Kansas (R-Open)Kansas tumbles down the list with Kathleen Sebelius' appointment to HHS. Although this is still an open seat, the Republicans already have a pair of strong declared candidates whereas no Democrat has represented Kansas in the Senate since 1939.
22. Oklahoma (R-Coburn)
23. Alaska (R-Murkowski)
24. Hawaii (D-Inoyue)
25. Georgia (R-Isakson)
26.
North Dakota (D-Dorgan)Polling suggests that even if popular Governor John Hoeven were to run, he'd be a huge underdog to the equally popular Dorgan.
27. Maryland (D-Mikulski)
28. South Carolina (R-DeMint)
29. Washington (D-Murray)
30. South Dakota (R-Thune)
31. Indiana (D-Bayh)
32. Vermont (D-Leahy)
33. Oregon (D-Wyden)
34. Alabama (R-Shelby)
35. Utah (R-Bennett)
No surprise, but polling confirms that Bob Bennett looks safe -- even against former Jeopardy! champion Ken Jennings.
36. New York (Sr.) (D-Schumer)
37. Idaho (R-Crapo)
139 comments
Lots of typos, but good info. 2010 should be exciting.
I started off being a bit cynical about Nate's ratings here, thinking after the last 2 congressional elections surely expecting many more Dem pick ups is a little bit of partisan optimism, but then you think about it, its hard to imagine many Democratic seats being under much challenge (although for my money I might put Colorado as the most likely GOP get). I guess a lot will depend on the success of the Obama administration though. Which makes Feingold's actions even odder. Maybe he is playing a little bit of hedging his bets- if it is a bad year for Dems at least he could claim he hasn't always backed President Obama.
I can't see the Dems losing Obama's old seat. I am sure a strong Democrat will be found, even if Burris decides to run. Certainly it seems as if the complete turn around from comfortable Democratic advantage in the Senate to GOP majority that Clinton suffered in 1994 will be averted.
Pat Toomey was a 3 term Congressman... he's never held statewide office, but he has held public office.
Toomey HAS held public office -- he was congressman for the 15th district for six years. Which makes him more experienced than some of Specter's possible foes, like Patrick Murphy.
In California, Carly Fiorina is the only other candidate that could challenge Boxer, but she is battling breast cancer, and her tenure at Hewlett Packard plus her McCain ties will be a drag. Boxer has been lucky to draw weak opponents in each of her Senate races.
I agree, Mike. Carly Fiorina is viewed as a paranoid idiot that almost ran HP into the ground.
I'm thinking Dodds service in the banking committee is what's dragging him down.
This is from Politicalwire on a recent Boxer poll:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has a comfortable lead over potential Republican challengers for her job in 2010, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), according to a new Field Poll.
In a hypothetical matchup against Schwarzenegger, who will leave the Governor's Office in January 2011, Boxer leads 54% to 30%.
Boxer also beats Carly Fiorina (R), 55% to 25%.
As an Iowan, I'm reasonably sure Grassley's going to die in that office, the only issue is if the republicans ask him to retire because he's not "conservative" enough. That's plausable, considering they barred him from the convention.
In case you were wondering, Ken Jennings is not running for senate and doesn't know why he was in that poll:
http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=1214
Am I just a giant troll in hoping that in Pennsylvania, situation d comes to pass? Along with Bunning giving the middle finger to the RNC as he allegedly said he was going to do?
At any rate, I think the likelihood of Specter changing parties is about the same as Maine suddenly sprouting two D senators. They're probably more aligned with the Dems than not (I actually think that Snowe has voted more often against her party than with it, and possibly the same for Collins), but that would be HORRIBLE press if they just decide to hand Obama 60 Dems in the Senate.
I think the Obama Administration's strategy is to have at least some marginal opposition power, so it looks like they're working together as some sort of coalition. Yeah, they can ramrod through anything in the House (as they have up to...40 Reps they can lose on any bill and still have a majority). They have the same majority, percentage-wise, in the Senate, but because the c-word makes Harry wet his pants, he works to make sure he doesn't have to face a cloture motion.
Also for the record: I could probably beat Carly Fiorina in a race for the Senate. And not only am I underage for it (four years by Election Day '10, I think), I don't even live in California.
Roland Burris isn't running...
I read a rumor on Kos a month or so a go that Shelby is going to get a primary challenge from the right in Alabama, from Governor Bob Riley.
While yes Shelby is very conservative I guess he's not really an "activist conservative", which Riley is and what the fringe right in that state wants in the Senate.
Riley's term runs out in 2010 and he's term-limited and ambitious so that's something to watch out for.
Doesn't mean anything for Democrats, because there's absolutely no chance in Alabama, but it would be interesting nonetheless.
Larry Kudlow is a populist like Sarah Palin is a policy wonk!
Markymark - remember that these Senate seats were last contested in 2004, so all things being equal, to gain seats the Democrats only have to do better than they did in that year - a pretty low bar.
On an unrelated note: "populist icon Larry Kudlow..."
?!?
@markymark:
My read on Feingold is that he has a unique "home style" of being genuinely nonpartisan, even as a liberal Democrat. He's one of the most liberal members of the Senate but he's by no means a reliable party vote. Feingold seems to relish challenging the establishment as a matter of conscience, from what I can tell about him. I remember reading an interview of his in which he proudly stated that he was the (financially) poorest Senator. He also blocks pay raises routinely.
Feingold's politics are not my politics, and I may be a sucker for his rhetoric and style. But I don't really think this is a hedge or anything like that. It just seems like part of his political personality.
Tax increases for everyone, including the heating bill for seniors with the carbon tax.
Thais is great news for Barak Hussein Nobama............
Across the Hill to the House of Representatives, here is how The Hill rates the top 10 House races in terms of being hotly contested, either in the primary and/or in the general:
1. Idaho-1
2. Arizona-5
3. Ohio-1
4. Georgia-12
5. Hawaii-1
6. Kansas-1
7. Florida-17
8. California-3
9. California-44
10. Florida-8
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/inside-the-nations-top-10-house-races-2009-03-03.html
The Hill's take on Specter's chances and options:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/spector-faces-make-or-break-decision-as-challenge-looms-2009-03-07.html
Basically they are:
- Face Toomey (President of Club for Growth, therefore an extreme 'fiscal conservative') in the primary and most likely loose;
- Face Toomey AND Peg Luksik (social conservate) in the primary - Toomey and Luksik splitting the conservative GOOPer vote, allowing Specter to squeak out a victory;
- Change back to Democratic party registration.
Pennsylvania law doesn't allow him to run in the primary of one party, then run as an independent in the general.
As of now, Joe Torsella, president of the National Constitution Center and former deputy mayor of Philadelphia, is the only declared Democratic candidate. According to The Hill "one Democratic strategist said that Democratic Reps. Patrick Murphy (Pa.) and Joe Sestak (Pa.) could also declare Senate bids, a possibility made more likely by the emergence of Toomey."
It is now thought that Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) nor Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) will run for Specter’s seat for varying reasons.
@ Mike in Maryland
Pennsylvania law doesn't allow him to run in the primary of one party, then run as an independent in the general.
Thanks,Mike.I was wondering if Specter could pull a Lieberman.
*
"populist icon Larry Kudlow"
What's wrong with you Nate?
Kudlow's the creep who coined the 1990s phrase, "the investor class".
The ratings for his show is so bad, CNBC doesn't even bother to repeat it.
And I won't even go into the cocaine abuse and self hating Judaism.
I love you Nate, but you are WAY off on some of these ratings:
1. Reid is not in any real danger. His approvals are not good but Republicans do not have strong candidate, NV is already leaning Democratic and continuing to trend that way even more so every day, and Reid will have a huge financial advantage because of his position. Reid is definitely less vulnerable than Burr and probably should rank lower than Bennett, Dodd, and Burris.
2. Burr is more vulnerable than listed. He did not poll well at all against potential Democratic candidates. He's in the same category as FL and KY for a D takeover.
3. Texas will end up more likely to switch than any of the D seats.
4. Isaakson is not a lock. He's rumored to face a righ wing primary challenge and Georgia is much more competitive than some of the states listed in front of it.
5. Shelby is so old that just the possibility of him retiring or dying would lead me to elevate AL above most of the other safe seats.
6. Alaska is completely safe for the Republicans. Murkowski could be primaried by Palin, but Palin would crush any D. Our best possible candidate just barely beat a convicted felon! No way a weaker D could beat a non-felon R.
7. I think Lincoln is more vulnerable than some of the Ds listed ahead of her. We're more likely to lose her seat simply because of the partisan makeup of the electorate than we are DE, NY, or CA.
My ratings of the Republican seats only:
1. NH
2. OH
3. PA
4. MO
5. KY
6. NC
7. FL
8. TX
9. LA
10. GA
11. IA
12. AZ
13. KS
14. AL
15. OK
16. SD
17. SC
18. AK
19. UT
20. ID
I think the turning point for Specter is to see how he votes on the Employee Free Choice Act.
If he votes for closure, there's no doubt that Toomey or some other Republican jumps in. But organized labor will go all out for him in the Republican primary and most likely support him in the general election against any Democrat.
EFCA is that important to labor.
I could see the top five changing hands. I think Florida and lower will be relatively safe. (Both parties will spend significant money, but a week out there will be little drama.)
"slow political weekend"
Only if you have so little money and you are so young that the economy is an irrelevant side-light to your pathetic life
Oh ya, Nate is too smart to actually participate in the economy:
He owns no house
He thinks we should all spend despite the economics
He thinks two consumer indices both falling at the highest rate in history is GOOD!
Go back to baseball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This member of the "nation of cowards" (me) needs someone to actually give a shit about the economy, and quit making excuses for Obama's single minded Carter like attention to bullshit dreams and start paying attention to what matters - Obsms is a fucking one termer unless he does something about this economy that works...and guys like Nate need to tell the fucking truth about the largest stock market crash in history - i hate CNBC but I am thinking Cramer is right.
@Another Mike
The list is ranked by chance of changing party hands. If it was by current Senator getting tossed IL would be at the top of the list. As it is it ranks so much lower because of Burris' relatively slim chances of getting through the primary, if he even attempts to run.
Nate,
You're being impractical on New York.
Yes, Kirsten Gillibrand rates 4 pts better than Pataki 45-41, which means it's a statistical tie.
But Pataki was a THREE term Governor, who was in office on Sept 11th, and yet with a 100% name recognition, he could only muster 41% against a newcomer. I'll repeat, f o r t y - o n e percent.
Dwight-
Don't worry, I have enough knowledge of companies to know how little Cramer knows about particular stocks and thus pay zero attention to his calls, that said, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then - and Cramer's argument that this is the largest destruction of personal wealth in history does hold some water - and the fact that Obama has used his cred to destroy the market instead of stabilize is a crime.
> I am thinking Cramer is right.
I commend you on your timing. If you are going to start agreeing with that nutball it is best you do so on something that doesn't involve you putting any money on it. :D
Dwight, I responded to your comment before you deleted it and reposted it. Go to the above.
> and Cramer's argument that this is the largest destruction of personal wealth in history does hold some water
Except most of the losses were prior to the election, and the economy being a big pile of poo, the fundamental that continues to beat the crap out of the market, is pretty clearly predating.
I agree that it would be a lot better if there was The Plan in place for what is going to happen to banks. But overall the Whitehouse has been very hurry-up getting shit together and making things happen. *shrug*
So exactly how much more upbeat do you want to see the President than his address to congress? Should he be running around hooting, ranting, and banging on a bell telling people they shouldn't be listening to his speech but instead out in the streets buy-buy-buying!!!?
Sorry, it's situation normal. Cramer talking out his ass.
Ya sure Dwight, and Obama's spending the stimulus to forward his personal politics instead of helping the economy, and rolling out higher taxes and policies that kill jobs (cap and trade) are completly irrelevant to the 20% crash since his election. Sure Dwight, Obama has no ability to help, and he owns none of the 20% drop since his election.
I maxed out for Obama in the primary and the election - and his senate run - and I went to the polls as an attorney and made sure folks could vote in a swing state. I agree with his policies, but his implementation has sucked, really badly.
It's the economy, stupid. Who said that? Some bald guy?
> It's the economy, stupid. Who said that? Some bald guy?
Yes, yes it is. Something that you seem to be trying to ignore. *shrug*
Of course that's all really hard to see, that it's about the longer view, when you've got a stock portfolio that's going down faster than a $5 hooker. But welcome to overselling-ville. Population; you.
MISTAKES:
Rolling out a tax increase during a market crash
Rolling out a mortgage tax deduction take-away during a housing market crash
Rolling out cap and trade while the manufacturing base in the country is crashing
Rolling out health care reform that scares the crap out of pahama and health care during a crash
Ummm, how about a 100 day plan that actually seems to have knowledge of the biggest crash in history? Kinda seems obvious to me...
Dwight-
Fuck you! I am personally very well off and have no issues do to my portfolio, that said I guess I treat the millions who have lost their jobs with somewhat less disdain than you do.
This crap matters, people matter, careers matter. The crash ruins careers my friend, not just rich bankers.
See, it's crap like this that really undermines anything you have to say:
> Rolling out a tax increase during a market crash
1) You didn't believe him when he repeated for 2 years straight during campaigning?
2) It ISN'T rolling out now.
This is all stuff he said was coming. Cornerstone of his campaign. Even when the markets really stepped off the ledge in Sept he didn't change tune, he kept hammer that this was the way he intended to move forward. Were you really that stupid that you didn't listen or are you bullshitting about how you were a campaign volunteer?
Dwight-
I think the tax reductions of Bush were insanely poor policy, and think they should be allowed to expire - but I also met Obama at U of Chicago long before he was a pres candidate and thought he was smart enough to moderate his positions based on current events. Wasn't Bush' problem a complete inability to actually think through what the hell was going on the ground? Did you really expect the same from Obama?
Dwight-
...and again, even if he was going to allow the taxes to expire, what idiot announces that now?
How can the Illinois Senate consider a special election now? Wouldn't that be an ex post facto law, since the vacancy + replacement occurred last year?
McCain should be closer to the bottom. Without Napolitano as a candidate, there's nobody who can challenge him and expect to win. Democrats' next best choice, Gabrielle Giffords(AZ-8) knows this.
Specter's dead. As the Philly suburbs trend Democratic, many of the liberal + moderate Republicans there who gave him the nod over Toomey will become Democrats or Independents. Pennsylvania's got closed primaries, so that leaves him running as a moderate or a flip-flopper in an electorate dominated by far-right central PA.
Toomey is too conservative for Pennsylvania-he's to the right of Santorum.
fred said...
Dwight-
...and again, even if he was going to allow the taxes to expire, what idiot announces that now?
Again, he announced it 2 years ago. It was monumentally bad policy. So getting rid of it is good. If some knee-jerking decided to tank stocks on that (and frankly I expect that's really a whining excuse) well then that seems pretty good knee-jerking to IGNORE when laying out policy.
You expect him to say "Yeah, this is the final number I'm aiming at in 4 years. What? How do I get that revenue?" *mumbles something about taxes*
Oh yeah, that'd be awe inspiring! Completely believable!
The one thing that I think the Whitehouse can be faulted for is clarity on exactly how they are going to change banking regulations and work out this mess. That is the one thing they can be faulted for. But that is a LACK of detail. The very opposite of what you are complaining about.
P.S. My guess is the Whitehouse is trying to better gauge what they need to do for banking. It's crappy not doing anything but given the stakes firing off half-cocked could be very crappy too. *shrug*
I think the situation in Kentucky is even more serious than the new ranking shows. It seems that the Republicans cannot field a primary challenger without losing the seat (I believe that Bunning would resign if there was one).
Are the Republicans willing to take that risk? - I guess it depends on the Democrats' chance to get a 60th seat (which is very, very likely at the moment). If the Democrats are going to get a 60th seat with or without Kentucky, the Republicans best bet is to stall as much as possible, that means, to keep Bunning. If the Republicans have a chance to gain a 42nd seat they will be better off to field a primary challenge, lose the seat for year or so, and then get it back after the election.
It seems like Bunning is toast right now. Out of money, out of mind. He'd have a chance against a last-minute primary challenge, but he is unable to compete with a serious challenger on either side of the aisle.
With Daley and Giannoulias in the mix, isn't the Republicans only chance in Illinois to have Burris win the primary? Seems possible, but very unlikely to me.
> How can the Illinois Senate consider a special election now? Wouldn't that be an ex post facto law, since the vacancy + replacement occurred last year?
The law was for special elections for any future vacancies. The Chicago Dems would then lean on Burris to resign (assuming he doesn't get chewed up by the Senate itself), perhaps promising to make him a roommate of Jimmy Hoffa if he doesn't. ;)
There was a provision for a temporary appointment by the Governor that would server the few months before the election. So the Dems wouldn't have been out the vote in the meantime.
I don't see any evidence online that Feingold opposes Obama's budget. The link in this article points towards an article that says Feingold opposes the omnibus spending measure that would extend funding for the 2009 fiscal year, this is a bill from last fall and the White House has little to do with its contruction. Obama said he'll sign it, but Orszag has made it clear they consider it yesterday's news. Anyway, it has nothing to do with Obama's first budget. From a cursory googling, it appears Feingold supports Obama's budget with caveats.
Oh, and "Fred": Please get an education in economics. Your ignorance of the issues at hand are painful to witness.
I saw some people considering looking to Jim Cramer for advice. For those that have never seen this, you can track Jim Cramer's over all track record on stocks HERE .
It is too early to rank PA number 1. Democrats do not have a top tier contender- US Rep Allyson Schwartz or ex Lt Governor Mark Singel have yet to announce their candidacy. Specter has not yet lost in the GOP primary nor has he announced his retirement. I would rank PA number 4. after. MO,NH,and OH
I would rank MO as number one. Purple State, The Democratic Nominee Robin Carnahan is a top tier candidate- popular two term statewide elected official. Republican front runner Roy Blunt is the Jim Gilmore of MO.
NH is ranked number two. Blue State. Democrats have a top tier candidate US Rep Paul Hodes. Republican candidate is either defeated ex US Senator John Sununu,defeated ex US House Member Charlie Bass or ex Governor Steve Merrill
OH is ranked number three- Purple State. Democrats have two top tier candidates Lt Governor Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Republicans recruited behind ex US Rep Rob Portman- Bush 43's Trade Rep and OMB director which is a liability in OH.
After PA.
I would rank KY(Bunning) as number 5- Bunning is the weakest Republican incumbent facing re-election. He is facing plenty of top tier Democratic opponents- Lt Governor Dan Mongiardo,Attorney General Jack Conway.and Auditor Crit Luallen.
NC is ranked number 6. Burr is in the similar situation as Jim Talent -MO or George Allen-VA.
FL is ranked Number 7. Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek is in the similar situation as Harold Ford Jr of TN.
LA is ranked number 8 due to scandals involving Vitter.
CO is ranked number 9
IL is ranked number 10
NY-B is ranked number 11
DE is ranked number 12
CT is ranked number 13
NV is ranked number 14
@ Jenny
But Pataki was a THREE term Governor, who was in office on Sept 11th, and yet with a 100% name recognition, he could only muster 41% against a newcomer. I'll repeat, f o r t y - o n e percent.
Jenny,what are you referring to? Pataki won in 2002 with 48% of the vote in a full-fledged 3 man race. (Multi=millionaire Tom Golisano,Independence Party,got 14% of the vote,almost all of which came from potential Republican votes).It was an impressive performance by Pataki.
Opus: I'm guessing Jenny's referencing the polling that's already been done on a potential Pataki v. Gillibrand race, as I think that was the number that Nate posted in a potential head-to-head. Where, yes, he DOES have a statistical dead heat with her, though admittedly he's on the losing end of it if there's no error.
Thing is, though...downstate is VERY blue, and it has something like 1/2 to 2/3 of New York's population. (I think NY is 20m people, guessing that NYC is 9m, and between Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties (i.e., LI and Yonkers/White Plains/etc.) there's probably another 2-3m people. Given the fact that Obama won by about 20 points and NYS has about...3 Republican representatives, if I recall (okay, maybe 4 now that NY-20's rep is now NY's junior senator)...NYS is statistically VERY blue.
And things have changed a LOT since 2002. Then, being a Democrat was a liability (see: Professional golfer Saxby Chambliss vs. Max Cleland.) Nowadays, being a Republican may be at least as much of a liability, and Pataki's been out of public office for over two years now. It'll be like...three or so by the time Election Day 2010 rolls around, and Gillibrand's support of the Obama agenda thus far - if things continue to be favorable to him - will likely be a large asset to her.
I should probably preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat from Wisconsin, so there probably some bias here, but Steven is right about Russ Feingold. Feingold has something of a reputation as being a budget hawk, not to mention a crusader against earmarks (I think I remember reading somewhere that Senators Feingold and McCain were the only two senators to not have any earmark money to their names. I know at least that those two don't have any). So, Nate, to use your won words, this seems to be a case of "Feingold being Feingold."
3. Texas will end up more likely to switch than any of the D seats.
I have to doubt that assessment. Dallas county is gone, and the "Keep Austin Weird" crowd is always going to have a stronghold.
But the trend towards the Democrats is not resonant enough to cause any change here. White isn't politically viable. There's also the fact that Kay Bailey is going to support Shapiro.
If the senate race between the incumbent Cornyn and Noriega is any sign of the present circumstances, we don't need to worry about a Democratic surge in the Senate in Texas at the moment.
Seems an odd time to be handicapping senate races. If Obama's agenda pans out, the R's mascot might be the brontosaurus in 2010. If things aren't so good, more R's may survive, but (Obamaton that I am) I don't see a massive resurgence of the R brand as long as Obama and the D's seem to be acting in good faith and not stuck in some scandal.
That said, R's are already deep into the kitchen sink strategy. Obama's too slow. Obama's too fast. He's doing too much. He's not doing enough. He's turning us into a socialist country. He's stuck in the failed policies of the past. Yadda yadda yadda.
If the R's were on trial for murder (guilty!), their current behavior would amount to "I wasn't even there! I've never seen the victim in my life! And besides, it was self defense!" Only a rigged (Fox) jury would buy it.
An apropos legal maxim (with a middle eastern spin whose source I don't recall) is: He who would ride two camels falls between.
Hello everyone,
If you're using Firefox with the Greasemonkey add-on, I have developed a script that will filter out the posts by known trolls (pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble... feel fee to add more as trolls appear) which is available here.
I absolutely do not mean for this to be used to create an echo-chamber here at fivethiryeight, but merely to improve the signal:noise ratio and elevate the level of discourse.
Install the script and never read one of PeteKent's diatribes again!
Mitch
Riley challenging Shelby in AL wouldn't be that interesting, but Roy Moore throwing his hat in the ring would be interesting. Granted, he tried to primary Riley last time around to no avail, which gives me the distinct impression that he's damaged goods to the Alabama GOP, but if he were to somehow knock off Shelby, AL would shoot to the top 5 (maybe top 3) of Nate's list.
Nick
Cool! The other righties are at least talking, and not just spewing.
@ Chris
Yes,you're right about Jenny's reference.Thanks for the correction.
I'm still concerned about Pataki.I lived in New York until 2001 and,for some reason,Pataki was pretty popular.Don't forget he was governor during the Clinton presidential years.And NY had 20 years of Democratic governors before him.So his winning 3 elections was quite a feat.
@ Nick
Thanks,Nick.It sounds great.
I'm a Mac user.Is this a problem?
I suggest you repeat your post on every new thread over the next week so everybody gets to see it.
I wanted to post this on here
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1
Its a bit off topic as far as the Senate thread is concerned, but I wanted to post it because David Frum eloquently makes a lot of sense about what I believe is wrong in the GOP right now. [I don't mean to help the right, I am trying to illustrate to some of the more ditto head minded out there that there is another way, in language that they might understand.]
fred said...
I hate CNBC but I am thinking Cramer is right.
You gotta be fucking kidding me??? CNBC AND Jim Cramer are RIGHT... about ANYTHING??? WOW!!!!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice
BTW, who gives a shit about Wall Street and the stock market? Obama has correctly made mainstreet his priority. Now if he'd temporarily nationalize the banks already.
Bill Maher - New Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEKTFz9z_A&feature=channel_page
Hu Chi said...
"If the R's were on trial for murder (guilty!), their current behavior would amount to "I wasn't even there! I've never seen the victim in my life! And besides, it was self defense!" Only a rigged (Fox) jury would buy it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading
Umm, porridge, the market is the primary method by which Americans retire, and low market prices make it very hard for publicly traded corporations to hire (e.g. Wall Street and Main Street are the same in this case).
The market matters, alot.
We are well on track to have the worst downturn since the depression:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/08/recession-on-track-to-be-_n_172845.html
Party on fellow dems, while Rome burns. The economy we were handed is even worse than advertised - we need to address it FIRST!
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/07/job-losses-february-2009/
1991 - 1.6 million jobs lost
2001 - 2.7 million jobs lost
Now - 4.4 million jobs lost and no end in sight
> We are well on track to have the worst downturn since the depression:
... and you coming to the realization that this recession that's been rolling since the end of 2007/start of 2008 might have a huge bearing on what's happening in the stock market?
Dwight-
You are a truly pathetic excuse for a poster. Got a fact? Have any perspective to offer? What does your post even have to do with mine?
Dwight-
Here are some facts for you, learn to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession
> Got a fact?
LOL
LOL is not a fact, nor is hammering me personally helpful. The point stands - Obama needs to turn this economy, no matter who started it or when as if he does not he may well be a one termer (if the repubs can actually find a leader - which they will).
How is the only patriot in the 107th Congress under any threat at all?
And I don't see how these people like Dodd and such are under any threat. Blue is blue.
> LOL is not a fact, nor is hammering me personally helpful.
As a "truly pathetic excuse for a poster" I can only beg for mercy for my transgressions against your illogical rantings.
> The point stands - Obama needs to turn this economy, no matter who started it
Yes, and they've been working on that. *shrug* In a fundamental fix way. But there was a lot of problem and it'll take time for the markets to come around because there is a delay between things getting put in place and the numbers coming out the other side. *shrug*
There is a lot of cash right now sitting on the sidelines in the markets. A LOT. Once the economy picture clears up it'll comes back it'll all start rolling again.
> or when as if he does not he may well be a one termer (if the repubs can actually find a leader - which they will).
So are you one of those "concern trolls" I've heard people tell of, or are you really having that hard a time with this?
markymark-
A couple points about the Newsweek article.
1. What is the president's motive for annointing Limbaugh as the leader of the party? I think it's clear that he wants to destroy the Republican party. I think you would agree that that's dangerous.
I don't think it's surprising that the Republicans don't have a leader right now. They just ended 8 years in the White House. Before Obama, Clinton was the only non Republican president in the past 28 years. Who was the leader going to be? Since conservative talk radio is so popular and Rush is the most popular, he's the natural choice to be targeted by Obama.
Who was the leader of the Dem party after Clinton. Al Gore? John Kerry? It took some time until Obama surfaced. The GOP is in shambles right now, no doubt about it, but a leader will surface.
2. I agree that the GOP does need to perhaps cave on some social issues, particularly gay rights issues. This issue is a losing battle for the GOP. (I have a 28 year old sister, 10 years younger than me and also conservative, but she comes from a completely different generation regarding gay isues.) The GOP must give in on this and other social issues in order to survive.
The following excerpt from the article is what the GOP needs to stand for right now:
"Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction. Instead we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst."
It is going to take alot more than a shrug and a lackadaisical President who is busy on other things - or is perceived to be.
All his statements must be viewed through this prism right now, all of them, it is really all that matters at the moment, I think, based on the data.
How you can claim my fact based and filled posts are "illogical" while your attitude based, oh well, we can't do anything is the truly illogical one.
I also dispute your entire premise that they are doing this in a "fundamental shift" sort of way when we are completely following the safe and easy banking industry playbook and asking nothing of them - fire them and wipe out their assets and use them to fix the problem they created. If we keep dithering under Geithner this is going to get REALLY bad.
I don't know that I agree that voters will pass judgement on Obama in 2010. I wonder if what history tells us is that in fact that as long as Obama manages expectations and continues in the activist model of Presidency, he will retain his popularity. I think people (non partisan and non political types I am thinking of here) know that the economy was headed in the direction it has been going for a while before Obama came into office. I also don't think that the 2010 necesarily has to be a one issue election. I think if the Democratric Party has done something worthwhile on healthcare reform they will be rewarded for example.
Great post GROG. I think the repub party will go to back to its true traditional roots, a more libertarian view of small government in all things - staying out of the bedrooms (e.g. gay rights) and the banks (e.g. low taxes). They might get there very fast if this market stays bad, but they will get there. I have never felt the Reagan coalition was one that could last forever - I ams urprised it lasted this long - as the social conservatives are so single minded on many issues that the fiscal conservatives find irrelevant to governing.
> I think it's clear that he wants to destroy the Republican party.
Or maybe just drive a stake through the heart of The Crazy? Only the GOP can kill the GOP. As soon as Steele etal gets the backbone to not only call out Rush (first step accomplished) but then stick to their guns on it the GOP will be on the path to regaining their health.
I noticed the new matra coming from the right is Obama needs to focus only on the economic situation.
Does that mean all his other departments should stop everything and focus on the economy?
Well, that's exactly what they are doing. Healthcare, Energy and Education departments are working right now for long term solutions to our problems.
I can tell you why Republicans would rather have him stay on one issue at a time. It allows them to do a more concentrated effort to throw his message off it's focus. With Obama addressing everyone at once, Republicans are spinning in circles trying to tear down his initiatives. I'd be in panic mode also if I were a Republican.
Anyone read the NYT article from yesterday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama-text.html
Specifically this part.
Q. Have you figured out how you would draw the lines against endless rescues?
A. Part of the function of the stress test that is being conducted by Treasury right now is to make a determination using some worst-case scenario – what that would mean for a bank’s balance sheet. And I think that what you should see emerging there is an awful lot of banks that are in decent shape considering the circumstances. They’ve been managed well. They didn’t take undue risks. Obviously, they’re being hit like every business is being hit by the recession, but they can recover, and if they do need help, it’s going to be short-term help. There may be a handful of institutions that have more serious problems. And what we want to do is to cauterize the wound.
The news on the stress tests sounds good to me. I'm sure the results will ease peoples concerns.
I'm assuming, once they are complete, Geithner will release his plan for the zombie banks out there. Then the talking heads on T.V. can scour for something else to complain about since he'll have acted on the three pillars he spoke of; creating jobs through his recovery act, helping home owners caught in this mess with the home affordability act and lastly, and lastly, Geithners announcement on his plans going forward which will surely be announced when the stress tests are complete.
The dems will be rewarded if they can come up with a real health care plan that lower costs and insures more people - the problem is that is very hard thing to do. The amazing thing about health care reform this round is that the businesses are open to it for the first time, and some doctors are against it for the first time. New coalitions, new opportunities, but still very hard to do and the devil is in the details.
You could be right liberal defender of freedom - but the fact they did not have a workable plan on taking office and are still scrambling to figure out what to do about the banks is downright poor planning on the issue that needs to be first on the agenda. The sad fact is that if they had a working viable plan for the banks the market likely does not crash like this as they roll out other plans, and they don't look nearly as stupid. The fact they had everything in place to handle this as "normal" transition process does not bode well for the ability to truly govern.
juvanya just who is this "only patriot in the 107th Congress" to whom you refer?
> some doctors are against it for the first time.
Were you still in high/grade school last time around? :) The MD establishment at the time was a big stumbling block, the new generation of doctors (it has been 15 years) is much more open to it. For a number of reasons such as having been witness to the largely successful of Howard Dean's prototype in action.
fred said:
"as the social conservatives are so single minded on many issues that the fiscal conservatives find irrelevant to governing."
Very true. I consider myself a social conservative, but I am also cognizant of the fact that as a party, the GOP needs to be open minded on a lot of issues.
> I noticed the new matra coming from the right is Obama needs to focus only on the economic situation.
It is similar to the claim that during campaigning Obama wasn't saying anything of substance. Total malarky. Either they aren't actually listening (i fairness repeatedly yelling "No!" and "Pork!" makes it hard to listen, especially when the yelling is being done preemptively ;) ), or they just don't want to hear what is being said/done. *shrug*
Dwight-
No, in fact my wife is a doctor. The real issue this round is that so many medicare payments are so far behind and so far below the commensurate insurance payment for the same service that doctor's are turning down medicare patients whenever possible - and thus many are against more gov involvement. Payments were behind in the 90's - but nothing like this!
GROG,
I don't think Obama is trying to destroy the GOP. I think he might be trying to neuter the Limbaugh wing of the GOP. But you don't hear of Obama or any of his advisers talking of a permanent Democratic majority, in the way some politicians do. I think the White House has tried to learn the lessons of the early months of the Clinton White House and one lesson it seems to have learnt is to not ignore the noise of the far right and to not let those criticisms of policy sit in the ether and gather support.
I think you are right that for a few years the Democratic Party was without leadership. Its Congressional leadership IMO is still quite weak really. (it always seems odd to me that the Democrats can't turn up a Cantor type of young leader. Hoyer isn't young, but seems to have a little more spine than some, but even in a post Reid/Pelosi era I am not convinced the leadership will necesarily improve). But I think what the Democrats did have post 2001 was some ideas. They did make the point during the debates over the Bush tax cuts that perhaps the surplus was a useful thing and could be used to boost healthcare or left alone in case of emoergency. I don't sense the same intellectual rigor in the GOP opposition to Obama at the moment.
I think its always dangerous for a party to 'cave' on an issue. But I do think the GOP needs to find a new way to frame social issues that allows them to be less obstructionist about for instance gay issues, and for that matter life issues.
Personally I think that the abortion debate has been very destructiive for American politics. It has meant that for both parties a relatively small issue has become critical, and a means of cleavaging the party. Why shouldn't a liberal minded person be able to say that abortion is murder any more than a conservative say that abortion should be a matter of personal moral judgement?
Obviously I disagreed with Frum's analysis of Obama's performance in office so far, (personally I think Dems should be shouting about SCHIP from the rooftops for instance) but I am far more respectful of the way he out that criticism than anything I have heard from Limbaugh (or for that matter most of the GOP congressional delegation). Its heartening to hear that the GOP does have something of an intellectual heart still beating.
GROG might have made it clearer that the so-called Newsweek "article" from which he quoted an incendiary passage was NOT an actual article, but a opinion column written by a conservative Republican and ex-George Bush speech-writer, David Frum.
Instead, GROG is trying to make it seem as if Newsweek, a notably liberal publication, is actually attacking the Obama administration.
It isn't Newsweek, people, it's David Frum. Who, to me, has about as much credibility as Rush Limbo
2010 US Senate Rankings
1)MO-(OPEN-Bond-R)-Likely DEM Takeover. SEN ELECT Carnahan.
2)NH-(OPEN-Gregg-R)- Likely DEM Takeover. SEN ELECT Hodes.
3)OH-(OPEN-Voinovich-R)- Lean DEM Takeover. SEN ELECT Fisher or Brunner.
4)PA-(Specter-R)-Lean DEM takeover-
Specter will lose in the primary- Democrats will win in the General Election.
5)KY-(Bunning-R)-Tossup/Slight DEM lean.
6)NC-(Burr-R)-Tossup.
7)FL-(OPEN-Martinez-R)-Tossup/Slight GOP lean.
8)LA-(Vitter-R)-Leans REP.
9)CO(Bennett-D)-Leans DEM.
10)IL-(OPEN-Burris-D)-Leans DEM.
11)NY-B(Gillibrand-D)-Leans DEM.
12)TX-(OPEN-Hutchison-R)-Leans REP.
13)CT-(Dodd-D)-Likely DEM.
14)NV-(Reid-D)-Likely DEM.
15)WI-(Feingold-D)-Likely DEM.
16)KS-(OPEN-Brownback-R)-Likely REP.
17)AR-(Lincoln-D)-Likely DEM.
18)CA-(Boxer-D)-Likely DEM.
19)WA-(Murray-D)-Likely DEM.
20)AK-Murkowski-R)-Safe REP.
21)GA-(Isakson-R)-Safe REP.
22)OK-(Coburn-R)-Safe REP.
23)SC-(DeMint-R)Safe REP.
24)SD-(Thune-R)Safe REP.
25)DE-(OPEN-Kaufman-D)-Safe DEM-Beau Biden-D.
26)IA-(Grassley-R)-Safe REP.
27)AZ-(McCain-R)-Safe REP.
28)AL-(Shelby-R)-Safe REP.
29)ND-(Dorgan-D)-Safe DEM.
30)IN-(Bayh-D)-Safe DEM.
31)UT-(Bennett-R)-Safe REP.
32)HI-(Inouye-D)-Safe DEM.
33)VT-(Leahy-D)-Safe DEM.
34)MD-(Mikulski-D)-Safe DEM.
35)OR-(Wyden-D)-Safe DEM.
36)NY-A(Schumer-D)-Safe DEM.
37)ID-(Crapo-R)-Safe REP-unopposed.
nkpolitics
The reason I would agree with Nate's placing of Delaware a little higher than yours, especially if Beau Biden is the nominee, is that I think it could become a crucial bell weather of how the Obama administration is thought off. If its doing well then I think that Beau will win pretty comfortably, but if the clouds are gathering [still overhead I guess might be more accurate!] and the GOP can find a decent candidate then it could be a dangerous race to have a name so closely associated with the administration in.
I'm thinking this blog would be improved if some folks would stop flaming each other and stay on topic. Boxer (D-CA) has enjoyed the benefit of weak opposition in Senate races. Problem is that politically, CA generally is two states, a coastal blue and inland red. The Democrats tend to dominate the "coastal" and large population centers, where the major media outlets are. Anyway, in CA, the big political deal is the governor's race (Arnold is termed out)...which features the return of "Governor Moonbeam" Jerry Brown (the current stat Attorney General) as a key player. The second big deal is the post-census redistricting, which will be critical for the many obvious political and fiscal reasons.
> The real issue this round is that so many medicare payments are so far behind and so far below the commensurate insurance payment for the same service that doctor's are turning down medicare patients whenever possible.
Hardly a surprising state given eight years of Bush appointments running the show.
But that's a separate issue, especially given that the game plan isn't to extend Medicare to everyone.
markymark-
Well said as always.
If Obama's motive is not to destroy it, why else would he anoint Rush as the leader of the party? Does he really think that's true? If he does, wouldn't he reach out to Rush? Wouldn't he want to meet with him and engage is some meaningful conversation? He's willing to reach out to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but he won't reach out to the leader of the Rebublican party? I think it's a bit disingenuous.
> why else would he anoint Rush as the leader of the party?
The way I read it is that the Whitehouse is mocking the GOP into clearly dumping Rush and turning towards the light. :) Trying to marginalize Rush, and the batshit baggage that he brings, to try get/keep the poison out of the political well. That is something I think Rush did get right, that the Whitehouse is trying to marginalize him.
But not to "destroy" the GOP. Again only the GOP can do that by clinging to Rush.
GROG,
I am sure it is disingenuous, but I think the point is to not let the criticisms of his policy stick, in the way that Clinton did let the Limbaugh criticisms stick. I think to an extent we are all missing the point. Its about ridiculing Limbaugh in order to make him, the most strident critic, meaningless. Obama can deal with Boehner or McConnell and cope with their opposition, as they have an electorate. Limbaugh has, maybe, 20 million followers. Obama got 70 million votes. Obama wins that battle everytime, but the criticisms might matter if they get traction and become part of the conventional wisdom. (which I think is what the White House perceives happened in the first few months of the Clinton administration.)
Plus there is something to be said for publicly calling "bullshit" on Rush. Silence could be confused by the public as cowardice and tacit agreement.
P.S. If Rush didn't have a handful of millions of people listening to his show and getting a wider audience than that I'd call beating him up an outright strawman. But sadly that isn't the case. :(
markymark/Dwight-
I actually think the strategy will probably work, considering the shape the GOP is in these days. I do, however, think it's below the president of the U.S. to engage in a war of words with a radio talk show host who happens to disagree with him. With that said, I don't think it will hurt Obama polically.
markymark-
I think you're giving Rush too much credit for what happened in 1994.
@Opus 132:
I don't know if mac is a problem. I assume if you're able to run firefox and install the greasemonkey add-on, my script should work just fine.
Since "polically" is not a word, I would like change that to "politcally".
GROG
Maybe I am giving Limbaugh too much credit, but my sense is that the White House feel the Clinton White House made some serious missteps in early 1993 which had an effect on 1994, and one of those was ignoring the far right of the GOP, and in particular Limbaugh. (I think thats also a reason that you haven't heard much from the White House on any social issues, and why Obama wants to go wholeheartedly and quickly into healthcare, rather than have a long debate as the Clinton's did).
Since "polically" is not a word, I would like change that to "politcally".
My proofreading sucks.
> I do, however, think it's below the president of the U.S. to engage in a war of words with a radio talk show host who happens to disagree with him.
That's why they have Press Secretaries. :) That is also why there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the President showing up on Rush's show. You know it, I know it, Rush knows it. He's just doing some macho junk dangling in his own egotistical way.
Rush is big enough that the garbage he spews gets addressed to keep things all cleared up but not enough to talk to him directly.
> I actually think the strategy will probably work, considering the shape the GOP is in these days.
So who do you think will be the first Senator to break and really put the boots to him? Did that GOP House Rep that dissed Rush cave yet? Sorry, I forget his name. It was on that "apology form" that the DNC put up on their website.
I understand it's a tough situation. Rush really wraps himself in the flag, not just of the country but of the GOP too, and isn't shy about using his own bully pulpit to turn on anyone that even hints at approaching the "center" on any given topic, claiming they aren't really GOP or American (while evoking a really distorted memory of Reagan).
Dwight/markymark-
You're probably right.
But Rush has to be loving this. He'll be cashing in nicely.
Maybe. But even 25 million people (say) who listen to Rush can't make a party work alone, and if the administration manages to make them seem "fringe" enough, then the many republicans will slip into independents and at least some independents will become democrats. Given how there are already much more self-identified democrats then self-identified republicans, this could be very bad for the GOP.
The only real losers here are the moderate republicans, who need to reclaim their party for them to have a chance to win.
Granted, this might not apply to senate or house races, where individuals matter more, but for 2012 and/or 2016, they need a party to support their candidate. Otherwise, we're gonna have a democratic president for the next 12 years.
Dwight:
"So who do you think will be the first Senator to break and really put the boots to him?"
I don't know which Senator, but there has never been much love lost between Rush and Newt Gingerich. And Newt said yesterday he's considering a run for the White House in 2012.
A. Smith -
With the big gap between people who identify themselves as Repbulicans vs. Democrats, I think the GOP has pretty much already lost all the moderates to the Democrat Party. (I'm hoping anyway)
I disagree A. Smith, this is entirely relavent for 2010. It is even OT for the post! :)
It has a huge bearing on situations like Arlen Specter's.
I guess I don't understand people who want to filter the internet...
Taking on Rush is genius, it is distracting the repubs from the message they were able to hammer Obama on the prior week - they need more of this - it is distraction, but it was well done this week.
A great, if scary, article on the economy. This economic change may drive the new party that rises from the ashes of the repubs:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/08/productivity-predicts-happy-days-aint-here-again/#more-37861
"I think the GOP has pretty much already lost all the moderates to the Democrat Party. (I'm hoping anyway)"
To clarify, I don't hope the GOP loses all its moderates, I'm hoping the mass exodus to the Democrat party is over.
GROG,
My guess is that the realignment of US politics will be set at the next Presidential election. If Obama is still popular I reckon you might see a 60-40 type election and a Democrat majority for 20 years. But if Obama sees his popularoty wain and he is another Jimmy Carter say then I think you might see things go the other way.
markymark,
I'm sure there are many polls on this, but I think about 35% of voters are hard core Dems and 35% are hard core Reps, and the remaining 30% can be pretty easily persuaded. Obama is very persuasive right now, so I think you're right, we'll find out in 3 1/2 years.
GROG said...
markymark-
I think you're giving Rush too much credit for what happened in 1994.
So why was Lush Rimbaugh made an honorary member of the House freshman class of 1994?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DC1E39F931A25751C1A962958260
Rimbaugh has been a 'leader' of the extreme far-right for more than 20 years now, and some members of the Democratic Party have finally decided to tell Rimbaugh to go to where he tells all the 'femi-Nazis', et al to go.
And maybe Rimbaugh needs to re-listen to his own words of December 11, 1994, where he told the GOOPers in that freshman class, "Say what you believe, with passion and bravado, and you're going to offend half the people who hear it," but that is the mark of effectiveness. I believe that Press Secretary Gibbs is saying what he believes about Rimbaugh, is saying it with passion and bravado, and he's offending a large portion of the GOOPers.
Since it's only words being brandished by Gibbs (not threats of being sent to Gitmo, like the little shrub White House brandished), Gibbs' words must be VERY effective, if Rimbaugh is crying and crying that 'the wicked Dems are picking on me.' Such a poor baby, a cry-baby at that.
MarkyMark- The problem with DE is that Republicans don't have a credible statewide candidate other than Mike Castle . The chances of Castle running for the US Senate is less than 50%.
In 2006- The NRSC fielded top tier challengers in Democratic MD,MN,and NJ- those 3 seats were open seat elections. The NRSC basically gave up in FL(Nelson)-when they recruited Katherine Harris. NRSC recruited 2nd or 3rd tier challengers against NE(Nelson-D),MI(Stabenow-D)and WA(Cantwell-D). The NRSC conceded the open seat in VT(held by Independent Senator Jim Jeffords-D)-Bernie Sanders- won the VT Seat by a landslide margin.
In 2008- The NRSC fielded credible challengers in LA(Landrieu-D) and NJ(Lautenberg-D) and conceded Democratic seats in AR(Pryor-D),IA(Harkin-D),MT(Baucus-D),SD(Johnson-D).
Looking at the NRSC recruitments in 2010 in Democratic held seats.
1)AR-(Lincoln-D)- The only credible Republican challenger against Lincoln is Mike Huckabee is more likely to run for President in 2012 rather than the US Senate. Lincoln is safe.
2)CA-(Boxer-D)- The Terminator is less likely to run for the US Senate. The rest of the Republican field in CA (Carly Fiorina,etc)is a joke. Boxer-D is safe.
3)CO-(Bennett-D)- The Republicans are stuck with Tancredo,Beauprez,and Schaffer against appointed Democratic Senator Bennett. Bennett-D is safe.
4)CT-(Dodd-D)- Dodd's job approval and re-elect numbers are below 50% but Republicans have 2nd or 3rd tier challengers like ex US Rep Rob Simmons or Larry Kudlow. Dodd -CT is safe.
5)DE(OPEN-Kaufman-D)- Conservative Activist Christine O'Donnell is the announced candidate for the Biden seat.
6)HI(Inouye-D)- The only top tier Republican candidate -Governor Linda Lingle is not running. Inouye-D is safe.
7)IL(OPEN-Burris-D)- Burris is facing a tough primary challege against State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias-friend of President Obama,and ex US Commerce Secretary William Daley -brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. The republican nominee- is either US REP Mark Kirk or Peter Roskam. Whoever defeats Burris in the Democratic primary will strongly win in the General Election.
IN(Bayh-D)-Safe.
MD(Mikulski-D)-Safe.
NV-(Reid-D)- the only announced Republican candidate against Reid is Lt Governor Brian Krolicki who is under indictment.
NY-(Schumer-D)-Safe.
NY-(Gillibrand-D)-Potential Republican candidates against Gillibrand is Peter King or George Pataki. Gillibrand is favored to defeat either Pataki or King.
ND-(Dorgan-D)-The only Republican challenger against Dorgan is Governor Hoeven who is unlikely to run.
OR-(Wyden-D)-Safe.
VT-(Leahy-D)-Safe.- Governor Jim Douglas is unlikely to run.
WA-(Murray-D)- Safe.
WI-(Feingold-D)-Safe.
NKpolitics,
You may well be right, but I think there is the possibility of a set of circumstances whereby a monkey in a suit might be abvle to give Beau Biden a run for his money in 2010. I am not saying its likely, but I think there are far less likely GOP pickups, so I think that for now Nate might have it right. But that it might drop down the list pretty quickly if the Democrats remain reasonably populsr.
GROG (and indeed anyone else, who has a contribution on this)
I wonder how many people ever change which party they vote for? Obviously some do, but I wonder if more of the swings in political support you get are people dying off vs first time voters? I have no idea, but I wonder if we aren't talking of a complex picture that runs something like 35% for each party died in the wool never gonna change, 10% swing voters, 10% new voters (some persuadable, others following socio economic patterns) 10% occasional voters (the get out the vote slice).
> A great, if scary, article on the economy. This economic change may drive the new party that rises from the ashes of the repubs
You are suggesting that the party of "Drill baby, drill" would transform into the party of true fiscal restraint, stealing the Green Party's thunder?
@ Grog
Since "polically" is not a word, I would like change that to "politcally".
My proofreading sucks.
Yeah,it sure does in this case.Try "politically".
@ newview
The second big deal is the post-census redistricting, which will be critical for the many obvious political and fiscal reasons.
The redistricting,of course,will not affect Senate races,only House races.
And will not affect any 2010 races as the actual redistricting won't happen until 2011.
Thanks for the script, Nick! It won't remove the troll-feeding posts, but it'll contribute significantly to productive discussion in this site.
> The redistricting,of course,will not affect Senate races,only House races.
It will affect State Senate races though, and that's a big deal in the longterm. Creating more locations to attract local talent to your team. Those talented folks that could pick one party or the other, you aren't going to draw them in with lost cause races.
Those are the ones you really want too. Oh sure you might be sitting there as a Democrat with Libermann's antics driving you around the bend. But you can say two positive things about those mid-west Blue Dogs:
1) They are more likely to vote party lines than the Republican alternative they beat out.
2) There is reason to expect they can provide a meaningful and thoughtful fiscal foil to forging policies, helping keep D House members honest and grounded while the GOP is incommunicado and in no shape to do the job.
Marky Mark.
Nate has DE ranked number 13. before LA(Vitter-R)-14 and NY(Gillibrand-D)-15. DE is much safer than LA and NY(Gillibrand.
37)ID-(Crapo-R)- Crapo is running unopposed.
36)NY-(Schumer-D)
35)OR-(Wyden-D)
34)UT- (Bennett-R)
33)IN-(Bayh-D)
32)AL-(Shelby-R)
31)MD-(Mikulski-R)
30)SD-(Thune-R)
29)VT-(Leahy-D)
28)HI-(Inouye-D)
27)AK-(Murkowski-D)
26)ND-(Dorgan-D)
25)SC-(DeMint-R)
24)WA-(Murray-D)
23)CA-(Boxer-D)
22)OK-(Coburn-R)
21)WI-(Feingold-D)
20)GA-(Isakson-R)
19)AR-(Lincoln-D)
18)IA-(Grassley-R)
17)AZ-(McCain-R)
16)DE-(OPEN-Kaufman-D)
15)KS-(OPEN-Brownback-R)
14)CT(Dodd-D)
13)NV-(Reid-D)
12)TX-(OPEN-Hutchison-R)
11)CO-(Bennett-D)
10)NY-(Gillibrand-D)
9)IL-(OPEN-Burris-D)
8)LA-Vitter-R)
7)FL(OPEN-Martinez-R)
6)NC-(Burr-R)
5)KY-(Bunning-R)
4)PA-(OPEN-Specter-R)
3)OH-(OPEN-Voinovich-R)
2)NH-(OPEN-Gregg-R)
1)MO-(OPEN-Bond-R)
2012 redistricting will effect US Senate races in certain states.
MI-(if Rogers-R and McCotter-R)is put in the same district- one of them will run for the US Senate in 2012 against Stabenow.
MN-(Bachmann-R) district is likely to get eliminated. forcing her to run against Klobuchar.
MO-(Akin-R)district gets eliminated. forcing him to run against McCaskill-D.
NJ-(Garrett-R)-district gets eliminated forcing him to run against Menendez-D.
OH-(Mean Jean-R) district gets eliminated forcing her to run against Brown.
nkpolitics1279 said...
2012 redistricting will effect US Senate races in certain states.
MI-(if Rogers-R and McCotter-R)is put in the same district- one of them will run for the US Senate in 2012 against Stabenow. . . .
So it is a guarantee that Rogers' and McCotter's districts will be 'merged' 'eliminated' or however you wish to say it? Maybe the legislature will decide to 'fortify' those districts with GOOPer voters, and pull some Dem precincts out to 'fortify' purple districts?
If the districts are combined, what guarantees that Rogers and McCotter will not decide they will run against each other in the 'new' House district? Maybe both will determine that they have a better probability of winning a GOOPer primary for the House seat than going against Stabenow in the general?
Mike in Maryland- When the Republicans controlled the Redistricting process in MI in 2002. They targeted Barcia,Bonior,and Rivers. They combine Barcia's District with fellow Democrat Dale Kildee- Jim Barcia decided to retire from Congress and run for the State Senate. Bonior's district was combined with fellow Democrat Sander Levin. Bonior decided to run for Governor. Rivers district was combined with John Dingell- Rivers is the only Incumbent US House member that decided to challenge a fellow Incumbent US House Member in the primary.
Assuming Rogers and McCotter is forced to run in a same district. The new US House District will be extremely favorable to Mike Rogers. The Lansing Area in the old MI-8 will go to MI-7(Schauer-D)giving Schauer-D)a safer District.
MI-8 will absorb the old MI-11 (SW Oakland County base. the old MI-11(Wayne County) base will go to the old MI-14(Conyers) and the old MI-15(Dingell).
nkpolitics1279,
If'n youse says so.
Politics can be strange, though, and redistricting can be even stranger.
As I said, maybe the Michigan legislature will stay split (Senate run by the GOOPers, House by the Democrats), but the governorship goes to the GOOPer candidate. The governor could veto any redistricting bill that made it more difficult for GOOPers to win House districts. And a court might or might not redistrict in a fashion that either party, or both parties, could back.
Know why some of the southern states (NC, GA and FL especially) suddenly have more black representation, while at the same time they became heavily GOOPer? The GOOPers in the legislature took some of the Democratic districts and poured many more probable Democratic voting precincts into those districts, then split out the GOOPer-heavy precincts and gave them to almost GOOPer districts. The result? A few VERY heavy Democratic districts, but many more GOOPer-friendly districts.
Similar to what Maryland did in 2001 - MD-8 (Montgomery County) was represented by Constance "Connie" Morella (a moderate Republican) from 1987 to 2003. For years, the Democrats were almost pulling their hair in trying to defeat her, but couldn't, even though there was about a 20 point registration differential favorable for the Democrats. In the 2001 redistricting, they took a small portion of mostly Democratic MD-4 (mostly Prince Georges County), and in exchange gave MD-4 a portion of the heavier GOOPer registration precincts in up-(Montgomery)county. Finally, in the 2002 election, Morella was beaten by Chris Van Hollen (51.71% - 47.49%). Since that first election, Van Hollen has won succeeding elections with 74.78%, 76.52%, and 75.15% of the vote. And MD-4 has gained a few more 'clean government' voters, a major reason why Donna Edwards was able to defeat Al Wynn.
BTW - all your talk about this geographic place will do this, that one will do that, makes absolutely NO sense to someone who is not intimate with the political makeup of Michigan. Don't tell us what will happen, tell us why something will happen. And just because you think it will happen does not mean it WILL happen, especially since we don't know all the players who will be involved, and won't until much closer to the 2010 election.
> Politics can be strange, though, and redistricting can be even stranger.
True that, I find the US's use of a highly partisan process for setting electoral regions even more bizarre than the boundaries it produces. Very unhealthy as shown by those examples you gave. :(
I've gotta agree with some of the other comments-- Carly Fiorina is the one to watch for the California senate race. She's got some polling issues right now, but a couple high standing Republicans I've spoken to have told me she's privately interested in giving it a shot. Who knows- it could be an interesting race if she can get over the breast cancer.
Mike the Dyke in Maryland.
I picked McCotter as the target of redistricting because he along with Mike Rogers-MI-8,Gary Peters-D-MI-9 and Mark Schauer-MI-7 represent swing districts.
The 2010 US Senate Election cycle has more Republican freshman members - Elected in Southern States due to George W Bush's coattails.
Martinez(FL)was narrowly elected in 2010. Had he faced re-election in 2010- He would have faced a tough re-election campaign and will probally lose. Martinez is retiring- FL is in the Tossup category.
Isakson(GA)elected by a landslide margin. Isakson is safe since Democrats were unable to unseat Chambliss(GA). Isakson is more moderate than Chambliss.
Vitter(LA)elected with 51% of the popular vote. against two Democrats. Louisiana does not have the open primary system anymore. Vitter has been vulnerable due to the DC Madam scandal. LA is competitive but Vitter is favored to win.
Burr(NC)- narrowly elected against Clinton WH Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. A stronger Democrat like AG Roy Cooper or US Reps Mike McIntyre,or Heath Schuler will defeat Burr(NC)-
Coburn(OK)- elected in 2004 by a double digit margin. The only Democrat that can give Coburn a competitive race is Governor Brad Henry.
DeMint(SC)- elected in 2004 by a double digit margin. Strongly favored to win re-election.
Other Freshman Republican US Senators.
Murkowski(AK)- narrowly elected against ex Governor Tony Knowles. Democrats don't have a top tier challenger against Murkowski- Safe R.
Thune(SD)- narrowly defeated Tom Daschle. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin- is more likely to run for Governor or seek re-election to the US House. Safe-R.
2 Republican US Senators from purple States- Bond-MO and Voinovich-OH are retiring. Democrats are strongly favored to win MO(Carnahan) and OH(either Fisher or Brunner).
Democrat(Paul Hodes-NH)is strongly favored to win the open seat in NH- currently held by Judd Gregg(R-NH).
Other Blue State Republican Senators facing re-election in 2010.
Specter(PA)will lose in the GOP primary- or switch parties- Democratic pick up.
Grassley(IA)-is a potential retiree- Democratic pick up if IA is an open seat.
Bunning(KY)is the most vulnerable Republican US Senator facing re-election in 2010.
The open seat in KS(Brownback)is a safe Rep. Since the only top tier Democratic candidate Kathleen Sebelius is in the Obama cabinet.
The rest of the Republicans facing re-election in 2010 are safe except for AZ(McCain).
On the Democratic side. Democrats have 4 open seats in the 2010 US Senate election cycle- the special elections in DE and NY. DE(OPEN-Kaufman))is a Safe DEM(Beau Biden). NY(Gillibrand)is a Democratic Favored. the other open seats CO(Bennett) and IL(OPEN-Burris)are in the Democratic Favored. Other Democratic US Senators facing re-election in 2010 are strongly favored to win re-election in 2010.
If CT gets rid of Dodd while keeping Lieberman, then those jackasses deserve any bad thing they have coming to them.
This will give advertisers multiple new ways to 花蓮民宿get their targeted messages to cell phone users without annoying the clients. 花蓮民宿This creates a whole new platform for advertisers that will far exceed other media. Airtime fees are continuing to decrease while giving the cellular clients more. How long until airtime is free? 花蓮This is a forward thinking, outside the box concept. 花蓮Some companies have spent millions pursuing technology in this sector but花蓮民宿 I have the answer. Can you help me with this or point me in the direction of someone who can? 花蓮美食
Vitter is now (more) up for grabs. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/03/la-sen_vitters_meltdown.html?wprss=thefix
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,網頁設計,網站設計,網頁設計,網站設計,网页设计,网站设计,网站设计,网页设计
帶著簡單的行囊,來花蓮旅遊走走,順便體驗一下各種花蓮民宿帶給你的不同感受,品嚐道地花蓮美食的特別花蓮小吃風味,也可以騎著單車來品味花蓮 ,呼吸著新鮮的花蓮空氣,所以來花蓮住宿就帶著輕鬆的心情吧!!花蓮黃頁擁有各種不同風格的花蓮民宿,歡迎您來花蓮旅遊放鬆心情體驗美麗的花蓮民宿!!
Mike in Maryland (and nkpolitics1279):
Michigan's current redistricting *heavily* favors Republicans, because they controlled the Legislature, Governorship, and Supreme Court at the time. If they hadn't managed to lose two "safe" districts, even another pure Republican redistricting would have to have taken Michigan's (expected) lost seat out of the R column.
To put it in perspective, Rogers won his first race by a margin narrower than the 2000 Florida presidential election; radio stations were announcing "final" results with the Democrat winning.
Instead, she kept her spot in the State Senate. Two years later, she was term-limited. She was ambitious enough to have talked of statewide office before; the Green wouldn't be a spoiler again; the college town (and possibly Lansing as well) had fixed some issues that suppressed likely D voters. Despite all of this, she skipped the rematch to run for the lower house instead. When term-limited there, she sat out, then ran for the Michigan State University Board of Trustees.
It is likely that some of the D voters will be moved to Schauer's district to give him a chance at keeping the normally safe R seat. If not, the historical 8th may come back as either swing or safe D -- but with Rogers outside the District. Whether enough of his base would go with him, I don't know.
And how will this affect 2010? It might be enough to push Rogers into running for Governor himself, instead of running for re-election -- and that is a decision he has to make for 2010.
2010 US Senate Race.
On the Democratic Side.
The following Democratic US Senate Seats up for grabs are safe.
HI(Inouye-D)
IN(Bayh-D)
MD(Mikulski-D)
NY(Schumer-D)
ND(Dorgan-D)
OR(Wyden-D)
VT(Leahy-D)
The following Democratic US Senate Seats up for grabs are Competitive but Democratic Incumbent is Strongly favored to win.
AR(Lincoln-D)
CA(Boxer-D)
CO(Bennett-D)front runner in primary and in the General Election.
DE(OPEN-Kaufman-D))- Beau Biden- front runner in the Democratic Primary and in the General Election.
IL(OPEN-Burris-D)- Alexi Giannoulias- front runner in the Democratic Primary and in the General Election.
NV(Reid-D)
NY(Gillibrand-D)-front runner in the primary and in the General election.
WA(Murray-D)
WI(Feingold-D)
The Democratic US Senate Seat likely to fall in the Republican Collumn.
CT(Dodd-D)- Highly vulnerable because of the Mortgage and CEO bonus scandals.
On the Republican side.
The following Republican US Senate Seats are safe.
AL(Shelby-R)
AK(Murkowski-R)
AZ(McCain-R)
GA(Isakson-R)
ID(Crapo-R)
IA(Grassley-R)
KS(OPEN-Brownback-R)-
OK(Coburn-R)
SC(DeMint-R)
SD(Thune-R)
UT(Bennett-R)
The following Republican US Senate Seats are highly vulnerable.
FL(OPEN-Martinez-R)- If Governor Crist runs- FL stays Republican. If Crist does not run FL becomes a tossup.
KY(Bunning-R)- Bunning-R is the most vulnerable Republican incumbent facing re-election- ie (Rick Santorum-PA)column. Democrats will win KY seat if Bunning retires.
LA(Vitter-R)- Competitive but Vitter is favored to win in the general election.
MO(OPEN-Bond-R)- Democratic Nominee- Robin Carnahan-D is strongly favored to defeat Republican front runner Roy Blunt-R.
NH(OPEN-Gregg-R)- Democratic Nominee-Paul Hodes-D is strongly favored to win in the General Election.
NC(Burr-R)- Burr-R loses in the General Election if AG Roy Cooper runs(Santorum-R vs Casey-D). If a Second tier Democratic candidate runs- Burr loses due to a gaffe.
OH(OPEN-Voinovich-R)- Republican nominee Rob Portman-R is the underdog in the General Election against Democratic candidates Lee Fisher or Jennifer Brunner.
PA(Specter-R)- If Specter loses in the Primary- Democratic pick up. If Specter wins- PA becomes a tossup assuming Allyson Schwartz runs.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment