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. New Hampshire (R-Open)
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire had been battling back and forth for the #1 slot for the past couple of months. With the landscape in the Keystone State completely changing after Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic party, New Hampshire now has the stage to itself -- although there's some marginally bad news for the Democrats in the form of Paul Hodes' underwhelming fundraising numbers. Hence, the downward-pointing red arrow. Still, this looks like the cleanest path either party has to a pickup, with an open seat in a Democratic-leaning state.
2 . Missouri (R-Open)
In Missouri, conversely, the money numbers favor the Democrats, with Robin Carnahan having out-fundraised Roy Blunt about 2:1 in the first quarter. Although Missouri has gradually trended red at the Presidential level, Carnahan may simply be the more talented candidate and this increasingly feels like a lean Democratic race.
3. Connecticut (D-Dodd)
We're waiting for some fresh polling to see whether Chris Dodd has broken free at all from his post-AIG doldrums. In the meantime, GOP challenger Rob Simmons reported raising just $20 in the first quarter. But that might not matter, since the important thing about Rob Simmons is not that he's Rob Simmons but that he's not Chris Dodd.
4. Kentucky (R-Bunning)
A Jim Bunning retirement would help Republicans -- but perhaps not as much as you'd think in a state where Democrats still have a significant registration advantage. In addition (as with most things having to do with Jim Bunning), it's far from clear what's actually happening with respect to his retirement.
5. Ohio (R-Open)
Ohio is in perhaps the most advanced state of any of the 2010 races, with likely GOP nominee Rob Portman having raised $1.7 million in the first quarter and Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher, one of two main Democratic rivals, countering with more than $1 million of his own.
6. Florida (R-Open)
We're hearing from Florida Republicans that nobody is quite certain whether Charlie Crist is in fact going to enter the Senate race -- possibly including Crist himself. Until we have news of his decision, this race is stuck in something of a holding pattern.
7. North Carolina (R-Burr)
Likewise in the Tarheel State, we're waiting on word from Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose entry would turn the race against unremarkable incumbent Richard Burr into a toss-up.
8. Delaware (D-Open)
Last month, we touted Delaware as a sleeper, pointing out that Republican Mike Castle, currently Delaware's at-large representative to the House, had an 8-point lead on likely Democratic nominee Beau Biden. Now, it looks like Castle's interest in the race may be more than hypothetical, as he told Roll Call that he's more likely to run for Senate than for re-election to the House. That statement can be interpreted in different ways since Castle, 69 years old and a stroke survivor, could easily choose retirement instead. But Democrats had better keep a close eye on this one or Joe Biden (assuming he's gotten over his fear of public transportation) is going to be spending a lot of time on the Acela commuting back to Wilmington to campaign for his son.
9. Colorado (D-Bennet)
Colorado moves up for the second consecutive month, this time on mediocre polling for Democratic pseudo-incumbent Michael Bennet, who has a net-negative approval rating and had better hope that the GOP doesn't organize around a strong opponent.
10. Illinois (D-Burris)
This is no longer the Roland Burris show, who polls at just 46 percent approval among African-American voters, just 29 percent among Democrats, and just 17 percent overall. But Lynn Sweet reports that IL-10's Mark Kirk is leaning toward an entry in the race, and Public Policy Polling has him competitive against several prospective non-Burris Democrats (although AG Lisa Madigan, probably bound for the governor's race, would crush him if she ran). In the long run, this race will probably gravitate toward the Democrats as candidates like Alexi Giannoulias improve their name recognition and the Blagojevich affair fades from memory. But it's a long way to the finish line, and Kirk is one of the few Republicans to have found electoral success in a Democratic-leaning district.
11. Nevada (D-Reid)
As Republicans scramble to find an opponent in what should be a good opportunity for them, Harry Reid has been busy raising money and now has more than $5 million in cash-on-hand.
12. Pennsylvania (R- D-Specter)
In some sense, this was the first victory of the 2010 cycle for the Democrats -- although considering Specter's voting record thus far, it looks as though it might be something of a Pyrrhic one. Nevertheless, this is now considered a Democratic seat, and this rating now reflects the Republicans' odds of winning it back in 2010, either against Specter or another Democrat like Joe Sestak.
A Republican comeback is unlikely if the uber-conservative Pat Toomey is the Republican nominee. But if ex-Gov. Tom Ridge runs -- and wins -- instead, he would be a formidable opponent. The catch is that it isn't clear how Ridge, like Specter a moderate, pro-choice Republican, will escape the problems that drove Specter from the party, as what's left of the GOP base in Pennsylvania is highly conservative and pro-life. We should know more in a week or so -- if you're a Pennsylvania voter and weren't at Citizens' Bank Park watching the Phillies and the Mets get rained out, you were probably getting nonstop phone calls from pollsters.
13. Texas (R-Open?)
Which is more likely -- that the last-place Houston Astros win the NL Central, or that Kay Bailey Hutchison is still in the Senate by June, 2010? Start printing those playoff tickets, because every indication we've heard and seen is that Hutchison is leaving the Senate to challenge incumbent governor Rick Perry, which would leave this race wide open. Democrat Bill White, the mayor of Houston, is raising serious money, while state former comptroller John Sharp is bankrolling his own million-dollar stake into the race.
14. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
This race is a Big Shiny Object which we continue to believe has been overrated by some other authorities. There is some rather ambiguous new polling out on Vitter, who retains a reasonably high approval rating in spite of the fact that many Louisanans would consider replacing him. The questions are how many of those Louisianans would consider replacing him with a Democrat in a state that increasingly leans red, particularly given that the Democrats are a long way from having identified a challenger.
15. Iowa (R-Grassley)
Once we get down into the mid-teens, we're basically looking for excuses to flag a race, and the fact that Grassley raised less than $300,000 in the first quarter makes us wonder just how certain Republicans can be that Grassley won't follow colleagues like Kit Bond and George Voinovich into retirement. If Grassley were to retire, then the Democrats, who might find willing candidates like Tom Vilsack, Chet Culver and Bruce Braley, would presumably become the favorites.
16. New York (Jr.) (D-Gillibrand)
New Yorkers remain highly skeptical of Gillibrand, but Republicans have at least three hurdles to overcome before defeating her. Firstly, Gillibrand is raising boatloads of money. Secondly, David Patterson is far more vulnerable than she is and will draw some of their talent away to the gubernatorial race. And thirdly, New York is still a highly blue state, as Jim Tedisco's inability to win in NY-20 (perhaps the Republicans' best district in the state) would tend to attest. Although George Pataki or Rudy Giuliani could make things interesting, Gillibrand is probably more vulnerable in the primaries than in the general election.
17. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)
Lincoln raised $1.7 million in the first quarter, which may further reduce the mostly-theoretical possibility that Republicans decide to mount a serious challenge to her.
18. Oklahoma (R-Coburn)
Some sleeper potential here, as Coburn raised virtually no money last quarter and seems exceptionally indifferent to the prospect of running for re-election. That could open the door to popular Democratic Governor Brad Henry or perhaps U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, who has dropped hints that he might be interested in an open-seat race.
19. California (D-Boxer)
I'd been so fixated on the Governator that I missed the fact that there has been some polling of Boxer versus Carly Firoina, who now seems like the more likely opponent. The Field Poll put Boxer ahead by 30 points in that matchup, whereas Rasmussen had her up by just 9 -- so goes it with polling this far in advance of an election. Although California is a tough state to gauge, Fiorina did not prove to have particularly adept political instincts while taking her turn as a spokesperson for the McCain campaign, and her fundraising base may also overlap heavily with that former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (who is getting serious about running for governor). I don't see it, frankly, but Boxer, who had a somewhat disappointing fundraising quarter, will need to remain on her toes.
20. Georgia (R-Isakson)
Well, there's new polling to suggest that Isakson could be vulnerable, but we remain a little skeptical after seeing what happened to Jim Martin once Barack Obama's name was off the ballot.
21. Wisconsin (D-Feingold)
Although previous approval polling had suggested some vulnerability for Feingold, SurveyUSA's latest installment has him at a relatively healthy +18 net. Feingold's strongest potential challenger, the conservative-but-telegenic Paul Ryan, also recently told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he wouldn't run against Feingold (reading between the lines, Ryan seems inclined to wait for Herb Kohl to retire instead).
22. Arizona (R-McCain)
Unlike Pennsylvania, Arizona retains a relatively broad and diverse Republican base, and so we don't see much risk of the Republicans getting Toomeyed by Minuteman founder Chris Simcox, who will challenge McCain in the primary.
23. Kansas (R-Open)
All the action is on the Republican side, as Kathleen Sebelius was finally confirmed to HHS and the Democrats don't yet have a declared candidate.
24. Hawaii (D-Inoyue)
25. Alaska (R-Murkowski)
26. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)
A nice 1Q fundraising haul by Dorgan reduces the already-slim chance that popular GOP governor John Hoeven might decide to challenge him.
27. Maryland (D-Mikulski)
28. South Carolina (R-DeMint)
29. Washington (D-Murray)
30. South Dakota (R-Thune)
31. Alabama (R-Shelby)
Shelby's approval ratings are surprisingly marginal, but don't hold your breath.
32. Indiana (D-Bayh)
33. Vermont (D-Leahy)
34. Oregon (D-Wyden)
35. Utah (R-Bennett)
36. New York (Sr.) (D-Schumer)
37. Idaho (R-Crapo)
5.04.2009
Senate Rankings, May 2009 Edition
@ 7:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
96 comments
Everyone has gotten Louisiana wrong since 2005. How hard is it to realize that anywhere from 1/6 to 1/3 of the Democratic population simply doesn't live in the state anymore? Katrina and Rita ravaged not just the Dem bastion of New Orleans proper while leaving the Republican suburbs intact, but the relatively balanced Southern half of the state has also not recovered to Pre-K levels. The traditionally Southern Baptist, conservative north was left relatively unscathed by comparison.
Historical data with Louisiana is bunk. As much as it pains me, Vitter is in less danger than people think, unless a formidable challenger from the right appears or a sufficiently conservative Dem also attacks him from the right on his "indiscretions."
Come on Grassley, retire! You're going to be stuck in a powerless minority for years. You've got grandchildren you could be spending more time with. And without your incombency Iowa's blue enough it'd be a shoe-in for Vilsack or one of the eastern democratic congressmen.
I think you have Vermont way, way, way too high. Vermont never votes out incumbents. Seriously, Leahy could come out tomorrow as a gender-queer bisexual adulterer with a fetish for eating live cats and the occasional murder and he would still win 62%.
Dodd isn`t going to lose. sure people are pissed at him now but when it comes to voting in a republican it won`t happen.
Also I have seen polling whre only 35% of voters in LA say Vitter deserves re-election so if a credible challenger could be found it may be close.
Any way you look at it the democrats should have at least 62 senators after 2010 short a some kind of a meltdown in the ecomomy again.
I still think that the 2010 elections will be largely dependent on peoples approval or otherwise of the President, and his policies. I think that there is scope for some Dem pick ups if things are still looking good for Obama, but if the country is tiring of him, and the economy is not picking up, then you might see some GOP pick ups.
Dear Nate,
There is more to Pennsylvania than Philadelphia.
Thanks,
Pittsburgh
Simple game plan for the GOP:
1. Crist. Take Florida off the list.
2. Convince Gregg to run again. Take NH off the list.
3. Ridge. Beat Specter.
5. Beat Dodd. Simmons or Shays could do it. People aren't just "pissed" at Dodd, Joel, he probably could be indited for crying out loud.
6. I don't understand why they don't target Dorgan. He's pretty liberal, and its a small state where they should be able to really mobilize. But perhaps not.
Split the rest of the list and we're even or plus one. Two years from now, the slate of reelects will be more favorable to GOP. The idea that that Dems will get to 64 or 5 Senate seats and hold them is absurd.
Meanwhile, I wish the Democrats would worry a bit more about governing and a bit less about grinding their opposition into dust.
Exhibit A:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/business/economy/04debt.html?ref=politics
Richard Shelby is at only +2 among men but +18 among women? Isn't that odd for a male Republican?
In any event, while Shelby's got mountains of money, any chance Roger Bedford would take a crack at him? The Dem field for Gov is already pretty full.
all of this depends on whether or not republicans will grow up and treat the more moderate members of their party like they actually matter.
in NM they lost two house seats and a senate seat because they got nuts to run and dumped the moderates.
acting like five year olds to snowe and spector was just plain moronic.
dont they have anyone with brains and some reason in that party?
Onr good and easy way for the Republicans to show everyone they are taking the moderates (that is, the few which remain) more seriously is to elevate them to Senate and House leadership positions, especially those who help shape the policy of the those lawmaking bodies.
These people would get much more face time being the spokesmen (or spokeswomen) of their lawmaking bodies. Imagine for a minute how the public's perception would change if we saw Olympia Snowe as the Senate Minority Leader instead of the typical older white guy (Lott, Frist, McConnell) with a southern twang?
It won't happen, of course, but you can't deny the effect it would have on the party, and on the country.
I haven't checked in a long time, but at this point 2 years ago, Dan Boren had A LOT of cash on hand. A LOT. There's no way he's just staying in the House, though it's not clear to me where he's going or when.
> 1. Crist. Take Florida off the list.
I'm wondering if he's considering a Presidential run in his future? That might be why he's being non-committal. The current President aside, the Senate is typically a poor path to the Presidency. Because of how the Senate works, you end up getting your name attached to voting for all manner of things that are not only politically inconvenient but also may not represent your core ideals.
> 2. Convince Gregg to run again. Take NH off the list.
Good luck with that.
> 3. Ridge. Beat Specter.
Ridge has the problem of being "pro-choice" and "big government", so he'll have to run the gauntlet of the R primary before he goes head-to-head with whomever the D nominee is (where he might have a Bush problem). It'd be an interesting race to say the least. Would Club For Growth come through with a win for the Democratic party again?
Mark,
The reason that Vermont is so high is that the same characteristics could apply in Oregon, Utah, NY Sr. and Idaho *and* they could eat puppies too. Seriously, once you get down into the bottom 8-10, the rankings are more or less irrelevant because no one from the non-incumbent party is going to get money from the Party Senate Committees.
Jeff, you're a fucking fruitloop. Sorry, you just are. Target Dorgan??? LOL
1. If Gregg flip-flops AGAIN, he's toast. Dream on.
Hodes is obviously a s Jean Shaheen type. It'll be close throughout, but he'll pull it out in the end.
2. I said this was a toss-up last month (but it shouldn't be). Now I'm fairly confident Robin Carnahan will take it. Missouri is a weird state though.
3. No way this seat goes to ANY Republican. Dodd has plenty of time to improve his numbers, but if he doesn't, he should be primaried. Lieberman is justifiably in as bad shape.
4. If Bunning doesn't retire, Cornhole will retire him. I don't think any Dem was seriously expecting Bunning to be their opponent anyway. The question for Kentucky Dems, is who is their best candidate? They have an pretty deep bench.
5. Nothing has changed since last month. I don't trust the polling showing both Dems leading. Portman is still the slight favorite. Or maybe I'm underestimating the Dems chances. This race does depend on how popular Obama is.
6. Good news if Crist is still sitting on the fence. If Obama remains popular and the teabagger party continues to plummet, why would a popular moderate Florida Governor want to join a minority of fringe far-right extremists in Washington? I mean, he fully supports the President's economic recovery plan. Even if he was in the senate, he'd be more receptive to Obama policies than Mel Martinez. Either way, it's a gain for Dems.
Best case scenario for Dems without Crist in the race: Toss-up. They just don't have great candidates. Maybe whatshername, the congresswomen, is waiting to see if Crist decides against running. If she got in, it would probably lean Dem.
7. I'll be shocked if Roy Cooper doesn't win this seat. He has no reason not to run.
8. Once Beau Biden esatblishes himself, he'll win this seat easily. But he has to earn it.
9. Seriously, Dems can do a lot better than Michael Bennet. I don't like this guy at all. No question he needs to be primaried by Andrew Romanoff. Governor Ritter should be ashamed of himself for making this appointment. Bennet is fucking waste of space.
10. It doesn't surprise me Lisa Madigan is the most formidable Dem. But I'm still leaning toward Alexi Giannoulias. Either one will do fine. Mark Kirk has about as much hope of being Illinois senator in 2011 as Roland Burris.
11. As long as Harry makes way for Durbin or Schumer as Majority Leader in 2010, who cares? His son should be in this seat.
12. Specter should be primaried, or at least Sestak or Torsella should give the impression that they're gonna primary him. If Specter votes as a Republican, he'll be voted out as a Republican by Democrats. He out of options at this point. I don't give a shit what assurnaces he recieved from Obama, Biden or Reid. It's Pennsylvania Dems, Labor and party activists who've got a gun to his head now. Not Cornhole, Steele and Toomey.
As for Ridge, he's to the right of Specter. Who is gonna vote for him, apart from pro-choice right-wingers? He's still a Bushie.
BTW, Ed Rendell reportedly wants this seat after Specter snuffs it.
13. I actually feel more confident aboout thi seat. Bill White seems a pretty good candidate. Then again, what are the chances of Texans providing some balance to Cornhole?
14. Go Stormy!
15. Grassley is useless. He should retire. And yes, this should be Vilsack's seat.
16. I said last month that if Scott Murphy wins, Gillibrand is safe, progressive New Yorker's will give her a chance. She's lucky, because progressives would definately hold a grudge against her if Tedisco had won.
17. Yay for Walmart!
BTW, when did Arkansas become so wingnutty. Dems should probably be grateful they have these two senate seats, even if the two senators are a pain in the arse.
18. Governor Brad Henry should definately run for senate. Why wait?
23. Sebelius should be running for this seat. Tom Daschle is a knob.
26. Byron Dorgan is one of best U.S. senators. The best thing about Dorgan, is he exposes how petty and corrupt the likes of Ben Nelson and the rest of the Blue Dogs are. The fact he's extemely popular speaks volumes.
Dodd needs to be challenged in a primary.
And obviously will be. He may even decide not to run again, and just take his pension.
CT is not a state that Democrats should hand over.
PorridgeGun,
Excuse me? What about Crist, Ridge, Gregg, and CT is "fruitloopy"? Those are all perfectly obvious options. If Gregg runs, I think he'll win handily. Ridge is a moderate, fine, but he's far better liked by Republicans than Specter, who - you Democrats will discover - is a backstabbing, self-regarding jerk. He would win, I suspect (and polling has him in a statistical tie with Specter). As for Dorgan, its a bit of a longshot, but its a red state, he's quite liberal, and the GOP has a popular option to take him on (Gov Hoeven). If the country begins to tire of one-party rule (as it will), these are the kinds of states (along with Arkansas), that the GOP needs to pick up again. At the very least you force Dorgan to the right. It would also be a cheap place to run, and a place where I suspect Obama's policies will begin to wear thin.
Quinnipiac: Specter 53% - Toomey 33%, Specter 46% - Ridge 43%. Sestak wasn't polled in a potential match-up with Specter.
Considering how umpopular Specter is with Republicans and Democrats at the moment, and he most certainly is, those are pretty good numbers. No wonder the weasel switched. But if he thinks he can avoid a primary challenge from a Dem or defeat from Ridge in the general without supporting key progressive issues like EFCA or the public option, he's delusional.
Jeff, Toomey is on the extreme right. Specter is centre-right, Ridge is to the right of Specter. Neither Specter nor Ridge are moderates. Gregg already flip-flopped on Commerce when he was already somewhat vulnerable. How's it's gonna look if he flip-flopped again on the senate seat? CT senate seat will stay Democratic.
I don't care either way about Crist. The teabaggers already have Mael martinez voting against the president's policies. Crist in the senate would be a gain for President Obama. That's why I think he should switch parties.
Is the end near for Michael Steele? Just listen to Jim Nussle
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/end-near-michael-steele-just-listen-jim
Jeff: If Gregg runs, I think he'll win handily.
Why? Shaneen won with a large margin against a fairly moderate opponent. Hodes is a good candidate, and the state is trending blue. I don't think there's much evidence for winning "handily," and it might be a tough race for Gregg to win at all.
Ridge is a moderate, fine, but he's far better liked by Republicans than Specter, who - you Democrats will discover - is a backstabbing, self-regarding jerk.
Two points. First, would Ridge, or any moderate, get through a primary given today's PA Republican electorate? Given that Toomey almost knocked off Specter last time, before the tumult over the stimulus vote, and that the PA Republican party is smaller and more conservative than before, one has to wonder whether a pro-choice Republican would have any shot at all. And then there's the prospect of a tough general election where Democrats would almost certainly line up behind Specter (assuming he's the candidate) as a lesser of two evils even if they may not like him very much.
And I've said for years that while Specter talks a good game, he almost always votes with his party when his vote really matters. If he continues that trend with the Democrats, they'll be happy to have him.
Question: In PA, what does it take to switch party registration so that you can vote in that Primary? I'm wondering what kind of strategic primary voting could go on if Ridge enters. If there will be a switch [back] to GOP to keep Toomey out and if so what kind of implications does that have for Specter if he's being primaried too? Or would Specter being primaried lead to those "switch-hitter" voters staying Dem to defend Specter?
First PA Poll Out - hereJob Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 66 / 29
Gov. Rendell: 53 / 38
Sen. Specter: 56 / 36
Sen. Casey: 55 /21
Favorable / Unfavorable
Sen. Arlen Specter (D): 52 / 34
Pat Toomey (R) 20 / 13
Tom Ridge (R): 55 / 19
2010 Senate - General Election
Sen. Specter 53, Toomey 33
Sen. Specter 46, Ridge 43
Calling Specter's defection a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats suggests that it has left them weaker, and/or that it will lead to greater losses in the future. A victory that yields an insufficient benefit is not necessarily Pyrrhic if it doesn't actually harm the victor in the long run. In contrast, even if Specter became a solid vote for the Dems, it would still be a Pyrrhic victory if it enabled the GOP to gain seats in the future by running against one-party rule, or if it made it easier for the GOP to win the seat in the next election (although I don't think either of these scenarios is likely).
On 8 February 2009, Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley told interviewer Al Hunt he is definitely running for re-election. Now that he has seniority, he says, he can get things done.
Folks,
Regarding PA and other states like it. The Democratic salad days are not going to go on forever. The big registration switch in 2008 was surely (in part) a temporary effect caused by the Obama-Clinton primary Super Bowl. Ridge-Toomey might draw them back in. And as for the state remaining permanently blue: keep in mind, the Senate is heavily GOP, and the House virtually evenly split. If the Dems lash that Senate seat to a nasty old opportunist clinging to his sixth term, they will lose. The GOP will be energized, and the Dems hardly so. What will be the rally cry: `we must preserve total Democratic control for another two years by any cynical means necessary? I think Ridge would beat him handily. I`m not even that impressed by Specter`s 53% polling against Toomey (with 10% undecided).
PorridgeGun, that you don`t think Specter or Ridge are moderates says it all. In that case, please name one GOP moderate.
Dwight said
> 1. Crist. Take Florida off the list.
I'm wondering if he's considering a Presidential run in his future? That might be why he's being non-committal. The current President aside, the Senate is typically a poor path to the Presidency. Because of how the Senate works, you end up getting your name attached to voting for all manner of things that are not only politically inconvenient but also may not represent your core ideals.
--------------------------
Crist strikes me as a great veep prospect without being a great Presidential pick. Now the Senate problem still counts as a problem, but its far less of a problem if you are in the party in charge of the Senate.
But I wonder if Crist isn't better off going back to private life before running for President or veep if thats his aim.
Someone made a comment about how 2012's senate slate is more favourable for Republicans, and that may be true, but remember that a lot of Democrats will have Obama's coattails to hold onto. I think that if they don't get any traction in the 2010 midterms the GOP may even find themselves struggling in the Senate until 2014.
Jeff—
If Gregg runs, I think he'll win handily.You're clueless.
Mark: I think you underestimate some Vermonters' affection for cats.
Most of the Democrat's Senate weaknesses stem from appointed Senators after the election. All four could fall to the GOP if the right candidates run.
In reflecting on poor Roland Burris’s laughable fundraising efforts I wonder if he isn’t the most unpopular political appointment in history. And I really can’t understand the pundits who have praised him despite his deplorable role in his own appointment. Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker wrote an excellent piece on him in March, showing him to be little more than a self-aggrandizing opportunist. For those who aren’t interested in reading the whole article, what struck me as most appalling was the lavish care and attention to detail Burris pays to the mausoleum he has already constructed for himself. He proudly shows Toobin the latest line engraved on his tomb’s “wall of achievements”—U S Senator.
I’ll bet he’s hoping he gets named to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.
NH and MO are going to be Democratic Pickups. Both are open seat races in Purple or Blue States. Democratic Candidates in NH(Hodes-D) and MO(Carnahan-D) are popular top tier candidates. Republican's don't have a candidate in NH(unless Sununu or Bass runs)then NH becomes competitive. In MO(Blunt is DOA).Steelman would make MO competitive.
I would rank CT number 6. Dodd is vulnerable but KY,OH,and NC has a better chance of flipping than CT.
KY should be ranked number 3- if Bunning runs again. If Bunning retires. KY moves to number 5.
OH should be ranked number 4.
NC should be ranked as number 5 depending on Roy Cooper's entrance.
FL without Crist should be ranked number 7 behind CT (Dodd). If Crist runs FL moves down the list.
DE moves down the list once Castle decides against running.
I would move IL down the list once the Primary is decided. Burris is going to lose. The IL Democratic establishment including Barack Obama,the Madigans,Hynes,and Daley's will coalesce behind the Democratic nominee whether it is Giannoulias or Schakowsky.
IA ranks number 2 once Grassley decides to retire.
OK is similar to HI- but the opposite party. OK is a deep red state with a popular Democratic Governor(Brad Henry). HI is a deep blue state with a popular Republican Governor Linda Lingle. If Henry decides to run for the US Senate assuming Coburn retires. He would have to face JC Watts. Lingle would be an underdog in a a open US Senate Race.
Jeff: The big registration switch in 2008 was surely (in part) a temporary effect caused by the Obama-Clinton primary Super Bowl. Ridge-Toomey might draw them back in.
But again, would a pro-choice moderate Republican would be likely to win a primary? Toomey nearly knocked off Specter last time around when the electorate was not as polarized as it is now. Even if Ridge-Toomey draws in some voters, will the PA primary electorate be as moderate as it was in the last contest? (It would be great to see some Ridge-Toomey polling among PA Republicans to get at least some sense of where things stand at the moment.)
If the Dems lash that Senate seat to a nasty old opportunist clinging to his sixth term, they will lose. The GOP will be energized, and the Dems hardly so. What will be the rally cry: `we must preserve total Democratic control for another two years by any cynical means necessary?
No, the rally cry will be: Specter, still better than the alternative. Voters choose from the choices they are given. I can't tell you how many times I've voted for someone while holding my nose. I'd bet most other voters feel the same way, and it hasn't prevented some fairly large victory margins. The "nasty old opportunist clinging to his sixth term" will certainly thrash Toomey if he's the nominee, even if Toomey "energizes" the base.
In 2012- The 2006 Democratic Freshman Class US Senators.
Cardin(MD)
Klobuchar(MN)
McCaskill(MO)
Tester(MT)
Menendez(NJ)
Brown(OH)
Casey(PA)
Whitehouse(RI)
Sanders(VT)
Webb(VA).
Cardin(MD)is safe. Republicans don't have a candidate other than Ehrlich or Steele.
Klobuchar(MN)is safe since all of the top tier GOP candidates will wait until 2014 to challenge Franken.
McCaskill(MO)is vulnerable to a top tier GOP challenge but may benifit from Obama's coattails.
Tester(MT)is vulnerable to a challenge from US Rep Dennis Rehberg.
Menendez(NJ)is safe.
Brown(OH)is safe.
Casey(PA)is safe.
Whitehouse(RI)is safe.
Sanders(VT)is safe.
Webb(VA)is vulnerable to a top tier GOP challenge. but can benifit from Obama's coattails.
Jeff said...
PorridgeGun, that you don`t think Specter or Ridge are moderates says it all. In that case, please name one GOP moderate.,
Olympia Snowe.
Did you honestly think I'd be stumped on that one?
Ron Paul is to the left of 90% of the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy, is on the far-left when it comes to some domestic issues, and is on the far-right on other domestic issues.
Those are the only two Republicans in Washington I'd even consider pissing on if they were on fire.
@nkpolitics1279
If you're correct that Jon Tester, Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill are the Dems most vulnerable, I think it's safe to assume the Dems will be in pretty good shape in 2012. If I had to pick two who I think will be vulnerable, I'd go with McCaskill and Menendez. But even those two seem relatively safe.
Porridge Gun, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter have basically identical voting records. Your just BSing unconvincingly, though I'm touched by your liberal attachment to Ron Paul. Curious how you square support for the Gold Standard with support for Obama's money printing budget.
I am amused to now read that the 2012 Dem Senate class is entirely "safe". Apparently the country has gone from center right to one-party left. Whenever, as a conservative, I get down about GOP prospects, I come on over to the site to pick myself up. I can only hope that this kind of wild overconfidence is widespread on the left. As sure as night follows day, 100% Democratic control of DC will begin to undermine itself. Obama hasn't stopped the political pendulum for good.
Pandering to the car unions, cap and trade, dogged unemployment, expiring tax cuts, monster deficits, INFLATION. The list of problems goes on and on. It comes with governing. I won't even go into the likely foreign problems. The most likely truth is this: it will never in our lifetimes get better than Obama's first 100 days for liberals. But enjoy your political fantasies, by all means.
Off-topic but important, to me at least—I notice there’s been a change to the “comment” box. Now I’m identified as “Pragmatus (Blogger)”, whereas before the message read “You are signed in as Pragmatus”.
Is this true for everyone? If so it hints at the possibility that Nate/Sean have compiled a list of acceptable posters, and now that I think of it, a few of the more egregious shouters seem conspicuously absent today.
Hmmm…
Jeff...
You have made a point of disparaging what you call "Obama's money printing budget". How did you feel when G W Bush was printing money the government didn't have, to the tune of 6 trillion dollars? I'll bet there was little complaint out of you. You're not a conservative, you're a "conservative", which simply means a diehard follower of the GOP no matter what they do.
Jeff: I can only hope that this kind of wild overconfidence is widespread on the left.
Jeff, you should know that most people who post are the most ardent advocates. It's hardly a representative sample. So I think your hope is misplaced. Most people are cautiously skeptical.
As sure as night follows day, 100% Democratic control of DC will begin to undermine itself. Obama hasn't stopped the political pendulum for good.
Few people assert that it has. But that pendulum can swing back very slowly. FDR enjoyed quite a run. If conservatives don't adopt their ideology to producing real answers to the problems facing people today, time will move very, very slowly.
As for the problems you cite specifically, I think it's hard to argue that unions are a problem when something like only 7% of the private sector is unionized. As for cap and trade, I'd prefer a carbon tax (with a commensurate cut in the wage tax), but Republicans seem to prefer nothing. And health care seems to be pretty much a nonstarter for the party. And even some conservative economists have acknowledged that a recession is the worst time to pull back on government spending, yet that's precisely what many of the leading lights of the party are insisting on out of ideological concerns.
I don't think it's good to have only one strong party, and I hope Republicans get their act together. I just don't see much signs of it yet.
Getting back to the subject of the OP: does a moderate stand a good chance of winning a Republican PA Senate primary v. Toomey given the present (or even future) state of the PA Republican electorate?
...now that I think of it, a few of the more egregious shouters seem conspicuously absent today.
Fuck you, Pragmatus!!! I can't wait to find you - cuz I am stalking you - so I can twist your head clean fucking off!!!
Actually I'm going to let you live for just a little while after I find you. I'm going to gather all of your closer family members that I can find and butcher them in front of your face!!! That's right - BUTCHER!!!! Cut them up into little pieces!!! And you know what??!! That's how I'm going to feed you. With the fucking bits and pieces of your own family. That will be the only way for you to survive - EATING YOUR OWN FUCKING FAMILY!!!!
Then I'll slowly torture you until you go fucking mad!!! Then I'll disembowel you and pull your fucking guts out of your anus. Hopefully you'll live long enough to realize the exreme agony you're in. After that, I'll gut you like a fish and twist your fucking head off. I'll feed your entrails to the alligators down in the bayou, and then I'll send your severed head to any surviving family I couldn't find. And you can bet your ass that I'm going to videotape the entire message and post it on youtube as a warning to other liberal scum to make them stop their douchebaggery!!
Simple game plan for the GOP:
1. Crist. Take Florida off the list.
2. Convince Gregg to run again. Take NH off the list.
3. Ridge. Beat Specter.
5. Beat Dodd. Simmons or Shays could do it. People aren't just "pissed" at Dodd, Joel, he probably could be indited for crying out loud.
6. I don't understand why they don't target Dorgan. He's pretty liberal, and its a small state where they should be able to really mobilize. But perhaps not.Ridge wouldn't have any easier a time getting past Toomey in the primaries than Specter would have. Remember that PA has closed primaries and a lot of moderate Republicans defected to the Dems last year.
Wait until this time next year and then we can judge Dodd's hopes.
As for Dorgan, if we had a Republican president and Dorgan could be hammered for obstructing the agenda of a President their state voted for (as was the case with Daschle in 2004), I'd agree that the GOP should go after him. But since that's not the case, it's going to be tough to knock off a three-term incumbent who won almost 70% of the vote last time and presumably hasn't gotten into trouble since then. Why would Hoeven pass up a sure-bet reelection as governor to take on someone as popular as Dorgan?
Jeff wrote:
"Curious how you square support for the Gold Standard with support for Obama's money printing budget."
I hesitate to speak for PG, but if I were him, I would point out that this does not involve foreign policy, and would fall into the "some" category of the far-right. Let's look at PG's remark, with emphasis added:
"Ron Paul is to the left of 90% of the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy, is on the far-left when it comes to some domestic issues, and is on the far-right on other domestic issues."
But the main point is that the base has done a pretty good job of driving all of the real Republican moderates out, or into retirement. This was done by applying a Southern-state litmus test in all situations, whether is was suitable or not.
I don't really understand why a Party would assume that an agenda that fits with Mississippi would be a winning strategy for PA, NH, or MN, but here we are.
"As sure as night follows day, 100% Democratic control of DC will begin to undermine itself."
And you believe that voters disenchanted with Obama will run to the current version of the GOP, with tea-bags, visions of "socialism" and Stalin, the unchecked plutocracy of Ayn Rand, the evangelical anti-science beliefs, and the stringent demands for "purity". Oh, and hostility to minorities will be a big selling point, I'm sure.
You don't get it: the GOP is no longer an attractive option. It's gone crazy. If you want to change it, you'll have to toss out virtually everyone and start over. Instead, you are relying on the electorate to basically turn into Michelle Bachmann when they lose confidence in Obama.
That is not realistic. You are the one engaging in "political fantasies", Jeff.
JEFF I will say you are sure an optimist. the reality is dems will go into 2010 with 60 seats and probably pick up 2-5 seats.
Depending on how Obama did his first term the hopes of the GOP will rest on things being bad in this county in 2012
People like Obama and it`s tough to beat someone who is liked. We are most likely in a period of democratic dominance for the next generation. These things go in cycles and the democratic cycle is now.
@PorridgeGun
My sense is that Webb is pretty popular. He has the advantage that even if you don't agree with all of his stands, he makes it clear that he's doing what he thinks is right, not what's popular, and that's a rare thing in politics.
Also, since we have statewide elections this year, we'll find out if there are any top-tier challengers in the VA GOP. They've been ravaged by infighting, and the older sane Republicans have been steadily riding off into the sunset to be replaced by a younger generation of Club-for-Growth anti-tax extremists. By 2012, the VA GOP may well look like Pennsylvania, where anyone who is conservative enough to satisfy the party is too extreme to win statewide.
@Jeff
Speaking of "wild optimism"...
Obama hasn't stopped the political pendulum for good.Relying on the political pendulum, which has been swinging to the right since 1980, to save you by swinging back in 4-6 years is pretty much the definition of "wild optimism."
The surest path to the destruction of the GOP would be the creation of a moderate conservative party. Think Michael Bloomberg and Mort Zuckerman, conservatives who give the impression of being rather disgusted with the GOP. If such a party were formed and gained enough ground to be taken seriously nationally the Republican Party would spiral off to the graveyard wherein lie the Free-Soilers, the Know-Nothings and the Whigs.
As far as the 2012 races we are talking about
Daniel Akaka from Hawaii will be 88
Ted Kennedy who is facing health problems but in a very very very democratic state with no obvious REP challenger
Debbie Stabenow in 2012 softmore in MI, this state could change party directions if the economy is still in the tank but doubtful
Robert Byrd will be 95 from WV and this may be a dem hold but the dem will be more moderate like say Mansion, the gvo of WV
Joe Liberman will be up and who kmnwos how that will turn out
Dick Lugar will be 80 and IN a newly blue state could give us another senator with Obama on the ticket
Roger Wicker is up again, but he defeated a former gov so he is probably safe even though he is an appointed freshman
Joh Ensign of NV, a blue state now, may be running for pres according to the fix and his recent stops in Iowa... if he does almost a for sure dem pickup with a crappy REP bench. The current scandel riddon gov and Lt. Gov and one house rep don't lend a lot of hope of mainting this seat
So I don't think 2012 looks that great for republicans either...
One chuckle from these comments - describing John Sununu as 'fairly moderate.' He was quite far to the right; the only issue he could remotely be accused of moderation on would be the environment, where he every so often would throw a bone to New Hampshire's inherent greenness. Of course, said greenness is in large part based off of us getting air pollution blown in from the midwest rather than having our own heavily polluting businesses...
台北酒店經紀人 ,酒店工作 ,酒店公關 ,酒店兼職,酒店經紀, 酒店上班,酒店喝酒,台北酒店,酒店上班,酒店打工
Josh: Wait until this time next year and then we can judge Dodd's hopes.
I agree, though I admit that my prediction on this one is entirely speculative. I think that if the economy is on the upswing, Dodd's problems right now (some fairly and some unfairly pinned on him) will seem like very old news. If the economy is still slipping, it may be tough for him.
Peter Keeler: One chuckle from these comments - describing John Sununu as 'fairly moderate.'
Well, I don't claim any deep knowledge of NH politics, so I could be wrong on that one. But he didn't seem to me to be an Inhofe, or a Santorum, or someone who would have been easy pickings from the far right of the spectrum when faced with a more moderate challegner.
Todd,
Wrong. I hated Bush's spending. That doesn't excuse Obama's, which is far worse. And the hypocrisy on that point cuts both ways. In any case, it doesn't matter what I THINK about the spending - it matters what the effect of that spending and debt is (read: inflation). And what the heck are you talking about with all of this creationism, hostility to minorities business. What national figure foregrounds this stuff. That's like me pretending that Obama talks about nothing but the Free Choice Act and Flag Burning. You're creating a straw man.
Redshift, I don't get your point. You rightly point out that the pendulum has been swinging right since 1980. The left, however, has had MANY successful elections since that time (including periods where they controlled all three branches of government). The only countercase people on this site ever come up with is FDR, and that is self-evidently not a plausible comparison.
Events, local dynamics, the unpopularity of aspects of the President's agenda - all of these will work to bring some semblance of balance back to the system. I agree that that House and the Gov races are the most likely places for GOP comeback. The Senate is a tough nut, but part of the reason for that is that it is currently home to a LOT of fairly conservative Democrats. But that dynamic will also prove unstable for the Democrats. The point is this: Democrats won by occupying the center. They will lose when they start to drift left. The "left" revolution is an illusion of your imaginations.
Dodd's fate will, one suspects, be closely linked to the economic recovery. He's got buckets of money, so he's in better shape than that bad poll would suggest, but still a long way from good shape.
Tom Ridge, if he ran, and if he made it through the primary (which is questionable) would be a strong opponent, but whether he runs and whether he wins the primary is up in the air (he'd have the same problems Specter did in the primary electorate).
In 2012, most of the Senate pickups the Dems made in 2006 were in Dem-leaning states, which is good for them since they'll be able to run alongside the national ticket; Jon Tester in Montana is the most vulnerable, being in a narrowly red state, and with Dennis Rehberg as a ready-made challenger (though if Rehberg is interested in running for a higher office in 2012, a run for Governor to replace Schweitzer would seem to make more sense).
I mentioned Tester-MT,McCaskill-MO,and Webb-VA as being vulnerable in 2012. These Democrats were narrowly elected in 2006 during the Democratic Party wave. Looking at the Democratic Senators who were narrowly elected in 2000- The Nelson Twins(FL and NE),Stabenow(MI)and Cantwell(WA)were re-elected in 2006 by a comfortable margin. Sherrod Brown-OH will be in the similar situation as Tom Harkin's previous US Senate Races- a US House member such as Mike Turner,Pat Tiberi,or Steve LaTourrette will probally run and lose to Brown by a 55-45 margin. Menedez will face competition from GOP but will win. In 2014- I see Begich(AK)and Franken(MN)vulnerable. Merkley (OR) and Shaheen(NH)are safe due to lack of top tier opposition. Udall(CO) and Hagan(NC)will face opposition from Katherine Harris like GOP opponents.
Dennis Rehberg is in a similar situation as Stephanie Herseth is in 2010. An at Large US House Member looking to run for higher office. Run for US Senate against a first term incumbent who narrowly unseated a longterm Incumbent US Senator. (Thune unseated Daschle in 2004)(Tester unseated Burns in 2006). Rehberg and Herseth also have an option of running for Governor of their homestates since the incumbent Governor is term limited.
The Democrats have recruited strong challengers against Mike Castle and Paul Ryan. In fact, Mike Castle might have the easier race against Beau Biden, at least judging by that one poll released a month ago. Maybe that recruitment was a bit of a pyrrhic victory...
I think that Tim Griffin might have a chance against Blanche Lincoln, once he declares his candidacy. The Republicans simply MUST take these Arkansas and West Virginia seats if they want to remain relevant. It's really an indication of a great failure that Republicans struggle to challenge the potentially most vulnerable Democrats Reid, Lincoln and Bennet.
Regarding Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge is a great candidate - in a general election (but still worse than Specter). That Quinnipiac poll needs to show how Republicans vote in their Toomey-Ridge primary. I guess Ridge would fare better than Specter, but good enough to beat him? Also, I'd like to see Joe Sestak challenging Arlen Specter, that would be a great race all over the political spectrum from generic center-left Dem (Torsella) to right-wing (Toomey).
For 2012, as early as it is, I only see one Republican weakness, John Ensign - it's a big one though. Only a true Obama landslide, 60%-40% or something, would threaten Roger Wicker and Bob Corker. The Dems will have to defend a lot of candidates. I believe that Daniel Akaka would lose to Linda Lingle. The Democratic freshmen class of 2006 is doing quite well though. Maybe Sherrod Brown is vulnerable, but not if the economy is recovering. The seat of Richard Byrd will be a bit of a toss-up.
*Robert Byrd
@nkpolitics1279
@Porridge Gun
re: Missouri
Missouri isn't too weird after you figure out the nuances.
St Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia (square in the middle of the state) are solidly Democratic. At the center of Springfield and, unusually enough, central Southern, and Northeastern Missouri also have some Democratic tendencies depending on who the candidate is. Everything else (rural areas and Western St. Louis suburbs) is pretty much Republican. Much of the politics in Missouri can be easily traced back to the Civil War.
The state is fairly well-balanced. Though McCain won the state, he did so by a razor thin margin. Kerry lost Missouri by fewer votes than he lost Ohio - had he forced John Edwards to permanently campaign in Missouri, they probably would have won the election.
The problem for the GOP is that they have no good, "top tier candidates" left.
- Matt Blunt, Roy's son, was corrupt and incompetent as governor
- Roy Blunt hasn't lost an election and served statewide before; but, between his son ruining his chances and Roy being owned by the tobacco industry, his chances don't look good
- Sarah Steelman, the current Treasurer, is Sarah Palin without all the intellectual capacity
- Peter Kinder, the Lieutenant Governor, isn't very popular or charismatic; and it's a wonder he's stayed closeted as long as he has
- Kenny Hulshof had previously represented Northeast Missouri, but got totally blown-out by Jay Nixon in the gubernatorial race last year; it's doubtful he would even try to mount a Senate bid
- Jim Talent has lost all but one of his competitive statewide races
- Maybe JoAnn Emerson, congressional rep from Southeast Missouri? Not much notoriety elsewhere in the state
That is the entirety of the bench of contenders for the GOP nomination for Senate in 2010.
To top it all off, Robin Carnahan is very well-liked and has massive name recognition. Missouri represented by two lady Dems in the Senate? Who knew?
Comparing the Democratic Freshman US Senators who lost relection with the Republican freshman US Senators who lost.
Starting with 1998.
The Democratic Senators who were elected during the Year of Woman. Boxer-CA,Mosely-Braun-IL,and Murray-WA were targeted by the GOP as well was Feingold-WI. Only Mosely Braun-IL due to the scandals.
On the Republican side- Coverdell-GA and Faircloth-NC along with longtime GOP Senator D'Amato were targeted. Coverdell-GA survived but died a year later giving GA- Zell Miller. Faircloth-NC lost to John Edwards-NC. D'Amato-NY lost badly to Chuck Schumer.
In 2000- All of the GOP Senators elected in the Class of 1994 were up for re-election.
Kyl-AZ ran unopposed. Snowe-ME,DeWine-OH,Frist-TN,and Thomas-WY faced weak opposition.
Abraham-MI,Grams-MN,Aschrot-MO,and Santorum-PA were targeted along with senior GOP Senator Roth-DE. Everyone except for Santorum who narrowly won were defeated. The only Democratic US Senator that lost in 2000 was Chuck Robb-VA.
In 2002-
The Democrats unseated Tim Hutchinson-AR lost to Mark Pryor.
Republicans targeted Cleland-GA,Landrieu-LA,Carnahan-MO,Torricelli-NJ,and Johnson-SD. Torrecelli-NJ retired was suceeded by ex US Senator Frank Lautenbrg. Landrieu-LA was forced in a runnoff and won. Cleland-GA and Carnahan-MO who was appointed to the seat lost re-election.
In 2004.
The Democrats targeted Fitzgerald IL and Bunning-KY as well as Murkowski-AK who was appointed to suceed her father who was elected GOvernor. Democrats easily won IL due to Fitzgerald's retirement and the original GOP nominee Jack Ryan dropping out allowing Democratic Nominee and future US President Obama winning by a 70-30 margin over Alan Keyes. Bunning-KY was suppose to face Governor Paul Patton but Patton had to drop out because of a sex scandal. Democrats in KY ended up with a unknown state Senator who looked like Saddams son and thanks to Bunning's Mental state. Mongiardo narrowly lost. Republicans targeted Edwards-NC along with Senior Democratic Senator Tom Daschle-SD. In 2004 every Southern Democratic US Senator facing re-election except for Lincoln-AR retired. Republicans won every open Democratic Senate seat in the South.
In 2006-
Democratic Freshman US Senators
The Nelson-Twins(FL and NE),Cantwell-WA and Stabenow-MI won re-election by a landslide margin. Dayton-MN retired and was replaced by Amy Klobuchar-MN who defeated GOP US Congressman Mark Kennedy by a 20 point margin. Corzine-NJ was elected Governor was replaced by Menendez-NJ who defeated Tom Kean.
Republican Freshman US Senators Chafee-RI,Talent-MO,and Allen-VA lost re-election along with Santorum-PA,DeWine-OH,and Burns-MT.
In 2008- None of the Democratic Senators who were elected in 2002. Pryor-AR and Lautenberg-NJ were targeted. The only Democratic Senator that was targeted was Mary Landrieu-LA but she won.
Democrats targeted and defeated Sununu-NH,Dole-NC,Smith-OR,and Coleman-MN as well as long time GOP Senator Ted Stevens-AK due to a felony conviction. Chambliss-GA was forced in a runnoff but won.
That brings us in 2010. The Democrats who were elected in 2004 Obama-IL and Salazar-CO are part of the executive branch. Democrats will hold onto IL once Burris loses in the Democratic primary. Democrats are likely to hold on to CO due to weak GOP opposition.
The Republicans who were elected in 2004.
Murkowski-AK is safe due to weak Democratic opposition.
Martinez-FL is retiring. Republicans hold onto FL if Governor Crist runs. Tossup otherwise.
Isakson-GA is safe since most of the top tier Democrats are running for the open Governorship.
Vitter-LA is vulnerable but starts out as a general election favorite.
Burr-NC is vulnerable to defeat once Roy Cooper enters.
Coburn-OK is safe unless he retires and Governor Henry runs.
DeMint-SC and Thune-SD are safe due to lack of Democratic opposition.
The open GOP seats in MO,NH,and OH is going to be like the 2008 US Senate Races in VA,NM,and CO. OPEN GOP seats in purple or blue states. Democrats nominated top tier candidates while Republicans nominated weak controversial unelectable candidates. KY if Bunning runs again. is like 2006 PA US Senate race. If Bunning retires. KY would be like the 2002 NH US Senate Race. Burr-NC is in a similar situation as Tim Hutchinson-AR or George Allen-VA.
So I take it best case scenario for the Democrats is a +5 net gain (for 65 seats.)
That'd be nice. Out of 65 Democrats 50 of them might be real Democrats... enough for single payer?
What about Todd Akin MO-2. or Sam Graves-MO-6. can they give McCaskill a competitive Race.
In DE a matchup between Beau Biden and Mike Castle is a battle of titan race.
Mike Castle is a popular statewide elected official in DE winning more than 10 statewide elections.
Lt Governor 1980,Governor 1984 and 1988,At Large DE US House Seat 1992,1994,1996,1998,2000,2002,2004,2006,and 2008.
Beau Biden the son of VP Joe Biden who also is a former popular politician from DE was narrowly elected AG his first statewide office in 2006. Biden joined the National Guard and is serving in Iraq. Beau Biden will get help from his father, the other DE US Senator Tom Carper and President Obama. Mike Castle-DE best chance of running for the US Senate was in 1994- had he challenged Roth in a primary.
I believe that Daniel Akaka would lose to Linda Lingle.Questionable if he runs again, but it's very questionable that Hawaii would elect a federal Republican. Lingle's popular at the state level, but any race federally would put her in a tight spot (and, in 2012, a few visits from the Prez would be a big help to the Democratic nominee).
The seat of Robert Byrd will be a bit of a toss-up.I doubt that; Byrd, if he hasn't already passed on by then, will be an unlikely candidate for reelection. I would expect popular governor Joe Manchin or someone like him to be the Dem candidate, and West Virginia, outside of the presidential level, is a very Democratic state still.
But Democrats had better keep a close eye on this one or Joe Biden (assuming he's gotten over his fear of public transportation) is going to be spending a lot of time on the Acela commuting back to Wilmington to campaign for his son.
Isn't Biden a big public transit guy...?
Shelly Moore- Capito- WV-2 is the only top tier GOP candidate for the US Senate but she can also run for Governor in 2012. Democrats in WV have Joe Manchin or US Rep. Nick Rahall.
Regarding HI- Which Senator is going to retire first Akaka or Inouye. Democratic candidates include Ed Case,Mazie Horino,Colleen Hanabusa,Mufi Heffernan,and Matt Matsunaga.
Jeff:
Ok now there's several differences between Obama's spending and Bush's spending.
1) Bush inherited a budget surplus which he quickly blew (pre-9/11) for no reason. That is pointless spending. Now Obama hasn't actually increased budget spending that far over Bush's AND he inherited a difficult economic situation which many economists agree must be solved using deficit spending as we solved the Great Depression by spending on WW II.
2) Bush's deficit wasn't even fully tagged since his budget had Iraq and Afghanistan listed separately while Obama has included them in his budget.
The American people realize this and for that reason Obama's approval ratings remain sky high.
The FDR comparison may be the most adequate comparison to the current situation. From a purely political standpoint in the 1930s people blamed Hoover for the Depression well after he was defeated leaving Roosevelt to be wildly popular. Obama is in a similar position with a disgruntled electorate and a presidency widely blamed for the current situation. If he is able to maintain that appearance Democrat approval ratings will remain up through 2010 and they'll pick up seats.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THESE SENATE RANKINGS!!!!!!!!!However, I would like more info about Pennslyvania and about the primary challenges Specter faces, and Especially why Obama endorsed Specter, at this point Specter I would say is the most moderate among the democrats, (NOT COUNTING LIEMBERMAN).
Russ,
First, Obama's popularity isn't sky high by historic standards. The Real Clear average has it at 62 - very typical. Bush did as well. The policies are much less popular.
Second,you may have found Bush's spending "pointless". Others disagree, and we'll see how popular Obama's spending proves. But that's neither here nor there. The debt problem is not a relative one, its absolute. Bush had a surplus to spend, and he spent it. Obama has a reasonable large deficit to deal with, and he's making it much, much worse - risking inflation and currency collapse. His budgets are FAR bigger than those of Bush. His deficits are three to four times as large, by his own very rosy projections.
Third, FDR. When Dems are feeling optimistic, they compare Obama to Reagan. When they are drunk on optimism, they compare him to FDR. Obama will be lucky to replicate Reagan's success (economic boom and the most succesful foreign policy in generations). But FDR? You might as well use Jefferson as a point of comparison. For one thing, Obama is term limited. For another, the GOP will not be blamed for a depression because we are not in one. You Dems want it both ways. A depression to blame on the GOP, a recovery by late 2009 to boost Obama's popularity. The latter precludes the former. And if there is a depression, or inflation, Obama will not get a decade of political good will to deal with it. He'll be lucky to be reelected. The simple fact is that Bush left office with 8 percent unemployment, 2 percent inflation, and the country in a recession. If, in 2010 or 11, we have 9-10 percent inflation and rising inflation as well (i.e., Carter style Stagflation) despite spending our children's future's into oblivious, Obama will rightly be blamed. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama's popularity is of some special sort that will insulate him from this.
Look's like your rankings may be completely wrong already. The new Granite Poll by the University of NH shows Sununu beating Hodes in NH 46-41.
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2009_spring_congapp50409.pdf
YO NATE - some primary speculation
Word on the street is Rep. PAUL BROUN will primary Isakson in Georgia. Face it to the bat-shit insane, crazy, reactioanry Georgia GOP ...Isakson just isn't activist enough. Broun will most likely win this primary. The general, I don't know? Perhaps Broun is too far to the right for Georgia's entire electorate.
Also watch out for Governor Bob Riley to possibly take on Shelby in Alabama. Same as with Georgia, the 'Bama GOP is littered with far-right, backwoods type of people who think Shelby just isn't activist enough. Again Riley will win the primary and win the general.
The GOP will continue to cannibalize its own.
--Simple game plan for the GOP:
1. Crist. Take Florida off the list.
2. Convince Gregg to run again. Take NH off the list.
3. Ridge. Beat Specter.
5. Beat Dodd. Simmons or Shays could do it. People aren't just "pissed" at Dodd, Joel, he probably could be indited for crying out loud.
6. I don't understand why they don't target Dorgan. He's pretty liberal, and its a small state where they should be able to really mobilize. But perhaps not.
Split the rest of the list and we're even or plus one. Two years from now, the slate of reelects will be more favorable to GOP. The idea that that Dems will get to 64 or 5 Senate seats and hold them is absurd.
Meanwhile, I wish the Democrats would worry a bit more about governing and a bit less about grinding their opposition into dust.
Exhibit A:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/business/economy/04debt.html?ref=politic--
1. FL-Sen: You aren't aware of the possum game currently being played in that state. Wherever Charlie Crist goes, Alex Sink, the second most popular politician in the state, will not. Sink is waiting on Crist's decision. If Crist runs for Senate, Sink runs for FL-Gov and is at least a 5 point favorite to win. If Crist runs for reelection as guv, Sink runs for the Senate and the seat goes to Lean Dem at the minimum.
2. NH-Sen: As for Gregg, forget about it. Gregg retired because he saw his good friend John Sununu get hammered by Jeanne Shaheen. Gregg pretty much knows he will lose a 2010 Senate race against Paul Hodes, so he decided to retire to save his dignity.
3. PA-Sen: Ridge has to get through a primary against Toomey (unlikely at best), and Specter may have to survive a primary against Sestak. The best matchup for the Repubs is indeed Specter against Ridge, but we've got a long way to go, and the road to that isn't easy, especially considering how in love the PA GOP voters are with Toomey.
4. CT-Sen: Unfortunately, Dodd is toast, in my opinion...he is in almost the same position in CT as Paterson is in NYS.
5. The Repubs don't target Dorgan because Dorgan is an institution in that state...it would be like the Repubs trying to target Robert Byrd in WV when he still had all his faculties. However, they may go after Conrad in 2012, who is slightly more vulnerable, but not very.
It will be almost impossible for the Repubs to gain seats in 2010. They will have a better chance in 2012, but Obama's coattails may save a lot of those senators. 2014 is actually the year the Repubs need to look at...
. CT-Sen: Unfortunately, Dodd is toast, in my opinion...he is in almost the same position in CT as Paterson is in NYS.
Paterson-NYS was never elected Governor- He was elected Lt Governor along with Eliot Spitzer in 2006 and became Governor after Spitzer resigned from a sex scandal. Before Spitzer selected Paterson as his LG runningmate. I remember NYS Comptroller Tom Dinapoli who then was a NY State Assemblyman from Northshore-LI running for Lt Governor. Dinapoli became Comptroller after then Comptroller Alan Hevisi resigned from a scandal. Had Dinapoli been Spitzer's Lt Governor runningmate- He'd be Governor right now. Dinapoli would be a general election favorite in the 2010 NY Governor's race.
Regarding Chris Dodd-CT.
The last Democratic US Senator to lose re-election in the November General Election was Tom Daschle(SD)in 2004- Daschle was running against a popular former AT large US Housemember John Thune in a red state which Bush-43 carried in 2004 by a 20 point margin.
In 2002- Cleland-GA and Carnahan-MO who was running in a Special Election lost because of 9-11
In 2000- Robb-VA was a popular former Governor first elected to the US Senate in 1988 with 70% margin against an Alan Keyes type Republican opponent. Then in the early 1990's Robb was involved in scandals. In his 1994 re-election He narrowly won re-election against Ollie North by a 46-43-11 percent margin. The independent candidate Marshall Coleman a former Republican took 11%. In 2000- Robb was challenged against then popular former Governor George Allen- this was before the Macaca issue.
In 1998- Carol Mosely Braun of IL lost narrowly to little known Conservative State Senator Peter Fitzgerald because of the scandals involving Mosely Braun during her tenure in the US Senate. Braun was a first term US Senate who was elected in 1992 by unseating longtime Democratic US Senator Alan Dixon in the Primary due to Dixon's support for Clarence Thomas.
In 1994- James Sasser of TN who was a popular Senior US Senator lost re-election by a 15 percent margin to a wealthy heart surgeaon Bill Frist. Wofford-PA narrowly lost to Rick Santorum-PA.
nkpolitics1279 said...
Cardin(MD)is safe. Republicans don't have a candidate other than Ehrlich or Steele.Ehrlich is gunning to run for Governor again. That race will occur in 2010 against (most likely) current Governor Martin O'Malley.
Steele's credibility in Maryland is probably lower than anywhere else in the US. Reason? His history here. He was chairman of the state Republican party, then Lt. Gov. under Ehrlich. Then he lost to Ben Cardin by 10% in an open Senate seat race. Barbara Mikulski is a far more formidable candidate than Cardin, plus she's got the incumbency of four Senate terms behind her; and is an intensely popular politician, especially in the Baltimore Metro area and the DC suburbs. Steele has almost no chance against her. Or for that matter, NO GOOPer really has a chance to unseat Barbara.
As to the possible GOOPer contenders:
Current state Senator Andy Harris - the Club for Growth candidate in the MD-1 Congressional race in 2008. With the CfG backing him, his base of support is in MD-1 (Eastern Shore) and MD-6 (western Maryland, which is, politically, much more similar to Pennsylvania's 'T' than the rest of Maryland).
Current state Senator E. J. Pipkin - Mikulski's opponent in 2004, and who lost to Barbara by more than 31 points.
The GOOPer bench in Maryland is EXTREMELY depleted. Roscoe Bartlett (some village's lost idiot) is the only current GOOPer from Maryland in the House, and would easily lose in any state-wide race, even against any generic, unnamed Democratic opponent. Wayne Gilchrest has now retired from politics after his loss to Harris in the 2008 MD-1 GOOPer primary. Other than Harris and Pipkin, there really is no other member of the Maryland General Assembly or state Senate who has any name-recognition in any significant portion of the state, and of those who have any name recognition at all, they're known for their reactionary views (Alex X. Mooney, for instance).
So by saying "Republicans don't have a candidate other than Ehrlich or Steele" is actually incorrect, as even Ehrlich and Steele aren't even candidates - one by choice, one by past history.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Oh, and nkpolitics1279?
You do realize that it is Barbara Mikulski up for reelection in 2010, not Ben Cardin, don't you?
And here I was under the impression that you were the omniscient one, who absolutely knew who was going to run, and who was going to win.
Guess I can scratch 'omniscient' off my list of of adjectives that describe you.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Obama has a reasonable large deficit to deal with, and he's making it much, much worse - risking inflation and currency collapse.Doubtful. Anyway, economic recession is no time to ease up on spending; it's a time for big investments to galvanize. Particularly, in this case, since the global financial markets were allowed to become such a mess and have to be sorted out.
You cut deficits when times are good; Bush didn't. The proper thing to do in 2000 would have been to start reinvesting in programs and paying down the national debt. Instead, he blew it all in favour of tax cuts for the super-rich. Now that a recession has it, you can't change course on spending like that.
For one thing, Obama is term limited.The latter's not really relevant to hopes for economic reform; FDR made basically all his major economic reforms in his first two terms (his first term, even).
@ In 2012, Shelley Moore Capito (no hyphen, please, Moore is her maiden name) may be forced by national Reps to run for Governor, not Senate. Because she is one of the more moderate R's in congress, and the true believers would not want her in the Senate. They can find a more conservative Senate candidate -- but maybe not get him or elected against Joe Manchin.
Oh, and what is so awful about Michael Bennet? Enquiring minds want to know...
Mike in Maryland you douchebag do me a favor and drop dead?
Have you read my previous blog you douchebag?
In 2012- The 2006 Democratic Freshman Class US Senators.
Cardin(MD)
Klobuchar(MN)
McCaskill(MO)
Tester(MT)
Menendez(NJ)
Brown(OH)
Casey(PA)
Whitehouse(RI)
Sanders(VT)
Webb(VA).
Cardin(MD)is safe. Republicans don't have a candidate other than Ehrlich or Steele.
I mentioned that Cardin is up for re-election in 2012- since he was part of the 2006 freshman class.
About Ehrlich running for Governor. He seeks a rematch against O'Malley in 2010 loses. His career in elected politics ends. It is doubtful he challenges Cardin in 2012.
Steele resigns his position as RNC after Republicans getting spanked in the 2010 midterm elections. Too stay revelant- he seeks a rematch against Cardin.
Do you think Andy Harris- who cannot win in a Safe Republican MD-1 US House district? or EJ Pipkin who lost to Mikulski in 2004 by a 30 point margin or Roscoe Bartlett who is over 80 are top tier US Senate candidates. Might as well get Alan Keyes to run.
1. NH - I agree with Nate that this may be closer than we thought due to Hodes' lackluster fundraising. Hopefully he can pick it up. It seems like the GOP's best candidate in NH is gunning for Carol Shea-Porter's House seat. Judd Gregg has retired and I doubt NH's will have any more sympathy for his flip-flopping. John Sununnu doesn't even live in NH anymore.
2. MO - Robin Carnahan is a wonderful candidate. Roy Blunt and Sarah Steelman will probably have a divisive Republican primary. MO always has close races and has been trending Republican on a presidential level. But McCaskill won the other Senate seat in 2006 and Nixon won the governorship in 2008. A hard race to judge but looking good for Dems.
3. CT - No idea. Dodd's polling numbers are horrible compared to Simmons. But his fundraising is crushing Simmons. Dodd needs to either stop being in the news or do something really, really good if he hopes to pull this off.
4. KY - If Bunning doesn't retire then this is a Democratic win. If Bunning does retire then this will be a tossup. Hopefully Bunning will stay in the race and we can have another southern Democratic senator.
5. OH - If Brunner's fundraising continues to be weak, she should drop out and run for reelection as Ohio's Secretary of State. I agree with Nate's analysis here except one more month of Portman's dynamic fundraising and I would almost call him the the frontrunner.
6. FL - A weird state. No one knows.
7. NC - Cooper would be foolish not to jump in the race. While Burr is a much better candidate than Dole, his polling numbers are horrible and no one likes him. NC has been trending blue lately as well.
8. DE - If Mike Castle enters the race then this will be much closer than I thought. Beau Biden needs to get back from Iraq and start campaigning if he wants this seat.
Island Liberal,
You cut deficits when times are good. Fine. I'll ignore the fact that, for Dems, 9/11, 2 wars, and a recession in 01 apparently constitute "good times". Explain this: why does Obama predict near trillion dollar deficits alongside absurd, China-like 6% growth in the out years of his own budget.
Spin all you want folks, the budget is a complete disaster fiscally.
Jeff: He'll be lucky to be reelected....If, in 2010 or 11, we have 9-10 percent inflation and rising inflation as well (i.e., Carter style Stagflation) despite spending our children's future's into oblivious, Obama will rightly be blamed. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama's popularity is of some special sort that will insulate him from this.
I don't think most people are claiming that Obama would be insulated, so that's a straw man argument.
It seems to me that your assessment on Obama's prospects is based on economic predictions for over three years from now. If your crystal ball is so good, I'd advise making investments now because you'll be a wealthy man. Otherwise, that "if" part of the scenario is pretty darn speculative, so I don't know how one can say now that Obama would be "lucky" to get reelected. Really, how confidently can one say what the economy will be next year, much less in three years?
As for the fiscal issues, I do have some concern. The problem is that Republicans didn't put forward any plan for dealing with our problems that were any more fiscally responsible. Their "stimulus" was more tax cuts that were unsustainable in the long term and also resulted in massive debt.
Now, it may not be necessary for Republicans to put forward a responsible plan. Democrats won back Congress in 2006 not with an agenda of their own but by running against the Iraq war, Katrina, gas prices, and corruption. Waiting for failure can be a viable strategy when the other party has the burden of actually governing.
But if there isn't a complete failure (and I doubt there will be) and if people thing progress is being made on issues they care about (health care), then the party out of power had better have some alternatives. I haven't seen them yet.
nkpolitics1279 said...What about Todd Akin MO-2. or Sam Graves-MO-6. can they give McCaskill a competitive Race.
No, I don't think so. The rural areas are fairly compartmentalized in terms of congressional districting. Kenny Hulshof, who had some level of name recognition and was truly a good candidate put up by the Republicans for governor got blown out. Granted, it was a Democratic election nationally, McCain still carried Missouri as the Democrat Nixon did, too.
I don't think Graves or Akin will be able to overcome the same compartmentalization problem that Hulshof faced.
I'm sure you know and just typed something else - but McCaskill was just elected to a full term in the Senate. Robin Carnahan will run for the seat being vacated next year by Kit "Busch Light" Bond.
-+-
The Republicans need to build within the state structure before they can be competitive statewide at the federal level for Senate.
dsimon.
I disagree that my argument set up a straw man. That Obama is "well-liked" and will continue, for years, to benefit from "Blame Bush" is a regular meme on this and other web sites. In my view there is a great deal of admiration for Obama on the left, but some underlying concern as to whether his policies are correct and will succeed. Hence this kind of morale boosting. Will he bring on inflation? I don't know, of course, but I think it is a very serious risk which, among other things, is a political death sentence.
The stimulus question is a red herring. I'll stipulate that we needed a budget busting stimulus this year. Obama's was very poorly designed (it is not temporary or timely, as promised), but let's leave that aside. The real problem are the systematic spending increases he is planning, without any offsetting revenues. The projections are insane - not even ball park. The debt they would heap on future generations is outrageous. Pretending that such debt wouldn't require much higher taxes is fundamentally dishonest.
Finally, whether his policy achievements will prove popular or not is an open question. "Health care" and "environment" poll well, but specific policies tend to address them tend to be unpopular.
Jeff: That Obama is "well-liked" and will continue, for years, to benefit from "Blame Bush" is a regular meme on this and other web sites.
As I wrote before, I don't think it's wise to take posts on web sites as representative of the community as a whole. Otherwise, there's a lot of pretty wacko stuff one could attribute to the right--which I won't do, because I don't think the web is necessarily representative of Republicans generally.
Will he bring on inflation? I don't know, of course, but I think it is a very serious risk which, among other things, is a political death sentence.
If you don't know, then how can you say Obama will be "lucky" to get reelected? Of course it's a risk. But if we're playing probabilities, then predictions should be qualified accordingly. If you're sure, then start making those investments now because you'll make a bundle. But if one is hesitating at making those investments, then maybe it's time to pull back on the prediction a bit.
The debt they would heap on future generations is outrageous. Pretending that such debt wouldn't require much higher taxes is fundamentally dishonest.
I agree that the trend is not sustainable. But Republicans have the same problem: they keep proposing tax cuts without anywhere near the requisite spending cuts, resulting in similar debt burdens. Neither side wants to ask the public to make hard choices, so both sides duck the issue themselves and put the cost on the national credit card.
The only way out, as I see it, is to stop demonizing "the government" as some kind of alien entity. "The government" doesn't tax us; we're supposed to tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. When we remove that divide between us and "the government" that I think developed the 1980s, then we can have a real discussion about what we do and don't want government to do and what we do and don't want to pay for. But it's not going to happen as long as one side keeps pushing the "government is the problem" mantra and absolves the voters of responsibility for the policies we have.
I think it's notable that under the version of the budget that Congress passed, the middle class tax cuts are for only two years. And there's a fairly simple way to keep a crushing debt burden from the next generation: a vow to start paying it back ourselves when the economy is better. I don't have the numbers, but it may not take "much" higher taxes to do so, and much may depend on how the economy does in the next few years.
"Health care" and "environment" poll well, but specific policies tend to address them tend to be unpopular.
I've seen polls within the last year or two stating that large numbers of the electorate are willing to pay more in taxes if it will lead to universal health care, so specific policies may not be as unpopular as you think. And our present system isn't exactly getting high marks.
Democratic Senator Bennett in Colorado is seen as vulnerable here in his home state. Public knowledge about him is weak and a lot of Democrats I talk to would feel much more comfortable with a candidate like Denver Mayor Hickenlooper. Former speaker of the Colorado state house Andrew Romanoff has also not ruled out the possibility of mounting a primary challenge.
Ken "The Falconer" Mortimer -
I was talking about the 2012 US Senate Races not the 2010 US Senate Race.
Robin Carnahan is going to handily win the 2010 MO US Senate race against GOP nominee Roy Blunt.
But in 2012. All of the freshman Democratic US House members who were elected in 2006 Midterm election which was a pro Democratic year are up for re-election in 2012. That includes Claire McCaskill- MO. The 2006 Democratic freshman class which narrowly won. McCaskill-MO,Tester-MT,and Webb-VA are favored to win re-election due to weak GOP opposition.
Another possible Gubenatorial candidate in Maryland is Anne Arundel County Executive, John R. Leopold. He was in the MD House of Delegates from 1983 to 1990 and 1995 to 2006 and has served as AA County Executive since 2006.
I *really* doubt that Alex M. Mooney will run for Governor. Mooney represents the most populated area (Frederick) of Bartlett's (MD-06) district in the MD Senate and was a staff assistant to Bartlett. When Bartlett retires (Bartlett is 82), Mooney will be *very* well prepared to run for his seat, and I'm pretty sure he's going to get it.
Note, any attempt to redistrict Maryland to keep Mooney from grabbing that seat would change the Maryland congressional districts into Modern Art (not that MD-2 and MD-3 are that far away from it anyway)
@nkpolitics1279
That makes sense. I hadn't thought of that. No, I don't see it (Republicans mounting a real challenge to McCaskill) happening and the reason is essentially what I have already outlined combined with the fact that virtually all statewide state-level offices were just filled in 2008: no Republican will have enough statewide stature to run a serious campaign that starts from a congressional seat.
The cupboard is bare for the GOP in Missouri.
I see Sarah Steelman defeating Roy Blunt in a contentious primary challenge for Bond's seat; only to lose to Carnahan in a walk.
After that... it is anyone's guess as to who has enough clout to emerge from the primary field in 2012.
IF there is a Republican to challenge for the nomination in 2012, it will probably be a businessman outside of the political establishment from suburban St. Louis or Kansas City.
2012- is also a redistricting year. A Republican US House member whose seat is likely to get eliminated may be forced to run for the US Senate.
Looking at the poll in DE. which has Castle(R) leading Biden(D) by a 55-34 point margin. This poll has more to do with name recognition
Castle has won 12 statewide Elections in DE.
Lt Governor in 1980, Governor in 1984 and 1988, at Large US House Seat in 1992,1994,1996,1998,2000,2002,2004,2006 and 2008. The lowest Castle-R recieved in any of his statewide races was 55%
Beau Biden was narrowly elected DE AG in 2006 by a 53-47 percent margin.
Whoever wins the 2010 DE US Senate Race will have to face voters in 2014. If Castle-R wins in 2010. He is likely to retire in 2014. Then Beau Biden runs again for the US Senate in 2014 and becomes a shoe in since the the GOP Party is weak in DE other than Castle. If Biden wins in 2010, he handily wins re-election in 2014,2020,2026,2032,2038.
@nkpolitics1279
Missouri is highly likely to lose a seat in 2012, but, oddly enough, I imagine that it would be Ike Skelton's (D) district that gets chopped-up. All the other districts are fairly compact. But the district Skelton, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, represents, has Missouri's two military bases in it - Whiteman AFB and Ft Leonard Wood. It sprawls from suburban Kansas City to just about 110 miles from St Louis across the southern-central portion of the state. The other four rural districts are locked into the corners of the state (all are Republican) and the rest are in KC and STL.
To make matters worse for Dems in the redistricting, their poor handling of the process (combined with term limits) virtually turned the entire statehouse over to the Republicans 10 years ago. I'm not sure matters will be better this time around.
Grassley has been given one more term by Obama appointing Vilsack. Grassley is somewhat moderate on many social issues, anyway, like SCHIP. He's a fiscally conservative "supply-sider", yes, but that's irrelevant as most budgetary bills are fast-tracked, anyway, and not subject to filibuster. So, no need to dump him. Keeping him around until 2016 means that Culver can run for his seat after being term limited.
What I'd really like to see is Sebelius being replaced by someone like Dean at HHS and getting a run at Brownback's seat. That could be the 7th pick-up as well. It's no longer an issue of getting to 60 as Specter has solved that little problem - it's now about getting to 67, so that Senate rules can be changed to remove the threat of filibusters for the foreseeable future. If Dems are serious about that goal, then they'll need pickups in NH, OH, KY, MO, KS, NC and one more to finish off the GOP for the next decade at least. I'd suggest TN in 2012 or AZ if Napolitano can be freed up and/or Ford decides not to run for Gov.
The issue in FL is that anybody but Jeb Bush is a move in the Dems' direction. No GOP wingnut other than Rush himself stands a chance in the primary and the general both - the result will be Martinez-like in a moderate Repub.
-Jeff
The CT race will tighten: Simmons is a relative unknown, so polling of a Dodd-Simmons race is really polling for a referendum on Dodd. As more people realize that Simmons is a Republican with little going for him except that he's not Dodd, they'll inch away from him.
Bunning's not so lucky. If his 2004 campaign performance and his behavior recently are any guide, he'll make tons of gaffes that will throw the election to the Democrat of your choice. If he gets primaried, I'd say tossup-the likeliest candidate after Bunning is GOP SOS Trey Grayson, who is basically tied in polling. Since Kentucky's a relatively cheap state and shares the Cincinnati media market with Ohio, the NRSC should put money and people here.
McCain is totally safe. Janet Napolitano's at DHS now, she'd need to have started campaigning already to have a chance at beating McCain. Unless he's nailed with multiple scandals, McCain can survive a race with any Democratic statewide official, mayor or congressman. Gov. Janet Brewer, a VERY CONSERVATIVE Republican, is a more attractive target.
I have a hard time believing that the pro-business republicans in California would support Carly Fiorina, someone who was fired from Hewlett-Packard for incompetence. Meg Whitman is the CEO of a successful business, Carly drove one into the ground.
The top four seats for Democratic pickup are:
1) NH
2) MO
3) OH
4) NC
Democrats have no chance in FL, if Charlie Crist runs. Crist could beat anyone. Also, Bunning has announced he is not running for re-election which means that in the strongly conservative state of Kentucky this won't be any easy seat for a Democrat to take..
My bet is the DEMS take all four...NH, MO, OH are open...In NC Burr is very unpoular....My bet is the combination of a massive voter registration drive lead by Obama, and a large group of new voters that are overwhelmingly Democrat could give all these Democratic candidates 5 points very easily with this alone.
MO- is like the 2006 PA US Senate Race. Carnahan-D is like Bob Casey Jr-Pa. a popular statewide elected official and a kin of a popular former elder statesman political figure. Blunt or Steelman is like Santorum- a wingnut Republican.
OH- is like the 2006 OH US Senate Race. Fisher-D or Brunner-D are like Sherrod Brown-OH- a generic Democratic Statewide elected official running against an unpopular Republican- Rob Portman whose political views on Economic and Trade Issues are unpopular in Ohio- similar to DeWine.
NH- is like the 2006 RI US Senate Race. Hodes-D is a generic Democratic statewide elected official running against a high profile Moderate Republican- Charlie Bass or John Sununu. Hodes is favored to defeat either Bass or Sununu by a high single digit margin.
KY is like the 2006 MT US Senate Race. Conway or Mongiardo-D are top tier Democratic candidates running against a senile Republican incumbent in a red state.
FL is like the 2006 TN US Senate Race. Meek is a credible Democratic candidate like Harold Ford Jr. but is an underdog in the General Election against a Moderate Republican. Charlie Crist.
NC is like the 2006 VA US Senate Race. A third or second tier challenger like Grier Martin unseats an unpopular foot in mouth diesease GOP incumbent in a purple state.
Dems pick up MO,OH,NH,KY,and NC.
I really wish that people would understand Louisiana politics before they comment about them. In Louisiana there are no primaries. Typically, two or more Democrats will run against one Republican. This obviously would lead to a split and diminished vote, even before Katrina and Rita. The reasons a Democratic candidate would win, would be based of money and the power to force other Democratic opponents out.
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