Democratic Targets in the Senate, August Update

Although Democrats are down five seats plus the tiebreaker in the Senate, and even though they have to defend more seats than Republican in 2006, our chances to make pickups actually don't look that bad right now. In particular, most of the Senators with low approval ratings who are up for re-election seem to be Republicans. Also, we already have most of our candidates in place in the best contests, with only Missouri, Nevada and Ohio still lacking. Finally, incompetence plus the Gang of 14 deal is absolutely killing the NRSC in fundraising and general connection to the Republican base. Right now, I see eight possible targets (June ranking in parenthesis):
  • 1. (2) Mike DeWine is extremely vulnerable with a weak 44 / 43 approval rating. Of course, that is not the only reason he is vulnerable. As one of the Gang of 14, DeWine doesn't have many friends in the Republican base and grassroots. After his son was crushed in the Republican primary for OH-02, every Republican blog that wrote about it blamed Son of DeWine's defeat on DeWine being a member of the Gang of 14. Even further, as Hackett proved with an 11-point swing in OH-02, Ohio is clearly becoming increasingly disgusted with the Taft and other scandal-plagued Republicans who have run the state into the ground. Finally, no matter who DeWine's opponent is, Sherrod Brown, Tim Ryan or Paul Hackett, he will be facing a serious, serious challenger. The only poll on the race, by the DSCC, showed him at only 42%, but up six on Brown. Overall, I really think DeWine is toast. Of course, none of the three Dems I listed could run, making me look like an idiot. We shall see.

  • 2. (1) Rick Santorum, with a paltry 45 / 44. His extreme vulnerability has already been discussed. Poll after poll shows him in a lot of trouble against Casey. Things haven't improved for Santorum, but the dramatic events in Ohio last week just made things a lot worse for Mike DeWine.

  • 3. (3) Lincoln Chafee. Chafee is once again looking vulnerable after receiving something of a respite from the NARAL endorsement and Langevin dropping out. Recent polling shows that he is still in a lot of trouble, especially against Whitehouse. Whitehosue also has managed to equal Chafee in cash on hand, and nearly doubled him up in 2Q fundraising. However, with a 53 / 39 approval rating, defeating Chafee will not be the slam dunk it once seemed with Langevin.

  • 4. (5) Jim Talent is also in danger, with a 48 / 38 approval rating. After losing the state legislature, a Senate seat, the Governorship, and sliding in the partisan index, we need to turn things around in Missouri ASAP. An April poll by the DSCC on the subscriber section of polling report showed 2004 Democratic Governor nominee Claire McCaskill in a 43-43 dead heat with Talent, which would make McCaskill a slight favorite. Apparently, she will announce her intentions soon. Hurry up Claire--without you, this race almost drops off the radar.

  • 5. (4) Conrad Burns is in some trouble with a 50 / 42 rating. The scandals are starting to pile up for Burns as well (here and here), which has forced the NRSC to scramble and try to threaten television stations in Montana who dare accept advertisements pointing out his scandals. Hard to imagine that such an absurd tactic will help Burns out in any way. Still, while Burns is vulnerable, polling still shows him right at the tipping point, but not quite below it (yet). Also, this is a contested primary, so we will have to wait and see. Still, a lot of people in the blogosphere really like John Tester's chances.

  • 6. (8) Jon Kyl. Kyl can also be beat, with his approval rating only at 49 / 31, and his re-elect also under 50. Jim Pederson is in the race now, so we don't have to worry about money. This is a possibility, but still not top tier (yet). We will have to see what kind of a candidate Pederson is.

  • 7. (6) Frist's open seat. Frist was really socked following the nuclear option debacle, dropping his approval to just 51 / 39 (from 58 / 32). The Republican base hates his guts now, but he isn't running again. Instead, he's running for President, where he will drop out before Super Tuesday (you heard it here first). Looking at the new race, like a lot of southern states, Tennessee is sliding toward Republicans, and Democrats will be facing an interesting primary, so this will be tough. However, this is an open seat, so it remains a target.

  • 8. (7) John Ensign. Considering Ensign's anemic 49 / 34 approval rating, he's still on the list for now. However, it's about time we get a candidate in to challenge him. This is getting kind of ridiculous--I haven't even heard names seriously floated, or seen any hypothetical polling on the race. Come on Harry Reid, this is your home state! If we are really going to challenge to retake the Senate, shouldn't you start helping out at home? Find someone.

  • The seemingly invulnerable: George Allen (VA), Orin Hatch (UT), Kay Hutchinson (TX), Trent Lott (MS), Richard Lugar (IN), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Craig Thomas (WY). Allen has been downgraded to seemingly invulnerable because I see no indication that Warner will run for his seat. I guess that being a Senator is something of a downgrade from being Governor anyway. Why not move upward instead?
We will have a permanent Senate 2006 page soon. I'll post about the seats Republicans are targeting tomorrow. I still don't think we really have any chance to retake the Senate in 2006, but I am feeling more optimistic about our chances to pick up seats than ever before.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Comments

97 Comments

I guess you weren't kidding
When you said you were working hard. That's what I like. That's what we all like. How many of these folks will show up in Crawford? How many are real Americans?
by goplies 2005-08-10 04:00PM | 0 recs
We'd need 6 out of those 8
To retake the Senate. But because Kyl and Ensign seem like long shots to me at this point, I think it'll be really tough. I'm awfully encouraged about unseating DeWine and Burns given recent events, though.

Great post. You're on fire today, Chris!

by abramcf 2005-08-10 04:13PM | 0 recs
Retaking the Senate
Excellent analysis!  I agree with almost everything you said (I don't think Ensign's beatable, at least not yet), and want to add something on the "retaking the senate" thing: we have not only pick up six of these eight, we also have to not lose any.  While no one should worry about us here in WI (Sen. Kohl is to WI what Sen. Corzine was to NJ: a self-funder who's popular and pretty much unbeatable), we need to watch for losing the open seat in MN, anything can happen in MD, and if the GOP does manage to knock off Harris, we might still have a fight in FL.  I'm predicting we pick up three seats: we beat Santorum, DeWine, Chafee, and Talent, and lose Mark Dayton's seat.  Or that we also pick off Sen. Burns, but we lose MI because they pick a strong team for Gov/Senate.  Just my prediction.  Still, puts us in a good spot for 2008.  We just did too well in 2000 picking off the class of 1994 to make any appreciable gains this time around.
by LaX WI 2005-08-10 04:26PM | 0 recs
PS
of their targets, I don't know why they're wasting their time in NY or WV: Sen. Clinton's already won, and they're going to have Keyesean situation there soon (let's remember: IL was an embarassing joke to the GOP last year, while no one talked about ID, where we didn't send a guy (well, he was a write-in).  The lesson: it's better to be beat by 99% than to be beat by 80%).  As for WV, when Sen. Byrd dies, they'll rename the state after him ('cause let's face it: West Virginia's a pretty stupid name for a state, and not as cool as Byrdland), since approximately 95% of it's infrastucture already has his name somewhere on it.  How the hell does the old KKK charge stick when

#1:It's been known, but the people of WV still voted for him for half a century, and it's not like the Dems are the party of encouraging that kind of behavior, anyway and

#2:Sen. Obama sent out a fundraising piece for him.  If the only black senator can forgive Sen. Byrd, I think that people are willing to call the past the past (also there's something to be said for the historian of the senate, it's oldest member, being supported by the Great Blue Hope, it's youngest member-- that was a great move by the DSCC!)

by LaX WI 2005-08-10 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: PS
" and it's not like the Dems are the party of encouraging that kind of behavior, anyway and"

The Southern Dems are very well known for encouraging that type of behavior.  South of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi, there was essentially no Republican party between 1856 and 1968.  This wasn't becasuse of tarriff policy

by Valatan 2005-08-11 05:07AM | 0 recs
Michigan
"('cause let's face it: West Virginia's a pretty stupid name for a state, and not as cool as Byrdland)"

Is anyone else humming the tune "Birdland" by Weather Report? Heh.

Anyway...

"Or that we also pick off Sen. Burns, but we lose MI because they pick a strong team for Gov/Senate."

While Debbie Stabenow isn't safe yet, I'm not expecting a very strong team. With Rep. Candice Miller out, Granholm will probably be up against Dick DeVos. He's got money, but he's also got a closet full of skeletons. Our governor is weak, but I'm feeling a little bit better about the race without Miller in it.

For Stabenow, the GOP has had a really tough time finding candidates. Jane Abraham was supposed to be the savior, but she decided not to try for it this year. So it looks like the primary will be Rev. Keith Butler vs. Rev. Jerry Zandstra. And Butler will probably win.

Butler's supposed to be a charismatic guy, he's African American, and he's won a city council spot in Detroit before-- hard for a Republican to do. If he managed to win a large chunk of Detroit, plus Republican West Michigan, he could win. But I don't see that happening, really. The Michigan GOP has had a little trouble getting things together lately, and if Butler has to run a tough primary campaign, it'll hurt him. Plus, the primary isn't until August 2006, so that leaves him very little time to move to the center and redefine himself to other voters.

It'll take some work, but I think Michigan's safe.

by Fitzy 2005-08-11 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Retaking the Senate
Toss up: Wide open.
Lean Dem: Small Dem. win.
Likely Dem: Probibly Democratic win.
Safe Dem: No hope for the Republicans here.
Lean Rep: Small Rep. win.
Likely Rep: Probibly Republican.
Safe Rep: No hope for Democrats here.

Democrats: MI is Likely Dem. the GOP in that state sucks WA is also Likely Dem. same in FL   cause Harris is locked in. Maryland will stay with the Democrats becuse the Republican Govenor of the state will sink the GOP statewide. West Virgina will be safe if the Democrats shield Bryd with money right now i sould say likely Dem. for Bryd. Nebraska Looks better with no good GOP candidate i would say lean Dem. at least. MN is the only real race i worry about i want to see right now it is in between toss up and lean Republican. Republicans: i think PA and OH are right now some where between Likely and Lean Dem.  in RI i would say toss up since no Dem Leans Chaffe yet but his approval sucks. TN,MT, and MO are Lean Republican NV,AZ and VA are Likely Republican the Rest are safe i wish the Dems. would try in MS, and ME in Maine the state voted for Kerry by 10 points and i have heard nothing from snowe (i may have missed it saying) i will run for Reelection in 2006. if she doesn't it is wide open if she does we should still make her work for it in MS the Former Democratic Govenor should run he could put up a fight and i expect the African-American turnout will be high becuse of what Lott said back in 03'. right now they are Safe Republican.

by Liberal 2005-08-10 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Retaking the Senate
Don't worry about Minnesota. Any candidate with half a brain will be able to paint Rep. Kennedy as the extreme conservative that he is.
by Hannula 2005-08-10 06:30PM | 0 recs
The Minnesota Race
I don't think I would be so cavalier about the MN race. It is going to be hard fought, and neither side has a lock on the contest. Heck, we don't even know who's running yet. But, based on the assumption that it will be Rep. Kennedy vs. Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar, here's my take on the race:

Name Recognition: Klobuchar is very well known and popular in the Twin Cities area; she may well even siphon off a few Republican voters. Outside the metro area, I would think most people have no clue who she is. As a 3-term rep, Kennedy probably enjoys more widespread name recognition, although that's really just a guess on my part.

Experience: at the national level, a 3-term rep trumps a county attorney. Amy basically has one issue: crime; while she's good - very good - in this arena, she doesn't have much else to run on.

$$$: Amy doesn't have a lot; she will require a ton of contributions, and the party will have to dump a lot her way.

The Dayton fatique issue: Dayton is worthless - he knows it and we all know it (there's a reason why he ain't running again). Whether that reflects poorly on Klobuchar remains to be seen.

The "balance" factor: MN loves to have 1 Senator from each party representing it (Wellstone/Dayton was an anomoly). I see that as a big advantage for Klobuchar.

The sportsman angle: Klobuchar is an advocate of gun control; Kennedy is an avid sportman, and has the endorsement of the NRA. Being anti-gun does not play well in rural MN. Expect a lot of NRA support for Kennedy.

Well, that's a good start. It's going to be an interesting race. Klobuchar will easily win the Minneapolis/St. Paul core, as well as the Iron Range; Kennedy will enjoy a big advantage throughout his congressional district, most of the Twin Cities suburbs, and rural MN. I say it's going to be tight and I have no clue what the outcome will be at this point. Stay tuned to this one...

BTW, I would love to know what makes Kennedy an extreme conservative in your opinion.

by RepTroll 2005-08-11 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The Minnesota Race
Amy Klobudhar has excellent state wide name recognition through her Father.  For years he wrote a folksy column that appeared in the Sunday Papers that covered greater Minnesota -- he was something of a cross between Garrison Keillor and Charles Kuralt.  He is and will be campaigning with Amy in Greater Minnesota, and is a terrific asset to the campaign.  It doesn't create any sort of lock on votes -- but it does assure that events will be well attended, and those events will be filled with Minnesota Lore and Humor.  

For any DFL'er, the strategy for winning is to maximize total turnout votes in the Twin Cities, do very well in the 8th District (NE Minnesota which includes the Iron Range), and then pick off what you can in the rest of the state -- redicing the Republican margin.  Amy has a real advantage in one Republican Congressional District, the Third -- because a good deal of it is in Hennepin County, and she has done well there in her last County attorney races.  If that carries over into the Senate Race, it will be a real asset.  

I see very few DFL'ers who would cross over and vote for Kennedy -- but suspect a good many moderate Republicans in the suburbs are persuadable.  The Minnesota Republican Party just had a coup on the part of the far right -- the former Christian Coalition head won the chairmanship over the opposition of the Governor, and most elected officials.  There may well be residuals from that.  

The problems I see are on the margins.  Someone will probably run on Jesse Ventura's party line -- the Independence Party, and that can draw from the center -- particularly in Anoka County.  Likewise it looks as if there may be a primary by the self-funder Doyle even if Amy gets a clean endorsement at convention.  That means the DFL will have to mount a GOTV effort in the primary in early September.  But sometimes the necessity of doing that can be an asset -- we had to do it in 1990 for Wellstone, and it was very healthy for our general election organizational effort.  

By the way -- Minnesota does not really have a pattern of one of each party for its Senators.  In the 50's and 60's the senators were called Hubert Humphrey and Gene McCarthy -- and that team lasted nearly 20 years. (with Humphrey replaced by Mondale). Then in the 80's we had the duo of Boschwitz and Durenberg -- both Republicans.  Instead, I would suggest that Minnesota predicts national trends as in 1978 the Republican wins predicted Reagan in 1980.  

by Sara 2005-08-11 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Minnesota Race
Amy Klobudhar has excellent state wide name recognition through her Father

Jim Klobuchar will have an effect on older voters, but I doubt many younger people even have a clue who he is.

Amy has a real advantage in one Republican Congressional District, the Third...

I don't know that I would put that much hope in MN03; it's heavily Republican - Rep. Ramstad wins there by large margins (65% to 35% last time around). Like I said, she will surely get some crossover, but I would bet it won't be a lot. 'Course, I could be wrong about that; Amy's popularity could cause a larger shift; and her constant (free) exposure on TV can't hurt either.

The problems I see are on the margins

Can't argue w/ that; the Independents could throw a wrench into the whole thing.

Likewise it looks as if there may be a primary by the self-funder Doyle even if Amy gets a clean endorsement at convention.

If this does happen, look for the Republicans to flock to the polls to vote for Doyle in the primary; especially if Kennedy is a lock and Klobuchar looks threatening. This has been an effective strategy in the past; knock off the front-runner in the primary and then slaughter 'em in the general.

Minnesota does not really have a pattern of one of each party for its Senators

I was referring to recent history; the "balance" thing is the only way I can reconcile having both the most liberal Senator (Wellstone) and the most conservative (Grams) at the same time.

Anyway, I still think Amy is going to need a more well-rounded platform, but that's just my take.

by RepTroll 2005-08-11 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Minnesota more ?
And our worthy candidate
who ran against Rep Kennedy
for that House seat he'll
now be opening up by running
for Senate -- sorry, I forget
her name due to early onset Alzie --
but has she decided at last
to drop out of the Senate race
to try again for that House seat?
If so I missed the good news.

Damn, if we had half the English
system, half the party discipline
they have, the Party Leader would
sit down with the worthy candidate,
explain how the cow ate the cabbage:
"We need you to run again, for the
now-open House seat, where you
have good name recognition and
an existing organization. We think
you can win it this time, and we'll
send big $ to help, big time. But we
need you to drop out of the Senate
contest to clear the way and unify
support for our leading candidate.
If you win the House seat, you'll
get sweet committee assignments.
If you lose again, when we win
the Presidency in 2008, we'll try
to find you a nice spot in the new
Administration.

But in the American way, anyone
can force a party-dividing, effort-
squandoring, fund-raising-and-
wasting primary contest.

I'm not in Minnesota, so it's sort
of not my problem. But I just hate
to see Democrats' time, money,
talent, and effort wasted with two
worthy contenders for the Senatorial
nomination. And an added cost
in this case is that we'll likely
lose competiveness in that
now-open House race as well.
Ugh.

by Woody 2005-08-11 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Minnesota more ?
I assume you're talking about Patty Wetterling. Well, according to her web site, she's still running. And, she has a poll to show that she's 9 points ahead of Kennedy statewide as opposed to Klobuchar, who is essentially tied. 'Course, the poll doesn't break down the 600-person sample into any demographics, so it's hard to draw any real conclusions.

But, in any case, it looks like she is still in. Apparently she thinks - and this poll seems to back this up - that even though she lost by 10% to Kennedy in the House race, she can beat him statewide, because MN06 slants to the right so much. So, she doesn't appear to have any incentive to drop out - at least not now.

It is true that Wetterling has huge name recognition pretty much anywhere in the state, but she has some pretty big downsides too. She has no experience whatsoever at any level (I still think she should start at the state level and work her way up) and she too is a one-trick pony. Her only real issue (albeit an extremely important one) is missing and exploited children (her own son was abducted and has been missing for about 15 years now). It's difficult to say if she ride this one issue to victory. The thing is, it's hard to criticize someone like Patty (Kennedy took big heat for doing so in the House race) due to the overwhelming sympathy everyone feels for her, so her lack of experience might not be as big an issue as it would be for someone else.

As for her running for the MN06 House seat again, I don't think the Republicans would let Kennedy try for Senate if they didn't think they could still retain his former House seat. It would be a gamble for her to try it again, but she would definately fare better running for an open seat.

by RepTroll 2005-08-11 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Minnesota more ?
eh i put Minnesota between lean rep. and toss up becuse there is no clear Democratic Nominee and Kennedy might be able to get swing voters from MN-06 i dobut it but we will see once a Dem. Nominee is in it will probibly be better for the Dems. i have'nt seen very many up to date numbers anyone have any?
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Minnesota more ?
Perhaps for non-Minnesota DFL'ers, I need to explain a bit about our system.  We begin the cadidate choice process next March in Precinct caucuses.  Then through a county and District set of conventions, we select State Delegates -- and they have a convention in mid June, where they make an endorsement.  The caucus-convention process puts very heavy emphasis on organizational skills. -- so between now and March the name of the game is finding Precinct organizers, and helping them spin up interest in the candidate and campaign.  

State Convention is about getting 60R of about 1300 delegates.  Also important to remember that we have to endorse a Governor, Sec of State, Attorney General for statewide office -- so many delegates are going to be more stromgly motivated by a different race.  

OK -- the Primary is then in early September, so if the endorsed candidate has a primary challenge, the actual General Election campaign is only seven weeks long.  

I think we have an interesting candidate for the Sixth Congressional District.  He was a DFL'er, but then served in the Ventura Administration, but now has announced for Congress -- Tinklenberg.  He will run as a DFL'er in the district that went nuts for Jesse Ventura, and apparently Ventura will endorse him.  He is also a Lutheran Pastor -- and a fairly significant part of that district is Swedish Lutheran.  The Sixth is north of the Twin Cities, running from the Wisconsin Border to just beyond St. Cloud.  The Eastern part of the district is exurban Twin Cities -- the West is mostly German and Irish Catholic and much more tied to farming.  Tinkleman's big issue is transportation.

The other interesting race will be in the 2nd CD -- this is where Colleen Rowley (the FBI Whistleblower) will be running against John Klein, who is retired CIA.  Like the 6th, it is Suburban and Rural Rowley has already announced and is attending every parade and picnic in the district.  The 2nd is very much winable with the right candidate, and I see much promise in Rowley.

Yes, the 3rd is Republican, but it is moderate Republican.  Ramstad is pro-choice, pro-stem cell research -- and Ramstad out ran Bush in the precincts in the district in Hennepin County.  Amy doesn't have to win the district -- she does have to get people to split tickets.  

It will be a tough campaign, but I think 2006 will be a DFL year.  

by Sara 2005-08-12 08:17PM | 0 recs
Senator vs governor
I thought it was the other way around with governors being a step down from the senate.

Sure there are twice as many senators, but they get 6 year terms and governors get 4. Senators also have to be a minimum of 30 years old, while governors can be just 25. Lastly, senators are on the national stage while governors are of course only on the state level.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-10 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator vs governor
The qualifications for governor vary by state. In most states, the minimum age is 30. In a few states, it's as low as 18.
by Chris D 2005-08-10 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator vs governor
...but it's next to impossible to win the White House from the Senate. Governors are executive heads of state, something that always gives them an edge when running for President. And that's really Chris's point, I think, in making that comment specifically regarding Warner and Allen. Even though the polling is good for Warner over Allen for Senate, I've got to agree that it doesn't make sense for him to waste his time on 2006 when he can run in 2008. And even if a White House run doesn't pan out for Warner, he can always go back to VA and run for the Senate seat John Warner might be vacating.
by Scott Shields 2005-08-10 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator vs governor
I think Scott got the interplay as it relates to the VAissue.  Why would you want to run for a seat for 2 years?  Particularly when you will be asked if you are "committted" to serving the full term.

More generally, there are a number of reasons that Senator is seen as a "step-down" from Governor.  When you are a governor not only are you "one" and not "one of 100" you also have a very large staff, sycophants and security personnel that accompany you everywhere.  It adds to a big head.  I think that protocol suggests that after they retire, you refer to a person who has held both positions as "Governor".

by comotion 2005-08-11 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Senator vs governor
Probably goes back to the time where Governors apponted all Senators with the concurrence of the state legislatures.  I kinda wish we could go back to that system.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-11 06:18AM | 0 recs
And we wonder why are leaders won't fight
I still don't think we really have any chance to retake the Senate in 2006
by Alice Marshall 2005-08-10 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: why are leaders won't fight
Now relax.
Nobody here is talking about
throwing in the towel.

We're just trying to figure where
we have realistic opportunities.

But not to get our hopes too high
and get disappointed either.
Morning after heartbreak is not
good for party morale either.

My morale was raised above where
you and your neighbor suggested
there could be a race against Allen
in Va. I'd written that one off.

If we can make a fight there, even as
a long shot, it would be awesome.

But to take back the Senate in '06?
Really hard to do. There simply are
not enough open or blue-state seats.
A political tsunami could make it
happen, sure, but in a normal year,
they are defending fewer seats than
we have exposed.

What we want bottom line is to gain
a few seats, thereby making things
much more difficult for Bushco in
the Senate, and get momentum
going our way heading into '08.
That does not mean we are not
trying to win, come on!

by Woody 2005-08-11 11:15AM | 0 recs
Santorum Below DeWine?
I know DeWine is vulnerable, but he doesn't even have an opponent yet.  If Ryan or Brown or Hackett jumps in, then maybe it should be moved up to number one but until then, I would still consider it three or four.
by jkfp2004 2005-08-10 04:58PM | 0 recs
DeWine #1
Yeah...If the elections were held today, I think a Ham Sandwich could beat DeWine.
by Pitin 2005-08-10 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: DeWine #1
But will the GOP run DeWine?  No one has spoken up yet, but there are serious rumblings among conservatives that I know that want to see someone else run against DeWine in the primaries because he isn't conservative enough (i.e. isn't on track with the reactionary Christian right).

My nightmare - Jim Petro and Ken Blackwell cut a deal to have Blackwell run for Senate while Petro runs for Governor.  This would eliminate the messy gubenatorial primary (even with Montgomery still in the race - without those two beating each other up she won't have a chance against Petro) AND it would allow Blackwell to fire up the base against both DeWine and whoever runs for the Democrats.

Regardless, if DeWine doesn't get the nomination it will be much tougher than if he does.  AND depending on how the governor's election goes, there may be coattails there that push one or the other of the candidates into the Senate.  It depends on if the Republicans can fire up their base enough OR if the Democrats can convince enough people to get to the polls and vote the bums out.  Ohio is going to be a tough fight despite the obvious scandals and corruption here.

by NonyNony 2005-08-11 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: DeWine #1
VikingSpirit, a blogger close to the DeWines, is saying that John Hritz, former president of AK Steel, is about to announce.
by ignatzmouse 2005-08-11 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: DeWine #1
Thanks for that link.  I was figuring that SOME Republican would step up to challenge DeWine, I was wondering who it would be.  I'm wondering who will step up on the Democratic side and if a messy primary on the Republican side will affect how things go.
by NonyNony 2005-08-11 05:36PM | 0 recs
Blackwell has already announced...
...he's running for governor.  He did it back in January or so.
by Geotpf 2005-08-11 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Blackwell has already announced...
Yes, I know.  And him and Petro agreeing to anything is beyond the realms of probability.  I said it was my nightmare, not a likely scenario.
by NonyNony 2005-08-11 05:34PM | 0 recs
I think I read somewhere
that Reid is making sure there's no opponent for Ensign -- some kind of scratch-my-back favor he's doing him.
by Dog of the South 2005-08-10 05:05PM | 0 recs
In Virginia
we may have a chance if L.F. Payne jumps in. He's a former congressman and a moderate but hasn't been active in 8 years. I'm optimistic about taking the Senate and I think we can hold onto all of our seats. Steele isn't that popular and Bush has anemic ratings. Cardin or Mfume could win.
by FairfaxDem11 2005-08-10 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: In Virginia
In Virginia we may have a chance if L.F. Payne jumps in.

Testify brother!

by Alice Marshall 2005-08-10 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: In Virginia
I think everything will change in three months on Nov 8.  Yes I know local and National politics are completly different things.  That being said, 2005 is a good dry run for the Party organizational test.  As well as a semi-good indicator of voter sentiment towards the National Parties.  I'm reserving judgment until Kaine is in Richmond.
by Pitin 2005-08-10 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: In Virginia
The entire national debate will be transformed if Leslie Byrne wins Lt. Governor. It will be like 1985, when Doug Wilder won Lt. Gov and the Democrats took back the Senate the following year.
by Alice Marshall 2005-08-11 04:21AM | 0 recs
Maine
I know Snow is popular but she's gone along with the Republican leadership much more then Chafee, and Maine is blue, if not quite as blue as RI. Can't we at least mount a good challenge here?
by dantheman 2005-08-10 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Maine
I wouldn't spend any money there if the money were mine. Chellie Pingree was a great candidate and didn't come close to knocking off Susan Collins. I think those seats belong to the red ladies as long as they want them.
by asf6 2005-08-10 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Maine
Nope.  Snowe is one of those rare politicians who is "beloved" in her state.  We just have to suck it up until she retires.   At that point, I think it's Tom Allen's and goes from R to D.
by InigoMontoya 2005-08-10 06:52PM | 0 recs
Agreed
The Maine twins are unbeatable.
by Geotpf 2005-08-11 08:00AM | 0 recs
Nicely done, Chris. Thx! n/t
by bellarose 2005-08-10 06:10PM | 0 recs
What is real the story with Langevin ?
Any chance he can be persuaded to return ?
by Cyt 2005-08-10 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: What is real the story with Langevin ?
This NARAL bashing is getting to be really pathetic and stupid.

I suppose Chris and the "Movement for Hire" would rather support a Democrat who refused to endorse Kerry because of his far right winged anti-choice sentiments.

Now the "Movement for Hire" is attacking NARAL because they refused to endorse a Democrat who refused to endorse the Democratic presidential nominee.

This is what happens when corporate funds flood the grassroots... people start parroting Al From

by Parker 2005-08-10 11:00PM | 0 recs
MT and OH
I just read on politicalwire that the NRA is very disenchanted with DeWine (no surprise) and are excited about the possibility of Ryan challenging him (kinda surprise). If the NRA stays out of this race or backs Ryan, it could be the nail in the coffin.  

Re: Montana, I have heard a rumor a few times that Burns may face a strong primary challenger, does anyone know about this?  

by dre2k5 2005-08-10 07:40PM | 0 recs
This Ranking Makes Me Nervous Still
I'm worried about this being the list of priorities for our party come 2006. It's a recipe for disaster. The open seats and the cheap media states are down near the bottom. I'm all for getting rid of DeWine, Santorum, Chafee...but the harsh reality is that these are expensive races against incumbents. That has Pyrrhic victory written all over it as we try to win states lower on the ticket.

In 2002: Pryor was succeessful knocking out an incumbent Hutchinson in Arkansas but it came at the expense of open seat races in North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota (by death of Wellstone), and Tennesee. And that does not include the Democrat incumbent senators that went down.

In 2004: Salazar and Obama beat weak Republican candidates (one in an open seat and one an incumbent) but we still backslid in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina to name but a few.

Tennessee as the open seat has to get top billing followed by the cheaper states of Nevada, Montana, and Rhode Island. If the money follows Chris's rankings. We may get ride of DeWine, but we're likely to lose the rest and also find ourselves in trouble elsewhere. Maryland and New Jersey are both open seats AND no one seems to notice that Feinstein has a pro-Iraq war vote in a state that is vehemently against it.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-10 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: This Ranking Makes Me Nervous Still
Feinstein???  Who could challenge her?  Arnold is going down in flames, and taking what remains of the GOP in CA with him.

She has as much chance as being beeten as Snowe does in Maine.

by mtguyinokc 2005-08-10 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: This Ranking Makes Me Nervous Still
Well that's the whole thing. Ann Veneman or Condi Rice would be nightmare choices, but both of them have Iraqi blood on their hands because they were in the Administration. Plenty of Republicans could run (like say Tom Selleck) but Feinstein isn't popular to be sure. The CA GOP manages to keep losing only because they run dud candidates. If they find a solid person to go after DiFi in 2006, the Democrats are in deep hummus.
by risenmessiah 2005-08-10 09:33PM | 0 recs
Nah, she's safe
She's as safe as Boxer was, probably more so since she is a moderate as opposed to a liberal like Boxer.
by Geotpf 2005-08-11 08:02AM | 0 recs
no way in hell... won't happen.
Other then massive election fraud that would make both 2000 and 2004 look completely and utterly above board, it won't happen.

This isn't Ohio we're talking about this is California.

Besides the CA GOP is a joke, they hitched their cart to Arnold and he's taking them down.

Running somebody like Condi Rice is about the only way I could think of to ensure that every progressive dem and green sucks it up and votes for Feinstein giving her the biggest victory ever.
No. way.

Feinstein would be a fantastic Dem Senator in a red state, but she's a constant disappointment to democrats in California.

However she is the closest that the conservatives are going to get to a Republican in the Senate in the forseeable future and she knows that.

Plus, for reasons i've never been able to figure out a lot of Democrats really like her as well as a lot of Republicans.

She is about as untouchable as she can get.

Look, I grew up in the "bible belt of California", she isn't going anywhere, no way, no how.

Mark my words, Arnold can't beat her, Condi can't beat her... nobody.

Her biggest problem would be a challenge from somebody like Matt Gonzales from the left. That could make it competitive if the Republicans ran somebody like Riordan, but that is damn close to perfect storm status and I give it a likelihood of about 2%.

Other then that she's there until she gets an appointment from a Democrat president or until she retires.

-C.

by neutron 2005-08-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: no way in hell... won't happen.
You're right that Feinstein is safe as can be. She is consistently the most popular elected official in California, and I'm definitely one Democrat who likes her. While she is nowhere near as liberal as Boxer, I do believe that that makes her a more effective Senator for CA in a Republican controlled Senate. Not to mention, while she has her moments of centrism she is undoubtedly a strong backer of abortion rights, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, affirmative action, and the separation of church and state. For those reasons this Democrat and a lot of other Democrats fully support her.
by Bothwell 2005-08-11 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: no way in hell... won't happen.
Neutron,

"Look, I grew up in the "bible belt of California", she isn't going anywhere, no way, no how."

I'm from Yorba Linda (heart of the OC and Nixon's bithplace) and even here DiFi is popular.

by jkfp2004 2005-08-11 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: no way in hell... won't happen.
Your post indicates you don't understand what the recall election was all about. Republicans used to rule the roost in California only to be abandoned by the national party. Without cash from DC, only self-funding or self-promoting candidates could get the nomination. Darrell Issa...Dick Riordan...Bill Simon....Tom Campbell.

Make no mistake, if Ken Mehlman decides to put California in play...they'll unleash a candidate who will give DiFi the race of her life. There's too much anxiety and frustration out here about immigration, the war, and traffic. She's not aggressive enough on her pet issues, and then she's silent on others.

Secondly, her popularity is largely tied to the novelty that California was the first state to have two female senators. Now there are otherstates where that is the case....Washington, Maine off the top of my head. The GOP has never found good minority candidates here...but if there's someone who can...it's Ken Mehlman

by risenmessiah 2005-08-11 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: no way in hell... won't happen.
The recall election was about an unpopular Gray Davis; after having lived the past six years in CA, I see NO evidence that the GOP is making any kind of great comeback.  In fact, I am not even sure Arnold can be re-elected (think he will not even run).

What is Ken Mahlman going to do... say vote for "whoever' because we need him to help the Bush revolution along?   Let him try... Let him throw a ton of money into the state... Feinstein will have NO problem holding this seat in the 6th year of a Bush white-house.  

by mtguyinokc 2005-08-11 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: no way in hell... won't happen.
All I am saying is that the National GOP has played hands off with CA for several election cycles. Most of it, I think had to do with Pete Wilson's political "strategery" over Proposition 187. The recall proved that Republicans can win if they fund a candidate with a high enough public profile. I'm not saying it will be like Florida, where Bush coronated Mel Martinez to run for Senate, threw them money and voila. But what I am saying is that DiFi's perceived strength will evaporate if she draws enough of a challenge.

Schwarzenegger too, for that matter, is not dead in the water yet.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-11 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: no way in hell... won't happen.
While I agree that Schwarzenegger is not dead in the water yet, I personally do not think he will run unless he is almost certian of re-election (big ego may not be able to take being voted out).  His re-election gets less certain everyday; however, I admit the dem field does not capture the imagination.

I just do not see anyone from the GOP getting close to DiFi for two reasons:

  1. there is NO one to challenge (give me some names that are NOT closely tied to Bush- see #2).

  2.  Bush Bush Bush.  CA is not golden for him
by mtguyinokc 2005-08-12 05:10AM | 0 recs
We have some names...
Alright, here are some potential challengers to DiFi...each with their political asterik...

TOM SELLECK: You think I was kidding, right? The GOP knows full well that even against the well-funded and oiled Democratic machine, having outside popularity can be a trump card. Hence the most reliable Republican vote in Hollywood could decide (with even less going on acting-wise than Arnold) that he's willing to risk some cash and run for office. He's never been that gung-ho about it before...but then again the CA GOP has never been this desperate.

DARRELL ISSA: Step away from the car please. He's still privately pissed as fuck that Pete Wilson didn't endorse him over Matt Fong for the Senate in 1996. Issa also was pushed out of the recall after funding it single-handedly. He has enough of a personal fortune after selling car alarm systems that he's willing to do what other Congressmen from CA won't do...risk their safe seat for a jump at the brass ring. And he probably won't stop until he becomes the first Arab-American President...or dies trying.

PETER UEBBEROTH: The only man who ever turned a profit running an Olympiad wanted to help be a sober, solid choice for the state in 2003. He's not Mr. Excitement...but he could match Feinstein toe-to-toe in knowledge and mastery of every topic and has something she doesn't...experience cooperation between various state and local authorities in hosting the Games. Still, most young people in California don't know him, and he needs to spend lots of money on "personality ads" to remind people who he is.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: I'm sure the Republicans would love another Senator McCarthy, but as the leader of the Republican delegation of the California Assembly he can't be taken lightly. He has a long relationship with Golden Boy Villaragoisa and like Tony V...is as much a rising star. His only hindrance is that he represents Bakersfield. Some of the state's biggest GOP donor companies don't know him, and he's someone that Mehlman would be instructive with. Tag him as your favorite, slip him some money, and get the big players like Fluor, the Spanos Family, and Bechtel to line up with Unocal and Chevron. If he gets no help, he might end up getting stomped...but remember...with terms limits in state government he only has a few cycles to make his move to higher office.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-12 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: We have some names...
Well...least I know that the GOP will have to grasp at straws.

Uebberoth did nothing in the recall.

What the heck..run Selleck; at least he has good name ID (then again he might have the same problem as Uebberoth.. the Magnum PI crowd is getting a little up there in age).

None of these will touch her.

by mtguyinokc 2005-08-12 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: We have some names...
Politics is one of those things where the status quo always appears invincible even if reality is something different.

Each of these guys could give Feinstein a run for her money. She voted for the war, she has very sponsoring legislation and she has Boxer to be compared against. Realize, the Republicans at the national level abandoned California that's 50% of why Democrats are so dominant here. Thinking your opponents can't beat you is dangerous. Pride goeth before the fall.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-13 07:46PM | 0 recs
We also have to play some defense...
Here are the sixteen Democratic senators up for reelection in 2006, with their favorable/unfavorable numbers according to Survey USA:

Nelson (FL), 47/29
Stabenow (MI), 48/36
Corzine (NJ), 52/36
Feinstein (CA), 52/33
Sarbanes (MD), 52/31
Cantwell (WA), 55/30
Kohl (WI), 59/31
Bingaman (NM), 60/28
Kennedy (MA), 61/34
Akaka (HI), 62/24
Byrd (WV), 63/32
Carper (DE), 63/23
Nelson (NE), 64/26
Clinton (NY), 65/30
Lieberman (CT), 65/28
Conrad (ND), 71/27

Bill Nelson and Debbie Stabenow have some work to do, and Corzine, Feinstein, Sarbanes, and Cantwell aren't out of the woods yet.  And, of course, Mark Dayton's seat must be held, and Jim Jeffords' seat must be taken.  Still, overall, it doesn't look bad on our side of the board.

by KTinOhio 2005-08-10 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
Corzine will win the governorship in 2005, he'll appoint his replacement. Therefore the 2006 senate race in NJ is up for grabs. It's up to Corzine if he wants to appoint a caretaker or someone from the congressional delegation who will most likely run for a full 6 year term.
by NJDEM1 2005-08-10 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
NJ GOP stinks right now i doubt they will be able to take this with Frank and Jon behind whoever the Dem. is..
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
Sbarnes in MD is also stepping out. That could be a tough seat to defend.
by dantheman 2005-08-11 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
it's Solid blue and the idiot govenor of the state will destroy the GOP Senate campain.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
And the safest guy on the list -- Kent Conrad -- could also wind up being the most-likely-to-lose on that list if North Dakota's also-very-popular governor Joe Hoeven runs against him.
by Crazy Vaclav 2005-08-11 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
one of the comments i agree with!!! Dole probibly won't get it she is to stupid to convince him to run look at FL,MI,WA and the great jobs she did there and she still doesn't have anyone good in NE and WV did Capitlo or however you say it declare she her candidacy?
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: We also have to play some defense...
Nelson And Stabenow may be down but there opponents are worse.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:52PM | 0 recs
If Langevin were a Klansman
Would Chris and Kos be saying the same thing about the NAACP if they rallied against a Democratic candidate that was a member of the Klu Klux Klan...

Would they be calling the NAACP... PURISTS or perhaps Uppity Negroes who don't know their place.

Would they call the NAACP a "far left fringe" out of the mainstream radical group.

Is racism also a "pet issue"?

by Parker 2005-08-11 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: If Langevin were a Klansman
Well is racism considered a pet issue???

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., was dealt a harsh blow Monday when the president of the NAACP labeled him and two Democratic counterparts "persona non grata" for skipping an NAACP presidential candidates' forum.

NAACP President Kweisi Mfume lashed out at Lieberman, U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in remarks before the NAACP's national convention in Miami Beach, Fla., where the forum took place.

'In essence, you have now become persona non grata' to black voters, Mfume said, invoking the Latin phrase meaning 'unacceptable person.'"

Under the new "Movement" rules... would this be considered ... "a pet issue"?

Will the NAACP be the next NARAL when they kick up a fuss about the Voting Rights Act in 2007???

by Parker 2005-08-11 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: If Langevin were a Klansman
I have always disagreed with the analogy that racism (being a member of the klan) equates to opposing choice.  I am pro-choice and (obviously) anti racism but the issues are not the same.  It is shallow to try to say they are.

There is no "positive" pro-racist argument.  It is a hate produced thought.  The same is not true for the anti-choice position.  Sincere people can believe that human life begins at conception.  I dont agree, but you can hardly say that this position is based on "hate."  Given the premis that a human life begins at conception, then the anti choice position makes sense and is moral.  The right to life is the very basic right all humans enjoy and outweighs all others.  

Again, I am pro choice because I dont believe human life begins at conception.  But, I do not belief it is either fair or logical to try to equate anti choice with racism.

So, no I would not have supported Langevin if he were a klansman, but yes I wish he would've won because he was the best shot of winning that seat.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-11 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: If Langevin were a Klansman
In the last sentence I meant to write "run" instead of "won."
by Andy Katz 2005-08-11 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: If Langevin were a Klansman
No it is about civil rights...

I would never support a persons who think that they are GOD and have the right to tell another person how to live and what they should do with their own body... particulary since they don't have a damn thing to do with it.

Casey and Langevin have no business in my panties.

The rights of women has gone back to Midevil times and our Democrats keep selling off womens rights.

by Parker 2005-08-11 08:01AM | 0 recs
Mississippi would be competitive if Lott retired
I had heard a rumor that he was considering that. Isn't it time for him to cash in his chips and sign on with some big lobbying firm?
by Quaoar 2005-08-11 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Mississippi
He should retire since his main calling card in the elections has been the pascagoula shipyard which is on the closure list.
by Ga6thDem 2005-08-11 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Mississippi
if Lott doesn't retire there is hope i belive if  Former Govenor.. Bah forgot his name runs.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Mississippi
Mussgrove.  Ronnie Mussgrove.  He lost reelection in 2003 (Mississippi has off year elections).
by jkfp2004 2005-08-11 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Mississippi
Thank you!!!!
by Liberal 2005-08-13 09:50PM | 0 recs
Not to be Morbid, but Don't Forget Spector's Seat
With a Democrat as Gov in PA, and Spector fighting cancer, it s quite likely that this will be a Democratic appointment in the next couple of years.
by former hill democrat 2005-08-11 07:04AM | 0 recs
Mark Warner
Chris,
Great post, but clearly being a Senator is NOT a downgrade from Governor. I'd say from state to state, in terms of political clout, the hierarchy varies. Somewhat obviously, in larger states, governors can be more important. In smaller states, US Senators are often the biggest dog on the block.

All that aside, I really, really think Mark Warner should run in VA in 2006. Polling shows he would have a great shot at winning. If he did win, he'd be knocking off George Allen, who is a likely GOP Pres candidate in '08. Also, while I somewhat admire Warner, and his record as a one-term governor is successful, he's only a one-term governor. A big Senate win in 2006, beating an incumbent, prominent Republican in a red state, would really demonstrate his political strength.

If anything, this would greatly burnish his White House credentials, should he decide to run sometime in the future.

by graham2005 2005-08-11 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Warner
I wish that he could run for Governor again as good a job as he has done for the Commonwealth.  Unfortunately with Virginia's one-term and done system that can't happen. Winning the Senate in 2006 may raise his profile some but it would severely damange Allen's presidential chances.  How could Allen expect to win the presidency if he can't even hold his Senate seat.  I attended an event earlier today (I was required with my job or would have never been near there) where Allen spoke and it was all I could do to keep from throwing up.  No variation from the normal Bush talking points.  I doubt he could string two sentences together on his own.  He even managed to get in a Clinton jab or two.  A good Republican never misses the chance to bash a Clinton I guess.  
by virginiaandtennessee 2005-08-11 09:27AM | 0 recs
I think we win 4-5 seats in 06
I think 06 will be a very good year for the Dems.  In the Senate, I dont think we will lose a single seat, in part because of the political climate and in part because our 2 most vulnerable seats, NE and FL, have weak opposition.  

We will win in Pa and Oh, assuming that a top tier person runs in the latter state.  I think we can take 2 out of 3 in RI, MO and MT., especially if Claire runs in MO.  I think we have a realistic chance of winning in either AR or TN.

Like others posted, I wish we had serious contenders in NV. and ME. Both of those races are the type that will go for the opposition party in a good year.  

I know Snowe is popular in Maine, but popular incumbents are vulnerable if they are in a state that favors the opposition party in a year that is unfavorable to their own, think Anne Richards in TX in '94.

As for Nevada, there has been some speculation that Reid has agreed not to help contest that seat.  IF so, that is typical of why the Repugs always have a competitive advantage over us.  Reid should be doing everything in his power to unseat Ensign in order to reach 51 seats.  But, he, like most Democrats, dont want power as badly as Repug do so he is willing to make a deal that increases the odds of the Rs staying in the majority.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-11 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I think we win 4-5 seats in 06
I think that Pennsylvania is absolutely are #1 pickup opportunity with Rick Santorum being exposed as, well, crazy. Casey is leading big in all the polls, this should be a win.
Ohio should be a good shot with a strong governor/senator ticket if Rep. Brown or Ryan runs, but its not money in the bank.
Dems certainly have a shot in Rhode Island with Whitehouse but at this given time, it has to be "lean Rep." Chafee is on the border of being a Democrat as is.
Tennessee will be an interesting race. I dont see any way Ford doesnt win the nomination, and I dont think his uncle's scandal will hurt him that much. He is a moderate in a state that is largely controlled by Democrats on the state level. He's got a shot, I'd put this at "lean rep" as well.
Missouri will be a close race if Claire runs. If she does its somewhere between toss-up and lean rep. If she doesnt, its safe for the GOP.
Montana should shape up to be a tough race for Conrad Burns. I think Morrison wins the nomination and it will start off as "lean" or "likely" GOP. But with Montana Dems dominating last election and Gov Schweitzer's shrews anti-corruption referendum up, the winds might blow this one in our favor.
Arizona is a long shot. Nevada and Maine arent happening.
The bottom line is this: though Dems have more seats to defend, we are playing offense and Reeps are playing defense. I think, ultimately, Democrats will have a net gain of two seats.
by AC4508 2005-08-11 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I think we win 4-5 seats in 06
Chafee only goes with the Democrats when it doesn't matter for instance the Democrats need 51 votes to pass a bill and they only have 47 he sees that bill will help him if he says yes on the record he goes for it. The bill gets 48 votes and still fails meanwhile in 50-50 situation he would vote with the GOP he is a Republican just votes Democrat when he can most moderates are that way.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I think we win 4-5 seats in 06
If Reid would stop trying to cover Ensign's back  NV could be somthing did snowe say she was running again? and in AZ i think Peterson will come closer than the polls say maybe even pull off a win. TN is going to be a contested primary with Kurita eh i hope said that right don't count her out and Montana probibly will be Tester vs. Morrison for the Dem. Nomination i think either could beat Burnes if they run a good campain. I wish Some star would step up to the plate in RI,OH and Nevada allthough you don't need a star to win Ohio you will need one in Rhode Island and Nevada Chafee won't go down easy.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 04:56PM | 0 recs
I'm more hopeful for retaking the House...
...than the Senate in 06.  Picking up five seats (especially with this line up) is going to be really hard.
by Geotpf 2005-08-11 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm more hopeful for retaking the House...
taking back the House would require a 12 point swing to the Democrats from the Last election in about 18 districts won't happen there are 21 Rep. Districts that are rep. and within 12 you have to win 18 of the 21 to get majority and also it would be Weak becuse of Moderate house Democrats going with the GOP on everything.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I think we win 4-5 seats in 06
Forget Reid to be Honest i don't like him he represents Red Democrats i would have rather had a Chuck Schumer/Ted Kennedy minority leader kind of person come on Oscar Goodman don't be shy!!!
by Liberal 2005-08-11 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: If Langevin were a Klansman)
 
No it is about civil rights...
I would never support a persons who think that they are GOD and have the right to tell another person how to live and what they should do with their own body... particulary since they don't have a damn thing to do with it.

Casey and Langevin have no business in my panties.

The rights of women have gone back to Mid-evil timesand our Democrats keep selling off womens rights.

by Parker 2005-08-11 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: If Langevin were a Klansman)
Oh please, this is why Democrats lose elections. There are lots of Democrats who dont believe in abortion and just think its wrong;  but believe in a right to privacy. Its the condescending attitude of the rabid pro-choice movement that is portraying our party as the party of abortions and baby killing. The attitude should be abortion is bad, so we need to help reduce it by providing quality sex education, contraception, promoting condom use, and having morning after pills available without perscriptions.
by NJDEM1 2005-08-11 10:24AM | 0 recs
Every time a democrat says abortion is bad,
It gets just a little closer to being outlawed.
by Cyt 2005-08-11 12:30PM | 0 recs
That is totally rediculous
Abortion IS bad.  I don't think anyone thinks a women who has to have an abortion is a good thing.  What democrats are saying is, abortion is bad and is a tragic choice, but it is a women's choice, and outlawing abortions won't stop women from having them and infringes on their constitutional rights.  Anyone who thinks abortions are a good thing is out of their mind.
by jkfp2004 2005-08-11 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: That is totally rediculous
give one life a chance or make two lifes a living hell. that's how i view it.(Abortions have gone up becuse of the President's Economic policys.)being Pro-Death Penelty Anti-Stemcell witch = cures to terminal ill people sending us into a war for no reason and Baning Gay marrages is Pro-insane not Pro-Life.
by Liberal 2005-08-11 01:03PM | 0 recs
There you see the result of 30 years of
unrelenting right-wing/religious propagnada.

There is nothing wrong with not going through with a pregnancy, and no woman may be judged for her personal decisions.

by Cyt 2005-08-11 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: There you see the result of 30 years of
This is why Democrats are losing... they have been listening to Dobson and Farwell too much.
by Parker 2005-08-12 02:58AM | 0 recs
VT
No one's mentioned VT. We all want Sanders to win but he will have a well-funded opponent -- and without a Dem nomination, no way for the DSCC or DNC to help him if its a close race.
by desmoulins 2005-08-11 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: VT
I thought he knew almost everyone in the state personally- LOL

I think as long as the dems to not run anyone to split the vote, Sanders will win; do not see VT voters giving Bush another ally in the Senate.

by mtguyinokc 2005-08-12 05:13AM | 0 recs
I'm not too worried
the one poll I've seen on the VT Senate race has Bernie leading Tarrant by about 40 points. and I don't think Vermonters like it when people try to buy their Senate seats.
by johnny longtorso 2005-08-12 01:10PM | 0 recs
VT is safe..
But the Democrats don't want to endourse the Socialist guy out of worry from political backlash in other states.
by Liberal 2005-08-14 09:21AM | 0 recs
I thought Hutchinson was retiring
to run for Governor. Is that correct? If so, shouldn't that be an open seat, and probably higher on the rankings?
by Gpack3 2005-08-18 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought Hutchinson was retiring
nope she is running for the Senate again they thought she might run for Govenor but she said she wasn't.
by Liberal 2005-08-19 01:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads