Dems Exceptionally Well Positioned To Expand Majority In Senate
The GOP is defending nine — count 'em, nine — Senate seats in this fall's elections.
The Democrats are defending all of ... one.
That's the conclusion we reached after a close look at the map of Senate races this year — and it shows just how well-positioned the Dems are to expand their majority.
The presidential race has sucked up so much media oxygen that it's easy to forget that there's another bitter and high-stakes electoral showdown looming this fall: The Congressional races.
Here — according to our analysis of all the ratings compiled by non-partisan sources like National Journal, Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook and CQ — is a chart offering a snapshot of the sum total of races where a seat has a chance of changing hands ("(i)" identifies an incumbent"):
| State | GOP Candidate | Dem Candidate | Outlook |
| Alaska | Ted Stevens (i) | Mark Begich | Leans GOP |
| Colorado | Bob Schaffer | Mark Udall | Tossup |
| Louisiana | John Kennedy | Mary Landrieu (i) | Tossup |
| Maine | Susan Collins (i) | Tom Allen | Leans GOP |
| Minnesota | Norm Coleman (i) | Al Franken | Tossup |
| Mississippi | Roger Wicker (i) | Ronnie Musgrove | Likely GOP |
| New Hampshire | John Sununu (i) | Jeanne Shaheen | Leans Dem |
| New Mexico | TBD | Tom Udall | Leans Dem |
| Oregon | Gordon Smith (i) | TBD | Leans GOP |
| Virginia | Jim Gilmore | Mark Warner | Likely Dem |
A rundown on the daunting odds the Republicans face — and the ripe opportunities Dems have — is after the jump.
First off, the GOP has largely struck out in terms of recruiting candidates to run for Dem-held seats, obviously a must if they want to get back into the majority. Only weak candidates are running in usually-contested states like Iowa and South Dakota, while first-term Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor (D) is running unopposed entirely.
Compounding the problem for the GOP, Republican Senators are retiring in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado, leaving them as ripe pickup opportunities for strong Democratic candidates. (Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is also retiring, but the GOP managed to get a good candidate there, former Gov. Mike Johanns.)
Just about the only strong candidate that the GOP has recruited for a Dem seat is in Louisiana, where state Treasurer John Kennedy was enticed into switching parties and running against two-term Democrat Mary Landrieu, who for her part has never won by big margins and is in a state going more and more to the Republicans. This is their best pick-up opportunity, but even this one isn't a sure thing — a SurveyUSA poll in December put Landrieu narrowly ahead.
Meanwhile, the Dems have managed to recruit a bunch of good candidates in states like New Hampshire, Virginia, New Mexico, and even the long-time GOP bastion of Alaska.
Another boon to Dems: They are enjoying a big financial advantage, too — through February, the DSCC had $32.8 million on hand, compared to only $15.3 million on hand for the Republicans.
To top it all off, in addition to the manifold advantages the Dems enjoy in money, candidate recruitment and incumbent strength, the Dems are also poised to gain from the national political environment, which could barely be worse for Republicans right now. Recent polling shows the president's approval rating is only 32%, the GOP self-identification number is 14 points lower than Dem self-identification, and the favorable/unfavorable rating of the Republican party right now is 34%-49%, far lower than the 45%-35% for the Dems.
Bottom line: Even if the Democrats win only a few of their targeted races, which is a pessimistic prediction, a 55-45 Senate majority is not unrealistic. If they nearly run the table, then Dems can conceivably get almost 60 seats.
Wooo Wooooooooo!
April 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - Smith is also an incumbent
April 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot Texas, where John Cornyn is going to have to fend off a pretty decent challenge from Rick Noriega.
April 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Noriega who is going to beat John Cornyn like a drum?
What kind of shit is this?
April 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, compadre.
April 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Texan myself, it's a race I'm very much paying attention to.
It takes on an almost mythic quality when you consider that LBJ himself was the last Democratic Senator from Texas.
April 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The late Lloyd Bentsen says "Hello".
April 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, my mistake.
I guess I got the wrong impression from so many people talking about "retaking LBJ's Senate seat."
April 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness, but that Udall clan really likes to spread out.
April 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least they're spreading honesty, as opposed to corruption, greed, gay bathroom sex and hypocrisy.
April 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post is so over the top pro-Hillary it makes me violently ill!!!!.....
What? Never mind.
April 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - I hadn't thought about that.
I'm watching it very closely to - I'm a Texan as well, and I have more than a little bit of money in that race.
I purely hate John Cornyn.
April 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's disappointing that Tom Allen hasn't gotten more traction against Susan Collins. Why can't Maine voters see that all her moderate talk is BS? When push comes to shove, she votes with the far right Every. Single. Time.
April 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That point needs to be made loudly and frequently. GOP Moderates INO should have to produce a voting record that backs their claims.
April 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, let's hope that can be made more clear between now and November. A vote for Susan Collins is a vote for continuing the Bush/Cheney War in Iraq, a vote for more budget insanity, etc.
I'd love to see the Dems start to close out the Northeast. We should definitely take out John Sununu in New Hampshire this time around, and Tom Allen, a current Representative from Maine, gives us a really great shot against Susan Collins.
We should also be focusing on the Senate this time around even more than the House b/c if we get a Democratic president, the control of the Senate is going to be key, and the closer to 60 we get the better.
April 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressivepunch.org compares the votes of Congress against the votes of progressive stalwarts/
Sen. Collins in this election year is voting with progrssives 48.46% of the time but her lifetime scores is 22.22% with progressives and --critically -- whne the votes are close she is with progressives only 28.93% of the time.
The specific votes on which these numbers are based are available through the drill down feature of this site.
April 9, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Mississippi race is going to be close. Wicker is not a real incumbent, since it is really Trent Lott's seat. The GOP governor bent the laws to move the election to November weh it should jave been a special election on April 22, like Wicker's vacated MS-1 seat (Which we have a great chance of winning too). Ronnie Musgrove a former governor and has statewide appeal. Wicker served as an empty suit representative for north Mississippi.
The GOP smear machine has started attacking Musgrove really hard. That alone tells me they are scared to death of losing this seat.
April 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ronnie doesn't have all that much statewide appeal...at least he didn't, when I lived there, but I hope you're right...
April 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
He had enough to be elected Governor.
April 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lloyd Benston wasn't a Senator from Texas?
Phil Gramm was elected as a Dem, once.
April 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gramm was elected to the House as a Dem, but ran as a Republican for the Senate, I believe.
April 8, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My goodness, but that Udall clan really likes to spread out."
Yes indeed, Gordon Smith of Oregon is Mark Udall's second cousin.
April 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true about Lloyd - I forgot, though his name popped into my head when I read that and I discounted it because I worked on Lloyd Dogget's failed senatorial bid and I got them mixed up briefly.
I forgot altogether about Gramm.
April 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phil was elected to the House as a Democrat, but switched to the GOP when he ran for the senate (after failing to defeat Lloyd Bentsen in the Democratic primary).
I have hopes for Noriega. As a veteran who has been to Afghanistan (National Guard), Rick has the credibility to smack Cornyn around on the war.
April 8, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Gramm situation was more complicated than that, even. He was a Democratic Congressman, but was sitting in the Democratic strategy meetings on the budget and passing the Party strategy to the Republicans, so the Democrats stripped him of his committee assignments. He resigned as a Congressman, ran in the resulting special election as a Republican, and won that special election for his own congressional seat.
You'll notice that Gramm was untrustworthy gutterslime even as a Congressman.
He then ran as a Republican for the Senate seat opened when John Tower (R) retired. That had been LBJ's old seat. LBJ had run both for Senate reelection and Vice President in 1960, resigned his Senate seat when he won both races, and a strange government instructor from Wichita Falls, John Tower, won the special election for LBJ's old seat as a Republican. That was a shock to the Democratic establishment of Texas who, until then, dominated all the state-wide offices and held all but one Congressional seats in Texas (that was Dallas.) Tower was central to the growth of the Republican party in Texas, recruiting and creating much of the state-wide Republican machine that we now suffer with.
While I don't think much of the conservative Democrats who dominated Texas politics until that time, things have gone downhill since Tower was elected, with Cornyn being both more detestable and far less competent that Gramm. I seem to recall that a couple of years ago he won the poll for the most disliked Senator in the Senate, a title for which there was a great deal of strong competition.
April 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had to go through the process of remembering my password for this place, just to say:
WTF, no Noriega?
I know theres others missing from that list as well.
April 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The late Lloyd Bentsen says "Hello".
and who can forget Bob Krueger?
April 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take exception to the "increasingly pessimistic" view about the Presidential race.
Set the Wayback machine for four years ago.
You and I meet at the local Waffle House, my still smoking time-travelling Delorean in the background.
And I tell you--yes, you--that in April of 2008 John McCain, a media-adored decorated war veteran and the most electable of all Republicans available, would, when the United States is fighting two wars, be campaigning against a black man whose middle name is Hussein and who has spent just three years in the United States Senate, and who had just come through a rather lascivious media orgy culminating in the dissemination of clips of his longtime pastor saying some of the most controversial and reprehensible things--including "God damn America!"--and which aforementioned black man with the middle name Hussein was in the midst of a heated primary battle that purportedly tore at the very fabric of the Democratic party, and which allowed McCain freely to move about relatively unscathed, touting his credentials as a by-God-American-patriot, the American President that American Americans have been waiting for here, in A,erica.
And then, with all that, as you take what I have just told you in, I tell you--after waiting to deliver the kicker with a dramatic pregnant pause--that McCain would only be running even in the polls, and even then behind in some states.
I believe, sir, that you would have me shackled and committed to an asylum as a man gone mad.
Pessimistic? We have 8 months until the election. Let us not count our rosary beads to the time of funeral dirges just yet.
April 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm late for the party in agreeing with you and seconding Tena, but I read that and it made my stomach ache for a second. As a party, we've got to get rid of this cowardly ass, namby pamby, fraidy-the-cat meets mopey-the-dog pessimism. It makes me sick. They shoot deserters for a reason. Where is the confidence that is supposed to come with being right on the issues? We have a motivated, activated electorate with comically high turnout and voter registration through the roof. WHAT THE HELL IS THERE TO BE INCREASINGLY PESSIMISTIC ABOUT?
April 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's the Democrats, and no matter how good the news is, it's always going to be a problem for the Democrats.
Always.
That kind of brainlock is endemic in journalism. Even in places like talkingpointsmemo.
And if "journalists" for CNN, NPR, NY Times, etc try to view the world from a vantage point different than the "Dems are perennial losers" perspective, their heads explode. Hence, it never happens.
You read it here, first.
April 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "WHAT THE HELL IS THERE TO BE INCREASINGLY PESSIMISTIC ABOUT?"
Nothing really, unless you buy into whole Hillary-is-the-only-Dem-who-can-win-in-Nov BS and then you watch your girl's chances for the nomination fade.
April 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Dems think too much?
April 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars - you could just as easily turn that on its head. Given the mortgage industry meltdown, the precarious situation on Wall Street (Bear Sterns, anyone?), the continuing softness in employment, the renewed chaos in Iraq (and Afghanistan), the rise of both China and Russia as serious rivals to the United States, and the fact that some 70-80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track and have for 2 years now, John McCain - an economic ignoramus and a foreign-policy primitive - should be double-digits behind any Democrat in the polls.
Instead, he's either basically even or - frightening as it is to say it - actually ahead.
McCain is a formidable candidate. He was not supposed to win the Republican nomination, but he did. The press loves him. The press does not love Obama - they hate Hillary, which is not the same thing. In the (likely) event that Obama wins the nomination, we can look forward to reporters endlessly rehashing Rezko, Wright, etc., ad nauseam, while giving McCain a pass for lacking even a basic understanding of the most critical issues and challenges confronting our country today.
And as for the fantasy some Democrats have about "true" conservatives not showing up for McCain in November, it's just that - a fantasy.
They showed up for Eisenhower, they showed up for Nixon, they showed up for Ford, they showed up for Dole, and they'll show up for McCain. Meanwhile, the Democratic coalition is seriously fractured, very possibly beyond the ability to repair it in time for November.
To underestimate McCain is extremely foolish. Right now, I'd say he has a better than even chance of being our next president.
April 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars,
I agree, the '"increasingly pessimistic" view about the Presidential race', is something we can do without.
Christ, thinking like that means we're beat before we start.
April 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am concerned that the optimistic "Fat, Dumb and Happy" view of the race will lead to assumption that the win in November is a given and we will wake up November 5 to find that another Presidential race has been stolen from the Democrats. If that sounds like pessimism to you, I think your "Be Happy! or lese" attitude is simply that of the three monkeys, blind, deaf and dumb, ignoring the reality of this election.
I don't see the kinds of effort from the Democrats that a party that is behind puts in so that they can win anyway. What I see is everyone looking around saying "Gee, things are so bad for the Republicans, how can Obama lose?"
Then see everyone saying "Be happy. Be optimistic. We will win. Don't be pessimistic. That's self-defeating." Let's just say that this crap makes me even less certain the Democrats have any chance at the Presidency.
When do the Democrats start fielding TV ads that demonstrate who McCain is? They should have been going for a month now. The media narrative is already being set, and the Democrats aren't even on the playing field. The Big Money - Big Media - McCain machines are working hard to win the election, and the Democrats are asking silly questions about Hillary and Obama before Obama gets the nod. There is a paralysis, brought on because the Democrats are afraid that it will be somehow seen that the Superdelegates (doing what they were designed to do - designating the clear winner of the primary process when the process itself comes short of designating the winner we all know exists) will be seen as a bunch of backroom pols naming the candidate.
That backroom pols crap is ridiculous propaganda being pushed by people who want the Republicans to win. The media doesn't admit that Obama has won, under the rules, because there is no conflict in that and thus fewer readers/viewers. A runaway Democratic election also draws fewer readers/viewers, so the media wants uncertainty. The Republicans are capitalizing on this media characteristic.
We Democrats have to provide the certainty, and we aren't going to get it by ignoring the bad stuff. The decision has now come down to getting the superdelegates and the DNC to annoint the winner who already stands before us - Obama. The primary is over, no matter how bad that makes Clinton and her supporters feel. Only - no one has teh guts to make the decision and fly in the face of the outraged media that will lose its conflict, and McCain supporters who want to run against a bunch of disorganized dithering Democrats.
Sorry, Hillary supporters, Hillary has lost. It was close, but she lost when she voted for the war and thus created the vacuum that Obama stepped into.
Now it is time to paint McCain like the modern Goldwater and no one is doing it. As a result, he has a good shot at the Presidency. That's not pessimism, that is reality. A lot of this nation really does not want a Democrat as President. A minority, but a wealthy, powerful minority, and they are working to make their sick vision work and we are doing nothing to stop them.
You "Let's be optimistic" people are simply blind to the Democratic inaction that is being allowed to happen. The Primary is over. It is time to go after McCain. Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan are irrelevant sideshows. McCain is the real issue, and the McCain tortoise is inching towards the finish line as the Democratic hare takes its damned nap, plays what-if games, and refuses to decide and to act.
April 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I am concerned that the optimistic "Fat, Dumb and Happy" view of the race will lead to assumption that the win in November is a given and we will wake up November 5 to find that another Presidential race has been stolen from the Democrats.
I don't see the kinds of effort from the Democrats that a party that is behind puts in so that they can win anyway. What I see is everyone looking around saying "Gee, things are so bad for the Republicans, how can Obama lose?"
Then see everyone saying "Be happy. Be optimistic. We will win. Don't be pessimistic." Let's just say that this crap makes me even less certain the Democrats have any chance at the Presidency.
When do the Democrats start fielding TV ads that demonstrate who McCain is? They should have been going for a month now. The media narrative is already being set, and the Democrats aren't even on the playing field. The Big Money - Big Media - McCain machines are working to win the election, and the Democrats are asking silly questions about Hillary and Obama before Obama gets the nod, and then the Democrats are afraid that it will be somehow seen that the Superdelegates (doing what they were designed to do - designating the clear winner of the primary process when the process itself comes short of designating the winner we all know exists) will be seen as a bunch of backroom pols naming the candidate.
That backroom pols crap is ridiculous propaganda being pushed by people who want the Republicans to win. The media doesn't admit that Obama has won, under the rules, because there is no conflict in that and thus fewer readers/viewers. A runaway Democratic election also draws fewer readers/viewers, so the media wants uncertainty.
We Democrats have to provide the certainty, and we aren't going to get it by ignoring the bad stuff. The decision has now come down to getting the superdelegates and the DNC to annoint the winner who already stands before us - Obama.
Sorry, Hillary supporters, Hillary has lost. It was close, but she lost when she voted for the war and thus created the vacuum that Obama stepped into.
Now it is time to paint McCain like the modern Goldwater and no one is doing it. As a result, he has a good shot at the Presidency. That's not pessimism, that is reality. A lot of this nation really does not want a Democrat as President. a minority, but a wealthy, powerful minority, and they are working to make their vision work and we are doing nothing to stop them.
You "Let's be optimistic" people are simply blind to the Democratic inaction that is being allowed to happen. The Primary is over. It is time to go after McCain. Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan are irrelevant sideshows. McCain is the real issue, and the McCain tortoise is inching towards the finish line as the Democratic hare takes its damned nap, plays what-if games, and refuses to decide and to act.
April 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I grant that you make a good point. It does not change the fact, however, that I share Mr Kurtz's anxieties. I think that we are letting McCain get a free-ride for far too long and that this is going to hurt us in the fall. Not irreparably, but perceptibly nonetheless (at least that is what my gut tells me). I would not say that I am sure that we are going to lose, but "increasingly pessimistic" does not really imply that.
April 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last thought on this whole increasingly pessimistic thing...
I think, besides the prolonged primary or disappointment in Hillary loosing the nomination, this sounds like it comes from a place where David Kurtz (and others?) perhaps set their expectations too high. The Presidential contest was never going to be a walk in the park. Don't forget that this country twice "elected" moron/criminal Bush and criminal Cheney to the highest offices in the land (or at least the public allowed stolen elections to stand). There's at least 30% of the people in the US who still like Bush, and I like to say probably would if it were found he ate babies for breakfast. Then there's another 20-30% who are relative fence-sitters that go with the flow and are basically apolitical. To have ever thought that the race would be a sure thing for the Dem nominee was naive at best.
Maybe instead of "increasingly pessimistic" he should have said increasingly realistic.
April 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assure you, dear Mr Fartknocker, that I was never among those who thought that this election was in the bag for us. I always thought that McCain would get the nod in the end and would be a tough opponent. When I say that I am increasingly pessimistic, I do not mean to imply that I am coming off a delusion that we have squandered a sure win and turned it into a live contest.
April 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, Greg. I wasn't coming at you as much as using your comment as a jumping off point for making that point. Oh, and you can call me twirler. peace
April 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I am not worried. After hearing Obama grow stronger each week, I believe he will run over McCain in any debate.
April 8, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you.
I was just going to post something about that.
April 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if that's because they worry about dem primary squabbling now or because they have bought into this whole C-in-C electability BS about Obama as he slowly becomes the apparent nominee.
I don't think it's wise to project pessimism so loudly on a major website unless you have something rock solid to base it on. There is no such evidence at this point.
April 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who can forget Bob Krueger? Me - I had totally until the moment you said that.
Do we have to dredge all these people up?
LOL!
April 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just one more. "Smilin Ralph" Yarborough. 1957 to 1971.
April 8, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still disappointed about North Carolina, where the Dems seem to have dropped the ball by failing to find a strong challenger to a very vulnerable Liddy Dole.
I personally think Elizabeth Edwards should run against her, health permitting.
April 8, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said! McCain's numbers will not go up once the Democratic primary is finished. I will be very surprised if he even maintains the numbers he has now simply because he is on the wrong side of the major issues for a majority of Americans. The economy is tanking, he is for tax cuts for the wealthiest, people remain against the war (especially McCain's version of staying in Iraq forever) and he has no new plans for health care. And he is sounding more like Bush (who has very low approval numbers) than any agent of change. And change is what people want. All that will be made clear by the Democrats by the time November rolls around. The Democratic turn-out in the primaries has been astounding. And people will grow really tired of McCain's starting every speech with his long worn-out, disingenuous phrase, "My friends..." :-)
April 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
People for the most part do not vote the issues. If they did Bush would have never won an election. It is the unlikeable man he has become since 1999 when most people formed their opinions of him that will lose the election.
April 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see...
The Republicans get into power and the common folk get screwed.
The Democrats get into power and the common folk sget screwed.
I guess it's just up to us common folk to decide who we want to get screwed by, isn't it?
(Remember... The Democrats were in power when Johnson decided to play the Gulf of Tonkin card... The Republicans were in power when Bush decided to play the end of the world as we know it card...
I guess we just REFUSE to pay attention to history, don't we?
April 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's pessimism. LBJ traded off strong military action in Vietnam so that he could get Medicare, the Civil rights Act and the Voting Rights Act passed. He knew that if the conservatives could pain him as soft on Communism in Vietnam, they could shut him down when he went after the domestic priorities.
As bad a Vietnam was, was that such a bad trade-off? Show me the Republican who would have given America the domestic advances LBJ did, even if they paid the cost of increased war to get them? Bush/Cheney have conducted a more expensive war and used it to take away the Rule of Law and American freedoms.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. No good politician is a perfectionist. When we choose one, we find the one who will get us a little more of what we want and we accept that they will conduct trade-offs to get it. Trade-offs always mean someone got screwed. Even doing absolutely nothing means someone gets screwed. (*cough* Jimmy Carter *cough*)
Government is in the business of screwing some and handing others pheasant under glass - or a chicken in every pot. There is a cost to every benefit. Democracy is about all of us actually being involved in who gets screwed and who gets what, and if we just wash our hands of it, as so many Americans do, America suffers worse choices and we all get hurt. That's what your cynicism gets you and all of us. And it's not cute, either.
Quit demanding perfection, rejoin the real world, and start doing the much harder work of finding the optimal balance between screwing some and benefiting others. Otherwise the wealthy elites like Erik Prince control government, and when the wealthy elites take over, we know who gets the benefits of government and who gets screwed.
April 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If, like me, you're increasingly pessimistic about the Dems' chances of retaking the White House in November, then take heart: Things are looking much better for the Dems in the '08 Senate races."
David - why do I think you wouldn't have been as pessimistic if Hillary was the nominee? Am I wrong? Or am I right? Do you guys ever wonder - I mean, actually think about - why so many posters here question your pro-Hillary bias? Or do you just scoff and move on to the next story?
April 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that it's not enough to just get Democrats elected - we need to make a real effort to get good Democrats elected. There's little point in putting someone with a (D) next to their name in a seat if he's just going to vote with the Republicans all the time.
This is especially important since it looks highly likely now that McCain is going to win - we need Democrats who won't be afraid to stand up to him. Four more years of rolling over for what an insane president wants will be fatal for the party, and the country.
April 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "looks highly likely now that McCain is going to win"
Based on what exactly?
[I hope it's more than your disappointment that Hillary ain't gonna be the Dem candidate.]
April 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
O please. It's April for the love of god - we haven't started campaigning against McCain yet in any concentrated way.
I don't make light of the situation, but we are going into this campaign with more money, more backing, more public support than I can recall in a long time, if ever. The public is overwhelmingly against the war. The economy is in shambles - thanks to the Repugs.
Good lord.
April 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When do we start campaigning? November 3rd?
We know who our candidate is going to be now. Obama. We are wasting time and money on an internecine battle that is over.
It's time Democrats to focus on McCain, although Obama and Clinton can nether focus on anything except the remaining primaries. Neither of them is the entire party, and someone should be spending money on TV to define McCain. Now.
The media narrative on McCain has to be deconstructed and replaced. The longer it takes before starting the harder that will be - thus increasing McCain's chances of stealing an election he has no right to win.
Bush won two such elections that he had no right to win. Do we donate to McCain the third in a row? Because if he does win, it will be because of laziness, indecision and Charity from the Democrats.
April 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's not forget, this IS a good time to be a democrat. god knows we deserve it after these past 7 years. just sit back and watch all of these hypocrites squirm as they increasing lose their power.
April 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone really wants to have a completely hypothetical conversation about crossover voting, then I can tell you that my impression here is that a lot of Repugs who are really economic conservatives, the old kind, have jumped the sinking Repug ship.
And I can also tell you that they are not, from what I hear, fans of Hillary Clinton.
April 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary hasn't shown any economic chops in this repugs opinion. So far all I've seen from her are a whole bunch of social welfare/entitlement promises. What about us small business owners who, you know, employ people without treating them like numbers?
I'm not against helping to avoid SOME foreclosures but I can't understand how people who made poor financial decisions are being rewarded while the rest of us basically being told, 'it was so responsible of you to choose wisely, but it really doesn't count for anything' (kind of like her argument that she should win despite not winning the delegates). In addition, Universal health care is not modeled after the UK and Canada, its really a massive corporate subsidy to FOR-PROFIT insurers, mandating it is mandating insurance company profits not better/cheaper care. Progressives, demand better.
Besides, Bill AND Hillary singlehandedly helped the whole country come to believe Bush would make the best president, to this repugs dismay. I'm a republican and I have always seen through the Bush bullshit. As far as I can tell I attribute W's win to name recognition, and that seems to be Hillary's entire premise for running this time around.
April 8, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the people who 'made' the poor financial decisions were poorly educated and lied to in addition. Punishing them is not going to deter people in similar situations in the future from making the same decisions. If you are financially unsophisticated and poorly educated you will not even be aware of the first round of suckers who got punished.
A free market works on creative destruction but there is a limit to the amount of destruction and economy and country can take: the whole subprime debacle is like a drowning swimmer clutching the lifeguard (the rest of the economy and us) around the neck: either you save both or they both drown.
The initial folly was to fail to adequately regulate in four areas: what mortgages could prudently be offered to whom; what information had to be provided to the consumers; how paper could be rated and how much leverage is appropriate for what type of institutions.
It was the demonization of Hillary by the vast RightWingScareandSlimeMachine which brought us Bush and, in part, is now bringing us Obama. Hillary alone and single handed couldn't have done it.
Her claim to winning the nomination rests on two premises: almost equal percentages of the popular vote and electability -- the states which she is poised to carry in the GE have enough electoral votes while the same is not clear for Obama.
Obama is not good at assessing the strategic impact of tactical choices: he vaunts himself as a uniter not a divider who can work across party lines but because he chose to chastize McCain in public over preferences for an ethics bill the bill was delayed and watered down. Playing on the team is a very high value for McCain and Obama trangressed this. Same with Obama and his tactless (tactlesness is defined as saying what everybodyelse is saying and the results are not always admirable) about our nation's policy regarding Osama Bin Laden and Pakistan's sovereignity -- Obama did not intend to end up featured on the front pages of newspapers across Pakistan affronting their sovereignity for no good end. Indulging at a minimum in the demonizing of Hillary is such a way as to deeply offend a significant portion of her supporters to the point that a larger number of them are intending to vote for McCain in the fall. If he had played fair with respect to his false charges of racism he would have avoided this problem. He seems to think that the primary is a basketball game that ends and you start a new one with the GE. This is false -- it is an ongoing game with the voters and if you are viewed as a cheat you lose.
April 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It was the demonization of Hillary by the vast RightWingScareandSlimeMachine which brought us Bush and, in part, is now bringing us Obama. Hillary alone and single handed couldn't have done it."
Wrong. It was the poor personal choices of Bill Clinton in engaging in sexual activity with subordinates and LYING about it that led to a costly impeachment trial (now that they are mega-millionaires perhaps they can pay the taxpayers back). Republicans merely took advantage of a Democratic president that wounded himself. Hillary gained her reputation as a 'my way or the highway' authoritarian approach to healthcare reform. In that way Hillary acted EXACTLY as Bush has. Regardless of your policy positions they are only as good as your ability to persuade others who disagree with you.
As far as Hillary's 'Universal healthcare' program, all it does is mandate insurer's profits, effectively 'rewarding' the worst actors by guaranteeing their current profitability.
"Many of the people who 'made' the poor financial decisions were poorly educated and lied to in addition. Punishing them is not going to deter people in similar situations in the future from making the same decisions."
I don't view losing a home/mortgage you cannot afford as punishment. The punishment occurs when down payments are lost and not recovered and when a foreclosure creates a negative personal credit rating. Therefore, if someone 'bought' a home with zero down, no punishment. If they paid interest only payments, it was probably cheaper than rent, as for the negative credit reporting I'm more flexible for reasons related to the ripple effect.
Some people will simply not be able to afford a home , no matter how many different ways it is financed. I think help should be given to those that fit into the traditional 'debt-to-income' ratio, otherwise its just deferring the same problem for the future. I don't see how someone making $50k a year can possible afford a house costing $500k.
The more widespread help that I think would be helpful for the economy as a whole would be a 'foreclosure forgiveness' program. What I mean by it is... people who cannot afford their home, can walk away and not be penalized on their credit report with a foreclosure. I think the ripple effect of foreclosures and bad credit will have the biggest effect on consumer spending. This would allow the individual a 'do-over' in their goal to own a home.
Please remember that owning home comes with some restrictions, i.e. not being able to move easily to relocate for better paying work etc. In addition, maintenance and repair costs can be just as devastating as an illness to household cashflow. Renting is not indicative of poverty or class distinction. In fact, it can be freeing to someone who doesn't have the ability to cover unexpected repair costs etc.
In addition, I think property values have inflated beyond anything naturally occurring in a 'free market'... I think we should let them fall, back down to a natural market level. Those of us who have some equity will survive it in the longterm as long as we can cover the payments.
Finally, I don't think most Obama supporters especially republican types think he is perfect. But I do think he's more flexible than Hillary when it comes to policy issues. Inflexibility is what has made Bush such a shitty president. Besides, a president doesn't do anything alone... wouldn't Hillary make a better increasingly powerful Senator from NY? She could theoretically keep the job for life and have just as much influence if not more than a president?
April 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric is SO enthusiastic. I love it
I remember when I was his age. Reminds me of me.
April 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The old coalition was not enough to win us '00 or '04. We need a new one. I've seen the new one. We can win this.
April 8, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see several optimistic postings on Noriega defeating Cornyn. I would really like to believe this would be the case, since Cornyn is 100% grade D shill. However, I didn't think he had a chance in 2002, when I thought Ron Kirk would take him down. I was disappointed then, and I will not be optimistic about another Democrat's chances without some solid evidence.
April 8, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP made gains all around in the 2002 midterms. The argument could be made that Cornyn was riding Bush's tide in the aftermath of 9/11. That he had the blessing of Phil Gramm, who was quite popular, was also useful.
And he still only got 55% of the vote.
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but Cornyn's rotten enough, especially with his ties to Abramoff, that the right Democrat could take him- and Noriega is a veteran with ties to Texas' Hispanic population. I'm not sure how much better a challenger we could find.
April 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great news. With Democratic gains in the Senate, we can toss Lieberman from his committee assignments and give them to, you know, an actual Democrat. I would pay lots of money to be a fly on the wall when the Majority leadership give Lieberman the news.
April 8, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Franken really that close with Coleman? That's amazing to me...I'll have to read up on how he's done that.
April 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken had a three-point lead in February, according to a Rasmussen poll.
April 9, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love Ron - he's an old friend and I was devastated when he didn't make it. But looking back, it was 2002. It makes a lot more sense if you put it in context.
A whole hell of a lot has changed since the one year anniversary of 9/11.
Take heart, my friend. Dallas Co. in '06 threw out 49 Repug judges, among many other very good things that happened during that off year election. I've seen good things happening already.
:)
April 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't have had a better year for picking off McConnell in KY, until Schumer had to come in and muck up the works, foisting Bruce Lunsford off on us.
Blergh.
Lunsford actually supported Fletcher against Dem Chandler in the Gov race, has supported McConnell pal Northup that Yarmuth finally took out, even made some joint announcements with McConnell, has a very checkered history in KY, and was resoundingly beat in the Gov primary last year by Beshears, who Lunsford was also attacking.
whatcouldabeen
:(
April 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phil Gramm was elected to the House as a Democrat and a Republican, and to the Senate as a Republican.
April 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like, this should be news?
The wind's been turning for years. The MSM treats the wind like the Santa Ana's.
Go figure.
April 8, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The old coalition was not enough to win us '00 or '04. We need a new one. I've seen the new one. We can win this.
I think we're seeing the unraveling of the two-party system. 21st century here we come!
April 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I don't know if it's the breakup of the 2 party system, but we need some real damn change. What we've had ain't doing it.
April 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama win every single one of those states expect NM which Hillary barely won. Not saying that Primary = general but Obama brought lots of new Democratic turnout in those states.
April 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need all ten seats
April 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need all ten seats to reverse the disastrous years of Bush's tenure.
April 8, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay Minnesota, don't let me down. I know you guys, much better than Coleman, Franken is a no brainer! Minnesota is the state I garnered all my left leanings; prove me right, please.
April 8, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken does not even have the nomination yet; he is opposed by a popular anti-war activist who is showing some Wellstone-like insurgent moves; furthermore Franken has alreadt spent $4 million while Norm the Chameleon has $7 million ON HAND.
Franken most likely will be nominated. But he is behind NOW in the polls; he will be out-spent 2-to-1 from here on, and I would bet on Norm winning easily in the fall. The only person who has beaten Norm was Jesse Ventura.
With the GOP convention here in St. Paul, and probably the popular Republican Minnesota Governor running for V-P with McCain, chances are good that this state will cast electoral votes for the Thugs, too.
The right-wing set out to capture this state fifteen or twenty years ago. They set up a "think tank," and organized the take-over of the airwaves, even subverting the mighty WCCO-AM. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, since the Wellstone tragedy, hasn't been able to get its act back together.
April 9, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I wait forever for my previous comment to (maybe) appear; I'll point out that the Democrats nationally are fools for not taking seriously the FACT that Republicans cheat and do not "play by the rules" for free and fair elections. Daddy Bush, the CIA guy, has all these buddies who have been rigging elections all over the world for decades. Now they have the black-box voting machines and what makes anyone think they'll play nice this time? As I told Howard Dean, THEY STOLE THE LAST TWO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS! Dean replied, "We'll have lots of lawyers at the polls." Oh that will help a lot, won't it? Even if there were EVIDENCE of cheating (and with the electronics, you can rig an election without leaving a trace!), why would the Bush-packed courts act otherwise than they did back in 2000?
No, the Democrats really are too damn stupid if they imagine that civics-textbook democracy exists in the USA in 2008. This is the country with a regime which tortures, lies, cheats, and steals and thumbs its nose at the Constitution and the impotent "leaders" of Congress.
Remember Rove said in 2006 that he "had the numbers." The fix was in---and only an unexpected turnout overwhelmed the frauds. In some places they did it anyway, as in Florida where 18,000 votes vanished from the screens and a Republican "won" a seat in Congress because of it. That's another case where if the Dems had ANY political presence of mind they would never have capitulated! It's just too damn bad the right wingers also have all the guns in this country, too.
April 9, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll. But I would agree with you long enough to point out that both Obama and Pelosi opposed impeachment.
April 9, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was intended to be addressed to johnnydoughey.
April 9, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see. All you anti Hillary folks:
Do you have any idea who the Democratic base is?
WOMEN!!!!!!!
Guess who naive Obama supporters have ticked off big time?
WOMEN!!!!!!
You can't win without us. Oh, you say, we have no where to go?
Not true. Many women are now saying they will not vote for the presidential race.
Do you naive Obama supporters know what that means?
IT MEANS WE WILL BE LOOKING AT A PRESIDENT MCCAIN!!!!
And white men are not ready to give up the power to a black guy. You can say this is old politics all you want, but I say this is reality in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 9, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a woman, and I won't vote for Hillary, not even against McCain.
I'm a single issue voter, my single issue is 'trust'. I can vote for a candidates whose positions I disagree with as long as I can 'trust' them.
In order of trust and authenticity IMHO.
1. Obama, I agree with the majority of his positions and I think he thought of them himself.
2. McCain, I think he's wrong on so many levels, but I also think he sincerely believes in his position.
3. Hillary, I think she is a carpetbagger and a pure panderer. I can't imagine my state voting for someone who moved here just to run for U.S. Senate, they wouldn't make it on the ticket. I think she poll-tested her positions, which means they aren't really hers. The best ideas aren't necessarily devised by a majority vote, look at Iraq.
April 9, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My fear is that if the Democrats can achieve a 60 count in the Senate one of our last bubbles of illusion will be burst.
What are we to do if we find out for certain that money interests/power in politics trumps idealogy/party and we realize there is little significant difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Could it be better for all our souls to keep the illusion going by having a divided Congress? At least then we have the illusion of hope.
Thoughts, comments?
April 9, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
With it looking increasingly likely Dems will increase the Senate majority, somplebody please ask Reid why he's saying he'll keep Lieberman in his Committee seats?
This is a drum that needs more beating, I think. Reid needs to shoot Lieberman out of a cannon and replace him with real Party members, and tell Joe-mentum it's time he showed his true colours and re-register RepubliCon with the rest of the criminals.
April 9, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liddy is still vulnerable. The Senate primary is taking a back seat to both the Obama/Clinton and Perdue/Moore races right now. Once there's a candidate, expect things to change. The only problem i can see is if Neal defeats Schumer's candidate Hagan in the primary, will the DSCC write the seat off. If they do, that makes the task more difficult, but still not impossible.
Either candidate will, as far as i can tell, run a better campaign than Erskine Bowles managed in both 2002 and 2004.
April 9, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, that people who've been talking about issues of economic class all along will get a wider and more interested audience?
I don't see Aryan Nation and Gangster Disciples sitting down to discuss the common enemy.
Maybe Noam Chomsky would be invited to speak at an NRA convention, though.
The Red Sox have won the World Series twice in the past 5 years, so maybe anything is possible.
April 9, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Kentuckian who is desperate to send McConnell off to his next teaching/lobbying gig, I, too, am displeased that Bruce Lunsford is being foisted upon us. His track record of backing Repubs as often as Dems bothers me, and his odor of perennial candidacy makes him a sure-fire loser. Perhaps Schumer is observing the old Senate custom of not targeting the opposing party's leadership, which the Repubs abrogated back in 2004 with their campaign to unseat Daschle.
So here in KY we still have a card full of primary opponents to Lunsford, a few of which sound like just what we oughta be sending to DC. But no, the DSCC is on the guy who is certain to lose in November, and deservedly so. I was so hoping that this year we here in KY could repair the damage that our Senatorial selection(s) have done to the nation. Apparently both parties prefer that the damage continue to be done. Sigh.
April 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a little off subject but... I really object to news organizations referring to one of their own... National Journal.. as being non-partisan. A non-partisan would be more careful about how they rate Liberal/Conservative. There are write-ups that detail their methodology and how flawed it is. How can Obama be the most Liberal Senator with Bernie Sanders in the Senate? And, although I am an Obama supporter, I think that there are several others who may be more progressive.
It is simply crazy to refer to them as non-partisan when, every election cycle, thay find a way to paint the Democratic candidate as "the Most Liberal".
April 9, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink