« Obama Says He's Partnering With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care | Home | Obama's Economy Tour Kicks Off With Sharp Criticism Of Bush And McCain »
GOP Official: If We Only Lose Eight Senate Seats, We Win
In a further sign that Republican hopes are fading badly, the head of the Senate GOP's campaign committee has set a new goal for the party this Fall: Not to lose too many Senate seats.
NRSC chair John Ensign has moved the goal posts, according to the Savannah Morning News, saying that the GOP will have succeeded if they don't lose more than eight seats.
Ensign pointed out that if the Dems win nine seats they'll get to the filibuster-proof magic number of 60 -- at which point, Ensign warned, "they will be able to do pretty much whatever they want."
So if the Dems can't get to a 60-seat super-majority, the GOP will have won. Talk about lowering the bar.
Advertisement
Comments (55)
LOL!
June 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
HA HA.
Wow, sometimes I need to pinch myself to make sure I'm not dreaming.
I'm betting we will take nine, if not more, seats this fall.
June 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm. Were you the one who dreamed up wiki, wiki, wiki? Heh.
June 10, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly resoundingly good news for the GOP. We win by losing! What a bunch of obstructionists! They will have it down to a fine point!
June 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
...of course Tom Daschel and Dick Gephardt never dreamed of obstructing any thing while the Republicans were in the majority...lol
June 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add to that all of the threats by Pelosi of getting rid of the filibuster. ...oh wait.
June 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they didn't, which is why Tom Daschle is now unemployed.
June 10, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time to learn your facts. Republicans have filibustered more bills in 2007-2008 than have ever been filibustered in any two-year period in the Senate.
This despite a 49-49-2 split, a Republican vice president to break ties, and a Republican president with veto power.
June 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that limbo music I hear playing in the background?
Anyways, they're certainly much better at obstructing than doing. They're playing to their strengths here!
June 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure we want more than that so that Lieberman can safely get the boot.
June 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lieberman gets Defense (or State!), maybe he can bring back in various roles, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, even Cheney!
June 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, we need to start considering Lieberman to be a Republican. If the Dems gain 2 Senate seats he needs to be booted out of their caucus and stripped of his committee chair.
June 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So this is pretty much admitting that they intend to obstruct/filibuster every single thing the Democrats do, isn't it?
I wonder how it would look if this vision for electoral success were really a public part of the GOP's campaign strategy. Vote for us, so we can... get in the way of the people who are actually doing stuff?
June 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
...depending on what that "stuff" is, it might work.
June 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you are underestimating the extent of the populist shift in the zeitgeist.
June 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Contact him and ask him to go on record as to which eight seats they are conceding. I would love to have him name them. You know what for.
June 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why Obama can't pick a sitting purple-state Senator for his VP. Sixty is the magic number, and it's within reach. NO SENATORS!
June 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and all the Webb-lovers out there need to pay attention to that point, Webb is a fine guy and all that, but we CANNOT give up that seat. I think he isn't a good choice for VP anyway, but the fact we need him in the Senate should stop any talk of Webb as VP in its tracks.
I'm for Richardson, he is the best all around, he could deliver us many states, including TEXAS, and a couple more Senate seats, and we don't lose anything by putting him on the ticket!
If we want to get a supermajority in the Senate, I think Richardson is the best way!
Obama-Richardson '08!
June 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Part of the calculus of determining this Veep candidate has to be retaining that seat Senate for the Democrats if that Senator is chosen. How strong is that seat for the Dem, both as far as election, and seniority in the Senate? Is there a Democratic or Republican governor in the state and what are the rules for replacement? Is there a strong candidate in place if the Senator leaves mid term? After all of that, I don't think 2 sitting Senators should be on the ticket, at all. I like the in federal government/out of federal government model.
June 30, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senators are appointed by the gov of the state to finish the term. In Obama's case if he wins the nomination, most likely Emanuel will get the nod.
It only matters if the Gov is a republican.
June 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Currently there are two Senate races for partial terms, which is why there are a total of 35 Senate races in 2008.
The two are:
1) Wyoming - Because of the death of Senator Craig L. Thomas, the governor of Wyoming appointed John Barrasso to fill the seat until a special election in November 2008. Sen. Michael Enzi is up for normal reelection.
2) Mississippi - Senator Trent Lott resigned at the end of 2007 to become a lobbyist, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R) appointed Roger Wicker to fill his seat until the special election in November 2008. Sen. Wicker left his Congressional seat, which was won in a surprise upset by Democrat Travers Childers. Sen. Thad Cochran, the senior Senator from Mississippi is up for normal reelection.
So even if a Governor does appoint a Democratic Senator for a partial term, it may move up the next election.
Just a piece of trivia I found interesting.
July 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strictly a defensive play, which is a bad place to begin. There is no offensive to win. That is good for the Democrats.
June 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the Republicans are taking LIEberman into the equation.
June 9, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't the rules on filibusters be changed? The repubs talked about doing it when they had the majority, now can't the dems say lower the cloture number to 55?
I say go for it--if Obama wins and the dems get big majorities in both houses, even without 60 in the senate, the people will have spoken loudly that they want the democratic policies enacted. Why should we let a radical minority hold the will of the American people hostage?
Oh yeah, let's impeach some SU Justices while we are at it--again, why should a couple of right-wing extremists be allowed to thwart the will of a supermajority of Americans?
June 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's to Victory!
Help build The Mentum....
Week 2 voting still open
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24672458/
June 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are truly masters at the art of calling defeat a victory.
June 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the Republicans are taking LIEberman into the equation.
June 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the Republicans are taking LIEberman into the equation.
June 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the exact same logic Republicans use to define victory in Iraq.
June 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You Nailed It! Best response posible. Spread the word!
June 10, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If 41 Republicans play dirty, then so can 59 Democrats. All states with two Republican senators suddenly get far less money than they use to. A series of highly politicized bills -- show bills -- involving children, or troops, or Mom get defeated by Republican filibusters. Over and over. Publicly. No Republican bill ever gets out of committee. But Republicans who support cloture votes get rewarded.
The majority has far more power than the minority. Gently threatening the minority and holding out Obama-style inclusion should move a few.
June 9, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
Will Rogers
June 9, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Software is really deteriorating. I posted this weeks ago for an entirely different article.
June 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back when LBJ was President, Texas had one single Republican Congressman, representing Dallas.
For some odd reason, Dallas got almost no federal money while LBJ was President, and Houston was favored over Dallas for the Manned Space Center (now the Johnson Space Center.)
But then, LBJ was a conservative Democrat, or at least that was the wing of the Democratic party he came out of.
July 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey electorate out there, can't we all just not get along? since Bush decided to play hardball by dividing the electorate back in 2002 when he used 9/11 as a wedge issue to beat up on Dems (when the WHOLE country was attacked, not just Repubs) and win elections, this election in 2008 will be more payback to that strategy, with a vengeance! payback is a bitch and we 'bitter' voters, those who use their minds, haven't forgotten at all how you've treated this country, sir. you are a failure and so is your party. you will pay. Obama is a true cure to the poison that your policies are. oh, and shove it.
June 9, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't really sound like doubletalk to me, more like resigned realism.
They might be trying to greatly lower expectations and raise those of the Dems, though. My first thought reading this was a feeling of certainty that we'd pick up nine or more seats. But if that's not really a gimme and we take it for granted, and then it doesn't come to happen, they'll have accomplished what they intended by moving the goalposts.
It's probably best to ignore all the polling and signals and pretend—with some optimist, certainly—that we still have a tough road ahead of us.
June 10, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to worry if the Dems can govern. Once we have a 60+ margin in the Senate and Obama as our president. Will we really be able to do what it takes to move this country foward?
June 10, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without a doubt. Obama is putting together a political movement that will be deployed to ensure that the Senate gets things done. Wait untill the first time he tells the American people to call their GOP senators with the message that they must stop the filabust and shuts the capital switchboard down for a couple of days.
June 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
and if they can't hold their losing streak at 8 ???
where they gonna put the goal post next ???
as long as the Democrats don't win 17 repuglitard seats, the repuglitard supreme court justices can't be removed ???
June 10, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the soft bigotry of low expectations.
June 10, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Republicans: Thanks for giving us a worthy goal!
June 10, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
More jabberwocky from the looking-glass world of the GOP. From inventing new realities every day and new rationales for a failed war, to verdict first, trial later at GitMo, republicans try to hang on.
Let's make it 15 seats, just to cover any Lieberman-like turncoats
June 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting tidbit from the article Eric cites:
"Ensign has an interesting perspective as a close friend with Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. He says Reid never expected Democrats to take the majority in the Senate during the last election.
"Instead, in June of that year, Reid was predicting his party would lose a few seats, Ensign said."
Sorta makes one question how attuned Reid is to the mood of the country, doesn't it?
And helps explain the extreme cautiousness (to use a polite term) of the current crop of Democratic senators that Reid "leads."
June 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called the game of reduced expectations and framing the debate. By saying that holding Dems to only 8 gains and keeping them from gaining a supermajority is a victory for Rs, they are also trying to define anything less than winning a supermajority to be a major loss for Dems. My question is what are the expected numbers for Dems? What are our anticipated gains, without Republican spin?
June 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
humm
didn't we just go thru this exercise in May ???
cept the repuglitards figured that they would lose THREE seats in May
anybody remember that ???
I think it was this exact same repuglitard too
talk about moving the goal posts
wonder where it will be in October
June 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see election night now as the republicans celebrate "only" losing eight seats. Too funny.
John McCain Voted to Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike
July 1, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Frist and them had gone ahead with their "constitutional option" and abolished the filibuster back in 2005. There wouldn't be enough egg to cover the faces of the GOP Senators, until maybe January 2009 when there were only 39 of them...
July 1, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question. Are the seats which the Republicans are in serious jeopardy of losing anywhere near the number they are quoting, or are they just throwing a number out there to create an impossible bar for the Democrats to reach? Therefore, if the Democrats don't reach that number, the election would be a failure for them.
July 25, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there's the difference between the repugs and dems.........if they loose 8 seats they still no they have power!!!!!!! And they will exercise it!!!!!The dems are in control and act like they have no power!!!!!!!! SHIT!!!!!!
July 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the GOP going the way of the Whig party? this is a pretty extraordinary statement. a few years ago, i thought the Democratic party was on the brink of collapse, or at least utter irrelevance. fickle, fickle politics...
July 25, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess would be that the Republicans will probably not pull a Whig Party. The Whigs themselves came out of the collapse of the Federalists, but there was not yet a strong party tradition at that time.
Today if the Republican Party collapses, it still remains as a national structure for some political activists to take over, and it will retain a sectarian base in the South for a long time, much as the Democratic Party did after the Civil War. I don't see any strong alternative parties on the horizon that could replace the Republicans, although the Greens might disagree. (Libertarians have peaked at about 10% of active Republicans.)
Which opinion, of course, has all the validity of most predictions of the future. It's an interesting question for speculation, though.
July 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful what we wish for. 60 Democrats = a disciplined anti-filibuster party caucus. In your dreams. Herding cats.
July 26, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
? after 60 Democrats sentence. Sorry.
July 26, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that 8 or 9 seats is highly unlikely. If the "wave" in November is that big...we're likely to find a lot of the high-hanging fruit falling into our basket along with the easy pickings.
Generally, a party that is the beneficiary of a huge "wave election" gets all the breaks, including some unexpected ones. If the landslide is big enough to net 7 or 8 seats, then we'll also get some "gimmes" in the lot, a couple of seats that are real longshots or complete shockers. ID, KY, TX, MS would all be possibilities in that scenario...in the absence of a huge wave, all 4 of those states would be out of reach. On the other hand, with a huge wave, our chances of taking them increase dramatically.
As I type this, I'm reminded of 1980, when Birch Bayh, Frank Church, John Culver, George McGovern and many other Democratic Senators who were believed to be safe, went down in defeat. Would love to see the reverse of that this fall!
July 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 8 seats most likely to flip would be Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota, and Mississippi (short term). Maine, Kentucky, and North Carolina are other possibilities.
July 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink