In More Grim News, GOP Writes Off Two Key Senate Seats
Wow, this one really spells trouble for the GOP this fall -- the guy in charge of the party's Senate races just basically wrote off the Republicans' chances in two of their five open seats.
At yesterday's Christian Science Monitor forum -- the same venue where he upgraded the GOP's goal to a potential three-seat loss -- NRSC chairman John Ensign was asked point-blank if the party was giving up on the open seats they currently hold in Virginia and New Mexico, where the Democratic nominees are way ahead of the Republicans in current polling.
Ensign said bluntly: "You don't waste money on races that don't need it or you can't win."




















shit fire this is great news and the tip of the iceberg for the repugs...
June 13, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with his comment, it's still interesting that Virginia is being written off, and that has implications, doesn't it, for the Presidential election?
Wouldn't it be better for McCain for the Republicans to strongly contest Virginia?
June 13, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but when the ship's sinking it's every man for himself.
Interesting that this year, the Democrats are really working in sync at all levels, while the Repugs are just flailing about.
June 13, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gilmore is in serious trouble in Virginia. He is a former governor, and he was George Bush's pick to head the Republican National Committee in December of 2000, though he only managed to hold onto that job for a year before being bounced from it (and you know what it takes for GWB to decide to bounce anyone...), but he only narrowly managed to win the nomination at the state GOP convention (margin of 68 votes out of some 3000 cast) over a guy that most of the state has never heard of, and as of late April, a whopping total of 394 individuals had contributed to his campaign.
He is running far behind Mark Warner in the polls and in the fund raising, and the current incumbent (John Warner, a Republican) has so far declined to endorse him, as has Rep. Tom Davis of Northern Virginia, a moderate Repubican who was widely expected to run for that Senate seat until Gilmore managed to convince the state party to choose the candidate by convention (where the conservatives have the advantage) instead of by primary, at which point Davis withdrew his name from consideration.
The Virginia GOP is in disarray, and they are scrambling to try to avoid losing control of the state legislature next year. The same convention that narrowly gave the nomination for the Senate seat to Gilmore also tossed John Hager out as head of the state party in favor of a 32-year-old kid from Prince William. You might recognize Hager's name -- he is Jenna Bush's new father-in-law.
June 13, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
While this is good news I would add; a lot can happen before the next election and now is not the time for complacency.
June 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, no complacency. But there are resources that Obama has that haven't fully been considered. I will mention two here, the name and the Federation.
"Obama: It's the Name, Stupid"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
Obama, Spock, and the New Star Trek Nation"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
June 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No complacency... Every time I hear something like this from Ensign I think "Hey maybe if we work a little harder we can pick up Dole's seat in NC, or..."
June 13, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not unless Kay Hagan fires whatever Beltway asshat consultants she's paying and reboots her campaign. If she's going to beat Dole, she's going to need to serve up garden fresh goodness, but so far we're getting nothing but flat, metallic campaign-in-a-can yuckiness.
Libby Dole is canned goods too, but at least she knows how to empty the stuff into a colander and rinse it off before she puts it in the pot. Hagan
On the up-side, in our governor's race, Bev Purdue is at least managing to pull off flash-frozen- almost-as-good-as-fresh.
June 13, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. I was really disappointed that we decided to go with Perdue and Hagan instead of Moore and Neal. I saw all four of them speak at the NC JJ dinner, and while certainly Moore and Neal had some issues as candidates, I thought they were much better speakers and articulated their positions more clearly.
June 13, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said on another thread, though, Moore just flat out gave me the creeps, while simultaenously pissing me off. I'm usually not one to vote on the basis of inchaoate gut feelings, but, for Moore, I made an exception.
June 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. So we're looking at a 51+1 - 47+1 Senate for 2009.
June 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the largest potential number of Senate seats the Dems can pick up in November? Is there any chance they might reach a total of 60 or greater (excluding Lieberman)?
June 13, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are 35 Senate seats up for election in 2008, two of them (in Wyoming and Mississippi) special elections to fill out unexpired terms.
Of those, 12 have Democratic incumbents, 18 are Republican incumbents, and 5 are seats from which Repubicans are retiring. That means Republicans are defending 23 seats, nearly half of their total number. Good prospects for Democratic pickups are Virginia and New Mexico; other possibilities are New Hampshire (Sununu), Colorado (Allard, retiring), the special election seat in Mississippi (Wicker), Minnesota (Coleman), and even Ted Stevens's seat in Alaska.
The only Democratic seat that appears to be in serious play is Mary Landrieu's seat in Louisiana.
60 Democratic seats would be a stretch, as even winning all of the above seven and holding Louisiana would only give them 56 plus Bernie Sanders, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. And maybe a Democratic surge would encourage moderate Republicans like Olympia Snow to side with the Democrats once in a while.
(For what it's worth, Larry Sabato has none of those in the "Democrat favored" category, only Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire in the "leans Democratic" category and both Louisiana and New Mexico in the "tossup" category.)
June 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification, slb.
June 13, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
New Mexico is in the envious position of having a shot at sending an all Democratic delegation to represent us in Washington in 2009.
But then, we'd no longer be considered a "swing state", and nobody would pay any attention to us anymore; and we already have enough trouble convincing some people that we really are a part of the US.
June 13, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats really have a shot at Pearce's seat? I'd understood southern New Mexico to be pretty solidly Republican.
June 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention Bill Richardson is on the bench. I imagine he faces a term limit as Gov and would probably be called in to serve in an Obama administration, but NM would still have an active, prominent Democratic politician able to help steer the state party.
As far as Pearce's seat goes, Martin Chavez will move to wherever the action is and set up shop. He's desperate to be elected out of Albuquerque.
June 16, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
>and we already have enough trouble convincing some people that we really are a part of the US.
Is that why it's called NEW Mexico??
Why don't they teach this kind of stuff in school?
June 16, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lest it need be said,
THIS
June 13, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!
June 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
June 13, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY!
June 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCCAIN
June 14, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the picture of a dead elephant is gone when I return later.
June 13, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, it appears to be a sculpture.
June 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but I do believe this begs the question ... if these aren't worth a fight then who is?
The Democrats should really put some effort in discovering which races the repugs deems vital to maintaining at the very least 41 seats in the Senate. If they can defeat them in these states repugs deem key to their survival, the Senate will be owned by the Democrats and the repugs can't stop them from pushing thru their agenda.
June 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not "giving up" when no matter what you do you're going to be ousted. It's called "losing". Giving up implies you have a choice, but losing isn't a choice, it's consequence of failing the people. The Republicans are going to lose the eight Senate seats they can't afford to lose because the voters are throwing out the corrupt and incompetent cronies and enablers that have earned rejection. The Republicans had the power to do the "right" things for the American people. Instead, they exploited them. The Republican brand has been bastardized to the point that only a completley new Republican party can have any hope of regaining the trust of Americans. For all intents and purposes, today's Republican Party is dead thanks to its support of George W. Bush. A generational change is taking place spurred by the disdainful values and methods of Bush Republicans. Americans are saying no more. Americans are revolting against the tyrants.
June 13, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the picture with this post.
You know what: I want to see neckties with that very picture! Lots and lots of dead elephants. I'd buy one. What does everyone say?
Finally, something worth wearing a tie for...
June 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the Repubs writing off Virginia? ("Hey there Cousin Edgar, wasn't that a pig that just flew past the window?")
A friend and fellow gay, waaaay liberal Democrat, and who loves sports analogies, offers that this is a "rebuilding" year for the Republicans. Wrong - the analogy is to a "draft pick" year, when you have the worst record of all.
Yippee, boys and girls, the rout is on! Our time really has come, and for some of us it's been a long freakin' wait (like 40 years). Let's go make the most of it!
June 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in New Mexico. The state of the US Senate race here has NOTHING to do with the Republican Party and everything to do with the Democratic machine.
New Mexico is one of the most corrupt political states in the country. In order for a Republican to win, they must (unless in the 2nd Congressional District which is Republican) come up with enough votes to over come the corruption of the local "machines". NM is always the very last state to complete their vote tally. We have a few jokes about it here.
The last poll I saw, Democrat Tom Udall had a 2-1 lead over Steve Pearce. Here, everyone knows Udall is the anointed one, the seat his if he so desires it. Quite frankly, I find it remarkable that, outside of Lincoln County, any Republican manages to be elected in this state.
Pearce has a decent war chest. Udall has NEVER faced a real opponent. It is possible the race may not be as much a slaughter as is currently predicted.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
June 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask Tom Harkin if it matters if you win in a slaughter or a squeaker. He's never won reelection with (I believe) 53%+.
I know that's not the larger point you're making, but still, a win's a win - and an NRSC retreat is a forfeit.
June 16, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he is counting on LIEberman to convert and bring a Senate seat that way...Run to them Joe now!
June 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ran into Heather Wilson at the airport yesterday, presumably coming back from Washington. Kind of strange that she still has a job until next year....
June 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's only one way to interpret this new information: THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR RUDY GIULIANI!!
June 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you'll ever see republicans change. They may rebrand the party over the next couple of years but the makeover will only be superficial. The difficulty is they have nowhere to go. They've been the party of big business and high finance forever. The relationships from that association have been major contributing factors in the republican slide into the political abyss of voter anger. What makes this somewhat worse than it might otherwise be is all the attention to the misdeeds of Bush and other republicans and the probable election of Obama. These two things have drawn the attention of a lot of young voters who are having their political mindset established for their entire lives.
June 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate will lead to overreaching and overconfidence, as day leads to night, and will hasten the come-back of the other side. Defeat of Snow could have unpleasant unintended consequences, among those, further weakening the sane branch of the GOP when a solid spanking of the party without a rout will strengthen them.
June 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her rhetoric is saner. Her positions are not.
Even "moderate Republicans" like Lincoln Chafee support crazy-ass leadership and vote in line with them at a baseline of 9 times in 10.
I was much happier to see Chafee lose in '06 than Santorum. Yeah, I dislike Santorum more as a legislator, but Chafee gave the RNC a veneer of sanity. Santorum and his ilk are the only poster boys the RNC should have left, the same yokels caterwauling about states' rights and Leviticus.
June 16, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it makes sense not to use precious resources (and the GOP is not raking it in the way they used to) where you are basically screwed. If they weren't running a disaster, they would be more ambitious. I think they want to use the money in 2009 and after to regroup and put their energies behind the better candidates they can recruit. 2008 will give them a four-year opportunity to purge the Bushies, to become a more secular and economically responsible party and to think about what didn't work in the Bush terms.
June 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that the Republicans concentrate on what DID work during the Bush administration. It would be much shorter list, and would help concentrate the mind on the extentof the challenge they face in the future.
June 14, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's unlikely that the Dems will get 60 seats this year -- they would have to win eleven of the most competetive seats: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, North Carolina, Minnesota and Oregon. Not impossible, but unlikely.
But if not in 2008, certainly in 2010 when the Republicans will be defending 19 seats to the Democrat's 16. And we will definitely see more open Republican seats due to the retirements (or potential retirements) of Brownback in Kansas (a Sebelius gimme of she's not already VP), Bunning in KY, Specter in PA, Voinovich in Ohio, Grassley in Iowa, and McCain in Arizona -- all old guys who don't like being in the minority party.
If the GOP isn't extinct after 2010, they will almost certainly retool and rebrand and start making some headway in 2012 when the Dems will be defending.
June 14, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink