Republican Senate Targets, 2006

by Chris Bowers, Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:45:52 AM EDT

This is a companion piece to Thursday's Democratic Senate Targets in 2006. It's a day late, but I hope not a dollar short. Also, be sure to check out the new DSCC website.
  • 1. Dayton's Open Seat (MN). Open seats are never easy to defend, especially in swing states where one term Senators with low approval ratings are retiring. Also, the conservative base and blogs seem to think that Mark Kennedy is the best thing since sliced bread, and I imagine he will rake in a lot of support nationwide. Kennedy has slightly less cash on hand than Amy Klobuchar (965K to 1.1M). Also, according to a poll released by the Patty Wetterling campaign in February (heavy dosage of salt required), he loses to both Wetterling (47-38) and Klobuchar (40-38) (form the subscriber section of polling report). The key in that poll was that Wetterling had a 51 / 25 favorable ration, Klobuchar had a 36 /11 ration, and Kennedy had a 33 / 25 ratio. This means that as long as Wetterling and Klobuchar keep in clean during the primary, the winner will have at least a 50% chance of beating Kennedy. This will be one of the four or five most visible race in the country.

  • 2. Sarbanes's Open Seat (MD). Another Dem open seat, another strong Republican challenge. Republicans will be desperate to try and win this thing for rabidly conservative, African-America Steele in one of the most Democratic states in the nation. For decades, with absolutely no success whatsoever, they have viewed peeling off African-Americans as a way to a New Deal like near Super Majority in the country, but Maryland 2006 is where they plan to pitch their largest battle. Right now, Democrat Ben Cardin holds a fairly strong upper-hand on Steele, as he leads Steele 45-40, despite a 20% lower name ID and $1M in the bank in just two months of fundraising. However, Cardin is facing a very strong primary challenge from Kwesi Mfume, and Steele will receive an absolute hurricane of national Republican support. This race strikes me as very unpredictable, and thus remains very high on the list.

  • 3. Maria Cantwell (WA). Against wealthy Safeco CEO McGavick, first-termer Cantwell could be in some trouble. A Republican poll recently showed her under fifty in approval and re-elect, which means that she is probably right at the tipping point. A Survey USA poll showed her at a comfortable 55 / 30 approval in June, but that was a big jump from 45 / 33 in May. Cantwell is vulnerable, but Washington is shifting in a way that is helpful to Democrats.

  • 4. Robert Byrd (WV). Byrd is very well thought of in West Virginia, and the state is practically named after the man. However, the state is becoming a lot more red than it once was, and Republicans smell blood. Further, Shelly Moore Capito is also very well thought of, and it looks like she is going to run. At age 90, Byrd will have a difficult time following a strenuous campaign schedule. All together, despite his high approval rating, he is now one of our most vulnerable incumbents. Jerome has more on the polling and the ads that are already flying. He also has an ad up on MyDD.

  • 5. Ben Nelson (NE). Ben Nelson has a very high approval rating and lots of money in the bank, which suddenly makes this seat look like one we could keep. However, Nelson will face either former Republican state chairman David Kramer, Ameritrade CEO Peter Ricketts or former attorney general (and two-time Senate loser) Don Stenberg in the general. While Nelson looks good now, this is a fairly strong Republican field, and Nebraska is so ridiculously red that we need to keep our eyes on this one.

  • 6. Jon Corzine / Open Seat (NJ). Corzine is looking strong in the New Jersey Governor's race, and Forrester's ethical problems are only going to make things better for him. Thus, it looks like New Jersey will have an interesting Senate race in 2006. New Jersey voters don't seem concerned about whom Corzine picks, but obviously that will play a huge role in our chances here in 2006. Also, I have heard stories of a very strong Republican candidate for this seat, whose name I can't remember. Maybe Jerome, Scott or Matt can help me out. Another wildly unpredictable seat, but considering the seemingly haplessness of the New Jersey Republican Party, it will stay low on the list for now.

  • 7. Bill Nelson (FL). Harris sucks. She can't beat Nelson, even though in theory he is the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent. The White House knows this--that's why they tried to find a challenger against her. However, with Bense not running, she is going to win the Republican nomination. Still, Nelson is a first term Senator with low approval ratings, and he will be facing the Bush election junta in Florida, so I'm not putting him the seemingly invulnerable (yet).

  • 8. Debbie Stabenow (MI). Stbenow's approval isn't great, 48 / 36, but her re-elect numbers, according to EPIC / MRA from late May, are in the high fifties, against all challengers (polling report, subcriber section). Also, according to EPIC-MRA from early July, her favorables are at a very solid 51 / 24. She looks good, but until her approval crosses 50, I'm not putting her in the seemingly invulnerable.

  • 9. Kent Conrad (ND). With a ridiculous 71 / 22 approval rating, Gang of 14 member Kent Conrad is invulnerable, even in deep red North Dakota. That is, of course, unless Governor Jim Hoeven, he of the 74 / 20 approval rating, tries to challenge him. Dorgan is also at 70 / 24?, so North Dakotans seem pretty happy with their statewide officials right now. Hoeven would probably be the slightl favorite if he challenged Conrad, but he has made no indication he will do so. This race will either drop off the chart entirely, or move to the very top, depending on what Hoeven does. I have a feeling it will be dropping off.

  • The seemingly invulnerable: Akaka (HI); Bingaman (NM); Carper (DE); Clinton (NY); Feinstein (CA); Sanders (VT); Kennedy (MA); Kohl (WI); Lieberman (CT).
Overall, these races look a lot more fluid than the Demcoratic target seats. There are still a lot of primaries and recruiting to be done. Also, Republicans will try and force Clinton to spend some money in New York, but Pirro won't come within twenty-five points. Democratic blowouts n New York and California will more then offset a Republican blowout in Texas. Thus, in all likelihood, Democrats will take another Senate popular vote victory. That does not mean we will necessarily gain seats, however. Aaaarrrrgghh.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

  • 59 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

59 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Am I supposed to be happy...
 ... that Feinstein seems invulnerable in California? She voted for the war and I will not vote for her.  What is the big deal about keeping Democratic seats if the Democrats are voting for the war?  If the Republican candidate against Feinstein were to oppose the war or in favor of withdrawing troops, I'd vote Republican.  I'm really sick of these Democrats licking Bush's shoes.
by steve expat 2005-08-13 12:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Am I supposed to be happy...
I agree; I think it is high time that the dems stand up to Bush on the war and everthing else.  However, except for maybe stem-cells, the GOP seems unwilling to stand up to the president on anything.  Can you find a high profile republican in CA or any place else that is against the war and wants to withdrawl troops? (if so, Karl Rove will quickly be rid of him/her especially as a Senate candidate)

While Feinstein is not ideal on this issue; it is the GOP that needs to be held to the fire regarding the mess in Iraq.  Lets get to 51, then pressure can be placed on Feinstein and similar moderates.  Until the dems have control, its pretty pointless to defeat our own.

by mtguyinokc 2005-08-13 12:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yes
We've only got 44 Democrats, so you should be happy that at least a few don't have to campaign for their live (and ours).  Regardless of Sen. Feinstein's vote on one issue (a vote that many Dems were on the other side of, due in part to an immanent election and misleading "evidence"), she does a whole lot of good.  When we've got 70 seats, you can talk about replacing her.  Until then, let's not sacrifice the good on the alter of the perfect.
by LaX WI 2005-08-13 12:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Feinstein
Feinstein is the worst so-called Democratic Senator bar none.

I say this not just because she supported the war and the nomination on Rice to be Secretary of State. She is the worst Democrat in the Senate because she votes against the working the people of this country and against her own constituents. She voted for the first Bush tax cut and the medicare bill. Even Joementum voted against these awful bills.

Unlike the Ben Nelsons of the world, Feinstein has no excuse for taking part in Bush's war against working Americans. The people of her state rejected Bush twice by large margins.

The Democratic Party exists to protect the interest of working Americans, Feinstein and her ilk have no place in such a party.

by Otto 2005-08-13 01:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Feinstein
Bush lost twice.  

But Arnold won, and the governor of California has been a Republican for 18 of the last 23 years.

by v2aggie2 2005-08-13 03:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Feinstein
This is a common occurence; that blue states elect red governors or vice versa. I think it's a tendency to seek divided government for checks and balance.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-13 03:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This used to be the case
I think, especially in the upcoming 05 and 06 elections, this will cease to be.  Blue states are starting to hate all Republicans, and Red states are starting to hate all Democrats, although right now, I think the first is a little more dramatic than the second (which is good news).
by Geotpf 2005-08-13 05:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This used to be the case
Well I know that AG Spitzer will win the governorship easily in NY.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-13 06:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Feinstein
At the state level, "red" Governors of blue states are usually the moderates. Likewise, "blue" Governors of "red" states are also moderates.

The best example of this division is NC. At a state level, NC is very blue. Democrats control the Governor's mansion, both houses of the legislature, and most of the elected cabinet officials. However, NC has two Republican senators, and NC has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, even in 2004 with Edwards on the ballot.

Interestingly enough, the state offices, including Governor, are on the same ballot as the President in NC. The last four elections, a Democratic Governor was elected on the same ballot as the Republican won NC's electoral votes, so split-ticket voting is quite common.

Of course, a NC Democrat is more conservative than the average Democrat nationwide.

by wayward 2005-08-14 08:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
California was a red state prior to about 1992
Granted, the fact that Reagan was from California helped, but...
by Geotpf 2005-08-13 05:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: California was a red state prior to about 1992
I think that's the only reason. Reagan had tremendous popularity and crossover appeal. I never liked his policies though.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-13 06:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The worst?
And she claims this record from whom... Zell Miller?  Give me a break with the hyperbole.  Sen. Feinstein will answer to her constituents come next November, and they'll decide if what she did was right.  As of June, her constituents actually liked her work better than that of Sen. Boxer, with Democrats liking both equally.  That's who gets to decide if she's doing a good job: her constituents, not me in WI or you wherever you are.  And they seem to say she's pretty good.
by LaX WI 2005-08-13 03:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That'll never happen
The Republican party in California almost never lets a non-wingnut get through the primary, and if they do manage to get on top, they can't raise money in the general.  Arnie won because there was no primary, and because movie stars get a +10 bonus in this state.
by Geotpf 2005-08-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
CA GOP primaries, and our changed state
    In the past, the CA GOP used to have some non-wingnuts win their primaries. Then these candidates often won in the general elections. Nowadays this doesn't happen as much because of two main factors: one is that the CA GOP is smaller than it used to be, with many of the former moderate Repubs becoming independents or Dems. The other thing is the demographic changes in CA. There are fewer conservative white people in the electorate because of immigration and naturalization of new citizens and out-migration of older white folks to other western states. What is left is a more focused hard-right party that doesn't fit much of the state very well. The Greedy Old Party is still dominant in some parts of the state: much of the Central Valley, the mountain counties, and much of Orange county and the Inland Empire.  Even some of these area are moving away from GOP dominance, with areas that used to be solid GOP like northern OC and northeast LA cities like Pasadena and Glendale switching to Democratic representation. One thing  that we forget--CA is moving more from GOP to no party "decline to state" voters (who often vote Dem) than to solid Democratic. A politician like Feinstein actually represents California's political spectrum well--she's fairly moderate to conservative on economics but more progressive on social issues and the environment. That doesn't mean you or I have to like her, but that is why she is safer than anyone in this cycle except  Kennedy, Akaka and maybe a couple of others.
by Zack from the SFV 2005-08-13 08:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Israeli Elepahnt
I was arguing with MTGUYIOKC about this earlier and I think Feinstein is more vulnerable than people imagine.

However, just so most people are clear about this...even in sunny California nearly ever Jewish member of Congress (and they are all Democrats in our state) voted for the war. It's very agonizing because in other states there's not this clear cut dichotomy but here in the Golden State about the only Jewish member of Congress that didn't vote for Iraq was Barbie Boxer.

Naturally, given the largest Jewish community in California I think she did it to maintain her good standing towards supporting Israel. Equally frustrating is that no Congressional Democrat has the guts to admit that support for Israel drove their decision to vote for Iraq...even though...Republicans have no problem mentioning this from time to time.

Nearly every House seat is ridiculously safe in CA so I don't expect the Adam Schiffs and Henry Waxmans and certainly not the Tom Lantoses of the world to suffer any consequences for this disgrace worthy of Louis Napoleon. But it could cost Feinstein if the the national GOP wants to put enough seed money into the race.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-13 07:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Am I supposed to be happy...
I don't Like her all that much either a friend of mine worked in her staff and said she was the worst Senator out of the 45 to work for but she might retire anyway she is 80 you know.
by Liberal 2005-08-13 08:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
DiFi is old but not that old
   Feinstein was born 6/22/1933 which makes her 72 not 80. I believe she is running in 2006 but might not run in 2012.
by Zack from the SFV 2005-08-13 08:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DiFi is old but not that old
are you sure i thought it was 80 for sure god my brain isn't working today eh.
by Liberal 2005-08-13 09:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DiFi is old but not that old
    I got the information from the Almanac of American Politics 2002. Should be correct. in case you were wondering, Barbara Boxer was born 11/11/40.
by Zack from the SFV 2005-08-15 10:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I Dont Think We Will Lose Any Seats
I think 3 things determine whether one state will be a "pick up" or a "hold:"  the state, the political environment and the candidate, in that order.  I think we will hold all of our seats because '06 will be a good democratic year (6th year fatigue, poor economy for middle class and Iraq) and all the contested seats we are defending are in good terrain.

Specifically:

MN: Blue-leaning state, good Democratic year and either of our two likely nominees seem fine.  I just think the "environment" is so hard to overcome in a state that already naturally leans in favor of the party enjoying the favorable over-all environment.  We win.

MD:  Same comments except more so.  Md is a blue state.  With the 06 tail wind at our back, our candidate would have to implode for us to lose. We will definitely win here.

WA:  Blue-leaning state, (again) good environment, good incumbent.  She will win solidly (by 7-8%).

WV:  I am from WV.  In a "bad" year, let's say like 2004, Byrd would be in some danger assuming Capito runs because the state is trending red.  Byrd has lost a little support due to his strident attacks against Bush as we are possibly the biggest "rally around the flag" state in the country.  Still, Byrd is daily being proven right about the war.  Also, there will still be a sentimental groundswell for him.  Social security will be big here as we have a large elderly population.  Also, the economy will be a big issue here.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Republicans win statewide here purely on social issues, making Dems out to be baby killers and homo lovers.  Byrd is very hard to attack along these lines. He will win solidly vs Capito, in a blow out vs anyone else.

NJ: Almost certainly a win for the reasons Chris mentions.

Others: BAsically, I agree with Chris' analysis on the rest of the states.

 

by Andy Katz 2005-08-13 12:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I Dont Think We Will Lose Any Seats
I don't think we will lose any either and i'm not being optimistic Damnit there is just no where for Republicans to gain there was as of December 2004 but Dole sucks and the presidents apporval ratings are lower than ever and the Senate candidates the Reps. have produced so far are weak besides WV and i don't know about Kennedy in MN but besides that she stinks at it Bryd will Win in WV anyway 53 years in congress think about that and a low house rep. i think we know who will win and in MN it is a blue state and i trust the Democrats will hold it they managed to take in 2000 with Dayton. also MN-06 is open thanks to his run. somone from Minnesota tell me what he is like so i know what are dealing with there.
by Liberal 2005-08-13 01:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
All You Need To Know About Mark Kennedy Ever
Minnesota blogger Norwegianity posts this about Mark Kennedy:

MARK KENNEDY GREATEST MAN THAT EVER LIVED
God Makes Official Declaration; Others Join In Praise of Watertown Resident
Gregg Aamot
Associated Press
Published August 13, 2005: StarTribune

U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy is the greatest man that ever lived, God declared today during an impromptu press conference Friday.

God was joined in his praise of Kennedy by The Pope, President George Bush and religious leaders from all around the world at a celebration of Kennedy's life at the U.S. Capitol in Washington at the Capitol Rotunda.

"Yeah, he's the best," God said Friday of the Republican. "I mean, creating the heavens and the earth were pretty cool. But on the 8th day when I made Mark Kennedy, well that just rocked."

more...

Seems like God spoke to a local wag after local media reported on charming edits of news copy over at the Kennedy campaign web site.

by Sally Jo Sorensen 2005-08-14 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All You Need To Know About Mark Kennedy Ever
it's offical the Dems. will hold it lol.
by Liberal 2005-08-14 09:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Of course We'll Lose a Seat
With a strong anti-corruption
and anti-war wind behind us,
we could win several seats.
But we'll almost surely lose
one or two.

Remind you in '04 the Repubs
had the wind, and we were
almost swept in Senate
races where we had thought
we were very competitive --
from N.C., S.C. Fla., La.,
Okla., Ky, S.D., to Alaska.

But even in their sweep the
Repubs lost one close contest
--  in Colorado.

That's normal. Very rarely does
one side win them all. So we
can expect to lose one even
if we do make big gains.

by Woody 2005-08-13 03:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Of course We'll Lose a Seat
i dissagree there is no real area i can see take over in except MN but once a Dem. Nomminee is declared Kennedy will fall what seats do you see going to the Reps.?
by Liberal 2005-08-13 08:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I must be missing something
I'm confused. You say Kennedy is toast once a Dem is nominated, but a few posts earlier, you admit you don't know anything about him. So, how do you make that determination?

I certainly don't have a clue how this race will turn out, but I do think it will go down to the wire, and I believe this is the best chance for Republicans to pick up a seat.

by RepTroll 2005-08-13 09:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I must be missing something
i didn't say toast i just said that once a nominee is in it will look better for the Dems. right now it doesn't look to good becuse Kennedy is right now running alone becuse of a diverse Dem. primary.
by Liberal 2005-08-14 09:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Of course We'll Lose a Seat
Well, 2004 wasn't really a GOP sweep, just a good year for Republicans. A better example is 1986, a Democratic sweep. Dems won a lot of close races, including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Dakota...but still lost Missouri!
by raginillinoian 2005-08-14 10:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Of course We'll Lose a Seat
But Colorado has been trending more blue, and Salazar was a great candidate while Coors is a complete tool. The more and more I think about it, it seems more likely that Democrats might actually sweep all of their own contested seats. Which would surely mean a net gain of 2 or 3.
by AC4508 2005-08-15 09:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I Dont Think We Will Lose Any Seats
MN may lean blue, but by how much as far as the open Senate seat race is concerned, is hard to say. Yes, Kerry won here, but we do have an even split in House reps and our Gov and other Senator are both Republicans. So the environment may be favorable to Dems in presidential elections, but to say it definately favors them in this race is a different thing entirely. Way too early for either side to be able to claim victory at this point. This will be a fun race to watch.
by RepTroll 2005-08-13 09:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I Dont Think We Will Lose Any Seats
Maybe I was unclear what I meant by "favorable political environment."  I was referring to what I believe will be a very pro-Democratic Party political environment nationally.  I dont see the Iraq war getting any more popular in the next 16 months, the economy, and particularly wages, improving , gas prices, health care costs or college tuition lowering so Bush and the Repugs are going to be even more unpopular at election time then now.  Not to mention the historic "voter fatigue" that occurs in the 6th year of a presidential term.

In regard to MN., I think a Democratic candidate should have an excellent chance to win an open seat considering the political environment and that the state still leans blue.

This model is not "perfect."  As was stated above, Salazar won in Colorado in 04, beating an incumbent in a red-leaning state in a pro-red political environment.  Also, Pryor won in Ark, in 02.  Still, I stand by my prediction that we wont lose a single seat and that we will pick up 4-5 seats.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-14 06:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I Dont Think We Will Lose Any Seats
Salazar won an open seat - first. In general - i agree with those who say, that it's an extremely rare situation, when you don't lose any seats. And think that 2-seat gain would be excellent result for Democrats in 2006. I don't expect anything substantially better. So far there is only 1 Republican seat, where i feel more or less confident about Dem's pickup - PA. Some other fall in "probable" category, more - into "possible, but unlikely", and some in "solid Republican" (some - in "blue" states)
by smmsmm 2005-08-14 08:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I Dont Think We Will Lose Any Seats
Every six years, pundits said the same damn things about Fritz Hollings (D-SC) as they are about Robert Byrd.

And every six years, Fritz Hollings would beat some hotshot Republican twit, AND have coattails for Democrats statewide.

Democrats kept the seat in one of the most Republican states in the country until Fritz retired in 2004.

by wayward 2005-08-14 08:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
New Jersey
Chris Christie, the current U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, has been touted as a possible candidate for statewide office. He has made his name proscuting corrupt politicians.  Mostly democratic, but several Republican ones as well.  And I have to say we needed the fumigation here.

NJ leans strongly democratic, but when we screw up enough, New Jerseyans will vote Republican.  This was the state of the tax revolt in 1993, which was a harbinger for a nationwide Republican sweep in 1994. I have to say that the corruption and cronyism I see in my neck of the woods makes me sick.   Such sentiment can easily shift a strong blue state to vote Republican.

Democrats should be able to keep this state, if they act competantly and on the level.  But unfortunately, that's a big if.

by JPhurst 2005-08-13 01:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
NJ
The newspapers here keep touting Chris Christy.  I think he's a lousy candidate with bad political skills (one term Morris County freeholder) and a rep as someone out to get politicians of either party.  He's a schmuck in love with his own "mystique."  To paraphrase Chicago's Paddy Bauler, "New JERSEY AIN'T READY FOR REFORM."

I'd worry more about Stabenow, particularly if Jennifer Granholm is in big trouble.  The sixth year has been a charm a lot of times (58,66,74 come to mind).  And, in a sense, maybe 46 functioned that way, too (Truman's second year but the war was over and the Reps made their big run).  I also feel like Minnesota looks tough.

We'll certainly know more as we get closer.

by David Kowalski 2005-08-13 01:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clinton vs Pirro
Not only will Pirro not come within 25 pts, this tactic to make Hillary spend money will backfire. If this turns into the most expensive Senate race in history as some pundits have predicted, this will only further cement Hillary's name in the public eye, give her plenty of MSM attention, and increase her momentum going into the dem primaries after her inevitable rout of Pirro.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-13 01:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton vs Pirro
It's not the money or the points that are important. The Pirro campaign will be all about smearing Hillary and floating trial balloons and tactics to see which one's work against her. They'll make smears that they will try to get to be "common knowledge" by the time the '08 campaign comes around. This is gonna be ugly. She is gonna kick their collective rears but it is the residuals that are where the potential damage will come from.
by Andrew C White 2005-08-13 02:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton vs Pirro
Nobody in politics has a better team than Hillary. I think it'll backfire. She'll look extremely strong blowing Pirro out of the water. Since Pirro is a moderate republican, hopefully this will make the GOP think twice about running a moderate nominee in 2008.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-13 02:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton vs Pirro
I think it's going to be increasingly difficult to smear Clinton.  Almost everyone already has an opinion about her, you can't smear her to define her.

Oddly enough, the result by 2008 may be that she's developed virtual immunity to smear attacks.  Strange but plausible.

by InigoMontoya 2005-08-13 10:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton vs Pirro
Living in Westchester County one is able to hear about her [Pirro] gaffe-laden campaign kickoff frequently. There was her 30+ second silence during a live televised address, which the NY state Dems have already made into an advertisement (which seems just a tad pathetic), and the complete absence of her husband Al (convicted of tax fraud/evasion) from her campaign website, among other things. She has been re-elected as District Attorney several times, despite her husbands baggage, in a heavily Democratic county. She's gotten a lot of positive press over prosecuting online pedophiles and such, not to mention she is actually from Westchester, whereas Hillary is viewed as more of an opportunist. At least that's the way the GOP is trying to portary her [Clinton].

While not the biggest Hillary fan, I'd rather her win re-election than see a Republican take the seat (seeing as no Democrat would challenge her in a primary), even if she's only gearing up for 08. In my mind it's more important for the party to keep the seat and have Gov. Spitzer appoint her replacement if she were to win the presidency - a prospect of which I shudder to consider. Hillary tends to take her liberal base for granted as she heads rightward to make herself more palatable to the general electorate. [gag] These are things that may make Hillary's re-election more troublesome, though I doubt the outcome will change. Current numbers were something like 61-29, even if Pirro were to make a net gain of 20 pts (51-39) she would lose, even if all the undecideds went with her.

This still neglects to mention that Pirro isn't even the GOP nominee yet, merely the latest to enter the race, and not nearly the strongest (I don't believe polling has been done on this yet - at least I haven't seen it). The ex-Mayor of Yonkers, John Spencer, a real piece of garbage whom I was glad to see depart, and Nixon's nephew (whose name escapes me) are also in the race, both of whom are much more conservative than Pirro - which is very important in NY. For those of you who are unfamiliar with NY election law, we have a peculiar institution which allows fusion candidacies, in that a candidate can be endorsed by multiple parties and listed on multiple ballot lines. The NY Conservative Party is a huge force in determining an election - no Republican candidate has won statewide office without them in [insert obscene amount of time here]. Blah blah blah. Pirro does not seem likely to get their endorsement at this time, in which case the state GOP may try to stall her candidacy in favor of someone who will.

Giuliani is still looking at 08, but if he were to run for Gov or Senate would apparently win either contest in current numbers, which is rather sad. Perhaps he is just planning to run for both and turn NY into Giulianistan, who's to know?

All this rambling was simply to say this race isn't over because of all the mitigating factors (NY state election system, the Clinton factor, husband baggage, Giuliani, presidential aspirations, "carpetbagging", blah blah, etc etc).

Essentially, outside of Hillary banking swiftly to the right before Nov 06 or some other major gaffe/scandal, Giuliani entering the race, or Pirro singlehandedly capturing Osama herself, I still believe Hillary's re-election is quite assured.

by hellenica 2005-08-15 10:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I like the chances
of knocking off Burns, Talent, Santorum, and Dewine. I am less confident but hopeful about Kyl and Chafee.

I am concerned about keeping the seats of Dayton, Bill Nelson(Fl), Cantwell and Sarbanes. Also of concern are Corzine (maybe), Stabenow (depending on opponent), and Byrd.

Of the two comparisons I like our chances more than I am afraid of our concerns.

Santorum and Dewine are toast as long as our guys don't screw it up.

A good candidate and good campaign can knock of Burns and Talent.

Pederson may have what it takes to take care of Kyl from what I've heard but let's see how he runs.

The whole Chafee situations strikes me as a 50-50 proposition and really will come down to who runs the better campaign and gets that last minute flip of opinion in the voting booth.

I like our chances.

I am very concerned about Minnesota. That won't change until I see the Democratic candidate really light some fire. At the moment I think it's a loss.

Bill Nelson ought to wipe the floor with Harris' face... and I suspect he will... but Florida under the bushies concerns me regardless of whether Nelson wins by 25 points or not. I have no trust in the existence of democracy for fair elections in Florida. Carter and Ford should come in and monitor every election booth. Hell! Maybe the Ukrainians should come in and monitor the elections booths!

Cantwell strikes me as being in trouble but this is a seat we shouldn't lose so if she runs a good campaign and the state party organizes well we should win but I'm none to sure about it.

I don't like what I am hearing out of Maryland. This shouldn't even be on the radar screen but I am getting impression that they do not have their act together down there. The Democratic decks should have been cleared for Mfume. If the party had it's wits about them they would have done so, coalesced behind him and we wouldn't even be talking about this race. As it is....

The Corzine thing is to early to know. Probably not a problem but not a guarentee either.

Michigan can always go either way. Who is rumored to be considering running against Stabenow? Is she really up for re-election so soon? I could have sworn she was just elected a couple days ago.

It is amazing to think of Robert Byrd as vulnerable. At first my mind rebeled at the thought but the state is obviously trending Republican and he is quite old. I don't know which way his age will play for him. A lot of people will vote for him until he dies in office or retires of his own accord. Some folks will think retiring of his own accord should be now and will think him too old. I'm guessing he is safe and the sentimental, let him die in office, vote will carry the day.

I guess I see a 2 seat, maybe 3 seat pick up for us. Probably 2. Not enough to take back the Senate but a nice pick up placing us is striking distance in '08.

Of course, national events could change things between now and Nov '06. If the bulk of the administration gets indicted, if DeLay and Hastert are indicted, then this becomes a bigger pick-up and a possible majority.

If Fitzgerald can't do more than a couple perjury charges, DeLay does not get indicted, and the bushies start bringing our troops home with a good enough cover to keep it from looking like the utter disaster it is sure to be then it might be nothing more then break-even or a 1 seat swing either way.

All in all, I'm guessing we pick up 2 seats.

by Andrew C White 2005-08-13 02:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I like the chances
"Michigan can always go either way. Who is rumored to be considering running against Stabenow? Is she really up for re-election so soon? I could have sworn she was just elected a couple days ago."

Michigan could possibly go either way with both Stabenow and Governor Granholm. But I feel pretty good about us keeping them.

In the GOP primary, a lot of possibly strong candidates have said they won't run (ie. Candice Miller, Jane Abraham, and I think the CEO of Domino's Pizza said he was out... can't remember his name), and then one declared candidate dropped out the other day, leaving two right now: Jerry Zandstra and Keith Butler.

Zandstra isn't really too strong of a candidate, and Butler has a bunch of endorsements and a lot more money, so I'm thinking he's got it. And he could be a dangerous candidate-- he's an African American pastor who founded his own church and was a Republican elected to Detroit city council (a very rare event), so his appeal is being able to win Red West Michigan and pulling a chunk of the Detroit vote away from Stabenow. He's also supposed to be pretty charismatic, too, and a strong campaigner.

However, he's got some things counting against him. First, upthread, you might have seen Debbie's favorable/unfavorable numbers. She's looking pretty good. Also, if Zandstra puts up a fight, or someone else enters the race, a messy battle would last all summer, since the primary election isn't until August 2006. During that time, a positive Debbie Stabenow can appeal to regular Michigan voters as Butler has to focus on Republicans. And he'll only have a short time to define himself to independents and the Democrats he'd need to swing over to him in Detroit.

More than that, though, Michigan really isn't conservative enough for him. There are some conservative bits (I live in one), but overall, I don't see us electing him.

Of course, I could be wrong.

by Fitzy 2005-08-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I like the chances
Why should the party in MD have gotten behind Mfume? Mfume wouldn't necessarily be better than Cardin. Cardin is just as strong and maybe stronger and a contested primary is a good thing.
by FairfaxDem11 2005-08-13 10:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I like the chances
WTF are you talking about with Maryland? Why Mfume? Mfume is losing to Steele; Cardin is winning. Look at every poll!
by raginillinoian 2005-08-14 10:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Updated Numbers for Stabenow
I'm cross-posting my most recent diary from dKos as it is directly related to this story:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/12/11841/3152

For the first time, I was one of those surveyed!! That's right, I'm personally responsible for 1/600th of the results of the latest EPIC/MRA state-wide poll taken a few days ago, which included questions about Bush, but was mostly focused, of course, on Jennifer Granholm and Debbie Stabenow:

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gov12e_20050812.htm

The most promising bits of news:

"Forty-five percent of voters in the Michigan poll said they had a favorable opinion of Bush, while 53% had an unfavorable opinion and 2% were undecided. A month ago, about the same number had a favorable opinion: 44%. But the percentage holding an unfavorable opinion has grown 5 percentage points from 48%.

Granholm showed the opposite trend, with the percentage of voters with a favorable opinion of her growing from 56% last month to 61% in the latest poll. Thirty-four percent said they had an unfavorable opinion, compared to 32% last month. Five percent were undecided this month."

They also asked questions about Ted Nugent, of all people (no clue why--it doesn't make sense because he isn't running for anything even as a novelty candidate), and, oddly, about a dove hunting ballot proposal, which seems like perhaps the least-significant issue on anyone's mind at the moment.

STABENOW NUMBERS:

Democratic U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Lansing, up for re-election in 2006 along with Granholm, got a positive job rating from 56% of those polled, while 33% gave her a negative job rating and 11% were undecided.

Fifty-nine percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of Stabenow, while 21% had an unfavorable opinion and 15% were undecided.

by Brainwrap 2005-08-13 02:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
GOP challenger in NJ
I think the potential strong GOP candidate in NJ is State Sen. Thomas H. Kean Jr. (R-Westfield), the son of former Governor Tom Kean.  Gov. Kean won his second term in 1985 with a record 71% of the vote, and recently revived his name in NJ politics by serving as the chair of the 9/11 commission.  I don't know much about Kean, Jr., and I haven't seen any polling on the race, but I imagine that the combination of his name recognition and his dad's contacts will make him a credible candidate out of the gate.  
by Mose 2005-08-13 04:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Byrd is Number Two
I think this list is more or less correct. While I maintain its always best to target the open seat first, the Republicans probably think that Byrd in a "red state is more vulnerable" than New Jersey or Maryland which are hard-core Democrat states. Cantwell is not doing very well either, but her problems are mirrored in that of Diane Feinstein: you have another more outspoken, and also female Senator able to suck out oxygen that would be yours.

Akaka would be vulnerable but I think Governor Lingle in Hawaii will not want to risk being a one-termer by giving up the StateHouse unless he dies. Still both Akaka and Inouye are older than Social Security and it won't be long before Lingle wants a Senate seat.

The national party wants to get Nebraska and New Mexico back, but I think they feel that if they wrest away Minnesota and West Virginia they can hope that John Hoeven runs against Conrad in North Dakota and find someone other than Harris to run in Florida.

Throwing too much money at Steele is just like what McAuliffe did to Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez in Texas in 2002. Good way for them to shoot their wad and have nothing to show for it.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
you all are to Negative i rem.
Everybody during the Hackett run said Hackett will lose and only get 40% or less (most people said that) and look what happened he was ahead most of the night and than eventully lost by 4 points 48% you need to get 2004 out of your minds.
for one thing 5 Dem. Senators aren't in the southeast this time. second Bush isn't getting any traction with people and the GOP nationaly isn't either when we went into 2004 bush had a 5 point lead according to the CNN/USA today Gallup i don't see any light at the  end of the tunnel for him this time. People aren't going to fall for the if you vote Dem. we will get attacked again crap.
by Liberal 2005-08-13 08:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
ranking disagreements
For me, this is the list:

  1. Minnesota
  2. Maryland
  3. Florida
  4. Washington
  5. New Jersey
  6. Michigan
  7. Nebraska
  8. West Virginia
  9. North Dakota (off the list unless Hoeven runs)

And for the other side, why the hell do you have Ohio higher than Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania is a slam dunk so far, Ohio still leans toward DeWine. And, uh, why does Nevada make the list when Reid is actually helping Ensign get reelected?
by raginillinoian 2005-08-14 10:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements
Maryland: forgot a note here. Because Cardin is already winning despite a huge name recognition gap, I'm assuming this one'll be easy. 55-45 Cardin wins, probably.
by raginillinoian 2005-08-14 10:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements
one more thing...my rankings of the Democratic target list.

  1. Pennsylvania - this is like Arkansas in 2002, a very likely pickup. Casey leads by double digits in several recent polls and I have yet to see a poll showing Santorum in the lead.

  2. Rhode Island - a lot of you aren't up to date, but I'll just remind you that Chafee is polling at 41% against Whitehouse's 36%...very promising numbers.

  3. Montana - Montana Dems are on the offense, they are gunning for Burns' head on a stick. And for good reason - both Dem candidates, though not very well-known by the average Montanan, are keeping Burns under 50% and coming closer.

  4. Ohio (IF BROWN/RYAN RUNS) - if a good candidate, like Rep. Brown or Rep. Ryan runs, this will lean Dem. If not, DeWine ekes out a win.

  5. Missouri (IF MCCASKILL RUNS) - if McCaskill runs, this will only slightly lean to Talent, and Gov. Blunt's unpopularity may drag down the incumbent.

  6. Tennessee - open seat, good Dem candidate. An increasingly red state, but nevertheless it should be somewhat competitive...at least more than in 2002 with Lamar vs. Clement.

  7. Arizona - rich and smart Dem candidate.

  8. ?

Nevada doesn't even make the list. Reid is aiding and abetting Ensign, thinking it will mean he gets a free pass in 2010. Yeah, sure. That's what Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland thought they would get in 2002 by praising Chimpie...what they got was defeat.
by raginillinoian 2005-08-14 10:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements
I would say that even with Brown/Ryan Ohio is a tossup at best.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-14 12:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements
Sadly, Chaffee will probably not lose.  Even though the state tends to lean Dem, people value being more "independent" and don't really follow politics.  All of the prospective Dem and Republican candidates have been criticized because of their wealth, which makes them seem "not one of us (the working people).  There is a history of corruption in the state, and many talk radio hosts are daily leading smear campaigns against Dems and liberals, and these are taking root with Rhode Islanders, who resent being heavily taxed, just to mention one issue of contention.  Also, the divide between city and suburban residents is huge.  I can't tell you how many times I hear other people blame the cities (especially Providence) for everything, complain how there are too many liberals, complain about the college students, complain about minorities and immigration, and blame David Cicilline for everything else (even if it's just a result of the corrupt Buddy Cianci administration).  Frankly, as a city kid, I get tired of hearing how I'M the cause of all of Rhode Island's problems, that my home is dirty, that my friends and I are all illiterate dumb welfare recipients, and other untrue stereotypes.  
by ciudadano 2005-08-14 09:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements
obviously, you did not read my post. Chafee is polling at 41% despite high name recognition!!!!!!!!! 41%!!!!!!! And he has a famous, beloved name! His likely opponent is within 5 points - 36%, despite lower name recognition and the advantage of incumbency.
by raginillinoian 2005-08-15 07:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements -my view.
PA: Santourm low approval ratings low poll numbers and a blue state it can't get much worse for him. RI: this is a toss up right now Chafee is still ahead in polls any approval ratings? OH: Dewine has like the lowest approval rating of all senators or somthing right? if Brown/Ryan/Hackett runs this will be a lean dem. senate race. Montana: this is a big toss up i can't see a clear leader yet to be honest Burnes is ahead in polls but for an Incumbent to lead they should be at 50%. MO i don't know about Mccaskil she doesn't have anything else going for her so i guess that would be the best move any polls on that possible matchup? TN: no clue becuse no clear Nominees yet. AZ: Eh Pederson has the money and the Charisma but doesn't have the support but he has 16 monthes to fix that. NV: somone for the love of god run!!!! VA: Mark Warner please run for the Senate a Presidential run would not work and that Prick Allen needs to get taken down.
by Liberal 2005-08-15 06:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: ranking disagreements -mine
  1. Minnesota
  2. Nebraska
  3. West Virgina
  4. Maryland
  5. Michigan
  6. Washingtion
  7. Florida
  8. New Jersy
  9. North Dakota (agreed of list unless popular Rep. Govenor Hoeven runs.)
by Liberal 2005-08-15 06:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wisconsin
Kohl could be in a competitive race if the Republicans can find a genuine moderate to take him on, but the only real prospect, former 2nd District House Rep Scott Klug, has not shown interest.
by benmasel 2005-08-14 11:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
what do you all think...
What races do we need stronger candidates in or need a Strong candidate in (open Dem. seats included.)
by Liberal 2005-08-15 06:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: what do you all think...
The only race that seems to need a good candidate is the race in Nevada. I certainly hope the Reid/Ensign back-room deal rumor isn't true. Other than Nevada, there are many good candidates for their respective races, but most of them still need to be convinced to run (i.e., McCaskill in MO). Also, I wish we had a better set of potential candidates for the Minnesota race.
by Hannula 2005-08-15 06:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------