Senate 2008 Outlook: The Hard Truth
By SIConservative Posted in 2008 — Comments (144) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Update: Jeanne Shaheen will enter the New Hampshire Senate race today. Like Virginia, this race is now out of reach.
I'm not going to make any friends here, I know, but for those who want to engage in a reasonable discussion about how we can work/contribute to have as many Republicans as possible in the Senate in 2009, I'm putting this out there as a starting point for a discussion. Having an accurate assessment of where things stand will help to concentrate our resources in the races on which they will have the most impact. This will help us to avoid the mistakes that we made in 2006, such as spending money to support Sen. Rick Santorum, who consistently polled 20 points behind Bob Casey, Jr. from even before Casey entered the race, instead of using those resources in Montana, where Conrad Burns lost by less than 4000 votes, or Virginia, where George Allen lost by less than one percent.
Blanket comments saying, "It's 14 months out" are meaningless. If you want to say that I'm way off on a particular race - and I could be - please explain a reasonable sequence of events that would significantly change the dynamics of a particular race between now and next November. Time itself is means nothing.
Please understand that I am writing this from the perspective of someone with limited resources for a discussion of people who have limited resources. If you have unlimited time or money to contribute toward Senate races in 2008, by all means max out as you choose. If not and you choose to volunteer or contriubte to a race that won't be competitive, obviously that's your choice. You have your reasons, be they political experience, party building in a given state, attraction to a particular candidate, that's your business. I've done it before for my own reasons. Just do so knowing that you will not be impacting the make-up of the Senate in 2008.
That said, here is my assessment of where things stand:
Democrat-Held Seats
Safe
Mark Pryor (AR) - This could change if former Gov. Mike Huckabee enters the race.
Joe Biden (DE)
Tom Harkin (IA) - Like Arkansas, this could change if Rep. Steve King gets in, but even he would have an uphill fight.
Dick Durbin (IL)
John Kerry (MA)
Carl Levin (MI)
Max Baucus (MT)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Jack Reed (RI)
Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Potentially Competitive
Tim Johnson (SD) - Sen. Johnson is very popular and is only vulnerable to a challenge from Gov. Mike Rounds, who is unlikely to challenge him. If Johnson changes his mind and decides to retire, extremely popular Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin would likely seek the seat. Rounds would be more likely to run under that scenario, and the race would be highly competitive.
Likely Competitive
Mary Landrieu (LA) - The dynamics of Louisiana politics have changed dramatically in the last few years with the election of its first Republican Senator since Reconstruction and Katrina displacing a yet unknown number of New Orleans residents. State Treasurer John Kennedy, who recently became a Republican, is her most likely challenger.
Republican Seats
Safe
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)
ID (Open) - If Craig resigns, we should be fine here. If he hangs on until the election, we could have a problem.
Pat Roberts (KS)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Jim Inhofe (OK)
Lindsey Graham (SC) - He might be primaried, but the seat will not go Democrat.
Lamar Alexander (TN)
John Cornyn (TX)
Mike Enzi (WY)
John Barrasso (WY)
Potentially Competitive
Ted Stevens (AK) - For now, he's okay. If the FBI investigation gets worse, though, this one could prove dicey.
Mitch McConnell (KY) - Whether this actually becomes competitive depends on two things, how big the Democrat wave in 2008 is and how badly the Democrats decide they want revenge for Daschle. Even in a big wave, it's still Kentucky and the Democrats have their work cut out for them.
Susan Collins (ME) - Her poll numbers look surprisingly strong against Rep. Tom Allen, but that could change. Allen represents half the state and is already receiving help from organizations like MoveOn.org. Collins should survive, but has a fight on her hands.
Elizabeth Dole (NC) - Her numbers are bad, but the Democrats have whiffed on their top challengers. If her opponent, likely Grier Martin, can fundraise competitively, we have a problem. He's already within six points, trailing 43-37
Pete Domenici (NM) - So long the story about his ties to the Justice Department filings don't get worse, he should be fine. If it does, he may retire, thus setting up a highly competitive race.
Likely Competitive
NE (Open) - Former Sen. Bob Kerrey is seriously looking at a bid. If he gets in, as expected, this race will be highly competitive. Agriculture Secretary and former Gov. Mike Johanns is also considering a race and would be the strongest possible Republican. State Attorney General John Bruning is already running and is also a strong candidate, but not as strong as Johanns.
Gordon Smith (OR) - Anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore is considering a primary challenge. It is unlikely Sizemore could raise sufficient funds to be anything more than a headache in the primary, and his candidacy would largely serve to sour Smith further in the minds of some conservatives. After missing on their top recruiting targets, Democrats have finally settled on State House Speaker Jeff Merkley. Merkley's ability to raise the money to compete with Smith is the big question in this race. If not, Smith should be fine. If Merkley's fundraising proves strong, we have a problem, especially if the Democrat Presidential nominee racks up a big margin of victory.
Competitive
CO (Open) - Former Rep. Bob Schaffer is surprising some in his race against Rep. Mark Udall. Udall has been in this race for two years already and has the early fundraising advantage. Schaffer held his own in the second quarter and his chances will be judged in no small part by how strong his third quarter reports look. Money has a snowball effect so a strong quarter is important. If you're considering contributing to a great conservative this cycle, now would be a great time to send him a few bucks.
Norm Coleman (MN) - Al Franken has made what once looked like a potential cakewalk competitive. Coleman still leads, but he will need all the support he can get if he is to hang on in November.
Gone
The numbers in these two Senate races say that the races are over. I'd love to see Sen. Sununu reelected. I'm less enthusiastic about the Virginia candidates. In both cases, there are popular, well-known state-wide figures with poll numbers that show they are dominating the races.
John Sununu (NH) - Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen is expected to enter the race. If she does, in. The race is over. If not, we will need to fight like Hell to hold this seat. Sununu's numbers against Shaheen can only be compared to Rick Santorum's versus Bob Casey at this point in 2005. If anyone can point to an example of an incumbent overcoming a deficit anywhere close to this large, please post it in the comments.
OPEN (VA) - Former. Gov. Mark Warner is showing the numbers of a safe incumbent. If any Republican incumbent had these numbers, we'd call him safe. That doesn't change because Warner is a Democrat, and he served state-wide recently enough to be about as close to an incumbent as anyone can get without actually being one.
Summary
In short, I think 47 Republican seats is the best we can hope for. If we manage to hold 47, we will still be able to fight legislative battles and keep our chances of retaking the body in the foreseeable future alive. If we make the mistake of trying to compete everywhere, we could find ourselves at 41 or 42 seats, which raises the possibility of Republican members changing parties to give Democrats a filibuster-proof Majority. We must learn from our mistakes and focus on the races that will be the most competitive rather than blindly trying to hold everything and losing more than we should. Based on this analysis, I would argue that the following should be the targets of conservative activism for Senate races for the 2008 cycle:
Primary Targets
Alaska (if Stevens retires)
Colorado
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Oregon
South Dakota (if Rounds runs)
Secondary Targets
Kentucky
New Mexico
North Carolina
As things stand, you need 41 people to prevent the senate from passing
And pray we get the House back. It's a tall order, but actually more doable than the senate.
I'd rather go for 'and win the White House'.
Problem is that without a line-item veto a president can only do so much to reign in congress. Ofcourse, one could propose a liberal (pun intended) use of vetos, but at the end of the day obstructional politicals such as a veto does not get things done. A president should be able to actually achieve some results (it's the executive branch, afterall), bogging down bad ideas is best done by the legislative branch as representatives of the people. Moreover, they'll get credit for stopping leftish foliies. The WH rarely will.
George Allen led Jim Webb 54-30 in a Rassmussen poll.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
Any candidate can self-destruct, some better than others. Yes, if Frank Lautenberg starts referring to his constituents as "guineas", he too could lose. If you're banking on that, though, you're in denial.
You're calling a seat gone in a state that has voted Republican presidentially in every election since 1964. Sure it's getting tougher, and right now Warner's polling rather well, but things like this change. That's why we have campaigns.
We already have Warner on taxes, and while most residents support him, don't underestimate the whooshing sound effects of commercials to remind voters how much they dislike their taxes being raised.
He has no experience holding federal office, and hasn't run for one in twelve years. He might well say something dumb about foreign policy or something like that.
He's been consorting with the Kos krowd. I'm not sure if he's said anything overly stupid about them, but I imagine an ad with him together with Kos and some of Kos's dumber statements could be effective.
Hillary Clinton is likely to be at the top of the ticket, and some direct mail or conservative radio targeting of the voters in Southwest Virginia who all like Warner and despise Clinton might really help move the needle there. It's all well and good to elect Warner governor, where he can carry out his own policies, but we can't send him to Washington, where he'll support liberal Hillary Clinton's tax increases, activist judges, and socialized medicine. Something like that.
This isn't Casey v. Santorum act two. Virginia is more Republican than Pennsylvania, and Warner has much more of a record to attack than Casey does. It's a winnable race. I'm not saying we're likely to win or anything, but calling it "gone" is absurd.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
If the answer is "Gilmore," SI is right and you are in denial. If it's "Davis," you're right and we have a shot. Personally, I love Gilmore--he was in my top 4 for president--but to hold VA, we've got to go with Davis.
You can't call a seat gone 14 months out. That's just not credible. Not credible at all.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
as the "sit out to send a message" crowd on our side doesn't try to sink the GOP. A lot of what happens will, sadly, be reliant upon that crowd voting or not. And we saw what happened last year in tight races.
Please, do, show us what happened. Let's see some hard figures demonstrating your point.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Here are a couple commercials running. I just saw the 2nd one listed run yesterday. Disgusting. It's gonna be an ugly race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA3dqBfkFkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge14Zvew7bo
The 2nd vid is a cheap attack that makes Coleman look like the sole decision maker on Iraq. That he voted for 450 billion. Who else in the Senate has voted for the funding? Who didn't?
The problem is these dishonest ads do work. The average person doesn't look past the headlines, sound bites, and hollyweird ad productions.
Looks like they will be doing a Santorum on Coleman by attaching him to Bush's hip like conjoined twins.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
At least for right now: the bridge collapse may be affecting his numbers. The latest Rasmussen suggests that his opponents are still being thought of as "Generic Democrats."
Take that with as many grains of salt as needed.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Seems to me even a professional wrestler would get elected before that clown.
What's that? Who? In Minnesota? Never mind!
Biden, Kerry, Lautenberg, Baucus and Levin could all be beaten by the right challenger, and I actually think that Kerry and Lautenberg could be beaten this year. It's sad that we've got nothing against them. Otherwise I think you're pretty much spot on.
PS Under your analysis, isn't the best we can hope for 48 seats? 49 - VA - NH + LA?
Yes, if everything goes absolutely perfectly. I would tend to think that we'll lose at least one seat among Louisiana plus the Republican competitive seats, but technically you are correct. Let's hope my political assessment is better than my math.
let's hope your maths is better than your assesment and we squeeze out 51 Rs.
Needless to say, hope and realism are two very different things.
Mind you, it's not because the Mr. Teresa Heinz-Kerry (D-Paris) is particularly well liked in the Commonwealth - it's just that:
1) There is no credible republican challanger
2) If there were one, there is no credible republican party operation in the state that could support said challenger
3) Even if simultaneous miracles happened and 1) and 2) were taken care of in the next 14-months, you cannot beat someone with Kerry's, erm, financial resources without a ginormous influx of cash from the national party - and there's no indication said money is there or that spending it on a state that hasn't had a GOP congressman in 12-years in a year where the Democrat Presidential nominee is expect to carry the state by 20-points or more isn't anything other than, well, Mel Martinez stupid.
That it were otherwise, but it's just not.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
He's shown he can win statewide, he's got his own money and organization.
Oh. Yeah.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But I actually think that race would be entertaining as heck to watch and to be a part of. I mean, neither of these dudes is particularly well liked in the Commonwealth anymore (Mitt rather less so), it would set-up to being a sort-of battle of the titans, they really don't like each other very much, and they both have the resources available to beat the living snot out of each other.
Talk about a fun time!
Mitt would still get beat pretty bad in the end (probably a 55-45 kinda deal) and I honestly don't think he's long for the state if his campaign for Pres falters - particularly if it flames out early.
And I'm still supporting the guy for Pres, mind you.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I thought the "Oh. Yeah." meant something it doesn't.
Mea culpa.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Would be to flip all the way back to his 1994 positions over the course of only 6 months. That is a lot of dramatic conversion stories to invent in such a short period of time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Dime-stores wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelves!
Between Mitt and Kerry, the number of policy changes over the year - heck, sometimes over the course of a week - would have people's heads spinning.
Oh boy, mayhem!
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Romney will be the Democrat and Kerry the Republican.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Have you even BEEN to Massachusetts? In what dreamworld do you ever imagine getting a Republican elected to the Senate from there? Mass will go with a governor once in a while who isn't pure liberal, but they'll NEVER give you a Republican Senator.
Unless you're thinking Kerry can get beaten in a primary, you're out of touch. Visit the state before jumping to wild, starry-eyed conclusions. Even Romney would be slaughtered against Kerry.
a run for his money a few years ago. And until last time, they have had Republican governors as far back as I can remember (except Dukakis).
But I wouldn't put a lot of RSCC money in the Bay State.
BTW, what a gift for languages that Kerry fellow has! He speaks nearly flawless English.
But that was in the exceptional year of 1994. He was running down ballot of Governor Weld who was re-elected with over 70%. Weld himself challenged Kerry two years later, and I seem to recall that was even closer than the Romney-Kennedy race. If it had not been a presidential year . . . oh well!
Massachusetts had four Republican governors in a row, a record many red states would envy.
It does, however, have an overwhelmingly blue state legislature and it is much the largest state with a one party congressional delegation. This is only partly because the Democrats are popular in the state. It is also the state in which Elbridge Gerry was governor, and they have not forgotten how he did things.
Bush got 40% of the vote there against a local candidate in 2004. It is nowhere near as staunch for its preferred candidate as, say, Nebraska or South Dakota. Yet some seem willing to write these states off for the Republican Party over a year ahead of an election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I guess we may as well cut and run now if the Democrats are going to rule. Save money that way.
We may as well not even TRY in this election, what the heck.
Let's all just stop giving money and time to Republicans, and instead just dig fallout shelters and stockpile supplies in them.
Because we've already lost the election 15 months out after all. Why try?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Virginia! :-)
I think its a good assessment of where we stand. That doesn't mean we have to live with it.
...but a "where". Republicans can be idealistic this cycle (as your comment makes you sounds), or realistic (as this post suggests). This is a good analysis of the negative scenarios.
If the national tide turns, Republicans everywhere will benefit. If it does not, taking the approach suggested here could pay benefits.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
But it's unrealistic to assume we're going to win at this point. As SIConservative said, when time and money are short, it is a good idea to identify the best hunting grounds. A scenario were we spread out too thin and loose every race is worse than loosing a few.
At this time it's early to call a state gone, I agree with that. By all means, try to prove him wrong. But do so after chipping in on the races that offer better perspectives. Not to mention the fact we need better candidates.
I don't think anybody's saying we should quit working. But I don't think it does us any good to fool ourselves about where we stand as a party.
And, WRT the Senate, it's just not a great place. And one House GOP insider told an NRO Corner poster (can't remember which one) that "if the election were held today, we'd lose 10 seats."
So, the chances that the GOP will be regaining either house of Congress are probably remote. May as well be up front with ourselves about that, rather than trying to blow sunshine just for the purposes of keeping a positive attitude.
Why the flip should I spend 10 seconds caring, if people are just going to come and doomsay for the next 14 months? Seriously?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
And you realize that analysis of current events is just what it is, analysis.
And if we stick our heads in the sand we'll be worse off, not better.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Yes, it's an analysis that says we already lost.
If this analysis is useful, then I should be able to act on it and just quit before wasting any time.
If I cannot act on this analysis, though, then what good is it to come here and bang the drums of doom?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
will allow us to spend our time and money where it will make a difference. While I wouldn't discourage a Republican in Massachusetts from volunteering or donating to Kerry's eventual challenger, the national party and folks outside of MA should focus on LA and SD where the effort is more likely to bring successful results.
We have not, in fact, lost John Warner's seat in the Senate. Calling it "gone" is flat inaccurate, unless the goal of this diary is to discourage people from even lifting a finger for that race.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The polls certainly to favor Warner at this time. He was a popular governor and the state is trending "purple". That doesn't mean that Virginians should just ignore the race. In fact, if the GOP candidate can prove competitive then the money and support will start flowing into him/her.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Everything is lovely.
Everything is great.
We are going to pick up 17 seats.
Feel better?
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Recommended.
I'd move Johnson into competitive. I think there is a group of South Dakotans who, while they like Johnson, do not think he should be re-elected since his illness has likely cut into his ability to repersent them.
I don't think it HAS to be Rounds although I think Rounds wins if he runs.
The PUC, Dusty Johnson has also been mentioned as a candidate. I'm just worried that he will have trouble getting the elderly vote because he LOOKS so young.
I think your analysis is generally right, exception for two things.
1. NH and VA are winnable. But they lean D right now.
2. NJ should at least be on the radar. Lautenberg's re-elect numbers are really low for a sitting Senator. If Giuliani is the nominee, this seat would be much easier to win.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
It'll be Joseph Pennacchio or Anne Estabrook. Pennacchio is an Assemblyman from Morris who's moving up to the State Senate this November. He's the more conservative option. Estabrook is some horrible amalgamation of Christie Whitman and Doug Forrester. Neither are particularly great gets, but I'd stab myself in the eye if they nominate Estabrook.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
It seems like there is a race in NJ every election cycle where the Republican is poised for a big upset...only to end up losing, and often times losing big.
I'll believe we're going to win there when Charlie Brown kicks the football.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Was our closest challenger nationwide last cycle. He did better than Steele et al.
Yeah, it's not an easy state to win, and it's expensive as heck, but Lautenberg is beatable with the right candidate. I'm not sure either of our options are going to be able to raise the funds necessary to mount a serious challenge to the old man, but we'll hit 44% again, 47% if the national environment improves. I realize that doesn't win anything, but it is what it is.
In addition, I really think a Giuliani candidacy will give whomever we nominate a leg up.
I'm probably long overdue for a diary on how the race is shaping up. I'm going back home to the Jerz for the second time in three weekends tomorrow. Maybe I'll get the shot to write one when I get back.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
He's our resident bank of knowledge for NJ. I think either of the people he mentioned would start with 40-45% of the vote. And either could win.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
It is a long way out, but I predict that if we have a a candidate like Fred Thompson or possibly Giuliani at the top of the ticket, and they make winning in Iraq the center of their campaign(Which I believe is the only winning Republican strategy) AND things continue to improve in Iraq at the rate they are right now, then they following states flip given that we nominate strong candidates...
Mark Pryor (AR)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Dick Durbin (IL) - Can we make the moniker Dick Turban stick?
Carl Levin (MI) - Iffy
Max Baucus (MT)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Perhaps I'm crazy, but the right set of circumstances on Iraq will bring a Republican wave. The only problem is that there are too many ifs. I believe we will get a candidate for victory at the top of the ticket, but will our candidate push that message. Democrats are SO invested in defeat in Iraq, that extremely positive news from there will fold them up like a Yugo under a produce truck.
That's in interesting prediction. For what it's worth, I think that if the GOP runs in 2008 on 'success in iraq' the nominee will probably win four states and the democrats will pick up 9 seats in the senate.
-exits
The problem with running on a "success in Iraq" platform is that (a) it didnt' work in 2006 and more importantly (b) you are pinning the success of the Republican party on the performance of a bunch of Iraqis who have shown little interest in building their country responsibly.
I actually think the diarists assessment is a bit optimistic. If "success in Iraq" is the Republican position in November 2008 (as it looks like it is going to be) then Norm Coleman has zero chance of getting re-elected. Ditto with Gordon Smith. Collins will be in for a tough fight, although she's trying to triangulate her way into safety (as she should).
I have to agree with Mac. Republicans did not run on Iraq in 2006. To add to that thought, no matter what Republicans do in 2008, Democrats will run on Iraq. We cannot ignore the issue or minimize it. The opposition will not let us. If we do not continue to make progress in Iraq, Republicans will loose in the Senate, the House, and the White House. First and foremost it is in America's best interest that we win Iraq, but it is also in the Republican Party's best interest. Every Republicans candidate should be doing everything they possibly can to make sure we get victory in Iraq.
I should preface my comments by saying that I don't think that 'success' in Iraq is possible, at least not for any reasonable definition of success. At this point, I'll be happy if the end result is anything but a Shia theocracy which is where I think it's headed.
That said: I think that the GOP can at least try to minimize the issue. The closer they can get to the democrats on Iraq, the better. They are helped in this respect by the spinelessness of the democrats which is on full display right now.
I know that a lot of Republicans find that idea unpalatable but if the option is to do what Mac seems to suggest which is to turn 2008 into "end the war", versus "continue the war", I think that it's clearly the way to go. It's much better to lose three seats than nine, which is the reality I think. And even more importantly, assuming Hillary wins the nomination, it's entirely possible the the GOP will have a fighting chance at the White House which is more than one would expect given the environment.
-exits
The most important thing for this country is to win in Iraq and the broader war on Islamofacists. If we don't win it doesn't matter who controls congress or the White House. It won't matter how much we cut our political loses. As long as we are vested in winning the war, we should fight to win.
Reagan won the war against the Soviets without firing a shot. OK, perhaps you can count the shots in Grenada, but there was no hot war near Stalingrad.
Winning the broader war against Islamofascism doesn't necessarily mean a military victory in Iraq, any more than an ignominous end in Vietnam turned into our eventual defeat.
Iraq is a quagmire, and it isn't strategically sound in the big picture. Sometimes you have to take a step back and ask yourself what's the best way to accomplish what we really need to do, instead of just bashing your head into the same wall again and again.
Let the Iraqi's take Iraq...they'll drive al-Qaeda out and secure their own borders. There's no practical purpose any longer behind our continued presence there.
The bigger battle is long-term, and it's best fought by maintaining our strength and fighting at the right times in the right places. Afghanistan was a smart fight. Iraq was not.
Important point that has to be made. I'm biting my fingernails hoping that the enemy doesn't open up another front while we have essentialy zero troops available to deal with it.
and hang on to your butt cause another front may open any time.
The enemy opening another front hell, it's going to be us dropping bombs on Iran. BTW we have a little fire power left.
Ever hear of the US Navy? How about the US Air Force?
Let the Iraqi's take Iraq = SURRENDER IRAQ. That's a mathematical equation.
And if the US surrenders Iraq, then for the next 30 years (or longer) no enemy will have any fear of American power or will. Islamofacists and other totalitarians like that idiot Chavez will be greatly emboldened, and their intimidation of people and nations will be much more effective than it is now.
This is such an obvious cause-and-effect, I find it a bit bewildering that it has to be explained.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
IMHO. Our troops are currently on 15-month rotations. They're up in July. There's currently nobody left to fight on any other front, unless we draw down our forces in Afghanistan. Do you really believe that we face no other military threats than Iraq? If not, we need to start thinking strategically instead of rhetorically.
First, if you think there's nobody left to fight any other front, then you don't really know much about the US military. That's lefty hype, created by anti-military bigots. You are either one of those bigots, or you are a sucker who has fallen for their propaganda.
Second, you dismiss as 'bloviation' my brilliantly succinct logic (leaving Iraq = surrendering Iraq, followed by its INESCAPABLE consequence of 'the US will be laughed off the world stage, and the terror-fascists will reign, unchallenged, for the next 30 years').
Third, the 'win in Iraq' theme IS thinking strategically. Your preposterous idea of 'surrender Iraq, so that we can save our military to face OTHER threats' is to be kind, naive rhetoric.
Peddle your 'surrender first' crap elsewhere, bantamweight.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Nicaragua...The USSR, unlike the current enemy, didn't crave death to live with virgins.
What was so smart about the Afghan war and why isn't it a quagmire now too, 6 years on?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
1. Not end the war - victory vs. defeat. A very real comparison of the two positions. Whether you think victory is attainable or not(as someone who was there I can tell you not only is it attainable, but when it happens, it will happen rapidly enough to make the pundits heads spin) the position of the Republicans is seeking victory, and the position of the Democrats is defeat at any cost. People may not agree with Republicans on this issue, but the Democrat position is nauseating to most Americans when they see it for what it is
2. You never, ever win in politics by finding the middle ground, or changing your views to suit the national mood. There is only one way to win - stake out your ground on prinicples and then convince the people to join you there. That is what Reagan and Gingrich both did. That is also what the Democrats do constantly: the difference is that Democrats lie and use the media to bring people to them.
And how will it change that fast? I don't want this to become an Iraq war entry, so if you have already written a diary on this, please just direct me to it. If not, I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd write one. I don't see it happening, but I haven't been there, so I'd like to know what it is that you see and I don't. (For the sake of complete clarity, this is an honest question, not a "tell me what you think so I can show you how dumb you are.")
It's on my to-do list, I have about 5 diaries to post about my experiences over there, but have been trying to pace them out a bit. Should have one up by the end of the weekend.
We have the finest military in the world today, bar none. Give them any clear and defined mission, and they'll carry it out.
That's been the case throughout this war. Clear out Falujah--done. Implement sophisticated Petraeus counterinsurgency doctrine in Tal Afar--done. Bring tribal sheiks into the program in Anbar--done.
But if strategic success--victory--depends on Nuri "I've Got Other Friends in the Region" al-Maliki and his team, that makes me very uncomfortable. I hope somebody's got a B Team warming up on the sidelines.
I live in PA district 4, which is right next to the Ohio line, so I saw the Ohio governor and senate races, as well as those in PA and my rep, where Altmire beat Hart. I have said it time and again, what is killing Republicans is economic populism.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
In 2006, Republicans took a bath primarily because they let the Democrats define the terms on Iraq. If they prepare the battlefield in 08 on Iraq, they will win big. If they don't, it will tear them down further.
A winning strategy is where the people are offered a choice - VJ-day or Saigon. People will choose victory if they can reasonably expect it to happen. Even the MSM is having a hard time spinning Iraq enough to make it look like a lost cause anymore.
Other issues are great, and they MUST be addressed, but if our primary is focus on anything but Iraq, Iraq will take our legs out from under us.
You have to have a strategy to achieve the goal. A strategy is not a choice between alternatives. I'm really uncomfortable bringing this up to an Iraq veteran--man, do I honor your service--but coming from a state (CT) where the politicians and government appointees think that you can achieve an objective simply by STATING the objective, and not developing a plan to make it happen, I'm particularly sensitive to this issue.
One of the more successful winners that America has today is often quoted as saying "As I've always said, winning takes care of everything," Woods Said
Does Tiger Woods have winning strategies? of course, he does, and so do all successful winners but the most important,IMO, is losing is not acceptable. Winning is the goal and at least a large part of the strategy.
Since the late 1960s, this nation has been fed a steady diet of "losing is acceptable" propaganda from the Democrats. Now it looks like many Republicans are trying to convince us that it is true. That the party of defeat believes that America losing is Ok, because the UN will take care of all of us is just pure rubbish.
Republicans need to plan to win. Develop a strategy to win. Allowing any Democrat to win any race anywhere, simply assures America of defeat. Since the national political leaders of the
Democrats all are promoting the "defeat is acceptable" theme, supporting a local Democrat simply advances that theme. Every Democrat running for office knows what happened to Sen Lieberman when he tried to suggest that it was important for America to win.
Voting Republican is the only way to insure America wins. Voting Democrat insures America will lose.
The Senate just isn't going to be in the cards. I doubt that McConnell's seat will be competitive -- he usually does pretty well and the fact that he's the #1 Republican now doesn't hurt.
Whatever ends up happening in Iraq, I think history's going to show that it was very costly to the Republican Party overall. I hope the eventual outcome there is worth it to our national interests for the costs my party has shouldered for it.
The Senate is likely out of the question -- assuming there is no significant backlash against the Democrats between now and next November (and I doubt there will be). The House is probably out of the question, too. But the Democrats are having their share of problems and any weakness they have may come from within their base.
I think the best chance the Republicans have in 2008 is the White House -- assuming they (we) don't go and screw that one up...which they (we) may.
There's no question that Iraq has seriously wounded the Republican Party. Looking at it from a purely political viewpoint, had Bush not invaded Iraq, in a post-9/11 world the Republican Party would probably be a majority governing party that still controlled Congress and would have a lock on the White House for years to come.
I do question whether when it's all said and done, was it worth it to invade Iraq, especially since I see the country crumbling as soon as we leave. Even if militarily we "win" and defeat the insurgent elements, at some point Iraq will be on its own. Somehow I don't see a thriving democracy there after we leave.
Regardless of Party's political fortunes, we have an obligation to our country and our troops that we achieve victory in Iraq.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I know it's not a popular opinion on this site, but I still think that McCain is our strongest national candidate.
With Hillary as the Democratic nominee, yes. Only the least educated Democrats are strongly attached to her.
If McCain or Giuliani is the nominee, they will attract political moderates who can't stomach Hillary. Whoever is the nominee needs to catch some of those middle votes somehow. These two are probably the safe choices.
If Romney is the nominee, he will attract independents with a competence message (smart, executive experience, etc.). Also remember that Hillary is going to try to run against Bush, not the Republican nominee, but Romney undermines this since he is already the anti-Bush (polish & smarts over folksiness). Romney is a somewhat riskier choice, although that might be a good thing.
I'm not sure what Thompson would do in the general election.
There are some people who think HRC can't be elected against any halfway formidable Republican candidate. I think they're wrong.
The candidate I like the best in the upcoming is Mitt Romney. The candidate I'm supporting is Rudy Giuliani.
While I understand the qualms that conservatives -- particularly SoCons -- have with either or both of these guys, I think their strengths outweigh their weaknesses.
I'm supporting Giuliani instead of Romney simply because I think he's the stronger candidate. Despite doing well in early, critical states, Romney's national numbers continue to stink and that disturbs me.
I think McCain's toast and hardly worth talking about.
Thompson's hard to figure out. I'm still incredibly wary of him -- let's just put it that way.
Even though I can't stand the thought of a choice between two New Yorkers (well, sort of), you're right--Rudy is the most electable.
At least Rudy didn't go to Yale Law School.
landslide.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Dingo:
I am not sure I like your categories here. I would stick to the toss up, lean republican, lean democrat, likely republican, etc. used by Cook and Rothenberg.
My own classifications would be:
Lousiana: Toss Up
S. Dakota: Lean Democrat
Minnesota: Likely Republican (if Franken is the nominee; otherwise Lean Republican)
Oregon: Likely Republican
Maine: Lean Republican
New Hampshire: Likely Democrat (Toss Up if Shaheen doesn't run)
Virginia: Likely Democrat (if Davis is the nominee than Lean Democrat)
Colorado: Lean Democrat
Nebraska: Lean Republican (if Kerry runs; otherwise Likely Republican)
Notes:
I think Minnesota is probably stronger for Coleman than you do, largely because I am so unimpressed by Franken. He is a celebrity comedian, in a state where the last celebrity candidate was a disaster, and Franken comes across as a far left winger. Plus, as a new candidate, he is sure to make mistakes. If Ciresi wins the primary, however, I believe it becomes more competitive.
I think Maine is more competitive than Oregon because the Democrats have a much stronger candidate.
New Hampshire and Virginia are definitely problems, but I would never say they are gone. In New Hampshire, although the polls look bad, Sununu is the incumbent, and still has a chance to come back, especially if Shaheen doesn't run. And although Warner is strongly ahead in VA, the state still leans Republican nationally, and Davis is a strong candidate - who can raise a lot of money - on his own. Plus, these polls simply reflect the fact that no one knows who Davis is outside of his own district. Gilmore has a bigger problem because of his embarrassing presidential race and his inability to raise money. (Cantor, and perhaps some of the other GOP Representatives, would probably start in the same position as Davis. But I doubt they will run.)
I am less positive about Colorado then you are. Schaffer ran in 2004, and, as a sitting Congressman, representing a huge chunk of the Republican voters, was unable to 1) raise much money, or 2) win the nomination against an admittedly high spending and well named, but mistake prone, millionaire. Although Schaffer has done better in fundraising this race, the state has also tilted more towards the Democrats, and they have another strong candidate.
Nebraska should go Republican, even if Kerry runs. Although Kerry is well thought of in the state, it is a hugely Republican/conservative state in a presidential year, Johanns and Bruining are strong candidates, and Kerry is trying to make a comback after voluntarilly leaving the Senate. (Outside of heavily one party districts and states, former Congressmen and Senators who gave up a seat do not have a good track record of making comebacks. This seems to be because the voters rarely understand why the former incumbent wants to come back, and tend to think that the former incumbent is using them as part of his/her back up plan.)
BTW, how bad is it that in states like Iowa, Michigan, and Montana, the GOP is not fielding a strong challenger? In Iowa, Harkin has never won big, is an extreme liberal, and the GOP has two Congressmen, plus a former one and a former Governor, all of whom could give Harkin a race. And in Michigan, apparently the two GOP minor statewide officials, Representatives Hoekstra and Candice Miller (also a former state wide official), and former Governor candidate Dick Devos ALL want to run for governor four years from now, even though only one of them can actually win that election. Logic would seem to dictate that one of them might want to run for Senate instead, where at least they would have a better chance of winning the nomination. And Levin is not unbeatable; I actually think he is somewhat overrated. And in Montana, a heavily Republican state, two incredibly strong candidates - Racicot and Rehberg - routinely refuse to run.
I think he is a horrible candidate. They would've been much better off with random unknown DFLer #10548 than Franken... but he has so much star power I don't see him losing the primary to any challenger.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The campaign they will run against Norm is "Anyone But Coleman", not what can Al Franken do. The ridiculous attack commercials ads have started already that I posted above.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
But that isn't unbeatable, either. That's how Wetterling ran for Congress last time around. It was an extremely negative campaign. Lots and lots of guilt by association. It didn't work out so hot for the Dems. Wetterling still went down in flames on what was a very bad year for Republicans.
The negative ads against Franken can be much more compelling, since they could simply consist of clips from his radio show. It's much more powerful to d*mn the guy with his own words than with someone else's words.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
They did the same thing to Kennedy in the Senate race and we all know how that turned out. As I said, I think Minnesota is a seat we should be fighting for, but we underestimate the Franken candidacy at our peril.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If Burns had bowed out last year, then Rehberg would likely have entered that open race and would most likley have won easily, especially considering how close Burns made it in the end.
Thanks for getting this started.
We need to do better with our resources.
I am still miffed at the money I poured into PA.
But I am also optimistic - no one thought Republicans would lose both Houses in 2006, and we kept them nicely in 2002 and 2004 when we were supposed to lose.
Also, the dhimmies are doing nothing to make themselves more secure between now and next year.
But we need to focus our time treasure and talent on promoting our winners.
What do you see for the House?
It's an important question, but, as my blog suggests, I spend more time following the Senate races. I am following the House as well, but not as closely.
When the Democrats took over, I thought Pelosi would screw up so badly that we'd have a great chance to retake it. I'll let the Congressional approval numbers speak for themselves, but add that there are also Republicans in Congress. I've seen some polling data from competitive House districts taken as a whole and Democrats enjoy a lead. At this point, I'd say the Democrats are favored substantially but not overwhelmingly to pick up seats. Scandal-plagued members, especially those from California, would do us a big favor by retiring, but they don't plan to do so.
Let me ask here whether anyone else is very familiar with an overall race-by-race analysis of the House. If so, I would gladly defer to you or collaborate with you on a House write-up. If not, I'll do it, but it will take me at least a few days.
After all, you're young and strong. And just looking at the senate races in all 50 states is such a narrow focus. :-) But seriously, you have the chops, and it would be a major contribution to the site and to the '08 race.
I currently work in Nebraska politics, and I feel pretty good about our chances of retaining Hagel's seat. The average Joe seems to consider Kerrey as out of touch with the state. Kerrey has lived in New York City over the past six years as a college president. More interestingly, he appointed that Hsue guy to the college's board of directors lately. There's also a ton of great opposition research out on him. In spite of Ben Nelson's success last year, Nebraska is very much a red state. Johanns and Brunning could both defeat Kerrey.
I know that the NRCC thinks that the GOP would lose another 10 seats if the race were held today. Of course, it won't be held today. It will actually be held after the Republicans get some troop reductions, and after they get to run their media campaigns. (Right now, all we hear is the media bashing them.)
I am not so gloomy as the NRCC. On the macro level, after a wave election, the losing party has not lost more seats, at least since the 1930's during the FDR years. The normal snap back is 5 to 10 seats. On the micro level, there are some encouraging signs too. Many Dems look potentially vunerable.
For example, Nancy Boyda of KS has 1) childishly stormed out of a military briefing, 2) called for the GITMO detainees to be relocated to Kansas, and 3) also refused to take the Democratic money available to her under their ROMP-like program. None of these strike me as good stances to take in a heavily Republican Kansas district. The only problem is that Republicans have two candidates running, and seem set for a tough primary. (Go away, Ryun, you shouldn’t have lost in the first place.) Also, her fellow KS Democrat Dennis Moore, in a similarly GOP district, has drawn a strong challenger in a local state Senator, who, unlike in previous races, will not have a contested primary.
Other weak Dem incumbents include Tim Mahoney (I told everyone I don't like my job in Congress), Steve Kagen (I acted like a child and threatened Karl Rove while he was in the bathroom), and Carol Shea-Porter (I called up my constituents after they criticised me and berated them). Each one of these people needs to be pounded by conservative independent groups until the election.
Other Dems worth zeroing in on include Nick Lampson, who is actually a strong candidate but represents such a strong Republican district; Baron Hill, who represents a tough district and faces a strong challenger; Zack Space, a weak Dem in a strong Republican area; Chris Carney, who is a strong candidate but holds a strong Republican seat; Jason Altmire, who unexpectantly won and is, by all accounts, a non-entity in a leaning Republican seat; Jerry McEnery, who is an extreme lefty green kook mistake-waiting-to-happen in a strong Republican district; John Hall, who is a former musician one note anti-war candidate in a heavily Republican district facing a millionaire opponent (hopefully); and Kristin Gillibrand, who is a strong Dem in a heavily Republican district who also might be facing a millionaire opponent.
More entrenched Dems, like Jim Matheson, Chet Edwards, Jim Marshall, Earl Pomeroy, Christine Herseth-Sandlin, and Melissa Bean, could also be challenged, as they represent conservative and Republican leaning districts.
All these Dems are potentially vunerable, to strong challengers. And all of them need to have Nancy Pelosi hung around their necks.
Of course, there are vunerable Republicans too (especially the scandal plagued ones). But, considering that these guys all won in a horrible Republican year, and 2008 is not going to be as bad - it can't because of the presidential race and Hillary's candidacy, I suspect that most of them will win by stronger margins (than 2006).
In the end, my guess would be the normal five to ten seat pick up for the GOP. Note that this is not enough to win back the House, although it will probably make the House ungovernable (based on the few conservative Dems left).
I think 5-10 is a reasonable expectation. The real problem is our mounting retirements (and from the wrong people). If we could trade Pryce and Davis stepping aside for Lewis and Doolittle from CA, we'd be looking a lot better.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
If things turn out as badly as some are predicting, then even if the GOP holds the White House we won't be able to get a good judge confirmed to the High Court. Though for some reason, I don't think a President Giuliani would be too upset about that. He'd probably use it as an excuse to give us O'Connors or Souters.
I understand that Giuliani is pro-choice and probably likes Roe. But good lord, the guy's raison d'etre for the past twenty years has been putting crooks away for a long, long time, and for the past six has been killing terrorists. His judicial advisors read like a federalist society phone book. I really don't think he's going to be happy with a Souter on the bench.
Cut the middle man, shall we?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
You may be right. I hope you are, especially if he's the nominee. But there is just something about Giuliani I don't trust when it comes to judges. This doubt was always there, but it was made solid when Giuliani made his absurd comment about how a strict constructionist could be either pro-Roe or anti-Roe.
How could he possibly think, let alone say, such a ridiculous thing? All of the good judges have been and still are anti-Roe. O'Connor and Kennedy have not gotten enough other things right to be considered good; at best they could be considered something less than a total disaster like Souter.
So when he says such things, I get a little uneasy. It just doesn't make sense. I think that maybe its a political calculation, whereby he thinks it will help him maintain his appeal to blue-state voters who lean Democrat but who like him. But that makes no sense either. If Giuliani were to be the nominee, then the Left/Dems will lie as they always do and try to convince there blue staters that Giuliani has 'caved to the far right' and will put 'extremist conservatives' on the bench who will 'take away civil rights', and other such nonsense. If these voters are the type who will buy into such crap, then neither Giuliani or any other Republican really has that much of a chance with them anyway.
Giuliani would be wiser to to try and use his 'centrist' status to educate these voters, and point out that Scalia-type judges are the true moderates in the Culture War because their jurisprudence is outcome-neutral.
If we're in for another O'Connor, we might as well drop all pretenses and nominate a coin to the Supreme Court that one of the other justices can flip.
or pull closer to even, Congress--and the White House--will move to the left. In Va, Davis has a chance to beat Warner, but Gilmore doesn't. Giuliani has a better chance to beat Hillary than Romney or Thompson.* Similar dynamics in other states.
But I'd rather have a small tilt to the left and Republicans hold the key seats than have the levees breached and all my preferred conservative candidates swamped in a Dem tidal wave.
Face it, friends, we're going to have to hold our noses for the next couple of years.
*McCain is indeed toast. He's been giving the Henry Clay "I'd rather be right than President" speech for the last couple of months. Assuming he's right, he will get his wish.
Due to demographic trends (largely fueled by unending mass immigration), the time when conservatives can win national elections is coming to an end. If we don't elect a conservative in the next couple of cycles then we may not for the foreseeable future, because its only going to get harder.
Enduring truths are enduring truths, and don't depend on ethnicity. They may go underground for a few years (see 1964), but they always rise to the surface. And even illegals' grandchildren are likely to view conservative principles as more in their interest than liberalism.
...because with people like Bush running the party, there is very little hope of even at attempt at conservative immigration reform, let alone actually making it law.
I probably am unduly pessimistic at times, but its hard for me to see much reason for hope in the overall demographic trends. The GOP is having a harder and harder time of winning white voters in blue states, while their dominance with white voters in states like Texas will not ensure victory much longer. The two largest immigrant groups -- Hispanics and Asians -- favor the Democrats by significant margins, and I simply can't buy into any argument that says that will change while the influx of immigrants remains high. Believe me, I wish I could. I have tried to buy into the optimism of some conservatives, but it seems clear to me that high levels of immigration simply reinforce all of the dynamics that makes immigrants vote Democratic in the first place.
This is one reason why I viewed the 2006 elections as particularly disastrous, because it seriously hurt the chances of getting another conservative confirmed to the Sup Court even if Bush (who has been good on this issue) were to get the pick. If the Dems make further gains in the Senate in 2008, then even if we keep the White House, I simply can't see how a conservative judge makes it through. I am certain that the Dems would filibuster any decent judge, and the best we'd be left for would be something like O'Connor, which is not a good thing at all.
With a conservative majority on the Sup Court, then I could hold out hope that federalism lasts for a while, and that the people of conservatives states could at least enact social policy that reflects their own views and values. Now, I fully expect the onslaught of judicial activism and usurpation to continue, and the values of conservative states to be run rough shod over by a literal handful of arrogant judges.
as a consistent defender of federalism? A lot of their decisions seem to do nothing toward preserving the power of the states, and much toward increasing the power of the State. Keno is a very worrying decision in my view.
Beyond that, however, your point is well taken; but remember that John Marshall was able to hold off the true arrival of Jeffersonianism for more than a quarter century.
vote Democrat? Fortunately, the Republican Party is not like the National Party in South Africa; it is not designed solely to represent white people. Both Latinos and Asians tend to be more socially conservative than white Democrats (not all that hard!). They are more family-oriented. They don't come from countries with extensive social welfare systems--they're used to the free market.
The key problem is not that these groups couldn't be recruited as Republicans, but that it's a challenge to reach out to them without alienating our core constituency. This was why W was supposed to be such a great candidate: he could attract Latinos without turning off white males. Obviously, 9/11 reshaped his priorities. But it also didn't help, IMO, that he treated immigration reformers so contemptuously, and seems to be beholden to the big employers of illegals.
...vote that way. And I see no hope at all of reversing that WHILE mass immigration (legal or illegal)persists. High levels of immigration reinforce the dynamics that lead immigrant communities to vote Democrat in the first place. And while it is true that on some issues Hispanics and Asians seem to be better suited for the GOP, there are other issues that point them to the Dems, and clearly those pro-Dem issues carry more weight.
Can Biden run for President and the Senate at the same time? I realize his Presidential bid will most likely be over by February but won't that be too late to enter the Senate race?
But there was nothing stopping Lloyd Bentsen from defending his Senate seat while getting walloped nationally...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Republican and NEA head under Bush I, John Frohnmayer, who has lots of name recognition in Oregon as a liberal Republican.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1189650318...
It's a tough call to see who this hurts more, Smith because Frohnmayer will be criticizing him and Bush vociferously (see his announcement speech where he calls for the impeachment of Bush), or the Democratic candidate because Frohnmayer will be taking a liberal stance on many issues, possibly drawing potential sympathizers away from the Dem.
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham
This is great news, he can be a stronger Ralph Nader in the race. That contingent is strong in Oregon, as Nader took 5% in 2000. Yes, Smith will have two people attacking him, but those on his side are unlikely to be swayed by someone who thinks that Merkley is too conservative.
To the OP: If we have to work hard to keep Alaska, Kentucky, and NC, then we're going to get wiped out everywhere else.
The problem for the GOP is that our strong candidates seem unwilling to run. (Racicot in Mont., Rounds in SD, Huckabee in Ark.)
Why is Rounds so dead-set against running for Senate? Can anyone answer that?
just for the wrong office.
BTW, he's my No. 2 choice (after Brownback). But I live in the real world.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The underlying assumption seems to be a generally strong year for the Democrats. It is way too early to call that.
The overall environment depends on three unknowns:
1. The state of the economy June - November 2008.
2. The apparent state of Iraq June - November 2008.
3. The candidates in the presidential race.
All of these will make a big difference to the background for the analysis.
Based on your assumption of a generally good year for the Democrats, the state by state analysis is probably broadly fair. But calling Virginia and New Hampshire 'gone', even under these circumstances, is foolish.
I concur with those who suggest New Jersey can be won under the right combination of circumstance. Also, I suspect you have a slight, but significant misreading of South Dakota.
Tim Johnson won by 500 votes last time. Granted, that was against a first class opponent, but it was not a presidential year, and there were then no significant doubts about his state of health. His health scare probably cuts both ways. With a good generic Republican against him this race is a tossup. With Mike Rounds running, this race leans Republican.
If Johnson pulls out, and if Stephanie Herseth runs, the situation for the Democrats improves. It probably leans Democrat without Rounds and is a tossup with him. (But it also opens a House seat, which the GOP would probably gain). Herseth may not run. She may prefer to keep the option of the governorship in mind. (I believe her father held this job). She may also prefer a safe House seat to a good but by no means assured shot at the Senate.
Rounds is playing coy at the moment. I wonder if this is to avoid frightening Johnson out of the race, and potentially attracting in Herseth, a tougher opponent. I understand that he enjoys being governor, but if he wants to run for the Senate, it is either now or six years time. Now he is the incumbent governor. Six years from now he will not be so well known and Herseth will be better known. If he does not want to run for the Senate, what else does he do? Do they have term limits in South Dakota? I doubt he is a potential president. (Though if he had won his abortion referendum, he would currently be a hero to the base).
If the overall environment is favourable to Republicans, then your analysis is seriously off. Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Montana and West Virginia are all winnable in the right combination of circumstances. Of course, the combination will not arise in all of these, but the picture will then be focussed on the number of Republican gains.
Then, when a Republican president appoints Ben Nelson as Agriculture Secretary and Joe Lieberman to Defence or State, the GOP gains two more seats.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I should know. I'm a Jets fan.
For starters, Rounds has said that he will not challenge Johnson. For now, we don't have a generic Republican. We have an unknown, underfunded state Rep. Joel Dykstra. Thune, by contrast, was well known and well liked. He was a great fundraiser with an optimistic Party, both in the state and nationally. Plus, Johnson has the sympathy vote. Unless Johnson either retires or has a relapse, we're not going to beat him.
As far as the overall environment is concerned, Iraq would have to turn around completely. Attacks would have to have all but have stopped and there would have to be some modicum of political stability. I hope that that happens, but I'm by no means about to gamble on it by pursuing what I would now consider a pipe dream of not losing ground in the Senate. Are you really willing to bet seats in Minnesota and Oregon, among others, on that?
The economy didn't save us last year. It won't save us next.
All the seats you mention deserve help with fundraising, but so do South Dakota and New Jersey. It is way too early to know what the overall environment will be.
I am by no means convinced that Johnson's illness will, overall, count in his favour. Sure there is sympathy, there is also legitimate doubt about him. I completely accept that Thune was an exceptional candidate. But there is a big difference between running in an off-year and running down ticket from a presidential candidate who will win the state by 25 points. Thune himself found that out, taking out a much more entrenched sitting senator just two years after narrowly losing to Johnson.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Again, this post was about those of us with limited resources. If you can max out on contributions to every Republican Senate candidate, knock yourself out. If not, then you have to choose where you're spending your $20 or $100 or $500. Every dollar that you spend in New Jersey is a waste. You might as well put the money in shredder. Unless Lautenberg either dies or is caught up in a Foleyesque scandal, we will not win that seat. Even that might not do it. I will bet my life against your $5 on that. Every time - except this time - New Jersey has a statewide election, people crow about our chances there. Then we lose, usually badly.
Not only that, but it is an incredibly expensive state. That means that not only is it money wasted, but it's a lot of money wasted.
Following your "strategy", if it can accurately be called that, I'll wake up the day after the Election saying, "I told you so," and you'll start telling me how we need to start raising money to challenge Ted Kennedy. How many times will it take for you to realize that fighting everywhere costs us seats? Will a filibuster-proof Democrat majority be enough for you to realize that? How about a Democrat majority that can pass Constitutional amendments at will?
We'd have a lot less of a shot if Lautenberg died because I think Rob Andrews, Frank Pallone, Steve Rothman, or Rush Holt would all make stronger general election candidates.
Currently the biggest reason that the race is such a long shot is the best GOP candidate IMO is underfunded. There are better targets for money probably, as there are closer races around the country, but there are worse options too.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
And you are betting on horse races long before you have to and long before the relevant information is known. The only person throwing away seats here is you. You are advocating the 'strategy' of pre-emptive surrender.
If you wish to engage in debate with me, learn some manners.
I did not invent your positions for this discussion: I responded to what you actually wrote. I will thank you not to invent my positions either.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
The post has been updated accordingly.
Seriously, this kind of negativity cannot possibly help Republicans at all. It's one thing to be pessmistic, it's another to word things in a way that reasonably will discourage people from even trying and caring.
No offense, but I hope you are ignored.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's not about negativity. It's about knowing the lay of the land. If you don't know the battlefield, you're putting yourself at a great disadvantage. If you want to send money to Carl Levin's challenger (will he even have one?), nobody's stopping you. You're doing absolutely no good doing so, but if that makes you feel good, go right ahead.
Please, quote me where in the Art of War it says you should consider the battle lost over a year before it's fought.
Or you can take your defeatism and stick it on Daily Kos where it belongs, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
As panglos said, we're going to win every seat. No dollar that goes toward any of them is wasted. All of our candidates are the best they possibly can be. Not only are all races equally competitive, they're not competitive at all. There isn't a race the Democrats can win. We're going to have 70 Senate seats in 2009. That's the twelve Democrats who are up and the nine more who will see that their cause is completely futile and retire in the middle of their terms. We're also going to have 400 House seats and enact and repleal laws at will. Our Presidential nominee will carry 45 states including New York and California and destroy the Democrat Party permanently.
Happy?
The fact that you fail to recognize the difference between giving up on Massachusetts, and giving up on Virginia, shows just how absurd your diary really is, and it's unfortunate it got so many recommendations.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I'm surprised you've gotten this far without claiming that SI is the troll under the Verazzano Narrows Bridge.
This stuff is painful. But Sun Tzu never recommended going into battle without an honest assessment of the situation.
and conservatism wins every time its tried. Esp against weak on defense tax hikers.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"War is politics by other means." The reverse is just as true. If that's the case, I think we need a little more Longstreet, and a little less Hood.
Conservatism always wins? In a fair fight. But this is American democracy. That's why SIConservative's sober analysis is so helpful.
I think we need to step back and survey the landscape--think strategically, not just tactically. I don't believe we want to spend another 16 years in the wilderness.
television was invented and the 3 networks were born dominated by libs.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
It's the stereotype with a little bit of truth: the left is full of optimistic utopians, the right full of pessimistic dystopians.
It's the conservatives who supposedly say that each generation is degenerate when compared to the previous, the old days were uniformly better, the world is falling apart, etc. etc.
And besides, Adam C is no troll and he seems to agree a lot with SIConservative, heh.
But that doesn't mean he's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and harmful to be declaring battles LOST before they are fought. That's exactly what a troll WOULD say, and if somebody wiht a name I didn't recognize posted this diary, I would be considering troll status.
For crying out loud he's given up two seats of ours without a blink.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's more like accidental sabotage of our grassroots activism in Virginia and New Hampshire.
If he wants to give actionable intelligence, he should just lay out the facts without making judgements about won or lost, leaving that for the reader to decide.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
You know, I'm feeling less and less bad about coming to RS and saying I wouldn't vote for McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee if he wins the Republican primary, if a diary like this can rocket up the recommendation list.
Because at least I'm not telling OTHERS it's pointless to vote for them in the general!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
It is very true though that the election is 14 months away.
A lot is going to depend on what happens in Iraq.
Iraq is the big ball and chain dragging Republican numbers down. If by next Sept. it appears that the war is going to be won, and troops are coming home- even if it requires a significant supporting American force to stay behind and provide logistical support (and a sense of political stability), I suspect Iraq will fade in importance and Republican numbers will recover across the board.
Another factor will be who our Republican nominee is- and will he have any coattails?
Guiliani is not my favorite candidate, and I think his coattail production is suspect. He might have great coattails- or he might just generate split ticket voters.
Romney is one of my currently preferred choices- he might have some small coattails in Michigan and New Hampshire.
Thompson is my other current preferred choice- he might help produce some coattails throughout the South.
I have the feeling that Minnesota might be effected by the Republican convention.
There have been plenty of rumbling on liberal and anarchist sites about plans for essentially inciting riots.
Perhaps it's all talk- but my home is Seattle, so I take these things seriously.
God forbid that it happens, but if it does: How will people in Minnesota react to a bunch of West Coast anarchists showing up and burning down their largest city?
I don't have any idea. It could hurt Republicans just as easily as it might create sympathy.
So I see that there are going to be an enormous number of variables that will effect the Senate races.
While your current analysis may be correct, things can change in an instant, and we should be prepared for it.
Additionally, I wonder if it might be a good idea to make a fight for the Virgina Senate even if it isn't a good chance- just so that the Republican party in Virgina remains active and can build up to take a Southern State back and put it in the Republican column.
There's no question that this is a tough election cycle for Republicans, but we're still a ways out and a lot can happen. All of these races will tighten up, some of these early polls that show a 20 point deficit are obviously not a reflection of what the actual election results will look like.
Also, don't forget two things, the current Democratic Congress has a 17% approval rating and if Hillary is the Democrat nominee, expect a massive Republican turnout in every state.
As far as what race conservatives should donate to, I think without question we should go to the mat for Sunnunu in New Hampshire, Davis (if he is the nominee) in Virginia, and Coleman in Minnesota. All three of these are Red to Purple states that have solid candidates and can put up a good fight. If Giuliani is the nominee, I see all three of these states going Red in 2008. I also think we should donate if we can find a strong candidate in South Dakota, which will have a lopsided Presidential result that will favor the Republican by nearly 20 points.
I wouldn't throw a cent at a New Jersey, it's a complete waste of money. New Jersey is a deep-blue state that takes at least $30 million dollars to run a competitive campaign in. I would much rather dump that money in places where we have a receptive state, cheaper media market, and a solid candidate. Add that to the fact a New Jersey Republican would probably be worthless anyway.
Regarding deep blue states in the northeast, unless Republicans can recruit a stellar candidate, like say Michael Steele in Maryland, I think Conservatives should choose their battles and pick states to pool their support that are more receptive to conservative ideas.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
We need to keep Coleman's seat and steal Landrieu and Johnson's seats. I wonder if taking Montana is also possible.