REDSTATE ROUNDTABLE #7: What Are Our Top Priority Races in 2008?
John McCain's Not The Only Republican Running
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Governors Races | 2008 House Races | 2008 Senate Races | Redstate Roundtable — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Unfortunately, due to the press of other business, we only had a few of the Contributors available to participate in the latest Roundtable. But feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts.
Looking beyond the White House, Republicans will be running in 35 Senate races, 11 Governors' races, and several hundred House races, a number of which will be hotly contested, plus state legislative and other campaigns. What should be the most important races of those, the ones in which money and attention from bloggers and activists will have the greatest potential to have impact?
Read On...
Dan McLaughlin: My attention naturally starts with the Senate (races listed here, here, and here) - to my mind, the really crucial Senate races are Minnesota, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico and New Hampshire, probably in that order. Norm Coleman in MN hasn't always made conservatives happy, but he really is a smart, hard-working and articulate spokesman for us when he gets on an issue, his state is one where we are fighting to keep a foothold, and ... well, Al Franken in the Senate? That's intolerable. The open seats in CO & NM are also states where we can't afford to have a tipping-point to Democrat control of the state, whereas LA is the one genuinely serious pickup opportunity we have this year to offset almost certain defeat in Virginia. And I know some people are ready to write off John Sununu, but I have to think that race will go down to the wire, and a McCain-Obama matchup is very favorable for us in NH. I wish I had more faith in our chances to pick off Tim Johnson. ME, OR & AK may be fights as well.
I defer to others on the House races. My guess on the GOV races (here) is that defending IN (Mitch Daniels) and MO and the Rossi-Gregoire rematch in WA will be the races to watch. WA is a state where we keep losing close races and could really use to win one, and Rossi's a good candidate.
Adam C: Senate (in order of likely R loss):
VA
NH
NM
CO
LA (currently D)
AK
--
MN
OR
ME
NC
NE
TX
MT (currently D)
SD (currently D)
WV (currently D)
.
.
.
AR (currently D)
The dashes represent where (if the elections were held today) I think Rs would lose. That would make the Senate functionally 56D / 44R. I see no way for Rs to have a majority in the Senate this Fall.
House race summation takes longer than I have right now but CQPolitics Map is a great place to start looking and it includes there rather accurate assessment of competitive and lean districts. Rs have a lot of open seats in even to R+5 districts. If we repeat 2006, Rs will lose another 10-15 seats. If we repeat 2004, Rs will hold a lot of marginal seats and win back a few but not enough to get the majority. I see no way for Rs to have a majority in the House this Fall.
On a interesting to watch note, there are Ron Paul Republicans running in some rather hopeless districts (i.e. VA-11 (Moran), NC-04 (Price)). It will be interesting to see if Paul Rs get more traction in Arlington, VA and Chapel Hill, NC than more traditional Rs. If they post a good 5-10 points above the norm, it may be an indication that an expansion of the Big Tent to include Paul Rs in certain places could help get the majority back. If they belly flop, it might indicate that the internet is wildly unrepresentative of even odd places like college towns.
Pejman Yousefzadeh: I was basically going to write a shorter version of what Adam wrote. Senate races come most easily to mind with a special need to protect Sununu and see if we can pick off Landrieu as well. NM and CO are huge. I basically think that VA is a lost cause. I am hopeful that we will be able to protect Coleman in MN.
Brad Smith: I hope people will also focus on House races. If the Democrats pick up 20 seats, our guys will lose tremendous bargaining power, and so will the handful of reasonably moderate Democrats who are left. The left will ram whatever they want through the House. We can't count on the Senate to filibuster everything.
Of course, with so many House races, most of us don't know what are the key races. That's why we need local reporting here at Redstate on local races - honest assessments, not cheerleading reports. I've recently noted a key race here in Ohio, to retain the seat of retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce in Ohio's 15th CD. Steve Stivers, a popular state Senator, is our candidate there.
Ohio has several other important races. Ohio 18 (Bob Ney's old seat) should be a GOP district, but it looks like we've already blown it there and Democrat Zack Space is now a prohibitive favorite. I hate to say it, but the district is probably no longer worth the trouble in 2006. Two other districts, the 6th (held by Democrat Charlie Wilson) and the 10th (held by Dennis Kucinich) could be competitive for GOP challengers in the right year, but they surely won't be this year.
Meanwhile, Ohio Republicans will be struggling to hold on to a number of Ohio seats.
Ohio's 16th District has been held by Republicans since 1951, and by Ralph Regula since 1973, but is in danger. Regula is retiring. He has regularly held the district with 60% or more of the vote, but it has trended slightly Democratic and Bush, running far behind Regula, carried it 53-42 in 2000 and 54-46 in 2004. Republicans have a good candidate in State Senator Kirk Schuring, who grew up in and represents Canton, in the heart of the CD. But Democratic State Senator John Boccieri, and Iraqi Freedom vet, has outraised Schuring so far. The GOP lean of the district should enable Schuring to win, but he needs funds. One can contribute to Schuring here.
Republicans have another seat in jeopardy in Ohio's 2nd District, which runs from the eastern Cincinnati suburbs east through rural counties along the Ohio River to Portsmouth. This is another seat that has been Republican for a long time, since the 1982 election, when Bill Gradison, the incumbent in the neighboring 1st CD but redistricted into the 2nd, defeated the Democratic incumbent in an otherwise bad year for the GOP. Rob Portman succeeded Gradison and held the seat for a decade years before leaving to become U.S. Trade Representative in 2005. In the special election, State Representative Jean Schmitt won a fractured primary with 31% of the vote, then held off Democrat Netroots favorite Paul Hackett by fewer than 4000 votes to win the seat. In 2006, she scored another narrow primary victory and again squeaked through the general, defeating Victoria Wulsin by fewer than 3000 votes. In the 2005 primary Schmitt was attacked by the Club for Growth, but she has supported the Bush tax cuts, repeal of estate taxes, and a flat tax on income. She is strongly pro-life. Her congressional career and campaigns, however, have been marked by a number of missteps and she is not popular in much of the party. This will be another very tough race, and Wulsin, back for round two, is leading Schmitt in the money race. You can contribute here.
Even if they hold the 15th, 16th, and 2nd districts, Republicans still aren't out of the woods yet in Ohio. In the 1st CD, consisting of Cincinnati and its Western and northern suburbs, seven term incumbent Steve Chabot faces a tough race. Chabot defeated John Cranley just 53-47% in 2006, and four of his six re-elections have come with less than 55% of the vote. The Democratic nominee is State Representative Steven Dreihaus, a "moderate," and the DCCC has pledged big bucks for the race. The First CD has a higher percentage of African American voters than any other district in the country currently held by a Republican, so if Obama in particular is the Democratic presidential nominee, that could spell trouble (unless Rob Portman is the GOP VP nominee). Still, my gut is that Chabot should be OK - right now, Schmitt, Schuring, and Stivers probably need money more - but if this turns into another big Democratic year, come September it may be Chabot's seat we are desperately trying to save. A contribution now may help head off that possibility. Chabot's campaign site is here.
Rob Portman, by the way, has been mentioned as a possible Veep choice for McCain. Portman is not known nationally, but he has some big chits in favor, notably giving McCain a boost in crucial Ohio, and probably assuring that we keep the congressional seats now held by Schmitt and Chabot, and maybe of the retiring Pryce and Regula as well. Four House seats and a big boost in a key presidential state is a pretty good starting point for a veep, and Portman is intelligent, experienced, and respected on both sides of the aisle: Your sleeper Veep pick.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Wow, Senator Clinton. Thanks. — Comments (0) »
REDSTATE ROUNDTABLE #7: What Are Our Top Priority Races in 2008? 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Schaffer is a solid conservative, while Udall is a left-wing, Moveon.org Democrat. Udall is not some moderate blue-dog Democrat. In Udall, Colorado will go with a man who believes in immediate precipitous withdrawl from Iraq, a massive leviathan of a government, higher taxes, socialized health care, abortion on demand, and someone who sidles up with Moveon.org, George Soros, etc.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Not a lot in the middle. This race will likely come down to which side gets their people to the polls. I'm really, really, really hoping that Romney will come help Schaffer.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
I'm a bit worried Udall will be seen as a moderate just because his...father? Mo Udall was seen as a moderate, even though he was pretty leftwing on most things.
Do you have any idea about this?
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
The Denver Post published a story which insinuated ties between Bob Schaffer and Jack Abramhoff. Unfortunetly for them, not only was there no substance to the claims, but further research found that Abramhoff had donated to Udall's campaign in the early part of this decade. Udall tried to brush it off by donating the money, but he's having to answer a lot of questions.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Udall went from 41% to 46% to now 45%. Currently Rasmussen has it at Udall 45% to Schaffer 42%. And it was more than a month on the increase (since last Nov. at 41% for Udall).
Apr 16, 2008
Schaffer 42%
Udall 45%
Mar 17, 2008
Schaffer 43%
Udall 46%
Feb 11, 2008
Schaffer 44%
Udall 43%
Nov 28, 2007
Schaffer 42%
Udall 41%
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
What about this Bob Marshall character? Bob Marshall may not be able to save the seat, but there's no sense in going with a surefire loser in Jim Gilmore. Is there any chance that Bob Marshall could get the nomination?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I talked to a Virginia politico the other day, and he told me he thought Bob Marshall could possibly get the nomination, although he said he really had basically the same chance in the general as Gilmore, although it might be less embarassing.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
In my own congressional district (TN-5) Gerard Donovan is running an uphill battle against Jim Cooper. This is the "Jackson seat" & democrats around TN are loathe to let a republican take Jackson's old seat.
I have a hard time thinking that Al Franken could be a serious contender - however, he is. From my limited study Landrieu in LA could be in trouble.
Overall, I would have preferred that republicans/conservatives were more on the offense this election cycle. I'm not sure if many didn't learn the lessons of 2006 or if the wounds from that are still too fresh? It would be great if we could increase our membership in the house of representatives - I'm not sure if it would be preferable to be "in charge" without a strong majority or strong leadership.
It's a closer seat than I thought considering it covers all of Nashville. Kerry won it 52-47. Gore won it a bit bigger 57-41, showing the home state love.
Keep us up to date on the race, although I note CQ has it as "safe Dem." There aren't many Kerry districts that Rs have a chance at right now.
As for "offense," the field is not pretty. There are 23 Rs and 12 Ds running this cycle (including retirement filling). There are 5 R retirements and 0 D retirements. 5 of the Ds are in "red" states (MT, WV, AR, LA, SD) but only 1 has a serious challenge. Huckabee (AR), Rehberg (MT), Rounds (SD) and other top recruits did not jump in.
As for the Rs, the retirements are in swing states for the most part (VA, NH, NM, CO) and there are several incumbents in "blue" states (OR, MN, ME). Finally there are a few Rs who have their own problems (AK).
It's just not a friendly landscape.
On the House side, there are plenty of Bush districts in D hands. But the map shifted in 2006 and some of those aren't competitive in 2008. Many lack top recruits. And on top of that there are 25-30 retirements, forcing Rs to defend a lot of ground and diverting funds from "offense."
This cycle will be bad for Rs but hopefully it will expunge much of the old pork-laden leadership. In just 4 years, there will be a lot of Senators and Representatives turning over on the Republican side. It's a chance for renewal.
In 2010, the Rs should go for the House in a full court press. And in 2012, the 24 D / 9 R Senate cycle comes back around. That is the year to run strong Rs in a slew of states and nationalize the election with the Presidential cycle. Ds in MO, OH, PA, ND, WV, CO, MT, FL, and NE will be up that year (among others).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Cooper hasn't had a challenge of any strength in a while. Northern Wilson County (Mt. Juliet) was added to that district & it is solidly republican - that's where Gerard lives.
If wishes were horses, we'd never need to buy fertilizer. I do hope that the republicans get their congressional act together for 2010 & 2012. McCain will need all the help he can get, & I don't expect the democrat leadership to be any more competent in 2009 than they are in 2008.
Why are Rs in D districts "in trouble", while Ds in R districts are "safe"? How has the map shifted? If that's true, then the Rs will be out of power for 70 years or more.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Party self-ID, fundraising, generic R v. D, congressional R approval vs. congressional D approval, issue approval (ex. who do you trust to balance the budget, Rs or Ds?). All of them are closer to (and usually worse than) 2006 than they are to 2004.
The map can shift again but it usually takes the party in power screwing up badly. That probably means it takes a Democratic President at some point (see the 1980s when Ds never lost control until Clinton won).
Right now, Rs face a major problem in no longer being even with Ds in party ID, enthusiasm, and generic ballots.
There is no evidence or reason to think that the 2008 result will be anything like 2004. And the general trend to ignore the lose of GOP voters and people who identify as GOP is not helping.
I've seen a lot of scoffing about the idea that there are "real Republicans" switching over to support Obama. Further, there are a good number of fiscal conservatives who are Paulites or independents now. Add in a sizable anti-this war portion of voters and it adds up. Rs ID has dropped from around 36% in 2004 to 30% today. That's a big shift in ID.
If we assume it's uniform across the country then states that were R+3 in 2004 are now D+3. Also D+3 is now D+9 and R+9 are now R+3. That's why some lean D districts are now "safe" and some "safe" R districts are lean R.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
2006 was a temporary blip based on Bush fatigue (aren't mid-term elections in a second term President typically quite bad?).
Not saying we don't have a lot of work to do, but I don't see 2006 as a shift in the electorate on anyone but President Bush.
I don't think 2008 will be like 2006 or 2004. I think we will see some surprises on both sides, and that incombents on both sides will do worse than expected. More things are up in the air than in 2004. There is a lot of disatisfaction out there, and it is pointed at both parties. There is a reason why Nader is polling at 9% in Michigan.
If McCain can put a strong economic message out there, I think he has some coattail possibilities. The election is going to be on the economy. I fear that the big loser will be free trade as both Republicans and Democrats take the easy way out.
but it will be despite being an R rather than because Rs are in a majority.
And after I listed a slew of data that look more like 2006 (or worse) than 2004. I haven't seen anything that shows people switching into the GOP. Young voters (i.e. new voters) are more D than any group of young voters since FDR's time (reminder: Reagan won under 30s 58-40%, that age group is still the most R generation in the electorate). So we have switchers away from Rs, an increase in new D voters, and not much switching toward the Rs.
Until I see evidence of party ID, approval ratings, issues ratings, or something getting better for Rs, I see everything pointing toward another 2006 for Rs in general.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
and a good performance (despite losing) in NJ,NY,CT,MA,WI and MN can be built upon. Certainly not this year...
but the good thing about recessions is they do go away.
Reagan inherited a recession from goofy-tooth carter, by 1983/1984 nation was in recovery.
This time the recession is starting before the next president gets swarn in...probably will last from 2008-2009.75(3Q).
by the time of the 2010 elections, republicans (if mccain wins) can ride a bit on the economic rebound and regain territory then.
by 2012 we regain a slim majority in the house, by 2014 (if not by 2012) a slim majority in the senate.
McCain has a decent chance at winning (40% right now). Rs have a 5% chance of winning the Senate and 8% chance of winning the House this year.
It's one reason why this time focusing on the Presidency makes a lot of sense (I've generally been of the view that online activists can have more impact in House and SEN races).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
McCain is polling strongly and consistantly with 240 electoral votes.
va, fl, mo arent swinging.
Ohio is breaking very well for McCain against Obama despite the "-R" and economy.
thats 260.
New Hampshire also is breaking for McCain quite well.
thats 264.
toss ups include colorado, nevada, new mexico, michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin.
obama has a harder time and is less likely to lock up every single one of these (hes polling behind in new mexico now, dead even in pennsylvania, barely ahead in colorado and michigan)
mccain is basically 6 evs away from victory.
The GOP should pour MOST of its effort in the rustbelt- MI/OH/PA/WI/NJ and a good chunk in colorado/nevada.
mccain secures ohio as hes doing...and wins colorado or any of the other rust belt states, its President McCain.
after all of that stuff...
id give McCain a 55-45 chance of victory against Obama.
i think Rasmussen Markets just isnt reflecting the EV combination odds needed for obama to win.
Of course, I'm not saying the GOP is in good shape, but if what you say is true, we are on our way to a 85-95 seat loss in the House, plus another 10 in the senate.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I think that would take another lurch to the left. The 2004-2006 shift, if we just repeat 2008, would mean Rs lose 3-6 Senate seats and 5-10 House seats. Remember Rs have already lost most D+3 seats in the country (using 2004 as the benchmark) and most R+0 seats. We're now talking about R+1 to R+5 seats. That's not 90 seats, that's 30-40. Many have strong incumbents. But 5 or so are open seats (like Tom Davis, VA-10, R+1) that are going to be hard to win.
I think some of the shift will go away after casualties stop in Iraq but that won't be before 2008 and maybe not before 2010.
As for 1994, I don't have time to look it up. I'm sure it was lower. At that point, there were more Ds and Is willing to vote R than now. And many more conservative Ds. Rs went from there to the peak in 2004 of 36% (Rasmussen). Rs are down from that peak now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Rossi-Gregoire is an interesting rematch, due to the original election's shenanigans. No matter which one wins we should learn something, if only we're smart enough to figure out what it is.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Indeed. This is one of the premier races. It's already shattering fundraising records.
Rossi might be the -slight- underdog, maybe, but the race is pretty close to 50/50.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
We have a very good chance of a R pickup in the Oregon 5th. We are also fortunate to have two primary candidates that I would be quite happy to see there.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Challenging Byrd is probably a lost cause until he retires or dies, but getting rid of Rockefeller should be possible with the right candidate. I'm not crazy about Capito, but she certainly would be a much better choice than Rockefeller. We need someone with some exposure to challenge him, and she is one of the few Republicans in the state with that name recognition.
We have to build from the ground up with the Republican party and get something going here, because there is no way that WV should always go Dem in the congressional elections.
It builds a base of people active & also a bench of good candidates for higher office. Local mayors, aldermen, county commissionsers, up to the state house. A strong base is the key to consistently winning elections.
i must respectfully disagree (and perhaps show my ignorance), i am not entirely sure why you want to use 2006 as the baseline for a new congressional map instead of the 1996-2004 maps. while i entirely agree that '06 was a bloodbath, i don't really see it as all too different than most mid-term elections ('02 being an aberration). I do not believe that many of these districts that bush won have suddenly become dem leaning and pre-ordained to vote such. I will concede that incumbency, which these new dems will have for '08, will have a tremendous effect on keeping them in office. however, i do not believe that the '08 congressional map is a new map. instead, i see it as a perfect storm. an unenergized gop base has led to tight funds for the nrcc. this in turn, has led to a lack of viable candidates who can run a well financed campaign in districts we should be able to take back or gain (barrow's district in ga, the district in north alabama, some of the florida and new york districts, etc...) furthermore, the presidential election map is shaking up to look very similar to the '00 and '04 election maps. (i believe it would have looked very similar regardless of the candidate, but we would likely have lost several important swing states sans mccain. Basically, i believe, that if we had the money (biggest key imo)and the candidates willing, many more of these seats bush won in '04 that flipped d in '06 would be likely pick ups. in my opinion, '06 will prove to have been the bottoming out of anti-gop feelings, but the after effects of '06 (the dearth of money and candidates) will reverberate throughout the '08 congressional elections.
That the 2006 map is used, imho, because much of the republican leadership is still smarting over that loss & has hunkered down defensively. Generically, democrats beat republicans more than not, & I unfortunately don't forsee the congressional elections becoming "nationalized" as they were in 1994 & to some extent in 2004.
This November will be a bloodbath for the GOP. In the Senate, VA, NH, CO, and NM are likely all gone. Polling also looks bad in LA. MN, ME, OR, and AK are in serious trouble. In the house, there's a good chance we'll loose a couple dozen seats. And I predict at this point that Obama will, sadly, win decisively in November.
Why?
One of the reasons is money. The Dems have a lot of it and will dominate money wise in the presidential, senatorial, and house races. They are on offense and can play defense at the same time.
Another reason is that the GOP still hasn't changed from what it was doing in '06. We have no credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility, limited government, &c. People aren't going to vote the GOP back in for doing the same things that got it kicked out of power two years ago.
The Dems may not have done much in Congress, but that is to their benefit since they haven't had much of a chance to do harm yet. People are going to be willing to give someone else a chance.
Iraq as a campaign issue? Didn't help in '06 and it isn't going to help this year.
This will not end well.
Which one are we "likely to lose?"
If it's Stevens, you can stop worrying. It'll take an outright indictment at the very minimum to even ding his win margin. And probably a conviction or a guilty plea for him to lose.
If it's Murkowski, well, we might have an issue. She's too new and got her seat in a questionable manner (iirc)...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
Corruption hurts your re-elect numbers.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I think Stevens will ultimately win. If that will be a good thing or not remains to be seen.
Young's going down in the primary. And he's worse then Stevens. So at least we can get that taken care of.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I personally think it's bad if Stevens wins in November. It's just a matter of time before he is either arrested or outed worse than he already has been. He's a black eye on the party and the type of negative press that it doesn't need.
Maybe so. But if McCain is elected, his vote on Judges, among other things, will be needed.
I don't think any Democrat that defeats him will be dumb enough to even TRY to get re-elected. He'll realize he won just because there was a very, very flawed incumbent and that he has no real chance of hanging on, kind of like Peter Fitzgerald. Which, actually, is bad for us. He won't even pretend to vote like a moderate, he'll vote extremely liberal and then just retire in 6 years.
That's what worries me. If I thought he'd actually vote like John Breaux did, for example, I might not mind so much.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
When the charges are warranted. What's really doing the damage is not the complaints against him (they won't find anything to indict him for. He's clean) but the fact that his son is verifiably a crook. Doesn't look good to have your son do what Stevens's son has done.
But Stevens will win out. Which is ultimately good nationally and absolutely, desperately needed locally. Begich is not capable of doing for Alaska what Stevens has done and is, in fact, an ally of the very people Stevens has spent his career protecting Alaska From. And he's just a run of the mill, Lib Dem. Not helpful for the national Party.
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
I'd like to know what everyone's opinion is as to the probability of McCain's coattails against Clinton or Obama. Consider the repeated polls of the 20% or so Clinton/Obama supporters who claim they will either not vote or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the Dem nomination. What effect will this have down the ticket?
Further consider how many conservatives, like we RedStateRs who are committed to seeing greater down-ticket wins. I'm one who will wince more at voting for McCain, but most likely will -as- I vote for MI's Tim Walberg and others.
To the Roundtable's question: "What should be the most important races of those, the ones in which money and attention from bloggers and activists will have the greatest potential to have impact?"
RedState's endorsements go a good way (Sen./AK-Parnell, Rep./GA-Broun, Rep./LA-Jenkins, Rep./PA-Hackett, etcetera etcetera).
- Alaska. As for Sen. Stevens, without a primary challenger, support should go his way to fend of Begich to keep this seat in the Rs hands.
- Louisiana. Senate challenger to Landrieu John Kennedy www.johnkennedy.com . Yes he's a "reformed" Democrat and once state treasurer, however a gain here is an offset elsewhere.
- Georgia. There are TWO good gains for the Republican & conservative cause here. Doctor Deborah Honeycutt (www.honeycuttmeansbusiness.com/) challenging for GA's 13th and the winner of GA's primary in the 12th between former Augusta Mayor John Stone (www.johnstoneforcongress.com) and Ray McKinney (ray08.com). On the 13th, it would be a coup to have another black republican in congress, especially since there are none at present. On the 12th, it's better than a safe bet Stone pulls this one out and would be safe bet to take down Congressman John Barrow, who is nothing but an in-state carpetbagger, hailing from Athens (outside of his district).
- Any and all of the right-side Iraq Veterans for Congress, http://www.iraqvetsforcongress.com
Let's get 'er done!
(more later*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15."
--Ronald Reagan
I'm curious about what kind of effect the 1/5 or so of clinton supporters who won't vote for obama and the 1/5 or so of obama supporters who won't vote for clinton will have on CD and senate races, especially the close ones. It seems to me that if regardless of whoever the d's nominate for POTUS 20% of the base isn't coming out to support their party, then it would be easier for th r's to squeak in because there would be fewer d's voting. I know that here in CA-14 it won't really matter b/c Eshoo wins by 30-40% every time, but it might make a difference in lean d or lean r districts.
While still statistically tied at 47% to 44%, Mark Udall(D) has gone from 42% a month ago up to 47%, which is more than the margin of error, while Bob Schaffer has gone from 46% to 44% which is within the margin of error. It's clear that Udall is gaining popularity, while Schaffer has remained constant. The only good news for Schaffer is that his negative rating is lower than Udall's.
Udall has at least twice as much money as Schaffer now, so it's not going to get any easier unless more money comes in. The DNC is pouring money into this campaign because they want this state, and they're expecting to get a bump from the Democratic Convention in Denver later this year.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson