Senate 2008: Sen. Ensign discusses the bleak R prospects
Two Possible Surprise Candidates in IA, SD? Who Are They?
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sen. Ensign, head of the NRSC, sat down with RCP's Wilson and talked about the Senate landscape in 2008. For those frustrated with the Presidential primary, maybe focusing on beating Sen. Landrieu will make you happier.
Read the article for a full run down, as Ensign discusses NH, CO, and NM. He calls LA the best pickup opportunity and NJ as a dark horse. But the part that caught my attention was after discussing an uptick in donations, Ensign mentions this:
Recruiting, too, has picked up. While refusing to divulge names, Ensign hinted that two new candidates could emerge in Iowa and South Dakota, to take on Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson. "If we're able to sign them, they will be absolutely heavyweight -- they are heavyweight candidates and if we can get them on board, they will be absolutely national races that people will pay attention to right away," he said.
Anyone have any ideas who they are pushing? Gov. Rounds in SD? Rep. King in IA? I dunno, what do y'all think?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Senator Alexander Goes to the Floor to Take on RedState and Misses the Point — Comments (47) »
Senate 2008: Sen. Ensign discusses the bleak R prospects 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Depending on who heads the GOP ticket for POTUS, we have a chance at actually winning and also a good chance at maintaining the margins in House and Senate no worse than today. If we nominate Romney or Huck, and Dems nominate Obama, it could be 1984 but in favor of the Dems and not for us I fear.
While Reagan beat Mondale senseless in '84, Republicans did not exactly clean up in the congressional elections. We did pick up 16 seats in the House (for a total of 182), but we actually had a net loss of 2 seats in the Senate (picking up KY but losing seats in IL, IA and TN).
That result in 2008 would not be disasterous - Obama might win, and Dems would have a larger House majority, but we'd pick up a couple of Senate seats and take over control there. And if I had to pick one chamber to control under a Democrat administration, it would be the Senate.
The Republicans didn't even control the Senate when they had a majority recently. *cough*Gang of 14*cough*. We probably need about 70 Republicans in order for it to be safely in Republican hands.
you confuse Republican control with Conservative control. We only need 51 sears to organize and thus install Republican chairmen and committee majorities. With that comes the ability to set the committee agenda. Facing a Hillary White House, that would be key in areas like Judiciary, Budget, and Finance. It enables the GOP to bottle a lot up in committee and force concessions. It also let's us set the terms of hearings and control committee staffs.
We might need 55-60 Republicans to insure that every conservative proposal clears the Senate floor unadulterated, but even short of that there is great value in parliamentary and procedural terms of holding the majority (even if it is only nominally).
I doubt it. Thune was the best of the best, and he (arguably) failed during a good year for Republicans.
Johnson isn't as liberal as Dashle, and more importantly, Johnson got a TON of sympathy with his illness. It's true that it should make some people question if he's up to the task, it hasn't really played out that way.
We'd need a REAL heavy-hitter in order to win this one. I can't see anybody but Rounds doing it.
Hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see how it happens.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I see no other person - even other state office holders who could be described as "heavyweights" there. Any of the state officials would be strong, but I certainly wouldn't call them "heavyweights" who would draw national attention.
In Iowa - it's probably Rep. King. Most of the state offices there are held by Democrats. The only other option would seem to be former 4-term governor Branstad (who preceded Vilsack) - at least as far as national attention, "heavyweight" would go.
Although it is likely the Dems will pick up several Senate seats, I've thought the nightmare scenario of a Democratic presidential win sweeping in six or so has been overblown. Given the nasty little civil war that has erupted on that side, that apparently wasn't wishful thinking. Rounds and King would be excellent candidates, and fit the bill as heavy hitters.
Regardless of who our nominee ultimately is, the presidential race will be close.
Steve King and Terry Branstad are both rumored to be considering Harkin's seat here in Iowa as mentioned above. Another possiblity is Matt Whitaker, a U.S. Attorney who has been a leader on illegal immigrants working in the meat-packing industry, most notably the raids on Swift in Marshalltown, IA. All just rumors at this point as far as I know.
He got elected in a swingier district, and there's at least a little noise made about him looking at the race, right?
The lay of the land in Iowa is this: The Democratic Party is very strong here, especially among Independents. A lot of people vote consistently Democrat who swear they are independent because they want to be above some things or oppose some things represent by the D Party. Republicans are pretty conservative and not hateful like many would like to portray. Traditionally Iowa has a strong work ethic crossing all political lines.
We have some new developments: 1) Illegal immigration, which is turning our local work ethic on it's head when combined with how little young people want for. Their hard-working parents are able to provide cell phones, ipods, etc, or opportunities for them to earn spending money themselves. The immigrants will do a lot of things the young people and many adults used to do to earn summer or part-time wages. 2) Which brings me to big changes in small town values. Small towns have been obliterated in the past 10-20 years (way before Walmart!). Many/most family farms have been replaced by corporate farms and housing developments/suburbs. It used to be that raising a family in Iowa meant certain values were just there and taken for granted, not necessarily for religious or moral reasons, but little exposure to negatives 3) Iowans really do want change but not the brand of change either party is willing to provide. The parties are willing to make changes in who has power, but not how that power is used! Many people on both sides of the aisle would actually like the parties to clean up politics in general. Yes, each believes their side is inherintly better and more moral, but we are all appalled at the nature of the political establishment!
Which brings me to my theory: that these recruits may be people who are locally well-known, not part of the political establishment, at least nationally. I say this because two brand-new candidates (D's) were elected two years ago. But as usual in politics I could be wrong and disappointed!
Here is a name popular with local conservatives: Bob Van der Plaats, but he's not a heavy hitter as far as raising cash. I also signed a petition at caucus time for someone well-known but I think he's running against someone other than harkin.
Will there be a nominee with similar themes and possible coattails or one who can't excite the base (McCain)?
That would influence whether it is worth trying.
Other way around. Just like Ds are hoping Obama is the nominee so they have a chance in lean R states, most tough races for Rs are probably hoping for McCain (NH, OR, MN, NM, NJ and CO). Those are states where independents and some moderate Ds control the outcomes.
And remember that McCain did the best of the candidates in the LA "we don't matter" caucus. He polls best against the Ds in red, purple and blue states. People here may not like him, but he is the most likely person to have "coattails" by winning back some moderate Rs who have left the party slowly over the last 10 years.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Any major military brass from IA or SD?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm just kidding...... Gov Rounds is a likely guess. Would he beat Tim Johnson, I don't think we know that yet.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
There were allegations of fraud on his part that year too - shenanigans with the Indian reservations or some such.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm glad to hear that we could potentially field competitive candidates in Iowa and South Dakota (the latter has to be Rounds, though I'll believe that when I see it). What worries me, though, is that Ensign sees Iraq and George Bush as the defining issues of the 2006 elections. While those played a huge role in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, those were not the reasons for our losses in Montana, Ohio, and Virginia. In Virginia, the word "macaca" cost us control of the Senate. Until Allen said that, he wasn't going to lose, and had he won, we'd still control the Senate. In Montana, Sen. Burns was punished for his ties to Jack Abramoff. Even though nothing was ever proven, the appearance of impropriety cost him his seat. In Ohio, Mike DeWine lost for two reasons. The first is that he had participated in the Gang of 14 agreement, which cost him dearly with the base. The second is that the corrupt state Party dragged him down with it even though he wasn't involved in those scandals himself. The brand was tarnished, and he took the brunt of it. I find it extremely troubling that Sen. Ensign didn't consider corruption and stupidity two of the defining issues in the 2006 elections. I find it even more troubling that the former may cost us another seat that should be safe in Alaska while Ensign fiddles. To be sure, he's in an incredibly tough position, but I do wish that he got started by understanding just how we managed to lose all of those incumbents in the last election so that he could start to work on those types of problems.
Your analysis is dead on. 2006 was one of the worst run national senate campaigns I've ever seen.
... I'm worried that the Republican planners are buying into the same pre-election funk, but under the reverse assumption (GOP had to defend too much). Under that assumption in 2006, it would have led to GOP pick-ups in 2006 (Dems had too much to defend).
Ray J. Tuleya
You're right about everything but Mike DeWine. DeWine got the same amount of Republican votes that he always did. G of 14 had nothing to do with it. He lost because he lost independents, period. And he lost independents mostly because of the scandals in Ohio.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
exit polls show that republican turnout was only a very little below normal for an off year election. But independents voted for Democrats in droves.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
That's true, it's just more pronounced in Ohio.
Anyhow, I mostly just slap people like that down because 2006 has become a rallying cry for every single part of the base that doesn't like decision X,Y or Z to say "Well, they lost because they sold us out on X issue and 'the base' (meaning, of course, themselves) was unhappy with X, Y or Z issue."
Which is of course, nonsense. But they always say it, and it annoys me.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
If it didn't cost him Republican votes, it did cost him the time and energy of volunteers. The defeat of his son in a Congressional primary was a perfect example of just how much anger DeWine's participation in the Gang of 14 agreement generated. People and organizations issued both endorsements of other candidates and unendorsements (anyone but) of his son. He lost a ton of friends that day. Ultimately those people may have voted for him, but they didn't go knocking on doors or making phone calls for him.
Please let this happen.
Especially So Dakota should be competitive for us
The thing is if Hillary is the nominee it can't hep a Johnson
I still wish Huckabee would run against Pryor
Don't be too surprised if Jim Nussle throws his hat into the ring to take out Tom Harkin here in Iowa.
He was a long time Congressman who ran for governor in Iowa in a bad year (2006) and lost, but is currently serving as WH Budget director for President Bush. Presumably, he will be looking for a job when W's term ends. He is known for being a long time budget hawk, and Harkin has always been one of the Senate's biggest spenders. This might be shaping up to be his year, with renewed focus on the economy and deficits, and a Presidential race bringing out more voters. He always did well with independents.
I know some people who know some people. I might do some sniffing around.
That's what blogs are for... bringing together people who know people who know people. :)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'd love to see that pompous Harkin be taken down but he seems to survive every election term and Iowa seems to be still a Dem state
I'd like to see the Sec Of State Ireland in West Virginia challenge Rockerfellar. I still don't get why she isn't running for re-election? Anyone know what happened there?
She's not seeking reelection either. It's for family reasons. One of her relatives (I think her mother) is ill
and she has decided that her family responsibilities are more important than her political career. As much as I'd like to see her run, I have nothing but respect for that decision. We should wish her and her family well and leave it at that.
Sorry again for triple post but we can't get anyone to give Baucus in MT a serious challenge?
The former Gov of Montana (name I forget) would be dream candidate but he seems to never run - who else?
I don't think that Sen. Ensign means what we think he means when he says "heavyweight candidates." My guess is that he means strong second tier ones, like a minor GOP officeholder or a state legislator in SD or IA. However, I hope that Gov. Rounds will reconsider, and I hope that Rep. King gets into the race too. Both would be legitimate heavyweights.
I doubt Nussle gets in only because I don't think he would have associated himself with President Bush if he planned to run in '08.
MT is an embarrassment. Both Rep. Rehberg and former Gov. Raciot would have an even chance of winning, but neither is willing to take the plunge. I hope we can find some second tier candidate their.
We also need to get decent candidates in WV and AR. (Ireland apparently has family issues.)
I haven't seen much polling data out of there (probably because there isn't a GOP candidate yet), but that is natural Republican territory. If Ensign is right, and he does have a top tier candidate up his sleeve, I think it's a distinct possibility that the GOP picks up a seat in SD. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I'd say we have a better than 50% chance.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”