Smatterings of Good News for Rs
Is the Tide Turning?
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Tom Davis will not run for VA SEN but will help hold a lean D Congressional seat in VA-11.
Dino Rossi (R) will run to avenge the arguably stolen 2004 WA GOV election by Christine Gregoire (D), creating a re-match.
Bobby Jindal (R) wins a landslide election to reform the state of Louisiana and become the first Indian-American Governor in the history of the United States, garnering international headlines.
A new dKos poll shows Sen. Collins (R) leading 56-33 over Rep. Allen (D).
In the D+3 district of NM-01 facing an open seat, the Republican candidate, Sheriff Darren White, leads the most prominent Democrat 51-39.
In MA-05, a heavily D district, Republican Ogonowski narrowed the normal 18-20 point margin to a 6 point loss.
Finally, the relatively unpopular Sen. Lautenberg (D) of NJ has drawn two significant challengers who make NJ the second best pickup in a tough cycle for Rs.
[UPDATE] And the strongest D candidate for TX SEN just dropped his bid. This highlights the fact that Ds don't have top candidates in KY, TX, NM, NE, or OR right now.
ANALYSIS:
I do not think the environment has changed remarkably since 2006. But the impression of a change is important to recruitment. The decisions of Rossi and the NJ GOPers to roll the dice this cycle is welcomed evidence that Rs are not scared off by a "bad environment." Will this lead to better recruits for LA SEN and SD SEN? We'll see.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Liveblogging the other day's debate — Comments (6) »
Smatterings of Good News for Rs 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Dino was robbed, plain and simple. Even the Judge in the trial admitted there was at lest 8 times the amount of illegal votes then the amount of Fraudoire's win (that's what we call her in Washington State), he just said that the law required the losing party to prove who those people voted for, which is of course impossible. It was Democratic fraud and a badly (or too correctly) written law that kept Dino from being Governor. If they had a revote like he wanted in 2005, he would have won by 15%, every poll showed that.
Anyhow, even at the lowpoint of Republican's popularity, when Dino has kept a low profile for 3 years, and Gregoire is currently on a taxpayer funded "listening tour", the race is tied in the polls. He's got an excellent chance of winning.
Jindal/Palin '16
Oh, and I'm very glad about Tom Davis. It's not that I think he's a RINO or anything like that, I recognize he's not a rock-ribbed Republican, but because you don't beat a very popular politician with a somewhat less popular politician. Davis will keep his house seat, and that's more then enough. I'm still hoping Peter Pace will run, because Gilmore will be murdered.
Oh yah, and NM is a major recruiting Coup.
Jindal/Palin '16
Ogonowski was outspent 5-1. Tsongas had to bring in all kinds of heavy hittters and national PAC money to defeat him.
...and did I hear that he polls better than Heather Wilson in the general election matchup with the Dem challengers?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Answer is yes and yes.
I didn't think this would be the case, but if that trend continues, I'll be pulling for Pierce. Maybe the stupid US Attorney's thing is what's doing it. That said, if anybody did anything wrong in that case, it was Wilson and Dominici, but even they only did something wrong if wasshisname is telling the truth and his perceptions were accurate.
Jindal/Palin '16
....as hers will be difficult to defend. Pearce (although it's VERY early) looks better in the senate matchups thus far, and his house district is pretty conservative and should remain in GOP hands if he runs for the Senate. Heather Wilson should take a page out of Tom Davis's book on this one.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
as listed in the post, her replacement Darren White is leading 51-39 over Madrid. In 2006, Wilson beat Madrid by a narrow 875 votes. Wilson is somewhat tainted by the US Attorney firing in NM. White is not.
I don't know who is running in Pearce's district, so right now it might be a stronger argument that Pearce should stay put.
Overall, NM is looking a lot better than it could. Right now, there is 1D SEN, 1R SEN, 1D REP, and 2R REP. None of the 3 Rs are running for their old seat. So it was entirely possible to end up with 2D SEN, 3D REP.
However, right now NM has two strong Rs in the Senate race and no Ds. And a strong R in the D+3 NM-01 district. As long as a good R gets in on NM-02, Rs could hold all 3 seats which is as good as possible in this very purple state.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I agree. It's a shame, because I like Wilson, and I wouldn't mind seeing her being appointed to some State Department position or a good Ambassador position or something, but A. She's already running for Senate, B. White looks stronger, C. Pierce looks stronger then her in the general, and is more conservative.
It's kind of a shame, but it seems her time is up.
Jindal/Palin '16
Pierce's seat is pretty safe if I remember correctly. I can't find the numbers to verify, but I'm pretty sure Bush took something like 59% in his district. It's the most rural in the state. If we can't hold that one, we are in a world of hurt no matter what.
Jindal/Palin '16
the only polls I care about are the polls that are done on election day and we have had two of those. As you mentioned Jindal won his election. Not only did he win but he won huge. We can do all of the analysis about how this was mostly due to local dynamics, and I am sure there was plenty of that, however the bottom line is in the only poll that matters the Reps won.
Second, Jim Ogonowski lost but the election was much closer than anyone expected in a district that is heavily Democratic against a challenger with significantly more name recognition. First, Ogonowski has set himself up to challenge Tsongas when it is up again regulary in November of 2008, and second, our guy did much better than expected. Remember that Paul Hacket, a Democrat, nearly pulled off an upset in a special election leading into 2006 and I believe that was a precursor of the trouble to come.
Third, I am a contrarian on 2008 and I see our prospects being excellent. I see five points of emphasis and the recent elections fill one of the five points. Here is why I think 2008 will actually be a banner year for the Republicans.
Finally, I have altered my signature again, with new, obscure, and in my opinion classic line from a movie. Without using google, IMDB, or any other cheating mechanism, anyone can have at it to guess the movie.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
It's a wonderful life?
Harvey?
I may be crazy but I when I read it I had a Jimmy Stewart impression in my head.
and my hint is if we were playing hot and cold you would be in the freezer.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Rep. Jefferson (D-Frigidare)? That seems an unlikely quote to come from him!
"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate
Frankly, I am a bit disappointed. Besides being political junkies I have also been impressed by breadth of knowledge of movies on this site. This is not a blockbuster however I am also not choosing some obscure Portuguese movie here. Anyone else want to take a stab before I reveal it.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
But it was a Mamet play that I remember it from. And despite the Pulitzer, may I say .. meh.
absentee
and it should be noted that most of the famous actors from Chicago at one time or another find their way into a role in the play which still plays from time to time.
I believe Joe Mantegna's initial "big break" (by that I mean big break on the Chicago acting scene) was a role in GlenGarry Glenross.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
He really got screwed over last election. He won the original, he won the recount, and then lost the 'second' recount because Gregoire counted criminal and dead people votes.
Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently.
If I were a Republican politician, 2008 would be a good year to run for higher office. With Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket, Democrats further down the ticket are going to suffer, especially in the Red States. Democrat operatives have already privately discussed their fear of this.
Most Republicans would walk barefoot across broken glass to vote against Hillary, and that will benefit Republicans further down the ticket.
I'm not saying we should be over-confident, but if the Republican presidential candidate runs a strong campaign, I see Hillary being soundly beaten, and that will have a coattail effect for other Republican candidates.
"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.
If the Republican party is going to get energized...well Hillary as the Dem nominee will do it. Republicans would walk barefoot 40 miles in 4 ft deep snow uphill both ways with a major blizzard still underway to vote.
Hillary actually would be a blessing when it comes to getting the party fired up.
I feel Louisiana is our best pick-up opportunity with Landrieu's base of support in New Orleans no longer in the state.
I am enthused by the potential of a legit candidate in New Jersey.
but I hate to leave Iowa, South Dakota and Montana unchallenged. Granted, none of them are easy pickups, but these are states, particularly SD and Montana that the gop will win by at least +5 in the Prez race regardless of the candidates. Yes, Baucus and Harkin are "institutions", but I'm tired of leaving people like Dorgan/Conrad in ND and Reid (in 2004) in nevada unchallenged. I put particularly Johnson and Baucus in the ND category.
I'd run on judicial nominees in those 2 states. Particularly on the issue of homosexual marriage and abortion that these Dem senators are going to either be votes for a Dem President nominating far-lefties to the courts or be an obstruction to a Repub President nominating conservative judges.
It's possible, although pretty unlikely, that Lautenberg in NJ won't get re-elected. NJ hates all elected officials, just ask us! That makes polling here really tricky. NJ is also one of the most expensive states to campaign in. With no real media market of it's own you need to buy New York City and Philadelphia TV coverage which is obviously insanely expensive. Unless the candidate can self fund tens of millions NJ is probably just too costly to make a senate challenge really likely. Kean Jr had a much better chance over Menendez for the open seat last year than anybody will have against Lautenberg.
Never lived in or near NJ, but from afar my impression is the Dem candidate claims the Repub is going to take away a woman's rite of passage to get an abortion and despite polls showing a close race, the Dem inevitably pulls it out in the end.
is that the "dead vote" always breaks late - and always toward the Dems.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If I were a conservative deciding which candidates to give money to this election cycle, NJ would be at the bottom of the list, even if I lived in NJ.
You get a lot more "bang for your buck" funding Republican challengers in Red States with cheaper media markets, and have a receptive audience.
NJ is a deep-blue, liberal, union, corrupt state (being redundant here) I've seen a lot of good Republicans go down in that state to absolutely awful Democrat politicians. You could fund 3 state-wide races in other Red States that Republicans can actually win in for the cost of one state-wide campaign in NJ.
Sometimes you have to choose your battles.
"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'm not talking about someone like Chaffee, but rather someone who can pull a Republican equivalent of Bill Nelson, Byron Dorgan, etc. whereby they play conservative (or in a RINO's case "moderate/liberal") oh around year 5.5 in their term in prep for re-election. "Struggle" with their votes before inevitably (and always when it matters) casting the party line?
I am particularly concerned with judicial nominations but if we could come up with a Republican who runs to the left, "struggles" before casting votes 2/3 of the time with the party and is always there when needed on judicial votes, I would take that in new jersey and other blue states.
Whitman was a nominal Republican, but I agree I would prefer her to a liberal Democrat.
The point is, I'd rather fund a REAL Republican in a state like Montana or South Dakota (assuming it's a strong contender), than a Christine Todd Whitman type candidate in New Jersey, who constantly challenges the Republican Party in order to win over blue-state voters.
However, I'm almost always going to support the eventual Republican nominee, they usually vote with the Party most of the time, as opposed to a liberal Democrat. I'm not going to sit out the election or vote for some 3rd party candidate out of spite if I feel the eventual nominee isn't as conservative as I want them to be.
"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.
NJ is a deep-blue, liberal, union, corrupt state...
Corrupt? Double-check - to the core.
Union? Not as much as in the past, but still pretty solid.
Deep-blue and liberal? In parts, absolutely. In others? Not at all.
NJ is a very, very odd state electorally as it is home to some of the most leftist (I-95 corridor) and conservative (northwestern and south-central parts of the state) people I've ever met. Problem for us is that it is nearly impossible for any solid Republican, much less a conservative, to get 50%+1 in a mano-a-libo race - the dead vote and those from Newark, Camden, Trenton and Hudson County (but I repeat myself) simply overwhelms everyone else.
FWIW, I have a seathing, white-hot loathing for "The Garden State" that can only come from being born and spending the first 22-years (or half) of my life in that cesspit. Here's all you need to know about that - I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts and have not, in the last 8-years since moving here from another blue state (CT - where I lived for 12-years) spent more than 10-nanoseconds considering a return to the state of my birth.
I wouldn't be hijacked there.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
In NJ, Rs have been within 3-7 points in the last few statewide races (including President where Kerry won 53-46). In MT, Baucus wins by 20 points. So the state may be more R, but Lautenberg is unpopular and Baucus is popular.
Nevertheless, ND, SD, and MT are frustrating states. Unfortunately, as the Rs moved South the libertarian regions of the country have become more competitive.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Granted Denny is safely enconsed in the House seat and isn't running against Baucus. But similar to Nevada where Reid had to steal the election from now-Sen. Ensign in 1998, those are states and incumbents that are not invincible. Granted they will get 60+% against an unknown candidate with no money, but are we really that empty of candidates in states like Montana, North Dakota (and Nevada) that unless THE ONE candidate runs against him (Rehberg-Montana) (Hoeven-North Dakota) (Ensign-Nevada) that we just hand it to the Dem who plays "conservative" 6 months out of his 6 year term? Is there not a Secretary of State or Attorney General, etc. in those states that we can't rally around and expose the fraudulent Democrat incumbent who plays conservative only during the campaign?
Yes, in the open seat races Reid and Baucus won narrow races. Then they got good press from sympathetic papers and an easier election the next time (see Pryor in AR this round). After that they are an "institution."
Reid is actually pretty unpopular now (Daschle effect). But Baucus is not.
A non-partisan group dedicated to softening up red state Ds would be very helpful. Dkos and MoveOn have hurt McConnell in KY, Sununu in NH, Burns in MT, and several others by running anti-incumbent ads before there was even a challenger in the race. The GOP doesn't seem to be doing that in WV, AR, SD, IA, or MT. If there was a concerted effort to bring down the favs of those incumbents, recruitment would be easier.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Those were not open seats. You are 100% correct in the rest of your analysis although I think you give DailyKos too much credit. They took credit for what the unpopularity of the War on Terror provided.
on both counts. Although I quibble that the War on Terror was not what was unpopular, the War in Iraq is. A portion of that frustration is people who think we should be fighting in Afghanistan or elsewhere rather than in Iraq (i.e. pro-GWOT, anti-Iraq War).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I think Rehberg made the same calculation as Davis in VA. Rather than go against the uber-popular contender this year, wait for 2012 when the juicy, accidental Freshman who won by a few thousand votes is up.
Let's remember, if we can minimize losses this year, the shoe is on the other foot, and a filibuster-proof R majority is do-able in 2012 (depending on the dynamics of course).
Safe seat. But my point is why in states like South Dakota (Thune), North Dakota (Hoeven-passed on race), Montana (Rehberg-passed on rematch) and Nevada (Ensign- won open seat in 2000) do we not have a thin bench, apprently we have NO bench? I know we have various GOP statwide office holders in these states, none are willing to take the leap apparently. Instead we get what I am sure are fine individuals, but they have no name recognition, no money and are easily cast aside not only by the incument Dem, but by the media.
Another good example of this is in Michigan.
While Michigan is a Democratic leaning state, the state currently has two minor GOP state wide officials, and GOP Congresswoman who was elected statewide, a number of popular Congressmen, and a multi-millionaire former candidate for Governor - ALL OF WHOM ARE REPORTEDLY CONSIDERING A RACE FOR GOVERNOR IN 2010!.
Don't you think that one of these people would decide that, since their can only be one gubernatorial nominee, his/her chances of being that nominee are slim, and thus it might be better to run for Senate, where he/she would definitely be the nominee, and would have at least an outside chance of beating Levin (whom I think is far from unbeatable?
Right now, it looks like the post-06 results will be 44-46 Rs. The 2010 races are not friendly, so Rs could be anywhere from 40-46 seats going into 2012.
2012 is VERY friendly. 2006 on paper was a great cycle for Rs and now there are 6 freshmen D Senators in that cycle and very few states to defend. But a 14-20 seat pickup would be insane. A 6-10 seat pickup would be amazing but would probably only return Rs to a slim majority.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
This term the Court could basically overturn the 2nd Amendment and ban the death penalty for all intent and purposes. Forcing Dem incumbents to opine on those issues could benefit Republicans. (Un)fortunately there is no homosexual marriage issue on the docket this term, but that could unleash the motherlode of support for GOP candidates.
But I don't see much evidence that the voters Rs lost in 2006 are highly motivated by guns or the death penalty. Put otherwise, that seems like the last battle.
The Is and Hispanics that switched their votes in 2006 did so for reasons ranging from frustration with the war, corruption, competency, and perceived xenophobia.
How many people who are guns-first voters are still Ds? They switched over in the 1990s and they are still part of the coalition. They didn't leave. The small government, anti-pork wings however have little reason to vote R right now. I'm not sure those decisions will bring them back.
A rejuvenated anti-pork plank in the GOP would help, but I don't see that happening right now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Because as of now we have a death penalty and the right to bear arms (we can quibble over how absolute that right is), but the furor that will be created if/when SCOTUS declares that there is no fundamental right to bear arms and that eviscerates the death penalty will have voters looking to take out frustration on some politicians (since the Court is, pardon the pun, bullet-proof) and looking for politicians who are going to "do something" about the Courts.
Will that play in New Jersey? No. Will it play in Louisiana, Montana and South Dakota? I believe so.
As far as the Hispanics, I think you are correct that the immigration issue is what is "costing" the GOP. However, what will further hasten the stampede is walking away from social issues like homosexual marriage and abortion that some of our "front runners" seem all to willing to do. If the GOP is seen as the party that is against immigration and could care less about abortion and homosexual marriage, then why would the stampe to the Dems not continue? Because we are "against pork"? I don't think that will have any effect other than potentially further aggravating.
I'll be shocked if the Supremes either guts the second amendment or outright bans the death penalty. The Court seems to be much more pro-2d am than courts of appeal decisions over the last few decades. I cannot imagine a radical anti-2d amendment decision. On the death penalty, the Court has been trending against it, but I expect it to continue chipping away at it rather than do anything radical. Besides, Dems haven't been running on gun restrictions or opposition to the death penalty and don't think they will anytime in the near future.
I don't think 2010 looks all that bad. We don't have any truly vulnerable people up in 2010 (at least, assuming Jim Bunning retires, which I expect he will), and if Hillary wins, I'd expect a huge backlash that could beat people like Salazar, Dorgan, Lincoln, Feingold, Bahy, etc.
If any of those people retire (Bahy and Dorgan are very possible), we'd instantly be the frontrunners if we got any of our decent candidates to run.
That said, '08 is looking like a disaster on the Senate side. I'll be happy if we only lose 2.
Jindal/Palin '16
I don't think 2010 looks all that bad. We don't have any truly vulnerable people up in 2010 (at least, assuming Jim Bunning retires, which I expect he will), and if Hillary wins, I'd expect a huge backlash that could beat people like Salazar, Dorgan, Lincoln, Feingold, Bahy, etc.
If any of those people retire (Bahy and Dorgan are very possible), we'd instantly be the frontrunners if we got any of our decent candidates to run.
That said, '08 is looking like a disaster on the Senate side. I'll be happy if we only lose 2.
Jindal/Palin '16
Sorry to be a pessimist, but I've been looking at the 2010 Senate races, and I think it will be an uphill battle for the good guys. My assessment based on 2002 senate election results, 2004 presidential election results, and current approval-disapproval surveys:
Definitely Vulnerable
Martinez (R) FL
Voinovich (R) OH
Bunning (R) KY
Potentially Vulnerable
Burr (R) NC
Gregg (R) NH
Spector (R) PA
Brownback (R) KA (Open)
Bond (R) MO
Boxer (D) CA
Feingold (D) WI
Reid (D) NV
Lincoln (D) AR
Bayh (D) IN
Dorgan (D) ND
Salazar (D) CO
Probably Safe
Coburn (R) OK
Murkowski (R) AK
Isakson (R) GA
DeMint (R) SC
Thune (R) SD
Vitter (R) LA
Wyden (D) OR
Murray (D) WA
Schumer (D) NY
Safe
Shelby (R) AL
McCain (R) AZ
Grassley (R) IO
Bennett (R) UT
Crapo (R) ID
Leahy (D) VT
Obama (D) IL
Inouye (D) HI
Also, it's much more likely that we'll have more retirements than the Dems will. We have more elderly incumbants than the Dems (5-1 who will be 75+ in 2010 and 8-4 who will be 70+). It's also almost certain we'll still be in the Senate minority in 2010, thus giving our guys less incentive to run again.
Don't expect him to run. If he gets blown out again this year, he may retire. If Gov. Napalitano (D) runs for the seat she will be almost unbeatable. There's nobody in the state with the name recognition to beat her.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Dorgan has already said he'll run in 2010 and Bayh is relatively young (55 in 2010), so I expect he'll run again unless he's elected VP in 2008.
Inouye, Milulsky, Leahy, and Dodd seem most likely to retire among Dems, but they're all in blue states.
Bunning, Voinovich, Spector, Shelby, McCain, Bennett, and Grassley seem most likely to retire among Republicans (and Brownback has already said he will not run in 2010). Open seats in Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Iowa and maybe Alabama will be difficult races (of course, I think Kentucky and Ohio will be difficult even if the R incumbent runs again).
Nothing will get an R elected in NJ.
What was it a dead hooker or a live boy for LA ?
Well NJ not only had the live boy, he was on the governors staff embezzling. Then you have the party Machine playing numbly peg with the election process putting in John traffic laws are for other people Corzine as their picked man.
In Jersey the electorate is either dead or brain dead take your pick.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Corzine sort of owns the machine. It's not like the bosses picked him. He made the bosses pick him and forced Codey to stand down. We nominated a complete stiff to run against him. And the McGreevey-Corzine transition was interrupted by more than a year of the popular Dick Codey in office, rehabilitating the Dem brand. I think Chris Christie will have a real shot at Corzine in '09, though.
If you want to point to races that shows we have poor chances at picking up statewide offices, the 2002 and 2006 Senate Races are better examples. 2002 we got screwed on the Torrecelli Lautenberg switcheroo, and couldn't take advantage. 2006 the environment was awful, but we were running against a guy who was under federal investigation and our candidate had the most golden Republican brand name in the state.
In any case, Lautenberg is going to have to be the nominee for this to be a five point race or less. If he retires, any number of Dems will be able to hit 55% (Andrews, Pallone, Holt, Rothman). I think if he stays in the race, he has a hard ceiling not far above 55%.
One reason this races is really worth paying attention to is if Giuliani is the nominee, New Jersey is going to be in play presidentially. That'll help any money gap because the party/presidential campaign will have turnout efforts geared up.
That's enough rambling out of me for right now. I should be doing something important like my job or putting together this week's NFL power rankings.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
The King! He has arrived with the armies of the dead!
To the gate! Ride to the gate and fight to ensure the Ringbearer can accomplish his mission!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
"And the strongest D candidate for TX SEN just dropped his bid."
I don't think Watts dropping out is good news for us. Other than being able to self fund, I think he makes a terrible candidate. He's a trial lawyer, doesn't have a compelling personal story, and doesn't have any particular experience in politics. I suspect he would have lost to Noriega in the Dem primary and this is a big part of his decision to drop out. Noriega worries me just a little bit. He's an Afghan vet, Hispanic, young, and a fresh face. I'd much rather the Dems beat each other up in a primary than unite behind one candidate as it now looks like. Cornyn is not particularly liked in Texas. I still expect him to win, but think Noriega will surprise (much like Ognowski) in making this a relatively close race.
Noriega is the dailykos candidate (read: he's pro homosexual marriage). Put that on his shoulders and he's a loser in Texas.
So was Tester, Webb, and others and they won. Tester advocated abolishing the Patriot Act during the election and he is from MONTANA. You honestly think 1 issue takes someone out of a race. People you GOT TO KEEP UP HOPE BUT DONT GET COCKY. For some reason people haven't learned that early polls still don't mean crap and that issues don't always matter in an election the person usually does.
-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'
I admit we shouldn't get cocky, and I do think Noriaga is a threat, but that said, your analogies to Webb/Tester just don't work.
For one thing, neither of those advocated for Gay Marriage. It's not just the position in and of it's self, it's what it says about the candidate, in a red state, it basically makes it all but impossible to sell yourself as an even remotely conservative D. You are running as a hardcore D, and electing a hardcore D in a red state is extremely difficult. There isn't a single D in a state or district Bush won advocating gay marriage, I'm 99% sure.
Second, Montana has a long tradition, along with other low-population, heartland states of voting one way for President and one way for Senator. Also, Montana is a VERY libertarian state when it comes to things that even smell of Government 'interference' with their lives. You can argue the specifics of the patriot act all day long (I'm a John Sununu republican on that, for it, but liked the increased oversight it was given when it was renewed), it's easy to demonize it in a soundbite. It's also worth noting that he would have been slaughtered if Burns hadn't been caught up in the Abramoff thing. Burns was running 10pts behind, and then fell just 1000 votes short. Oh, and he would probably have won if he hadn't randomly insulted volunteer firefighters as well.
And Webb ran as a VERY conservative D on pretty much every issue but Iraq, and he STILL would have gotten slaughtered if Allen hadn't not only "Macaca"ed, but then completely mishandled every single response to it, and then spent the last leg of the campaign fighting over stupid crap nobody cared about (Webb's novels). He would have lost big time had he campaigned on being pro-gay marriage. And Webb's military experience is a LOT more impressive then Noriaga's.
I'm not saying don't be weary, but Cornyn A. Has no scandal around him, B. Is in a more solidly Republican state, C. Gay Marriage is a lot bigger offense then other issues you mentioned, D. He's not likely to do something stupid.
Jindal/Palin '16
You actually think he was the strongest person compared to a military veteran that has the endorsement of most of the Texas state house?
There are always good signs but don't be stupid thinking that Watts was the "top guy" when it was clear he wasn't. I think the poll shows that ME is going to be a very tough one for Democrats to win and I have been saying that all along, but anything can happen like Allen proved in 2006.
-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'
TX is a big expensive state. Watts had boatloads of money to throw at it. My understanding is that Noriega does not. And because of the Anti-Free Speech Act (aka Campaign Finance Reform), Watts can't just pay for Noriega's race.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I agree with the update on Texas. A man with millions to spend is always more dangerous than an attractive candidate with little money in a huge state.
What I don't agree with is the idea that the national environment in 2008 will be equally unfavorable to the GOP as was 2006. It isn't.
In 2006, there was no presidential race. In 2008, there will be, and a blowout is no longer possible in a presidential race.
In 2006, the GOP had full control over the government, and faced the wrath of dissatisfied swing voters. In 2008, Dems are also at least partly at fault.
In 2006, it seemed like Iraq was falling apart. In 2008, it seems to be getting much better.
In 2006, Hillary was not running for a national office. In 2008, she will be.
Nuff said.
It's been four days since the last coalition fatality in Iraq. Right now, October is shaping up to be the lowest troop fatality month since March 2006, and since Feb. 2004 before that. This is 1/4th the troop fatalities in October 2006. 600 civilian troop deaths (or so) would be the lowest total since 2005.
Sooner or later this is going to start sinking in to the American public's mind.
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com