Redstate

considering 21 Repubs and only 12 Dems seats are up for election. Hence, we'll need to go 24-9 to capture the 3 seats you desire (or 32-1 to capture a 60-seat bulletproof senate).

It's hard to see Republicans picking up 1 seat in 2008. There are only 9 Dems up and most of them are safe.

Kerry, Durbin, Harkin, Levin, Jack Reed and Rockefeller can't lose unless they retire. Baucus probably can't be beating, assuming he doesn't retire. Of course, if Rockefeller retires than that WV seat is basically a toss up. If Harken retires, then Iowa would be a toss up also.

New Jersey hates Lautenberg, but I'm done with thinking a Republican can win there. New Jersey hates Menendez too, and he won easily.

Johnson's seat in South Dakota should be a good pickup opportunity, assuming a decent challenger. Landreiu's seat should flip.

So assuming no retirements, Republicans have a good shot at 2 seats, while having to defend 21. Most of those 21 are safe too, but there are more than 2 that are at risk. And then of course retirements change the calculus.

John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

McConnell will get more done as Minority Leader than Frist as Majority leader, period...but especially on judges.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Reading the rules of the Senate to see if justices can die in committee, we first find that...

When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination shall be, "Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?" which question shall not be put on the same day on which the nomination is received, nor on the day on which it may be reported by a committee, unless by unanimous consent.

So, we then look to the rules on committee referrals, and find...

All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committee from the consideration of a subject, and all subjects from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over one day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct.

So right there it is implied that a Senator may move that a nominee be discharged from the subject of a judicial nomination.

So, as far as I can tell, if you can defeat the filibuster, and if you can get a majority on the floor for a nominee, then you can get the Senate to consent to that nominee, even if the Judiciary Committee is out of the Senate mainstream.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I meant to say near the end there that "it is implied that a Senator may move that a COMMITTEE be discharged from the subject of a judicial nomination."
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

office, I suspect the dems will attempt it here, but I am not sure this will go over well.

As for McConnell I think he should have gotten the top spot, when Lott stepped down rather than wishy washy Frist.

And McConnell has clean hands, is well respected, but he is also tenacious.

Is there such a thing as a stealth conservative judicial nominee? Has there ever been a Sup Court justice who turned out to be more conservative than initially thought?

The far-left interest groups like ACLU, NOW, NARAL, and the Ralph Neas group are very good at sniffing out and demonizing any judge who might be half-way decent, and who might base his jurisprudence on the actual Constitution.

If we must rely on a stealth nomination to get another conservative on the Sup Court, then we are in deep, deep trouble, and there is very little reason for hope.

I'll cover a bit more, at least.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

It is so cool that you are in the Federalist Society. I envy you.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

No way Max Baucus loses. Ditto with Harkin. Both have high approval ratings, and are both institutions in their state. If they retire, thats another story.

Landrieu is obviously finished, unless the LA Republicans screw up. I don't agree, however, that taking out Tim Johnson will be easy. Its hard to think of a challenger besides Gov. Rounds. And last time I checked Johnson had approval in the 70s and Rounds is in the 50s. It is South Dakota obviously, so Johnson could lose, but I think you're downplaying the difficulty.

As for Virginia, if Warner retires, then Republicans hold that seat (probably Tom Davis) unless Mark Warner runs. Then it becomes a toss-up.

And I think you are overly sanguine about Minnesota. Coleman has approval under 50% and Klobuchar just crushed Kennedy. Of course, it will come down to who the Dems nominate, but your thought that Coleman is more likely than not to win is probably not a safe bet.

I agree that Sonunu is more likely than not going to win. But the NH Republican party just got a Cold Harbor slapped on them, so I wouldn't want Sonunu to get too confident.

In any case, retirements. So we'll just have to see which side gets hurt worse on that front.

than the key for the dems is running a strong opponent.

One thing the incumbants for the house did this year, was they just didn't seem to be trying very hard to win. Bass hardly had any ads and he wasn't really out much-I think his previous wins sort of gave him the impression that he didn't have to try hard.

If Sununu doesn't try to win the seat, he could lose it, but if he isn't complacent and fights for it, he is liked well enough in NH that I think he stays. Sununu is well liked, a good campaign should see him win, but if he thinks he doesn't have to try, he could lose in this climate (which is very anti war and anti GOP in general, but then I think the GOP forgot to show up for the campaign this year).

Mark Racicot won the Montana governorship by the largest landslide in state history with 80% of the vote. Baucus may be popular, but Racicot could definitely knock him off - especially in a presidential election year.

Harkin and Pryor both won their 2002 races with a scant 54% of the vote. I think Jim Nussle would stand a good shot of knocking him off, and a race against Mark Pryor is probably the only race I could support Mike Huckabee for...and even then, begrudgingly. I'd prefer Asa Hutchinson.

Tim Johnson wasn't unpopular in 2002, either, when he won by a mere percentage point. If Mike Rounds ran, I'm not sure he'd be so lucky as to survive again.

If Tim Pawlenty could survive in a Democratic tidlewave year, then Norm Coleman will win in 2008 - especially since I'm not so sure that MN won't go for Mitt Romney over Hillary Clinton. I don't think it will be a cakewalk, but again...more likely than not, he will hold on. Gordon Smith on the other hand...I don't know. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with. In fact, I often forget that Oregon even has a Republican senator. lol

If John Warner resigns, Tom Davis can keep his House seat. I hope George Allen would take him out in the primary. If Davis were stupid enough to run against Allen, it could be a fun Club for Growth v. Republican Main Street showdown. :-) Allen v. Mark Warner would be a very interesting political battle.

Baucus might be popular in MT, but Marc Racicot could probably take him out, if he could be convinced out of retirement for 6 years.

Tim Johnson could be taken out by a Governor--he just barely squeaked by last time, with then-Majority Leader Daschle campaigning for him.

I'm not so sure about running Asa Hutchinson against Mark Pryor, who has a fairly moderate voting record. Pryor won the seat in 2002 against Asa's brother Tim Hutchinson, who campaigned in 1996 as a "family man", then left his wife for a much-younger secretary. While Asa doesn't personally have such baggage, the Hutchinson name might be a negative in Arkansas, and there again, a former Governor not named Hutchinson -would be a better candidate.

In Louisiana, Mary Landrieu's New Orleans base has been washed into Texas by Katrina. Could 2008 be the year for Bobby Jindal?

The 6 losses in 2006 (especially the close ones in MT, MO, and VA) look devastating when looking at the 2008 map. With 21 R seats to defend, and only 12 D states up in 2008, re-taking the Senate will be an uphill climb in 2008. We will need some excellent candidates, and a much smarter campaign than this year.

Oh, by the way, if Mitt Romney's Presidential campaign doesn't get much traction next year, he might want to think about finally getting John Fonda Kerry out of the Senate.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Politics and common sense aren't dungs of the same cow.

But he says that he would run for it. I hope Allard stays.

should switch parties, leave his seat and let the Republican governor appoint a replacement, and then beat Hagel in 2008! yeah! its a perfect plan!

2008 is going to be a tough Senate year. we could easily find ourselves down 45-55, so some of our elder statesmen better opt not to retire. MN, OR, CO, and NH are going to be tough to keep. add in retirement possibilities in NM and VA, and we've got at least 6 very tough races.

I think WV and LA are the two prime pickup opportunities. MT could too, if Tester proves himself to be a moonbat it could hurt Baucus, but that's still a long shot. IA and MI (is Levin up in 08 or 10?) also in play with retirements, though uphill battles. NJ just seems hopeless, but maybe they'll finally have enough.

Finally, why can't we get any strong pro-life women in the Senate??? Hutchison's the only one that's even remtely close I think. Capito (WV) is pro-choice, as, I believe, are Palin (AK) and Wilson (NM), who would be top contenders to run if our incumbent retires.

Maybe Kansas would be a situation where the people there feel comfortable electing a Democrat to run the state govt, but would feel differently for a federal office like Senator. Does the GOP have anyone good on deck to run if Roberts does retire? What about the governor who preceded Seblius? Was he too much of a rino or something?

Tancredo would be a great addition to the Senate, but I have a feeling that the NRC and NRSC would abandon him the instant a poll showed him behind in the race. And considering all of the dishonest, disingenuous election analysis done by pro-mass immigration conservatives this time around, I can't even begin to imagine the field-day they would have with a Tancredo loss. Colorado seems to be trending blue also.

If Pawlenty could survive the blue wave in Minnesota this year, then hopefully Coleman will win reelection also. And hopefully by then the national mood towards Republicans will be much better.

Hopefully the Democrats don't have a great candidate to run on Oregon against Smith.

Louisiana should be a pick-up if the GOP nominates a strong candidate.

If Warner retires, then I think the Democrat's Warner would be favored against either George Allen or Tom Davis.

If Cochran retires, then I think there is a credible Democrat candidate in Congressman Taylor that the GOP would have to worry about.

Though this year was especially tough for a Republican in a state like New Jersey, I agree with others in having almost no hope of winning this seat even if Lautenberg retires.

Huckabee might be able to beat Pryor in Arkansas, but he's probably intent on a futile Presidential run.

I think hopes of Democrats like Levin, Baucas, Harking, and Rockefeller retiring were probably dashed when the Democrats took the Senate last week. All of them are probably feeling energized, while our older guys are probably feeling the opposite.

All in all, it doesn't look good for recapturing the Senate.